People/Characters Gone

So, not long ago I read The Honest Courtesan by Margaret F. Rosenthal, and as usual I filled in the CK as I went. Today, I happen to look again and all of the People/Characters seem to be gone and there's no option to view the History??? I added back Veronica Franco since she's the main subject, at least.

Does anyone know if there's a reason for this???

>1 Carmen.et.Error:

That's odd. Because I see a whole slew of CK. At first I thought you or someone else might have added it all back, but I can see the history (click "edit", and then "history). And that history shows that some of the CK was added by you, last year, as well as by others.

Oh, never mind. I see you were just talking about one field.

How many people did you add? Please only add important characters.

>3 MarthaJeanne: Quite a lot. I didn't know we were supposed to limit it. I tend to add a lot especially if the work is non-fiction, because it gives people an easy way to click to see if the person is discussed/portrayed in other works and you never know who might turn up.

>2 lilithcat: Yeah, it appears to only be People/Characters.

>4 Carmen.et.Error:

The difficulty is that, particularly in a book such a this, many people are just mentioned, are not really important to the thesis, and by including them in the list, you make it hard for others to see who really matters.

There are people who basically list anyone who's in the index, even if they're mentioned just once in the endnotes.

>6 lilithcat: Well, I don't just list everyone in the index, and I try not to be super-pedantic, but obviously can fail pretty hard at that. I did include, in this one, characters that were mentioned in some of the writers' treatises and poetry because I felt that they are important to the discussion of the poetry being discussed itself, and helps to emphasize characters who recur in the writers' works over again or are heavily discussed in academic work on them. Don't know if that makes any sense.

Either way, was this an admin action or did it just... disappear?

>7 Carmen.et.Error:

I doubt that anyone on staff would do it. It’s more likely that some other member, seeing the long list, took it upon herself to edit it. Though why she’d remove the entire list, I can’t guess.

>8 lilithcat: Yeah, that's what I don't get. I figured if it was an admin they'd have basically just deleted past a certain point but kept the first few entries intact, at least. And same with the other possibility of someone who decided to help out by trimming it down themselves.

It looks like the person who archived the info you painstakingly entered is a member with one book. I can't imagine joining a site, barely involving myself, & then just erasing other people's hard work. Unless it's a sock puppet created solely for the act of destruction, which would be a whole other thing.

>10 susanbooks: I'm pretty sure that's also the guy who goes around re-formatting entered People/Characters as Last Name, First Name, and attaching dates to be part of the entry itself rather than putting in parenthesis... whether the entry is relavent to the historical personage or NOT. Maybe he was irritated that I redid some of his work or brought it up to the rest of the board in another thread... Who knows?

It's just weird whatever the reason is.

>10 susanbooks: It looks as if he really likes that book; he has recommended it 25 times.

>10 susanbooks: I have absolutely no way of knowing, but I'm wondering if they're also attached to other overtly religion/philosophy-centered accounts that come up in the CK edits on this work and others.

Does anyone know if there's anything that can be done? I don't know what the admins see as worth their time or not.

You are not supposed to recommend a book more than 5 times.

>10 susanbooks: Yeah, that's the person who uses a few accounts (not a problem) and changes a ton of CK. Usually it's not wholesale deletion, though.

(Sure enough: that person edited the people/characters several times this year, only deleting all the names on June 25th.)

Okay, looking at the archived list of names entered, I have to say that while that person went overboard in deleting them, the original list went overboard in adding them.

>16 lilithcat: Noted and I'll try to do better in the future, though the line between important and unimportant can be a difficult one to determine.

That being said, that doesn't mean it all had to be deleted.

If I may ask, are you a site admin?

Admins have an L to the left of their names in Talk.

ETA Although they can post without it if they are posting in an unofficial capacity.

>18 jjwilson61: Ahh, ok! My assumption was wrong then. My bad!

>17 Carmen.et.Error:

The site staff rarely get involved in editing stuff, unless there's a spammer who needs to be dealt with. Most data is entered (or edited/deleted) by members.

>3 MarthaJeanne:

Is there any actual official guidelines limiting the CK field to "important" characters? Doesn't seem to be anything in the tool tips or Wiki.

Given the data can show interesting relationships etc, I don't see any real reason to discourage people who want to add minor characters or people, if they want to spend the time.

Not official guidelines, as far as I'm aware. But, for example, bible. Adam and Eve, fine. Moses, fine. Jesus, fine. Joab son of Jared who owned 3 goats, nope. (I admit, I'm making this one up).

In my view, important characters should be important to the work as a whole - not just some minor part of it.

>22 Nicole_VanK: You may be making that particular one up, but people have added over 500 characters to some Bible works.

And I think I remember another book with over 200 characters including things like 'three women on the street'. That wasn't it exactly, but similar.

>24 MarthaJeanne: I only put in people who are definitely named in the work. I've seen examples of the "three women on the street" variety or even multiple entries that are just variations of the exact same name/person, and I agree those are ridiculous.

