WeRelate:Suggestions/Streamline Add Source


Original Suggestion and Discussion

When I add a source part of the information I am allowed to specify, on the "Step 2. Review possible matches" screen, is "Surname:" and "Subject:". If I fill in these fields, and then add (even if I search again in between to make sure the system has captured my input), the data does not make it onto the newly created Source page. On the other hand, the one piece of information that I almost always want to enter (for books anyway) is year of publication and that is never asked for. Year of publication is very important for copyright considerations. This means I must also do a follow-on edit to add the year of publication when it seems like it might be a simple addition to allow this to be put in earlier on in the process? --Jrich 12:51, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

I'll do this. I'm trying to finish a new similar-name function this week; as soon as that's ready, I'll work on this and the parents/spouse name that we talked about in another suggestion.--Dallan 19:28, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

Neutral watchers


Admin follow up (Nov 2016)

We are currently working through the backlog of old suggestions. Due to the length of time since initial submission, it is possible that this request is no longer needed or that a workaround has been found. Please help us to prioritize our current workflow by either reaffirming the need for this request as is or updating it.

Analysis: Surname and Subject data entries still do not transfer to initial Source edit screen and Date issued is still not an available entry field during Source page creation.

Status: Open
Priority: 3 (low)

Note: This Suggestion will be moved to the archive if no further response or objection is received within 10 days. --cos1776 18:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Your analysis clearly indicates it has not been fixed. And clearly the title is to streamline a process, i.e., it can be done in multiple steps (i.e., by adding a source and then editing the source page in a separate operation to add all these other fields). So if the criteria is, is a workaround available, yes there always has been even when the suggestion was written, but does it make sense? No, I don't see how date published isn't the most important field after title and author. Besides often identifying which edition is used, date published indicates whether the source may or may not be under copyright which is important in patrolling postings to see if they might violate copyright, and for a reader interested in the cited source, gives a useful indication whether the source might be found online or if one might have to visit a non-virtual library. --Jrich 05:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Additional comments

If implemented, I would suggest putting Date issued field on first screen (Step 1) along with the other publisher entry fields that are currently pushed thru. However, since it is standard practice here to create one source page for multiple reprints of the same work unless distinction is needed, Search for existing sources needs to return any/all pages that might exist under various dates and some type of precaution taken to avoid duplicates when one source page is sufficient. --cos1776 18:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)