Index talk:Natural History of the Nightingale, John Legg, 1779.djvu

Footnotes

Bringing a question over from the other Talk page that has not yet been addressed (as it is currently presented). I'll let the issue of footnote size be worked out amongst you two (and/or others); I just wanted to wrap up the issue of numbering so we can get closer to getting this project completed/transcluded to everyone's satisfaction:

I understand that "†" is used in the original, but because you have used 1, 2 numbering system for footnotes (which is not per use of original), should not a logical sequence also be followed for nested footnotes? (first comes *, then comes †, &c.)

Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, @Cygnis insignis: Please read above if you have not already. I can go ahead and transclude the work into the Main if there are no objections. I'm in no hurry, so I'll wait a couple days to get a response. Once transcluded, feel free to make any adjustments deemed necessary. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I remain opposed to using the new version until the issue of a large amount of small text is resolved? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

If you are referring to the size of the footnotes, as far as I know, guidance allows for the use of both small refs and normal-sized ones. I'm somewhat agnostic. Once it goes live, however, there may be an editor somewhere down the road who thinks it would be an improvement to use smallrefs and make the change... Perhaps leave a <!-- note --> on the Index pages containing references? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)