But, I don't think important people/characters can be neatly limited to a definitive number across the board. Some works are going to need more than others and non-fiction works, by nature, tend to cover a lot of territory. The Bible, in your example, is a work that spans several eras and it makes sense that it would have hundreds of entries.

I AM going to weigh whether someone is really worth adding or not. I think it's only natural, however, that everyone is going to have a different idea of how things should work and what IS worth it, and that's fine.

I don't, however, think adding is the same thing as blanket-deleting. Again, possibly somewhere that we differ, and that's fine.

>17 Carmen.et.Error: Thanks for the info! I had assumed you were an admin. My mistake!

>22 Nicole_VanK:

Not official guidelines

Then we really shouldn't be saying it is OK to delete valid data. Its our role to kill bad data, not potentially useful things which are simply more than we would add.

It is probably justifiable to get rid of something like "Guy down the street with three goats", on the basis it isn't an identifiable person/character.

But a "Joab son of Jared" mentioned once in the Bible, who to be honest will then probably be included in other literary and theological works simply for that fact? Valid data which isn't for us to delete, unless there is an official guideline saying so.

The same with adding every person in a non-fiction index. Its more than you or I would spend time adding, but once there it is valid data someone sees value in, and therefore must stay.

>27 hf22: Thank you. This is exactly how I feel.

>27 hf22: That would depend how you choose to define valid data. You chose to define it as named characters, but one could argue 'three women in the street' is also valid data if it appears in the book.

It is assumed, even if it is not spelled out clearly defined, members would input reasonably important characters in the work, not everyone named. There is no reason whatsoever to have hundreds of characters for any work of fiction, including sprawling epic series. In my considerable non-fiction library I also don't have one where the same is not true. Mentioning Carl Jung in passing does not qualify his inclusion for me. If he were to be added in such cases, it would not only create these endless lists of characters, but would be misleading data. I would look at the work I don't have, see his name on the character list and think it actually discusses his ideas or his bio, when it really doesn't.

While I've never blanket deleted anything and wouldn't tackle works I'm not familiar with even if it's obviously suffering with surplus info, I did trim down the lists a couple of times for works I know and can thus decide we really don't need on the list Uncle John, who appeared exactly once in the book and is inconsequential.

>29 SandraArdnas:

I have this particular book in hand, and a very great number of the names entered are mentioned in the book only in passing. I honestly can see no reason whatsoever to include someone whose name appears in the book exactly once, other than in the index, in a list of "English and French visitors, such as . . . "

And while I certainly don't think everyone in the index should be listed, I also don't think that anyone not important enough to be included in the index should be listed.

Data that is important to you should not be put only on CK. CK is not your data. One can argue over and over about whether certain entries are 'valid'. But anyone can delete them. If you are going to be upset if something happens to them, put them somewhere else.

Even if nobody removes CK, strange things can happen to it when works get combined and separated.

(We are constantly undoing things that someone else thought had value. We flag spam, take out unneeded canonical titles, and add them in to get rid of badly formatted titles. We move series to publishers series. Not to mention separating things out that someone decided to combine.)

>27 hf22: There are actually very few official guidelines. Tim's way is to create the feature but to let the users hash out the best way to use it.

>31 MarthaJeanne: My sole reason for starting this thread to begin with was to ask why the information had all of a sudden disappeared; admin action? Bug? Site trolling? What? I was concerned in case it was a bug and began happening in other cases when it wasn't supposed to. Trolling? Yeah, also would be concerning. Simple error and mistake from another member? It happens. On the other hand, if it was an admin action, I'd like to have known the reasons behind it so that in future I'd know better what to do or not.

I can understand why some people don't see a need to include people who are only mentioned once in a work. But, I do. For me, even one connection is still important and still connects the work to a wider web that can be useful to people who are looking for the information. Some people are searching for those small references and sometimes whole new works have been written about someone that's mentioned by name only once in the original source material. However, I don't make the assumption when viewing a list that everyone mentioned in the CK is of equal value; just that at some point they come into it.

It is, however, my opinion and one I don't expect to be shared by everyone...

>33 Carmen.et.Error: Please don't include people mentioned once. It is neither the intended purpose of the character field, nor the desired use of it by the vast majority of members. People can disagree who constitutes a reasonable important character in fringe cases, but that would mean a difference of a dozen, not a hundred. Unless the work is an encyclopedia, lexicon or some huge history of the world, it isn't going to discuss more than 50 people in any way that would warrant the inclusion on the list

>34 SandraArdnas: How is it known that this is what the vast majority of members want? Was there a discussion about it where a consensus was reached? A poll? What are the factors that determine a "fringe" case?

It is known by repeated cases of people inputting over a hundred characters and members complaining about it. This isn't a court of law, it's a community

>36 SandraArdnas: I get that; there've just been in-depth discussions on here about protocol for other things like how the new Series system should work and stuff. So, I figured there might have been one on this topic that I didn't see.

>29 SandraArdnas:

You chose to define it as named characters, but one could argue 'three women in the street' is also valid data if it appears in the book. - And I wouldn't necessarily delete that if someone added it. But it seems far more reasonable from the published guidelines, to delete data which doesn't actually constitute a person or character, than data which does.

