Talk:Lists of Glagolitic manuscripts

The article is too long to navigate comfortably.

Please split the article into two. zsteve21 (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing. I have thought about splitting the article for a long time. The format of this article is based on Lists of New Testament minuscules. That article used to be much longer. It has been split into 1-1000, 1001-2000, 2001-3000. Unlike that list, this one is not yet ready for splitting. For two reasons:

(1) There is no comparable numeration system for Glagolitic manuscripts that would allow splitting by number, so it would have to be split by centuries. So we would end up with a List of early Glagolitic manuscripts, List of 15th century Glagolitic manuscripts, List of 16th century Glagolitic manuscripts, List of 17th century Glagolitic manuscripts, List of 18th century Glagolitic manuscripts, List of late Glagolitic manuscripts and then where would undated manuscripts go? If this article is "too long to navigate comfortably", imagine how uncomfortable it will be for the person who has to open 6 tabs and repeat the same search in all of them! So I borrowed a technique used in multiple articles this size and made the longest tables autocollapse. Because of this the true loading size of the article is not at all unusual.

(2a) The scope of the article is very long by nature of being a list of all manuscripts in a script X. There are not as many Glagolitic manuscripts as there are New Testament minuscules, for comparison. But there are about 2000. You specialise in reducing the markup size of articles. So you could probably help make this one smaller. (2b) But because it is very long I am still in research phase, so for practical reasons you should treat this article as "under construction". One of the reasons the article is so long is because of the size of the notes. They are so long and they have so many references because many of them deserve their own articles. You can help with that already by using those notes and their citations to write those articles, then prune the notes column of the relevant entry. But for any significant changes please wait. This article will shrink in the future as part of its editing process. When links to all digitised manuscripts can be found, then "Folia", "Dimensions" and "Columns and rows" will no longer be necessary (they are only in this list for manuscript identification). Ivan (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Renamed user Inatan: In the month since you posted that, you have made the article substantially longer rather than shorter. Autocollapsing the tables is not an acceptable solution. No article content should ever be collapsed by default. Only things like navigation templates should be collapsed by default. Your proposed solution of splitting the article into List of early Glagolitic manuscripts, List of 15th century Glagolitic manuscripts, List of 16th century Glagolitic manuscripts, List of 17th century Glagolitic manuscripts, List of 18th century Glagolitic manuscripts, List of late Glagolitic manuscripts is a good solution and should be implemented forthwith. If there are manuscripts that can't be assigned to one of those categories, you could create a List of undated Glagolitic manuscripts for them. Nosferattus (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed to split eventually. It should be split or the sources might exceed the limit. Autocollapsing has been employed for tables in many articles, but once this article is split it will no longer be necessary. However, I cannot split the article until it is finished enough for revision. Thank you for your concern. Ivan (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree - my browser (albeit I have a crap computer) lagged just from the article loading. Dylan | ✉ | ✓  20:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Gotta agree as well. User talk:EEng is nothing compared to this. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I learned from this mistake, so List of Cyrillic manuscripts will be split on creation. But I cannot split this yet without causing many errors. We still need to finish excerpting from the remaining literature (not a lot left). Then we can eliminate duplicates. Then we can split. Please have patience, I am still learning. Ivan (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

No worries, to be honest this is very impressive. Dylan | ✉ | ✓  23:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

It is, in its own way, but how is this an encyclopedia article? This appears to be a raw database dump, and WP:NOTDATABASE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The columns "Folia", "Dimensions" and "Columns and rows" are only temporary and will be deleted once scans have been found. They are necessary for now to avoid duplicates. The bibliographies will be retained only for those manuscripts which are not notable enough for their own article or section, and consequently only the shortest bibliographies will be retained. Those sources will be reused in the writing of the standalone articles, or else incorporated in the Bibliography or Further reading sections. Ivan (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree. This article is just ludicrously large, nearly crashed my laptop trying to load it. TheBritinator (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

These collapsibles won't work per MOS:COLLAPSE. I also for some reason can't even open them. Which makes me think a split is in order - did you know this is literally the largest article on Wikipedia? casualdejekyll 18:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I am working on the split in my offline version, which includes entries that are not in this version. The collapsing tables were a temporary solution to that problem. Ivan (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I have begun to split the article, with a separate article for entries of 900 to 1399. 1400 to 1499 should be its own article, as should 1500 to 1699 and 1700 to present. The undated entries can remain on this page, or in its own article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: do you have a plan for finishing this work? In particular, I'm concerned about all the referencing errors your changes have introduced -- there are now a couple dozen undefined references in the remaining material. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mikeblas: Hi there, I'm monitoring this page. I've had a look at some of the undefined references, it would seem that most (if not all) of them can be removed, as the content is supported by other references. I'm happy to work on that if no other editor will. Are there any scripts that can be used to identify the undefined references from the other articles? Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I took a look and it doesn't seem true that the claims in the article are supported by other references. Supuk 1957, for example, is used a few dozen times and most of those invocations are not supported by other references. These references were present before you deleted them. I copied the reference definition from the List of Glagolitic manuscripts (1400–1499) article, and now it is properly referenced again. This isn't much effort, but it does need to be done for each of the references that you've removed from the article. Unfortunately, I don't know of any scripts that do this -- maybe they exist, but I don't know of one. IN the past, I've done this work manually. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

For the record, AnomieBOT is supposed to do these, but doesn't seem to have done so. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 00:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

User:AnomieBOT for that task is unreliable and inaccurate. It doesn't always copy references; when it does, it might copy a completely irrelevant reference instead of the correct one. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Through these changes, I've restored the reference definitions that you deleted. I'm trying to assume good faith, but your edits were egregiously damaging to the article. If you decide to split more sections, I hope you'll be more careful in managing the content and its references. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

List of undated Glagolitic manuscripts exists now; this article is now only the 3rd longest page. None of the refs seem broken to me, but what do I know? Queen of Hearts ^she/_they^talk/_stalk 01:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be anymore. However, the process needs to continue to reduce the size. TheBritinator (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Zsteve21, Nosferattus, FatalFit, LilianaUwU, TheBritinator, Onetwothreeip, and Mikeblas: it is done. This page is now a list of lists. Queen of Hearts ^she/_they^talk/_stalk 19:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Terrific, amazing work. TheBritinator (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome! @Queen of Hearts and I did this over the course of a day. It was quite a lot of work, but we managed to get it done. Sink Cat (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)