"Lauren Chance"

First, nobody do anything to this, okay?

I fear I've got to bring up a topic again--what I see as members misusing the ability to alias divisions into other authors.

My example is the author "Lauren Henderson." There are two Lauren Hendersons, split as such. I mean the first one—the chick-it author (see https://www.librarything.com/author/hendersonlauren-1).

Henderson is the author's real name. She also goes by the pen-name "Rebecca Chance", but most of her books were published under her real name, and especially her most popular. Indeed, you have to go to #19 by popularity to get the first "Rebecca Chance" book.

Unfortunately, someone has aliased Lauren Henderson (1) (that is, hendersonlauren-1) into Rebecca Chance. So now every Henderson book dead-ends at chance.

This seems completely backward to me. Why not combine the name Rebecca Chance into Lauren Henderson, and then split Henderson out into #1 and #2?

I object to this anyway, but especially because it's making it impossible to incorporate author bio data. The LT system follows combinations and divisions to the end, so every "Lauren Henderson (1)" book is marked as being by "Rebecca Chance." Unfortunately the author bios don't call her Rebecca Chance, because Chance is not a real person, and, as a pen-name, was never successful enough to get her own separate author bio.

Does anyone have a contrary opinion? I see this pattern all over the place and I think the time has come to fix it.

>1 timspalding: Why not combine the name Rebecca Chance into Lauren Henderson, and then split Henderson out into #1 and #2?

Because it's way easier to manage one non-split author with all of their works on one page than it is to manage a bunch of authors on the same split page, even if that non-split author ends up with the name of a secondary pseudonym.

And then what if there are two Rebecca Chance? Or several? Then EVERY Rebecca Chance would be combined with EVERY Lauren Henderson, when really only one Lauren Henderson and one Rebecca Chance are the same person. If there were a way to combine "Lauren Henderson #1" and "Rebecca Chance #2" together into a completely separate author page, that would solve the problem. But there isn't.

No one thinks this is a perfect method, it just creates slightly less problems than any other currently available way of managing splits and aliasing.

In this particular case, wikipedia says she's been publishing exclusively as Rebecca Chance since 2012.
https://www.rebeccachanceauthor.com/meet-rebecca has a biography of Rebecca Chance, as well as links to very active Facebook and Twitter accounts.
Penguin's author page for Lauren Henderson (https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/authors/12603/lauren-henderson) links to her MySpace page and shows her author website as laurenhenderson dot net which I won't link to because it's now a poker website.

>2 norabelle414: And then what if there are two Rebecca Chance?

I've never been a fan of keeping pseudonyms separate on the off chance another author with that name pops up. I'd rather separate a name if it ever becomes necessary than have to keep track of multiple author pages for one person. That being said, being able to alias to a split author would simplify so much.

+1 Alias to Split Authors.

>1 timspalding:

Does anyone have a contrary opinion?

Yes. This has been mooted before, and a lot of people objected.

it's making it impossible to incorporate author bio data.

I don't see why. Users can fill in the CK fields on both author pages.

>2 norabelle414: Because it's way easier to manage one non-split author with all of their works on one page than it is to manage a bunch of authors on the same split page, even if that non-split author ends up with the name of a secondary pseudonym.

In what sense is it easier? An author publishes under two names? COMBINE THOSE NAMES. That's the whole point of the combination system. If someone else uses one of those names, well, that's why we have a splitting system.

And then what if there are two Rebecca Chance? Or several? Then EVERY Rebecca Chance would be combined with EVERY Lauren Henderson, when really only one Lauren Henderson and one Rebecca Chance are the same person.

Okay. Let's do that.

I don't see why. Users can fill in the CK fields on both author pages.

I have a million author bios from publishers I'd like to use. Having authors under names that aren't their normal, real name is a problem. It's a problem generally. It's the problem the whole combination problem was intended to solve.

Okay, so if we have a way to move all of Rebecca Chance into Lauren Henderson #1—and only 1—that would do it, right?

I don't understand why people are unwilling to do the very thing the system was designed to do—combine names. If we don't combine names then every single name variant is going to have to be separately combined. Combining names will be dead.

Of course, some variants won't go into Joe Schmo #1 or Joe Schmo #4, but Joe Schmo #1 AND Joe Schmo #4—but not #2, #3 and #5. So people will ask for that. It's maddness. Combine, then split. Just combine them, and then split.

Well, I flipped it around. I see no problems now, except what is (for me) a non-problem, the URL has "rebeccachance" in it.

Clearly the system doesn't work for people, and will need a complete overhaul. Names aren't unique and users are unwilling to combine names. They see it as combining people.

