Talk:Quarto

Revision of article

I posted a substantial revision of the article, following the revised Octavo article. Ecphora (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move

The current name for this article is unsatisfactory since it really has nothing to do with "text". The primary meaning of "quarto" is the printing term for a book size or format. Accordingly, I propose to move this article to Quarto, after first moving the current disambig page Quarto to Quarto (disambiguation), as was done with moving Octavo (book) to Octavo. Any thoughts? Ecphora (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I saw only one other usage on the Quarto page, and that can be taken care of by adding the usual line: "This article is about the printing term. For the board game, see Quarto (board game)." Something like that. The information about Shakespeare's bad quarto and whatnot should be added to the body of this article. It was a dark and stormy night. (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with both. Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've started the process, but I have to get Quarto deleted in order to complete it. Ecphora (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Completed the move. Ecphora (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Were the leaves cut or just folded?

Twice in the article, you state "...8 pages of text were printed, which were then folded two times to produce four leaves". OK the sheets were folded but then were they also cut into separate leaves or were the sheets left together so that the reader was forced to open each sheet and read eight pages per side (like some types of a modern child's birthday card, which opens up again and again)?

This may be obvious to you as experts but it isn't to me. Is a leaf always four pages -- obverse and reverse, recto and verso? (BTW, I think the definition of leaf in Wiktionary is wrong. Does a leaf consist of two pages or four?) I looked up Recto and Verso (redirect from leaves) and even Book and Bookbinding but they didn't say what method was used in folios, quartos and octavos.

Also, it would be nice if the article could say in what format the leaves were positioned (or most commonly positioned) on each sheet. For example:

Leaf-1 Leaf-2

Leaf-3 Leaf-4

or

Leaf-1 Leaf-2 Leaf-3 Leaf-4

And could you say whether the leaves were parallel to the sheet (like the examples above) or perpendicular to it? If the leaves were not cut, the positioning of the individual pages would also be important. The best way of explaining this would be in a diagram or diagrams (hint, hint). Thanks. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The definition in Wiktionary is correct; a leaf has two pages. "Recto" and "verso" are just other names for "obverse" and "reverse." In hand made bindings, the groups of leaves formed by folding a sheet ("gatherings") are sewn through their central folds to attach to cords, which in turn are fixed to the covers. The leaves do not fold out like an accordion; all leaves have their inner edges attached. However, some of the edges of the leaves (e.g., the top or outer edges) may need to be cut so they can be opened. I tried to explain this a little better in the article. A diagram would help explain this and your other questions. I'll see if I can't post one. Ecphora (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit the lede, please!

(It's been a long while since I worked briefly---as the youthful gofer---in a small print shop, so I won't hesitate admitting a mis-statement of the technology/process; but, I meant 'to mean' the right thing... please see below re 'jargon').

But, re folks 'reporting' the language, I can be more positive---about being negative> Namely, I noticed the lede sentence because it is poorly written; the lede is the first thing I've looked for in years of editing. Here, the Non-English-Major-reader can easily be slowed---if not confused---to sort out the antecedent nouns for their pronouns, or to interpret the poor sentence structure and the skim-milk bland 'verbing'. Pls, tolerate my explaining below.

Specifics:I corrected the (original) lede sentence primarily for>

((1)) Poor syntax: antecedent noun> Save us from relative pronouns that confuse us, re their antecedents. (Here, pls note well> The original sentence, when 'stripped, masked, and bracketed'---to avoid dreaded diagramming---translates to)>

A: Alpha is a beta-gamma made up of 'sheets' ..1{ on which pages were printed with stuff, ..2{ which were then folded.

Or, does it read?>

B: Alpha is a beta-gamma made up of sheets ..1{ on which 'pages' were printed with stuff, ..2{ which were then folded.

?Which was folded> sheets (of paper), or pages (of text)? Here, if the nonspecialist reader guesses sheets of paper, then (from the 2nd relative pronoun which), he/she has to wade backwards through-3-not-to-be-chosen-nouns, plus-7-more-words, to reach the supposed antecedent noun. That's not good writing, ie, 'for publish'---there should not be such a distance between the antecedent noun and its pronoun. Plus (piling on-the-reader), here are parallel subordinate clauses presented in non-parallel style---for what reason?; for no good reason I can detect---especially when 'simple and direct' are available.

This revised sentence corrects both issues>

A(revd): Alpha is a beta-gamma made up of sheets, 'each' of which is ..1{ printed with stuff ..2{ then folded.

Or, translated back>

A1(revd) : Quarto ... is a book or pamphlet made up of full sheets of paper, 'each' of which is printed with eight pages of text, then folded two times to produce four leaves.

Or, better>

A2(revd): Quarto ... is a book or pamphlet produced from full sheets of paper, each of which is printed with eight pages of text, then folded two times to produce four leaves.

Or, e'en better>

A3(revd): Quarto ... is a book or pamphlet produced from full 'blanksheets' , each of which is printed with eight pages of text, then folded two times to produce four leaves (i.e., eight bookpages).

((2)) Poor syntax, verb tense(s)> The original lede sentence changes verb tense for no obvious need---whereas keeping the initial, simple, tense provides plain speaking and clarity. (See any of A1, A2, or A3, above; emphasis on keeping verbs in the same (ie, 'simple') tense.)

((3)) 'Tired' words> "Made up" is tired, bland, cliched English; to do a dictionary consult the NEM-reader must sort through numerous usages---before finding it under "phrasal verb"---after learning: it starts with "make". Q's> (What advantage is there in saying "made up" here instead of simply, "made"? ..is the printer-jargon a necessary distinction, really?) (The NEM-reader may wonder> Are 'these two words' a verb, a preposition, or some combination? "Made up of" is more of the same> Are 'they' a verb-double-preposition??)

"If it moves, then report the action with an action-verb", said the ol' language coach; 'produced' is just such a 'verb of action'; ('printed' also is good here). OTOH, "thus" is another word 'overworked in writer-ville'.

((4)) Jargon> I respect the need of specialized language (aka, jargon)---it facilitates, and sometimes not, communicating among specialists; but the needs of Wikipedia, ie, one of it purposes, is to bring specialised information to the lay reader---with wording that gives the confidence of understanding a new subject. 'Blanksheets' paints a more clear image---to the layperson---of what printing starts with, and with less verbiage; (besides, in times past and present, it may not be 'paper'; it might be linen, vellum, or other parchment, etc.). Finally, it's worthwhile to inform the lay reader that a 'leaf' is worth two 'pages' of a book. Thanks; Ecphora,for your patience).--Jbeans (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)(Rvsd/wordsmithing, 110110;Jbeans)--Jbeans (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

How tall?

The introduction says 12" but the main text says 10". 134.41.210.108 (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)