765,429
edits
Forum:Disambiguation case study: Wish You Were Here: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:Disambiguation case study: Wish You Were Here (edit)
Revision as of 03:28, 28 August 2012
, 28 August 2012Sorry for having to do this, but I'm being forced to change my sig, and clean up after it, by Wikia Staff
m (Sorry for having to do this, but I'm being forced to change my sig, and clean up after it, by Wikia Staff) |
|||
| (18 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{archive|Panopticon archives}}[[category:page-specific discussions]] | ||
<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | ||
Interesting case study we should probably talk about, so as to add the resulting consensus to [[tardis:disambiguation policy]]. | Interesting case study we should probably talk about, so as to add the resulting consensus to [[tardis:disambiguation policy]]. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
other | other | ||
</poll> | </poll> | ||
Pick one and explain your logic below, please. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} | Pick one and explain your logic below, please. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}'''01:10:04 Tue '''15 Mar 2011 </span> | ||
==Discussion== | ==Discussion== | ||
*In this case, like the idea of using the authors to disambig them. While it remains a minor possibility that different authors will use the same title for different works in the same medium, it's a reasonably safe bet that one author won't ever write two separate works with identical titles. [[User:Rob T Firefly|Rob T Firefly]] 04:27, March 15, 2011 (UTC) | *In this case, I like the idea of using the authors to disambig them. While it remains a minor possibility that different authors will use the same title for different works in the same medium, it's a reasonably safe bet that one author won't ever write two separate works in the same medium with identical titles. [[User:Rob T Firefly|Rob T Firefly]] 04:27, March 15, 2011 (UTC) | ||
*Chose print and online. Users may not know the author but are likely to know the format of the story.----[[User:Skittles the hog|Skittles the hog]]--<small>[[User talk:Skittles the hog|Talk]]</small> 10:02, March 15, 2011 (UTC) | |||
*I agree with Skittles the hog. Currently in use we have stories disambigged as such ''[[Shada (TV story)]]'', ''[[Shada (webcast)]]'', ''[[Shada (audio story)|Shada]]''. A quick trawl through the disambig category reveals plenty of others ''[[Cold War (comic story)]]'', ''[[Cold War (short story)]]''. It's not much more of a step to include (online short story) or (web short story) or something like that to disambig these two cited examples. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 16:15, March 15, 2011 (UTC) | |||
*Well, see, I agree with [[user:Rob T Firefly|Rob T Firefly]]. I think [[user:Skittles the hog|Skittles]] is misusing the word "format" here. They're both short stories; the method of delivering that short story doesn't change what it fundamentally is. I'd dispute that people are more likely to know the format of this story than the author; I personally didn't know ''either'' existed until yesterday, so it doesn't feel unnatural to me to think of one as the "[[James Moran|Moran]] story". It also would be nice to have a disambiguation rule that worked for multiple cases. Fine, in this instance there's an easy distinction between method of publication. But what happens if one day there's a ''Doctor Who Storybook'' short story that uses the same title as a story from a Decalog anthology? If we go with a "disambig by author" ruling in this instance, we've got something that will cover ''that'' instance, as well. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}'''18:55:58 Wed '''16 Mar 2011 </span> 18:55, March 16, 2011 (UTC) | |||
*Nope, I'm correctly using the word format. Surely people are more likely to know whether they read a story online or on paper.----[[User:Skittles the hog|Skittles the hog]]--<small>[[User talk:Skittles the hog|Talk]]</small> 19:43, March 17, 2011 (UTC) | |||
::I still agree with Skittles. For CzechOut's scenario the policy would just read: ''In the unlikely event that two (or more) short stories of the same name exist place the prefix the short story belongs to in the disambig brackets.'' So ''Story name (DWA short story)'' ''Story name (VD short story)''. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 14:39, March 18, 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::So, what's wrong with that nomenclature? It's not in the poll, but I think there's some elegance to that. It really should be <range prefix> + <story type>. After all, we currently disambiguate [[Twilight of the Gods (BNA novel)]] and [[Twilight of the Gods (MA novel)]]. Add "novel" to those, and I think we've got a naming convention that's consistent and logical. In this case, it should be: | |||
:::*Wishing You Were Here (WEB short story) | |||
:::*Wishing You Were Here (ST short story). | |||
:::Anyone opposed to that? {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}23:31: Thu 13 Oct 2011 </span> | |||
:::: I think that works. Seems to be more consistent than others of the like than using "print" to describe the Short Trip at the very least. "Wish You Were Here (ST short story)" and "Wish You Were Here (web short story)"? -- [[User:Tybort|Tybort]] ([[User talk:Tybort|talk page]]) 11:30, October 14, 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::: I agree, that makes perfect sense. — [[User:Rob T Firefly|Rob T Firefly]] - '''[[User talk:Rob T Firefly|Δ]][[Special:Contributions/Rob T Firefly|∇]]''' - 12:18, October 28, 2011 (UTC) | |||
