Template talk:RQ:Fielding Tom Jones
The template takes two parameters:
- {{{1}}} - the Book number (in capital Roman numerals)
- {{{2}}} - the chapter number (in lower-case Roman numerals)
Linking to Book & Chapter[edit]
There seems to be disagreement over whether it is "excessive" to link to the specific Book & Chapter in this template. I believe it is helpful, and not excessive, to do such linking for two reasons. First, the goal of these reference templates is to allow readers to verify the given citation, so it is helpful to point them to the specific Wikisource page and section where the quote can be found. Second, we agree that a link to the copy of Tom Jones at Wikisource is good, the question is whether it should link to the ToC for the whole book, or to the specific place where the quote comes from. In that case, one option cannot be more "excessive" than the other, as they both contain only one link. I have reverted to the specific link, with a note to discuss the matter here. Feel free to revert to the general link along with your comment here if you wish. JesseW 21:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- The link to the book is prefereable. The main page for a work on Wikisource is not merely a table of contents, unless an editor has failed to put in additional information. A wikisource main page for an entry includes information and links that are useful for understanding the context of a work, including the type of publication and general information. Linking to a specific chapter / book / verse / act is also a bad idea because the page organization for works change on Wikisource. I have seen Shakespeare plays go from being all on a single page to one page per act; the KJV Bible had all its pages renamed and restructured more than once; and I've seen novels have their linking structure completely revised as well. The constant is the main entry for the work, and this is where the contextual information is located, so the links should go there. --EncycloPetey 01:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- The concerns about context are certainly reasonable, and I've also seen works be rearranged on Wikisource, sometimes even getting their top level page renamed. However, I don't think it's unreasonable for us to update these templates when the organization changes -- that's what putting this information in a template is for. But it does seem important to link to a source for the work's context as well. Considering that, what about this compromise: the title would link either to the Wikipedia entry if it exists (since the WP entry would have more contextual information), or the Wikisource top page if not; and the "Chapter ..." part would link to the specific Wikisource link, to facilitate seeing the surrounding context for the quote. -- 75.212.240.163 (really, User:JesseW not logged in) 08:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- The surrounding context should be included when the citation is pulled for use here. If there is insufficient context in our quote, then not enough of the quote was used. Unlike print dictionaries, we have the space to include longer quotations. --EncycloPetey 17:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sufficient context to explain the use of the word, yes -- but not sufficient context, necessarily, to explain what is going on in the passage. In any case, we can and should include enough bibliographic info that linking to a source for further context about the work should be unnecessary, too. The point of the links is to provide further information. I've applied my suggested compromise, let me know what you think. JesseW 19:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously, I disagree, but I'm willing to go with the compromise edit (at least for now) and see how I feel about it in a few months time. My opinon sometimes changes, after all. --EncycloPetey 19:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Thanks for the discussion. JesseW 20:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously, I disagree, but I'm willing to go with the compromise edit (at least for now) and see how I feel about it in a few months time. My opinon sometimes changes, after all. --EncycloPetey 19:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sufficient context to explain the use of the word, yes -- but not sufficient context, necessarily, to explain what is going on in the passage. In any case, we can and should include enough bibliographic info that linking to a source for further context about the work should be unnecessary, too. The point of the links is to provide further information. I've applied my suggested compromise, let me know what you think. JesseW 19:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- The surrounding context should be included when the citation is pulled for use here. If there is insufficient context in our quote, then not enough of the quote was used. Unlike print dictionaries, we have the space to include longer quotations. --EncycloPetey 17:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- The concerns about context are certainly reasonable, and I've also seen works be rearranged on Wikisource, sometimes even getting their top level page renamed. However, I don't think it's unreasonable for us to update these templates when the organization changes -- that's what putting this information in a template is for. But it does seem important to link to a source for the work's context as well. Considering that, what about this compromise: the title would link either to the Wikipedia entry if it exists (since the WP entry would have more contextual information), or the Wikisource top page if not; and the "Chapter ..." part would link to the specific Wikisource link, to facilitate seeing the surrounding context for the quote. -- 75.212.240.163 (really, User:JesseW not logged in) 08:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Apostrophe replacement code[edit]
@J3133: sorry, what is this edit for? The existing code is for converting non-curly to curly apostrophes. — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)