Talk:Oregon Constitution

Here's a good regex for cleaning this stuff up:

^Section ([0-9]*\..*?\.)

Wikifying the index in my sandbox

Continued from Talk:Oregon Constitution/Article I.

My sandbox is here. I'm doing it bit by bit to avoid the tedium. Everyone is welcome to help. Does anyone know how to change an article's TOC so it's horizontal and shows a simple alphabetical sequence (appropriate for this index)? I've seen it before, but I don't know how it's done. Athelwulf (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to make a TOC be horizontal (do you mean like, e.g., the a A b B (etc.) "index" on Wiktionary:Main_Page)? This isn't exactly a TOC but it serves some of the same functions. I spent awhile figuring out how to do that for a project of mine, but it was all hand-coded following what you can see in the "view source" on that page.

However - if you want to stick with what you've got already on this page (which I guess is hand-coded), you could name it simply "Contents" and put it in a blue-background, bordered box (a Div-box???) so it visually resembles the usual TOC.

It is SO tempting for me to say, "Oh, I'll help!" but I gotta be realistic, there's no way I should add that to my plate at the moment! - Martha Forsyth (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC) (you can find me on Wikipedia, I'm not even starting a user page here right now!)

That's not quite what I mean when I say "horizontal TOC". I couldn't think of an example when I wrote that, but now I have one! The list of Amtrak stations at Wikipedia has a compact, elegant TOC, and that very TOC would be perfect for the index. It might even make it unnecessary to split the index into different pages, the idea I mentioned at Talk:Oregon Constitution/Article I. The list of Amtrak stations uses a template, CompactTOC2. There's also a CompactTOC8, as well as a whole category of TOC templates. So the question is, are these templates on Wikisource too? Athelwulf (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are! Athelwulf (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This is really good stuff! I think Article I, Section 44 is a very good example of how the version published by the State is difficult to read. And your notes on what ballot measure changed what part are fantastic! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Notes

I appreciate that you've preserved the original text of notes (e.g., under Section 44, it says "see notes under section 42." However, I think one of the main advantages of publishing stuff like this on the web is the ability to present it in a clearer way.

What do you think of using named <ref> tags to move the notes down, so they can serve multiple sections? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 03:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't thought of that, but I like it. An alternative idea I once had was to make them text boxes and to float them to the right, making them annotations. But your idea is simpler and easier, I think. I'll hammer something out on Art. I and see what you think. Athelwulf (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. I split annotations and notes into different groups. I think it looks nice and non-distracting. Athelwulf (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! I've been adding some links to specific ballot measures. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

A standard

I think as we go forward, it would be good to have a good example of how we want each of these pages to look. That's why I've been concentrating on Article I (the Bill of Rights). I think it's in pretty good shape as is -- any thoughts of how it could be improved?

If not, I'm ready to jump into the other articles, and get everything moved to its own page, and formatted consistently. -Pete (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good so far. What do you think about using the section headers to subset the subsections since they are often referenced in other sections and articles within the text? This way we could wikify those to link directly to the relevant subsection. Thoughts? Lestatdelc (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

As for wikifying sections -- I think we're already doing that, unless you're talking about the sub-sections? The ones that are numbered as follows:

1. blahblah
2. blahblahblah

Are those the ones you mean? If so, I think I disagree..I think it would look pretty cluttered, and differ too much from the way the state publishes this info, to change those. Also, I think linking to the relevant top-level section is good enough; the reader can easily scan to the appropriate sub-section. For instance, here is one of the longer sections: (I just sort of fixed an irritating numbering issue we'll have to look out for): Oregon Constitution/Article I#Section 41 -Pete (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I was referring to the number/letter subsections, which are often cited within the text itself. While I agree it would "clutter" up the TOC somewhat, I was thinking it would allow direct linking to the subsection when being wikified within the text. However it's kind of a moot point since I tried experimenting with it, and the = tag section level tags don't work properly without forcing the text onto a separate line. If there is someway we can put anchor tags (or preferably make the subsection numbering and lettering anchor tags) that can be linked to, that would allow really usable, hypertext linking within the text. Lestatdelc (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes I agree it would be good to add anchors if it's possible to do so without making separate lines. I don't know if that's possible, but it would be good to find out. (I think the <a> html tag is disallowed by MediaWiki, which makes that approach fail.) -Pete (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Stricken sections

What do we do about sections that are repealed, etc. leave them in and strike-through?

That was my first thought since I see that has been done elsewhere already in here.

However, what do we do going forward since presumably the sections renumber, no? I ask because as you probably know, Measure 54 was just passed which repeals Article VIII Section 6 in its entirety. So do we strike-through the now repealed Section 6 (Qualifications of electors at school elections) and leave Sections 7, 8, etc. as they are; or does the previous Section 7 (Prohibition of sale of state timber unless timber processed in Oregon) now become Section 6, 8 becomes 7, etc. and now are referenced that way by the state, media, etc. (i.e. in 2009 when the government and the media refer to "Section 6", are they now talking about "Prohibition of sale of state timber unless timber processed in Oregon", or does Section 6 remain numbered that way and becomes an inoperative 'void' in the numbering and referencing schema in perpetuity? Lestatdelc (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

My (VERY non-expert) understanding is that sections do NOT get renumbered, that Section 7 is always Section 7 even if Section 6 gets repealed. However, it would be good to have confirmation of this from a legal expert. -Pete (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC) -Pete (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It's my understanding that sections are not recounted unless the number along with the text is directly amended. For example, Art. IV §5 does not exist. It was repealed in 1972. The sixth section did not become the fifth when §5 disappeared. Conversely, Art. V §15 was explicitly redesignated §15b by an amendment ratified in 1916. (The things you learn while reformatting the Constitution!)

At any rate, if sections were recounted automatically, it would render a lot of references to the pre-recounted laws obsolete, which I'm sure would be an incredible pain. This is especially true for our Constitution, seeing as it seems to be amended every election. So to me, it makes no logical sense that any law would automatically be recounted.

I think, whatever we do, we should be consistent throughout the document. So we have two possibilities on how to treat Art. VIII §6:

1. We could continue to try to emulate the text of the Constitution as presented on the Oregon government's website. This would possibly mean removing the text of §6 and striking out the section title, like I've done with sections that have been repealed long ago. This is in keeping with the work we've been doing so far, and it's the easier option, but we lose important information.
2. We could strike out the text, but preserve it, and include the annotation explaining what has happened to it. This preserves the most information for curious readers, but then for the sake of consistency, I think we would have to find the text of all the repealed sections of the Constitution and insert them as stricken text.

Option 2 is a bit more appealing to me. What do you guys think? Athelwulf (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Afterthought: This calls into question how we should handle sections that remain, but whose text has been tweaked. In bills meant to amend Oregon law, bolded text is new and [italic text in brackets] is removed, but using this method to show changes in the main document would be confusing for readers. Should we even bother to show changes? Or should we just present sections as they currently read and include the annotations explaining that in such-and-such year it was amended? How does this issue relate to our other problem concerning repealed sections? Athelwulf (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Top level header

(Moved discussion from Talk:Oregon Constitution/Article VI)

I added the Article name in a header using the single = surrounding tag. To my eye this better leads the text body than the very small type used in the nav box at the top of the page. Thoughts? Lestatdelc (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. I agree that the way it appears is not ideal, but I'm ambivalent about this solution. It sort of clutters both the header area of the article, and the table of contents. I'll think about it some more. It kind of seems like there's no ideal solution here, short of redesigning the header box. -Pete (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Check out this current proposal, which would address this issue: Wikisource:Scriptorium#Subpage formatting -Pete (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)