User talk:Cygnis insignis/Archive 2

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

smack fingers![edit]

It is next month's PotM. I was just putting the framework up. If we finish it too early, I will have to find more to do! You won't get your special badge! ;-) billinghurst sDrewth 09:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Do I get a badge for my contribution to the last one? Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Pigeon? billinghurst sDrewth 23:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Celtic Fairy Tales

Poem created[edit]

Could you look at Warrington Academy and see if it needs more? Thanks. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It surprises me how much I like her stuff, though some lines need scanning twice:

"Some pensive creep along the shelly shore,"

seemed to anticipate Bysshe Vanolis :D
Apparently this is extracted from a longer work, "The Invitation: to Miss B—"
The ad for wikipedia is an article on the subject, rather than the poem, not especially problematic except for my disappointment :-) The template for this sister in that article suffers the same constraints, I'd replace both with a sentence and link.
"... glowing with undaounted zeal" is a typo, but I don't know whose?!
We don't have a DNB article on the author.
Other than that I don't know. I'm no expert on poetry, I just work here. Cygnis insignis (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Swift[edit]

I wanted to tell you that I went over a few of the pages on The Battle of the Books, and Other Short Pieces.djvu. Swift is of particular interest to me and I am glad to see someone working on it. I will probably go through more pages later. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you would know the answer to this - this displays the title at the top. However, upon editing the page it only has the poem. Where did that magically formatting come from? :) I was going to add the second poem below but I didn't want to mess with it if it was autodisplaying text. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

He is a Cock would[edit]

Could you have a look. I compiled the note at the bottom from many different sources; please check my spelling and grammar, and tell me if this is acceptable. I try to understand what it is about and what it means and if these two lines have any sense to you, please, explain me it - English is my second language. I understand that Blake plays with different meanings of the word that actually is the name of the soldier... Thanks in advance. Dmitrismirnov (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to 'duck it', meaning avoid it, the Rossetti MS. is not something I want to start working on yet. The references to other birds, Cock and Crow, may elude ESL readers. My personal opinion is that this is unsuccessful attempt to attack Cock using word-play. A cock is male bird, usually a chicken, but it has [ahem!] other meanings. A crow is another bird with ominous associations. The noise made by cocks, supposedly at dawn, is also called a 'crow' or 'crowing'; "up with the cock's crow" means 'to arise at dawn'. The expression "to crow" means to be speak and/or act in a haughty manner, to be belligerent and proud, especially in triumph over an adversary: Grose-VulgarTongue Hope this helps, Cygnis insignis (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, this makes it very clear for me now. Dmitrismirnov (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Omnibuses and Cabs[edit]

Cyg, did you want to do a trial of this work somewhere to see how it looks in indented-page? If one chapter looks okay, then explore another. If it is going to convert easily, then I can run the bot across all the pages in main ns to get it converted. I'd do it however I have got my hands full at the moment with some other tasks in which I have got involved. Thanks if you can get to it, as if we can, we can implement for Feb's featured article. billinghurst sDrewth 06:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I consider the class to be trivial in comparison to the other concerns I have raised at FTC, I was dismayed to see the discussion deviate to this matter. My opinion of prose was a waste of time in any case, I should have done what another did and said its "weird" :P The links in that work, to the other place, are uncontroversial, afaik, but making it an FT gives that practice tacit endorsement. As I have said there is no effective way of controlling any discord that may, nay, will arise from this. This is a great shame, because the actual text was full of interesting tidbits and it would be great to have a PotM promoted to FT. Sources are inherently 'educative', adding stuff is as I characterised it, a librarian should not presume to decide how to make a text 'useful' and how it will be used. The category Validated is full of potential candidates, perhaps too late to gain consensus for Feb, but putting them up now would stop the need for us to scrabble around at the eom. Cygnis insignis (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

With respect to the header/footer gadget[edit]

I have enquired and know the means to have it on by default. It would mean that we would need to invert the gadget's settings, which would mean either changing them for all with it active, or letting them know. billinghurst sDrewth 07:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Moses :-) I haven't given it a lot of thought, but I can't see a downside. I assumed most contributors would have it on, so was surprised when Hesperian recently announced his discovery of the option.

As with the index page, the overlay becomes annoying when it increases the time needed to make lots of small edits. An example of this is that buttons, scripts and the suite of code beneath cannot be [easily] used to edit these sections. As an example of the example, changing the text in a running header to smaller requires typing that template - I find this very fiddly. Another, more frequent, problem is adding {{smallrefs}} to the footer. The latter is needed in an overwhelming majority of texts, perhaps there is a view that we should not make them smaller or it is expensive to include by default. I'm informed that one or the other is required for technical reason, even if it is unneeded. Cygnis insignis (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind me editing your monobook.js file, I will happily create some regex lines to do this with a click.
Aha and urk. Suggesting making RunningHeader text just smaller has seen no reaction. Two options. We can amend said template to just make it smaller, or we can look add an extra option that allows smaller to be included. Preference?
I have edited Mediawiki:newarticletext so that in the Page: ns it now gives text and icon about [+] plus added a link to H:SIDE. See what you think when you are next creating a page in Page. billinghurst sDrewth 13:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Of course not, I can adapt that to the other routines I frequently. Have we got a page to share these scripts?
Pathoschild has a page on Meta with this stuff, but nothing local and customised. I must admit that I am still playing and looking for the best combinations before making open declarations of non-incompetence.
I don't think there is a format that appears more frequently than others, I see larger, regular and smaller, and mixtures of each. My wish is for the buttons etc., to work on whatever is selected, header, footer or the 'main' edit box in the Page: namespace.
Good one, I'm leaning toward on by default though. Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
In discussion with ThomasV, buttons will only work in the body box, the only way to script for header and footer is via the regex tool. Usually, I script in body, and then block and drag & drop. Anyway, I have created {rh} and {rh/sm} scripts for your regex, so you may wish to reload monobook. See how they go for you, and feel welcome to provide feedback. billinghurst sDrewth 13:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks to all, especially you. My watchlist is lit up with your fixes, even more than usual. I'll have to wait until I'm at my own computer, I'm looking forward to playing around with it. If we can adapt a script to enter text in fields, I have some more notions to toy with. I can report that these, and many other things, do not work under this version of IE. Regards, Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
If we can regularly regex it, or the field has a regular name, then we can do it. Hmm, I should try the version of chrome that I have too. billinghurst sDrewth 15:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of automating the fields in the index overlay and the information template at Commons.

I'm using an older system, which has some issues, but it sorta works now. The remove lines regex added leading spaces, more likely something this end than the script. Cygnis insignis (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It can on the first para if one removes the first line of text, but not the line. I could probably could correct for it, just never bothered. :-/ billinghurst sDrewth 15:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Note[edit]

I wanted to leave you a note to thank you for the hard work and dedication you have shown for this project. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought, there are others more deserving of praise, I just enjoy making information available  :-) The Swift collection been here for ages, though I found a couple of the author's annotations in the scan. Cheers for the validation! Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A new day[edit]

Hi. Thank you for what you wrote at my talk page, I respect that. Let's agree to simply leave it behind us.

Instead, perhaps we can make something positive come out of this! It seems to me that it would be helpful to have some sort initial discussion/summary page that would try to present the various sides of the issue in a fair and respectful way. To my mind, the disagreement ultimately results from a tension between two apparently conflicting values:

  • On the one hand, furthering the Wikimedia goal to make "the sum of all knowledge" freely available as widely as possible at Wikisource, in ways that are closely related to source-texts.
  • On the other hand, a deep feeling of responsibility to the public that makes it urgent to protect Wikisource and its readers from forms of contribution that may be wide open to abuse, and therefore sees including such areas as working against the Wikimedia goal.

Do you agree that this is a fair statement of the motivations for the different sides? If so, then perhaps we can begin to write a page showing how these conflicting values lead to different opinions on what Wikisource should include, and then afterwards take it from there to try to create an informed community consensus. If not, then how would you formulate the values and motivations behind the different sides differently? Dovi (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dovi. I'll give a short response and longer ones later. The discussion should encompass many considerations, you have touched upon several, though I'm not sure that you have outlined conflicting values. Is that a quote of a wikimedia goal, I've heard it said of wikipedia; an article at the latter aims to present original prose on a topic, a 'summary of all knowledge', based on cited sources. The scope of other sisters is different again, quote and wiktionary are self evident, commons is a more subtle concept, and books has new content. The scope of this site, in theory and practice is quite different, it is to make 'sources' freely and widely available. The so-called inclusion policy here emphasises previously published content and refers to wikibooks for the creation and publication of original content. The exceptions are what I am questioning. Commons also accepts newly authored works, generally a good thing, but does not make any claim on their files integrity or authority. Wikisource also makes no claim on its sources, except that it: is properly published, not doctored or edited, matches its text-integrity status, and one might reasonably expect to find thr work in a library.

Wikipedia is especially geared to exclude novelty, original syntheses, pranks, disinformation, bias, vandalism, and blockheads attempting to promulgate their unpublishable views. This is part of the downside that I have alluded to elsewhere, it should be obvious to most that 1. there are many subtle or blunt ways to do this, and 2. people devoted to doing this. I don't feel I'm being needlessly pessimistic in pointing this out, fugitive and uncitable content from elsewhere has already found a refuge here. Politics and religion will always be controversial, translation of the sources is not likely to be less so and it is, in most senses, new content. Wikibooks, or wikiversity, may have the apparatus to provide integrity and scholarship to new content, translation, annotation, etc., as wikipedia has with its policies, pillars and principles. 'Responsibility' and 'protection' are not central issues for me, but they would be a consequence of removing exceptions that overlap with scope of other wikimedia sisters. Cygnis insignis (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I truly apologize, I somehow missed seeing your response this past week and didn't know that you had done so. Please forgive the delay in this reply.

Not necessary, I prefer that people take their time to reply. My replies intersect at this indent level Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "the sum of all knowledge," it is indeed the vision of Wikimedia as a whole. Each and every one of the sister projects is supposed to contribute to this goal by making information freely available in different forms. However, the question of the scope of a sister project and exactly what kind of information it makes available is obviously a legitimate one. There is no one "correct" answer to the problem; rather, the community decides what policy will best promote Wikimedia's vision at the specific project.

Agree, but scope, practical guidelines and contributors who 'get it' covers almost all problems. The goal of this site is to produce 'clean texts', legitimately published elsewhere, the separate namespace solution at least indicates that is not what we providing.
Do you indeed agree that there is no one "correct" answer? If so, then what you consider to be the sole goal of the project, namely to produce proofread typing of text-scans, is not the only "correct" answer. The goal of this discussion is first and foremost for us to understand each other.
From your perspective, the separate namespace means "that is not what we are providing." From the opposite perspective, it indicates that not all valid material within the scope of the project is identical, and that the scope allows for different kinds of work that should be clearly differentiated from each other.

If I've understood you correctly, the Wikipedia-type problems that you mention (bias, pranks, etc.) are not your primary concern, but would be nevertheless be eliminated by not overlapping the scope of other projects. If that is the case, then what you mention about "religion and politics" are also not really fundamental issues, since they are no more or less of an issue for translations and annotations than they are for Wikipedia or Wikibooks. From your comments it seems that you have no essential problem with them as wiki projects, you just don't think they belong at Wikisource. Am I correct?

Pretty close. My personal feelings are not the issue, however those are major issues that some think more important than their own lives - or the lives of others. Attention to this issue has had success at wikipedia, but a consequence is reverted crud turning up elsewhere. The relevance to translation and annotations is that this would be a means of publishing something like,
[translation] "... these men indicate their intention to marry a widow* by eating one of her lambs† before three witnesses."
[notes] * husbands frequently die of fright when waking up next to their women. † the word 'lamb' means an innocent, a child of the previous union.
Ridiculous example? I've seen worse translations on RC here and this is based on a recent one. Who is checking these? I saw a contribution recently that left me so outraged I had to log out for a couple of days. What can I do? there is no active project to address this that I am aware of. If it was wikipedia I could challenge it as unsourced, elsewhere as beyond scope, I am unable to protect the integrity of the site.
I'm sorry you were so upset. The normal way to deal with this sort of thing is to set up basic mechanisms such as templates noting the quality of a translation, e.g. anything from "first attempt" to "peer reviewed." Some people have begun taking steps towards providing this recently.

(On a practical level, by the way, I've never had the impression that the current Wikisource inclusion policy allowing translation and annotation has led to major problems of this sort. On the contrary, the comment has been made that people who like to work on source-texts may generally be less difficult in this regard than people who want to write encyclopedia articles.)

