User talk:Ironholds

— billinghurst  sDrewth  14:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Blackstone's Commentaries

 * Commentaries_on_the_Laws_of_England

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

gap
Gday bloke, nice to see a bit of quality drop by. With poem indents, we will often use gap (which takes input anyway}} to do a standard and the variation of indent. — billinghurst  sDrewth  16:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to be here, good to see you here :). Neat! Y'know, after 7-8 years on the projects I really should've assumed there was a template for it, since there seems to be a template for everything. Off to correct. Ironholds (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, we have a good series of templates to make life easier, and if you are into toolbar buttons, we have a set, and other scripts for various components. Laziness ru... — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Poems by John Donne
We don't do this here. Poems are not categorized by author, because they are listed at the author's Author page, in this case Author:John Donne. That's why you will only find only two other works categorized that way, because it was an abortive start on something that shouldn't be done. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay; I was ignorant of that - my apologies. In that case I'd suggest nominating the other categories for deletion just to avoid future confusion. Ironholds (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's really just one other category, with only two items (or was it three?) in them. The original intent of the master category was to house works by the "sort" of author, such as poems by children, poems by women, and that sort of thing, and that direction might still be fruitful, although it may need to be restructured as a Portal. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Page:Diaries of Court Ladies of Old Japan.djvu/62
Two bits of formatting I happened to notice when you edited this page (and I happen to be working on the same text):

(1) Look at the changes I've made in overall poem formatting. Poems usually use the tag instead of to ensure line breaks, so you can add that to the list of tools you know. But also, that first line should not have a hard break in it; it wraps only because of the page width, not because a new line has begun, and with poems that often necesitates additional indenting in the original printed source. However, we don't reproduce that sort of page-width wrapping in Wikisource, because our pages are not confined to those widths. It's a matter of learning a little how and why the poetry is formatted, and sometimes requires a bit of skill in determining whether the break is intended and deliberate, or merely an artefact of the printed page.

(2) We don't put spaces around long dashes—even when the original had them—but run them together as I've done here. This is again an artefact of old printing choices, and if you look carefully, you'll see such spaces before closing quotation marks, before exclamation points, before question marks, and all sorts of "extra" spaces by modern standards. In general, we don't follow such antiquated spacing because it's more likely to distract a modern reader than help them. There are, howeever, rare occasions where preserving the original addition of a space will help visually clarify, such as when single and double quotes are run together, and so there are times when they can be kept. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The second point is welcomed; I'm confused by the first. I know about poem tags - a look at my contributions would show that's what I've spent my day adding - and I didn't make any changes in page formatting. Ironholds (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I assume you're asking about "br" vs "poem", not not about the internal line breaks, so please ask again if I've aswered the wrong question. There are two schools of thought on formatting poems.  One school feels that the tag is the simple and elegant way to handle formatting.  It is much cleaner, and requires less fussing about with coding.  A second school feels that we can't rely on the tag continuing to exist in the future, and so avoids using it.  I belong to the first school because, not only is it cleaner and simpler, but I don't believe in editing so as to guess what the future may or may not hold.  In any case, in MW decides to change the tag or stop supporting it, they'll let the communities know, and it should be a simple matter for a bot to add in the br tags if they should be needed.  But again, the whole issue of the second school hinges on something that may or may not happen, with no indication at this point that it is something to worry about.  I see it as a kind of tinfoil hat thing.  Sure, there might be aliens beaming rays into your brain that could be easily stopped by wearing a tinfoil hat, but it still looks silly.


 * Aside from that, using the center block is prefered over block center/s and block center/e. For one thing, the latter pair are designed specifically to be used across page breaks, and not within a single page.  The latter two also use tables instead of CSS to format the text, which is a bit of a workaround. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, you understood the question correctly; makes sense :). Thanks for the center block advice, too! Ironholds (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Proofreading
Thanks.

If you want to contribute by proof reading other parts of the Probate thingy, feel free, Not that I understand any of it.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem! Currently working my way through the highway code. If I handle proofreading the pages you've already done, could you build the index? Ironholds (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Which index page do you mean, the one for the Highway Code stuff is already built, it's the transclusion into a single document that isn't..

I tend to start by building the Index: page first, then check I have all the pages, etc...

The Probate thingy is currently on a partial hold due to concerns under debate at Commons. about the scans used, even though the text in them is definitely long expired. The source scans were placed on Commons under OGL in good faith (because of the release statement on the source site), but a concern was raised that the scans as opposed to the contents might not actually have a clear release (because the OGL release on the source site doesn't explicitly mention them).

The Commons Thread is here -

Knowing Commons, this will be quickly resolved, so I don't see any major obstacle to proof-reading what already exists.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The Commons issue is now resolved :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)