Wishlist

From Clavis Canonum

This page is meant to document our plans for the Clavis project, whether they general or concrete, realistic or not, coming from the Clavis core team (Danica, Clemens, Christof) or any user of this Wiki. If you want to add a wish, simply do so, preferably with a new headline (if you are not sure how to do this, don't wory; just click "edit" and add your wishes, leave all formatting to other people) and a signature (that is, add --~~~~ at the end which will be replaced by username and date once you hit "save changes"). --Christof Rolker (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2023 (CEST)

Infobox Template "Manuscript"

We already introduced infoboxes for collections (see below). At the moment, both infoboxes and categories have to be updated manually and do not sync; once we solve this problem, we may also want infoboxes for manuscripts.

The information contained here would be more basic than for collections:

  • WikiData item no
  • Biblissima item no (?)
  • Collection(s) contained, preferably by sigla (not by name) and with link
  • Main author(s) of the article (Lotte Kéry by default)
  • place of origin
  • date of origin

--Christof Rolker (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2024 (CET)

Alternativ könnten wir die infoboxen auch aus wikidata befüllen. Damit wäre sichergestellt oder jedenfalls stark erleichtert, dass die dortigen maschinenlesbaren Daten mit den hiesigen, menschenlesbaren Angaben abgeglichen werden. Ein Tutorium gibt es hier https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Infobox_Tutorial

—Christof Rolker (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2024 (CEST)

re: Wishlist itself

The site slowly gets messy. Perhaps it would be better to organise the wishlist as a list of articles (one per wish), with discussions on the respective talk page and a category bringing them together. --Christof Rolker (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2024 (CET)

Yes, very much in favor of this! Maybe, we could also have different categories: one for open wishes and one for wishes that have been dealt with (either fulfilled or rejected)? And while we are at it, we might also have a way to categorize some wishes as "high priority". The reason behind this: Sometimes, when I have a little time at hand, I glance over the wishlist and try to identify tasks that are ideally both, important and easy to do. So a priority signal might be useful. But on the other hand I most certainly realize that this system might discourage users from formulating wishes if they see that their ideas do not make it to the top priority category... Thoughts and ideas welcome. --Clemens Radl (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2024 (CEST)

What links here (DONE)

Wikipedia has a standard function "What links here". Our Wiki has a special page for this function, but it is not among the tools available in the menu of every single page. it would be a nice-to-have function, because we can use it as a kind of register e.g. for papal letters: if we auto-replace all references to Jaffé numbers with a link to the specific page ("JE 1234" -> "JE 1234") and auto-create the relevant pages (which should be in the category "Papal letters by Jaffe numbers" or the like), then "what links here" on any of these pages will list all articles mentioning the letter in question. Nothing urgent, but would be nice.

Actually, we already have the "What links here" tool. On wide screens it can be found in the rightmost column under "More". If you have a narrower screen which does not allow for a three column layout, these links should move to the leftmost column. So this kind of index should actually develop itself over time (one link at a time). But maybe I have misunderstood. So let me know if I need to implement something or adjust some settings. --Clemens Radl (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2023 (CET)
Thanks! I must have overlooked it. --Christof Rolker (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2024 (CET)

Integrating Lotte Kéry's volume (IN PROGRESS)

Now that Lotte's volume is online and we have more and more articles with page-specific links to the digital version of her Canonical Collections, we can think about (semi-automatically) integrate information on manuscripts and collections into the Wiki. As Linda used Lotte's book for her own handbok, for most collections this is not really necessary; but the case is different with manuscripts.

  1. Identify mss that have an entry in Canonical Collections but not this Wiki.
  2. Extract basic information: Place/Archive/Shelf mark, rough date, canonical collection(s) contained in this manuscript
  3. Auto-create new pages based on this information.

These new articles would be stubs containing ...

