Talk:Collectio Dionysiana II

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)

My gut feeling is that we should split articles if and only if Linda's keys refer to two different collections, or at least substantially different versions of a collection. Unfortunally, this is not easy to establish. For the time being, we should flag all articles with more than one key.

In those cases where two keys are used for what is effectively only one collection, one key will be the main key and the other(s) will be ignored for most purposes. I am aware that this will create some hickup, but there is no easy solution.

@Danica Summerlin, @Clemens Radl, can I ping you simply because this is a moderately important issue (and partly to alert you that the discussion page actually are being used, including the ping function). Christof Rolker (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2023 (CET)

Alright. As you have probably noticed I've linked to this discussion (and to the on [Talk:Collectio Hibernensis]) on quite a few pages that in some way or another have more than one key. I can't decide which of those should be split and which of those should only have one main key, but I think it'd probably be a good idea to create both a new category for those articles that have multiple keys and need a decision and for those that are supposed to stay whole.

That way a bot can skip any pages that are marked as "decision to be made about multiple keys" and "to be split", and can work with the one key that is used in the categories for those that are marked as "has multiple keys". SStark (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2023 (CET)

"Has multiple keys" is a useful category (as a subcategory of "known Issues"); please impletend. "To be split" already exists, but has a different meaning, so do retain it. Independently of both, I see it mainly as my responsability to assign one key to all collections by placing them in one and only category "Collection key is XY". Christof Rolker (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2023 (CET)