I find that alarming, because we are probably hosting them and no-one is checking them. If I'm wrong, and the examples I've seen are accurate translations, not abominations to those peoples, then we have been very fortunate up to this point. Wikipedia is a dynamic document that uses sources that are usually stable. This sister provides those, when possible.
You are correct that translations are dynamic in a wiki environment. The question of course is whether that is terrible or a wonderful opportunity. If proofreading the only way for Wikisource to be a resource for Wikipedia?

So again, if I've understood correctly, the single fundamental point that you are emphasizing is about proper scope within a given sister project. That is a point about which reasonable people can both disagree and hopefully find consensus. I would like to suggest some of the elements that might be discussed from various sides of the issue on a page that sums up them up; please tell me if you agree with this presentation:

You should take this to wikibooks and see what they say.
  • Gray areas: The first thing that probably needs to be agreed upon is that there is such a thing as gray areas within "scope". One might argue quite convincingly that translations and annotations express originality, and as such belong on Wikibooks. One might argue no less convincingly that translations and annotations represent published source texts, and as such are completely unlike anything else that goes on at Wikibooks. Important as it is to decide where such things best belong, the worst thing that could happen is for them to "fall between the cracks" with the result that this kind of contribution to the sum of all knowledge becomes difficult or impossible within Wikimedia.
No, that is very much what wikibooks does, it publishes things. Unless there is an enormous of attention given to it, wikipedia would rightly judge the reliability of a newly created source. Translations vary wildly, or they are very similar. It is easy to see how this might be too similar to existing translations, especially with multiple and anonymous contributions, if there are numerous published translations this becomes nigh impossible to check.
No, that is very much what wikibooks does, it publishes things. That is obviously your position (you agree with the first argument and not with the second), but it is not a very helpful reply. Yes, Wikibooks publishes things. Yes, Wikisource deals with source texts. So what do we say about publishing translations of source texts? The question put to you was whether you agree that this is a fair way of stating the two alternative positions (both what you agree with and what you don't). Do you? If not, how would you state them differently?
  • Practicality: Practicality may or may not line up with the theoretical scope of a project according to one definition or another. One might argue based on a certain definition of scope that a source text in not original, while a translation is. But on a practical level one might argue that since Wikisource is a multilingual project, the natural place to link to translations of a source text, and to encourage their creation, is in the parallel languages of Wikisource.
One reason for the split was the language barrier, though hosting a parallel text is uncontroversial to my mind. If I get one from a local library, I expect it to have been published in sense and therefore undergone some sort of peer review. A critical review would unravel any problems, "in his latest work, Cygnis insignis claims to have translated an ancient Aramaic text that stipulates everyone on the planet should send a tithe to his personal bank account, but this appears to have been misinterpretation."
Things brings us back to the possibility of vandalism and abuse, but you said your real issue wasn't with that, but with principled scope. Remember that a translation is no more original than a sourced Wikipedia article. English Wikipedia allows sourcing in foreign language books/articles for information that isn't available in English.
  • Apparatus: One might argue that as wikis which encourage original writing, Wikibooks or Wikiversity would be most appropriate places to provide the apparatus for translations and annotations, which are themselves original. One might equally argue that the best place to provide the apparatus for translation and annotating source texts is at the wiki for source texts.
I love wikimedia, I've never had a problem finding a place for information. I don't see a need to argue the latter. Wikisource[s] are excellently positioned to provide clean texts and should attempt to preserve their integrity. I have linked them at wikipedia, I've added links to the sources here at wikiquote, I've made images of those works available at commons. This is what libraries do, have done for thousands of years, if it is done right we would have more incoming links than outgoing. We should not be publishing material, please stop and think about this. Users should not include original research at wikipedia, we are inviting them to create it here with annotations and translations. Shall we bring {{Citation needed}} here also?
I don't see a need to argue the latter. Once again, not terribly helpful. The point was not whether you agree with the latter argument (you don't), but whether you consider it a fair representation of the opposing viewpoint (with which you disagree). The first step in a civil argument is understanding the opposite view, and that is what I've tried to do here (I personally don't agree with the former argument). More on this below.
Regarding what libraries have done for thousands of years, also see below. As to whether we should be publishing or not, I think the question is misleading. What Wikisource actually does is re-publishing. The question to my mind is how we can be most effective and useful in doing that. Limiting ourselves to proofreading makes us less effective and useful in my opinion.
For example: Let us say we proofread and old translation of Aristotle. Wonderful. But we can do so much more in a wiki environment: We might, for instance, improve the Table of Contents, which was basically useless in the old edition, by adding more detailed descriptions of each chapter and subtitles for subtopics in brackets throughout the chapter (as is done in many modern editions). This is a mild example of annotation. The proofreading purists wouldn't allow it, of course. But then again, including this within Wikisource in addition to the "pure" edition both allows us to be a better library and at the same time always leaves the stable source to check against. Should we have templates to point out ambiguities or uncertainties in such work and ask for further clarification. Of course. That's how wikis work and we are a wiki.

Would you agree with this summary? If not, how would you state it differently?

Excuse my intersecting your comments with my reply.
No problem, I've done the same.

Two more thoughts from my perspective (with no attempt to present both sides). I'd like to get your thoughts on them:

  • Present value: Distributed Proofreaders exists already, and is still far more active than Wikisource. While the Wikimedia software makes organizing and presenting old proofread texts somewhat easier and better, is that the sum total of what Wikisource aims to contribute to the public? There are so many classic works with updated, copyrighted editions (translated/annotated) that are not freely available to the public, while the old scanned versions are far less valuable today. Since the very first proposals for Wikisource in 2002, people saw its potential value in creating quality updated editions that would be freely available. Why remove such work from the wiki for source-texts?
Love them, they give us a flying start, but the text integrity ranges from good to woeful. That is the sum total of what most of us do all of the time! Yes, that is enough!?
If the integrity has a wide range, then evaluate it with templates. That's how wikis work. Just because something is done most of the time doesn't mean it is the only thing that should be done. Nor that it best serves the Wikimedia vision at Wikisource. I suspect that most people who enjoy proofreading have nothing against other types of contributions such as translation and annotations, even if they don't engage in it themselves. What motivates your staunch opposition? It seems to go beyond the definition of "scope".
  • The future: Someone else has commented that the future of this project may be in translations. At some point, proofreading old books and journals will become less interesting and bring in diminishing values, because newer copyrighted literature remains off-limits. But bringing the "sources" to the world in ever-improving editions and translations is work that never ends, and continually contributes ever more to "the sum of all knowledge."
We have barely started, the underlying principles ranks in my top ten of 21C inventions, and continues something begun at the dawn of history.

Your thoughts? Dovi (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There may be a future in it, in some place, this speculation is unrelated to what libraries have done, I repeat, for thousands of years! I don't much care what that user thought a library was, I doubt it was based on any personal experience of them. I suppose I should be flattered that they seem to have unconsciously paraphrased something I said elsewhere, on an unrelated issue. They later made a fallacious comment on something they have never attempted, as a preface to a personal attack on me, their thuggish attitude doesn't sway my considered opinion. As for pro bono legal judgements that everything will eventually be owned by some corporation, I think that you are shooting yourself in the foot. Copy/pasting texts from gutenberg had limits, improving the integrity was difficult or impossible, for a number a reasons I doubt you are interested in. This is probably the practice you were familiar with, and it seems imagination was limited to doing what they did at wikipedia without having to back it up. The qualification for altering a work was the ability to create an account (or several), and have an opinion - probably unpublishable. The "sum of all knowledge" is not what anyone reckons is right, this stuff slips through the cracks at wikipedia quite nicely, be glad it does.
I honestly don't understand most of this paragraph (especially the first part), please clarify. Regarding libraries, however, with all due respect I think you are wrong historically. Do you really thing that the "library" model of the 19-20th centuries (putting published books on a shelf) is what has been done for thousands of years? As someone whose field involves the history of literature I assure you that is not the case. The role of a classical library included the annotation of texts, translation of texts, and the adaptation of older texts to the needs of then-current readers. Nearly every manuscript had not just the author in mind but the reader as well, and reflects that latter concern in some way with minor or major changes to the format or the content of a text. And even a modern library provides the classical "sources" in up-to-date published formats that Wikisource could provide equally well, on condition that we don't needlessly restrict ourselves to re-publishing only the exact formats that existed until 1923.
You seem nice, pretty intelligent too, I'm sure we would get along in the RW. I know many fine and intelligent people who rather sniff the roses than mess about with old books, a perfectly legitimate view, you seem[ed] more interested in creating new sources than what we are actually (and successfully) doing here. I wish you every success with establishing an open project large enough to accomplish the difficult task of translation. If you are not willing to venture into an unfamiliar site with this project, which is understandable, I will be happy to do that for you. Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you (what's the RW?). On the contrary, I love old books and always have, perhaps no less so than you, and that is exactly why I love Wikisource. I believe that translation belongs right here, thank you, so your kind offer of assistance misses the mark.
A response to the general thrust of your recent comments: A civil conversation requires respect for alternative opinions, including those with which one disagrees. I think (and always have) that a debate over the scope of Wikisource is a legitimate one in principle. One of the best indications of a civil disagreement is making the sincere attempt to state the position you disagree with fairly and respectfully, just as the person who holds it might state it himself. That is what I tried to do in my comments above, and I asked whether you think I had presented the opposing positions fairly (since it's hard to avoid biases). Your response to this attempt was to exclusively endorse your own position and reject the opposite one. On the downside the feeling is that you hold your views on "scope" very dogmatically (respectfully, that is how you sound to me). On the bright side, perhaps that is an indication that I presented your side well?
My goal in presenting those comments to you above was the hope that your responses would allow for the creation of an explanatory page that would fairly and respectfully present the different positions on the scope of Wikisource. The purpose of that page would not be to decide policy, whatever policy may be, but to guide future conversations in positive ways, so that old arguments need not be recycled ad nauseam regardless of what people conclude. Remember that just like you don't "see the need" for the arguments above opposed to your own, and staunchly reject them, others may see you own positions as needlessly narrow minded or short sighted. Rather than engaging in that sort of tit-for-tat, a fair, agreed-upon summary of the arguments would be useful, after which people can draw their own conclusions with less fanfare.
Tonight was a good night for doing this on my end. I'll hopefully be able to deal with it further again sometime next week. Looking forward to your comments, Dovi (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
PS Maybe it would be a good idea to start again by putting further comments below rather than in-between, since the replies-to-replies have already become a bit complicated... :-) Dovi (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Hunting of the Snark (1876)[edit]

The Hunting of the Snark (1876) is now finished except for this page. I will now get back to validating the other works I am working on. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Snark poem was light enough to help keep me balanced. :) But now back to the others. I have even built a few djvus of my own, so I have most of the basics down (just some of the obscure stylistics that pop up every now and again are things that I don't always know, but they are easy to learn). Anyway, I'll finish off the rest now. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Haul the bandersnarks[edit]

Gday matey - long time no trip over - beware the flipjacks - could you email me sometime? cheers SatuSuro (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Still not sure what you meant :) SatuSuro (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Can set variables once[edit]

with something like var headerbox ..., if you use it the same way every time (which we do at WS), you can put it once outside of the specific function and it will apply to all functions, rather than setting it per function. billinghurst sDrewth 11:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, and I'm flattered that you thought I would, it is not necessary to reiterate the line—
var headerbox = document.getElementsByName('wpHeaderTextbox')[0];

I take your word for it, however I swiped it from someone else; perhaps that is a reason to leave it as it is, if someone swipes a specific function from me. Ask him. btw, do I need to escape the characters: !, ?, and ... er, a comma? And is that with a backslash? Cygnis insignis (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

belay that anyway, I am obviously unable to follow Pathoschild's instruction.
Yes, escape with a backslash. Pretty well any non-alphanumeric character should be backslashed, while that is not completely correct, as a rule of thumb it works. If you want a cheatsheet reference sheet, start here. billinghurst sDrewth 14:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Subpaging La Fontaine[edit]

Yes, Cygnis insignis, I will do that. Don't hesitate to start an organization of these fables if you have ideas. Thanks and regards, --Zyephyrus (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would[edit]

Like to start up here - but whenever I look at anything it looks bloody difficult - could you possibly lead me through a start of a small poem from lets say 100 years ago - so I can get the hang of things? SatuSuro (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You would be most welcome!, and I know what you mean - I hope kick out the jams as I go along. Pick a poet, lest you be enslav'd by another's ;-) Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
its gonna be very slow I can tell - thanks for the tips - much appreciated - send me a text message sometime (if you have my number still) so that I can phone you sometime - cheers SatuSuro (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
It's about bloody time, mate. Welcome aboard. Hesperian 12:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah well I have just found some of my 1800's books - at least I wont have to look up the phone number to ask persmission :( SatuSuro (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Formatting queries[edit]

Hi. I've just seen the edits you made to the 'The Craftsmanship of Writing' pages that I validated, and I had a couple of queries:

  • I thought that {{gap}} was the appropriate way to start off an indented paragraph - is that not the case?
  • You deleted Author:Woodberry - my thinking here was that the author surname pages should really be disambiguation pages to authors with the same name, but that redirects would serve until multiple author pages needed to be linked to. Is that not the way things are done here?
  • I'm also still trying to figure out when people's names should be linked and when they shouldn't - I was assuming that they should all be linked when they are likely to be authors, but [1] seems to disagree with that.

