Talk:Call numbers: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(Added section on Call numbers based on accession numbers) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Origin of page== | ==Origin of page== | ||
http://bard.folger.edu/cgi-bin/view.pl/Main/CentralLibrary/ShelfMarks --[[User:DeborahLeslie|Deborah J. Leslie]] ([[User talk:DeborahLeslie|talk]]) 17:30, 8 April 2014 (EDT) | http://bard.folger.edu/cgi-bin/view.pl/Main/CentralLibrary/ShelfMarks --[[User:DeborahLeslie|Deborah J. Leslie]] ([[User talk:DeborahLeslie|talk]]) 17:30, 8 April 2014 (EDT) | ||
==Call numbers based on accession numbers== | |||
Introduction of TIND and Caiasoft along with retiring the 'q', 'f', and 'b' size classifications has led to a reconsideration of how we formulate call numbers based on accession numbers. At time of writing, the [https://teams.microsoft.com/l/message/19:232478cdf08946b091c5f9c72b12b0b9@thread.tacv2/1710436667174?tenantId=be74c336-4a64-418d-bb6a-afef53a3c88e&groupId=cb33f5ed-ccb3-4e32-9f8b-414b29e9a855&parentMessageId=1710436667174&teamName=Collection%20Description&channelName=General&createdTime=1710436667174 outlines of a new practice] has been discussed among the Collection Description Team, but not yet formulated or shared with other Collection Groups. | |||
In short, call numbers will be formatted without a '''[space][hyphen][space]''' bifurcating the 6-digit accession number. It will look almost exactly like the accession number (as written on items, accession numbers still begin with an '''F'''), but retaining the distinction between an accession number and a call number based on an accession is significant, and will be retained by including both numbers in MARC, coded to distinguish them. -- [[User:DeborahLeslie|DeborahLeslie]] ([[User talk:DeborahLeslie|talk]]) 16:40, 7 August 2024 (EST) | |||
==Stylistic questions== | ==Stylistic questions== | ||
The section for art shelfmarks are styled quite differently from the others. It looks especially bad right now because the "code" formatting hasn't been changed yet. Nevertheless, the basic issue of articles containing preformatted examples with parenthetical comment is going to keep coming up and I'd like to settle our basic house style. --[[User:DeborahLeslie|Deborah J. Leslie]] ([[User talk:DeborahLeslie|talk]]) 17:53, 8 April 2014 (EDT) | The section for art shelfmarks are styled quite differently from the others. It looks especially bad right now because the "code" formatting hasn't been changed yet. Nevertheless, the basic issue of articles containing preformatted examples with parenthetical comment is going to keep coming up and I'd like to settle our basic house style. --[[User:DeborahLeslie|Deborah J. Leslie]] ([[User talk:DeborahLeslie|talk]]) 17:53, 8 April 2014 (EDT) | ||
: Have a look now. I tried two things: indenting the Art examples (so that they read more easily), and converting some LC examples (the last three) to a table. The table isn't necessarily formatted the way it should be. I started by copy-and-pasting the table at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Formatting, then realized an hour later that I should have looked for the help page on tables! See http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Tables for it. --[[User:ErinBlake|Erin Blake]] ([[User talk:ErinBlake|talk]]) 19:30, 8 April 2014 (EDT) | |||
== STC bound-with call numbers == | |||
Reconsidering the STC xxxx Bd.w. STC xxxxxx formula. Perhaps use the workaround developed for manuscript and art that encompass several items. E.g., Y.d.23 (1-3) displays, but hidden fields index | |||
Y.d.23 (1) | |||
Y.d.23 (2) | |||
Y.d.23 (3) | |||
Erin to find examples to review | |||
Latest revision as of 16:40, 7 August 2024
Origin of page
http://bard.folger.edu/cgi-bin/view.pl/Main/CentralLibrary/ShelfMarks --Deborah J. Leslie (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2014 (EDT)
Call numbers based on accession numbers
Introduction of TIND and Caiasoft along with retiring the 'q', 'f', and 'b' size classifications has led to a reconsideration of how we formulate call numbers based on accession numbers. At time of writing, the outlines of a new practice has been discussed among the Collection Description Team, but not yet formulated or shared with other Collection Groups.
In short, call numbers will be formatted without a [space][hyphen][space] bifurcating the 6-digit accession number. It will look almost exactly like the accession number (as written on items, accession numbers still begin with an F), but retaining the distinction between an accession number and a call number based on an accession is significant, and will be retained by including both numbers in MARC, coded to distinguish them. -- DeborahLeslie (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2024 (EST)
Stylistic questions
The section for art shelfmarks are styled quite differently from the others. It looks especially bad right now because the "code" formatting hasn't been changed yet. Nevertheless, the basic issue of articles containing preformatted examples with parenthetical comment is going to keep coming up and I'd like to settle our basic house style. --Deborah J. Leslie (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2014 (EDT)
- Have a look now. I tried two things: indenting the Art examples (so that they read more easily), and converting some LC examples (the last three) to a table. The table isn't necessarily formatted the way it should be. I started by copy-and-pasting the table at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Formatting, then realized an hour later that I should have looked for the help page on tables! See http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Tables for it. --Erin Blake (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2014 (EDT)
STC bound-with call numbers
Reconsidering the STC xxxx Bd.w. STC xxxxxx formula. Perhaps use the workaround developed for manuscript and art that encompass several items. E.g., Y.d.23 (1-3) displays, but hidden fields index
Y.d.23 (1) Y.d.23 (2) Y.d.23 (3)
Erin to find examples to review