Template talk:Annotation switch

subpage and switch solution

User content should be in separate 'edition', not using the Page content of a clean text, so I disagree with using a switch and subpage to facilitate this practice. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Surely there is a better way to do it than separate subpages?

I pretty sure this could be more effectively done with Javascript selectively displaying or not displaying the text. They it can be an option in the toolbox on the left of the user's screens. There is a CSS property "display:none" that you can use to remove the text you don't want from the rendered output. You could then have something like

<span class="annotation-original">original text</span><span class="annotation-added">Annoted text</span>

JS can then be used to hide the relevant span according to the users settings. This is more or less how the Dynamic Layouts work (dynamic alteration of the browser's rendering of the page).

Furthermore, I'm not sure that normal wikilinking should be suppressed be default. Wikilinks are the primary advantage to the end reader of wikisource over, say, Project Gutenberg. If the annotation is more extensive, then yes, I suppose it should be hidden by default (see {{popup note}}), and if it a fully annotated work, then a separate edition is quite reasonable.

However, wikilinking is very obviously not part of the original text (books done have any hyperlinks), and it represents a huge added-value to all of our works. Having them all relegated to separate subpages is clunky at best and a recipe for fragmented and ill-maintained works at worst. Also, you would have no idea what you were missing if you didn't find the annotated edition. Personally I'd rather have the wikilinks presented to me, and I can turn them off with a toolbar if needed.

Additionally, not displaying the annotated text in the page namespace is problematic for ensuring that the links appear correctly. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 15:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree but I've had wikilinks removed before as annotations. I can't find the policy page now but either WS:Wikilinks (Style guide) or Wikisource:Annotations describe wikilinks to sister sites as annotations. The template allows for both philosophies to coexist (and it will still be useful even if the policy ends up allowing wikilinks in the main text). I can change the template to show the annotation in the Page namespace but not the main transcluded version. The only potential drawback is if more than one annotated text (or other derivative work) exists, which may get confusing. That isn't an issue at the moment but it could potentially happen in the future.

Maintenance shouldn't be a big issue as the majority of the text will be the same on all versions of a work. My only real concern is how multiple annotations may affect the Page namespace (annotations must come from there for all versions of a work if they are to function properly; putting the burden on Pages seemed the best method).

I did not know about the Javascript method and it is an interesting way to handle wikilinks. However, the anti-annotation concern appears to be about presenting a pure, "clean" text with no additions. I'm not sure whether Javascript will be enough. (A combination of javascript and this template may be necessary if multiple derivative works exist based on the same DjVu.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, at least in a template, it is easy to fiddle with. I will have a quick look at technical alternatives to subpage-based switching tonight. The JS based solution would still use a template like this one containing the alternative text, but the mechanism of switching would be dynamic and "in-place", rather than requiring a lot of 99% identical subpages. In my mind, it is similar to the reason we don't want 3 subpages for each work, each with layout option on each (though this a bit of an extreme comparison).

The idea that this kind of thing is possible comes from looking at Wiktionary, where quotations using a word are hidden or shown based on a setting in the toolbar. See for example wikt:oyl, and look for the "visibility" part of the left toolbar, and then for "show/hide quotations".

I do think it is useful to have an automated way to indicate annotated texts, perhaps based on templates, however I would prefer it doesn't require messing around in the implementation (making a subpage of every page in a work counts as "messing around" to me). However, plain use of templates doesn't allow dynamic behaviour, so I'll investigate a more technical solution. If developed carefully, this template could be a "unifed" approach to annotation, which is currently a hodge-podge of various methods.

From what I've seen, internal wikilinking is always allowed, and external wikilinking is generally allowed for clarifying obscure words or ambiguous uses (eg "Duke of York" is either an aristocratic title or one of several people). From WS:Wikilinks, point 5:

• Words or references that may be difficult to understand can be linked to their Wikipedia or Wiktionary entries using the syntax [[w:Article|word]] (Wikipedia) or [[wikt:Article|word]].

I generally link obscure words to Wiktionary, people's names to a Wikisource Author page, and place names to Wikipedia, especially if the person or place is no longer known by that name (very likely in, for example, older text on China when a different transliteration was used).

Also remember that WS:ANN is still a draft, so you can contribute to the discussion on what you think is/isn't/should be/should not be allowed. Cheers, Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Corrupts link table

This template corrupts the link table by not listing links from the page that actually contains the code that creates the link.

For example, suppose I wanted to move Craig v. Missouri and update the links to it. Special:WhatLinksHere/Craig v. Missouri lists Does Price Fixing Destroy Liberty?/Annotated/General Considerations, but editing that page will get me nowhere because the link I want to fix is actually in one of the transcluded pages. Which one? WhatLinksHere won't tell me because the page that contains the link code does not itself link to the page. WhatLinksHere is thus rendered useless, and I can do no better than manually search for links.

At least in my example WhatLinksHere tells me that there is a link to be found somewhere. That is only because the page that contains the link code is transcluded. It is impossible to find such links on pages that are not transcluded anywhere, or even to know that they exist.

Hesperian 01:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that can be fixed by using css to make the link present but invisible on selected pages. Alternatively, the template might end up being deleted eventually. I've held off doing anything with this template until the annotation debate is done. It may become obsolete anyway and will certainly need changing at some point. It all depends on whether we are going to use annotations in the future and how we intend to do so. The template is only used on two works at the moment, so I don't think the problem is widespread; is the problem urgent? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)