I think we have to give up on names per se, and just go all the way and make authors a clump of works and nothing more. When a new work enters the system, it can perhaps guess what author clump it should go into, but we need to get away from the idea that names can be combined or authors split. Names aren't unique, and people aren't split, so we might as well stop trying to use such a concept.

The big problem there, however, is that LT isn't just works, but also books, etc. The way LT combines names makes it possible for an oddly-named edition to still end up in the probably right place. That will be the tricky part.

>8 timspalding:

if we have a way to move all of Rebecca Chance into Lauren Henderson #1—and only 1—that would do it, right?

I think so.

I don't understand why people are unwilling to do the very thing the system was designed to do—combine names.

But do we really want the "John Jones" page to include "John D. Jones" and "John S. Jones" and "John David Jones" and "John Russell Jones"? Because that's what will happen and it will be a mess.

>9 timspalding:

I see no problems now

So you combined Rebecca Chance and Lauren Henderson, but it's not possible for me when I go to the author page to know which Lauren Henderson is also Rebecca Chance.

except what is (for me) a non-problem, the URL has "rebeccachance

It is a problem because it will be confusing for other users. If I go to the "Lauren Henderson(2)" page, and see "chancerebecca-2" in the URL, my first reaction will be that something has gone awry.

But do we really want the "John Jones" page to include "John D. Jones" and "John S. Jones" and "John David Jones" and "John Russell Jones"? Because that's what will happen and it will be a mess.

If John D. Jones publishes under the name John Jones then, yes, they should be combined. That's not a mess. That's what name-combination is. Combine, then split.

It's far more logical to split John Jones, and alias the appropriate split to John D. Jones.

Your way, if there are 20 John Jones, the user cannot tell which John Jones is John D. Look at your Lauren Henderson page. As I said in >11 lilithcat:, it's not possible to tell which is also Rebecca Chance. Now multiply that.

>13 lilithcat: it's not possible to tell which is also Rebecca Chance

Isn't that what the disambiguation notice is for?

Please no. I will completely abandon any work on authors if we go this route. It is just too messy and not worth my time then. Split authors are difficult to manage even without adding in those who should be aliased.

>14 amanda4242:

But there isn't one. And we cannot assume that people who combine authors will create a disambiguation notices. They often don't.

And, as I said in >11 lilithcat:, if you believe the URLs, they're both Rebecca Chance.

>16 lilithcat: I just added a disambiguation notice so now we do know. Laziness on the part of some combiners isn't a good reason not to combine.

if you believe the URLs, they're both Rebecca Chance
So we ignore the URLs and encourage people to write disambiguation notices to explain why they don't match.

There are other cases in which URLs don't match and we don't worry about it. For example, I just combined Riley Black with Brian Switek; the URL shows Switek, but I wrote a disambiguation notice to explain why Black is the name to use.

Yeah. I don't see any way around this. I think we need a new author system, where there's no combinations, splits or aliasing. Authors are clumps of works.

>17 amanda4242: A complete and unnecessary mess is a good reason not to combine. So is allowing those who have the non-split author entered to arrive at that page and not the split one, where they should wade through all the splits. This is such a terrible idea that I'm having a headache just thinking about the way author pages will be to handle if it is implemented. I was hoping the new author page will make it easier to handle those who have to be split, but instead we are going down the route of making it even more messy?!?

>19 SandraArdnas: A complete and unnecessary mess is a good reason not to combine.

Both ways are a mess, in my opinion.

>18 timspalding:

I think we need a new author system, where there's no combinations, splits or aliasing.

Then you'll need to figure out a way to have homonymous authors on separate pages. Which might also help with problems like the "Paula/Paul A. Smith" issue: https://www.librarything.com/author/smithpaula

>21 lilithcat: Yes! That always throws me when I come across it.

I was hoping the new author page will make it easier to handle those who have to be split, but instead we are going down the route of making it even more messy?!?

To be clear, the new author pages—coming relatively soon—will not change any of this. We are changing the author PAGE, not the structure of the system. A system change would have to come later.

>22 amanda4242:

Y'know, it occurs to me that the Paula/Paul A. issue is another reason to be concerned about a changing URL. One can now look at the URL and see what the problem is. If Paula has a pseudonym that now becomes the name in the URL, the problem is no longer obvious.

>24 lilithcat: If Paula has a pseudonym that now becomes the name in the URL, the problem is no longer obvious.

And that's what disambiguation notices are for.

It may not seem like it, but I do believe there are very good reasons for keeping separate or separating names and aliasing. I also believe there are cases when it's better to combine names and then split. Some examples:

1. Separating and aliasing: Jean Plaidy and Victoria Holt
Jean Plaidy and Victoria Holt are two of the many pseudonyms employed by Eleanor Hibbert, and there are multiple authors who also publish as Victoria Holt. In this case it makes more sense to separate Victoria Holt, split the Holt page, and then alias Victoria Holt-1 into Plaidy.

