Template talk:Philip K. Dick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Novels (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Partial italicization of a link?[edit]

I've been trying to make the link to The Owl in Daylight read "The Owl in Daylight (unfinished)" but I haven't been able to figure out a way to include "(unfinished)" in the blue link text without having it also turn out italicized. Anybody know if there's a way? Augustus Chip (talk) 20:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. –Fred Bradstadt (talk) 20:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Augustus Chip (talk) 21:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

New template design[edit]

How about merging all three of the current templates for Dick into a single one? The Edger Alan Poe template would be a good model to use.--Cast (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving along, since no one is responding, I'll implement the template in an effort to centralize the template editing. If it is deemed undesirable, we can undue the change and hash out an alternative.--Cast (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The template results are problematic. Mostly in the Novels section is where I noticed this. Some have dates for when they were written and some for when they were published. The 1950s has a number of novels listed that weren't published until the 1980s or later. Perhaps there is something about the way the PKD bibliography is organized that causes some works to appear in incorrect fields of the template. It's very confusing for people who don't know the chronology at least roughly. BTW, I've always assumed the dates referred to year of publication but when looking into the template I didn't see anything that explicitly states what the dates are. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the chronological order of publication, but I also assumed those were the intended purpose. I didn't date each entry. I just converted them from the previous template. Feel free to update this on your own if you have proper information. --Cast (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I have the bibliolographical information but don't know how to edit such a template and this is not one that should be edited a little at a time as that would just make it more confusing and probably look like I was vandalizing it. I don't have a reliable internet connection either. Possibly I could do a copy and paste to a sandbox, edit there then use that to copy and paste in editing the template but that would take a lot of time and effort for something that might not even work. I think the correct information is all here on Wikipedia, perhaps with a few errors that could be cleaned up individually later. I think the errors are likely due to an unusual layout of fields in PKD Bibliography article and/or other sections and perhaps inconsistencies in the templates you merged (which may not even have existed at that time). Composition dates of PKD works have long been a big deal in scholarly circles and this seems to be reflected in some nonstandard organization/layout of the Bibliography article; at any rate I think I read some comment about nonstandard layout on the talk page of that article. My thought was that this could be quickly corrected with some tool, gadget or whatever the technical term. Is there some tag I could use or somewhere to request "expert help" to fix this? Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I think you're making the classic mistake among new editors. You're over complicating this. The number of complaints and accusations of vandalism you can expect depends on how many people really depend on this template, and how many would be driven to complain. I doubt that number is high. Even if it were high, you could ignore them and keep editing, expecting people to notice your activity, or you could just explain to them that this is an ongoing process and ask that they remain patient. Stop assuming that you're bothering other people before they even raise an objection. Further, you're making the editing process sound much more difficult than it is. If you look at the coding for this template, it's actually very, very straight forward. There is a list of titles, and next to each a date of publication. Just move down the list one title at a time. If you don't want to do the whole list in a single edit, just do it in sections. If you think you don't have time for this, just remember that you could have done it all in the same number of edits it took for you to leave these messages here and on my talk page. Now enjoy editing this list, and thank you for your interest. --Cast (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Spot for The Exegesis of Philip K. Dick?[edit]

Does someone want to find a spot for The Exegesis of Philip K. Dick in this template? Any takers? TuckerResearch (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)