User talk:Kpulliam/Archives03

< User talk:Kpulliam
Revision as of 23:37, 19 October 2008 by Kpulliam (talk | contribs) (Archiving discussions 31-45 from my Talk page (After a long time AFK))
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Changing publishers

You edited Mutual Assured Survival to change the publisher from "Baen Books" to "Baen". Moderators can do mass edits of publisher names, changing all the entries with "Baen Books" to "Baen", or vice versa. There are people working on reguarlizing publisher nams, and merging publisher records. Doing this one book at a time, particularly for publishers like Baen, for which we have many entries, is not a good use of either editor or moderator time. There are currently at least 65 publication recors showing "Baen Books", and far more than that showing just "Baen". -DES Talk 14:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. After submitting several of these I realized there had to be a better way to standardize on "Baen" and stopped submitting or pursuing changes of this type. Kevin 15:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Publisher wiki pages

I see you have added several publisher pages today. It doesn't apepar that you updated the list on the Publishers page. Do you think that list worth keeping up to date? -DES Talk 23:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought that page was automatically generated... but now that I think about it... since we aren't using Wiki Categories... the easiest way to automatically make that page isn't available. In the future I'll look to updating that page when I create a publisher wiki page. Kevin 23:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
As an aside... is there a reason we aren't using categories? The Wiki can automatically generate listing pages like that for us if we just set up a couple of templates. Kevin 23:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Because I didn't think of it, and I should have. I'll test out such a solution. (most of the people here have rather linmited experience with the wiki softwear, and I have done msot of the tricky tempaltes recently, and all the ones that do thinks like putting pages into catefgories.) Note that this would still not be truly automatic, as the page creator (or some later editor) would still have to put the template onto each such publisher page, but that could perhaps be managed. Actually we are using wiki categories, but only lightly. Look at Special:Categories to see what we are doing so far. -DES Talk 23:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you make the template part of the 'New Publisher' page, for all pages in "Publisher:" space and a "FILL IN NAME OF PUBLISHER HERE" place in the template?Kevin 23:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
ACK I looked at the category page and remember why I went screaming from it earlier. All those artist pages should be in an 'Artist' Category, and then in a SubCategory for each name. At least that's how I think categories are supposed to work.Kevin 00:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I looked at Constable & Robinson awhile back and found it a dogs breakfast. Everything is mixed up under other publishers names. This came about when they merged and incorporated the others ISBN #'s. To sort it out will require looking at all the pubs and figuring out which is which. Right now it includes titles before it was merged see here [1]. Before I merge any of these merged company's I always look at every title and determine what's the imprint and who was the publisher. I use a combination of Abebooks and Amazon look inside. I've been following the different ideas about a publishers page in the Wiki and I like the idea about a table to figure out when company names begin and end. If you have any questions about any of the larger publishers let me know and I'll see what I can dig up or untangle.Kraang 00:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
This is one I fixed[2], all the titles(see Wiki link for publishers names) distributed by Fitzhenry and the other publishers titles were all mixed up under other publishers names. Amazon sometimes only picks up only the parent company name or the distributor and ignores the imprint or actual publisher(if distributed). This is only one of several that I've had to untangle.Kraang 00:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
One other thing, I don't believe Constable & Robinson is an actual imprint, all the books are either the Constable imprint or Robinson Publishing imprint. This was one of the things I was eventually going to look into.Kraang 01:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
It may not be an imprint, it is surely a publsiher. -DES Talk 12:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


UNINDENT Check out Category:Publishers (I couldn't figure out how to link internal to a category page yet) Kevin 02:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I was in the mood to copy and paste ALOT. Categories added to Lots of pages. Category:Categories, Category:Publishers, Category:Artist Images. Comments welcome. Kevin 04:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no rule specifing that categories be hierarchial. I don't really see that Category:Categories adds anything. Some wikis have a page Top Level Categories -- not a category, but a regualr wiki page. Please remember that Special:Categories always contains every category, whehter or not it is a sub-category. Do note that this solution still requires that any newly created publisher wiki page have the category tag added. Actually i think this could be done better by beign merged into a Template:PubHeader somewhat along the lines of Template:BioHeader. I may do that today.
Similarly, please note that keeping Category:Artist Images up to date will require an extra manual step each time an image is tagged with Template:Cover Image Data. People are already complaining about the work of using that template, which is why Template:Cover Image Data2 was created, and which means this category is pretty much guarenteed to be incomplete anyway. I rather wish that you had not tried to create Category:Artist Images. Are you willing to do the work of manually adding the category link to each new auto-created artist category? If not, I'll think strongly about deleting these links. -DES Talk 12:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

