Talk:The New York Times/1901/08/01

Information about this edition
Edition:
Source:
Contributor(s):
Level of progress:
Notes:
Proofreaders:

The following template is used to provide information about the source of the transcript. See the {{textinfo}} documentation for guidelines.

{{textinfo
| edition      = 
| source       = 
| contributors = 
| progress     = 
| notes        = 
| proofreaders = 
}}

Typeset per page vs per article

While technically correct to typeset the paper this way, I am wondering whether it is the best Wiki methodology. I would think that most people would be looking at the work in order to identify individual components of the work, eg. a news article, an obituary, etc. rather than to look at in the context of a page. It also makes it more difficult to reference and highlight a work from WP in this existing format. Further if a story starts on a page, and then continues to another, we now have a split story, and no ready means to continue from one article to another. So what is the strength of splitting the page in this mean, rather than by article? I am not seeing it. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing the by-page method for the moment just so we have something to look at, it's by no means policy! I would also prefer the by article method, except that we will end up with thousands of tiny articles with only a line or two on them, and no real title. If that is OK, then by all means break at the article level. Inductiveload (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Trying the by article way, lets see what works best! Inductiveload—talk/contribs 05:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)