It is assumed, even if it is not spelled out clearly defined, members would input reasonably important characters in the work, not everyone named. - I don't see any reason to assume that - Indeed I think it is a mistake to assume that.

There is no reason whatsoever to have hundreds of characters for any work of fiction, including sprawling epic series. - In your view. Others, where they add it, obviously think differently. Why would we eliminate what at least some people find useful, given it is only their time being wasted in the adding of it?

but would be misleading data. I would look at the work I don't have, see his name on the character list and think it actually discusses his ideas or his bio, when it really doesn't. - Again, that would seem to be an assumption about the data we shouldn't make, since nothing about the rules for entering it suggest it needs to do that.

I did trim down the lists a couple of times for works I know and can thus decide we really don't need on the list Uncle John, who appeared exactly once in the book and is inconsequential. - And why is it appropriate to potentially engage in edit wars over subjective things like relative importance, when there is no basis in the site rules to do so?

>31 MarthaJeanne:

Data that is important to you should not be put only on CK. CK is not your data. - Sure, all types of data can go missing, and people should back it up elsewhere. But that doesn't mean we should encourage people to delete data which some find useful and is within the site rules.

>32 jjwilson61:

Tim's way is to create the feature but to let the users hash out the best way to use it. - Which is what we are doing here. But I don't think the right way to approach that is to delete, or encourage other people to delete, data which is within the site rules and apparently useful to some.

>34 SandraArdnas:

Please don't include people mentioned once. It is neither the intended purpose of the character field, nor the desired use of it by the vast majority of members.

We can't assert that. There is nothing in the official guidance which indicates it is outside of the intended purpose, nor have we polled the vast majority of members as to their desires. All we have is a few self-selected people trying to police rules they wish we had, but don't, which isn't at all appropriate in my view.

>36 SandraArdnas:

That doesn't prove that the vast majority of members want anything. It actually proves there is a diversity of views, between those doing the adding, and those the complaining.

Again, this isn't a court of law, where you insist on admissible evidence. It is a community of people who jointly co-create the data. If you're intent on inputting every single character mentioned, no one can really stop you, but equally, you can't stop anyone from deleting some or all of it. Whether you consider that a worthwhile endeavor, I don't know, but insisting that no one must touch that data is what's not appropriate. It's bullying the rest of the people into accepting excessive lists unless we conduct a site-wide official poll or bully Tim into issuing an edict. In reality, whoever edits or deletes that data quite obviously finds it inappropriate. You can either find common ground with the rest of the members or wage edit wars. Do as you please.

>40 SandraArdnas: And deleting a list in its entirety isn't a form of bullying people who do prefer complete lists?

I'm not talking about pruning or trimming down; that's totally understandable and is conducive to the interactive nature of the site.

>27 hf22: Don't worry. Just because I happen to frown at a practice, doesn't mean I go around deleting such info.

>41 Carmen.et.Error: You might have noticed everyone who responded in this thread was opposed to blanket deleting. I have no experience with edit wars, i have neither time nor will for it, so I don't know what people do or don't do.

>43 SandraArdnas: Honestly, the impression I've been getting from some of the responders is that it was my fault to begin with for putting all of the information in in the first place. Like I was asking for someone to come in and delete all of it. That the "sin" of putting in "too much" is equal to or worse than deleting all of it, so it doesn't matter. Maybe it doesn't to them, and, again, that's fine! Agree to disagree!

Maybe that's not what people are meaning, but that's what some (not all) of the answers have been coming across as to me. If I'm wrong about that then wonderful! If not then, that's fine; there's not much I can do about it.

>40 SandraArdnas:

It's bullying the rest of the people into accepting excessive lists

I'm more reacting to the idea we had a rule or consensus requiring limited character lists, which people should be directed to follow, rather than trying to impose the opposite on anyone. Other than that, I'd merely suggest we should have a bias to protecting/retaining data which doesn't break the official rules, rather than deleting stuff we don't personally need or prefer.

>42 Nicole_VanK:

All good :)

>35 Carmen.et.Error: How is it known that this is what the vast majority of members want? Was there a discussion about it where a consensus was reached? A poll?

We don't have to ask everyone their opinion, we can just look at what they actually do. The vast majority of members enter only a few major characters in the field - and nobody complains that they're entering incomplete information. There's only been a handful of users that enter complete and exhaustive (and exhausting) lists of characters, and every time there are complaints.

>47 r.orrison: I never said we had to ask everyone and agree that trying to take a universal opinion would be ludicrous if not impossible. Not everyone cares about the cataloging aspects of the site. I was simply asking how it was known, as I said in my reply.

>47 r.orrison:

That doesn't work as a measure. No one complains about incomplete data, because the answer is "well you finish it then".

Nor can we say "every time there are complaints". There are absolutely works on the site with long lists of characters, which no one has ever complained about or changed.

Some here may have thought there was a consensus, but we don't even have one on this thread, so I think we need to put aside that idea.

