Here is a list of questions/suggestions for improvement to be followed up:
License
CCO-Mark is done. Needs some more clarification in Project:About
Catalogues of Numismatic Collections
For inventories of numismatic collections, it is important to have specific boxes for the collector name and first name (so “Collector’s first name” and “Collector’s name”).
- I don't quite understand. Catalogues of Numismatic Collections, we have the field Author: e. g. Inventario di stabili, Medaglie, Libri lasciati dal già Ecc.mo S;r Gio. Batta. Capponi al Pio Ospedale di S. Maria della Morte mediante il suo ultimo testament rogato p. il S. Filippo Carlo Dal Chierico li 20 agosto 1675. Why would we need a first and last name separately? --Bkrabina (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2019 (CEST)
- because now you can only sort them by first name which is most unhelpful why the most logical thing is to find by family name (and that is how they are classified in the GD). The title of these inventories is moreover often misleading. The ideal thing is to have a box for "family name" and the list of inventories classified as such... or we can type the date starting with the family name (ex.: "Agostini, Leonardo") which is not a problem as long as the name of the person will be recognize and the inventory added to the other stuffs for the same persons...--FDeCallatay (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2019 (CEST)
- this is now partially solved. The table now sorts Authors according to their last name. One problem remains: if you click on the sorting options in the table headers to sort manually, this dos not work correctly, due to a bug... --Bkrabina (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2019 (CEST)
Map of persons
For the map of persons, it would be nice to have a booleian option for “keywords”. To get the “Jesuits” who are also “poets” (and not all the “jesuits” and all the “poets”
- done for Persons and Map of Persons --Bkrabina (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2019 (CEST)
I have some difficulty with the timeline. In order not to confuse between births and deaths and as I mentioned in a preceding message, the best would be to have two different maps of persons (not one): one for births, the other for deaths. To have a timeline with a possibility to select a birth or a death place is great; it would be even better if one adds a box for "keywords", in order to create automatically more sophisticated maps (with the Benedictine active at the end of the 17th c. for example). I also think that things should be kept as simple as possible but this would be in my mind a great and final addition. So, two (bith date and death date) maps for "persons", each of them with a timeline, a box for place and a box for keywords.
- keywords are done. Should there still be two separate maps (one for birth places, one for death places)? --Bkrabina (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2019 (CEST)
No, probably not but what would be a great addition is to have 2 boxes for "keywords": one for "numismatic keywords" and another one for "personal keywords" (which already exists but whose name should be modified in order not to be confused with the other. If so, we could find the persons who are "jesuit" and have written about "Caesar" (or any querry of that type). What do you think.--FDeCallatay (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2019 (CEST)
- OK, I see. I was wondering the whole time why there are hardyl any references to numismatics ;-) How about calling it "numismatic objects" or "numismatic refeences"? But "numismatic keywords" is fine, too, I just want to make sure... --Bkrabina (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2019 (CEST)
Persons
1) To create a field for every reference in the text. Now, as you click on Gotlzius for example, you get the 3 letters written by him but not the many dozens ofletters where he is duly reference. It is important in my mind to create a specific field "Reference" below "Work".
- done. Hubert_Goltzius --Bkrabina (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2019 (CEST)
2) To leave the possibility to download more than one image (I said up to 10 in my preceding mail; I now think that up to 5 could be a good measure).
3) to create a field for "Primary literature": i.e. printed work written by the concerened person.
4) to create a filed for "Secondary literature": i.e. recent scholarly literature devotedto the concerend person.
- see below.
5) make the line indicating the space between birth and death less bold and, ideally, with an arrow giving the direction (we may refine with a line starting in gree and ending in red but that is possibly due to my notorious kitsch attraction).
- done. (except for red and green, which is not possible). --Bkrabina (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2019 (CEST)
François: Many thanks. So it remains to do 2, 3 and 4. Is it feasible?
Correspondence
1) to create a box for "Numismatic keywords": so, we could easily gather all the correspondence related to the Ptolemies, Pertinax or the contorniates for example.
- done. I just called it "keyword" as with persons. Should this not be present in the other resources categories as well? --Bkrabina (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2019 (CEST)
2) for associated people, to help with an automatic search in the names already created as it si the case for names of places of persons (it will save me a lot of time).
- done. --Bkrabina (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2019 (CEST)
François: the addition of the box for keywords is great. It would be m=ore explicit to name it "Numismatic keywords".
The automatic search for "associated people" doesn't seem to work...
- done. search pro associated persons now works in the person query --Bkrabina (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2019 (CEST)
Timeline
1) The timeline for persons is so busy that it is barely useful as such. And indeed with an expected total amount of people above 1,000, we will have nearly one hundred at any time...
