Talk:The Sikh Religion

Style Guide
Please update this list with formatting conventions used in this work, so that contributors can maintain consistency across the project. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

.
 * Some paragraphs are printed in a smaller font; these paragraphs should use fine block for transcription.
 * (Contested, see discussion below —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC) )
 * Chapter headings within a section should have two blank lines before them.
 * Do not leave blank lines between each line of a poetic passage. Use
 * No wikilinks in text.

Use of fine block

 * "Some paragraphs are printed in a smaller font; these paragraphs should use fine block for transcription." —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that fine block is incompatible with the formatting of several of these passage. So it shouldn't be used.
 * could you share an example? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The most obvious examples are the acrostics, such as the one on The_Sikh_Religion/Volume_1/Life_of_Guru_Nanak running from pages 3 to 8. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That shouldn't be incompatible. Is the template broken? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like to offer a comment, if I may. Firstly, both padding (1em) and depth (4em) are used with fqm on those pages. The fqm template does not have a depth parameter, it is just sitting there without work. Secondly, Fine block is a div template and fqm is a span template, so the first can enclose the second; there does not seem to be any incompatibility. I have created a simulation of one page (sans the depth parameter of fqm and adding fine block) here, which can be seen. Hrishikes (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please look again fqm does have a depth parameter. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * -- No, it does not. The documentation page does not list it. Depth is automatically included in the template (see template in edit mode). Padding on right automatically pushes the content to left, which means depth on left. Therefore, separate depth parameter cannot function. You can check it easily, by removing the depth parameter from one or two items on those pages and seeing the display in preview mode. The display won't be affected by removal of depth. But if you remove the 1em padding and keep the depth parameter intact, you will see that the fqm content attaches itself to the main text, without any padding/depth. I have already given an example of simulation above. Please check it and see whether there is any difference in display from what you created. Hrishikes (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please look again. The fqm does have a parameter to adjust depth. It's not in the documentation, but it is in the template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's what I was telling you: the depth is automatically included; it is not given as a parameter, so you cannot adjust it. The parent template of fqm, overfloat left, has the depth parameter; fqm is a simplified version of overfloat left, depth is pre-fixed in the template and cannot be adjusted. Only padding and gap parameters are adjustable in fqm. Please do the testing as I said and see for yourself. See example below:


 * Hrishikes (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is an example showing that the depth parameter exists and has an effect on the text rendering:


 * —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, your example seems to show that depth parameter is a restrictive attribute, i.e., it gives the maximum permissible limit of left overfloat. If no restriction is imposed, padding parameter will take hold. In your example, the padding of 1 em suffers due to depth restriction. Why do we need to restrict depth in this case? As I have shown above, non-restricted 1em padding gives the same display. Default 3em depth is sufficient in this case; in your example, I am not seeing any display difference between G (3em) and GH (4em). Hrishikes (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see what you mean: the text will be displayed identically regardless of the value of the depth parameter (including the default value), except when the specified depth is smaller than the width of the floated text + gap. In this case the acrostic letter width plus the 1em gap is less than 3em, so the display is the same with the default 3em depth and with the specified 4em depth. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * could you provide more detail regarding why this layout is not compatible with the fine block template?


 * —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Line breaks in poetic passages

 * I've just updated the passages I've been working on to respect that last format rule. However is there any particular reason behind this format rule?  takes more efforts to type than pressing the Entry key. Moreover, I find it easier to proof-read when there's a blank line between each paragraph. Assassas77 (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Each line of a poem is not a paragraph, and shouldn't be treated as a paragraph. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Then shouldn't we use to get a similar effect ? Assassas77 (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The &lt;poem&gt; extension does not allow lines to wrap, and in this work the lines are very long so text would disappear into the right margin. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You are saying the reverse. The poem tag allows long lines to wrap, so that the right portion of a long line goes into the next line, especially in mobiles, where screen width is less. I had to use nowrap many a time. Usually, if there is one or several long lines, you need to check the page, after proofreading, in different browsers and devices. If wrapping does occur, then nowrap template needs to be used to enclose the longest line. Hrishikes (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * it has been my experience that a long line enclosed in &lt;poem&gt; tags will not wrap and will result in the text going off the screen. If you have experienced differently, there may be browser differences at play. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Thanks. Your experience may have been different, of course, but I have not seen that kind of phenomenon, although I regularly use the poem tag. Anyway, here is an example of my experience: 1. You can remove the nowrap template and see in preview mode. I have just rechecked in my laptop with Google Chrome; the wrapping occurs. Can you please check with your browser and give feedback? Hrishikes (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I distinctly remember having this problem, but I can't reproduce it now in Firefox either. Maybe it was a bug that has been since fixed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikilinks
Does anyone have strong preferences regarding whether we should, or whether we should not, include wikilinks in the transcluded texts? (I am talking about links to works and authors, which are not considered annotations.) In general I prefer texts to be wikilinked in this manner, but I also think it too much to ask in a collaborative project. I am okay with either decision, so long as it is consistent throughout. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll take the lack of comment as no, we won't use wikilinks. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * On bnwikisource we routinely add wikilinks to other works and authors where they are first mentioned in a text and have an entire category system to track both mainspace and Page: pages that mention certain people. (I also recall a zhwikisource category system for works that make mention of certain years.) I have also seen works on enwikisource that add links in a similar manner, but I am not sure whether that is standard practice. Mahir256 (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * it is permitted but not required. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Although linking from footnotes can be useful, I prefer to minimize wikilinks in the text proper. Readers using touchscreen devices tend to accidentally hit links while scrolling. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Quotation marks
Which style of quotation marks is preferred? - Sir Beluga (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * “” ‘’ (like in the original print)
 * "" '&shy;' (easier to type and is predominant on the Web)


 * Per Style guide, straight quotation marks "" '&shy;' are preferred. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Hyphenation
Should we use Template:Hyphenated word, or just silently join words that are broken across lines? Or some other method? — Pelagic (talk) 05:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For now I might use soft hyphen  – it's invisible but amenable to later find & replace.
 * Background: I was reading the preface and noticed a number of bad word breaks. Pages have been verified by a vanished user, so I can’t raise the issue with them.
 * Pelagic (talk) 07:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * standard practice on Wikisource is to silently rejoin words that are broken across line breaks. Use hws and hwe to rejoin words that are broken over page breaks. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, Beleg Tâl. I see now that there are semantic issues with en:w:soft hyphen, so I’ll remove those. I wish we had a way to preserve the original line breaks as well as pagination, but that appears not to be part of Wikisource's practice.  Pelagic (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Small caps for A.D. and A.H.
I was grappling with how to best represent and, which are set in small caps in this work. So I created asc for the purpose. Details are in the template documentation. Anyone object, or are we happy to use that? Pelagic (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)