Page talk:Natural History of the Nightingale, John Legg, 1779.djvu/5

Questions

@Pigsonthewing, @Cygnis insignis: Couple preliminary questions while in the process of proofreading this page:

1. Abbreviation of "i.e." in footnote bottom left column. I see "i.[space]e.".
2. "Another modern writer would make us believe that the jay builds in ["holes" or "boles"?] of trees, and is a carnivorous bird. (bottom right column ~4 rows up from bottom)
3. Concentrating only on proofing text currently this and next page; will format footnotes/nested footnotes later when I have more available time (footnote formatting will be based on how I have done so in the past, unless either of you can think of a more elegant way?)

Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

1. inserted space
2. I did a double-take at the holes, glanced again and thought that is what is printed, Now I look and see it is ~ of trees, and think you may be right. Is there an uncompressed scan to compare? — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 09:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

"b" in boles. Image has contrast & gamma corrected, but no other changes.

I understood that we fix spaces in "i. e." in the same way that we fix spaces around em-dashes and between quote marks and their quoted text. It's quite clearly "boles", from the rearward curve of the bottom-right of the "b" - see enhanced image, above. "holes of trees" would also be an unlikely, if not ungrammatical, phrase. I'm unclear how your example relates to the footnote in this work, but please do not change the rendered result from that currently seen on Natural History of the Nightingale. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks both! Will check on guidance about fixing spaces with i. e. &c. Will be faithful to original when formatting footnotes (always open to suggestions/criticism). Will take into account the appearance of "b" in enhanced image. Will try to get to completing validation later tonight :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

P.S. @Pigsonthewing, @Cygnis insignis: Please be patient as I try to work out the footnote, having the confidence that the work currently in the Main will remain as it is until all are satisfied with the results of the Index. I am busy in RL right now, and take me-time (editing time) as I can get it :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Quite right, don't know what I was thinking. I just looked and saw that, but when I naturally typed i.e. without a space an hour ago I thought to check this again :| CYGNIS INSIGNIS 18:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

No issues! That's what the back button is for :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

P.S. @Cygnis insignis: It occurred to me that you may not know what I was talking about with the "back button"... we had an edit conflict, and I thought that is what you were referring to, but on second thought, that may not necessarily be the case. Excuse my rambling. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay @Pigsonthewing, @Cygnis insignis: Feel free to take a look at my sandbox to see how the article will render in the Main. I have finished proofreading the whole text and marked as validated, but another set of eyes can only help. With regard to footnotes, the formatting—I think—is as close as possible to the original (or at least as close as I know how to get it), but if we are to keep 1, 2 for the regular footnotes, then the nested footnote in fn2 should be an asterisk (right?) as opposed to a †, yes? since an asterisk is normally used first? Again, I am open to suggestions/comments/criticisms. BTW, we have made the change back to "bole" and removed the space between i and e (i.e.). All my brain can handle for now :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that your sandbox version has the - lengthy - footnote in a smaller font. This is not compatible with accessibility requirements. the nested footnote's "†" is per the original. That footnote should not appear before "∴ This work will be ready...". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: @Pigsonthewing: I've thought to bring this discussion to the Index Talk page, but am not sure at what point in the conversation to do so, so for now I'll just leave it here. Couple questions for @Pigsonthewing:

1. I am not sure why using {{smallrefs}} is "not compatible with accessibility requirements." It is only by applying that template in the footer and in the Main that anything is actually made "smaller". It is generally how *we* display refs here. Perhaps you (or I?) misunderstand?
2. I understand that "†" is used in the original, but because you have used 1, 2 numbering system for footnotes (which is not per use of original), should not a logical sequence also be followed for nested footnotes? (first comes *, then comes †, &c.) and
3. on that note, is not the nested footnote a footnote of footnote 2? Why then should it not be directly below fn2 as in the image? And, in my opinion, lastly should come the text following *therefore* (because I am not convinced the text including/following *therefore* is actually a footnote). To place fn2's footnote after *therefore* seems incorrect to me.

I may not get your response right away. Please forgive if some time passes before I respond in kind. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

You can find some notes on text size at w:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Font size. Yes, the nested footnote is a subsidiary of fn2; and should indeed be below that fn; but "∴ This work will be ready..." is part of fn2. 16:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits

@Pigsonthewing: Thanks; yes, with regard to fn2, I got what you were saying... after considering and looking at it for a bit. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• I composed this before lunch and see LJB has covered these points, but hope to save you some bother by adding my take:
  
  You are not the first to raise these points, but I won't belabour you with full rationales when you are likely to reach the same conclusions. What I suggest, as you develop your own approach to contributing here, is to aim for a 'type transcription' of what is read rather than a photo facsimile of what is seen. In this case there are two signifiers and two things signified 1) the convention here is to replace the footnotes at each page with a numbered ref system, I assure this is the consensus for reasons you will agree with as you see the consequences of doing otherwise [this accords with a lot of page elements that are not preserved in the transcript, primarily for reasons of accessibility] 2) those notes are in a distinctly smaller font that has signified 'this is a footnote' for centuries, a problem in print if one puts vanity before optometry, but accessing a smaller font is an imagined concern in digital documents. — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 07:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why you are advising me to avoid "a photo facsimile of what is seen", since that has never been my intention. I'm also unconvinced by arguments that we should perpetuate discrimination against people with a visual disability on the grounds that less enlightened people were careless in such matters over two centuries ago; surely doing so on that basis would be "a photo facsimile of what is seen"? As for "an imagined concern", I'll defer to my acquaintances who do have such disabilities; and the expert colleagues with whom I collaborated - to a modest degree on my part - on drafting the W3C's web accessibility guidelines. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I was aware of that item in the MOS, and the concerns that generated it. If people with different abilities are having access problems I hope those concerns are raised as a central discussion. — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 21:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

'near' and there is not here and there

In this edit @Londonjackbooks: attempted to faithfully reproduce the appearance of placement of the word ’near’ much as it is seen in the image - just after and below the actually penultimate word ’nest’ and in the right column above the footnotes. Only, it ended up underneath the footnotes. Would reversing the order of the {{smallrefs}} and {{right}} put the word in the correct place?

(o’eck!) I tried it and it looks really odd, with the line ending ’nest’ left-justified and the word ’near’ right-aligned on the line below, but with ’nest’ and ’near’ often nowhere near each other. Would the better attempt be to just tack ’near’ directly after ’nest’ and omit visible faithfulness? Shenme (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Shenme: Thanks for trying that. In my opinion, it's not even necessarily necessary to reproduce the word in the footer, but to noinclude it is an option, and faithful to the original. I will do as you suggest :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)