Romance Wiki:Community Discussion

Welcome to a new discussion page. This page is used to discuss the general topics that don't fit on an article or user talk page. You can ask questions, discuss policies, contents, operations and technical issues of RomanceWiki. Discussions will be archived once this page gets too long.

Adding Comments:	To add a comment, click the edit button at the top of the page. Go to the bottom of the text on the page. Add your comment to the bottom of the page.
	Start your post by adding a heading (two equal signs on each side of the heading title like this ==Heading==, or highlight title and use the large A button at the top of the edit screen). This will cause your comment to appear in the table of contents at the top of the page.
	Please also sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar).
Responding:	Respond to a comment by clicking the [edit] link next to that section.

Note: The talk page (reached by clicking "discussion" tab at the top of the page) for this Community Discussion page will be used to discuss things concerning this page itself, e.g., the layout, content.

What Should We Call This?

Yay! We have a place to talk about all those things that don't fit anywhere else. But, what should we call this discussion page? On Wikipedia, the page is called the "Village Pump." That does not sound very "romance-y" and we don't want to just copy them. I have suggested elsewhere that we call it the "Tea Room," or "Coffee House." What are your suggestions?--Kay T 16:02, 19 September 2007 (PDT) P.S. While we get the page set up, is it okay to have discussions about this page here. Once we have it going, such discussions should go to the project talk page.

Discussion Parlor? --Robini 19:49, 19 September 2007 (PDT)

I like Parlor(y) type names, water cooler is good, Tea Room...like that. Or we could go with a Regency theme with Assembly Room(s).--Romancewiki 09:56, 22 September 2007 (PDT)

I vote for "Tea Room". --DawnBurn 14:29, 25 September 2007 (PDT)

Announcements?

We could also use this for announcements although that does not seem right. Anyway, there is a new Help:Talk Pages with a question on its Help talk:Talk Pages. --Kay T 16:25, 19 September 2007 (PDT)

Awards

I think we need an award for User:Leigh and User:Amy. It is a slow day when they are not around adding/fixing hundreds of books! Thanks! --Kay T 15:00, 29 September 2007 (PDT)

I second this nomination (though would also note that User:Kay T and User:DawnBurn have been equally awesome. I only glanced at the site while on vacation (apparently there's a rule against wiking while on vacation, though I did get a few interesting comments about my RW t-shirt -- wiki means "quick" in Hawaiian!), so it's just awesome to see all the new stuff and, especially, all the content clean-up. I know that Leigh is aware of the offer for a book bag (and Kay's was finally put in the mail!), so Dawn and Amy, if you're needing a bag, let me know.--Romancewiki 19:48, 29 October 2007 (PDT)

Um, I'm highly flattered. I do think Leigh & Amy should get awards for most prolific and most page additions. I believe I serve mostly as a gadfly and doing background organizational stuff which appeals to my anal retentative side without requiring new content from me. If you have extra bags, I would be honored to receive one, but I'd prefer to wait until both Leigh & Amy have been contacted because they are super duper awesome. --DawnBurn 16:05, 30 October 2007 (PDT)

Wow, thanks guys :) I have to say I don't add nearly as many pages as Leigh -- I tend to get on something like adding book descriptions to Superromance pages and go and go and go until I find something else to obsess over. What I really need is wiki rehab! :) --Amy 18:01, 30 October 2007 (PDT)

Chocolate for rehab! We need chocolate! We really do appreciate all of your hard work - fixing or adding. I just know that when I first made the comment, I looked at Recent changes and there were no entries from Amy or Leigh yet that day - a slow day indeed! Sort of scary. Felt like I needed to call you to make sure you were okay. ;) And having people understand RomanceWiki well enough to do the behind the scenes stuff is so great! Thanks --Kay T 16:07, 1 November 2007 (PDT)

