Forum - View topicPurge requests
|
|
| Author | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Devil Doll
 Posts: 656 Location: Germany |
|
||
|
I would like to find out whether it makes sense to create one (sticky) thread for cases when all that has to be done would be hiding all entries (credits and attributes), thus downgrading an entry to a "corpse".
Suggested set of rules:
With a rule set like this it might even suffice to just post the URL of the entry here (the error flags would carry the more detailed information) as the procedure to handle an entry would be standardized; all the encyclopedist would have to check is whether the "move" has been performed and whether error comments & sources are considered sufficient. Note that a thread like this one might not even be necessary if Dan42 decided to write a report script to automatically list all such cases (entries with every credit being flagged as error - or else they would not qualify here as they wouldn't have been "moved" already). Actually this thread is little more than a specific subset of already existing error reports in the ANN database... but this being "specific" is what it makes a candidate for a special procedure. Would any such thread be helpful for normal encyclopedists as "channel" for a standardized request class? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - My "test balloon" entry for such a thread would be: Takumi SUZUKI (鈴木) (琢磨) (kanji name confirmed by both sources) is a spelling error duplicate of Takuma SUZUKI 鈴木 琢磨 (1961-12-07, picture, website) as 琢磨 has 2 ENAMDICT readings Takuma, Takumaro but not Takumi. 3 credits for 2 anime flagged&added and can be hidden, kanji names will then be deleted by me. There's nothing to merge here so posting this one in the Duplicate Persons thread would probably not be helpful. |
|||
|
|||
|
Dan42
Chief Encyclopedist
 Posts: 3791 Location: Montreal |
|
||
|
Consolidating several error reports into one thread is actually a nightmare when it comes to actually handling those error reports. Just look at the duplicate persons thread. It's 65 pages long and there's no way to know which of the reports have been handled (either merged or judged to be non-duplicates) and which haven't. Posting error reports as separate topics might generate a lot of "noise" in the Encyclopedia forum, but at least "todo" and "done" are easier to separate.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Devil Doll
Posts: 656 Location: Germany |
|
||
|
I'm perfectly fine with tons of threads if you are. (Would subforums for splits, merges, purges make any sense?)
I believe a substantial part of the current state of the Duplicate Persons thread is due to the criteria what&how to report there being neither known not followed nor executed exactly enough... the bucket is too huge and contains too many cases that just can't be handled - not because of their number but because of missing information that would require guesswork. It's a bit like the split requests: The more requirements you formulate for a request to be allowed, the easier it can be handled. If you would accept each and every "in process" report als split request you would drown in them like dormcat in the duplicates reports; the fact that you specified tougher requirements for them encouraged me to focus on filing split requests. The thread you're just reading would specify a subset of "duplicates" that explicitly do not belong into the "Duplicate Persons" bucket (as they require a different procedure), thus reducing dormcat's workload. There may be more "error classes" to be specified (and error reporters be taught how to identify their class of error) but in the long run this would lead to more specialized encyclopedists each focusing on a small subset of issues. One main reason for the Duplicate Persons situation is that ANN has no procedure to handle anonymous duplicates, i. e. do anything reasonable with the information that two persons obviously are the same (with identical kanji name, identical tasks, identical company they work for, identical time frame) but no proof for their romanized name is available (which is the case for most low-level animators, background artists, colorists etc.). Given that ANN has the romanized name as the basis of the person data structure there is not much we can do with this information except for making those persons link at each other (which I already suggested elsewhere, and could be done automatically by the ANN software). Unless any such procedure will be specified these anonymous duplicates will "pollute" the Duplicate Persons thread. |
|||
|
|||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group