-DES Talk 12:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I can committ to manually adding the category link. I don't promise I'll do it every day or week, but several times a year I can sweep the list for unlinked artist image categories. Because of they way they are created as blank category pages, they will jump out at anyone looking at Special:Wantedcategories and it's therefore very easy to see what new categories have been created with no text at all. The only ones that will 'fall through' that type of a check up system are the ones where someone uses the template, and then edits the category page and does not put the category Category:Artist Images on the edited page. Shrug nothing is perfect but having categories defined is better than not having them at all.Kevin 15:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, leave it as is, then. But do think over the side effects of such things in future, please. -DES Talk 16:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me. I understood before your request for a commitment that by adding manual links, I was creating the visible need for someone to continue to add manual links. I also already expected to fill that need. But the original need was created by the template which created these free floating categories in the first place. (Shrug). Isn't that what we are both doing. Going around and plugging holes as we find them, and trying to leave smaller holes behind in our wake. It's all good :D Kevin 16:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Frankly i don't agree that those "free floating" categories were a "hole" that needed filling. I'd be just as happy, indeed rather happier, with the status quo ante on those categories. A super-category is only helpful if people use that way of finding the sub-categories. Most people here won't, I think. Special:Catagories is just as crowded as ever, plus a few. (Note that on large wikis, such as Wikipedia, Special:Catagories becoems compltely unusable.) Who will be helped by Category:Artist Images? What will it be used for? It could be useful, but I rather suspect in practice the answers will be no one and nothing. At the very least, some effort to publicize it will be needed. Note also that any images tagged with Template:Cover Image Data2 (as well as any completely untagged) will not be included in any artist categories. -DES Talk 16:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
If it serves no purpose, then maybe it should be removed from the template as a category? If no one is served by Category: Artist Images then who was served by having them listed on the Special:Categories page? (this also addresses the un-usability of crowded [[Special:Categories] as you stated above, and as I mentioned at "ACK" above)Kevin 16:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
As to the list not including items generated from the other template, I just put a note on that page that "This list is incomplete. The ISFDB Hosts a number of images that are not categorized by Author or Publisher. For a complete list, please visit Category: Fair use images." Kevin 16:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
As to who will use this method of navigation? The answer is simple. Newbies. I am putting categories on all the help pages (that will draw the Newbies in). Also, people familiar with Wikis expect Categories...(at least I expected categories) I know I was lost for a few weeks without some kind of usable Category structure... but I wasn't sure why we didn't have one. Once you said that the reason we weren't using Categories much (as on the publisher pages) was just because you hadn't put them in... well, that meant it was a hole I could fill. If you want to advertise the category structure, we could do that easily by (in a few days/weeks) putting a link to [:Category:Categories] on the menu, and/or putting an announcement in 'What's New'. Kevin 16:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Memoirs of the Twentieth..

Where you trying to break the link between "Memoirs of the Twentieth.." & "The Reign of George VI.." ? If this is the case than just bring up the variant title and in the first box insert "0"(zero), this will break the variant title link. By trying to unmerge the variant the moderator screen diplays no title to unmerge. Thanks!Kraang 01:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't realize it was so easy to unmake a variant Kevin 01:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought that's what you were trying to do, but it only works for titles not authors. I'll reject the unmerge so it doesn't cause any problems. One other thing the new pub I have on hold is being added on to the parent author name. If you do a search of the variant title/author you will find a link to an empty title with that authors name, you can then do an add new pub and it will automaticaly merge with the other name.Kraang 01:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for another slick trick! I thought I was going to have to do a two-step process (make then merge).
It's more like a three step process. Here's the link to the correct title[3], but you should find it yourself, it will make good practise :-) I've been fixing all of Bluesman's edits because of this :-/Kraang 02:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Help desk category