>45 Collectorator: I was opposing the deletion of info there, and I'm doing it here. Obviously anybody is free to delete their own copies of any works from this site. I weed my collections from time to time too.

If I misread you, I apologize

>51 Collectorator: I rarely flag comments. But I'll check.

ETA: Nope, no flags from me.

I don't normally edit the Characters field and don't usually feel obliged to speak up in CK discussions, but I strongly agree that only significant characters that matter to the plot (for fiction) or otherwise are prominent in some way should be listed in the Characters field. I very much disagree with the idea that we should let everyone do what they feel is right and never delete superfluous information.

>53 anglemark:

Why shouldn't we let people add data which is allowable under the site rules? Especially if it isn't superfluous for them? I get some people want a more restrictive rule, and they are of course free to ask the site to create one, but unless that happens I really don't see the harm.

The existence of data which doesn't interest you, and you won't even see on the Work page unless you expand the character list to look for it, isn't really an imposition on anyone.

>54 hf22: Again, I wouldn't delete such info. But it can be misleading. Say I wan't to find more info about Attila the Hun, for instance. Yeah, any half decent book on European history that includes the 5th century will mention him. But basically, after searching, it only confirms that he existed.

I feel that's counterproductive. I wasted my time.

My two cents worth, from someone with over 69000 CK entries, is that a fiction character must be unique. There are thousands of Sally's or Jim's all over the place. The only fiction characters allowed should be recurring persons e.g. Sherlock Holmes etc. So if I click on the name I get all the books he is mentioned in. In other words they are unique and always the same person. Sally is a different person in every work.

Also don't get me started on important events. 19th century is not an important event nor is the Victorian era.

>56 bergs47: Let alone Bronze Age. Ack.

>56 bergs47:

The only fiction characters allowed should be recurring persons e.g. Sherlock Holmes etc.

So if someone writes a novel in which the protagonist is referred to only by her given name "Sally", that character should not be listed because there's no series? I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me.

If the heading "People/Characters" was changed to "Important People/Characters", similar to "Important places" and "Important events", some of this might be resolved. There would likely still be disagreement as to who is "important", but there might be fewer of these disputes.

RSI here: http://www.librarything.com/topic/322316

I somewhat see bergs47's point - if a character only exists in one book, listing it isn't as interesting or useful as a character that appears in many books. Especially a PD character like Holmes. Now he appears in books not written by AC Doyle. I'm not objecting to listing single book people, but I rarely do it myself. I do fill in minor characters in series because sometimes they emerge as majors or in spin-offs and readers sometimes want to dig into a character's past and this is one of the only ways to find out which books have that info.

>60 Bookmarque:

listing it isn't as interesting or useful as a character that appears in many books.

Not to you, maybe. But it certainly tells me who matters in the book. Why wouldn't I list "Lady Anna Lovel" or "Cécile Dubois" or "Tancredi Falconeri" (to name three people from books I've lately read, three characters who drive the action)?

I am honestly getting very weary of a bias towards series that I see here (this isn't directed at you specifically, Bookmarque). Everything seems to be interpreted in that light.

(P.S. What's a "PD character"?)

I know it's parsing it fine, but I didn't say it wasn't useful, but not as useful as following a recurring character through many books. But yeah, I see it's getting testy in here. I don't do much in the way of changing CK data that another person has entered, but sometimes a long character list is hard to decipher in terms of which is a lead/major and which isn't. When it comes to an unfamiliar book at any rate.

PD = public domain

>61 lilithcat: (P.S. What's a "PD character"?)

A character whose first appearance in a work is now in the public domain, and presumably has started to be used by other authors.

>62 Bookmarque:

PD = public domain

Ha! From the character referred to, I thought you meant "private detective", but that didn't make any sense.

Oh no, I didn't even think of that. Too funny!

If I'm interested in a person, I'd be grateful to someone who took the time to list her, even if she's only mentioned once under "People Visited" in a book's index. It might help me find otherwise overlooked connections. If someone is willing to put in the work, what's the harm? Maybe in parens the person entering could indicate something like "mention only"

>66 susanbooks: Thanks for your input! There's a discussion about all of this going on here: https://www.librarything.com/topic/322316

>11 Carmen.et.Error: I am trying to standardize names put in by that person or persons. I have been putting them in the usual firstname lastname, and putting the dates in parentheses. I try to check if they are already entered in one or another form. They usually do philosophers and religious figures. In addition, they often put the hundreds of names per title, some of which appear once, and put the page numbers from the index. I've been deleting the latter. I haven't been deleting the ones with only one or two entries, but I have thought about it, because there is little point in listing them. When I'm going through an index, I usually don't put in anyone who is referred to on less than 5 pages, with some exceptions. I use some judgement based on what I remember from reading the book. Someone might have been on two pages, but were discussed at some length.

They also add commentary sometimes, which I usually put in parentheses or delete.

I must say that this person or these people were very industrious.