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mike,
  • It has not been usual practice to retain that element of formatting, I agree with that practice after much consideration and discussion. Here is one way of looking at it: If you go to a page such as example there is an indent that indicates a new paragraph, if it wasn't we might (or would) not be able to discern where a paragraph (or line) begins. Note the spacing with this scheme is the same, however, a new line on mediwiki pages is generally two returns, as you would know. Like the justification of the text, this does not convey any information to the reader and does not need to be transcribed.
  • Yeh, I created the author page but was not aware that "Woodberry" (or Woodbury to give it my spelling :p) was so familiar as to be known in that way. This is site under development and I think the navigational structures should be developed cautiously, this was borderline and I would not object to its recreation. This is the apology if I'm wrong, go ahead and restore it if you think it helps.
  • Linking references to authors and their works is uncontroversial, having done a lot of it I now consider there to be a threshold determined by the context. Where the author is telling the reader, (an aspiring author himself), to become familiar with the works of such and such; they are hardly likely to dive into a sea of blue, if reader don't know the works they are hardly likely to pause to read them. Comparisons are odious, as someone said, but imagine every potential link on wikipedia being realised. I think that a link to Shakespeare is sometimes justifiable, deeplinks to his works nearly always, but certainly not in this context. It's something of a judgement call, again, override it if you feel it reduces the utility of a book for would-be writers. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. What you say makes sense. Personally, I quite like the formatting that using {{gap}} gives when reading the text, but I guess it doesn't really need to be present for any reason other than cosmetics. I'll have to think some more about the redirects - although I don't think that the development of navigational structure necessarily needs to be that cautious. With author links, I take your point - although I think there's a lot of use in identifying which authors are meant within the text if possible. Perhaps I'm jaded by looking at too many Wikipedia articles, but I've yet to see a page here that has too many wikilinks on. Thanks again. Mike Peel (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Trying to get my head around categories. Would appreciate your thoughts.

Over at the 'pedia, Category:Plants is for articles about particular plants, and Category:Botany is for rticles on topics within the field of botany. Each and every plant is contained within the field of botany, but there are aspects of botany that are not plants; e.g. botanists, botanical textbooks, subfields of botany, etcetera. Thus Category:Plants is a subcategory of Category:Botany.

I always assumed that the logic of categories is largely immutable and therefore our category tree will be largely reconcilable with Wikipedia's. But when you're categorising works instead of topics, everything changes. Botany being the scientific study of plants, every work of botany is a work about plants; yet there are many works about plants that are not scientific works and therefore are not works of botany; e.g. Ah! Sun-flower. This suggests that Category:Botany should be a subcategory of Category:Plants!

  • Didn't mean to save that. Wrote it, then decided not to get bogged down in it. Too often I overthink these things. Oh well, done is done. Feel free to respond or ignore. Hesperian 12:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
A botanical work need not be about plants, it could be about building display cases for specimens, reviewing the literature in some subfield, or about discussing the demarcation between biology and zoology.
More importantly, you're using inappropriate names. The categories should be named "works in which plants play a major role" and "works in the scientific field of botany", or something like that. If you want to keep the short names, either create category redirects, or, and that is IMO the optimal solution, make it policy that every category has to have explicit inclusion criteria. I see a lot of superfluous debate on en.Wikipedia and Commons about categorization that could be solved by requiring explicit criteria for every single category (or at least as soon as categorization becomes contested). Paradoctor (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, what I said about Wikipedia—"there are aspects of botany that are not plants"—applies here too. It seems that a rigorous approach would leave us with Category:Botany and Category:Plants, neither being a subcategory of the other; and hence a great many works that end up simultaneously in both. Not ideal. What would you do with these two?

Yes, I agree about giving categories explicit definitions. One problem we have here is that many categories have very fuzzy definitions. e.g. Category:Botanists is full of Author: pages. I recently starting putting biographies of botanists in there. I don't know if I am "allowed" to, but it seemed logical. It seems even more logical to split that category into Category:Works about botanists and Category:Botanist author pages; but doing so would have far-reaching implications for how we handle author pages, and I'm not sure I'm ready to wage that particular war. Hesperian 13:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"simultaneously in both. Not ideal": I don't think I see the problem, could you explain that?
"allowed": Hehe, that never stopped me. ;)
"split that category": No need to, just create subcategories and diffuse there what's appropriate.
"far-reaching implications for how we handle author pages": I have not yet any idea how WS is organized, can explain the problem to me, or point me at reading matter? Paradoctor (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you look at the work done by the inimitable user, here and across wikimedia, they show the extent to which 'WS is organised' and provide more insight than you could glean from the redundant or almost non-existant reading matter. Conceptual discussions will be advantageous when you have familiarised yourself with current practices and encounter the issues while you contribute. I'll be happy to describe certain aspects of the site, bundled with my musings on them, or provide the solutions to specific problems when I can. In the meantime there is enough in Hesperian's responses for anyone to ponder, though his comments are always welcome here, others have also contributed to earlier discussions and you will these buried in the archives of the scriptorium {Central discussion). My initial response follows ...
I rarely categorise works here, I do at the other places because there is a lot of thought and activity on many of the topics I've contributed to; the arrangement of plants is categorical ikebana.

Occasionally I will try to place an author in them; I'm reminded to do so because I have used them and author 'indexes' (that word) is the second of the two main methods of accessing a library's catalogue. I have added the Botanists cat to a work in main space, as it happens, then removed it when I saw it populated with Author:pages. Categorising namespaces separately seems the prudent thing to do, the structure is fouled as it is; I am dismayed when I see upper structures and the peculiar ways they bury the too fine categories. Wikipedia's category structure is [theoretically] derived from its reference system, and has basis in scope for that synthetic arrangement of articles. That community is also well positioned to provide access to its sources here. We should be very wary of topic or subject based categorisation, yet consider how topic-based results from the works, their authors, and bibliographic metadata can be produced by user defined searches. Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Disambig vs Versions[edit]

There was the discussion Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2009-04#Template:Versions which mentioned but did not resolve this issue. My personal thought is that Versions is a special subset of Disambiguation, so feel that if both are required that we handle it either as

  • A disambigation and just arrange the version information on the page; or
  • We create Pagename (Author) which is a versions page, and then link that to the disambiguation page

In the scheme of things, the first is a lot easier. billinghurst sDrewth 14:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The last comment summarised it well, it is an interim solution. I tend to favour the first method, though not apply it because of the inflexibility of the extant templates. This would mean compiling one page for works called The Tiger, regardless of authorship or other consideration, though do I foresee a need to sometimes split out what is currently divided by these pages. This draft is an woefully incomplete Version page of one link at the Tiger dab. An emergent property occurs to me, that if an expanded set of versions is included with the other works this leads the reader to the most likely target, the well known poem, even if they don't know the author. Poetry is horribly ambiguous in the titles, lumping would probably be a good thing, but other documents need dabbing on different criteria.
The second option describes how we currently accommodate our tigers, would the proposed facilities be adequate if dozens came to stay? Considering the amount bibliographic blather needed to dab versions, not to mention the tiger shit, one could see how a catch-all solution to indexing could become unwieldy. Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: ref scheme[edit]

Thanks for the pointer. I was at the point of asking for help with this work because (1) there are number of footnotes which extend over more than one page, & (2) one footnote which is a footnote to another (I don't remember the page, but if you need to look at the actual incident, I'll spend the effort locating it). If there is not problem with consolidating a footnote which extends across the bottom of more than one page, I'm happy to do it this way. Otherwise, I'm simply proofing this one step at a time, knowing full well that I can always ask for help. :-) Llywrch (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try your example & see if I can make it work. -- Llywrch (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cygnis insiginis -- can you provide me an example of how the code you provided me would be used? I am trying to make it work here & there from Salt's work. (I'm confident if I can see how it is applied that I can make it work in the other cases I've encountered.) Thanks, -- Llywrch (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I applied it earlier on in the chapter, but could not get the page you gave to work for some reason. I see now you asked for examples, rather than have inviting me to edit those pages; I'll get the former and apologise for the latter. Revert those edits and I will find some working ones. The footnotes in footnotes should be interesting. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Vanishing redlinks[edit]

Here I see mainly redlinks. Here those same redlinks look like plain unlinked text. What's going on? Moondyne (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed now. Someone must've done something. And I did clear the cache. Moondyne (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I get that sometimes, more often with images, my uninformed guess is server lag. This has led me to attempt to debug code that isn't broken :( My workaround with images is to nudge the size parameter during preview. Cygnis insignis (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Finding the 19th century era items[edit]

I have been uncovering the pre 1900 parts of my much diminished 'old book' section of the collection and am trying to get a handle on something short and easy, so as to not embarrass self with too much at first go - should be a few days before I decide which item - cheers SatuSuro (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool. There are some technical issues that take a little while to grasp, once this is done you can make those texts available and also take advantage of the huge amount of material that others have already scanned and packaged. Cygnis insignis (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Publishers[edit]

Thank you for thoughts. No, I won't go much further. My main interest here was the desire to represent book series like the Home University Library. Once the category is set up, where do I put it? The book publisher seemed most convenient.Ingram (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

For collections (cf. categorised works), I recommend the creation of Wikisource: namespace page(s). Stick {{process header}} at the top, and the format allows a nice bit of flexibility, some commentary, and ability to add works that can be added as time or copyright allows. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I can only think of subjective examples in that namespace, which is why they are there, e.g. my tentative foray into this field is Wikisource:Cephalotus. Is there an example of a collation based on a bibliographic detail? Cygnis insignis (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick grab — billinghurst sDrewth 12:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks billinghurst. The second seems to me to be a subject, as with my Cephalotus follicularis page. Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

PSM tags[edit]

Dear Cygnis, if I may be permitted to address you with such familiarity. :-)

Thanks for the message and your guess is excellent. The tag is not to indicate a problem page. The images are methodically tracked and then periodically uploaded through that template (between 1-7 days). Otherwise, I have to check each volume page again and again and again..... It's a great time saver. If you check the Commons, there are many images, from the PSM project, all tagged as Popular Science Monthly illustrations. (Oh, oh. This reminds me that I must check my initial uploads because there are more images.)

Creating a category to tag pages with images to be uploaded was also considered, but that negates my nefarious plan of attracting more users with focused interest to tackle a particular aspect of proofreading, and to encourage and facilitate discussions such as this — and that's what the signature is for. At least one more tag is considered to indicate pages with tables and diagrams.— Ineuw (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering the success of your nefarious plan, I think I had better say that addressing me in such a familiar manner is okay. When you write me a cheque however, you must use my full title.

If it works, is temporary, and produces the result you outline, then I can have no objection. Creating the commons category sooner rather than later was very wise, stuffing around at commons adds another level of complexity for users who probably just want to do some proofreading as they pass by. It is definitely easy to focus on on aspect at a time, I open a bunch of upload forms in tabs and tweak the description and categories for each image. Adding the couple of key details, like volume and page number, is crucial when I get myself in muddle. No doubt you have a plan, nefarious or otherwise, that will make my method look like technological equivalent of banging rocks together.