I really think that the Help desk does not belong in Category:ISFDB Help. That category should IMO be limited to pages in the Help namespace, and probably to more or less static pages. Please undo your recent edit to this page, or discuss the matter if you disagree. -DES Talk 17:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see ISFDB_talk:Help_desk Kevin 17:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


I have just created Template:PublisherHeader. This template puts a standard boilerplate header on a publisher page. It includes a link to the ISFDB db record for the publisher. It also puts the page into Category: Publishers, thus replacing Template:Publishercategory. Before simply deploying this widely, i wanted to consult with you. Please take a look at this template, and at Publisher:Baen, where i have used it, and let me know your thoughts. -DES Talk 17:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea. Is there a way to make it 'Auto-deploy' when someone creates a new publisher page in :Publisher space? That would be the bee's knees. I have searched and searched and haven't found anything useful about applying a category automatically to new :NAMESPACE pages. (with the understanding, someone (me) still needs to go add this to all the publisher pages and it has an added step requiring a publisher ID number check). Hey... Can we just use {{SUBPAGENAME}} somehow to call the ISFDB link? The SUBPAGENAME (becuase it generated from the ISFDB) will always be a spot on match to the canonical publisher name... Kevin 18:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it is not, to the best of my knowledge, possible to automatically apply a given template to all pages in a anmespace. We might be able to modify the semi-auto browser application (Auto-Wiki-Browser, or AWB) used on wikipedia for that purpose, since it is open source. But we would need to modify it, since the wikipedia domain is hardcoded in it. Besides, that is simply a way to rapidly perform lots of similar edits, but a human must still approve each one.
Bummer. Kevin 23:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you have access to 'turn on' the 'uncategorized pages' check for PUBLISHER: namespace? (Can it be turned on for a non main namespace? It seems to be turned on for REFERENCE: and SCHEMA:) That would let us find publisher pages where someone puts a note without the Header if we miss any getting added in the recent changes log in the future and make policing this 100 times easier. Kevin 23:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
No, only Al can make that kind of configuration change. According to a mediawiki help page this would require installing the Dynamic page List extension, which itself has several dependancies. My geuss is, not any time soon, but you can ask Al. -DES Talk 23:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Then I'm doubly confused as to how uncategorized SCHEMA: pages are being identified. Could it already be installed?
I am pretty sure that "Schema:" is a pesudo-namespace, rahter than a true namespace. To put it another way, as far as the wiki software is concerned, those pages are in the main namespace, but just happen to have a colon as part of their page names. Look at Special:Allpages and pull down the list of namespaces. Anyone can create a pesudo-namespace by just adding pages of the form X:Y, but a true namespace requires configuration changes to the wiki. By the way, changing a pesudo-namespace into a true one causes significaant headaches. The Publisher namespace was initally a pesudo-namespace (it was created when we qwere using an older version of the wiki software, one that did not permit custom namespaces). Largely at my suggestion, it was made a true anmespace. I didn't fully understand what had to be done in the conversdion, and more work than needed was created. The foorah can probably be found in the archives of the Community portal for this spring. -DES Talk 01:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
As to using the pagename, I'm afraid not, or not without code changes to the ISFDB proper. First of all, recall that it is possible to have multiple publisher records with the same publsiher name. They are normally merged, but it is possible. Template:A was able to do this, because author dispalys can take the cannonical name as part of the URL. But the various other records, including publisher records, require a record number in the URL (or a tag for publications). Since we can't do a script to do a publisher search and return the record numbers (because there is no API for that as yet), we must input the record numbers manually. I'll be glad to share the task with you, however.
Is there a list in table format of PUBLISHER, ID somewhere that we can see to (in order to avoid running a seach hundreds of times to determine the ID#? Kevin 23:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
"Publisher, ID" is possible to generate from ISFDB backups but such are not stable and won't be for ages. And probably shouldn't be. I really wouldn't recommend too much Wiki-work on publishers apart from adding data to the pages we already HAVE, or creating the the ones we DON'T have yet and hope people merge wisely. People have edited publishers and left the Wiki pages unmatched, which is worth fixing for now too. Adding links between publisher pages can help: adding notes about which are publishers and which are imprints are good too: many publishers BECAME imprints later and those dates are good as well. But Publishers are still a mess, will be for months, and too much effort put into fixing their pages might make it look like we've decided something when we really haven't. BLongley 23:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
That's what I need the list for... just a snapshot so when adding the template to 400 publishers with pages, I don't have to perform 400 searches to determine the correct ID# in ode to use DES's template. After editing the page I can simply click the generated link to confirm it's pointed at the right publisher. - If however you are saying that the publisher ID numbers (for already existing) publisher wiki pages is still fluid... then I will go back to just putting them in a category without the fancy template and without the link back to the ISFDB. Kevin 23:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Please DON'T waste any time adding templates to 400 publishers. Don't even bother adding them to Wiki categories. This is the Internet Speculative Fiction DATA-BASE. The Wiki supports the database: you can go read the help to see why we have it (e.g. we can add help for editing), but our work also points out the deficiencies in the database itself. As the database doesn't support Publisher hierarchies, no date ranges for such, doesn't clarify imprint versus publisher, has lousy note capabilities, et cetera, we have to use the Wiki in the short term. Improve the data, fine. Suggest other things we should record, fine. When you start arguing about how the Wiki should be presented, I'm wondering how this will improve our data-capture. It usually doesn't. Please don't spend too much time on Wiki stuff when you can be improving data instead. BLongley 00:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Bill (it is Bill right? if not I apologize for my crappy memory) Please see new section below. Kevin 01:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Merges can change publisher ID numbers. More exactly, the ID umvber for one of the merged publishers will be retained, and the othes discarded. -DES Talk 23:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Then a template that relies on ID numbers is inherently unstable?Kevin 23:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Not rock solid, no. My assumption was that publishers for which wiki-pages had already been created were less likely to be merged, and more likely to be the surviving record (normally the oldest of the ones involved in the merge). Perhaps that was overly optimistic. -DES Talk 01:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, i notice you using SUBPAGENAME a good deal. Note that its result only differs from PAGENAME if the page in question is a formal subpage to another page, like Template:Pubr/Doc (and if the namesopace in question supports sub-pages, which most do not). Otherwise SUBPAGENAME is identical to PAGENAME. -DES Talk 22:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Surprise... I misunderstood what it was doing. I thought it was generically calling the far left part of the total page name. Thanks for the clue! Kevin 23:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Is /IS/ about the DATAbase

