Talk:Alluring Albany

Australia: Western Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Alluring Albany is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Western Australia Great Southern

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Western Australia Great Southern, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Great Southern on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Western Australia Great SouthernWikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia Great SouthernTemplate:WikiProject Western Australia Great SouthernWestern Australia Great Southern articles

Italics?[edit]

@JarrahTree: is this book a "major work" deserving of italics per MOS:TEXT#Names and titles, or is it only a "minor work" that we ought enclose in double quotes per MOS:NOITALIC, both in this article and other articles that link to it? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drop it Mitch - it should be incredibly obvious is it minor, leave it alone JarrahTree 15:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After having viewed physically the first online - and the later three editions in Battye libray - I failed to see whether they were minor, major or what - the factors that the book can be appraised do not fit either 'major' or 'minor', which is why I requested 'drop it mitch' 'incredibly obvious is it minor', was a facetious respose (without flagging as such) - to apply such labels misses the point of what it was relative to the population of western australia and albany at the time, until publication/print runs come to light, I would say the whole notion of minor and major, are a rabbithole/furphy and MOS should not be tied to either at this point, which is why such questions are a terrible waste of time while the group of articles are being developed, and further information comes to light over time, against WP:RS and not my facetious responses JarrahTree 16:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually care whether the works are major or minor, but MOS:TITLE suggests that we should use either italics or quotation marks, to denote that it is a title. (If you don't think that "Alluring Albany" is a title, please say so.) So far as I can see, it does not fall into any of the cases listed in MOS:TITLE § Neither, so I think we need to make some decision as to whether it is major or minor - which is why I asked in the first place. Given that the lead sentence says that "Alluring Albany was a book ...", I suggest that per the second bullet point of MOS:MAJORWORK it is a major work, so should be italicised.

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

content format?[edit]

Did the four editions had different content or did they only have differences in content format.

Ie, should this

There were four editions, each edition having differences in content format, and style.

be this:

There were four editions, each edition having differences in content, format and style.

Mitch Ames (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed [1] Mitch Ames (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Double quotes[edit]

See discussion at #Italics? above

Re this edit by JarrahTree and my reversion - they are not "quirky italics", they are double quotation marks, as required for minor works by:

MOS:NOITALIC - Titles of shorter works should be enclosed in double quotation marks ("text like this").
MOS:QUOTETITLE - Titles of shorter works should be enclosed in double quotation marks ("text like this").

Mitch Ames (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see where Mitch has provided any understanding of what sort of work it is... JarrahTree 15:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]