2. Combining and then splitting: Jodi Taylor and Isabella Barclay
There are two Jodi Taylors, one of whom wrote one book under the name Isabella Barclay; the Taylor/Barclay book is the only one on the Barclay author page. It would be absurd to alias Jodi Taylor-1 into Barclay, but by keeping the names separate we have to add links and notices across multiple pages to signal that yes, they are the same person. It would be simpler to combine the names and then split. Isabella Barclay can be separated if a second author by that name appears.

>20 amanda4242: Except for the small difference that we'll be making a mess of the non-split one, which is otherwise not a mess. Plus, we're underestimating here how much more difficult multiple-split authors will become to manage.

>26 SandraArdnas: Except for the small difference that we'll be making a mess of the non-split one, which is otherwise not a mess.

It may not be a mess by itself, but it's a mess when you are trying to find works by the same author.

>18 timspalding: Yes, please. You mentioned some time ago changing author page addresses to numerical, which I assume will enable one author-one page system. That would enable combining as outlined in the OP. Aside from that, we will only occasionally need to assign stray works to a proper page.

In the "Paula Smith" vs. "Paul A. Smith" example, one way to handle it would be to use

Smith,Paula

Smith,Paul_A

Use lower case if you must.

If you find that the comma is a problem for URL encoding, you can use a hyphen in that place.

I know this is all pretty obvious and I'm sure it has been considered. I just wanted to express that there are ways of handling things to resolve the edge cases.

I can't see combinations and separations going away since there are too many names where the same or similar name has been used by people over time. In an artist I am studying, he has an uncle named George Harvey and a great uncle also named George Harvey. Both were artists. Then you add in the cases where there's no association other than the same name. It is messy but necessary for real world data.

James

>27 amanda4242: All the works are on the 'aliased to' page. The difference is only which one has all the works

>30 SandraArdnas: And when they're combined they are all on the same page. How is that messier?

>31 amanda4242: Seriously? How is it messier to combine in numerous 'aliased to' authors to split ones?

But instead of arguing about the system that is difficult to handle anyway, I'll stick to endorsing a new one author-one page system in the foreseeable future.

>32 SandraArdnas: More work maybe, but I find it less confusing.

My most difficult case, that I never solved, is https://www.librarything.com/work/22639806.

The author and illustrator are cousins with the same name.

>34 MarthaJeanne:

Oh, that's impossible. God.

A page for each homonymous author would also help with messes like these:

https://www.librarything.com/author/communitydevelopment
https://www.librarything.com/author/thewomansauxiliaryof

I thought we ran into problems with lumping where there were more names to be split than the system allowed.
For some reason I'm thinking Anonymous was one but that looks like it has only 92 splits. But I always thought if you lumped all John Jones together on a page, including all the initials and middle names, it would overwhelm the system with regard to splitting into proper author pages...

gilroy (#37):

I vaguely remember a problem a long time ago with authors like "Anonymous" running out of splits, and an increase in the allowed number of splits as a workaround/solution, but I can't find the topic.

Even now it gets harder after a while because we run out of colours.

At the moment, when we alias a split, such as
Ann Author (2) -> Rare Pseud
this would be done by putting the author code pseudrare into (2) on the divisions page for authorann

Would it be a solution to make a button/option/click-thing next to where this happens, to tell the page, for that split, to do that alias in reverse? ie.
Ann Author (2) <- Rare Pseud

Each author split, as now, would operate independent of each other, so it would be possible to have
Ann Author (1) not aliased
Ann Author (2) <- Rare Pseud (new reverse option deployed)
Ann Author (3) -> Ann Other Author (default aliasing as now)
Ann Author (4) not aliased
Ann Author (5) -> Antonia Author (default aliasing as now)
Most times it will be commonsensical which way the alias should point, and cases can always be discussed and consensus reached same as now when deciding whether to combine and split or separate and alias.

Then, at present the disambiguation page has the message:
Works have been aliased into Rare Pseud (with hyperlink to /pseudrare)

An alias where the reverse option has been ticked might make it say something like:
Works include the alias Rare Pseud (with hyperlink to /pseudrare)

And, on the author pages involved in the alias, currently an aliased author name has the message at the top:
Ann Author (2) has been aliased into Rare Pseud (with hyperlink to /pseudrare)

An alias with the reverse option might have the message at the top:
Rare Pseud is an alias of Ann Author (2) (with hyperlink to /authorann-2)

This wouldn't address the problem when both author names are split (inability to alias beyond the top level), but could that one be solved by allowing the author code box to accept & interpret suffixed author codes? Some change to the URL generated by the splitting process? That's a thing encompassing all aliasing though anyway, and not directly a barrier here.