Difference between revisions 5167622 and 5170781 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)
:::You've redirected the primary page, but the three subsidiary pages have not been attended to. These should also be redirected, or perhaps deleted, depending on whether there are links to them (either on or off WS). --[[User:EncycloPetey|EncycloPetey]] ([[User talk:EncycloPetey|talk]]) 03:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
::::Deleted.--[[User:Mpaa|Mpaa]] ([[User talk:Mpaa|talk]]) 18:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
⏎
== Paragraph break in footnote ==

Hi, on [[Page:Aboriginesofvictoria01.djvu/536|this page]] I had a footnote with a para break that wasn't displaying when it was coded as two returns. I added a {{tl|nop}}, and that seemed to help. Is that the right approach, or is there a better way? [[User:Pelagic|Pelagic]] ([[User talk:Pelagic|talk]]) 13:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

:Added another approach, see if you like. [[User:Hrishikes|Hrishikes]] ([[User talk:Hrishikes|talk]]) 15:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

:I only knew about using <nowiki><p></nowiki> to force a paragraph break in footnotes, but I must admit, using {{tl|nop}} certainly looks better in the code. I don't think there is a "right approach" unfortunately. [[User:Djr13|djr13]] ([[User talk:Djr13|talk]]) 16:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

:I've tended to use <nowiki><br/><br/></nowiki>, but mainly because I don't know why inserting blank lines doesn't achieve the desired result. I'd like to have some of the other code-minded folks here comment on the use of {{tl|nop}} in this situation, because it's certainly the most elegant and easily explained solution, if it doesn't lead to any unwanted effects. --[[User:EncycloPetey|EncycloPetey]] ([[User talk:EncycloPetey|talk]]) 16:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

::Using <nowiki><br/><br/></nowiki> is perhaps a bad idea, both for appearance and possible accessibility reasons. <nowiki><br/></nowiki> is purely visual while <nowiki><p></p></nowiki> actually indicates a new paragraph. [[User:Djr13|djr13]] ([[User talk:Djr13|talk]]) 16:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

:::The problem I have with using <nowiki><p></nowiki> is that it's an opening tag, usually with no closing <nowiki></p></nowiki> tag to accompany it. It only works as a hack. --[[User:EncycloPetey|EncycloPetey]] ([[User talk:EncycloPetey|talk]]) 17:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

::::You can use both, and in fact that can even help. For example, if you have a three paragraph footnote, you can code it like this: "<nowiki><ref>Paragraph 1<p>Paragraph 2</p>Paragraph 3</ref></nowiki>", and nothing stops you from enclosing the second, or fourth, etc paragraph even if there is no other paragraph that follows it. Although I haven't checked if there are any problems if the second, fourth, etc paragraph is split across a page. [[User:Djr13|djr13]] ([[User talk:Djr13|talk]]) 17:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

::::Yes, I feel naughty using a naked <nowiki><p></nowiki> without closing <nowiki></p></nowiki>; though bad XHTML, I think it's allowable again in HTML5?  Structurally, "<nowiki><ref><p>Paragraph 1</p><p>Paragraph 2</p></ref></nowiki>" would be more correct, as the two paragraphs are sibling parts of the parent ref. [[User:Pelagic|Pelagic]] ([[User talk:Pelagic|talk]]) 12:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

:For the 10,000 time.... if you want "something" to ALWAYS appear, render, qualify-as ''and'' stay a paragraph across the wiki marked-up world, as well as in any printing/conversion normal HTML compliant world (let's say into a PDF) - you should wrap that "something" in opening <nowiki><p></nowiki> and closing <nowiki></p></nowiki> paragraph tags; end of story. While anything else might appear correct to the eye, you are just dancing <u>with</u> the wiki mark-up &/or dancing <u>around</u> the HTML specification to get that faux reality. -- [[User:George Orwell III|George Orwell III]] ([[User talk:George Orwell III|talk]]) 21:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
:: GO3, according to my count it's only 5,632 times and not more.— [[User talk:Ineuw|Ineuw talk]] 20:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
::If we took that to its extreme conclusion, then we'd all be using pure HTML markup instead of dancing with the wikicode. A possible down-side of <nowiki><p>...</p></nowiki> is that tools which deal directly with the wiki code would have to be written to cope with both the wiki-style blank line and the HTML-style <nowiki><p></nowiki> tags, if they wanted to detect semantic paragraphs. But I take your point, George, that <nowiki><p>...</p></nowiki> is robust. A future change to Wikimedia software could possibly break some uses of <nowiki>{{nop}}</nowiki>. The problem is that we don't really know <em>why</em> the two-line-breaks method doesn't work within a <nowiki><ref></nowiki>. [[User:Pelagic|Pelagic]] ([[User talk:Pelagic|talk]]) 12:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
:::"Dancing with the wikicode" here is a symptom of not being Wikipedia. Their mission is to foster the ease of ongoing discussions as they relate to material never considered to be finished or at least always in a state flux. It makes complete sense to apply formatting "shortcuts" via symbolic equivalents in their case. Our mission is to faithfully reproduce published works as close as possible to the original. It makes absolutely no sense to follow Wikipedia's lead here because our products can and do have a finite "end-point" - a point where a product becomes static and theoretically falls away from the need to make any further changes or amendments to it from then on.<p>But if you're still gun-shy about utilizing straight tags here on Wikisource, you can always check-out {{tl|P}}aragraph tag & {{tl|Span tag}} to see if they suite your needs for any given scenario or not. (Additional comments a bit further down) -- [[User:George Orwell III|George Orwell III]] ([[User talk:George Orwell III|talk]]) 23:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


