How do we handle multiple versions of essentially the same piece (but not duplicates)? eg Kevin Grandia's rebuttal of Bret Stevens http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Bret_Stephens
OTOH I would say pick the more thorough and/or first and go with that.
OTOH Since internet resources come and go it also makes some sense to post all to ensure availabilty, being sure to indicate that they are essentially the same.
- agreed Admin 10:47, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
How do we index and cite pieces where the author is not known? eg http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23971260-16741,00.html 'Editor'? under 'editorials'? other?
- as editorials, linked to the newspaper category Admin 10:48, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Title or Professional Credential
I take we are not using anyone's credential eg Dr.
Should articles/papers with multiple authors be:
- listed once under principle authors
- listed for each author with only principle author having full entry
- if it's a team with form, then the link can be to the team (ie Khilyuk and Chillingar), otherwise to individuals. This doesn't really come up much though. Admin 10:49, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
--Greenfyre 15:11, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Agreed it is unusual, but I am thinking of cases where the principle author also publishes with others as well as on their own (eg Spencer).
I suggest we put team efforts under principle author rather than creating separate 'team pages' for multi-author works.
Currently author pages are being cited by full name, surname and initials (eg http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=C._Essex_and_R._McKitrick) or surname only http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=L._F._Khilyuk_and_G._V._Chilingar
- Recommend full name --Greenfyre 10:45, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
- surnames are the main issue, and only if there is a danger of confusion do we need to worry about the first names. I'm happy to leave it as initials+surname Admin 10:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
--Greenfyre 15:08, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Except the wiki has been using first name as a standard. Rather than go back how about we just adopt that as the standard where they are known?
Format of Author Page
Trying to see what might be the most useful format for the author's pages. I saw that you raised 'rebuttal' to a level 2 headline on Coleman's page John Coleman, but that puts the Rebuttal at a higher level in the vertical heirarchy than the article itself; not sure that works.
For prolific authors it may be appropriate to use the article title as the level 3 headline as that is what people are most likely looking for, no? I tried this out on the Carter page Robert Carter, see what you think.
== Profile ==
== Articles ==
=== Title of Paper ===
Linked 'Title of Paper', Name of Publication, Date of Publication
- Linked 'Title of Rebuttal', Author of rebuttal, Name of Publication, Date of Publication
[URL 'Title of Paper'], Name of Publication, Date of Publication
- [URL 'Title of Rebuttal'], Author of rebuttal, Name of Publication, Date of Publication
- hmmm... looks a little crowded. We don't need to have the title of each paper twice (once as heading and then in the cite), and the numbering seems disjointed. Try dropping the title of the paper heading, and just numbering the cites, with the rebuttals as sub-elements to each numbered entry. Admin 10:59, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
--Greenfyre 14:59, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, numbering is an artifact from original poster. It is actually a bad idea since the most current article should go at the top, requiring all of the numbers to change.
Agreed that it looks clunky. Here, I have toned it down and used a horizontal line to separate articles Christopher Monckton - how about that?