Talk:Collectio Dionysiana II: Difference between revisions
From Clavis Canonum
Latest comment: 3 November 2023 by SStark
(Created page with "Abigail has made me think whether the decretal and the conciliar part of the Dionysiana II are in fact two separate works, and thus should be treated in two separate articles....") |
(Reply) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Abigail has made me think whether the decretal and the conciliar part of the Dionysiana II are in fact two separate works, and thus should be treated in two separate articles. Given that Lind aalready used two key, this would actually be very easy, and in general it is best if "descriptions of the collections" pages and "analysis in the database" (i.e. keys) match. --[[User:Christof Rolker|Christof Rolker]] ([[User talk:Christof Rolker|talk]]) 10:26, 5 October 2022 (CEST) | Abigail has made me think whether the decretal and the conciliar part of the Dionysiana II are in fact two separate works, and thus should be treated in two separate articles. Given that Lind aalready used two key, this would actually be very easy, and in general it is best if "descriptions of the collections" pages and "analysis in the database" (i.e. keys) match. --[[User:Christof Rolker|Christof Rolker]] ([[User talk:Christof Rolker|talk]]) 10:26, 5 October 2022 (CEST) | ||
:From the point of view of accessibility for machines: While it's possible to deal with an article that has two or more keys, it's important that it's handled consistently. So if this is to remain one article, similar articles that deal with collections which have multiple keys (e.g. https://data.mgh.de/databases/clavis/wiki/index.php/Collectio_II_librorum/VIII_partium) should also have all of their keys in their categories. | |||
:Should we choose to use multiple keys it's important to keep in mind that any information (e.g. in infoboxes) that is inserted by bots will always just use the information associated with ''one'' key. Which one that is will be determined in a possibly problematic way (either based on alphabetical order or on the order of the categories here in the wiki). | |||
:On the whole I'd advice to either split where possible or to only use one key in the categories. This of course makes the additional keys harder to find for a human user. [[User:SStark|SStark]] ([[User talk:SStark|talk]]) 16:48, 3 November 2023 (CET) | |||
Revision as of 17:48, 3 November 2023
Abigail has made me think whether the decretal and the conciliar part of the Dionysiana II are in fact two separate works, and thus should be treated in two separate articles. Given that Lind aalready used two key, this would actually be very easy, and in general it is best if "descriptions of the collections" pages and "analysis in the database" (i.e. keys) match. --Christof Rolker (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2022 (CEST)
- From the point of view of accessibility for machines: While it's possible to deal with an article that has two or more keys, it's important that it's handled consistently. So if this is to remain one article, similar articles that deal with collections which have multiple keys (e.g. https://data.mgh.de/databases/clavis/wiki/index.php/Collectio_II_librorum/VIII_partium) should also have all of their keys in their categories.
- Should we choose to use multiple keys it's important to keep in mind that any information (e.g. in infoboxes) that is inserted by bots will always just use the information associated with one key. Which one that is will be determined in a possibly problematic way (either based on alphabetical order or on the order of the categories here in the wiki).
- On the whole I'd advice to either split where possible or to only use one key in the categories. This of course makes the additional keys harder to find for a human user. SStark (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2023 (CET)
