Talk:The Merry Muses of Caledonia/Introductory

fine block vs. blockquote

In this chapters there are various block quotations. Some pages are marked up with the "fine block" template (which is closer to the original), others use HTML "blockquote" (which, in my opinion, serves better the purpose, especially in flow mode).

Whatever is chosen, the most important is that all pages should be marked consistently.

WDYT?

--Anathaniel (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I know what Billinghust would say, and after many attempts on my part to try to implement 'standardization' of the PotM before it has been fully proofread can be somewhat frustrating (but only on the part of the editor who seeks implementation). You can add the <poem> tag v. using {{gap}} & <br />'s as well to the mix along with {{fine block}} and <blockquote>... My suggestion: Keep asking questions, edit how you feel comfortable (the fact that you care about whether formatting is "closer to the original" is a good sign here!), and watch whatever "magic" happens during the final stages of proofreading/validation. You learn a lot of "tricks of the trade" that way... I often find a lot of new formatting techniques that I never knew existed before when working on the PotM. Most importantly, have fun! Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: these edits: Best thing to do is ask each user for their opinion on their Talk pages; i.e., why they chose to format the way they did... You can see that Billinghurst preferred to use <blockquote>, then Dick Bos came around—who preferred {{fsx}} (85%) until he settled on {{fine block}}... Then you "reverted" (although not technically) back to <blockquote>... My suggestion: Wait till all's said and done, or catch each editor on their Talk pages with your question(s)! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Uniformity is the goal. Re "the look" as we all use different fonts, browsers, etc., there may be no "closest look". I usually keep it simpler rather than more complex in the first time through, as so many people will do 'their' thing. My reason for blockquote is that I find that firefox doesn't handle %fonts well, so I have now just formatted to show difference, and not size unless necessary. Feel free to go through and standardise to one of the formats, no one will get cranky. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

When using blockquote the text is not smaller (see page XXIV). So better use fine block, what is was. Looks more like the original book. And uh......why are there two different talk pages on one book. Doesnt make it very helpfull for editors. The discussion had been in the beginning of april on that other page. WeeJeeVee (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for splitting the discussion on this subject. I wasn't aware of the discussion on the index page.

Although now all pages of the Intro chapter are converted to blockquote, I don't think anymore to be the ideal solution. The problem with {{fine block}} is that is is only marginally smaller than normal (at least on my browsers) and gives too little a visual cue in include more. Blockquote gives a substantial cue but the indentation is not part of the original. We should use instead {{smaller block}} whose size ratio to normal is closer to the original. That is then enough cue already without blockquote. Furthermore, the comments on the lyrics pages use the same font size, and there all proofreaders unanimously opted for {{smaller font}}. --Anathaniel (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)