Aliasing: is it no longer ok?

Question for combiners. Sorry in advance if this has already been discussed in a separate thread.

There's a prolific 'helper' who seems very anti-alias. They frequently undo aliasing, not because the results are objectively incorrect (i.e. aliasing to the wrong author), but because in their opinion changing an author is better than aliasing. This sometimes comes with warnings on my profile page to the effect that Aliasing Is Bad. I'm sure this person would say i'm misrepresenting their position but that's really how it comes across.

I'm kind of a solitary combiner; i only post here when i need help or i'm not sure about something. So it's possible that i missed a conversation about aliasing being sub-optimal. My sense has long been that this person is imposing their view of the right way to organize LT - but i thought it was important to double-check.

Aliasing is perfectly fine.

You didn't miss anything.

Why would we have aliasing if we weren't supposed to use it?

>3 aspirit:

You'd have to ask whoever it is grousing at >1 I-_-I:.

>4 lilithcat: Are you really advising stirring that pot?

>5 abbottthomas:

Just pointing out that if >3 aspirit: wants an answer the question, s/he's asking the wrong person.

I have no idea who is leaving the messages for >1 I-_-I: or if there is a pot.

There are some people who believe that "clean looking" data is more important than having people's links lead to the correct pages and making the place work properly for non-English speakers and casual users. Most combiners are not in that camp - we are threading the middle line usually.

Aliasing is fine. So is combining authors who look like empty ones (only look like empty ones - because their only title is now combined into its proper work). Changing the author name has its place but it is not a replacement for aliasing and combining, just one more tool to be used.

So don't worry and keep up what you are doing - and if something does not make sense, we are a pretty chatty group here when we are trying to find the best solution for something ;)

We have been told to only change an author as a last resort when it is really wrong, or nothing else works.

>1 I-_-I: Tell her to shove off and if she persists then report her.

I'll give you an example of when I'll change a name rather than aliasing.

Earlier today, I came across one of those single name pages (usually a surname, but in this case it was a name that could be either a surname or first name). Let's say it was "Martin" (it wasn't). Now, I could have split it and aliased "Martin (2)" to "Martin Smith", and "Martin (3)" to "James Martin". But it made more sense to go to the Work pages and use the "other authors" field to enter the correct names and get the works on the right author page.

>4 lilithcat: my question was rhetorical and meant for the thread, not for I-_-I, who we already know enters aliases. Anyway, I would have to ask the LT team, not the anti-alias member.

>9 bernsad: That's been done; to no avail. I've lost lots of research in CK and disambiguation because of one determined, almost predatory member who haunts the records pages and re-does authors to suit her quirky understanding of how it must be done.

If this is the user is think it might be, havent they made a claim of having been a system administrator? (Which that I know of, they never were...)

>13 gilroy: I initially misread that post as well. Pretty sure the user was quoting another user's claim to that effect, rather than making that claim with respect to themselves.

>1 I-_-I: As others have said; you're doing fine. Aliasing is there for a reason.

Thanks all. I appreciate your responses.

If anyone wants a bit more context, see the division history for Bruce Berman. A cryptic and unhelpful message was also left (in all caps!) in the disambiguation notice. I wouldn't have been too bothered if the member had changed the author name and removed the alias. The fact that they chose instead to re-assign those two works from Bruce Berman (2) to Bruce Berman (unknown) was a bit much for me.
I contacted the member to inquire as to their rationale for opposing aliasing, suggesting that although they might not like it, it's a legitimate way to organize LT. Their last message to me was, and i quote, "I've decided you can't learn. I am going to block you, and I will just fix your errors. It will be easier for me than trying to explain simple facts that you do not wish to grasp simply because I know more than you do."

So there you have it. Glad to hear that aliasing is indeed still legit, but perplexed that this one member seems so intent on imposing their view of the right and wrong way of combining.

>16 I-_-I: Report them to staff.

>18 amanda4242: Yes, please do that.

>18 amanda4242: Yep, report them. Even IF they were right, this kind of message is unacceptable.

Ok, will do. The messages have been deleted but I have screenshots :)

This person has also declared that I can't learn, although I eventually got back on their good side. I figured it was better to do things their way than have my work undone. I thought it was rude, but not worth reporting to staff. What happens when someone gets reported to staff? Do they just get a warning?