User talk:Mksmith

Hello, Welcome to Wikiquote.

I noticed that you were here some time ago, but bolding of quotes or portions of them, that one finds more significant or notable is one presentation device that has been permitted here, (and I confess: one that I personally prefer and generally encourage). I feel that it allows pages to be more visually interesting and appealing, and quotes that are notable to be more easily discerned. The following is pasted from a comment I recently made on the John Acton talk page explaining some of my reasons:

I, as well as others, have used bolding to emphasize passages or entire quotations that we find to be especially significant or notable. I do seek to continue to encourage the use of this form of presentation, as I think it can be very useful in drawing the eye to major passages and statements, especially on pages with a great deal of material. It may not be perceived as necessary but I (and, I believe, others as well) do find it appropriate, and useful. (I personally rather dislike the blandness of many pages that have no bolding or other use of typography to draw the attention of the eye to at least some of the more significant statements.)

As I noted in my original comment on this issue last year, I am aware that this could be excessively employed, but the only guideline that I have thus far suggested is that passages that are innately derogatory should not be so emphasized. Even this, though I consider it a good practical guideline, I have not and do not seek to make an absolute rule.

I think bolding is generally preferable to italics for such purposes on electronic pages, because it is more noticeable, and italics have often been used in the original documents or statements— bolding is thus more obviously an editorial addition within Wikiquote. On the rarer occasions where bolding or capitalization is used in the original for emphasis these can be retained or omitted as seems appropriate.

Anyone well acquainted with me would perceive that I am a person who recognizes a need for establishing some useful and convenient rules and guidelines for many procedures, but who strongly prefers that in nearly all endeavors there be a minimum of rules improperly imposed as if they were absolutes, and an avoidance of any rules or actions based upon casual presumptions or unwarranted suppositions. I know that others do, and expect that others will disagree with me on many issues, but hope that relatively minor disputes, or even major ones, will not be seen as indications or causes of enmity. ~ Kalki

I do hope you find it interesting here, and I am sorry I inadvertently erased one of your contributions briefly— I have replaced it. I am sincerely interested in encouraging a broad range of ideas to be expressed here, from a broad range of sources. Best wishes. ~ Kalki 18:33, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pleased to have you here. I too have extensive quotation collections, but simply haven't had all the time I might wish to arrange and format them. All contributions of quotes by any of the people you have mentioned are very welcome. ~ Kalki 19:51, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I just noticed that you are adding lines that link to the List of people by occupation. Though I have extensively used this myself as a linking tool, just today I have proposed that this be abandoned, in favor of using the Categories schemes, such as Wikipedia is now doing (see Talk:List of people by occupation). Just today I have also created a {{lynx}} link that creates a palette of links at the bottom of pages, which I think is preferable to the previous method that used a link to just one or two such locations. ~ Kalki 20:03, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for creating all the new pages that you have recently added. I am wondering why you are still using the older "See also:List of people by name" option when there is a link (List of people by name|People) on the newer lynx option which provides other links as well. All that is required is to type or paste {{lynx}} at the bottom of the page. If there are title or formatting changes to the "lynx" options that you believe should be made, I am open to suggestions. ~ Kalki 19:45, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just want to point out that it does seem to be well decided that the best links to the english wikipedia from the english wikiquote are with "w:" - I had previously used "wikipedia:en" because months ago it was indicated that these would be best, and that simple "en:" links would no longer work. Presently neither of them work as they had, directing instead to points withn Wikiqoute or not functioning at all, and "w:en" is only needed if one is linking to the english Wikipedia from a project in another language. Despite a rather long period of confusions and uncertainty, the use of "w:" as the best way of linking from here to the english Wikipedia does at last seem definitely decided. Thanks again for all the additions you have been making here. ~ Kalki 22:20, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder about the "Title entry" you mentioned. I now remember being a bit worried at the time it was created that many more might be produced, but I don't believe any were, and this might be unique. The contributions listing of it's author seems to indicate that it might be the only time he created such a title. I was not a sysop back when it was created, so I couldn't delete pages, and actualy didn't kow how to go about getting one deleted. I now intend to delete this one, and add the quotation within it to another page, within the next few days. I'm a bit rushed for time today, and don't want to spend too much thought on it right now, or upon any procedures to establish, but I will get back to it. ~ Kalki 21:32, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Start a discussion with Mksmith

Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikiquote the best that it can be. Start a new discussion to connect and collaborate with Mksmith. What you say here will be public for others to see.

Start a discussion