  • I have been chastised for putting the location of a publisher in the name (even when the publisher doesn't exist yet with the name I have in front of me).
    • My submissions of 'London:Joe Schmoe' were getting turned into 'Joe Schmoe' with a database note 'London' - I have yet to figure our how a non-moderator can put information into a publisher note, add a webpage link or anything without putting it into a wiki page.
      • My submissions of 'Joe Schmoe' (after having London removed) were getting merged with 'Westminster:Schmoe', 'Chicago:Schmoe', 'J. Schmoe', 'J. Schmoe and Sons', and 'Schmoe & Co' within 30 minutes of my 15 hour old submission while I was at work. (Don't forget... It can take a non-moderator 3-4 edit/appoval cycles (2-3 days) in order to finish entering a complex bit of information. CreatePub+Title, MakeVariant, AddAuthorInfo, PutnotesintoWiki, Doublecheck-work, Fix Typo, THEN put in Wikinote about publisher.... but my entry of London:J. Schmoe has already been merged.. I don't even get a chance to try and clean up that publisher with other info I found in my biblio research.
        • I expressed concern about DATA-loss and my concerns were swept away as ... 'It's bad data anyway'
          • I expressed more concern and proposed a 2 second solution (for the moderator) to move some of the data being thrown out into the wiki before it was deleted.
            • I was then chastised (or at least questioned) about why didn't I update the Publishers list with the new publishers I was adding wiki notes for (again.. DATA in order to HELP clean up Publishers and remember, non-moderators cannot access the 'notes' or other advanced functions for publishers)
              • I questioned the Lack of automation for this task (Since I wanted to work on the DATABASE). I knew how to impliment the simplest solution to automate that task. I decided to impliment that solution at ZERO effort required for anyone else, and a total overall workload REDUCTION in regards to maintaining a hand typed list of publishers (Which is important enough to be linked on the main page of the WIKI and the ISFDB, but the ISFDB link is to a shortened 3 year old html version- Thats another topic).
                • My work was judged lacking, and someone asked for my input in an effort to upgrade my work. (Remember I started this work to help the DATABASE, who am I to say no - as you say, that's why we are here).
                  • My simple categorization of all pages that are linked to FROM the Help Menu was questioned, Links in AUTOMATICALLY generated lists are bad, but hand typed links and links on everypage to ask questions is OK. Please note again, I tried a simple automatic solution to a problem with the DATABASE... finding help on Data entry.
                    • In the process above, I identified several help pages that may be redundant and may lead a new user to read the 'less than fresh' help on one page, when a better more updated version of the information is available elsewhere. I believe this helps the DATABASE.