Thanks, for the feedback, everyone.  For what it's worth, I did "show source" on the {{tl|nop}} and &lt;p&gt; versions, and they both have the same HTML code.  The structure is like <code><nowiki><li> <span class>paragraph1</span> <p><span class>paragraph2</span></p> </li></nowiki></code>. I don't know if they are served up that way; conceivably the browser may have built the same DOM from different HTML and be generating the "source" from its internal representation. [[User:Pelagic|Pelagic]] ([[User talk:Pelagic|talk]]) 12:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
: LI = "line item" has never been all that well defined (css = display:line-item;) nor understood in all the history of the HTML specification when it came to element behavior and sub-element handling . Generally, most consider the closest equivalent to ''display:line-item;'' to be ''display:inline-block'' without the added ability of automatically generating the ''target item'' (the number or letter offset to the left in every [OL] list) that ''display:list-item'' does).<p>I suspect its those poorly defined nuances in ''line-item'' [LI] causing wiki mark-up to "break-down" when wrapping <u>more than one other</u> chunk or line of text. I've made the leap here that the ''inline'' in ''inline-block'' (closest equivalent to ''display:list-item'') is causing -duh- multiple text-blocks separated by what normally causes a paragraph break between the two bodies of text under wiki mark-up to render "up against each other" in an ''{{SC|inline manner}}'' instead. Using [P] for instances of two or more bodies of text under [LI] forces the desired separation of text chunks to break without the reliance of the [failed] wiki mark-up's expected behavior coming into play at all.</p><p>In those instances where there is <u>only a single</u> chunk or line of text content under an LI tag, there is no such issue. It seems that single, un-broken chunk or line of text reaps the benefits of ''block'' rather than ''inline'' in ''display:inline-block'' in spite of being - as you've noted in the source after a save - an inline element ([SPAN] = ''display:inline'').</p><p>I'm sure there are ways to overcome this particularity using some elegant CSS defining or similar but, as stated before, you'd still wind up dancing with or tip-toeing around one [HTML spec.] or the other [wiki mark-up] at some point in your editing life here - making all this an academic exercise at best. Hope that made sense. -- [[User:George Orwell III|George Orwell III]] ([[User talk:George Orwell III|talk]]) 23:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)</p>

== Minor edits ==

I'm not sure when to tick that box. What constitutes a minor edit on Wikisource?  

On Wikipedia, basic fixes to grammar or punctuation are generally considered minor, but here I suspect even amending a single character could be non-minor.  What about if I change a page from ''Proofread'' to ''Validated'' without any modifications (because there were no errors)?  Is that still non-minor because it involves a status change?

[[User:Pelagic|Pelagic]] ([[User talk:Pelagic|talk]]) 10:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

:The answer to that question will vary a bit from editor to editor here. My own very general rule of thumb is that a minor edit makes no (or very little) visual difference in the result (such as removing superfluous spaces or changing the way the coding is done), or if it will correct a small error that I made myself in the previous edit just moments before (such as just finishing a proofread, but then realizing a small-caps template is needed at the outset). I do not consider it minor if I've corrected OCR errors, and it is ''never'' minor to change the status of a page. --[[User:EncycloPetey|EncycloPetey]] ([[User talk:EncycloPetey|talk]]) 14:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

:: Thanks, [[User:EncycloPetey|EncycloPetey]].  — [[User:Pelagic|Pelagic]] ([[User talk:Pelagic|talk]]) 12:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

== History of Hungarian Literature Page 34 ==

How do I deal with page [[Page:A history of Hungarian literature.djvu/44|page 34 of "A History of Hungarian Literature"]]? Especially its two different reference bullet points? --[[User:Lo Ximiendo|Lo Ximiendo]] ([[User talk:Lo Ximiendo|talk]]) 06:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
:{{Ping|Lo Ximiendo}} How is [https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page%3AA_history_of_Hungarian_literature.djvu%2F44&diff=5128908&oldid=5128320 this]? —[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 07:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
::The correct way of doing footnotes is to use <nowiki><ref>…</ref></nowiki> tags. See [[Help:Footnotes and endnotes]] for more details. [[User:Beeswaxcandle|Beeswaxcandle]] ([[User talk:Beeswaxcandle|talk]]) 07:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
:::You can see a specific use on [[Page:A history of Hungarian literature.djvu/14]]. If not done this way, then the text will not transclude correctly into the Main namespace. --[[User:EncycloPetey|EncycloPetey]] ([[User talk:EncycloPetey|talk]]) 16:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)