Template talk:PubSeriesHeader
The template of which this is the talk page is considered a high-risk template. this means that it is used on many pages, and could cause widespread problems if it were changed accidentally or maliciously. Accordingly it has been protected. If you need to edit it, ask a moderator or post on the Moderator noticeboard.
Possible Change
Please discuss the merits of the change before making it, particularly as the same change was objected to on {{SeriesHeader}}. -DES Talk 05:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
It is my view that "Discussions about how to organize and/or record the works in the series, or what should be recorded" form the major part of what the main series page ought to be used for, unless we intend only finished articles such as Series:Winston Science Fiction, which is really almost more of a Wikipedia article. -DES Talk 05:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- [after edit conflict] When you created this heading you pointed out that you basically copied a previous template. You may recall that I pointed out the apparent (to me) ambiguous and even conflicting statements. I reprint the original template here:
- "This page may be used for a list of the titles in the series, bibliographic comments or extended notes about the series, or discussion on how to organize and/or record the works in the series. To discuss what should go on this page, use the talk page."
- How can there be "discussion on how to organize..." on this page, but if you want "to discuss what should go on this page" you should use talk page? My change was made to resolve these conflicting statements. Nothing more. MHHutchins 05:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe someone (even I) am missing the point of what the purpose of these Wiki pages are for. These are projects and do attempt to be complete, finished, even possibly helpful, lists of publication series. Would Kevin want people making comments about what should be on the page he personally created (after hours of research, coding, etc.) directly on that page? I wouldn't. MHHutchins 05:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps I was missing the point. For pub series, unlike regular series, a finished list is the eventual goal. I was thinking that one would "discuss how to organize" what went into the database. That language was borrowed from the headers for regular Author and Series pages, where the main data does eventually appear in the database. Let me start with your wording and maybe tweek a bit. For
{{SeriesHeader}}things are a bit different, IMO. -DES Talk 14:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps I was missing the point. For pub series, unlike regular series, a finished list is the eventual goal. I was thinking that one would "discuss how to organize" what went into the database. That language was borrowed from the headers for regular Author and Series pages, where the main data does eventually appear in the database. Let me start with your wording and maybe tweek a bit. For
- Maybe someone (even I) am missing the point of what the purpose of these Wiki pages are for. These are projects and do attempt to be complete, finished, even possibly helpful, lists of publication series. Would Kevin want people making comments about what should be on the page he personally created (after hours of research, coding, etc.) directly on that page? I wouldn't. MHHutchins 05:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- My 2 cents. 99.9% of the pages in the Wiki here are 'working pages' that should be treated much as we treat the major pages (Noticeboard, Rules & Standards, etc) and we should write all over them. About .1% of the pages here are 'finished' product and should be treated as Wikipedia pages. (I.e. Edit them to correct them or update them, but discuss the page somewhere else). I think the SFBC Pages, Gutter code page, Magazine links page, as well as the Winston page fall into this category. Some of the other publisher pages might fall into this category as well. For these 'finished' pages, the template generic headers just aren't appropriate. There is no 'need' to instruct the reader what the page is for... it should be obvious that the page is a storehouse of information, that is already organized , etc. Perhaps you folks could create 'Finished/Complete page Footer' templates if you feel that there must be a template applied to the page. Otherwise, couldn't we just put them in the correct category and be satisfied? Kevin 03:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree, i think those pages could really use the header if anything more than the "unfinished" pages. I thought the move of the header to a footer on the Winston series page was a mistake. That said, there is no decree from on high that requires a header, or even a template. You can put the page in a category manually. When/if we have database support for pub series, we might want an automated link to the proper db page, and a template may well be a good way to do that, depending on how the URLs for such pages are constructed, but we can worry about that when such support is implemented. I'll be glad to construct a footer template such as you describe if you want one, but I have no desire to force one on you or anyone. -DES Talk 15:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- My 2 cents. 99.9% of the pages in the Wiki here are 'working pages' that should be treated much as we treat the major pages (Noticeboard, Rules & Standards, etc) and we should write all over them. About .1% of the pages here are 'finished' product and should be treated as Wikipedia pages. (I.e. Edit them to correct them or update them, but discuss the page somewhere else). I think the SFBC Pages, Gutter code page, Magazine links page, as well as the Winston page fall into this category. Some of the other publisher pages might fall into this category as well. For these 'finished' pages, the template generic headers just aren't appropriate. There is no 'need' to instruct the reader what the page is for... it should be obvious that the page is a storehouse of information, that is already organized , etc. Perhaps you folks could create 'Finished/Complete page Footer' templates if you feel that there must be a template applied to the page. Otherwise, couldn't we just put them in the correct category and be satisfied? Kevin 03:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)