Page talk:Underwoods, Stevenson, 1887.djvu/19
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Londonjackbooks
@AuFCL: Can you please look over this TOC (3pp.) and tweak as necessary before I add wikilinks? At your leisure. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- May I quibble with you over naming conventions? Do you think /Book 1/Verse 1 might be better than /Book I/Verse I in the Main? I was merely going to use: Underwoods/Envoy (more easily searchable by title), but your thoughts are welcomed. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ha. Ha! Edit conflict (twice now: going for three?) Similar thought both sides? I leave it in your capable hands. My original post follows:
- ┌──────┘
- I hope this is what you wanted done. I have specifically not addressed indentation of wrapped lines or dot-leaders as without confirmation I was unsure as to whether you wanted these effects. In short I have been as "light-touch" as possible; links and obvious typos aside. (Was «Underwoods/Book m/Verse n» an acceptable style of dividing things up? I used highroman for n, m.) AuFCL (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Late note: Am I permitted to giggle over the fact the "definitive reference" you presented is clearly labelled in large letters "under construction" and "DRAFT"? I don't necessarily disagree but have been involved in disputes over more mature bedrock rules than this. Is a policy which references a talk-page which makes suggestions about another proposed policy … really really policy? Yes people do draw these connections, so I'll get back under my rock. AuFCL (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, we have our third edit conflict. As I was saying, "Thanks. I like to keep formatting simple, and what you have addressed is good. I'll mull over what I'm going to do as far as Mainspace titling goes as I proofread. TOCs are my least favorite part of proofreading; thanks for doing the wikilinking bit as well."
- I wasn't presenting the reference to naming conventions as authoritative—just available. Policy it is not; merely ideas, suggestions and opinions,—which is all I'm looking for at the moment :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Late note: Am I permitted to giggle over the fact the "definitive reference" you presented is clearly labelled in large letters "under construction" and "DRAFT"? I don't necessarily disagree but have been involved in disputes over more mature bedrock rules than this. Is a policy which references a talk-page which makes suggestions about another proposed policy … really really policy? Yes people do draw these connections, so I'll get back under my rock. AuFCL (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- ┌──────┘
@Londonjackbooks:Something is bothering me about the idea you mentioned much earlier about the naming scheme "Underwoods/Envoy" etc. being more easily searchable. I wonder if that is really true? Surely somebody (who knew the verse but not necessarily the publication) would search for "Envoy" (O.K. terrible example but I shall press on) and so the actual name beneath, for want of a better term, or within "Underwoods" is relatively unimportant and it would make more sense for an additional main-space redirect called "Envoy" (perhaps better "R.L.S. Envoy"? Starting to sound too much like the name of a ship?) pointing to "Underwoods/«whatever»" might be more robust? AuFCL (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)- My line of thinking often bothers me too. It often takes a while to sort things out in my brain. As a rule, I create redirects for poems, so yes,—if someone searches for "Envoy," they will get the poem desired. I only meant that, I guess, absent a redirect,—if they searched for "Envoy", the poem may not show in the results. But creating a redirect makes my point moot, I suppose (if that's the right word). Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)