Diagrams are images in my book, but I do lean heavily on the black-point slider and drop the background completely; there is little chance of affecting the 'ink' by making the page transparent. The djvu file type will probably render these correctly, but they sometimes still look crummy. The tables notion is a good one, there are boffins could probably do a batch in the time it takes me to remember how to do one, the set of solutions for the volumes would probably short and as with the images it is easier to a few at once. Carry on mate, but be wary of editing to attract attention lest you get a blowback effect, everyone has their own focus - for some it is users and drama rather than dreary old content. Keep in touch ... 'In'. Regards, Cygnis insignis (talk)

Thanks. I missed this reply entirely and now, three weeks later, it caught my eye as I was about to post another message below. This is a very important post, especially regarding images.— Ineuw (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Index:William Blake, painter and poet.djvu[edit]

It looks finished, and it has been marked "To be validated", but actually there are two pages still not proofed. They are the ones transcluded into the index page, and therefore wrongly left uncoloured. Hesperian 05:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Page:William Blake, painter and poet.djvu/9, Page:William Blake, painter and poet.djvu/10. Hesperian 05:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah! Thanks. Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


A similar case: I erroneously promoted Index:Mother Shipton investigated.djvu to Done. Page:Mother Shipton investigated.djvu/2 is still awaiting validation. Hesperian 23:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw that, or rather I didn't. It needs to be checked by someone who is able to view it, my screen has probably faded. Cygnis insignis (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

New template: {{custom rule}}[edit]

I have made a new template that allows you to construct a custom rule from image "segments" using a simple template. For example, {{custom rule|sp|100|cll|10|sp|10|d|10|sp|10|clr|10|sp|100}} generates

Rule Segment - Flare Left - 12px.svg Rule Segment - Span - 100px.svg Rule Segment - Curl Left - 10px.svg Rule Segment - Span - 10px.svg Rule Segment - Diamond - 10px.svg Rule Segment - Span - 10px.svg Rule Segment - Curl Right - 10px.svg Rule Segment - Span - 100px.svg Rule Segment - Flare Right - 12px.svg

A templated version also exists for the PSM rules: {{PSM rule}}, giving:

Rule Segment - Span - 40px.svg Rule Segment - Span - 40px.svg Rule Segment - Flare Left - 12px.svg Rule Segment - Span - 5px.svg Rule Segment - Circle - 6px.svg Rule Segment - Span - 5px.svg Rule Segment - Flare Right - 12px.svg Rule Segment - Span - 40px.svg Rule Segment - Span - 40px.svg

I was told you might be interested in this. See the documentation for details, and feel free to suggest things to me for ways to improve it! − Inductiveload (talk) 06:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, it is very neat! Very nicely documented too - a good model for our templates. I have fiddled around with a couple of these before, then merely duplicated the result throughout the work; I did wonder at the time whether this would render correctly in all situations. I have used a line of * (fullwidth asterisk) when they appeared as separator or indicated an omission in a quote, I thought the result was neater than substituting them with [*] or [...] However, when I looked at this recently with IE, they were rendered blank. I don't think that seriously interfered with the content I had transcribed, and I don't think would with these elements. I'll give it a go next time it comes up.

BTW, you reminded of Stukeley so I made another scan index available, half-done now, though it may be a while before it hits mainspace. Nevertheless, I have seen it cited already, in a blog, when I was hunting for missing pages; all very topical for a 1750 work! I often see your thought-provoking contributions and like your approach to the site, feel welcome to drop by anytime. Cygnis insignis (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Page:The witch-maid & other verses (1914).djvu/89 not transcluded[edit]

... so rather than me fussing about working it out, I thought I would ask here whether you wanted to handle it first. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Designation: Problematic[edit]

[A local discussion to nut out thoughts first.] While it is only a word, I know that I struggle with the concept of marking certain pages of works as problematic, as they are not problems, just have work pending. I am wondering whether others may hesitate for the same reason. Due you think that it would be clearer or less problematic, (eyeroll) to use a designation like /*Unresolved*/ (insert your word here) for works that may need further work, be they proofread or not. I say this for looking at how I see many others working on works requiring proofreading and how that these people have their quirks in their addressing the issue.

On a similar note, one of the biggest uses of problematic is around isolating images. Feel that we could look to better guidance/clarity around use of {{use page image}}, the use of [[File:filename.djvu|page=xx|... and use of the criteria. Also, it may be that we need to look to clearly identify works that need image work, and getting internal or external support to manage some of these aspects. Here my first thought is to see if there is interest in a local page or a Commons page to help with the images. It requires a special skill set or a special interest to do it, and it may not be one that our wordsmiths have or want. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

When do you think 'problematic' should be applied? Cygnis insignis (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Can I change that thought around, problematic is a subset of the class of which I believe it should be called. So problematic (things like undecipherable or missing text) is part of the larger group of matters that show that it requires work other than straight proofreading. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
In computer science parlance, a process is said to be in a Blocking state if it cannot do anything but wait for some external event to occur. For example, it might not be able to go any further until it has received user input; or it might be stuck waiting for its turn to access a shared resource; or maybe it has to wait for some other process to consume some the output that it has already pushed down a pipe before it can produce any more. Though Blocking would not be a very meaningful term for many Wikisourcerers, I think the concept matches these pages much better than Problematic. Hesperian 14:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Darling bloody range[edit]

can you help me with darling range on en? the f ing link for the Journal of the Proceedings of a party of Officers and men, for the purpose of crossing the Darling Range of Mountains, under the orders of Lieutenant Preston, R.N. - is buggering up the chance of expanding the cites - is it possible to make the little darling turn corners and fit into columns or does it insist on its eastward erection? any hints or clues would be appreciated. SatuSuro (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I used a cite book template, the link here is given as a plain url under the title of the work. There are others ways to do it, which I'm happy to show you, but I expect that expansion of the article could use many books that happen to be hosted here. We don't have a work that directly correlates with the article, my current approach is to avoid the 'ad' in that circumstance. There are possibly other sites hosting the material, I strongly doubt it is good as the transcription given by that wikisource contributor. I tried to give it a more 'western view', one that I invariably arrive after due consideration—Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for help so far - I envisage over time there shall have to be at some time in the distant future a separate article about 'traverses' by Gentlemen and Others and the Diverse travels through the Vales and scratchy mediterranean undergrowth - sic - exploration of the Darling Range. However in its neither one thing or the other current state there are many possible references that have not been adequately utiliosed - perhaps those who scratch their glass panes for eternity here might find time and pleasure in linking their hard labour and travails perhaps with the place of the unwashed and multipe ips? If you are lost here, try a gps or an email SatuSuro (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Width[edit]

If you set an explicit table width larger than necessary, then the renderer will add width to all columns, so that the column-centred pp no longer aligns with the right-aligned page numbers. You can get around that by explicitly setting the width of the column that you want to be small. Hesperian 06:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

For someone edumacated[edit]

Safe in their Alabaster Chambers — has one of the versions being written in the year of her birth. While it is vaguely conceivable that she may have thought it, I doubt that she wrote it at that time. Care to explore and correct? — billinghurst sDrewth 04:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Kathleen has found the date, so I can fix that bit. — billinghurst sDrewth
Oh, if you have a chance the ToC need to be validated at Index:Emily Dickinson Poems (1890).djvu Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I would change it if I did. Cygnis insignis (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Needs formatting In Flanders Fields (1921)[edit]

All the pages of the work were validated, however, left untranscluded. Not managing to get sanity to the setting out. Want to have a go? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Mercy buckets. Think it is worthy of FT? — billinghurst sDrewth 06:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it works, but I consider the concept to be experimental, so no. Cygnis insignis (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Evolution and Ethics[edit]

I have put up some comments on Scriptorium about how to handle annotations. I would like your comments on what i have to say. As far as the Hibbert lectures, what I have is a 20th century reprint, but only in print form, and your comments about the possibility of different pagination seem a likely possibility. Unfortunately, I do not have an electronic copy available. TomS TDotO (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

PSM Proofreading guide.[edit]

Many thanks for the professional reformat of the proofreading guide, which guides me as well.[1]. I saw your most recent post on my talk page, and I really need clarification about your question.— Ineuw (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

  1. I only regret loosing the joke. Are they permitted on my user sub pages?

Wikisource:WikiProject Popular Science Monthly/temp[edit]

is requested for speedy deletion as redundant. You created it, so I'll let you do the honours. Hesperian 23:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's funny. Thank you. :-) — Ineuw (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't get it.... Hesperian 23:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Poetic justice, :-) but all I can do is empty the page contents, I can't delete the page itself. — Ineuw (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I know you can't delete it. Generally, when I leave a message on Cygnis' talk page, it is safe to assume I am talking to Cygnis'. He created it, so I shall defer to him when it comes to deleting it. Hesperian 01:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Now everything is clear— Ineuw (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: my talk page[edit]

Thanks for keeping the random stuff off it. I've no idea why I'm such a target for inane chit-chat, but it's nice to be loved. ;) Jude (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Little request[edit]

Notice modeled after [2]

As Template:New texts is monitored in IRC, and many users have it in their Watchlists, I was wondering whether you would consider adding the name of the text being added to the edit summary, rather than solely +1,-1. Even if it is just have +Name of work, -1 that would be most helpful. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see how these things get started, but I must have seen this coming :-) The last time I added something to new texts, the summary said "oops", this is because I was fixing the previous addition: which was "replace flanders 1921 ("mine") with new pome, push back to top. We should have a poem of the day to stop them pushing larger works out". I will consider doing it next time too. I had better forward this on to someone else, or six users, like a chain letter.

Seriously mate, I think you receiving that 'model' was a bit arbitrary given the complete lack of them here, but it is a good practice on high traffic pages. Keep me informed about the current concerns on IRC. Regards, Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Dora[edit]

Just added in a missing image, however, to me looks like something that we might be able to tart up for an FT. In its current state it is okay, but I reckon that a little more could be done. Thoughts? — billinghurst sDrewth 16:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, nice work. I had seen it, and extremely tempted to start on it, but decided that doing other little books of poems might be more fun. They were, but nothing is FT ready. What about War Pictures, a similar work by Xxagile, et al.? A broader appeal I think. I may have left some unconventional solutions in there, and some unfinished versioning, I could have another go (if it gets through this pre-candidacy :) Cygnis insignis (talk)
Fair call. Cannot say that I read the poetry, however, it does look like an interesting work with diverse authors and image. I like it and think that it is very presentable with plenty that exhibits the strength and diversity of WS. After doing some other work on disambiguating poetry with other works, I am feeling stronger on the POV of the process of PUBLISHED WORK / SUBWORK, and a redirect from the root for the subwork, which may become a disamb page at a point in time. It does create more work initially, however, it saves work at the disambiguation level, and I think that it does have the benefit of demonstrating other works in the published work. It also is going to help manage copyright tags which are often missing for subworks. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hunting of the Snark[edit]

Oh, I'd be glad to help. You may have noticed I had done a bit of the work with aligning it, but had never quite finished. Now that I've returned, I checked it - and found it had had much of the slow proofreading I had been doing done, which is awesome. =)

I really wish that I had a first-edition Snark - the last image looks so much better in the first edition than in the one that seems to be the only one anyone has for sale. =/ But, ach weel, if I get the first edition, I'll redo it, if I don't, these are still the best copies of the engravings online =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: sdelete of Talk:The New York Times/1901/08/01/Had Tobacco in Her Trunk[edit]

Not that I care much about the deletion, but it's nice to see that a complete lack of sense of humour doesn't only apply to Wikipedia. Also, as far as I'm aware, non-notable content only applies to articles, not to talk pages.--T. Mazzei (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems it doesn't, you sought to bring something completely lacking any wit here; you were using it like a toilet door. I was acting on the consensus view, irrelevant content on the myriad of talk pages connected to source texts should be deleted. Add something worthy of uncyclopedia and I might turn a blind eye. Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Not everything lacking taste is lacking wit or humour. But instead of arguing, I apologize to Lewinski and/or cigar tube fans who may have been offended, and concede the point to the Wikisource arbiter of good humour.--T. Mazzei (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Well met, a better response than that tenuous premise for a Clinton reference. Cygnis insignis (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I had always intended to get to Wikisource:Annotations in the di when I knew that I had a discussion progressing. It just went ballistic before there was that opportunity. :-/ — billinghurst sDrewth 11:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm left pondering how 'evidence-based' is actually demonstrated, it seems pretty subjective, maybe links in texts to talk pages :P An interesting discussion, I hope to see less of them ... 'wikipedia refers to sources'. Cygnis insignis (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Icelandic volcanoes[edit]

Hello, and thanks for your commment on Icelandic volcanoes,1783-4: contemporary reports. Being new here, I'm not entirely sure about what yuo're asking for. Within the body of the page there are only two annotations by me, at the end of the 18 Jul 1793 and 1 Jul 1784 items; every other word (and even most of the spelling mistakes) is direct transcription. The 18 Jul 1783 note did contain its source, and I have amended the 1 Jul 1784 note likewise, but if you're referring to something else, please let me know. David Trochos (talk) 07:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the annotations tip, I've tweaked the page accordingly. David Trochos (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Interwikidiscreet to Template:Plain sister[edit]

I was about to convert my use of {{interwikidiscreet}} to {{plain sister}} with the relevant parameter updates. Would you like for me to bot yours too? — billinghurst sDrewth