I have tried whether ChatGPT 3.5 can do some of the mechanical work involved in turning Lotte's book into articles. My prompt was
compile a table that contains in every line the following information: place name in colum 1 , library name in colum 1, shelf mark in colum 3, date in colum 4 using the following information on three mansucripts: "Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, Msc.Can.5 is complete copy of the Collectio Anselmo dedicata; base manuscript for the analysis of this collection in Clavis database. It was produced in Italy in the tenth century but later given to Bamberg by Henry II. Barcelona, Archivo General de la Corona de Aragón, San Cugat 63 is a twelfth century manuscript. Orléans, BM, 221 is a copy if the Hibernensis from 1213."
and later I inserted OCRed passages from Lotte's book. This all went very well; country, city name, library name, and shelf mark were extracted with 100% accuracy, even if the proper names contained several OCR errors and if some of the information was somewhat hidden (for example, in one case the shelf mark was only given in form of the sort order command DEFAULTSORT). The only thing that was more difficult (but still doable) was to extract terminus post quem and terminus ante quem from the texts I fed the bot with. So I am confident that we can compile tables containing basic information on the mss, hopefully also the "is copy of X" information without too much manual work. --Christof Rolker (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2024 (CET)
also, I have talked to WikiData people (Lucy Patterson and Jonathan Groß) about "our" (and other) mss in Wikidata; the notability issues I was worried about are less of an issue, having entries for all our collections and perhaps even all of Lotte's mss seems feasible. --Christof Rolker (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2024 (CET)
If we integrate Lotte's book, it would be good if this could be done in a similar way to the Clavis handbook, i.e. via her account (or a separate account clearly linked to her). --Christof Rolker (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2024 (CEST)
Yes, good idea. The safest way to achieve this, might be to create a special account for this purpose and do all the steps for this integration from this account. Afterwards, I can take all contributions of this special account and re-attribute it to Lotte Kéry's real account. Another, equally viable approach: We work under our own names, but prepend all comments that deal with this integration with a fixed prefix (e.g., "HMCL" or whatever works for us). Then I can identify all those contributions and re-attribute them to Kéry's account. --Clemens Radl (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2024 (CEST)
Lotte Kéry kindly agreed to the former arrangement, and I have set up the new account User:Lotte Kéry which can be used to integrate her book (in addition to her personal account User:LKery). --Christof Rolker (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2024 (CEST)

Youtube tutorials

We have been asked to provide video tutorials for bothe the Clavis database and the Clavis Wiki. So far, only two have been produced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDSPUM2cKyM (5 min) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAiR6htX-j8 (15 min). . Any wishes for more tutorials? leave a not on this page, or its talk page if you like. --Christof Rolker (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2023 (CEST)

Material sources

At our workshops (esp at Zurich) we repeatedly discussed the idea to identify the material sources of individual canons, a valuable feature of Abigail Firey's Carolingian Canon Law project. It was part of our 2018 grant application which unfortunately was not approved, but we still are working on it, and as always Clemens has already come up with some solutions. All ideas are welcome; haeg a look at our circular email if you like. --Christof Rolker (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2023 (CEST)

Combining the Manuscripta Juridica and Clavis databases

Gero Dolezalek's Manuscripta Juridica database goes back to the same environment from which the Clavis emerged in the 1970s, the manuscript studies at what was then the Max-Planck-Institut für europäische Rechtsgeschichte. Like Clavis, Manuscripta Juridica has grown considerably over time, and in the 21st c. was made available online. Our initial vision, shared by Prof. Dolezalek, for this project involved combining Manuscripta Juridica and Clavis to create a single tool for analysing the history of both laws in the Middle Ages. While still in its exploratory stages, we still believe that connecting these two databases would provide a valuable service for the scholarly community. If you want to comment on this, please do contact Danica or Christof, or just use the Discussion page to this Wishlist. --Christof Rolker (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2023 (CEST)

The Manuscripta Juridica database can be seen here: <https://manuscripts.rg.mpg.de/> Clemens Radl (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2023 (CEST)

Abbreviations for LIbraries or not? (YES; DONE)