I am also trying to standardize the entries for Popes, which I keep running across in this endeavor, since they vary:

Pope NameNumber
NameNumber, Pope
NameNumber
Saint NameNumber, Pope

I'm putting them in as NameNumber, Pope (Saint, dates) I'm doing the anti-popes as NameNumber, Antipope (dates)
I only add the Saint if applicable, and I don't look it up.
I add the dates if there, but I don't look them up.

I am not going down the entire list of popes, since some, like Linus, are never mentioned in People/Character. I figure that I'll run across them, if they're mentioned, in the larger project. If they are implied, as Adrian VI implies Adrians I-V, I do a check.

At this time, I am not standardizing references to Jesus, Simon Peter, saints, and the many variations on Kuan Yin. I tried to standardize the Monkey King from Chinese lore - that was a nightmare. I often use the standard, and then put the version that the author used in parentheses.

I've also been using the most common form, and putting the name used at a particular time in the person's life in parentheses.

firstname maidenname (now firstname marriedname)
firstname, Queen (as Princess firstname)

Edit: I'm revising this. I've decided to create a CK page for all the popes, so I am dropping the dates, although I personally like having them. Instead, in the parentheses I'm putting (Saint, layname), if applicable.

I'm now adding otherwise not referenced Popes to Chronicles of the Pope and Absolute Monarchs so that they will all have a page and standard form.

It turns out that Pope Linus has a lot of references to him, since he was an associate of Paul, and is mentioned in Paul's letters. He's in there as "Linus, associate of the Apostle Paul, d. ca. 79" with the Biblical citation added. I'm changing those - I see that the references form a concordance, but that can be found online.

>59 lilithcat: I look at the list of characters in the CK as something of a memory aide, which is why I may add in parentheses or brackets "Edith (Lady Jane's maid)". If Edith or other characters are mentioned several times in the book but are only identified once, I may forget who they are: for example, if Edith, Lady Jane's maid, lays out dress for the evening, and then 120 pages later, Edith comes to the door of the parlor, I may not recognize her as Lady Jane's maid. That way, I can run my eye down the list of people in the CK page, and not have to flip to the character descriptions, where I would have to explain that "Edith, in So-and-so's book, Something, is Lady Jane's maid."

One of the problems is that authors vary in naming minor characters. One may say that when Lady Jane went to her room, she saw that the chamber maid had been in and put it in order. Another may say that she saw that Mary, the chamber maid had been in and put it in order. Mary may never appear in the book again, so, to me, it's not worth listing her as a character if that's the only mention. I sometimes list everyone, and then cut out names that I don't think are useful.

If there's a series about Lady Jane, I'm more likely to put in "Lady Jane's maid" in brackets to pull her out of the multitude of Ediths and put something in the character description. I just did the characters for the Billy & Blaze series, in case someone wants to know which books Tommy appears in. In one series, the main character's newly discovered half-brother is the murder victim, so he appears alive only in Chapter 1. I identified him just in case the character reflects back on him in later books.

Also, in a series, a minor character may increase in importance or reoccur on and off, and I want to know who they are and in what books they appear. It frustrates me that one character appeared in one book of a series, and I didn't write them down, and then a few books later they reappear, and I'd like to read about their previous appearances.

That said, I don't put in everyone ever mentioned if it seems to be a one-off.

>69 PuddinTame: Honestly, if you can't remember a character while reading, I'd say it's not a character worth entering into CK. Not everyone with a name is a genuine character in a book. If not charactarized and you can't get even a handful of things about them from the book, they are just scenery

>68 PuddinTame: I can't say I blame you for not tackling those particular references. Also, thanks for letting me know how you're entering things so that when I come across them I know and won't just change them. Some of this is a matter of there not being much of a standard on how to enter things. In the Common Knowledge wiki it talks about characters whose titles vary over time, but the closest it gets to unchanging/historical ones is "Dr. Jekyll" and "Mr. Hyde". From those, I just inferred that it should be "Dr. Jekyll", rather than "Jekyll, Doctor", if that makes any sense. It doesn't help that the wiki can be edited and changed by anyone based on their personal preferences.

"I've also been using the most common form, and putting the name used at a particular time in the person's life in parentheses.

firstname maidenname (now firstname marriedname)
firstname, Queen (as Princess firstname)"

I really like that idea!

>69 PuddinTame: "One of the problems is that author's vary in naming minor characters. One may say that when Lady Jane went to her room, she saw that the chamber maid had been in and put it in order. Another may say that she saw that Mary, the chamber maid had been in and put it in order. Mary may never appear in the book again, so, to me, it's not worth listing her as a character if that's the only mention. I sometimes list everyone, and then cut out names that I don't think are useful."

Yeah, if an author just says that "she saw that Mary, the chamber maid had been in and put it in order" I don't add Mary to the list unless she actually appears (and is out-right NAMED; so something like "the entire house staff was gathered" doesn't count as "Mary" being mentioned to me even if she can reasonably be assumed to be there).

>71 Carmen.et.Error: I agree. If the reader doesn't even need to remember that the chamber maid is named Mary, there is no point.

I'm not sure what you mean about letting you know about how I enter names. Do you want my 30+ page list of philosophers, theologians, and popes? I'll try to finish off the implied popes first, in that case.

