"deleted" series shows up on book page, working as expected?

**ETA: see msg 4 for the open bug report**
***ETA2: has evolved into a conversation about adding author names to series title, starts at msg 10***

https://www.librarything.com/work/16158458/book/204423755

Clicking on the first series listed:

Brings me to "This is a deleted series." :

>1 Corinne2020: Pretty sure this is a bug. You can remove the deleted series from the work page by removing it in the series and works relationships module, but it *should* have been automatically removed when the series was deleted.

There are a lot of these.

Found the bug report.

https://www.librarything.com/topic/326925

For it to be removed from book page, you must first delete all works, then delete the series. It's possible to undelete series, delete all works and redelete series, but hopefully this will be fixed to avoid all the unnecessary hoops to do it.

thanks for the comments, lessons and the re-direct with a bump to the bug report.

This is actually working as Tim designed it. Because it was mentioned multiple times during the initial creation phase of the new Series module and ignored. The bug has been around for about the same amount of time without any admin input.

Wow, I wouldn't have guessed there were two different series called Penric and Desdemona. Seems pretty improbable.

>8 Stevil2001: The series in question was deleted because it was a duplicate, not because there are two different series with this name.

As a result of the way the old series system was set up, when the entries were converted to the new series system, it resulted in a lot of duplicate entries (i.e., any differences in spelling or capitalization were treated as different series, as were foreign language variants of the same series). To eliminate the redundant series, users can either combine them with the appropriate series entries, or delete them.

>9 spiphany: Oh, I assumed that if the author's name was in the series title, it was to disambiguate it from another series with the same name. Why else have a name that long and unwieldy?

>10 Stevil2001: I'm not sure why the author's name was added in this case. To my knowledge there is no other series with that name, or even close enough to cause confusion.

>10 Stevil2001: Ah, I hadn't noticed that. I agree, it does seem redundant (particularly since the new series system is set up to calculate authors for series anyway, so there's additional disambiguation built in even in cases of multiple series with the same name).

I was wondering why author's names were in series titles. I'm not a fan of it but wasn't going to touch it.
More examples
- https://www.librarything.com/nseries/2147/Song-of-the-Lioness-Quartet-%7BTamora-...

- https://www.librarything.com/nseries/77/Pern-%7BAnne%25252F-Todd%25252F-Gigi-McC...

- https://www.librarything.com/nseries/2506/Pern-Dragonriders-of-Pern-original-tri...

- https://www.librarything.com/nseries/315/Memory-Sorrow-and-Thorn-%7BTad-Williams...

- https://www.librarything.com/nseries/1490/Osten-Ard-%7BTad-Williams%7D

The author's name is needed if there are several series with the same or very similar name. Otherwise I think it should not be included in the series name.

After all, the author's name is right there on the series page, right there on the work page.

>11 amanda4242: , >12 spiphany: , >13 Corinne2020: Looking at the edit history on a few of these series, it looks like a newer user doesn't understand the convention and keeps adding it. The edit histories are looking a little like edit wars. I'm not in a great state of mind right now to be polite in asking the user to stop so will leave the messaging to someone else.

>15 gilroy: possibly the user does not understand that this is shared data. Or not caring.

>13 Corinne2020: et al: I've dropped the member a note asking if they'd be willing to discuss the matter here.

I'm sorry if it upset you but I was doing it to be helpful (going by the guidelines in the 'new series, best practices' threads). Currently when you type in a series touchstone it pulls up a whole heap of matches including the old, deleted series and, without opening another window and going into each one, it is extremely difficult to decipher which one relates to the series you intend to talk about. Typing in [[[Pern]]], for example, brings up 53 possible series.

So I do it
a) to clarify ambiguity (I appreciate that it is improbable that Penric and Desdemona would refer to another series - but never say impossible);
b) to distinguish new series from old series;
c) for consistency.

If you could post it in the 'best practices' thread, I will keep an eye on the discussion there.

>18 humouress: So instead of bringing it up for discussion, you decided fo make up a format and change the data for everyone on the site based on your personal preferences? Why not add {new} or {valid} instead? It will achieve the same goal and can later be dropped automatically from the developers once those issues with discoverability and what’s not are fixed.

Implementing your own solution and even getting into what amounts to edit wars to enforce it is not nice and not helpful… plus if you are the only one who understands your own format, you are not helping anyone to find the series besides yourself.

>19 AnnieMod: No. As I said, I was going by what was discussed in the best practices thread.

>20 humouress: No one ever agreed in that thread to add the author name to every series unless I somehow missed it despite checking it all the time. Can you please point out where (in which message) this agreement was reached exactly? Thanks.

>21 AnnieMod: I recall some mention but it may have been in the context of disambiguating two unrelated series with the same name by different authors.

I've been doing some disambiguating with the RPG cataloging I'm doing - I'll sometimes add 'RPG' to disambiguate from a fiction series, or 'Magazine'. Here, though, it's less likely that a series has the same author so the series author auto-calculation is not useful.

>22 Maddz: Disambiguation when necessary is one thing (especially when really needed - like the examples you are citing). Adding it everywhere because there may be another series with that name one day or to differentiate from old and deleted series (instead of opening a bug or three for these so the can be cleared - search and touchstones should really stop finding them) is what started this. I’d say we also need at least one request for improvement -- adding the author to the series name in the search boxes results and the touchstones (like it does for books) will make dealing with similarly named series a lot easier. :)

And even if one or two people suggested something in those threads, that is not agreed as best practice. This is not good practice, never mind best practice.