Index talk:Wikimedia UK gov review rpt v5.djvu

@Peteforsyth: Thanks for getting this transcribed, Pete- very relevant to present discussions. May I ask why the publisher is listed here as the Wikimedia Foundation? On the face of it they don't seem to have had anything to do with the publication process. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @MartinPoulter:, both for affirming the current relevance...and for your work on the transcription. I am in no way tied to "WMF as publisher" -- I just didn't really know how to fill in the metadata, and probably made the wrong call. Please feel free to improve as you see fit. -Pete (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

All pages are validated, but it's not quite "done"

Thanks to all of you for the quick transcribing, table-building, validating, etc.! Great to see this come together in a matter of days.

In addition to Martin's point above, there's something I think should be addressed before we call this "done," but I'm not sure of the best resolution. I believe this document should be useful when printed, even if black and white; but at present, the color-coding in the table would lead to an indecipherable table if rendered in black-and-white. Is there a way to address, this, without making it an unfaithful representation of the original? Perhaps the words "Red, green, yellow" etc. could be inserted in the cells, in a way that they will be printed in B/W? Sorry if that's a lame idea, but I don't see a clear solution. Other ideas? -Pete (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)