User talk:Hacienda

Hello,, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here. If you need help, see our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). You can discuss or ask questions from the community in general at the Scriptorium. The Community Portal lists tasks you can help with if you wish. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. I noticed your contribution of List of Acts of Parliament of the English Parliament to 1600. There are a couple of issues with the way you are approaching these texts. First of all if you could read our style guide and get an idea of how we do things differently than Wikipedia, particulary our naming conventions. We don't want use the sorts of a abbreviations you have set-up and we also use subpages here. Although looking at the size of some of these documents you might just want to use Statutes made at Merton and have each different one setup under headings rather than on it's own page. That is assuming the Statutes at Maerton was one document. Secondly we don't put editorial material in the main space. The overall list needs to be in the Wikisource space somehow branched off of Legislative documents, I probably wouldn't have list in the title either. I am not sure exactly how you should set these up because I am unfamilar with the documents, but I would be happy to answer any specific questions you may have.--BirgitteSB 18:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your welcome and comments - I have various points and requests: I never particularly liked the naming convention and abbreviation on Wikipedia and would rather title things properly. I am unsure what you are referring to as "editorial material" - everything I put on was taken from a source text. I will put the headers on the articles - however I did have a query on the "author": the style page you referred me to specifically gave the UK Parliament as an example of a 'non-author' (see here) - but would it not make sense to have an "author page" for Parliament (it is a prolific "author"), branching off to time periods (perhaps delineated by reigns of monarchs, at least for older Acts) and finally individual Acts? Of course the current list is far, far too long. Linking it from legislative documents is obviously sensible, though if the approach for other Acts was taken here, the list would soon become unmanageably long (thus my author branching off suggestion). Except for the headers, I won't edit anything pending discussion on the best approach to structuring it all. Hacienda 20:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to take a scythe to the UK Acts template (which I added) too - are there policies and approaches to these? Hacienda 20:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * By editorial material I meant List of Acts of Parliament of the English Parliament to 1600 which does not acutally contain any texts. I am unsure exactly what it should be but sometime along the lines of UK legislation/Pre-1600 or Legislative documents/UK/Pre-1600.  But maybe we should ask this on the Scriptorium.  I agree that Parliment should not have an Author: page although some of these documents might actually be attributed to a certain person.  Still most will be set-up with the |no author= override.  The Template does need sorting out but we need to decide on naming conventions first.  I already axed everything post-1955 as Crown Copyright is not accecptable here.--BirgitteSB 21:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

UK Acts
Yes, go ahead and create those pages. Good luck with that! If you need anything else, feel free to ask.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, Hacienda! The tables look great.  I'm going to go ahead and tweak the header to add some easy navigation between the subpages.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)