Index talk:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 1.djvu

Bolded, Indented, and Enlarged Entries

I've just come across this work and did some light editing. Before I continue, it seems like, even on Validated pages, each encyclopedia entry has been forcibly indented, and its entry title is bolded and enlarged, like so:

Example Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

As far as I can tell, it doesn't seem like any of these styles are necessary. Paragraph indentation is generally against WS policy, and the bolded and enlarged entry titles do not match the scan. Is there a good reason this transcription includes these deviations? If not, can these be replaced with appropriate formatting?

—SpikeShroom (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I've been working on this for the past few weeks. My (admittedly faulty) philosophy has been to continue with the styles I saw on the first few pages which had the indentation, emboldening and enlarging that you mentioned. I don't know if there's a good reason for this (sorry, maybe I should've asked some of these questions before I started working on this).

Personally, I actually kind of like the bolding and enlarging of the article title. Even though it doesn't match the scan, I think it captures the idea of making the titles stand out (simply capitalising, like in the scan, I feel doesn't work as well on a screen). The indentation, on the other hand though, I am ambivalent towards and happy to stop doing that if that is the consensus. Tripler06 (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries, giant works like this are always a matter of agreeing on a common style. Looking at other Encyclopædia Britannica volumes, it seems like the EB1 talk page defines the standard for each entry as one entry per page, so I don't think we need titles to stand out more than they do on the scan. I'd also argue that it's better for this issue to look more sparse, since it gives the reader a chance to see that the EB standards improved over time (EB11 has bold entry titles).

—SpikeShroom (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, that's fair. I'll stick to that for future work (and maybe at some point, we can get around to fixing some of the previous pages as well)! Tripler06 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for going back and fixing things! (and sorry that I added to the pile of work >_<). I just wanted to make a small remark: do you think it would be ok to not change the section markers? (I mean the guys in ## Article title ##, not sure what the proper name is). I realise there is some inconsistency there which can be frustrating (again partially my fault, I began by using title case for those guys but realised a lot of the other articles use all upper case so I switched to that). The only issue is that the articles in EB9 use these titles for the transclusion so changing them may break this. Since these are invisible to the reader, maybe it's ok to leave them as they are? Please let me know what you think and if you have any other ideas. Tripler06 (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

You're totally welcome, and don't feel bad at all! You've added a lot of good work to the project already, and doing a second pass isn't a problem for me. Funny enough I did the same thing with section labels (I started doing title case and switched to uppercase). Section label consistency isn't a huge priority as long as it matches up with the transclusion, so I'll go back and fix any transclusion pages that I messed with.

—SpikeShroom (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)