Okay, thanks :-) Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

False starts[edit]

OK remind me - I wanna start this weekend - where is the best way to go? Is it worth ringing you and having a chat? cheers SatuSuro (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hell of a weekend and week - will eventually catch up and break through the impetus, god willing :| SatuSuro (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
When you're ready, hope all is well. Cygnis insignis (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Yup just have very scattered priorities at the moment - soon I said months ago and still say now :| SatuSuro (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Questions[edit]

Cygnis, I have many questions in how to format in the manner you suggest. Specific questions on my talk page. Guidance needed! --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. I got started on "Fair Wind" by James T. Fields. First page is here: Page:Poems (Fields)-1.djvu/45 but I couldn't get the next page, 46, to have the same style heading like you did at On a Book of Sea-Mosses. Could you lend a hand when you get a chance? --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


Blake by Ellis & Yeats 1893[edit]

Ellis/Yeats: Blake table between pages 8 & 9 lpg

Ellis/Yeats:Blake table between pages 8 & 9 pdf

Cygnis, it would be nice to have here this book: http://www.archive.org/details/worksofwilliambl02blakuoft Could you help to add add it here? Thanks. Yours, Dmitrismirnov (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at this the other day. I chose to upload the two later volumes by Ellis, and a later volume by Sampson, they are listed at Author talk:William Blake. I'm uploading Index:Works of William Blake; poetic, symbolic, and critical (1893) Volume 2.djvu anyway. If you go to that page you will see a link "All files: HTTP", by right-clicking on "worksofwilliambl02blakuoft.djvu" and selecting 'save as..." you can download the file yourself. cheers, Cygnis insignis (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
THANKS! Dmitrismirnov (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
My pleasure, I didn't realise all the commentary was in one volume. I like both the authors, but this work was very ambitious. Ellis also published The Real Blake some years later, I'll get that too ... one day. Call again, Dimitri. Cygnis insignis (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a table between pages 8 & 9 missing. I scanned it from the library book here. It would be good to incorporate it somehow into the Index:Works of William Blake; poetic, symbolic, and critical (1893) Volume 2.djvu Dmitrismirnov (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. There is another scan of a copy held by the University of California, the table appears here in that version. I see you found the table of contents, that seems to be missing from the other scan. I guess the double page broke the binding and that is why the pages were in a strange order.
It is possible to insert a page, but the simple solution is to add it to the main page and use a note on the index. It is also possible to convert the page to a table, your image could be used for that too. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Global block[edit]

Would you mind reviewing this discussion and reevaluating your decision to block Thekosher? —Spangineerwp (háblame) 17:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

A note that I have lifted the block, since consensus among administrators seems to indicate that he can be globally blocked, but should not be locally blocked. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle. 18:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Spangineer, and I don't agree with Sherurcij. The need to block (without a discussion) was not urgent, similarly the need to unblock (without a discussion) was not urgent. For harm being done we should act promptly, if there is time to discuss, why not take it? If there is time to act with consideration, then there is also no need to override another's actions without consideration. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Table[edit]

I do not know how to create a table exactly like in a book: Page:Works of William Blake; poetic, symbolic, and critical (1893) Volume 2.djvu/188 Could you help, please? Dmitrismirnov (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't remember how to do it. I'll find a solution, or ask someone who would know, later in the week. Cygnis insignis (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! This is excellent!! Dmitrismirnov (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Not my doing, [3], but I agree - it is brilliant! Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Problematic rating ...[edit]

Problematic rating for Page:Flatland, a Romance of Many Dimensions (1884).djvu/35 is it for the formatting on the page? Or is it for something else? — billinghurst sDrewth 06:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't know what is was, if anything. Ta for letting me know. Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Display opinion sought RIGHT SIDENOTES and the display aspect[edit]

I have been undertaking Copyright Act, 1956 (United Kingdom) from the index file, and being typical legislation it has left and right sidenotes. In the main namespace I have forced the sidenotes to the right, as that is how others have chosen for legislation and with sidenotes templates that pretty much forces full justification. Harking back on previous conversations, that may not be that pretty in other devices, so do you think that I should be looking to make left sidenotes in main namespace? You are more around this stuff than I, hence your review and opinion would be helpful. Anyone else watching, I am happy to have your feedback. If it relates to the work itself, it may give less clutter if we do it at the work's talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been following its dev for some time, the result in the example above looks great. I don't have the opportunity to test it widely, but on my (small) screen, with browser windows at full width, the note goes across the right edge of our page. The default width of the templates would probably be okay. I imagine the printout would be similar to copy-pasting the text, which kinda works; this issue stems from the original formatting. Forcing the width is a common solution elsewhere, and 'justification' for the other formatting, but is it possible to use only a left margin for the note and leave the body of the text with default formatting? Is this what you are suggesting? The result is good for this work, and I suppose most users will see that, the general concerns on forcing width and justification is a side issue. I generally think this has improved access, cheers for that. BTW: are those images really derived from DjVu? They look pretty good if they were. Cygnis insignis (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
For a test, I have moved Part5 to have {{left sidenote}} and {{RL sidenote}}, and you will a see bit of the issue in that we would need to left align the left sidenote stuff & yes, that was what I was suggesting. I will see if I can get a non-justified right edge, though that would mean LEFT sidenote, as sidenotes only work (to the eye) with a knife edge margin. Or would it just all be settled with a thinner main body channel? For the file, it is a pdf that I converted to djvu, and the first page coat of arms is lifted from the pdf. Was that the question? — billinghurst sDrewth 12:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Left sidenote does have a parameter align=left, and I have done it one page 48, and it throws it way left, right into the indented-page utilised space. :-/ — billinghurst sDrewth 12:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Added {{{align}}} parameter to {{sidenotes begin}}, and pushed text to left. 12:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

{{new texts}}[edit]

Not sure whether Index:Flatland, a Romance of Many Dimensions (1884).djvu made it to the list, anyway, now validated. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice one, cheers, had you read it before? No, don't think it was listed. Cygnis insignis (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Synchronized newspapers[edit]

Lately, I've looked into newspapers, whole issues rather than isolated articles. You've done some from the Sydney gazette. Is that something you're still working on, or did you abandon the idea? I think it would be exciting to cover the same dates in parallel for several titles. So far there seems to be no overlap in time between the titles we have. Perhaps we should start with the eventful spring of 1848? --LA2 (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sitenotice is completely hideable[edit]

Umm, it is only on every page if you don't dismiss it, that is its design and purpose. So you see it once, and dismiss it and then you can progress normally. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I see at least seven items of site-wide significance at the scriptorium, why have they been excluded? The scriptorium is the place for such things, I don't think its appropriate to advertise select items. People know where to discuss these things, and it takes some time to get responses; these issues have been around for years and won't be solved tomorrow. I reckon that eliciting a response in the header space of everyone that logs in to quietly work on texts is a bit noisy and urgent. Cygnis insignis (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I so totally agree with the matters that you raise and don't think that we do well in having these discussions. Also agree that the only thing that they give us for nut-cracking is these hammers. I also know that people regularly miss #Proposals. They seem to do well scanning the bottom of WS:S, though other matters aren't seen. As that seems to have been the previous problem, it seemed worthwhile, at least as an experiment. <shrug> I dunno, maybe I should just go back to texts and keep out of the way of the 'tics at the moment. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
WP has an alternate style that may be more useful, they have morphed a scheme that adds the message into Special:Watchlist via w:MediaWiki:Watchlist-details. They have a special class that allows the collapse through a similar [dismiss] arrangement. Is that preferable as a concept, without getting into the where/who/when aspect? 09:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
That seems a much better way, cheers, it has the merit of alerting users when they are focusing on the site in a 'general way'. One downside to soliciting comments is that many may feel the need to skim the issues and vote. Perhaps the ad is appropriate for RC as well, for those who check in there. Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Implemented for Watchlist (as per WS:AN), and for best effect, you will need to purge cached .js files. I think that this way it will only be available to Watchlisters, so not IP addresses nor the casual browsers, and that is not a bad thing, just gives more choice. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks mate. Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Assurance about “ ”[edit]

In which form of assurance can I interest you? – Quoth (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Though I see an advantage, it has not been the SOP to render quotes in that way. Have you explored whether any problems would emerge with transcribing a text with these characters, is it stable, web-friendly, will there be a problem smart quotes and the Page: namespace? I keep it simple unless there is good reason to do otherwise, I'm not aware of one.
BTW, and this goes back some years, I was wond'ring if you could supply sources for your earlier uploads, that would be very helpful to all and save them being replaced with texts that supply that information. Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, as far as a good reason, I would point towards the style guide: "special characters such as accents or ligatures should be used wherever they appear in the original document, if reasonably easy to accomplish." Which to me at least echoes the sentiment of aiming to preserve all parts of the source material as is reasonably possible. Seeing that the traditional quote characters were available under 'ligatures and symbols' beneath the editing box, I presumed that the Wikimedia software in use had full support for those Unicode symbols (like the em and en dashes).
I've since done some quick tests with regards to linking/URL support for the quote marks here, and they appear to work fine. Is there something special about the Page namespace as compared to the other namespaces that I should be aware of in regard to this? Additionally, I've viewed them on Linux and Windows browsers of varying age using http://browsershots.org/, and they seem fine (degrading to straight quote marks when curly are unavailable). After some research I discovered that the issues most people had with using traditional quotes was lack of Unicode support in whichever software they are trying to use. I dare say this is hardly an issue any more with regards to OSs and their software stacks: Windows NT+ (2000, XP, Vista, 7) and MacOS X both solely use Unicode internally. Any browser capable of reading XML (XHTML, RSS, etc.) must also support it. The only issue I could foresee would be someone trying to copy it into an editor which doesn't support Unicode (as mentioned), or someone perhaps following a link containing the marks in an outdated browser— but in that last case, most of Wikisource looks terrible anyway (i.e., in IE6).
Regarding sources for uploaded texts, I don't recall having uploaded any... although it was some years ago. Any which I proofread or replaced (I presume you're referring to Poe's works) I believe I also specified the source of and a link to using the textinfo template on the text's discussion page. Have I gone some way to assure you, or answer your questions? :) Or if I can help in some other manner, feel free to let me know. – Quoth (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, a very full answer. I stopped using some characters because of IE crapiness, though it pains me to do so I suspect many users are stuck with that form of access. What happens with IE's rendering (I've found problems in later versions the IE6, NT I think it was), does it simply substitute straight quotes? It was the realisation that other users do not have the proper rendering I take for granted that made me opt for plainer text, I would be happy if convinced this was a negligible concern.
Possibly it was Poe. It may be the case that the text was widowed from a text info or similar, or perhaps I am wrong. Uploading PD texts without a fuller description of the source was standard practice, it becomes a problem when I try to sort one edition ({{Versions}}) from another. If you are active I can get the detail I need, if I need it at all. Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Source[edit]

The source is the official website. Since it's not a record for anything else besides the National Archives, I only added the National Archives as the source. Joe Chill (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

And how am I supposed to find that out? The first article that I did on here was simple. This one wasn't simple. I created this article under the assumption that all government works were in the public domain. When I went to the official website of the National Archives, it said that they generally are. There is no copyright status on each individual article. If it's not on the article, there is likely no way to find out and then anything from the National Archive can't be used. Joe Chill (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
No. I found it here. I assumed that it was in the public domain because of it being written by a government employee. If not, it can be deleted. It really wouldn't be a big deal. Joe Chill (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I tagged them for deletion. Joe Chill (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Would appreciate some formatting with an independent opinion[edit]

I really need another opinion about the formatting on the bits of Victoria: with a description of its principal cities, Melbourne and Geelong/Chapter 8 and my patience is not there and my getting cranky at the page is silly. If have a chance over the next few days, would you mind giving it a poke, I would appreciate it. Thx. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I changed the quote under the title, I believe any poem or quote can be formatted in this way. I'm not sure the poem tag will behave predictably with this approach, only that is less likely to change ... like my early attempts to use it have :( I put some commentary on {{*}} before, I'm not sure what it does, only that adds a blankline to poetry. Was there any other problem on the page? Btw: I can't find a source for the image in the same chapter, the link from its common's source shows a blank page. Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I am looking at the latter half of the file, and thinking that it is one of these times that indented-page doesn't serve us well, as it flattens the text like a pancake. The excerpts and reproductions of the time don't display distinctly. Re: the images, they didn't convert well from PDF to DJVU.
Aren't you always thinkin' that ;-) There was some missing formatting and an open <pome> tag that may have been causing mischief. If a reader thinks it illegible they can use their preferences, if the width is too great in their opinion, which is likely on landscape screens, they can reduce the size of the window. Or rotate the screen to portrait for those with that clever functionality. It all about honouring user preferences and not supposing that what is 'right' when we look at it is going to be the experience of a reader reading it. Imposing any width requires changing everything else, and who decides whether our page is 300px or 800. The user, who can use a computer and read, we don't need to make decisions for them. I swear that I have removed div classes in preview to read documents, or compare them to other documents, so it wraps properly and because I find it more difficult to read justified text on screens. Prose reduces my access to text at anything less than full screen.