So please tell me... where did I take a wrong turn. What step did I take, that didn't support, aid, help and further the entry of new material by users (new and old alike) in a correct fashion. What step did I take that took away from your ability to work on the database? Dinners ready and I need to get off here, so I'll say it again... it IS about the Database. Kevin 01:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Note. The someone mentioned above was in (I think) every case me. I was trying to help, but it seems that I sounded more dictatorial than i menat to. I do think that much if not all of the data involved is probalvby bad data, but i am not the world's expert on the point, adn i didn't mean to sweep Kevin's view asisde, merely to explain my thoughts, and perhaps persuade Kevin to agree with me. I also have not done any publisher merges since he raised the point to me, and I now plan not to do any until i get comments from others possibly more knowlegable on these points. (See the #Publisher wiki pages and #Categories sections above for most of the relevcant discussion.)
I thought I was suggesting an improvement with Template:PublisherHeader, but perhaps it is premature until the publishers are more stable. If it is, perhaps Kevin's admitedly simpler category system will be the better road for now, with a possible change (or not) down the road.
I do dislike publisher names of the form "City:Name" in the database proper. i do think it is better for locatiosn to be put in wither the publisher record notes, or the matchign wiki page, or both. I have what I think are good reasons for this. But my views are not the rule of law here, and i don't know that we yet have a clear consensus on this point.
Note that the Publishers page had long existed without the list of publisher wiki pages. I added that list just a few days ago, in response to a rather vague suggestion, I think from Bill, that better indexing of existign puibnlisher wiki pages would be useful. (I did not, by the way, type 400 publisher names manually or even do hundreds of C&P operations. instead i extractd the list of publisher pages from Special:Allpages, alphabatized them in excel, and did some limited editing (mostly removing redirect pages). I agreee that a category-based system is easier to mantain, whether using kevin's solution or my header template.
I truly did not mean to "chastize" you (or anyone) for not updating the publisher list, i thought I was publicizing a newly created feature. I did say "I'll test out such a solution." about the categories, but that was not an order to stay out of the area, nor should it have been. The moment you mentioned a cat-based solution, i thought it a good idea.
In short, i want to apologize to you, Kevin, for the tone of my interactiosn with you and to start over. We -- meaning not just Kevin and David but all interested SDFB editors -- should at least briefly consider whether my publisher header template, in some form, is useful. Ditto my help header. Ditto Kevin's various category-based solutions. I will pause in these matters until I see some agreement from others on the proper direction, or at least that they don't care. -DES Talk 02:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't comment on your interactions with other editors concerning the Wiki, as I have zero experience in that area. But I'm surprised about the comment that your concerns about data loss "were swept away as ... 'It's bad data anyway'" The discussion about place of publication seemed quite civil, and if you feel your point of view was dismissed I apologize for everyone involved. The conclusion boiled down to whether the city should be placed in the publication field, and with the exception of similarly named publishers, the majority of us feel it shouldn't be. (This wasn't the first, and surely won't be the last, discussion concerning this issue.) Speaking solely for myself, I feel the ISFDB wiki and the ISFDB database are two separate entities. Yes, there are uncountable connections between the two, but the wiki is simply a tool, albeit a powerful one, for a better understanding of the database, and for communication among the editors. Please indulge us a bit longer until you're able to slough off the discourtesies and inconsiderations. Once you've learned our individual quirks, you'll find we're really not a bad bunch, and regardless of how often we may stray off the path, we all have the same goal. MHHutchins 03:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Look here User_talk:DESiegel60#Publisher_Timelines.3F. This too was a civil conversation... but it was one where my arguments for data retention (What the Editors type in, should stay in unless shown to be in error) did not persuade. Kevin 03:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't the tone... And I don't need the apology but I accept it, but it was