Difference between revisions of "Template talk:LinkText"

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (→‎Italics: forgot to sign)
Line 17: Line 17:
 
I do think that, generally, Latin titles should be italicized and others not.  It would be good to adopt some sort of guidelines, for the sake of uniformity.
 
I do think that, generally, Latin titles should be italicized and others not.  It would be good to adopt some sort of guidelines, for the sake of uniformity.
 
}}
 
}}
:I have the impression that on Wikipedia all non-English texts are italicized. I particularly like this approach, but will leave the decision to you anglophones. —[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] [{{carlos}} {{mail}}] 15:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
+
:I have the impression that on Wikipedia all non-English texts are italicized. I particularly like this approach, but will leave the decision to you anglophones. —[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] [{{fullurl:User talk:Carlos}} {{mail}}] 15:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 
:: I could go with that, Carlos.
 
:: I could go with that, Carlos.
 
:: While we are at it, there is a wide variance of the choice of italic or plain typeface for the texts and translations that appear on {{CW}}.  For examples, see [[Ave Maria]] (mixed, with no pattern), [[Pie Jesu]] (all plain), [[Conditor alme siderum]] (mixed), [[O magnum mysterium]] (text plain, translations italics except for one English translation), [[Tantum ergo]] (very mixed).  In the early days of {{CW}}, there was one admin held that texts should be in italics and translations in plainface (at least for Latin texts) and I held the opposite view (but didn't really prevail), since I've always felt that Latin texts should be italicized or italicised.  Since then, I've tended also to feel that probably the italics(?) versions of Cyrillic fonts look better, and I've never had a problem with Romance languages appearing in italics.  For German (at least to me) it's a toss-up (gimme Fraktur!), although the slanted look of our default italics typeface looks good for German texts.  At any rate, I think finding some sort of consensus and adopting guidelins would really help here. -- [[User:CHGiffen|Chuck]][[User talk:CHGiffen|<sub><small>'''talk'''</small></sub>]]&nbsp;[[User:Charles H. Giffen|Giffen]][[Charles H. Giffen|<sub>'''♫'''</sub>]] 16:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 
:: While we are at it, there is a wide variance of the choice of italic or plain typeface for the texts and translations that appear on {{CW}}.  For examples, see [[Ave Maria]] (mixed, with no pattern), [[Pie Jesu]] (all plain), [[Conditor alme siderum]] (mixed), [[O magnum mysterium]] (text plain, translations italics except for one English translation), [[Tantum ergo]] (very mixed).  In the early days of {{CW}}, there was one admin held that texts should be in italics and translations in plainface (at least for Latin texts) and I held the opposite view (but didn't really prevail), since I've always felt that Latin texts should be italicized or italicised.  Since then, I've tended also to feel that probably the italics(?) versions of Cyrillic fonts look better, and I've never had a problem with Romance languages appearing in italics.  For German (at least to me) it's a toss-up (gimme Fraktur!), although the slanted look of our default italics typeface looks good for German texts.  At any rate, I think finding some sort of consensus and adopting guidelins would really help here. -- [[User:CHGiffen|Chuck]][[User talk:CHGiffen|<sub><small>'''talk'''</small></sub>]]&nbsp;[[User:Charles H. Giffen|Giffen]][[Charles H. Giffen|<sub>'''♫'''</sub>]] 16:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  
:::With respect to whole texts and translations, for simplicity I'd stick to plain text always, though I wouldn't be against a decision to italicize the Latin texts (and perhaps also the few Cyrillic texts, that I too prefer in italics).
+
:::With respect to whole texts and translations, for simplicity I'd stick to plain text always, though I wouldn't be against a decision to italicize the Latin texts (and perhaps also the few Cyrillic texts, that I too prefer in italics). —[[User:Carlos|Carlos]]&nbsp;[{{fullurl:User talk:Carlos}} {{mail}}] 21:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:21, 30 April 2009

Extending this template

Would it be possible for someone to extend this template to handle more than one text page, so that the code on this page displays correctly? Some score pages require links to up to 3 different text pages so the template should be able to handle that. TIA! --Bobnotts talk 22:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Chucktalk Giffen 05:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Chuck - that's perfect. --Bobnotts talk 14:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Italics

Could someone please alter this template to allow the user to choose whether or not to italicise the link to the text page, as is possible with Template:LnkTxt? TIA --Bobnotts talk 08:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply by: Chucktalk Giffen 14:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Help 

Actually, when I extended the template to handle up to 3 text page links with a default behavior that every link would be in italics, except those to pages whose titles begin with "Psalm", I also added the facility to specify explicitly whether each (or all) links would be in italics or not ... but I simply did not include it in the documentation. I'm fixing that now.

I do think that, generally, Latin titles should be italicized and others not. It would be good to adopt some sort of guidelines, for the sake of uniformity.

I have the impression that on Wikipedia all non-English texts are italicized. I particularly like this approach, but will leave the decision to you anglophones. —Carlos Email.gif 15:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I could go with that, Carlos.
While we are at it, there is a wide variance of the choice of italic or plain typeface for the texts and translations that appear on ChoralWiki. For examples, see Ave Maria (mixed, with no pattern), Pie Jesu (all plain), Conditor alme siderum (mixed), O magnum mysterium (text plain, translations italics except for one English translation), Tantum ergo (very mixed). In the early days of ChoralWiki, there was one admin held that texts should be in italics and translations in plainface (at least for Latin texts) and I held the opposite view (but didn't really prevail), since I've always felt that Latin texts should be italicized or italicised. Since then, I've tended also to feel that probably the italics(?) versions of Cyrillic fonts look better, and I've never had a problem with Romance languages appearing in italics. For German (at least to me) it's a toss-up (gimme Fraktur!), although the slanted look of our default italics typeface looks good for German texts. At any rate, I think finding some sort of consensus and adopting guidelins would really help here. -- Chucktalk Giffen 16:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
With respect to whole texts and translations, for simplicity I'd stick to plain text always, though I wouldn't be against a decision to italicize the Latin texts (and perhaps also the few Cyrillic texts, that I too prefer in italics). —Carlos Email.gif 21:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)