It is generally useful if we are consistent with expressions like library names. In the book, common library names are commonly abbreviated (so "BM" for "Bibliothèque municipale"); for the wiki version, I had opted for full names where page names are concerned but in the text would use a mix of full names and abbreviations. - Now I am beginning to change my mind: perhaps using common abbreviation throughout (including page names) is better. It makes it easier to create pages and insert links in the source code, and short page names are also nicer. Not very cogent reasons, but still; some library names (Berlin StBPKA, I'm looking at you!) are just too long. Simply to try out whether it is feasible to use the "change text" function in this context, I changed "Bibliothèque municipale" to "BM" everywhere on the wiki; in the worst case, that can be undone easily, but I hope it works out the way I want. Christof Rolker (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2023 (CEST)--

Now replaced "Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Preussischer Kulturbesitz" by "SBPK" too. --Christof Rolker (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2023 (CEST)
Same for "Bibliothèque nationale de France" (=> "BnF"). --Christof Rolker (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2023 (CEST)
Same for BAV, BSB, HAB, and ÖNB. Note that at least for cities with several libraries, the DEFAULTSORT should contain the full name.
Seems not to create problems; so let's keep it. --Christof Rolker (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2023 (CET)

Bibliography

At the moment, following Linda, bibliographical references are provided in text, either in fulla form or using short titles; the bibliography lists all the literature cited. It is kept up to date manually. The obvious drawback is that the more the descriptions of the collections are revised, the more difficult it is to keep track of all the literature cited; also, the more substantial the bibliography the more cumbersome to use it becomes (though this is only an inconvenience, and a minor one, not really a problem). Alternatively, one could try the following:

  • Create (automatically) one page for each book/article. The page title should be identical to the short title (e.g. "Agustin, Dialogi").
  • All such pages are placed in a new category "Bibliography".
  • All citation of the relevant book are replaced (again, hopefully automatically) by a reference containing a link to the respective page.

This way, one can easily jump from the short title to the full reference, and instead of manually keeping the bibliography up to date, we can use the respective category. -- Christof Rolker (talk) 11:00, 31 May 2023 (CEST)

a side issue may be the "author" template which makes sure authors' names are in small caps. C

Manuscripts of individual collections

Often, one needs to know how many copies are there of any given manuscripts, and scholars working on a specific collection may want a list of these MSS. To provide this information, some of us have thought about integrating Lotte Kéry's superbly useful manual into the Clavis wiki. Before we do this (and perhaps even if we don't), we should think carefully how to insert this kind of information. It may be tempting simply to add a section "Manuscripts" into the description of the collections. Maintaining such lists may, however, be difficult, and with collections extant in many MSS, even cerating such a list is not easy (not even if one starts with Lotte's book). Instead, and that is what I would prefer, one could use categories. As already mentioned on the Categories pages, we could use [[Category:Manuscript of XY]] (where 'XY' is the Clavis key for the collection in question) to place all MS in the relevant category , or categories in some cases. The advantage would be that the relevant list would simply be the category [[Category:Manuscript of XY]], and update automatically if the MS description is updated; there is no danger of a mismatch between descriptions of the collections on the one hand, and those of the MSS on the other. --Christof Rolker (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2022 (CEST)

I've been adding this to some mss pages. -- Christof Rolker (talk) 11:00, 31 May 2023 (CEST)

Authorship (NOT IMPORTANT)

The German Wikipedia (but apparently not the English one) has a feature to assess authorship of individual articles. Clicking on "Autoren" at the foot of any articles directs you to a page like this one: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo-authorship/de.wikipedia.org/Collectio_Dacheriana?uselang=de where every author is attributed a certain percentage of the current text. Would that be attractive for us, too? --Christof Rolker (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2022 (CEST)

