Talk:John S Hughes/Interview

Wikify

Would it be OK to wikify the headings in this article? FarleyBrook (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I would imagine so. Do it and if it is not liked it can always be changed.

Heritagejim (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Unclickable headings and no table of contents are an abomination and deter people from reading.

But the caps should perhaps be kept till someone can say they weren't in the original.

The same for no headings at all in a long text: add them! Just that if the text is quoted from elsewhere and had no headings there, it should be told that they are added. (Or those added should be marked apart from those original.) --IP (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Pictures

Pictures are essentially randomly located and their headings are below the picture.

For Wikification, have put new heading with triple "===" above pictures.

At moment wiki headings are a mixture of all upper case and mixed case. These need to be changed by hand to be more consistent.

There are other pages such as Board of Trade reports that could also be wikified. FarleyBrook (talk) 06:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Good work on the whole! Not least making the pictures "clickable".

The problem with quoted texts (that are and should be presented as quoted and not merely are used as raw material for a new text) if you don't have the original in front of you, is to know what the original looked like. Custom in serious publications (paper or online) is to change as little as possible in quotations and to mark every change (by e.g. prefaced explanation + footnotes, square brackets or the like) so that the reader can reconstruct the original if he wishes. Hyperlinks and clickable headings are another thing, at least as far as the original was on paper: they are obviously not possible there.

Consistency can then perhaps not be had as in new texts.

As for cases, if I haven't missed something all original headings here are in upper case and all added ones in lower. Perfect! Then you can put in a remark to that effect, which I've done. --IP (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Have corrected minor errors that are probably scanning error. FarleyBrook (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)