>10 susanbooks: Yes, I was very annoyed when they all traced back to one extremely self-entitled person. I see that there are a few additional accounts, but I suspect that they are the same person.

They also aren't even consistent in changing them. They will change them in the more academic studies, and leave, say, biographies for children in the correct form, or the person in a novel, so that the lists are split. Then most people who add books after that, seeing the correct form, use it.

>72 PuddinTame: LOL! No, that's not necessary. What I meant was, it's good to be aware of how other people are entering things or "fixing" them, so we don't just go around in endless circles of editing and re-editing.

One other problem I'd venture is the difference between Fiction and Non-fiction. It can be pretty easy to decide who to include from fiction works and how to label them. Non-fiction is a different kettle of fish as most things takes place in the context of the past and alternate titles and names abound!

>40 SandraArdnas: My feeling is different for fiction and non-fiction. I don't see that it actually hurts anything to have every character in a novel listed, although I don't do that. I tend to group fictional characters in the list in a way that I hope is helpful: e.g., groups of related people, or major characters towards the beginning and minor characters at the end.

In nonfiction, it can be frustrating because other readers are being pointed to a book that has little meaningful information. When the person is written about a lot, that can be a lot of searching, but on the other hand, if they are that famous, the title and description of the book will offer some clue as to which are most likely to have information.

Personally, my general rule in nonfiction is not to put the person in unless they have five references, partly because of the work involved in putting in everyone. I do break that.

In a field where there are few woman, I may bias my entries in favor of women, on the idea that someone looking for women in that field will appreciate the help.

There was one case I was so touched by the story of the death of a young soldier that I put him in, feeling that his valor deserved that one bit of recognition, even though his story was only part of one page.

I also make exceptions in cases where there is a reference like "140-142," if I remember that the person was discussed at length on those pages, or there was some odd-ball bit of information about a person unlikely to appear elsewhere.

Added: In a book which combined science with a lot of personal information, I deleted people who had five or more references, if all of them only referenced them accompanying their spouse to a party with no other information.

>75 PuddinTame: exceptions in cases where there is a reference like "140-142," if I remember that the person was discussed at length on those pages

Page references like this are very unhelpful in Common Knowledge.

1) They are unlikely to be true across different editions of the same work.

2) They will prevent identification of the same person or character across multiple works.

Sorry, I don't mean that I put in the page reference. I meant that although I do not normally include someone mentioned only three times, I'll put their name in if I know that they were discussed at length on those three pages.

I am currently going through long lists of names that were put in "lastname, firstname, dates" with the inclusion of page numbers. The page numbers were in parentheses, but I started deleting them so that I could put the dates, which I think are much more useful, in parentheses. At first, I was leaving them both in, but I decided that the results when one flips to the Person/Character page are better without the page references.

>77 PuddinTame: I started deleting them so that I could put the dates, which I think are much more useful, in parentheses

What? You are putting dates in the People/Characters CK field? Why? Please don't?

Here's another example of a slight quandry: "Alexander VI, Pope (Rodrigo de Borja or Borgia, 1431-1503)" is how I have standardized this individual. I keep finding that people have a similar reference to the pope, but also add Rodrigo de Borja (or Borgia) as a separate person. Granted, one may first encounter the person as "Rodrigo", and then wonder why he's not in the character list, but he is included in the parentheses of his papal name.

>78 paradoxosalpha: I leave them in where they were already there, they are of some use, but I don't add them, except to distinguish between people with the same name, as with the father, son, and grandson Charles Robert Darwin.

I suppose partly this is because in changing the "lastname, firstname, dates" that someone put in, I feeling slightly bad, when I don't feel angry, about destroying so much work by this self-entitled person. I've already changed at least a thousand, I'm sure, and there are many more than that to go. I keep wondering about the person or people who did this.

>79 PuddinTame: This is exactly one of the examples I had in mind in my response to you above.

>74 Carmen.et.Error: And the maddening thing is, I did a search of the various Pope Adrians, and then found that some people were using Adrianus, which of course didn't show up in my search. So they are now in the format "Adrian or Adrianus I, Pope," and I'll need to search them again. Fortunately, there aren't a lot of them.

>74 Carmen.et.Error: An example of what I'm doing:

They-Who-Shall-Remain-Nameless used: Haeckel, Ernst Heinrich Philipp August, 1834-1919

I'm replacing that with: Ernst Haeckel (Ernst Heinrich Philipp August, 1834-1919), so I'm am trying to preserve TWSRN's work, because I doubt it was in the index like that, while getting the main part in the customary form for LT, and combining it with those who used "Ernst Haeckel" to begin with.

>83 PuddinTame: That's typically what I try to do, too. But admittedly sometimes I just don't have the patience or time to do the combining for all of the entries that have been formatted that way. I'm amazed at the work you've put in so far!

>2 lilithcat: I'm new to LT, and I realize this post is dated 2020, BUT, what is a CK and where do you add those characters? Thank you

>85 MissysBookshelf:

CK is Common Knowledge. You'll find it on the author page and the work page. You can edit any of the fields by clicking on the pencil icon.