The tool as it is works only with Wikipedias, but the code is available on GitHub and may be used for our Wiki too. However, the most important authorship is the 'main author' as found in the new infoboxes. A tool like the XTools authorship tool may help to establish this, but in the end we do not need it. It is not always important who contributed most characters, but who is responsible for important changes/contant, so the 'main authr' will have to be determined by different means anyhow. Implementing the XTools authorship would be nice at some time, but certainly not important for the next years. --Christof Rolker (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2023 (CEST)
We now have a Wiki user called "Linda Fowler-Magerl" and we have attributed the initial uploads of the descriptions (which were taken from Linda's book) to this user. Thus, if we ever get to install one of the authorship tools, this will give us a more realistic picture of each author's contribution. Originally the upload was done by a program in my name, which of course distorted the picture considerably. --Clemens Radl (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2024 (CEST)
Note: The initial upload was done in several passes by my program. Usually those changes were marked with the same comment ("Initial upload from book."). I used this comment to identify Linda's contributions. In some cases this may have missed some contributions as my script sometimes operated without leaving a comment (e.g., see The first canon law collections in the Latin West). I think, this problem is not a big one and can be tackled with some database wrangling, but we have to keep it in mind. --Clemens Radl (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2024 (CEST)
I did a bit of digging: As was already stated, the XTool (or, because it's a suite, more precisely the tool "authorship" of the suite) that is used on Wikipedia has not been supported for non-Wikimedia wikis since 2021 (source, the last supported version 3.11.2 see here). Unfortunately, it's not as simple as installing an older version of the suite and disabling all other tools that we don't need because the authorship-tool relies on third-parties which very likely won't be compatible with the older version (see also one of the dev's comment on this here). I don't think the benefit of trying and adjusting everything that it'd work for us would be worth it, not least because we'd also have to maintain the code and update it regularly.
I have also not managed to find another tool with similar functionality, and seeing as XTools dropped the support for non-Wikimedia wikis because there was not enough demand for the whole suite on other wikis, I think it unlikely that I simply missed one.
One option would be to implement it ourselves in a way somewhat similar to the infoboxes. It's relatively easy to get all revisions for all pages with all of their authors by using the API (or a bot). That data in turn could be used to calculate which user contributed how many bytes for each page. This could be regularly inserted into a template (it's probably possible to only update if changes were made). This kind of code can be written relatively easily, probably max. 10 hours (from my side, I don't know long it would take to set the regular updates up).
This obviously has a few drawbacks though: The date would need to be collected and updated regularly (same as with the infoboxes) which could ofc mean that the template is out of date. Secondly, the data would be less accurate than the one displayed by the authorship-tool (not every byte needs to be a character, e.g., it could also be an image, and some characters are more than one byte long, etc.).--SStark (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2024 (CEST)
Images are not really a problem, and number of bytes is precise enough for our purposes (on which see below). --Christof Rolker (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2024 (CEST)
In the end it probably depends on what our goal is. Do we want articles to be citable in individual cases? If that's the case I feel like we have so few edits on each page that the user can just look the version history up for themselves and determine who contributed how much. If we want this for some kind of further processing by algorithms or just generally make it more suited for research it might be worth it.--SStark (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2024 (CEST)
Thanks for checking. A pity the tool is not supported for projects like ours. For us, the main goal would be transparency concerning authorship: who contributed how much to which article, who the main author or one of the main authors? At the moment, this is trivial - in almost all cases, the account initially creating an article is also the main author (and normally it's Linda), and to double-check a quick glance at the page history is sufficient. However, I hope this will change in the next years, and certainly things will get more messy in the long run. So a tool is not urgent at all, but I would be willing to invest some resources at some point. atb --Christof Rolker (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2024 (CEST)

Standardised page titles (mostly solved)

  • Based on my experience with DEFAULTSORT and the discussion with Clemens, I suggest we standardise the page titles of the entries for individual categories in the long run. So if you are reworking a description anyhow, please consider adopting the page title too along the following lines:
    • The Page title should consist of the most commonly used title of the collection without a preceding article; do not add alternative titles or translations in the page title
    • In the case of collection titles containing numbers (3L, 4L, 12P etc), the Latin form of the title should be used and numbers should be in Roman numbers. For the advandced users, please make sure in such cases to include DEFAULTSORT at the very end of the entry.
    • Anonymous collections commonly referred by the shelf mark of a manuscript (typically the only known copy), the title should follow this pattern: "Collectio canonum in Paris, BnF, lat. 1234". These collections may need DEFAULTSORT too, we will see.
  • For a list of all collections, see this Google Spreadsheet. You can copy&paste the standardised page title from column E, the DEFAULTSORT from column F, and suggested categories from column V. Be careful with the latter in particular, as all information here is based on the 2005 Clavis manual and may contain some errors; also, when processing empty cells, the formular produces some nonsensical category tags which you should simply delete.
  • To change a page title, use the "move" function. You will be prompted to leave a redirect behind; this is highly recommended unless you are sure that no other page in this wiki contains a link to the old page. If in doubt, leave a redirect.

