Lostraven
Welcome edit
Welcome
Hello, Lostraven, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- Help pages, especially for proofreading
- Style guide
- Inclusion policy
- Wikisource:For Wikipedians
You may be interested in participating in
Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{CotW}} to your page for current wikisource projects.
You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.
Have questions? Then please ask them at either
I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.
Again, welcome! --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Template and module edit
Why do you believe that we need
We currently have processes for urls, and I see no need to make that more complex than is necessary. Care to explain the upside to your model? — billinghurst sDrewth 03:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, sDrewth. Obviously Wikisource isn't a direct parallel to Wikipedia. I was trying to accomplish the creation of alpha-character footnotes on this site, with URLs in the footnote. You can find a properly working example of it here. Both Wikipedia and that site use the Template and Module URL as a solution to the problem of adding URLs to footnotes. Alpha-character footnotes are added via Template:Efn, which is located on this site but without documentation. So let's look at the documentation on WP, under the section "Issues":
- "Including external link markup will result in an error. Use the {{URL}} template instead:
{{URL|1=url name|2=optional display text}}."
- I wanted to add a URL to a footnote of a journal article I was going to add, just as the original journal authors did, but no template was in place to do that. Thus I added the URL stuff. If there is an alternate way to achieve what I need to here, please let me know. Lostraven (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- The thing is that we have tried to steer away from alpha footnotes, and just stick with numbers, and as necessary utilise groups =. We try to keep things simple here (not add unnecessary complexity), and while we replicate a work, we don't bust our guts trying to replicate a style — think here replicate the author, not the typographer. The more complexity we add to the transcription process, the harder and more confusing it becomes for transcribers, especially as many of our works are older, have footnotes per page and use * † ‡ § usually repeatedly. So we just said use numbers. We do have some users who add more and different templates for little value, and what becomes bloat and confusion, problematic in different devices, ... so we profess KISS — don't special font, don't margin, don't fix sizes, ... We try to explain that in Wikisource:Style guide. So my question would be for the work, do we need alpha footnotes, or can we get away with standard? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Also noting the EFN has been here two weeks, and not typical of how we do. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- PS. Linking to a "user talk page" isn't effective for the echo notification system, it looks for "user page" links — billinghurst sDrewth 03:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I hadn't seen the style guide. However, everything else I had read gave me the impression (perhaps falsely) that one had to remain as true as possible to the formatting of the original work. It seems there is some leniency, however. Thanks for the update. If I have any additional formatting questions, who is best to contact for help? Lostraven (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is a little tricky as we are covering publishing styles of 400 years; and the evolution of publishing from a book to journals, newspapers, etc. So we try to talk about the principle of presenting authors' works in 2010s, on the web, on multiple devices and respecting users' choices. So principle begets guidelines, and that is interpreted into each reproduction. So we don't want to look like a hotchpotch, we do expect natural variation and contributors' interpretations. With all of that an author's work presented and keeping it simple. Some contributors do go further (and further) and we try to bring it back to the core issues.
Best places for help around this place are for advice either WS:S and WS:Scriptorium/Help with the second being a little cuddlier, otherwise pretty similar. Plus many of our formatting templates have been thought of before so Help:Templates. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is a little tricky as we are covering publishing styles of 400 years; and the evolution of publishing from a book to journals, newspapers, etc. So we try to talk about the principle of presenting authors' works in 2010s, on the web, on multiple devices and respecting users' choices. So principle begets guidelines, and that is interpreted into each reproduction. So we don't want to look like a hotchpotch, we do expect natural variation and contributors' interpretations. With all of that an author's work presented and keeping it simple. Some contributors do go further (and further) and we try to bring it back to the core issues.