-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Change labels for "Published/Unpublished" in Authorities #1600
Comments
What is meant by "Der Titelzumbeibehaltende / Der Titelzumumhängende"? I suggest: Der beizubehaltende Titel / Der umzuhängende Titel |
Just a bad joke ;-) |
I vote for "Der Titelzumbeibehaltende / Der Titelzumumhängende" as the label ;) |
Is it worth exploring whether this is actually the right place for this marker, or if it should be in its own place? A “merge control” section of the record? |
Well it is kinda of a hack in the first place to use wf_stage for merging.. |
And it's really "relinking" not merging (for actual merging, see the fairy tale I wrote here: #1259) |
No comment. 😁
Am Mi., 12. Juni 2024 um 13:20 Uhr schrieb jenniferward <
***@***.***>:
… And it's really "relinking" not merging (for actual merging, see the fairy
tale I wrote here: #1259
<#1259>)
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1600 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGNBE4U55BYA6BQZCPHX6FTZHAVJBAVCNFSM6AAAAABJGA4VB6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCNRSG42TQNBWGU>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
We have began to work on merging authority records. Our workflow is surely different from yours, but also, we have been bitten by the fact that the merge only works if in the table the id column is labeled We have been doing some brainstorming and we have a provisional convention that, for the time being, allows us to mark records for merging. Imagine that there is a bad record 4321 that we want to be merged into the good record 1234. What we do is to write in the comments box of the good record box This convention allows that any person, with or without the rights to merge records, can spot and mark a duplicated record to merged (the more eyes, the better). We haven't finished yet our roles-and-permisions layout, but the idea is that if a person without the rights writes this mark, then the right person reviews it and repeats (copy & paste) or not, the same comment and this one is the one that is performed, and both are deleted (for the time being, only archived). |
Having said that, in our case, the existence of statuses for authority records is still useful. For example, at this moment, our bad records, after being merged, are put into Delete state. And we were also brainstorming about finding a good use of those statuses, like Published for those that have been verified (for example, our Faculties and Departments, and our Faculty staff), and Unpublished for those not verified. So yes, those statuses are important for us. So, |
Since only editors can merge, the published/unpublished options (or whatever it will be called) should not be accessible to catalogers. |
In the Authorities, “Unpublished” doesn’t mean “Unpublished” it means “Now you can merge”. This differs from Sources, where "unpublished/published" has an effect on what gets pushed to the public platforms.
The terms are confusing in Authorities for users. The terms in authorities should be changed to reflect the actual function. This should not affect Sources at all!
"Published" is the term that is visible on almost all records.
Wrong suggestions first:
Maybe just Published / To be merged?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: