Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Document"
m (→Author notes: typo) |
m (→Author notes: reply) |
||
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
I wonder whether these are needed in light of assigning all authors to a property of type ''"page"''. We could of course change it to type ''"text"'' and revert the template edits to include the ''"#Ifexist"'' conditions again. My feeling just now is that it is probably best to leave it as I just modified it (ie ''"Is author"'' has type page. It is then easy to create the right page and put any bio and other info in it. It would resolve a perennial dilemma I've wrestled with, namely when and if to assign as author to a category and if so whether or not to create a separate page. The way it is now seems much cleaner and intuitive to me. What do you think? --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 15:30, 27 November 2013 (GMT) | I wonder whether these are needed in light of assigning all authors to a property of type ''"page"''. We could of course change it to type ''"text"'' and revert the template edits to include the ''"#Ifexist"'' conditions again. My feeling just now is that it is probably best to leave it as I just modified it (ie ''"Is author"'' has type page. It is then easy to create the right page and put any bio and other info in it. It would resolve a perennial dilemma I've wrestled with, namely when and if to assign as author to a category and if so whether or not to create a separate page. The way it is now seems much cleaner and intuitive to me. What do you think? --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 15:30, 27 November 2013 (GMT) | ||
+ | |||
+ | :: 2nd thoughts - Leave ''"AuthorDetail"'' as you've done it. It is clearly appropriate on some pages where rank, retired etc etc apply because we don't want them in page names |
Revision as of 16:49, 27 November 2013
Contents
Mandatory
Would it be a good idea to use this on all items in the document: namespace?
Robin (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2013 (GMT)
- Yep. I think it would. Not sure how to force it though, bearing in mind there a lot of documents that pre-exist the template and don't currently incorporate it. A form for the template would be very useful though --Peter P (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2013 (GMT)
Processing Semantic Dates
Semantic wiki does seem to be able to parse dates for its own purposes. Is there a way to use it to convert a randomly formatted date into an ISO-formatted date, so this can be used, e.g. to assign a document to a "YYYY Publications" category?
Robin (talk) 09:08, 11 November 2013 (GMT)
- I'm impressed!!. There must be a way to use SMW parsing for precisely that purpose and the 'isdate' property is the logical one to do it since it simply identifies any old format as a semantically readable date. I do think it would be better to have a new property property:Publication date for the documents publication date field though. I'll create it anyway and it can be used if you agree. SMW has a LOT of potential methinks --Peter P (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2013 (GMT)
- In fact, thinking about it, it would probably be better to have a property Property:Has publication date because it would then be a simple matter to search on the year of the publication date, making a separate category for each publication year redundant --Peter P (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2013 (GMT)
SMW properties problem
Robin - have a look at Special:Properties
I knew by certain performance issues concerning the Jobs queue and the SMW factobox behaving irratically that a problem was building. I think I can understand why Wikipedia does not use SMW. I still think it is worth developing its use here, but I want to sort out those rogue properties and understand the irratic factbox issue before creating and using any additional ones --Peter P (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2013 (GMT)
DocProv use of the 'RED' Broken template is broken on Iframe pages
Have a looks at Document:Getting Access to the Secrets of the Osama Bin Ladin Kill and Document:During 1917 for examples --Peter P (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2013 (GMT)
Publication date fails
The Construction of ISO8601 dates fails when any of its 3 date components is missing. There are a lot of pages with 'Day' missing and their displayed 'publication date therefore shows an error. This is especially applies to pages with templates which themselves have been changed to include 'DocProv' - The 200YT template pages are an example. There may be others. --Peter P (talk) 07:45, 23 November 2013 (GMT)
Author - conditional statement
I've removed the #Ifexist statement from the author variable because it inhibits the Property:Is author. This way all documents will be browseable semantically by 'Author'. The downside is that Author 'Unknown' gets page-linked --Peter P (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2013 (GMT)
Author notes
I wonder whether these are needed in light of assigning all authors to a property of type "page". We could of course change it to type "text" and revert the template edits to include the "#Ifexist" conditions again. My feeling just now is that it is probably best to leave it as I just modified it (ie "Is author" has type page. It is then easy to create the right page and put any bio and other info in it. It would resolve a perennial dilemma I've wrestled with, namely when and if to assign as author to a category and if so whether or not to create a separate page. The way it is now seems much cleaner and intuitive to me. What do you think? --Peter P (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2013 (GMT)
- 2nd thoughts - Leave "AuthorDetail" as you've done it. It is clearly appropriate on some pages where rank, retired etc etc apply because we don't want them in page names