I have a couple authors that recur in my notes with regularity, and I thought it might make sense to make a note for each of them that highlights everything I’ve saved from them. Is this overkill? I thought it might especially be handy because their names don’t always show up the same way (e.g. James vs, Jack).
The bigger question is what do I do with that note? It doesn’t logically fall under anything, hierarchically.
Anyone else working with author MOCs like this?
I do this all the time. I work in history of philosophy so tracking people is an important as tracking ideas. I save them in folders / larger index notes corresponding to the culture and era they worked in. But generally if someone is important enough for this, it doesn’t matter where I save the index; I know to just type their name.
I have a folder with people. And I use tags to describe their relation to me. #rel/family for family, #rel/worked-with, #rel/project-with for most people.
For authors and sources, I use #rel/source. It’s weird they’re mixed with personal CRM stuff, but I didn’t have a good reason to have some people in one folder and other people in another folder.
I decided to do a single People MOC to link these pages to. And in the main “People” note, I just have a simple bulleted list of the people, in chronological order. This has the added advantage of serving as a kind of timeline to see who was contemporary to whom.
If the list starts to get too long, I’ll break it up into eras with headings.