the status of who was speaking. When a moderator says that things could be done better a certain way... how is a non-moderator to take it? I honestly don't have a problem with most of what you've done. (In some cases I think you've created work that to me is unneeded, the Template Headers everywhere etc...but that's what Moderators are for. To set standards, and to guide a community within those standards. If a Moderator sets a standard, and asks... that users or Editors in this community abide by them... the user has three choices: To follow the standard (compliance); To argue that the standard is incorrect (and hope to change the standard); or To ignore the standard (at the risk of being excluded from the community (In the real world... they call this jail or probation, online it's called banned (in the extreme - and I was never worried about that here) or being labeled 'not a team player'/'troublemaker')) Since I didn't want to be labeled 'not a team player' and I had already argued my point.... I then found myself conforming to your many suggestions because I was trying to be helpful (I think I will be a little more troublemaker from here on out (grin)).Kevin 04:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
As to using 'Someone' above instead of 'DES said this', and 'DES said that' I honestly didn't recall who all the someones had been, and my post above was not addressed to you, but as a response to Bills comment that everything but the database is just flotsom anyway (but I admit I had hoped to bring some clarity regarding how I got from talking about cities in publisher names all the way to /What goes on Help:Screenlist ?/ and why some of it did matter, but that all of it was at the request/suggestion/comment of someone higher up than me, or the end point of that suggestion. Kevin 04:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
It should be more emphasized than it is, that being a moderator does not always make one a big cheese here. I am a fairly recent moderator, and have only started being an editor this year. When a mod advises on clearly accepted procedures ("use clone, not add in thsi situation", "Don't create a pesudonym relationship unless you are quite sure which name is cannonical", "be careful when changing content entries", "Advise a verifier of changes to his/her veriefed pub", "the code is 'pb' not 'softcover'") the advice should be taken as, if not definitive, fairly authoritative. (Although i have made mistakes in giving advice on such points.) But when what the rules or procedures ought to be is under debate, a mod has and should have no more authority (although possibly more knowledge of ISFDB quirks) than any interested and obviously committed editor, such as yourself. I should have been clearer in my discussions with you on these matters that I was giving my own views, and indeed was to soem extent defending/explaning my own actions, and did not mean to be assumign the mantel of 'moderator" to win the point or make you fear being excluded. Yes I suppose that if soemone blatently violated agreeded standrds here, that person would be excluded, but the kind of think you have been saying and doing isn't anythign remotely like that. Im not sure if soemone ahs ever been banned here, I surely don't recall such an occasion.
In any case, if you felt frustrated, because or partly because of my msgs, i regret that. I was and am listenign to you, and want to open some of your arguemts on what data to preserve when merging publishers to broader discussion. I do not want to destroy useful data in the process of "improving" things.
I Personally disagee somewhat with Bill on the extent to which the wiki is compeltely subordinate to the database. I do ageree that the database is primary, but I regard soem parts of the wiki, particualrly the publisher and publication pages, as effectivly part of the db, merely stored elsewhere for technical reasons, just as the detailed table/field structure of the db is not always of interst to the user or even the editor. The db structure, like the wiki, is a tool to achieve an end result. It is the result that matters,, not either of the tools.
I assuemd that your "someone" was at elast in part a desire not to seem to attack me, and i didn't want to hide behind it (not that one can easily hide on a wiki) but rather to take responsibility for my words, well or ill-chosen. -DES Talk 05:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
That said, perhaps doing as much work as my publisher header template might have required is premature. I do think that an index of publisher wiki-pages, whether thorugh a wiki-list or a category page, is of value, and a category-baased solution, whether it uses a header or not, is probably better IMO.
See my comments Template_talk:HelpHeader#CommentsKevin 15:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Green Eyes' artist

