Log in

Forum:Book title naming conventions

From PathfinderWiki
Revision as of 03:08, 1 July 2009 by Aeakett-spamtest1 (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Forums: Grand Lodge > Book title naming conventions

For some time now I've been thinking that we should simplify our naming conventions for book titles. As it is, we've already got some conflicting conventions and the longer we wait to consolidate the harder it will be to do so.

Currently, titles are handled different ways for different lines:

I would like to propose we bring everything in agreement by using a single format for all product lines. I suggest we use the Pathfinder Society naming convention for all books with series designators in their published title. Thus:

  • Pathfinder 6, Spires of Xin-Shalast would be renamed Spires of Xin-Shalast and all references to its title (such as in citation templates) be changed from Pathfinder 6: Spires of Xin-Shalast to simply Spires of Xin-Shalast. This change would involve the most work, but I think it would make the site easier to read, as all the colons and "Pathfinder #" can get repetitive.
  • All Modules would be renamed such that their series designator is removed. All new products after J5, Beyond the Vault of Souls will not have these codes anyway.
  • Nothing should need to change in the naming of Chronicles and Companions products.
  • We may want to add a line to the {{book}} template to distinguish series number, or leave this as extraneous information since chronology is established by the "follows" and "precedes" lines.

No matter our decision, the conversion will be a large effort which will most likely take several people the bulk of a few days, unless we decide to leave everything the same (which is not my preferred conclusion). So once we come to a consensus we should be prepared to focus primarily on this until the conversion is done.

Thoughts? Opinions?

As a former librarian, I hate to loose any extra information, but I agree that the AP books should just go by their title. I like the idea of adding a line to the book template and putting the number in there. Does this mean that they will be cited as books and not articles? Also, this would be a BIG job, as there are a hell of a lot of links to them. Is there any way to do mass edits, or do we have to go through page by page?

Oh, and I totally agree with the change in module naming convention.
Glad you agree! I think we should still cite them as articles, as the distinct articles are credited to different authors. Whenever we can, I think we should credit authors as specifically as possible. Not possible in some products, like the Campaign Setting, but for these we can. But that's a different topic of discussion. I think we can use the existing book template, using the Series line to show serialization. Currently an AP volume says "Pathfinder Adventure Path, AP name" but we can easily use a different format so that it would say "Pathfinder Adventure Path #12, Curse of the Crimson Throne #6." Or we can do like we have done on the PFS scenarios and keep the "Pathfinder #:" in the title, but not referenced elsewhere.

As to how to go about making the changes, there are bots capable of doing that but I don't have the programming knowledge to set them loose without worrying that they'd eat everything or do nothing at all. We can do quite a bit of it manually, though, without much trouble. Create a redirect at Pathfinder 3, The Hook Mountain Massacre to The Hook Mountain Massacre. Then see "what links here" for the original page and manually change anything that visually shows "Pathfinder 3:" Some links, like those in tables, will already be piped to say "PF3" and won't need to be changed. If we can't use bots, I think the way to do it is to assign books or entire lines to different people and then systematically go through and change all references to that book. It might take a while but of 3 or 4 of us dedicate our time to it, it shouldn't take longer than a week.

Looking at an actual copy of an AP book I notice that the only place the number in the total series (such as Shadow in the Sky being number 13) is listed in on the spine. That's it. This makes me think that this number is solely for organizing all of them easily on a bookshelf. Displaying them obviously for our purposes seems a bit pointless. Since we have all the information, including the number overall and the number within the AP) listed on the OOC page of each AP book, I think it's okay to leave the number off the titles and all the references.
Check out two options for how a Pathfinder AP product page could look here and here. The main difference from current is in the infobox. I actually like the second option, because it makes the title stand out more against the stark "Pathfinder" at the top of the image. This is the same format we've used with the PFS scenarios. In either case, the article title would not be "Pathfinder 3, The Hook Mountain Massacre" but just "The Hook Mountain Massacre", even though the infobox would say more. Other parts of the infobox to check out are the "Series" lines and the "Follows/Precedes" lines.

I think we should keep the citation templates as they are, listing "Pathfinder 3: The Hook Mountain Massacre" as the book title, as this helps distinguish the book title from the article name and allows someone to see what volume number to refer to instead of needing to click the link if they don't know the book numbers by heart.

When the details of this get hammered out, be sure to save me chunk of the work. This is the kind of monotonous busy-work that I'm good at.
As with Aeakett, I can do this type of work best while I'm at the office during the day. Actually writing things is too involved given the constant interruptions. So let's decide on one system and I can get started on making the changes. We can divide the work up by AP.
Doesn't matter to me it seems that the proposed change is the way we all describe them on the message boards anyway.
Ok! I've started! RotR pages have been updated. Still unsure about the infobox format. If we can come to a consensus about whether to use this format or this format it would be awesome! For the record, I prefer the second as it gives more weight to the title line and is the same format we're using for PFS scenario product pages.

I've also changed the citation template to {{Cite book/Burnt Offerings}} with redirects to that from just about every other variation. I think if we keep all "in-use" citation templates as "cite books" the average user doesn't need to know that it's a Cite article working underneath. But I'm finding that I have to manually refresh all the pages using the old template to get the changes to cascade. I'm working on that. If it has to be manual, it's going to take forever, but hopefully we figure it out soon.