Talk:Call numbers

Revision as of 13:45, 23 May 2018 by DeborahLeslie (talk | contribs) (→‎STC bound-with call numbers: new section)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Origin of page --Deborah J. Leslie (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2014 (EDT)

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, then realized an hour later that I should have looked for the help page on tables! See 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