Similar issue with images, if a user doesn't think they are big enough they change their own preferences, but not if someone has decided to impose their own - overriding the site preferences and the users. And forcing one width requires the rest follows for the same reason. If someone then thinks an image worth a closer look they can click on it.

If someone, like many in the world, like me, has limited access, or limited interest in images, the page loading is using up their time and bandwidth with something they prefer not to have. I have done quite a few pages with complex formatting, they work, are unambiguous, kinda pretty sometimes, and should read fine no matter what the users preferences. If there is a forced width then there needs to be site wide consensus on what that width is, I pretty obviously feel strongly it is the answer to the wrong question. Cygnis insignis (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but that wasn't exactly what I meant, and at your bidding I now have the right margin untethered in standard works. I suppose that I am looking at something different on the left margin, whether to either use or almost have something similar to &ltblockquote>. If it is looking readable to you, that is good, at the deep dark hours to me last night, I just couldn't fathom it. I was most concerned that the excerpts/inserts that the author had for colour, were not looking to be that and were getting lost in the wash of the extended page, where as in the book they were reasonably obvious. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
That can happen when transcripts lack formatting, what you have done is working for the reader. It is almost amusing when you see well intentioned schemes (at other sites) to substitute italic will allcaps; highly principled, but it quickly comes unstuck. I should try to keep that in mind. I think your effort in wrangling all that together is worthwhile, I just found a bug or two.

Regarding blockquote, my.js has float center and smaller block labelled 'quote': this is usually what the format of a quote section of text is, a floating block of smaller text. Cygnis insignis (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ta[edit]

Thanks for all those fixes. I must be losing my touch, to leave that many errors behind in validation. :-( Hesperian 10:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It would have been more efficient to use the ocr, much easier to find machine errors than anonymous 'improvements'. Who would notice, or expect, visitor for visiter. The only way I discovered corrections in the work was checking history, knowing PG don't always substitute capitals for italics, and doing text comparisons with authoritative sources like eapoe.org. You still found and corrected more than I did, cheers for getting those high-traffic pages ship-shape, I kept getting disheartened. Cygnis insignis (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Two books[edit]

I try to find two books for a friend of mine. He needs them urgently in any possible format: scan, pdf etc. :


1.

The poems of John Roy Stewart, MACKENZIE, Elizabeth E.
by STEWART, John Roy
Sgoil Eolais Na H-Alba 1947.
GAELIC LITERATURE: POETRY 18 TH CENTURY
SCOTTISH GAELIC POETRY SERIES
Format: PAMPHLET
39 pages include 12 poems by John Roy Stewart (other spellings are: Iain Ruagh Stiuart or Iain Ruadh Stiubhart) in Gaelic

2.

Ronald Black
The Poetry of Alasdair MacMhaighstir Alasdair
ISBN-13: 9780948877650 (978-0-9488-7765-0)
ISBN-10: 0948877650 (0-948877-65-0)
Date published: 2005-06-01
Publisher: Association for Scottish Literary Studies
Paperback, 64 pages

Could you help? Have you got any idea how to get them? Thanks in advance. Dmitrismirnov (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I had a bit of a look around, but the larger sites might be reluctant to host material with a later publication date. I suggest your friend get in touch with libraries and societies on the subject, or improve the likelihood of a response by asking to purchase it ;-) If it turns up in an Australian library I may be able convince them to copy it, especially text the is public domain. Sorry I can't give you more help than that. Cygnis insignis (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, anyway. He lives in Russia, and he already tried all possible ways to get the books with no success/ Dmitrismirnov (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Start page over from scratch?[edit]

Sorry to bug you... I messed up "Man" royally... The noincludes are hard to re-edit when you make a mistake. It needs to read:

<noinclude> /><div class="pagetext">
{{running header|left=|center=MAN|right=15}}
{|align="center"
|-
|
</noinclude><poem>I thought of the power benign that made
   And bound men one to the other,
And I felt in my brother's fear afraid,
   And ashamed in the shame of my brother.</poem>
|}<noinclude>

That is, if I read the history correctly for your "Combatants" edit. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to double check... Is this how you formatted "Combatants"?
First page:
</noinclude>{{center|{{larger|COMBATANTS}}}}

{|align="center"
|-
|
<poem>{{sc|He}} seemed to call me, and I shrank dismayed, . . .
   The constant service to my pledges due,</poem><noinclude>
|}<references/></div></noinclude>
Next page:
<noinclude> /><div class="pagetext">
{{running header|left=|center=COMBATANTS|right=5}}
{|align="center"
|-
|
</noinclude><poem>  . . . He answered, "I am Truth."
</poem>
|}<noinclude>
  • The best way to see what I did is to edit the page and copy the format to a new window. Anything that goes in the page header and footer [+] is automatically wrapped in noinclude. You need to include the start of the table elements on the first page, the end from the last page, and no table format from any page in between.
  • Another way, just use a poem tag in the Page:namespace and tranclude the result into a {{float center}} in the main page.
 {{float center|
 {{Page|Florence Earle Coates Poems 1898 14.jpg|num=14}}
 {{Page|Florence Earle Coates Poems 1898 15.jpg|num=15}}
 }}
Once you work out what's going on, you should find it a doddle. Cygnis insignis (talk) 06:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"trivial press releases from a single person"[edit]

Hello, Cygnis insignis, I hope you are doing well. Perhaps you could please engage in discussion, at Template talk:New texts? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

Cygnis insignis, I must say I thank you very very much for keeping such a polite, kind, and respectful demeanor and tone during our communications. I really really appreciate that very much, and respect you for it. :)

I am more of the mindset to encourage a wide range of topics and keep the scope very broad. Rather, instead, to also simultaneously encourage quite frequent addition of new texts and removal of the oldest one. In this manner, we keep things fresh, moving, and help to (hopefully) encourage and foster lots of new contributions from the community. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Honoring the Distinguished Ethiopian Poet Laureate Tsegaye Gabre-Medhin[edit]

Cygnis insignis, would it be satisfactory to add this public domain document from source, Congressional Record, to the new texts template? I noticed that you had stated you have an interest in the subject of poetry, and thought perhaps this would be more acceptable to you and to your liking. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I am interested in everything, its a bit of problem actually, but my personal taste is not the issue I want to emphasise. Cygnis insignis (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay but, would it be alright with you, if I were to add this above document, to template new texts? -- Cirt (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Let me put it another way, I don't want to provide you with my permission or refusal. If you think it worthwhile, then add it. This is a dangerous truth, but the whole of the law is "do as thou will", it necessarily follows that means not interfering with what others 'want to do'. How this pans out in a community of volunteers is a tricky business. Cygnis insignis (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
You say you do not wish to give your permission or refusal, and yet you have given your refusal [4]. This is the confusion. -- Cirt (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done , I have added the above text, to template new texts. I hope this is more to your satisfaction, than the previous one from the same source I had added. Trying to be accommodating. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Try to focus on contributions :| There is a subtlety in the position that you are missing, no worries, it took me years to 'get it', if I do, and I don't always remember it. This approach puts the responsibility for doing something questionable, and something that has previously proven to be contentious, onto me. I suppose that you quite aware that this is an unseemly use of the main page, but have put more effort to shifting responsibility onto whoever finds themselves in the regrettable position of pointing this out. I am happy to wear that, I am fiercely protective of a site that is, mostly, by its very nature, unobjectionable and objective. From the pov of a libraries community, our primary purpose is to provide what a readers request, not to seek to inform them. The front page is an advertisement of our site, and our front door - please leave your baggage outside. Cygnis insignis (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I just think template new texts should have new texts, and not be selective as to which ones cannot be there. Honoring the Distinguished Ethiopian Poet Laureate Tsegaye Gabre-Medhin seems to be satisfactory to you, and yet others from the same source disagreeable. That appears to fall more in-line with your own personal preferences. This is most unfortunate. -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
And what was the reason I gave for that? Cygnis insignis (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
It appears you have a higher regard for poetry than for recognizing those that contributed to the field of medicine, not sure. Seems inappropriate to single out and ban a topic from that template due to w:WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Cirt (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
No, that is not the reason I gave. Go and do something useful, for goodness sake. Cygnis insignis (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I see the example given of a past piece from a Congressional record alone less than useful. It is

  • not linked to an Author page at Wikisource, either on oldwikisource of the subject
  • not linked to any works, and we don't even host any of the subject's works
  • not linked to the WP article, which conversely is not linked back to us
  • not linked to a Portal, or even a local record of the work.

If it is only linked from {{new texts}} it has a fleeting link with reality and connections, and we are not doing justice to the works, it is a shag on a rock. Our works should be integrated and within perspective. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC) @cirt, not at @cyngis, just wasn't splitting the conversation, apologies if that caused confusion. — billinghurst sDrewth

That is unfortunate. Others including User:John Vandenberg, find contributions of public domain documents from the Congressional Record to be of value for this project. -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure that anyone disagrees with that, the comment seems to indicate we should index by work then by author. Cygnis insignis (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay. Well I have recently been working hard on adding sister links between documents I had previously added to this project. Sometimes I think adding categories, by topic/theme, is an easier process than indexing. However, they are all within the main category for Congressional Record, though that could use some indexing work itself. That would be, of course, another useful and ambitious project. :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The cat system is less work, but I don't think it is the ultimate solution - I'm pretty sure the user defined searches are the answer to that problem. Subjective indexing is an age-old problem in libraries, they don't have the advantage of having wikipedia providing access to their catalogue of texts. I reckon that the publication details, source, and authority (author) are the only requirement here, it seems pointless, or problematic, attempting to duplicate a site the reader will probably use to navigate to this site. Cygnis insignis (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Update: FWIW, I have asked George Orwell III (talkcontribs) if there is a way to utilize {{USCongRec}} in order to generate index pages by year/page in work. -- Cirt (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
He seems to have given this a lot of thought, a similar situation to the records you are working with. Unless these documents are revised or updated by the publisher, I see no reason to oppose the idea they should be backed by page scans eventually. They are verifiable as they are, so this is not a matter of urgency. Cygnis insignis (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I agree. :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem at the end of the day is most if not all the pieces taken from the Congressional Record as they exist now are using the the Daily Editions' indexing and pagination but the "proper" and "recognized" citation (as would be found within a vast majority of other similar/related/legal-ish PD U.S. documents) relies on the indexing and page layout found in the Bound Edition(s). Examples retrieving plain text: DAILY BOUND (prefered). Note the differences in header and page info at the top of each. Also, each bound edition typically runs ~30,000 pages so hosting it here for page scans doesn't make any sense when a template can pull the page(s) needed whenever needed from one of the GPO servers (IMHO). George Orwell III (talk) 05:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Methinks George Orwell III is the expert, on this stuff. :P -- Cirt (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

While citation is lovely and important, it isn't my concern. Obviously I am not being blatantly clear …

I consider that pretty well every document needs to be able to be approached from three different avenues to allow for best access to beat degrees of separation.

We are not going to be able to host all of Congressional Record, so we need to have a reason for hosting the snippets that we do have, there has to be a purpose, and there should be a benefit. Random articles that are not well-linked, or provide interlinks seems counter-inituitive at this point in time.

