Difference between revisions 5064886 and 5072244 on enwikisource

{{archive header}}

== [[Index:1930 QLD Royal Commission into Racing Report.djvu]] ==

This is a mess , with 2 different styles of sidenotes used.

Can someone set ONE style consistently across this, and leave a note on the talk page? [[User:ShakespeareFan00|ShakespeareFan00]] ([[User talk:ShakespeareFan00|talk]]) 23:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

(contracted; show full)se both the gadget color, whatever that color default may be, ''plus'' what Inductive Load placed in my common.js which is medium grey/gray and black text. Sometimes old things work better than new things. Mine works fine. Thanks Beez, [[User:William Maury Morris II|—Maury]] ([[User talk:William Maury Morris II|talk]]) 03:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

:::Thank you all for the help!  Mr. Orwell fixed it.  [[User:Laura1822|Laura1822]] ([[User talk:Laura1822|talk]]) 14:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
⏎
== War of 1812 documents ==

I've made a transcription of a pension grante[e], signed by [[w:Henry Burbeck|Henry Burbeck]]:
* [[User:Ecruelvia/Battle of Chippawa-New York Pension Roll-1815]]
Can someone proofread the text and move it to the right place? --[[User:Ecruelvia|Ecruelvia]] ([[User talk:Ecruelvia|talk]]) 14:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Ecruelvia}} I have created an Index: page and then put the transcription onto a Page: ns page at [[Page:Battle of Chippawa-New York Pension Roll-1815.png]] which allows for side-by-side proofing. I had a quick text hack, but did not mark it as proofread. See how you go with proofing it, then one of us can validate, and show you how to transclude to the main namespace. As the work is for a specific person, we will need to fix the name that we use for the piece on the main namespace. — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:smaller">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 05:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
::{{ping|Billinghurst}} Thanks, now marked as proofread. --[[User:Ecruelvia|Ecruelvia]] ([[User talk:Ecruelvia|talk]]) 04:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

== Question regarding appropriate hyperlinking in jargon-dense technical works. ==

I believe but cannot find to verify, that Wikisource's style manual says that if you're linking to a term in a work, you should only link to that term once. However, I'm not sure this is appropriate for the work I'm proofreading now, [[Index:Synopsis of the Exinct Batrachia and Reptilia of North America. Part 1..pdf|''Synopsis of the Exinct Batrachia and Reptilia of North America. Part 1.'']]. This work is quasi-encyclopedic in that much of its content consists of "self-contained" descriptions of various different kinds of prehistoric animal rather than being part of an over-arching narrative. As such, most readers are likely to be interested primarily in portions of the work rather than reading it overall from start to finish. The work is also very dense with obscure technical jargon (eg "diapophysis"). In light of all this I've been linking to terms that may confuse readers once per section about a given genus of animal rather than only once in the entire work. I would like to request comments on whether or not you guys agree that this is the right approach and about the hyperlinking as it exists so far (especially starting from [[Page:Synopsis of the Exinct Batrachia and Reptilia of North America. Part 1..pdf/38|page 34]]). [[User:Abyssal|Abyssal]] ([[User talk:Abyssal|talk]]) 16:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
:The right amount of linking has always been one of those tricky questions in a work. We don't want a sea of links. we want the level of linking appropriate to the work (technical work versus fictional work), of a higher order relevance, something that aligns the expected level of readership to the presented level of the work. Then we have internal linking versus external linking, the linking indicated in the work itself, ie. internal explicit cross references (q.v.) and maybe a link to a glossary of terms, and external links to other works.

:So my first glance at the page showed quite a few links, and more than I would normally expect for one of our works. They look external, and not to any references, nor to any internal references within the work itself. So rather than me to judge, for someone reading the work, what would expect why are they reading it? how have they arrived at the work? what is their expected level of knowledge on the subject? why are they reading it, and what are you expecting for them to do with the component that they are reading? Can we expect them to have another reference available?  I know that numbers of the words that I saw were unknown to me, so I could see myself clicking on some of the links to learn a little more. Some words were clearly used in common English and I felt not required for linking. Sometimes I think a link only where it gives pure value to link off through making the work clearly more understandable or ore in context, and I here I doubt that I would click every link. What value will I get, what will I learn from clicking a link? I would expect explicit value for any link clicked. So with those reflections, maybe you can look at your linking and see whether you think that you have it right. — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:smaller">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 05:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
::I've removed a few links from [[Page:Synopsis of the Exinct Batrachia and Reptilia of North America. Part 1..pdf/38|page 34]]. Is it starting to look more reasonable? Does anything else stand out as being in need of removal? [[User:Abyssal|Abyssal]] ([[User talk:Abyssal|talk]]) 14:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
:::As a biologist, I still think this is over-linked. There is no reason to link "Kansas" or "limestone", for example. Most people likely to read the article will know what a "plesiosaur" is. Linking in a technical article should help the user: '''(1)''' find additional relevant info, such as works by a mentioned individual, or referenced works. In this instance, Fort Wallace and the Smoky Hill River are significant as locations, and someone would appreciate being able to follow a link to quickly get more information. '''(2)''' clarify terms or concepts that are likely to be obscure to the sort of person who would visit the article. In this instance, a person reading this article ought to know what a "neural arch" or "foramina" are, so those ought not to be linked. These are just general principles I use, and only a couple of examples where I think linking is done correctly or incorrectly. One other point: a link should be obvious, so linking the word "of" to an article on the paleontology of Kansas is not likely to be helpful. The user at this end will not spot that unless they know to first hover over the link. Hiding a link behind text that isn't immediately relevant, obviously connected, or purposefully leading to that link is not especially helpful in my view, and ought to be avoided. --[[User:EncycloPetey|EncycloPetey]] ([[User talk:EncycloPetey|talk]]) 01:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)