Christof Rolker (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2022 (CEST)

This is now mostly done. The remaining cases of non-standard titles often are articles which need some thinking for other reasons too; in any case they are in a special category, namely Category:Pages with non-standard title. Christof Rolker (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2023 (CEST)--

Exporting results

The database used to have a function "Export results"; among other things, it could be used to extract all entries of any given collection. This seems to have discontinued, not even the Legacy Search has it.

Just a quick note to let everyone know that I have added this feature request to my TODO list for the Clavis application. I plan to re-implement the TXT- or rather CSV-style export from the old database application, but are there any wishes as to alternative formats? I think, someone (I forgot who) mentioned that an XML-export might be kind of nice, as this is in some environments easier to process than CSV files. Just place any formatting suggestions here and I'll see what I can do. --Clemens Radl (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2022 (CEST)

Dreaming about data...

Dreaming about data...

In the very long run, if the database would contain information on the material sources for every canon, and the extant copies for any collection, and some metadata of course for material sources, collections, and manuscripts being added too, it could look like this.

Alphabetical order (SOLVED, by and large)

Is there a way to ignore certain words ("The", "Collectio") in the alphabetical order of pages in categories? (The issue is found in all categories.) Also, can the automatic alphabetical order handle Roman and/or Arab numbers? So, would "LX" or "XL" be first, an "54" or "154"? (The issue appeared in the List of Manuscript; I fixed it manually.)

Sort order for MSS

There is indeed a way to add a sort key to pages in the category listing, cf. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Categories#Sort_key I have done it manually for Dionysiana adaucta at the entry for the category Category:Collection not in Clavis database. The sort key is created like this: [[Category:Collection not in Clavis database|dionysiana adaucta]]
I have moved the page to Collectio Dionysiana adaucta using a standardised title. See my comments on standardised titles. --Christof Rolker (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2022 (CEST)
NB: Creating good sort keys is tricky: Which words at the beginning are to be eliminated? "The" surely, but also "Collectio" and "Collection". But if we eliminate "The Collection" then "The Collection in Clm 22289" will be sorted under "in Clm 22289". Also, numbers (Roman and Arabic) will have to be padded with leading zeros to make them properly sortable. We could try to do this with an automated bot that updates the sort keys every night (or whatever). Or we'd have to include the sort key into each and every category tag. At the moment, I am not sure about the best approach. Clemens Radl (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2022 (CEST)
Thanks. My feeling is that we can deal with the collections manually but may need something for the manuscripts. Christof Rolker (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2022 (CEST)
For the collections, see now my suggestions for standardised titles. We keep "Collectio" in all cases where it is part of an established title, and "Collectio canonum in..." for all collections known by the shelf mark of a copy, and get rid of the preceding "The..." in titles. That should make sortkey/DEFAULTSORT unnecessary for most cases (except numerals). --Christof Rolker (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2022 (CEST)
OK. This sounds good. I'll look into manuscript sorting. The algorithm for the key will be quite simple: all arabic numbers get a left side padding with zeros and roman numbers will be substituted with their appropriately padded arabic equivalent. Thus Modena, Bibliotheca Capitolare, O.II.2 will get a sort key such as: modena, bibliotheca capitolare, o.00000002.00000002. --Clemens Radl (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2022 (CEST)
OK, I re-investigated that problem and there is a better solution which I missed, initially: You can define a default sort key for a page using the magic word: {{DEFAULTSORT:...}} in the source code in a line of its own best placed at the beginning of the section where alle the categories are entered (see documentation here and somewhat more detailed, here). I have manually created this for some Paris (lat. 13656, lat. 3858, lat. 4282), all part of the Category:Manuscript of IT. Notice, how the three mss. are sorted nicely. So, my suggestion mentioned above to use the category tag itself is obsolete. I think it will be best if we stick to Christof's proposal: I try to create sort keys for mss. automatically, whereas the sort keys for the collections have to be added by hand. --Clemens Radl (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2022 (CEST)
Looks good! How many zeros do we really need? The highest numbers in shelf marks are five-figure numbers, IRRC: Brussels, London (Add. MSS only), Munich (Clm), Paris (lat.), and Vatican (lat.). So, I think "Paris, BnF, lat. 03858" should be enough. - For the Roman numbers we would have to invent keys, right? So "Ivrea, BC, 00094" for Ivrea, BC, XCIV, for example? Christof Rolker (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2022 (CEST)
Yes, you are right, five digits should be sufficient (Brussels being another candidate, but they also do not exceed five digits). (With these things I tend to err on the side of caution.) And yes, you're also right about the roman numbers, that's exactly what I plan to do (substitute them with their arabic equivalent). --Clemens Radl (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2022 (CEST)
For the collections, I think adding sortkeys manually using {{DEFAULTSORT:...}} is best; I'm testing it for the early collections (already in the catergories saec. VI, VII, VIII). Christof Rolker (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2022 (CEST)
Just a heads up: I have now written a small program that could operate as a wiki bot and automatically add keys to all manuscript pages. I think, it works fairly well, but there are some minor issues. The list of current keys can be viewed on a separate page. My proposal: whoever wants to have a look at the data, please move over to the mentioned site, feel free to add comments, suggestions, etc. After a couple of days (latest on Tuesday next week, as I'll be on vacation afterwards) I'd run the bot once. If we are happy with the results, I'd install the bot so that it patrols the manuscript pages on a regular basis and adds keys as needed. --Clemens Radl (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2022 (CEST)
You are great. Thanks! Christof Rolker (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2022 (CEST)
I have just now let the bot run once (started not automatically but by hand). As far as I can see, no damage has been done. All existing mss. pages now have a default sort key. The program runs quite fast, so I think, I'll pick a suitable time in the night (European time) and let it run daily. This means: whenever you add a new ms. page, on the next day a default sortkey will be present and active.
For all practical purpose, this is enough. for minute issues, see the discussion page to "list of MSS keys". Christof Rolker (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2022 (CEST)

