Talk:Maniere de se recreer

From Tarotpedia

Was the book published in 1783 or 1785? Different pages in this wiki have a different year, and the sources I could find disagree on this.

The year is 1783 according to the following books:

• Cynthia Giles: The Tarot. History, Mystery and Lore.
• The Finnish translation of Stuart Kaplan's Tarot Classic

According to these sources the year is 1785:

• Robert M. Place: The Tarot: History, Symbolism and Divination
• A tarot history website by James W. Revak

Or should we just look at the scan of the book cover? By the way, I think that the page title should preserve the accent marks. Without them it looks and is misspelled. The accent marks don't crash anyone's browser and you can copy-paste them to the edit box, if you need them, and don't know how to get them otherwise. (There is Windows Character Map for them, if you can't type them with your keyboard.) Tristram Shandy 12:16, 5 January 2007 (PST)

I suspect the dating of the book as 1785 refers to the imprint in Amsterdam or Paris. Dummett, Depaulis and Decker in A Wicked Pack of Cards date it as 1785 in their bibliography. It may be the case that the book and its title page were completed in 1783, but that it took another year and a half to get it from the printers. In terms of publishing and timing, that is not a major problem.

Personally, I would, as with other (and modern) books that may even display incorrect months due to printer delays, opt for its own published detail. It is unlikely that the book was retouched between 1783 and 1785 if the plates were ready by 1783. So, strictly, the publication was made in 1783, even if the printing was only completed in 1785.

All this unless, of course, there are other details with which I remain unfamiliar.

With regards to using accents on the words, we initially had them, but this lead to display and search errors. The idea is to therefore exclude any accents from page titles, but to re-include them in the first heading within the page. I personally agree that it does look 'wrong' and strange, but we need to also remember that searches are easier if language-specific additions (accents, in this case) are removed in English pages. To see the problem with accents, have a look the sitemap: each question mark is when an accent was in the name of the page.

Jmd 15:01, 5 January 2007 (PST)

I think I discovered what is wrong with the sitemap. According to the HTTP header the character encoding is utf-8, but the encoding of the text really is iso-8859-1. A meta element in the HTML code also reads iso-8859-1. So basically, the server pushes iso-8859-1 text in a browser as utf-8 text. You can fix the issue either by changing the encoding of the sitemap or by changing the settings of the web server. I don't know which is easier. Fiddling with the sitemap sounds less error-prone.

As far as I know, if we had accented article titles and someone would search by typing their names without accents, they would at least get non-accented redirects, if we had them. I tested the MediaWiki installation of Wikipedia by searching "Emile Zola". I got Émile Zola and its redirects like Emile zola and Emile Zola as search results, so I don't understand why this is a problem. Tristram Shandy 05:32, 6 January 2007 (PST)

Thanks Tristram Shandy (one of my favourite novels, by the way).

I'll speak with Robert over the coming week and aim to resolve this issue asap.

Jmd 14:16, 6 January 2007 (PST)