We win when we integrate works and other components and present in a format that allows valuable use or direct linkages to sister sites, and when we don't it is pretty much as useful as tits on a bull. Hosting a work alone is not useful — billinghurst sDrewth 07:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

In a perfect world, proper extractions made from the Congressional Record and other similar on-going compilations could put an end to the constant "who can out out reference the reference that came before..." pissing contests on hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of Wikipedia articles. Because there has been little progress in providing reliable references for clear concise support here, "regular people" continue to bastardize the nutmeat needed in the typical well written WP article by using some re-hashed, paraphrased nonsense summation authored by the pundit of the moment instead.
Granted, I cannot understand why a great deal of the existing pieces from the Congressional Record were created just by looking at them at face value here but I'd hope there are pointers back to here embedded in various WP articles for some good reason or another. I know when I can point to specific Section in a Public Law, provide the establishing Executive Order or cite the debate that took place on the Senate floor - most of these petty & pointless excursions in WP article progression dry up fairly quick (i.e. there is far less wiggle room for potential editors to create bogus tangents from when the actual record, order, etc. is interlinked back to here).
... and FYI, the points above on the African author are kind of moot in this case because the (assumed) significance of providing this particular article revolves around Rep. Cummings himself, his civil rights "history" and the betterment of "black" America/education/rolemodels etc. I would hope that it is one of many many examples cited over on WP that points back to here for ease and clarity -- otherwise I couldn't tell you why it was created either (almost certain it's not about African poetry). George Orwell III (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Response: Thank you, Billinghurst, for your helpful suggestions. I will strive to work to implement them. I have created an author page. I have wikilinked to the sister project, Wikipedia, and provided a sister link on Wikipedia, back to here. I have added the document into multiple relevant categories. I will research into creating Portal:Congressional Record. -- Cirt (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies[edit]

I have been a bit too nitpicky today and could have conducted myself a bit better in communications between us. I have taken some time to step back and reflect on that, and I wanted to apologize to you. I am sorry, and I hope that we can move forward and work together more productively and collaboratively in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Me too, obviously. As I said, I'm interested in everything and value your contribs. Cygnis insignis (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Your saying that is most appreciated! :) -- Cirt (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions to improve[edit]

Instead of reverting, could you please suggest ways to improve the month-subpage further? Thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If you could make your complaints about the process point-by-point on the talk page and more specific, I would be happy to work to address them for you. :) -- Cirt (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a word for that, Cygnis insignis (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
There was no need to revert again. I will, of course, not revert you, but I am confused as to how you seem to not be able to understand that there is only one page that would need watching - the month-subpage. -- Cirt (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: See the talk page of {{New texts}}. I won't push it further. I am sorry you got upset over that issue. Hopefully perhaps I can still convince you that monthly-subpages is a better way to go, but let us all take a deep breath and proceed in a calmer manner about this please. Thank you! :) -- Cirt (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If you feel the system I put in place still puts too much burden on users who add texts (noting that if they continue deleting instead of moving that others who care about archival can clean it up), I'm willing to continue the discussion/go back to the status quo. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 02:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'll defer to Spangineer. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Treatise on Human Acts (part 1)[edit]

Dear Cygnis,

To answer your questions about the text (since I am the only one working on it): Aquinas described a double hierarchy of the texts in the "Treatise on Human Acts (part 1)" section of the work. So I made headers for both hierarchies.

Also, I am drawing from a source that is already transcribed; it only needs to be wikified. I find this work similar to the hierarchical statutes on Wikisource, and like those, I don't think page scans are necessary. I intended this work with educational aims given priority over concerns about producing an exact archival copy.

I'm interested in anything further you have to say about navigational difficulties, but I'm having difficulty myself in understanding what you think they are.

I used to think that Project Gutenberg didn't like acknowledgements if you didn't follow their license. Has that changed? ResScholar (talk) 09:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

One problem is that we can do no more with it than wikify it, the veracity is as good as we get and we cando nothing to improve it.
Transcribed elsewhere is one of the issues. The current practice is scan based transcription: I believe the reasons for this have been outlined and discussed elsewhere, it is the current consensus that to do otherwise is deprecated. The source of the transcript is relevant; I would think that was self-evident.
I'm not especially familiar with the text, but as I said, the plain title and subpage arrangement are currently confusing - it seems another user had other ideas and that needs to be split or merged. There is no link to a parent page, or versions, so navigation is somewhat confounded; you presumably want someone to be able to access what you have done. Cygnis insignis (talk) 09:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Cygnis, it's already proofread by Distributed Proofreaders.
I designed this Wikisource version of the Summa as a treatise-based edition. The treatises are meant to be able to stand alone. No treatise-based edition exists elsewhere on the internet. I want to encourage readers to master each treatise as a unit. As for a parent page, that can be added when the work is more finished. Right now no major sections of the work are complete. For now there is a tabular description of the major section that is in the process of being completed on the Aquinas author page.
You didn't answer my question about whether Project Gutenberg wishes to be attributed as a source. Instead you practically accused me of saying the source of the transcript was irrelevant!
Also, you say it needs to be split or merged? In other words going in exactly opposite directions are equally good, as long it is away from the present way? Actually, it seems to me that merging will complicate the table of contents even further, promoting the "confusion" you say you experience, and splitting will remove the ability of the reader to rapidly go to subordinate parts of the treatise and back to the table of contents because of the time taken in page loading. Don't you think this is liable to cause the reader to lose his/her bearings?
The benefits of hosting it on Wikisource is the use of Wikilinks to the authors described in the text, many of which are already found on Wikisource. In good time those authors' texts should be linked to by the references found in the Summa. ResScholar (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like to add that plain titles are used by other great authors like An Essay concerning Human Understanding by John Locke, or Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume, or A Treatise concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge by George Berkeley. ResScholar (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I mean no offence, I assumed you prefer direct comments from what I have gleaned from discussion elsewhere. I'm certainly not accusing you of anything other than being an established contributor.
I know that now, having asked the question, a link to the source has always been a requirement; whether that was followed or not. Were it not a PG text, there would be a question mark over its quality, items of unknown provenance are frequently deleted for many reasons - not only scholarship. The problem remains that some of it is not, I don't suppose you want that laying around to confuse readers; if you want someone else to sort that out then ask. The quality of PG transcript is okay to good, but there is no easy way of verifying or improving that. Do you disagree with current practices at wikisource, a practice now adopted by PG? Did you object to its implementation? This page is not the place to challenge the consensus on what we now consider to be standard practice, but you can reasonably state that you have no wish to conform to that standard and I will understand your resistance. If you need help getting started I am happy to do that.
I strongly suggest you follow the arrangement of whatever edition you are recreating, this is important for users following a reference, or concordance, or whatever, and allows us to link through an actual author's or editors arrangement - it saves everybody a lot of trouble. What their attribution requirements are is irrelevant, so is what you think I'm accusing of you of; I suggest tht is an impolite approach to what are merely observations. A user would want to know where it from if the transcription is not our own, that information is a basic requirement of contributions. The other version is from an online site, whether they adapted PGtext is not clear and it is similarly next to useless as an authoritative text.
That is correct, they are either different version or they aren't. I don't follow why this would make it worse, but this may strongly relate to the point I make about following an actual publication and avoiding creating a meta-text version. The situation is as you found it, the solution is to do it properly and use that to replace the various or incomplete attempts.
I agree, very strongly, linking to and from implicit references is one of the most valuable, yet under-utilised, ways of improving our works. Cygnis insignis (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
[EC] Cool, then we're on the same page regarding that. Cygnis insignis (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I think I understand you to say that by "split or merged" you mean restored to the original format.
As for merging, I assure you, the London Burns Oates and Washbourne edition, contained both (Part 1) and (Part 2) for the Treatise on Human Acts and (Part 1) and (Part 2a) and (Part 2b) for the Treatise on Habits as logical divisions in the table of contents, echoing Thomas Aquinas' own descriptions of his divisions within the text. I filled in the infobox for Treatise on Human Acts (part 1) which has a link to the London edition at the Internet Archive so you may look for yourself if you wish. I split the Treatises into parts because they would have been simply too big to load quickly and to navigate well using the scroll bar, especially with computers with smaller memories. Treatise on Human Acts would have been 877 kilobytes, and Treatise on Habits would have been 986 kilobytes. The CCEL version has that problem in presenting the entire work on one page. And I believe those treatise parts have less than seven major divisions; more than seven is difficult for the human memory, I've read somewhere.
You mention parts of the work that are not PG text. The Wikisource Summa Theologica text was in fact begun by me before the Project Gutenberg text was completed, so yes, I used a different, but fairly reliable, source for Treatise on Law and parts of Treatise on Habits (part 1-2a). The name of the transcribing company I don't have available at the moment, but it used the Folio Corp. text presentation software, to present the first American edition.
But I think you are talking about division links and commentary. What I actually did was to add line spacing to Aquinas' own navigational aid descriptions, then sometimes placing them in headers in the places the descriptions mentioned, and linked the descriptions to those headers. Out of roughly 3 megabytes of text, I added my own four or five word descriptive header once, in a single case where Aquinas and the Dominican Fathers failed to supply one. I also added question numbers to the portions of the text Aquinas described. In all these cases I added square brackets around the supplementary descriptions that I added, if they occured inside the text or the table of contents. Otherwise they were clearly marked as navigational links, and not an intergral part of the text. ResScholar (talk) 07:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you know what is going on, I'm not familiar with his work - I tried to read him when I was younger, then decided to leave to later in life. Thanks to you, I won't have to lug it home from the library. I'll try to take breakdown what I see as problems, one piece at a time:
  • I go to the page Summa Theologiae (spelling?) and I see an array of subpages, eg. Summa Theologiae/First Part/1.1/Q1. They do not seem to lead to your work. Cygnis insignis (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I didn't have anything to do with the origination of Summa Theologiae. Someone went to the trouble of adding all the names of the treatises in the work to a menu of different parts, but only added one or two articles (an article being a sub-part of a single question). At the time, I had added one-and-a-half or two treatises, so I added redirects to my versions of the treatises hoping that individual would respond to the collaboration, and so his work wouldn't seem so lonely. That was two years ago, so it might be time to adapt his table of contents to the four divided Treatise sections and one whole treatise I originated (All five belong right now in his "Part I of the Second Part section").
      • I am trying to emphasise that that arrangement is interfering with access to you more complete work.
  • I'm not questioning the size of any page, just their arrangement.
    • To me it's fairly depressing to have a bunch of red links on a large page that you know has taken five years already, and at the rate they were added will take another ten to remove all the red links. It's more comforting to me right now to picture it as three complete treatises than one three-fourths incomplete Summa.
      • "Many hands ..." another advantage of side-by-side. Allow the scan to be placed against it and I promise to help bring it to completion. I imagine those who sat typing transcripts would be fairly depressed to discover that ocr with 99.7% accuracy was just around the corner.
  • Linking IA is not the optimum solution, the standard is to make it available locally. If you had experience with creating, checking and reading a large work, you would appreciate the advantages. An immediate advantage is that anyone can assist you, a little or a lot, to complete a verifiable text. *PG have been found to be imperfect, I have found significant errors. Copying transcripts from elsewhere, when it is possible to get a scan, is now deprecated at this site - for very good reasons.
    • I'm interested in producing a text as readable as possible for educational use. 1915 or 1274 standards won't always assist that goal. For instance, like Euclid's repetition of the purpose of each demonstration (his Q.E.D.s). Aquinas offers an attention summoning device before each article (We now proceed to the first article, We now proceed to the second article.) In the age of the electronic printing press, large type seems to do the job Aquinas seemed to intend by his introductions. And likewise many texts of Euclid don't contain his repetition of the purpose. Also, the introductory "apparent truth" ("It seems that etc.") is not separated from the first objection. Does the original Latin manuscript have it the same way? Regardless, it doesn't seem to me the best way, and later editions of the Summa allow the separation of the "apparent truth" from the first objection. Another standard is the gratuitous use of italics for quotations in the 1915 era version. I would like to see italics used in bible verse quotations, but not in every quotation. To me, the PG version with no italics in quotations is the lesser of the two evils of too many and not enough. These are "arrangement" questions too, in case that's what you meant, but I think the style should serve the comprehension of the reader, and should be allowed to vary when it doesn't somehow contradict the message of the writer.
    • I don't distrust Distributed Proofreaders as much as you do. But if doing transcriptions becomes necessary and is compatible with the kinds of adjustments I mentioned, I'd be willing to do it that way. On the other hand, I have no wish to "embalm" a particular edition of a work just to preserve it for its own sake, but would rather adapt the text according to what modern technological applications afford.
      • I appreciate and read many PG texts, I know the quality because I have corrected numerous errors or, more to the point, made a faithful type transcript from whatever the final editor decided to produce. Their current practice is the same as ours, verifiable transcriptions.
  • You always have the option to say, "I can't be bothered that", but you should be aware that transcription that is scan based would automatically replace one that is not. Cygnis insignis (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I hope you mean "as a preferred version" or "by correcting the other version". That's fine, but a smart admin here named BirgitteSB once told Eclecticology, in roughly these words, "the great thing about Wikisource is that if you disagree about the presentation of a particular edition of a work, you're free to go and produce that edition your own way yourself." ResScholar (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
      • The notion that we can produce a new edition is fallacious, and it is not within the scope of a library to do that. If some pseudonymous user wants to produce an 'edition' for some sort of pedagogical purpose, and an actual publication is lacking, it should reviewed and published at wikibooks. This is especially true if it incorporates later scholarship. I could, no doubt, produce a comment from some previously active user to support my position, if not one of the many reactionary and inconsistent comments of that particular user, though I miss seeing both of them active in discussion and contributions. Despite past practices, most of which are unacceptable, producing a meta-text is a bad idea. This is one of the valid criticisms of the site, and one we and PG have moved away from. There is a greater number of people who reckon they know better than those who are legitimately published, opening the door to that has brought the site into disrepute. Do we want every armchair theologian producing a text based on what they reckon the author was saying. The quality of any translation is a matter for the other place, we should only show what was given. Consider this analogy, and the value of attributable scholarship: people used to put what they reckon into wikipedia articles, could I now argue there that I don't need to cite my sources on that basis? Do what you like is the rule, but why avoid the consensus on the current standard. I would not bother attempting to merge a PG text, especially if changed here, to an authentic and clean text. Cygnis insignis (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
        • If this is true, then I feel that Wikisource has drifted. The distinguishing mark of Wiki software is its intelligent use of Wikilinks to other sources, or other parts of the work. That in itself is a pedagogical aim, literally leading the reader to places where they can learn more as the ancient Greek pedagogue led children to school. I have not been producing a text according to theological presuppositions, nor would I encourage it in others. I have also not been producing a text according to later scholarship, although I think it helpful to point out that scholarly opinions may differ within a range when relating to semantically indifferent stylistic concerns. I have been producing a text to exploit wikilinks in the greatest way possible for the text, and that purpose is not served, for example, when the reader is dissolving his/her attention searching for the point of the particular article (when it's not separated from the first objection) and lacking an anchor for his/her eye's line of sight to attach to, having arrived from a reference in a different textual environment. Even with using italics in non-bible quotations there is kind of cluttering that isn't present with the slight semantic clues provided by bible references when a reader simultaneously considers that Aquinas regarded the bible as having elevated authority. Not that I have insisted on this standard as can be plainly seen from the present text. Which leaves the introductions "we now proceed to the first article we now proceed to the second article". I can only say, again, this is semantically indifferent with varying opinions, mine being that it is a redundancy that obstructs focus on the text when wikilinks are frequently used.
        • This question may be moot. Project Gutenberg uses the first American Benzinger Brothers edition, while the one at Internet Archive uses a Burns, Oates and Washbourne edition. But even if it weren't nobody would have to merge this hypothetical clean text with my text; they could match it with the Project Gutenberg text using a bot, and if there were any differences, I could make changes here, since I used it. And this is also assuming a validated text HERE is a clean text. Not to put too fine a point on it, but we make mistakes too, and comparing this text with a free, independent transcript seems like a wise move. ResScholar (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
          • I'm afraid I could not explained myself very well, because I strongly agree that explicit, unambiguous references in the text should be linked, even redlinked. I disagree that is would ever be a pedagogical exercise, the author gives a proper citation to another chapter or work, the editor makes a ToC, the indexer to a mentions of a subject in the work - I just make those prexisting 'links' hot. This always existed conceptually, wiki-software just makes that more convenient and the open site increases that potential. My position is exemplified by my work on 'deep linking' texts, and not just footnotes or the list of references, where an author quotes another I link to an anchor in the second work and the reader can see the actual context. All we are doing is providing a link when the reader would have had to stand and go to another part of a physical library. If wikisource is drifting, it is away from things the psuedo-scholarship of linking a reader from a word or phrase to an unreliable, unstable document like wikipedia or wiktionary. Linking from those sites to wikisource is, on the other hand, very appropriate. I think they assume that the internal links of those documents are just as valuable outside of them, but unless a faithful and verifiable (scan based) document is made available here then the sources of articles, quotes, and dictionary entries are pointless. Take a simple example, there was a slight squabble at the article "In Flanders Fields", when I arrived at it, on whether the last word of the first line was "blow" or "grow". Someone could have has grabbed whatever PG said, another could provide an authorised version off their bookshelf and typed that in - it would be never ending because they are both right. The earlier solution was to create a meta-text, a new edition, that incorporated both solutions; scans allowed me to objectively provide the actual editions here and cite the actual and a source there. The sceptics are satisfied and the trolls deprived of contentious and petty edit-war.
          • It is moot, they are different editions and a proper citation requires that distinction. The point probably doesn't apply here, for reasons you have explained, but the final editors of that distributed proofreading were producing new editions and ignoring things like page numbers. I once assumed that PG texts were accurate, I now know that is not the case. The first PG text I converted to scans was missing about one third of its commas, significant formatting, page numbering and whole bunch of stuff that someone didn't think worth including. I include everything the publisher thought necessary, I can't be deciding to override that or on what the purpose of the text will be. PG's role was to make enormous amount of text as accessible as possible, and they accomplished this reasonably well. They produced readable texts, but the authenticity was an unknown until it is compared. They made some major stuffups. The last one I did had me had gagging at what was done to an author's tales, robbing the reader of a punchline in one example and removing the key to a code in another. I reckon the proofreaders would have been aware of the significance, the compiler [editor] of their work could not have read them properly. The sad truth is you should not rely on their texts to be authentic, I used text editors to do comparisons and damage has been done. Given the accuracy of ocr, and the difficulty of detecting human error, automatically moving those texts to side-by-side is not a good idea, it is much quicker to use the text layer.
            • I make mistakes all the time, but I also provide the means for others to easily improve or correct the text. Others can also judge whether they are just that, if someone changes a text how do we decide whose right without verification from a physical library or flipping through a scan at another site.. The text at PG may be that edition, with or without editorial input, and that will almost certainly become available as scan. The scan at IA, unless its an elaborate forgery, is a photofacsimile that we can use for a type-facsimile, - it is that edition. If you are not sold on how much local scans have improved the site already, then I suppose you have not tried. I don't know what I can do other than swamp you with examples of where this had improved the catalogue, provided an easily verifiable text, and allowed RC monitors to protect documents they nothing about. My favourite "wise admin" here made the point a while back that his earlier contributions, valuable as they were at the time, now looked like crud compared to these later developments. Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I took a minute to search for the equivalent of Gutenbergs's text, this one is a reprint of the Benzinger edition. They have many versions, not as easily found as we try to make them, but if you fiddle with search terms and add "site:archive.org" after them, you can use google to search the site. Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:St_Kitts_and_Nevis_Declaration[edit]