Sort order for collections

For the collections, the best way is to have standardised page titles based on the most commonly used title of the respective collection (as opposed to the sometimes rather long titles based on the 2005 book). These page titles should not contain articles, a rule also followed by other wikis. For collection titles containing numbers (e.g. 4L, 74T and the like), DEFAULTSORT should be used. So, the page on 183T should be (and now is) Collectio CLXXXIII titulorum rather than "The Liber canonum diversorum sanctorum patrum or Collectio CLXXXIII titulorum or the collection of S. Maria Novella", and at the end of the "categories" sections contains DEFAULTSORT:Collectio 183 titulorum. I have moved a handful of pages accordingly, and added DEFAULTSORT to all collection continaing "librorum", "titulorum", "partium", and "capitulorum". Christof Rolker (talk) 10:59, 21 August 2022 (CEST)

For a list of all collections, see this Google Spreadsheet. You can copy&paste the standardised page title from colum E, the suggested DEFAULTSORT from column F, and suggested categories from column V. Be careful with the latter in particular, as all information here is based on the 2005 Clavis manual and may contain some errors; also, when processing empty cells, the formular produces some nonsensical category tags which you should simply delete. Christof Rolker (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2022 (CEST)

Title (Done)

The project title still is "... before 1140" which is no longer true.

That's right. As far as I can see, the title only appears on the main page of beta version of the database. I am more than happy to change the title. Suggestions? Just delete the "before 1140" bit? Clemens Radl (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2022 (CEST)
Maybe "... 385 to 1234" - from the first decretal to Liber extra. Actually, I sneaked this from David d'Avray's recent book Papal Jurisprudence, 385-1234 which I am readings at the moment and which I highly recommend to any Clavis user. ;-) Christof Rolker (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2022 (CEST)
I have just installed the latest version of the database software (ver. 0.2.2) which includes the updated title. --Clemens Radl (talk) 10:32, 14 April 2023 (CEST)

Wiki Data

Can we link the articles on individual collections to Wiki data objects? If so, would this allow to link the relevant articles in various Wikipedias?

