Index talk:The European Concert in the Eastern Question.djvu

Sidenotes
A work with left and right sidenotes has a requirement to push the sidenotes either left or right when transcluding the work. With this work, it is recommended to utilise
 * left sidenote when the sidenote is on the left
 * RL sidenote when the sidenote is on the right

Q: Will that still work when the pages are transcluded into the chapter pages on the main namespace? (That is, considering that successive pages alternate sidenotes on the left or right, and there are paragraphs that continue across page breaks.) Will the transcluded pages, when assembled into a chapter, produce a visually coherent product, or a confused mess? See The European Concert in the Eastern Question/Chapter 2, for what happens when the pages are transcluded. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but... The problem with Chapter 2 is that instead of using RL sidenote as above, right sidenote has been used. The difference between the two is that "right" always displays on the right, whereas "RL" displays on the right in the page namespace and on the left in the main namespace. From the look of Chapter 2, I suspect that layout 2 should be set as the default. See Help:Sidenotes for more detail. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tried Layout 2 in a Preview, and it does look better, but when I tried this, all of the sidenotes from page 7 onwards were displayed amongst the body text rather than in the left margin. And I did check the page coding.  The sidenote on page 7 (the first to have this display problem) is using the "RL" template as it should. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As has been noted, I have run a bot through to update to RL. I still prefer the concept of Outside however, I know that we still have coding issues for Layout2, and my html is too poor to fix. — billinghurst  sDrewth  15:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

French text
There is a sizeable chunk of text in French within this work. Where is it going? Are we transcluding it here in en.WS as part of a larger (English) work? (in which case we should proofread it to our standards); or is it to be transcluded on fr.WS (in which case it should be proofread to their standards – e.g. typographic apostrophes – d’ / l’ not d' /l' – and spaces before colons and semi-colons). — Iain Bell (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The French sections are quoted from earlier French documents. Frinch Wikisource will presumably wish to include the originals, but I see no reason not to have them here, since (as you note) they appear only as part of a larger work in English, and were presuably then typeset at the time of its publication with consistent standards throughout. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Missing section?
Although the pages are numbered consecutively in the original scan from page 232 to 233, there is a huge jump in the Roman numerals numbering sections between those pages. Sections numbered I. & II. appear leading up to page 232, but page 233 jumps to a section numbered VII. and the following pages continue sequentially through VII., IX., and X. Is this an error in the original text, or are these sections numbered according to a document being discussed? I can't tell, but it looks more like the former to me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's actually OK, but not obvious. Section VI. begins on page 227. This section contains the sub-sections I. & II. that you found. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Pages 144 and 145 are missing
Pages 144 and 145 are currently just repeats of pages 146 and 147. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * They are available in the google scan here if someone wants to incorporate them. MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)