ISFDB:Proposed Design Changes/Archive

Fields to make multiple (many to one)

• Primary verified. Allow for more than one primary verifier at a time on a given publication.

Disposition: Implemented in r2009-05. Ahasuerus 04:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Redo Serials to Eliminate the Current Reliance on the Lexical Match Logic

This will likely require database changes the way Review changes last year required database changes. Serials will be harder to do than Reviews because there are multiple records involved. Will require additional design work. Ahasuerus 01:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This might/could be rolled into a rework of 'Variant' support as a whole. Just make 'Serial Part' one of the variant types. Kevin 02:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to think that Serials are better kept separate, variants confined to works with essentially identical text, and a general "Based on" relationship implemented to handle revisions, expansions/condensations, fixups, and the like. Serials are many-to-one, variants basically one-to-one, and fixups mean that based on must be many-to-one or perhaps even many-to-many. But in any case, eliminating the lexical match would be a very good idea IMO. -DES ^Talk 14:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Variants are many to one also aren't they? I think they just usually are one to one, or am I misunderstanding the term? Kevin 22:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Variants are many-to-one in an sense, but any given variant relationship is one-to-one, and any given variant has exactly one parent. But a given work may be based on multiple works, and have multiple other works based on it. Really a many-to-many relationship, hence fundamentally different from a coding perspective. See the discussion under #Based on. -DES ^Talk 22:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Disposition: Lexical match removed and Serials changed to Variant Titles in FR 2823387, patches r2009-20 and r2009-21, September 2009. Ahasuerus 22:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Allow Deletion of Pseudonyms

The actual software change should be fairly straightforward, we just need to decide whether we want to have a new option in the NavBar or whether we want to add functionality to the Make This Author a Pseudonym screen. We also need to prevent editors from creating duplicate pseudonym relationships, but that can be done quickly. Ahasuerus 01:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I would put it in "Make This Author a Pseudonym" but don't feel strongly. If you make it a navbar item it shopuld be hidden or greyed out if the dispalyed author is not a Pseudonym currently, IMO. -DES ^Talk 01:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

One problem with making this part of the Make Psuedonym page (Like the undo variant is adding a zero variant title record), is that pseudonyms 'can' have more than one 'parent' author, so just coding to use a special input (like 0) may not be enough. It will probably end up being more like the 'unmerge' edit screen for this functionality, so you can pick which relationship to remove. Kevin 01:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, it would require a new section with a table/list of existing pseudonyms and a check box for each one, which is why I am not sure that we want to use the existing screen. Also, we may want to consider implementing a better way of breaking VT relationships since "0" is not exactly intuitive for new editors. Ahasuerus 03:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Disposition: Implemented in FR 2862468, patch r2009-32, 2009-09-20. Ahasuerus 18:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)