Hi Kevin - with publication 15958 why do you want to change the cover artist name from Donald_Macpherson to Donald_Macpherson_(artist)? We will sometimes append something to a name to help disambiguate two people with the same name but that does not seem to be a problem for Donald Macpherson nor Don_Macpherson either. Marc Kupper (talk) 05:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

See ISFDB:Help_desk#Duplicate_Name_-_No_Dates_-_One_Novelist.2FAuthor.2C_One_Artist. This is step one. Then I will add my pub with Macpherson (Novelist) as the author. Kevin 05:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Perfect and thank you. I approved the submission. Marc Kupper (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Step 2 submitted. 2 Novels. Step three will be to change the author's Lastname from (Novelist) at least I'm betting I will need to fix that. Kevin 05:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep - The database catalogued the lastname as (Novelist). Maybe someday I will put that last step on a help page. Kevin 06:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Something else that comes to mind would be to make Donald Macpherson a pseudonym of both Donald Macpherson (artist) and Donald Macpherson (novelist). That way, if someone adds a work for Donald Macpherson down the road they should see quickly that they'll need to change the author name for the record they just added to either the artist or novelist version. Essentially Donald Macpherson would be a "house name" shared by the two people. Marc Kupper (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
While effective (and easily reversible with only 3 works involved) in this case, I'm not sure that would work for all the authors disambiguated by NAME (DATES), and I would prefer to stick with the 'closest to form' solution. In a normal disambiguation situation where dates are known... we also still run the risk of someone entering data with simply NAME. Maybe you can propose that as a general 'add on solution' for all dual named authors and see how the other Editors feel?Kevin 21:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree - the method I used was not much trouble for three titles. A decision was made long ago that ISFDB would stick to bibliographic information and not biographic data on an author. Hence we have never had author-notes or other ways to add a notation that an author name is shared by two or more people other than the pseudonym stuff and in order to have a pseudonym we need at least one title record with the name, Donald Macpherson in this case. There are various ways to create a hidden title record but the variant title method is the cleanest. I have a general solution in mind but it's a complicated bit of coding which essentially involves detecting when someone enters or uses a pseudonym or house name and either silently handling the fixup or prompting the user to disambiguate. Marc Kupper (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The Phantom Ship on Internet Archive - wish everything were there

Scanned flip book - can't get a more reliable source material than that.--swfritter 16:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Always nice to have a primary verification that everyone can share in.Kevin 21:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Salter's Folly

Grahan Sutton or Graham Sutton? Could not find anything on the internet for any combination of title and author.--swfritter 16:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Good Catch! It should have been Graham. I submitted an Author change-IS that the best way to fix this at this point? I think I still have one more make variant to finish this one off. Thanks again!Kevin 21:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
That worked, but it is probably safer to to edit the publication and title records, and change the author there. An author with no references (no titles, pubs, reviews, interviews, art credits, or editor records) goes away automatically, and there is no risk of a) changing other pubs for which the incorrect author is actually correct, or b) creating multiple author records with identical canonical names. -DES Talk 22:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Project Gutenburg tags

Well, at least one other person is using them. My other projects leave me with little time to add the actual titles but it only takes me about a minute a day grab the Gutenburg RSS and manybooks feeds and add them. I find the manybooks feed to be useful since the sf material is more clearly identified. I sometimes miss some of the older stuff.--swfritter 18:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A question - Is it appropriate to tag a title more than once... like Tag 'Princess of Mars', and Tag the Variant Parent 'Under the Moons of Mars' both? That's what I've been doing, but I'm curious how you see that. Kevin 02:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
There is not much formal documentation about tags and no organized standards. Their use has become pretty much user-defined. My own feeling is that if the tag is of value to you, go ahead. If they are of value to you they may well be of value to others.--swfritter 16:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Author Category

May I suggest that Template:Author Category is a bad idea, precisely because it make the sort key incorrect. Instead on Author:Eando Binder the text insrted should be [[Category:Authors|Binder, Eando]]. This will make things sort correctly.

