Anthology contributors in "People/Characters"
ConversesCommon Knowledge, WikiThing, HelpThing
Afegeix-te a LibraryThing per participar.
1lorax
Today I stumbled across a situation where someone has listed contributors to an anthology in the "People/Characters" CK field. They are also, correctly, listed as Contributors in the Other Authors field. To me this seems like a clear misuse of the field (among other things, it makes authors show up as "related characters" on each other's author pages). Any objections to deleting?
(Example: https://www.librarything.com/work/18814311)
(Example: https://www.librarything.com/work/18814311)
2r.orrison
Delete away! The same user also adds unnecessary canonical names to authors and titles to books.
3aspirit
I'm guessing someone was confused at first about what "People" means for the field. Because the contributors are also where they're supposed to be, I have no objection to the deletions.
5lilithcat
>2 r.orrison:
But does the user know they are "unnecessary"?
There's no indication of that when you edit CK. The title field simply says, "Authoritative title for a work in the language of the site you are on". Canonical name just says, ""Lastname, Firstname" as in Tolkien, J.R.R or Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan".
Why would anyone think that they shouldn't fill in those fields? There ought to be a pop-up that explains it.
But does the user know they are "unnecessary"?
There's no indication of that when you edit CK. The title field simply says, "Authoritative title for a work in the language of the site you are on". Canonical name just says, ""Lastname, Firstname" as in Tolkien, J.R.R or Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan".
Why would anyone think that they shouldn't fill in those fields? There ought to be a pop-up that explains it.
6r.orrison
>5 lilithcat: But does the user know they are "unnecessary"?
You are correct, they probably don't know the correct way to use those fields, and have never bothered to find out. Someone should politely direct them to the Common Knowledge help page in the wiki, where it says things like:
"LibraryThing chooses the "democratic" answer--the title or name that is used the most on the site. The "Canonical title" and "Canonical name" fields are there for when this falters."
"Reinforcing calculations with Canonical Names is often a sign of misunderstanding "
"Canonical Names/Titles should not be entirely deleted from the CK of an author or work unless they are identical to the existing system Name or Title." *
"If you leave the field blank, LibraryThing will continue to use the democratic method. When in doubt, trust in that."
* I read that as explicit license to delete Canonical Names and Titles where they are identical to the system chosen name or title.
You are correct, they probably don't know the correct way to use those fields, and have never bothered to find out. Someone should politely direct them to the Common Knowledge help page in the wiki, where it says things like:
"LibraryThing chooses the "democratic" answer--the title or name that is used the most on the site. The "Canonical title" and "Canonical name" fields are there for when this falters."
"Reinforcing calculations with Canonical Names is often a sign of misunderstanding "
"Canonical Names/Titles should not be entirely deleted from the CK of an author or work unless they are identical to the existing system Name or Title." *
"If you leave the field blank, LibraryThing will continue to use the democratic method. When in doubt, trust in that."
* I read that as explicit license to delete Canonical Names and Titles where they are identical to the system chosen name or title.
7lilithcat
>6 r.orrison:
Why should they “bother to find out”? It’s logical to think that if you have a variety of fields, they should be filled in. I don’t see why anyone would go on a hunt (particularly to the wiki, in which it is hard to find things you know are there, much less things you don’t) in the expectation that the obvious is wrong.
That’s why there ought to be some sort of text or explanation that comes up when you begin to edit the field, either instead of, or in addition to, the current text.
Why should they “bother to find out”? It’s logical to think that if you have a variety of fields, they should be filled in. I don’t see why anyone would go on a hunt (particularly to the wiki, in which it is hard to find things you know are there, much less things you don’t) in the expectation that the obvious is wrong.
That’s why there ought to be some sort of text or explanation that comes up when you begin to edit the field, either instead of, or in addition to, the current text.
8Crypto-Willobie
>7 lilithcat:
Agreed!
Agreed!
9gilroy
>7 lilithcat: Agreed! And the text that's there is so small and hard to read, people ignore it anyway
10r.orrison
>7 lilithcat: Why should they “bother to find out”?
Why should they bother to read the hint under the field?
If someone doesn't read "For more help see the Common Knowledge help page." which is always visible and links directly to the appropriate page, they're not going to read the hint.
So I just clean up the messes and if anyone wants to send a polite message to the user to read the help page they should do that.
Does anyone want to submit an RSI to update the hint text under the field?
Why should they bother to read the hint under the field?
If someone doesn't read "For more help see the Common Knowledge help page." which is always visible and links directly to the appropriate page, they're not going to read the hint.
So I just clean up the messes and if anyone wants to send a polite message to the user to read the help page they should do that.
Does anyone want to submit an RSI to update the hint text under the field?
11lilithcat
>10 r.orrison:
Why should they bother to read the hint under the field?
But the point is: why would they think they need help>?
Why should they bother to read the hint under the field?
But the point is: why would they think they need help>?