The German Wikipedia seems to have more articles on individual collections than other wikipedias; currently some 40 medieval collections have an entry (and thus a Wiki data object). They can easily be found as there is a separate category: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie:Kanonische_Sammlung --Christof Rolker (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2022 (CEST)
It's 53 canonical collection now ... somehow this category is growing. Magic! :-)) --Christof Rolker (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2023 (CEST)

Categories

  • The categories for collections and mss are not strictly hierarchical. Is that a problem?
  • Categories for local/influential/very influential collections?
  • Categories can be structured (category tree). Same for dates.
  • Why are Categories invisible?
    • Actually, they are not invisible, you can see them in a box at the right of the page.
  • For a list of all collections, see this Google Spreadsheet. You can copy&paste the standardised page title from colum E, the DEFAULTSORT from column F, and suggested categories from column V. Be careful with the latter in particular, as all information here is based on the 2005 Clavis manual and may contain some errors; also, when processing empty cells, the formular produces some nonsensical category tags which you should simply delete. Christof Rolker (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2022 (CEST)

A pdf of 2005 Handbook (Done)

  • Upload Linda's book (pdf). Perhaps update references to the pages so they include direct page specific links. Can this be done by updating the template? Otherwise search and replace.
    • As soon as we have the book online with permanent links that work via the page number the template for Fowler-Magerl-Links can be used for linking. When I converted Linda's book to Wiki, I inserted the page references, but we have now started to move away from just reproducing Linda's book and I am not sure if the pagebreak marks as they exist now are still useful. Thoughts?
      • Still useful, but in the long run, most or all references to Linda's page number will go, I think.
    • I could with search and replace remove all references to the template and then we'd be free to insert links where we really want it. (This search and replace could also insert the links to Linda's book as the first entry in the bibliography section.)
Don't spend time on removing something that causes no problem. Updating the template with page-specific links to the pdf would be nice, but not urgent at all. Christof Rolker (talk) 06:53, 28 July 2022 (CEST)
Thanks so much! --Christof Rolker (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2023 (CEST)

Discussion (Erledigt)

  • Discussion pages have no "answer" function yet
The Discussion Tools extension has been installed now. Let me know if there are any problems.
Works fine. @everyone: On the discussion pages, you can start discussion with "+ new topic"; once there are topics, you can use "reply". Please sign topics and replies with ~~~~-- Christof Rolker (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2022 (CEST)--
Actually, if you use the reply function, the signature will be added automatically upon saving. --Clemens Radl (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2022 (CEST)

Infobox Template "Collection" (DONE)

An infobox template would be good, containing:

  • Name of the collection (preferably matching the page name)
  • Alternative names and short titles (often, there are quite a few of them)
  • WikiData Item No. (More than 50 collections are in WikiData, see the relevant category in the German Wikipedia.)
  • Clavis key
  • Main author(s) of the article (Linda Fowler-Magerl by default)
  • place of origin
  • date of origin
  • number of mss (perhaps rough categories will do, like "one", "some (2-9)", "many (10-99)"?)
  • size (see Category:Collections by size
  • structure (chronologcal, by topic, farrago)

For many basic features (place of origin, date of origin, size) there are already relevant categories. Both "number of mss" and "structure" may also be nice to have as categories. Christof Rolker (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2023 (CEST)--

Added for all pages in the Category:Collection using the current template, mostly relying on the categories used on each page. As of now, both structure and WikiData is consistently missing due to no corresponding data.
Right now both the infobox as well as the categories need to be changed manually when new information is implemented. Long term we'll try to find a different solution SStark (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2023 (CEST)--
Also manually inserted wikidata to those collections which are in the relevant category on wikipedia and which already had an infobox (so not marked as to split). In order to simplify this process in the future, the wikidata itself would need to be cleaned up (all collections would need to be instances of the correct class and preferably have English labels identical to at least one title used on our corresponding page). SStark (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2023 (CEST)--
Retrieved from "https://data.mgh.de/databases/clavis/wiki/index.php?title=Wishlist&oldid=7005"