Template talk:Infobox manuscript

revamping the template

We will soon have articles on all libraries holding at least one of our manuscripts. The infoboxes for manuscripts will thus only need one entry linking to the relevant page e.g. [[Paris, BnF]], and all information on the library will be found there; the fields "Place", "GND", and "ISIL" can therefore go.

Also, I suggest we discontinue "generalregion" and "specificregion".

Finally, I take the opportunity to automatically link from the infobox to all collections, at the moment this only works for the first one.

atb Christof Rolker (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2024 (CEST)

and a second "digital images" field would be nice, too Christof Rolker (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2024 (CEST)

Two new fields for all early mss:

• CLA volume and number with ELMSS link, e.g. [https://elmss.nuigalway.ie/catalogue/227 CLA X 1505] resulting in CLA X 1505 for Wien, ÖNB, Cod. 2141.
• Bischoff numbers

Christof Rolker (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2024 (CEST)

And up to four links to mss descriptions. It is probably best to strongly encourage the use of names as to avoid ugly long URLs in the infoboxes: [Name www.example.com]. so e.g. Capitularia project for Berlin, SBPK, Phill. 1743. Christof Rolker (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2024 (CEST)

I will answer all points in one reply so as not to needlessly making finding arguments more difficult afterwards:

• Links to libraries: Already talked about it, I'm working on it
• generalregion/specificregion: I don't remember the specifics right now, but I started working with those in the database itself, albeit in relation to the collections. The advantage of doing more than one region was that there were collections that couldn't located any better than to generalregion and it was possible to search for the generalregion and thereby find every collection that was probably written in the North/South, regardless of the specificregion. Of course it's possible to do things differently for manuscripts (especially because they aren't in the database right now anyways), but it should be taken into consideration
• more digital images: Yes, I think I need those anyways. I'm not sure just yet how many we need right now, but certainly more than one
• New fields for early mss: No opinion on those, but I only have the data for the Bischoff-numbers right now
• links to mss-descriptions: Is certainly possible and probably useful, right now it's usually in the continuous text (if they are there at all). As I have already mentioned elsewhere, extracting those automatically could be tricky, but to include those that exist on Wikidata automatically is no problem. One question: All in one field or each one field?

• Regarding the use of names: I agree that it would be helpful, but this is not that easy to do automatically. The best I can do in a good time is e.g., taking the first part of the Link as a name so Capitularia Uni Koeln or Digital Dombibliothek Koeln

SStark (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2024 (CEST)

Regions are less important, so leave them as they are, as you like it. Links to descriptions are being updated by @JJakob alongside the links to digital images; two days max I think. I leave to you whether one field ist better than several; try the technically easier option first. Names: good idea, go for it! atb Christof Rolker (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2024 (CEST)

The CLA numbers and ELMSS links are in columns T and U, respectively Christof Rolker (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2024 (CEST)

OK, than that one's easy too. SStark (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2024 (CEST)

Conventions for names etc

In general, see Conventions on referencing manuscripts on place names and similar issues. Christof Rolker (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2024 (CEST)

Handschriftenportal ID

I have added a new parameter "hsp" for the Handschriftenportal ID. I also have added the hsp parameter to the parameters to be automatically added from the biblissima database (the Handschriftenportal itself has no proper API). However, we already have links to the HSP as values of the "descriptionat" parameters. For some reason I failed to convert them using Special:ReplaceText. My RegEx was

descriptionat[23]?\s*=\s*\[https://resolver\.staatsbibliothek-berlin\.de/(HSP\S{10,20})\s+HSP\]

with "hsp = $1" as the replace string. A test run for 25 pages at first seemed sucessful ("descriptionat[23]?\s*=\s*\[https://resolver\.staatsbibliothek-berlin\.de/(HSP\S{10,20})\s+HSP\]" will be replaced with "hsp = $1" in 25 pages.") but in the end no pages were modified. Odd. atb Christof Rolker (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2026 (CET)

no luck with

descriptionat[23]?\s*=\s*\[https://manuscripta\.at/hs_detail\.php\?ID=(\d+)\s+manuscripta\.at\]

either Christof Rolker (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2026 (CET)

Maybe it is about the RegEx, as a simple RegEx did work this morning (diff). odd but harmless Christof Rolker (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2026 (CET)

yes, seems to be the RegEx itself; while simple serach&replace runs work, the original RegEx would not wokr (nor the slightly smarter version "descriptionat[23]?\s*=\s*\[https://resolver\.staatsbibliothek-berlin\.de/\b(HSP[A-Za-z0-9]{16})\b\s+HSP\]") Christof (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2026 (CET)