Ardonik
Have to put something here, or else links will look red and ugly. --Ardonik 01:34, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
To start an article go to Main Page:English and look at the "Primary Categories" section. Go through the items in that list and click on the first one that fits. This will take you to a list of sub-categories and article titles. If you feel that one of the sub-categories is appropriate go there, otherwise edit the page to add a link to the title of your article in the relevant section. Clicking on that link will lead you to the place for putting the article. Eclecticology 16:05, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Just a note to let you know that the infoboxes are presently being developed at Help:Infobox rather than at Wikisource talk:Infoboxes. Some other relevant discussions are: Wikisource:Scriptorium#Sources headers and Wikisource:Scriptorium#Abstracts.--Christian S 06:45, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you kindly. --Ardonik 07:28, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I also feel that the Main page looked much better before your edit--before, it was a page, and now, it's just a list. To me, it looks as if you are removing formatting wheresoever you find it, and I can't understand why you'd want to. Can we take this to the Wikisource:Scriptorium? --[[User:Ardonik|User:Ardonik(talk)]] 02:58, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I thought the page was a little confusing and redundant with the large headers and then the stuff under them essentially repeating the same thing. The list seems simpler and clearer to me. What do you mean by "before, it was a page"? I don't see the value in formatting for formatting's sake -- making things clear seems much more important. AaronSw 03:16, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It's okay for pages to look good, as long as the content is accessible. My criterion for accessibility is ease of navigation through a text-only browser, and the old main page had that. I can't see what your edit was trying to address--inaccessibility? Unreadability? Was the old page somehow unclear? Perhaps you felt that the multiple welcome messages in each language were redundant? In any case, if you disagree with my revert, I will welcome a discussion in the Scriptorium in order to discover the community's consensus. Ditto for the author index template. --03:27, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I disagree that the pages look good, but bad taste aside, there are simply objective issues of usability here (distinct from issues of accessibility). It took me several minutes to figure out what to do at the main page. My new version is just as functional but more simple and usable. I don't understand why you keep reverting my changes. Even if you disagree, reverting them completely without talking to me is incredibly rude. This Wiki needs a lot of work and I want to help, but if you're going to keep throwing away my work I'm just going to leave. -- AaronSw 03:31, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You did well to revert AaronSw's changes. For him to accuse you of rudeness for not discussing your reversions of his work when he did not discuss his changes in the first place is an exercise in chutzpah. Eclecticology 09:27, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Start a discussion with Ardonik
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikisource the best that it can be. Start a new discussion to connect and collaborate with Ardonik. What you say here will be public for others to see.