I'm not convinced of the value even of templates like Template:Publisher Category -- they merely substitute one fixed string for another, and don't save much typing. But at least they don't cause any problems. And what is the difference between Template:Publisher Category and Template:Publishercategory? -DES Talk 04:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to put the more correct sorting onto the Author pages, but that involves more effort than I was willing to do at the time. Now, thanks to my initial work, the page will appear in the author category and if it bothers someone, they can amend it. Without my work, it wouldn't even be there and someone with a mind to organize that page would not even know the page existed to finish the job. (In other words.. I thought I was helping by slapping 'something' onto the page. The other option was doing nothing.) Kevin 01:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Noted. it is not, of course, required that every page be in a category. Category:Publishers serves a useful purpose, IMO, in organizing the limited set of publisher wiki pages, and particualrly is finding pages that ought to be merged, or become redirects. Perhaps an index of author pages will also be useful, but I don't see it as being as valuable. But if it is to be done, I think it ought to be done with correct indexing. -DES Talk 15:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
As to the difference between Template:Publisher Category and Template:Publishercategory. There is no functional difference. One looks cheezy, and was my first attempt at a template. I found myself adding a space between the words, since that is how my hands type those words, and I decided a better version was in order. I intend eventually to deprecate Publishercategory and replace it everywhere I put it with Publisher Category. I figured, better to move forward 'better' and clean up the functional crud later. Kevin 01:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand. -DES Talk 15:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
As to the benefit.. no Pipes, no colons, and no square brackets. Shifted keystrokes are reduced from 8 to 6 a 25% reduction. Shift locations (where you can leave the shift key down) are reduced from 5 to 3 places, a 40% reduction. It's not just the keystrokes, but the complexity of the keystrokes required which is reduced. Secondly, two words versus three words, a 33% reduction in memory required. Lastly, both words are 'normal' words which editors will have much more practice typing (less likely to typo, and more body memory) so they will probably type them faster, and with less mental effort than that required for PAGENAME which is not a 'word' in most peoples practice. All of this combines to make it (for me) more intuitive, easier, and quicker to type. Kevin 01:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This being a fixed string, i would expect that it would usually be copied and pasted from an instruction page in either case, so there would really be no difference in number of ksystronkes in practice. But as you will. -DES Talk 15:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I do most of my work on an undocked laptop these days. For the long stings I take the time to cut n paste things, but for shorter strings I honestly just type them. It's faster than picking up the mouse, moving to a different tab or window, highlighting, copying etc. Kevin 04:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Well that is a matter of taste and habit and equipment. Not everyoine works the same way. I note that several editors have prototypes of common strings on their user pages ready for copy&paste, and others have spoken of doing so from help pages or template documentatio, so it seemed reasonable to conclude tht many if not all editors would use a copy&paste technique. -DES Talk 15:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Other wikipedia isfdb templates

  • Isfdb title
    • required argument: id (or first unnamed argument). Value: ISFDB title record number (same as argument to Template:T here).
    • Optional argument: title (or 2nd unnamed argument) text for link, defaults to the name of the wikipedia page.
    • Links to a title record display (Title Bibliography page)
  • Isfdb series
    • strongly encouraged argument: id (or first unnamed argument). Value: ISFDB series record number (same as argument to Template:Series here). or, the sereis cannonical name, but this results in a broken link if the sereis is renamed. Defaults to the name of the wikipedia page.
    • Optional argument: title (or 2nd unnamed argument) text for link, defaults to the name of the wikipedia page.
    • Links to a series display.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DESiegel60 (talkcontribs) .

Thanks. I added them to my Cut n Paste Collection at User:Kpulliam/Temps#Wikipedia_ISFDB_Templates Kevin 21:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
So I see. Glad to be helpful. Note that for series, if you use the series name rather than the series record number, the link will stop working when/if a series is renamed, which is a moderately common event. The record number also works with the wikipedia template, and is much more stable. The series record number is included in the URL of a normal series display page, such as 11825. -DES Talk 21:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Updated. Thanks! Kevin 01:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hiero-Salem: The Vision of Peace

Are the author and publisher the same? "Hiero-Salem: The Vision of Peace"[4] Thanks!Kraang 00:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. It's "Self Published" as stated on the Title Page, but thats the second edition. The first edition had a publisher. Kevin 01:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Just checking. Thanks!Kraang 01:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The Annotated Brothers Grimm

I'm not sure where you are going with making a variant title with the same name/authors as the original but I approved it anyway as you may be doing an experiment. The Annotated Brothers Grimm. Marc Kupper (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I was making a Variant of the title entered under 'Jacob' Grimm so it showed under the name version 'Jakob' Grimm (which had more entries). (there was actually a 1 letter difference in one of the three authors). I did not plan on making either a pseudonym as even Wikipedia appears to use both Jacob and Jakob interchangeably in the Article. Kevin 09:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)