- done. timelines are completely redesigned, see Timelines --Bkrabina (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2019 (CEST)
François: marvelous! But the timeline for correspondence, which is great withe the portraits of the correspondents, is only taking a part of the information now (some 50 out of 1,000).
I also wonder if it would be possible to add an image for the timeline of persons, as it is the case with the correspondence...--FDeCallatay (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2019 (CEST)
Maps
1) to create a box for "keywords" for the map of persons
- done --Bkrabina (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2019 (CEST)
2) to modify the black icons for one case in a green coherent with the general progression used by wikipedia: green-yellow-orange-red.
3) to somehow downscale these icons for just one case (but it should be apparent as well...).
- true, but unfortunately, the size of single items icons is fixed. color could be changed, but this should be done with a general better design --Bkrabina (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2019 (CEST)
4) Map for brith and death places: take all the evidence into account. Again, if so, the general view will be overcrowded but the intersting thing is to play with the timeline.
- done --Bkrabina (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2019 (CEST)
François: very important for the map of correspondence: to add two boxes, one for "Keywords (numismatic)" and another for "Keywords (Persons)" (as you did before to delete it recently). In this way, one would ask for the jesuits (always them) interested by Caesar or all the correspondence dealing with forgeries, etc. etc.--FDeCallatay (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2019 (CEST)
Map of Birth and Death Places
For the "birth and death" map, it would be nice indeed to give a direction. Again, if feasible, I suggest that each line will be coloured from green (birth) to red (death). By the way, this map is just taking some 50 names, not the full corpus (I tried without success to get a map for the c. 200 names).
- direction is not possible at the moment, sorry. Map of Birth and Death Places now shows everything. Should I still do spearate maps, as indicated earlier? --Bkrabina (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2019 (CEST)
- François: it is fine as such but it is very important to add a timeline in order to refine searches.--FDeCallatay (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2019 (CEST)
- Tnis is not possible: you can either have filtered maps (with a date filter as a timeslider) OR you can have a map showing lines from birth to death places. Both in combination is not possible at the moment. We could have a map showing both places with separate icons and a timeslider, but not with the lines. Should we do such an additional one? --Bkrabina (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2019 (CEST)
Aassociated persons
When typing the name of "associated persons", you are not proposed automatically (as for other entries) what already exists, which complicates the process a bit.
- done --Bkrabina (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2019 (CEST)
François: many thanks but still not always working (functions could work differently if at home or at my office...).
Done indeed, many thanks!--FDeCallatay (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2019 (CEST)
Literature
One box for “primary literature” (i.e. all the written contributions published by the person in question) and another for “secondary literature” (i.e. what has been specifically written on the person in question).
For what concerns literature, you are right that some entries of the general literature, as Cuper 1743, will appear in the box "primary literature". But as the general literature is only for contributions mentioning correspondence or items inserted in the FINA wiki, it misses most of the relevant literature which is precisrely not quoting anything relevant for FINA: printed books or papers for primary literature (Cuper has published several books - not as much as he announced but that is a different story) and there are papers on him which are not quoting a single numismatic letter. For a substantial amount of names, there will be no primary literature (because they never published any numismatic studies) and no more secondary literature. But for at least 200 hundreds of them, we will have much more than what can be found in the stricltly referential literature qutoed so far.
Creating these two additional fields (with possibility to classify chronologically the items) would allow to gather in one place all the relevant information about the actors of the République des Médailles.
- lets talk about the primary literature first: Why don't you add an entry for a book of Cuper in Literature. It will then show up alongside the other primary literature already inserted. On the entry of another book by Cuper, not referenced in FINA yet, it will show an empty box in the section "Document", see Cuper_1743 --Bkrabina (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2019 (CEST)
- for secondary literature, I suggest that we put another field in the literature form, we could reuse the property "associated persons". So a book could be about one (or more) numismatists and you could reference the person (or persons) that the book is about in the field in the same way as in all other resources. --Bkrabina (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2019 (CEST)
- François: You are certainly right for "primary literature". For what concerns "secondary literature", I also like your option but still think it is not ideal since it adds confusion for the user forced to distinguish in the same box what is correspondence, inventories, books, etc. Secondary literature is by nature something different, because modern. Hence, I still prefer to have a distinct box for "Secondary literature" with the possibility you mention to put several names for one item. What do you think?--FDeCallatay (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2019 (CEST)
- done. Separate boxes in the person pages are no problem. I enhanced the form for literature with a field "associated persons" and changed the person pages accordingly. See Francesco Mezzabarba Birago for an examlple. --Bkrabina (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2019 (CEST)
