Template talk:Textinfo

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Meta-template[edit]

Because you cannot text templates inside parameters, would it be worthwhile to add some kind of support for Template:Book_reference citations into this template natively? (I copied Book_reference over from Wikipedia before I realized it just wasn't going to work.) Standardization is good, and templates facilitate standards, but could it be more work than it's worth? User:GeoffCapp 02:13, 22 July 2005

"the" edition?[edit]

I think it sounds better as "this edition" than "the edition" unless you say "the some-new-parameter edition" which is maybe better yet. -Antireconciler 21:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Although a title allowing for a bit more expansion/flexibility could be "Bibliographic information". What do people think? -- Quoth 15:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and changed it to "this edition" in the absence of any further discussion. – Quoth 15:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Fundamental change to layout of the template[edit]

I notice Pathoschild has significantly changed the visual presentation of the template. I think this is something which should be discussed before it is implemented so I'm going to revert this ask Pathoschild to justify the changes he wants to make here so we can discuss this before changing this very visible (if all policies are followed) template. AllanHainey 08:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only visible change was the removal of the text "of {{PAGENAME}}" and a switch to two columns. Note that I moved the CSS to the main stylesheet, which is likely cached by your browser; try refreshing or waiting a few days for it to clear, and the template should display as before. If that resolves the display problems, I'll revert back to the recoded version. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 15:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It looks like Pathoschild's change was an obvious improvement (though it's still ugly an ugly template). I vote for going back to the 2-column version. Nonenmac 17:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I'd like to reinstate my changes to the template, and right-align it so that it doesn't take so much screen space. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 15:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, haven't had a chance to respond before now. My main problem with the change was the removal of the green coloured box but I see this has been fixed now so I have no objections to the change. AllanHainey 07:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Having this template right-aligned seems to be causing some problems as seen above in the #Examples and in Talk:The Old New York Frontier. Nonenmac 13:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC). -- Found a number of others with similar problems: moved it back to center -- Nonenmac 14:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me or is it left aligned in Firefox (1.5.0.4) after this change? – Quoth 08:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Just checked in FireFox. It's left-aligned.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

As given in the example, the "Source" field seems to include information about where the text being used was retrieved from. If this is the case, where should we include information regarding the source work/edition that text itself came from? In the same vein of questioning, does the "Original edition" field take information about the original/first publication of that text, or information about the work/edition the Wikisource text is based off? – Quoth 15:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't use these templates very much, but I believe people use "Source" as where they got the text (whether it be from a website, a print edition, etc.). "Original edition" is the first known publication of such a work, so it's basically the first time that work came into existence.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we need another entry concerning which edition/revision the Wikisource text comes from then? – Quoth 16:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I can confirm Zhaladshar's comments on the usage of original edition & source (though of course some users usage may vary from the usual). Quoth - I'd say that the edition/version used is already noted (or linked to ) in source so there isn't any need to add an additional entry. Where all we have is a link & it doesn't disclose the version/edition used then we'd have noting to put in that entry anyway & if edition/version/etc is known, or later becomes known, it can be noted in source. AllanHainey 15:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
While the information might be considered redundant if the source website includes it and is still functional, would it not be better to keep this information where we can rely on it existing (i.e., the Wikisource servers)? So the current way of noting this is to place the edition information in the "Source" field, and placing the link to the source's website (if applicable) as part of that information (e.g., Joe (1990). "Welcome to Joe's World", Joe's World, pp. 12–20. ISBN 0121049384.)? I think that way's preferable to having another field, actually. – Quoth 05:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposing a New Field[edit]

I think it would be nice to have a field that will either accept an ISBN, a Library of Congress classification, or a British Library identifier (self mark, or shelf mark?). This way if someone decides they would like a print copy of a given text they have found on WS they can do so provided it is still in print, or readily available on the second-hand market. This would have to be kept separate from the "Source" in the event that that the modern reprint and the text-source are not the same. Does anyone have any objections to this idea? —Wikijeff 16:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Level of progress deprecated?[edit]

I was wondering whether we should be looking to remove the line that talks about level of progress, blank it in the display, and remove it from the preload part. TextQuality is deprecated hence it makes sense to deprecate it here too. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree, I've only used these on three pages so far and had to look up what was supposed to go here each time, it's not intuitive and not particularly useful and if has been deprecated then chuck it. I also think though that we probably do need the LoC/British Library number as mentioned above, though not the ISBN probably as that could easily become an erroneous link to a folio or modern edition on Amazon. This can probably be done without changing the current template but could be made easier.--Doug.(talk contribs) 22:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)