>71 Carmen.et.Error: I usually put titles after the names: Jane Grey, Lady Jane - she was a Lady in her own right. I put in the first name, because if she was the wife of a knight or baronet, she's Lady HusbandsLastname. If there was a Jane Grey who was a Lady because she was the wife of a baronet, I'd put Jane Grey, Lady Grey. If they don't have a first name, I use the title. Rulers are usually entered as: Firstname, Number, Title, so I figure that's the most consistent. It gets tricky with titles like "Sir," Sir Isaac Newton is usually entered as Isaac Newton. People are not infrequently knighted after they become famous under their name, and are still usually referred to by their name.

There was one person among the entries that is Mrs. Husbandfirstname Husbandlastname.

Maybe the new iteration will deal with these issues.

>78 paradoxosalpha: I'm beginning to think that dates are useful for people with single names. Someone had a Saint Martin as a People/Character, and I wouldn't have been able to tell which one if it hadn't had dates. Of course, now that I know that it is Martin of Tours, I don't need a date. Unfortunately, there were no dates for Pope Adeodatus, so I don't know which one is meant.

Shriek! - I am not planning on doing all the saints, but in the Pope subsection of my standardization project, I am finding that some of the Popes are saints. Some of the saints, Francis of Assisi, for example, have no indication that they are saints, except for a few within parentheses. Others are prefaced by "Saint." I had been putting the papal saints in the format "Linus, Pope (Saint)." I also have their original name in parentheses, if there was one. Would "Linus, Pope & Saint be better? The problem is, then, to be consistent, Saint would have to be added to all the Francis of Assisi entries. With saints with only one name, for example Saint Monica, "Monica (Saint)" would be mixed with all the other Monicas on the Person/Character page, whereas "Monica, Saint" would have a separate page. That would again require changing "Francis of Assisi" to "Francis of Assisi, Saint." Then again, it could be a separate practice for Saints without distinctive names. Then again, maybe there aren't enough saints that don't of distinctive names to worry about.

Yet another point, as people are beatified or sainted, if it's in parentheses, it doesn't require a new P/C page.

I'm also thinking, as I work on this, that leaving the date in parentheses for a person with a single name does help to distinguish them from other people with the same name.

Added, I've decided to do a CK page entry for all the Popes. They're all in Wikipedia.

>56 bergs47: My issue with this is that, for me, the list of characters in on the main page has different uses that the CK page that gathers all mentions of a character, i.e., where all the "Sallys" end up. I'll put someone who is a minor character, and only has a single name like Sally in the Main Page list to remind me of who they are, like "Edith (Lady Jane's maid)," because, as I explained else where, if the first mention is the "Edith laid out Lady Jane's dress for the evening," and 120 pages later, Edith appears at the door of the parlor, I may not remember who she is. To me, the advantage of the Main Page list of characters is that I can run my eye down the entire list in one place. We may not know enough about Edith to make having her own character description worth while.

For series, especially children's series, where characters may have only one name, I use brackets, as in "Billy Billy & Blaze," to give the character a separate CK page. For the main character, that may seem unnecessary, since they are in every book, but for characters like Tommy Billy & Blaze, it lets the reader know what book they are in.

>78 paradoxosalpha: Why do you object to dates? I think that they are useful, but I know that some people object to almost anything in parentheses.

>91 PuddinTame: Why do you object to dates?

They aren't called for. Any additional details will tend to fracture common knowledge and prevent correlation between works on the field in question. If I enter "John Dee," I want it to connect to all the other entries of "John Dee." If I enter "John Dee (13 July 1527 – 1608 or 1609)" it probably won't.

The picklist functionality does offer some redemption here, offering your dated names to users making later entries. But if you enter dates, are you going through and changing all of the previously-entered instances? How are you sure that they are ones to which the dates are applicable? I'd rather have undifferentiated "John Dee" entries than have the 16th-century dates entered falsely for a different John Dee who lived in the 20th century.

Edited to add: A big lump of "Sally" doesn't bother me at all. It's not super useful, but it can at least be true that there are all these different characters who are named no more specifically than Sally.

The information entered in parentheses does not affect, or show up in, the search for the name. It would if it was in brackets, which is why I put the dates for the three Charles Robert Darwins in brackets. As it was, people were unable to tell which Charles Robert Darwin was meant, and they had the father lumped with the son or grandson. I spent a couple of hours straightening them out. I think that your John Dee example is likely to have the same problem. How do you distinguish between the 16th century John Dee and a 20th century namesake if not by dates?

There is no need to add the dates to any previously entered instances. Since the dates are in parentheses, they don't affect collection of names. When a person looked at the Common Knowledge page, some instances would have dates and some wouldn't, but they would all be on the same page.

In case it's not clear, "Plato, dates" would be collected separately from "Plato" or "Plato (dates)". The later two would be on the same page. If the dates were in brackets, that would file in a third place.

