On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 20:32:17 -0400
Rik Kabel <context@rik.users.panix.com> wrote:

I noticed that in bibliographies, page indexing combines runs of two
or more pages (pp. 150­–151), as does page number compression in
registers, while it takes three or more numbered citations to cause a
similar collapse (per the MKIV-Publications manual, page 38, I do not
have an example) for citation number references.

Is there a way to change such compression minimums so that they can
be made consistent?

What seems more logical to you? 
pp 150,151 or pp 150-151 - of course pp 150-152 makes perfect sense.
[2,3] or [2-3] - of course [2-4] also makes sense.

I prefer the first choices. ConTeXt registers do the second, and I do
not know what led to that choice and if Hans would like to change it
(or even make this a parameter).

Alan

I am looking for consistency.

For page references, the bibliography subsystem gives:

• pp. 1–2
  
• pp. 1–3
  
• p. 1 and p. 3

and numeric citations apparently produce:

• [1,2]
• [1–3]
• [1,3]
  

while the index registers give:

• 1–2
• 1–3
  
• 1, 3

Why is the ‘and’ needed in the bibliography page reference? One could also ask why the ‘p.’ and ‘pp.’, but in the more verbose setting of a bibliography, I can live with them.

As for the choice of two or more over three or more for compression, I can see arguments for each. A default and the ability to change it seems best, especially for bibliographic entries where publishers have overriding standards.

--
Rik

--
Rik