Index talk:The Souvenir of Western Women.djvu

Images

I am currently uploading and adding high quality images from the Internet Archive. See here for the images uploaded thus far. (attn Victuallers (talk • contribs)) -Pete (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Done

Ads

Hi @Hrishikes: I'm looking for a more experienced opinion about how to treat content that was likely paid, promotional material. I noticed this edit of yours, which demonstrates a way of treating advertisements that is new to me.

I'm wondering whether and how how to best use that template in this work, which seems to have a number of ads throughout the book. The problem, though, is that I have some difficulty determining for sure which are ads, and which are "genuine." This page is clearly an ad, as is the short section entitled "Real Estate" at the bottom of this article, and the department store ad at the bottom of this one. But what about this one, which is presented in the same fashion as the main articles in the book? It's clearly promotional (if you look at the last paragraph), but was it a paid entry? There are also several articles about schools that seem quite promotional in their language. I'm unsure of whether, and if so how, to best indicate that some of this content was promotional. -Pete (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: - I think ads should not be transcluded with genuine items, the reading experience gets jarred by that. But ads are an integral part of a magazine, so these should be proofread and, maybe, transcluded separately. All ads may be concentrated in one advertisement chapter, I think. Hrishikes (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Hrishikes:, all very useful info. I like your general principles. In this case, I think the difficulty (or impossibility) of determining which items were paid, and which were not, is too great. So my inclination is just to transcribe and include everything in this work. -Pete (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Thatoneweirdwikier: Thanks for your efforts to validate these pages! I wanted to be sure you've seen this discussion, and I'd value another opinion on how to handle advertising here. I think in this work, advertising was often included at the end of "editorial" sections; but in some cases, interesting tidbits were inserted as "filler" where there was no advertisement to insert. For instance, The Souvenir of Western Women/Nez Perce Christianity and the small piece at the bottom of this article. The filler looks very similar to items that were clearly advertising, such as the "Irvington" item at the bottom of this article. When I originally transcribed this, I was not entirely consistent in how I handled these items, in part because I hadn't yet figured out what I'm stating here. If you have ideas about how to best present it on Wikisource, that would be really helpful. -Pete (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Peteforsyth, I'd like to think that Wikisource is where many works are kept and transcribed, so if that's where they are in the work, then that's where they go on this website. That's only my opinion, regardless of any style guides. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 19:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think we're all agreed that in this work at least, all advertising should be included; and it's already all been proofread. The open question, I think, is how should we present it -- in terms of whether an ad (or filler material, for that matter) appears as its own Wikisource page, or at the end of whatever article it appeared below in the original text? It seems to me that it should be uniformly one way or the other. And at this point, I think it probably should be the latter. While it's sometimes difficult to distinguish between ads and filler, I don't think there's any difficulty distinguishing between genuine editorial content vs. [ads-or-filler]. By treating ads and filler in a uniform way throughout the work, I think we would create a pretty sensible and readable online edition.

This would mean, for instance, "reuniting" the filler about Nez Perce Christianity with the preceding piece, Susan B. Anthony's Visits to Oregon. It would also mean keeping the ad for the Allen Prep School at the bottom of Sealth and Angeline, even though the ad is listed separately in the TOC.

I think that @Hrishikes:' suggestion, that we have a separate page that incorporates all advertising, would be difficult to implement for this work, since it's difficult to distinguish, in some cases, between advertising and filler.

Basically, a few ideas have been proposed, all of which are sensible, but none of which works perfectly (because of inconsistencies in how the material was handled in the original text). I think we need to agree on a format, to settle this. What I've stated here is my preference, but if somebody else feels strongly that we go a different way, I could be persuaded. I just want to get past these questions if possible, so we can get to something more "complete". -Pete (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 10:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Editorial-style comments, diary extracts, advertorials and advertisements, are all present—mostly typeset consistently with the rest of the text. None of them belong at the end of the articles. So their inclusion would be best on separate pages. The problem then becomes one of how to access them from the base page and where to include them in the flow of articles. The first of these is answered by adding an AuxTOC under the transcluded one. The second could be done 1) as printed, 2) in a separate flow at the end, or 3) mixed. By "mixed" I mean give readers the option to move to the next article or to the next item. In other words offer two jumps (where relevant) on articles. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

This makes sense in theory, but I'm hoping I can get a little guidance on what it looks like in practice. (I think option #3 might be the most interesting and worthwhile, especially since the original work seems inconsistent about whether it includes advertising in the TOC.) @Beeswaxcandle, @Hrishikes: Is there a similar work where this has been done, which we could look at for an example? Or, could you do a small part of it in this work, that we could then use as a model? -Pete (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)