![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
So, Wareh, about this quotebox issue: The problem I'm having is predominantly one of spacing—Wikipedia's built-in formatting seems to automatically 1.5-space lines, which means that blocks of line-by-line poetry (esp. elegiac couplets) end up looking very sloppy, strangely spaced, and (ultimately) much too big. Example 1, below, shows a block of elegiac poetry that is simply done in <blockquotes>. Notice that with elegiac poetry, the pentameter lines are also necessarily indented to highlight their difference in metre from the lines of dactylic hexameter which precede them. This is yet another reason I had preliminarily opted for the start-each-line-with-a-space, dashed-off box approach: that method keeps all your formatting, including both single line-spacing and indents. Unfortunately, as you've seen on the Heroides page as it stands, it also makes giant, unwieldy, and unattractive dashed-off boxes all over the screen, and also the text doesn't line up the way you want it to when centred (and you certainly can't just leave a quote floating off on the left, as that looks very unprofessional...) Example 2 below shows what happens when you centre such a blockquote of elegiac poetry—you've noted the formatting problems here, as the start of lines no longer lines up properly (etc.). I explored the various quotebox options you suggested to me, but none of them were going to do anything to solve the line-spacing issue, and I personally don't care at all for the look of the Template:cquote quotations—also cheesy and unprofessional. Some explorations with the Praxilla tabling idea have proved slightly more fruitful. Example 3 belows shows what this might look like straight. As you'll probably agree, this is still far too widely spaced out and takes up a massive part of the screen—unacceptable, in my opinion. So, based on these options, the very best I've been able to come up with so far is Example 4, below, which uses the Praxilla wikitable format in combination with the start-each-line-with-a-space, dashed-off box format, to produce a fairly slick, balanced design that can be easily centred on a page. What are your thoughts on this? Personally, I think I'd prefer it if we could make the dashed-off boxes invisible, but I don't know if that's at all possible—do you? (though actually, the jury's still out on that one: the double-box look is sort of starting to appeal to me. I find it . . . strangely elegant . . .) Or would you have any other suggestions along these lines? Cheers for the help!! Shug2304 00:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Example 1: The blockquote elegiac couplet:
quod licet, aut artes teneri profitemur Amoris
- (ei mihi, praeceptis urgeor ipse meis)
aut quod Penelopes uerbis reddatur Ulixi
- scribimus et lacrimas, Phylli relicta, tuas,
quod Paris et Macareus et quod male gratus Iason
- Hippolytique parens Hippolytusque legant,
quodque tenens strictum Dido miserabilis ensem
- dicat et †Aoniae Lesbis amata lyrae.†
(Am. 2.18.19-26)
Example 2: (Alternatively) The centred blockquote elegiac couplet:
quod licet, aut artes teneri profitemur Amoris
- (ei mihi, praeceptis urgeor ipse meis)
aut quod Penelopes uerbis reddatur Ulixi
- scribimus et lacrimas, Phylli relicta, tuas,
quod Paris et Macareus et quod male gratus Iason
- Hippolytique parens Hippolytusque legant,
quodque tenens strictum Dido miserabilis ensem
(Am. 2.18.19-26)
- dicat et †Aoniae Lesbis amata lyrae.†
Example 3: Wikitable without further formatting
|
|
Example 4: Wikitable with dashed-off box formatting
|
|
|
|
This article is well-referenced and provides a good description of the topic, but the layout of the text is somewhat confusing and takes away from the general readability of the article Mrathel ( talk) 15:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the comment above that the article has been written and researched with far more care and sophistication than most Wikipedia articles on individual works of classical literature — but also that the layout (which in its complexity far surpasses my own ability to format articles) is "busy" to a distracting degree. Cynwolfe ( talk) 15:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
There's something seriously weird here: "As an example following these lines, for some time scholars debated over whether this passage from the Amores—corroborating, as it does, only the existence of Her. 1–2, 4–7, 10–11, and very possibly of 12, 13,[9] and 15—could be cited fairly as evidence for the inauthenticity of at least the letters of Briseis (3), Hermione (8), Deianira (9), and Hypermnestra (14), if not also those of Medea (12), Laodamia (13), and Sappho (15)." ... since the passage clearly mentions Medea (who else could the reference to Jason's ingratitude possibly be referring to). And the bit with Sappho is exceptionally unclear; I *think* it is trying to say that the reference to Sappho may not have been present in the original text, but instead it comes off sounding like it's arguing that "Aoniae Lesbis amata lyrae" might not refer to Sappho, which is... bizarre. Vultur ( talk) 10:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