Category: Books by Publisher

I have noticed that several publisher categories have been created and used on book pages for that publisher's books. This is not a bad idea, and I created a mega-category: Category:Books By Publisher. We could add a publisher category on the book template. What do you all think? --Kay T 20:20, 29 October 2007 (PDT)

Looks like we're both up late (okay, heading off to bed after this -- have to return to the Evil Empire tomorrow). I think, way back when, I might have started to categorize books by publisher, but not categories. I quickly realized that the by publisher designation might be useful, but was also unwieldy. Books by imprint -- which is closer, I think, to what you're doing here -- makes more sense. Nobody seeks "Books by Harlequin", but they do seek "Presents" (or Harlequin Presents). Just as with the author designation, it makes sense to categorize books in this way.

I am guilty of being inconsistent in this regard (having not found my original method of categorizing books by publisher to be particularly effective). I would agitate for imprint over publisher, but publisher if imprint is unknown/not easily discernible. I am strongly in favor of offering the maximum number of options for finding content. Other thoughts?--Romancewiki 23:46, 29 October 2007 (PDT)

Yes, I would probably do book imprints since we have started to use those for Harlequin, but for Red Rose it is probably okay to just do the publisher for now. The other publisher category that had been created was for Samhain, but that was one that had been nominated for deletion, and I think you did delete it this weekend. Maybe Dawn or others will have some thoughts on this. I am not wedded to one way or the other. --Kay T 13:24, 30 October 2007 (PDT)

The reason why the Samhain page was up for deletion was because it was a double, IIRC. I'm not against Category:Books By Publisher in that the point of RW is to help people find the books they are looking for. However, I do think Romancewiki's notes are potentially troublesome. In that what category do we use for things like Harlequin versus Blaze (Publisher versus Imprint). I think more people do look by imprint,and if each imprint category was a subset of the overarching publisher, that might be good. But we already have inconsistencies in how the imprints are named or referenced on the book pages. I'm realizing I'm not making a preference either way. Umm... yes to having the mega-category being added, and potentially yes to that being added to the template. But realizing that all previously created pages won't have and that we'll likely get duplicates of categories due to spelling/caps/inclusion of publisher and imprint or just imprint/etc. into those categories. --DawnBurn 16:03, 30 October 2007 (PDT)

Darn you Dawn for practicality! Here's my thinking, for what it's worth (about what you're paying...). When I first started, I was a naive babe in the woods. I think -- and someone will surely correct me as it was a rookie error -- I named a page "Romance". It meant either Harlequin or Silhouette Romance (I can't recall), but it was a stupid page name and I'm crossing my fingers that the more organized of us have fixed it.

I do believe that people search more by imprint than publisher (though in the case of Harlequin, both are equally popular). If I were to do it all over, I would create a mega-category for each publisher and then a sub-category for each imprint. That would achieve the goal of making sure that information was accessible no matter how people search (and people search in ways you cannot begin to imagine -- if you're ever bored, watch a co-worker or friend or (best) mother search. It's quite stunning and also educational.

So I am advocating for a particular hierarchy, but also realizing that this is a huge time suck (and when it comes to the wiki, we all so many of those, right?). But...light, tunnel, all that. If someone has the energy and time to write a set of rules for categorization, I do have a resource who can help. If not, my feeling is we make this a future project while we put guidelines in place for go-forward content. Thoughts, agreements, disagreements, better ideas (you all have way better ideas than moi)...?

Shock, gasp! You forgot to sign your post, RomanceWiki. My thought was that this could be added to the template and as you said we could add the publisher category going forward, gradually adding to existing books as needed. What other complications are we not thinking of? One is that a category of "Avon" might contain both books, info about the publisher and authors. Does that matter? I also wonder if there is some "easy" way of doing this. At this point, as you see from the mega-category (Category:Books By Publisher), there are both imprint categories, publisher categories, and articles with lists of books by publisher. We could also add the numbered series here if we wanted to. hmmm...--Kay T 13:22, 2 November 2007 (PDT)