>66 susanbooks: I do that for people who aren't actually characters in the book, but are important in the backstory.

We have had a number of disagreements about how many People/Characters we should include. Having just finished Babur, Emperor of Hindustan, I wish that there was more agreement that the subject of a biography or autobiography should be listed. Most of the books on Babur didn't list him. Many people also did not assume that the Memoirs of Babur was written by Babur, (standardized as Zahir-ud-din Muhammad Babur.) At least if they had put "Babur" I could have combined the authors.

>95 PuddinTame:

How does not having someone listed in the People/Characters section of CK prevent you from combining authors?

I never thought that the person writing the book is an actual character in the book. ETA: Correcting this to say never thought about it.
But I also don't read a lot of biographies or memoirs.

Though sometimes, a first person narrator isn't given a name so it's hard to put into the field. (I refuse to enter "First Person Narrator" or "Narrator" as a character, unless so named.)

I absolutely think that the subject of a autobiography or memoir should be listed as a person/character. I don't see why they wouldn't be.

>96 lilithcat: I must have been a little confusing. I meant that if the title of an autobiography is "the Memoirs of Babur," you'd think that most people would deduce that Babur was the author, as well as a person/character.

Added: There were some copies of the Memoirs of Babur that have different authors listed. Since I don't have all these books, I don't know whether the book is an edition of the Memoirs, or a discussion of them. So I leave the main author as the person selected by someone who presumably saw the actual volume, but add "Babur, Emperor of Hindustan" as a Person/Character'

Here's the thing about dates, and other identifying information. I'm working on my sub-project regarding standardizing the entries for the popes. I came across an entry for Saint So-and-so. There are two sainted Pope So-and-sos. There are also about a half-dozen Saints So-and-so. So I just made a Common Knowledge page with a description listing all the Saint So-and-sos that might be referenced here, since I don't have the book and can't check. I do the same when people list Pope Such-and-such, without the number. It turns out, some of those are technically antipopes.

Has anyone any suggestions on how to handle "Sir". Some people preface the name with "Sir", sometimes it's in parentheses, and sometimes it's left off. Hence: "Saint Thomas More," "Sir Thomas More," "Thomas More", "Thomas More (Sir, Saint, 1478-1535)" and "Thomas More, Lord Chancellor," and Thomas More (Lord Chancellor)" For the last, I would rather use "(as Lord Chancellor) if it refers to that brief (2-1/2 years in his life). There are four other Thomas Mores in Wikipedia. There is also a contemporary fantasy writer named Thomas More.

We could append the "Sir" like a title "Thomas More, Sir", but that isn't often done. I prefer to lead with the name, as people who were knighted more recently often aren't usually referred to by their title, and add "(Sir)" if desired. Things in parentheses don't affect the collection of names. Isaac Newton is Sir Isaac Newton, but he is rarely referred to that way, including in LibraryThing, but there are four books under "Sir Isaac Newton."

Added: I have forgotten the Sir Thomas Wyatts, father and son. In Wikipedia, they are Thomas Wyatt and Thomas Wyatt the Younger. There are the same problems with the "Sir" as with Thomas More, but there is also the distinction between the two men which is frequently not indicated. I am proposing:

Thomas Wyatt (Sir, Poet, 1503-1542), and
Thomas Wyatt the Younger (Sir, 1521-1554)

Since I am trying to standardize books that I haven't necessarily seen, I think it's pretty clear that books on Henry VIII and literature are the father, whereas books about Mary I and Elizabeth I are probably the son, since he led a rebellion, The Wyatt Rebellion, against Mary I's marriage to the future Phillip II of Spain. I may end up with a page saying: "Thomas Wyatt (Sir) could refer to . . ."

>101 PuddinTame: These are good questions. It might be helpful to start a new thread for them so they don't get lost!

>101 PuddinTame: I think I remember seeing use the name only but I can't find it now. On https://wiki.librarything.com/index.php/HelpThing:Addnew It simply says enter the name. It doesn't mention including any titles or honorifics.

"Author's name in the format Last, First. The dropdown box allows you to specify a role, or can be left blank."

>101 PuddinTame:, >103 Taphophile13:

Don't get me started on titled authors: https://www.librarything.com/author/halifaxviscountcharl

Strictly speaking, the correct style is Charles Lindley Wood, 2nd Viscount Halifax. His father was styled Charles Wood, 1st Viscount Halifax, and his son was styled Edward Frederick Lindley Wood, 3rd Viscount Halifax and 1st Earl of Halifax. From what I recall when I was sorting that page out, that was the 2nd (or possibly the 3rd) creation of the title - the earlier holders were the Saville family which went extinct in 1700.

I remember having to sort that one out; both father and son were identified as Lord Halifax as author on the book pages - which is how they would have been published. It's even more complicated when the same title is recreated at a later date after an earlier line becomes extinct - see the Savilles mentioned on that page, or where a title holder gets an upgrade - the elder Lord Halifax was Vicount Halifax, as was the younger after his father's death. The younger Lord Halifax was subsequently created the Earl of Halifax - note the addition of 'of'.