So, Wareh, about this quotebox issue: The problem I'm having is predominantly one of spacing—Wikipedia's built-in formatting seems to automatically 1.5-space lines, which means that blocks of line-by-line poetry (esp. elegiac couplets) end up looking very sloppy, strangely spaced, and (ultimately) much too big. Example 1, below, shows a block of elegiac poetry that is simply done in <blockquotes>. Notice that with elegiac poetry, the pentameter lines are also necessarily indented to highlight their difference in metre from the lines of dactylic hexameter which precede them. This is yet another reason I had preliminarily opted for the start-each-line-with-a-space, dashed-off box approach: that method keeps all your formatting, including both single line-spacing and indents. Unfortunately, as you've seen on the Heroides page as it stands, it also makes giant, unwieldy, and unattractive dashed-off boxes all over the screen, and also the text doesn't line up the way you want it to when centred (and you certainly can't just leave a quote floating off on the left, as that looks very unprofessional...) Example 2 below shows what happens when you centre such a blockquote of elegiac poetry—you've noted the formatting problems here, as the start of lines no longer lines up properly (etc.). I explored the various quotebox options you suggested to me, but none of them were going to do anything to solve the line-spacing issue, and I personally don't care at all for the look of the Template:cquote quotations—also cheesy and unprofessional. Some explorations with the Praxilla tabling idea have proved slightly more fruitful. Example 3 belows shows what this might look like straight. As you'll probably agree, this is still far too widely spaced out and takes up a massive part of the screen—unacceptable, in my opinion. So, based on these options, the very best I've been able to come up with so far is Example 4, below, which uses the Praxilla wikitable format in combination with the start-each-line-with-a-space, dashed-off box format, to produce a fairly slick, balanced design that can be easily centred on a page. What are your thoughts on this? Personally, I think I'd prefer it if we could make the dashed-off boxes invisible, but I don't know if that's at all possible—do you? (though actually, the jury's still out on that one: the double-box look is sort of starting to appeal to me. I find it . . . strangely elegant . . .) Or would you have any other suggestions along these lines? Cheers for the help!! Shug2304 00:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Example 1: The blockquote elegiac couplet:
quod licet, aut artes teneri profitemur Amoris
- (ei mihi, praeceptis urgeor ipse meis)
aut quod Penelopes uerbis reddatur Ulixi
- scribimus et lacrimas, Phylli relicta, tuas,
quod Paris et Macareus et quod male gratus Iason
- Hippolytique parens Hippolytusque legant,
quodque tenens strictum Dido miserabilis ensem
- dicat et †Aoniae Lesbis amata lyrae.†
(Am. 2.18.19-26)
Example 2: (Alternatively) The centred blockquote elegiac couplet:
quod licet, aut artes teneri profitemur Amoris
- (ei mihi, praeceptis urgeor ipse meis)
aut quod Penelopes uerbis reddatur Ulixi
- scribimus et lacrimas, Phylli relicta, tuas,
quod Paris et Macareus et quod male gratus Iason
- Hippolytique parens Hippolytusque legant,
quodque tenens strictum Dido miserabilis ensem
(Am. 2.18.19-26)
- dicat et †Aoniae Lesbis amata lyrae.†
Example 3: Wikitable without further formatting
|
|
Example 4: Wikitable with dashed-off box formatting
|
|
|
|
This article is well-referenced and provides a good description of the topic, but the layout of the text is somewhat confusing and takes away from the general readability of the article Mrathel ( talk) 15:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the comment above that the article has been written and researched with far more care and sophistication than most Wikipedia articles on individual works of classical literature — but also that the layout (which in its complexity far surpasses my own ability to format articles) is "busy" to a distracting degree. Cynwolfe ( talk) 15:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
There's something seriously weird here: "As an example following these lines, for some time scholars debated over whether this passage from the Amores—corroborating, as it does, only the existence of Her. 1–2, 4–7, 10–11, and very possibly of 12, 13,[9] and 15—could be cited fairly as evidence for the inauthenticity of at least the letters of Briseis (3), Hermione (8), Deianira (9), and Hypermnestra (14), if not also those of Medea (12), Laodamia (13), and Sappho (15)." ... since the passage clearly mentions Medea (who else could the reference to Jason's ingratitude possibly be referring to). And the bit with Sappho is exceptionally unclear; I *think* it is trying to say that the reference to Sappho may not have been present in the original text, but instead it comes off sounding like it's arguing that "Aoniae Lesbis amata lyrae" might not refer to Sappho, which is... bizarre. Vultur ( talk) 10:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)