Hi, sorry for leaving you unanswered for so long (even after that very complete answer you gave me), it turns out that I came to a point in this post where you were right considering the examples I presented earlier.
I didn’t know how to explain to you the usefulness of a wildcard cloze without filling the “example note” with information that, as pointed out, could be discovered by the context.
That said, I will try not to waste your time with an ineffective explanation.
The idea of a cloze ({{c1-c2-c3::…}}) that serves more than one card is to use this without having to produce more than one note when the intention is for the information to be presented by Anki in different times.
I will try to give a practical example: I study law in Brazil and many of our laws have the following configuration:
Penal Code, Art. 148. Depriving someone of their freedom, through kidnapping or prison:
Penalty - imprisonment, from one to three years.
§ 1 The penalty is of {{c1-c2-c3-c4-c5::reclusion}}, of {{c1-c2-c3-c4-c5::two to five years}}:
I - if the victim is {{c1::ascendant, descendant, spouse or partner of the agent}} or {{c1::over 60 (sixty) years}};
II - if the crime is committed through {{c2::admission of the victim to a nursing home or hospital}};
III - if the deprivation of liberty lasts {{c3::more than fifteen}} days.
IV - if the crime is committed against a minor of {{c4::18 (eighteen)}};
V - if the crime is committed with {{c5::lewd purposes}}.
Note that the crime is defined in “Art. 148", and “§ 1” (information “father” with increased penalty) then brings five hypotheses in which this penalty is increased, more specifically in “I”, “II”, “III”, “IV” and “V”.
Thus, having the “wildcard cloze” ({{c1-c2-c3-c4-c5::}}) as “parent” information in “§ 1”, it will be occluded whenever Anki presents c1, c2 , c3, c4 and c5 (“I”, “II”, “III”, “IV” and “V”).
In addition, there will be no conflict or problem with the scheduling of cards, since the information of the answers will be saved in the respective “normal” clozes (c1, c2, c3, c4 and c5) and not in the “wild cloze” ({{c1 -c2-c3-c4-c5::}}).
Unfortunately, I’m not able to think of any less abstract example to demonstrate the idea than the laws of my country, in which it is necessary to know not only the penalty of the main provision, but also the aggravation in all cases where applicable.
An alternative that I usually use and that generates an absurd redundancy in my collection of notes on Anki, a redundancy that I’m trying to correct with the current suggestion is the following:
NOTE 1
Penal Code, Art. 148, § 1 The penalty is {{c1::reclusion}}, from {{c1::two to five years}}:
I - if the victim is {{c1::ascendant, descendant, spouse or partner of the agent}} or {{c1::over 60 (sixty) years}};
(…)
NOTE 2
Penal Code, Art. 148, § 1 The penalty is {{c1::reclusion}}, from {{c1::two to five years}}:
(…)
II - if the crime is committed by means of {{c1::admission of the victim to a nursing home or hospital}};
(…)
NOTE 3
Penal Code, Art. 148, § 1 The penalty is {{c1::reclusion}}, from {{c1::two to five years}}:
(…)
III - if the deprivation of liberty lasts {{c1::more than fifteen}} days.
(…)
And so on…
Although I can’t imagine any less silly examples than those presented in the first posts (“presidents”), I believe there is a lot of multi-referenced information that could use this approach, and the implementation doesn’t seem to be too complex (from someone’s point of view who barely know how to change the style of the cards themselves haha).
What do you think?