Please see and comment! thanks! --V0nNemizez (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Messages and Letters of William Henry Harrison[edit]

Thank you. Daytrivia (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Just curious about how to get the footnote to show here [5] it shows up here [6] Thanks again. Daytrivia (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Grimm's Correction[edit]

Hi Cygnis

I am totally new to this, if I am managing to correct something unusually, it's more by luck than judgement.

When I proofread I am using the following path to correct the text http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Grimm%27s_Household_Tales,_vol.1.djvu. Can you let me know if I am doing things incorrectly? I can't seem to be able to find a comprehensive manual on how to proofread, I keep reading bits here and there on the wikisource site, I am learning things as I go along, so appreciate any help. Battlecatz (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ligature templates[edit]

Hi Cygnis—I notice on Page:Tanglewood tales (1921).djvu/18 that in several cases you use the actual ligature character (Æ) and in others the template ligature ({{oe}}). It seems to me that we should be consistent, so that if the template is changed, either none or all of the work is affected. Do you have a preference? —Spangineerwp (háblame) 21:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, it depends whether my paw is on the keyboard or the mouse. I thought it was a convenience thing, but if there is a reason to be consistent I'll try to do that. The change would be how it displays in main, or the coding for the character? Cygnis insignis (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I remember I've been avoiding thinking about it. How do browsers handle æ and Æ preferences, does the user have the option at their end? Is it likely that cannot be rendered in some circumstance, is there a demand for ae AE to replace these sort of ligatures? I suppose I should use the template until I know otherwise. Cygnis insignis (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not aware of browser preferences being able to handle this. I think the goal is that someday that mediawiki will be able to handle user preferences, in which case we'd want to use templates. The other thing is that if someday we decide we should handle ligatures like we handle ſ vs. s (i.e., with Template:Long s), then inconsistency would be a mess (until a bot cleaned it up). Personally I'm used to the actual ligatures, but perhaps change is good in this case... —Spangineerwp (háblame) 21:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, to make things simple for myself, I've decided that referring to those characters as ligatures is POV and I'm not in a position to judge :-) I would tend to lump this with the fashion for anglicising ü as ue, rather than how s was printed - I suspect that the æ and œ are likely to be rendered and accepted by most. Cygnis insignis (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


Spangineer, you can give up waiting for Mediawiki to be about to handle user preferences on this; it is impossible, because there is no way for Mediawiki to know to expand "Æ" to "AE" in "ÆSTIVATION", and to "Ae" in "Æstivation". Hesperian 23:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't using {{Ae}} and {{AE}} work? Of course, we'd have to figure out how to differentiate {{ae}} from {{Ae}}. In any case, it should be a matter of setting up templates for one-to-one replacements, even if that means more than two-letter templates. In my opinion, not worth the effort, but the user who built Template:Ligature Latin ae lowercase and all the others seems to think that this is a viable direction to go ("... to support functionality for automatically turning on and off the display of ligatures.")
If the purpose of these is just convenience, then we need to update the template descriptions and should probably have a bot periodically subst all uses of the templates. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 00:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
{{Ae}} and {{ae}} are inevitably the same template, because of title normalisation. Personally I think they are just for convenience, and it would be good for a bot to substitute them. But others might see them as hedging our bets: putting off indefinitely the vexatious question of whether we want to preserve or expand our ligatures. (but, as I say, expanding doesn't work anyhow). Hesperian 01:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Portals[edit]

Sorry to be a nuisance! I'm looking at your edit summary and I want to make sure I understand what you're saying:

sorry, I'm currently opposed to linking *from* documents to Portals, not an text ref, linking *to* seems to have merit with these tales, but wikipedia is really the place for subjects and should at least back a portal

I think you're saying three things (let me know if I'm missing something here):

  1. You don't like putting links to portals on ws works
  2. You prefer putting links to Wikipedia on ws works
  3. Portals should have a link to an appropriate article on Wikipedia

Re (1), is your opinion dependent at all on how well developed the portal is? What if Theseus were an author—would you be ok with a link to the Author namespace in that case? For (2), why not use w:Theseus in this case? And with (3) I agree; Portal:Theseus has a link to wp in the header. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 22:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Sorry for attempting to stuff my opinion on these concepts into an edit summary.
  1. Maybe in the notes, of the header, the site created content.
  2. If there is a one-to-one relationship to the text, a link back to wikipedia is desirable, along with any other sisters (again, in the notes). Exception: If there are several versions, which has one wikipedia article on the text, then the sisters should be at the versions page.
  3. I guess, I was mildly enthusiastic about the BM portal, more so about creating texts that turned up there.

The approach you are taking seems to be a subject index, that is a long established though somewhat contentious approach for libraries. This is a lot of work and maybe the move to the new namespace will invigorate that. I do see some big problems that could emerge, especially as the other interpretations seem more wayward, and probably redundant.

Libraries needed subject indexes, so it was thought, but they didn't have a wikipedia right next door. That is our advantage and could also be this idea's pitfall. I don't think it too pessimistic to point out that both are open environs, people adding [subjective] information to the other place are expected to provides sources and are subject to peer review by a large community of people focused on just that. The focus here can perfectly complement that part of wikimedia by not interfering, commenting, subjectively arranging, and revising those sources. The big sister is also where users will seek information on a subject.

The question here, I think, is

  • what can a Portal provide that cannot be done at wikipedia?
  • How do we avoid gathering content that is better placed there, or fugitive content finding a place here?

So, what is the answer to improving access to content here. I reckon it is improving that place, and maybe wikibooks, and giving the user better search options here. In other words, the way most people use libraries,

  • they already know the title,
  • they are referred from one text to another,
  • they are browsing
  • they ask for help

All this can be enhanced by a digital library by a page of search results, a combination of terms that is defined by the user, not by creating a static page on a subject. This is how people use the net, and I already see the site produce results for refined searches on goggle. The reader asks a question, they go to wikipedia, the reader seeks a text and they look in the mainspace here; they would not usually be told by a librarian what to read, rather how to find things in the catalogue. This is quite proper, its not their role.

A simple example of my conception of the issue: a proposal was put forward that the author category be completely upmerged(!), and that a search refined by initials letters replace the existing structures. The present structure requires a lot of maintenance, and duplication at the indices (which require arbitrary decisions about bolding). The whole business is a time-sink, and actually makes finding an author more difficult. Someone got blocked for attempting to maintain it, unfortunately that got more interest than the elegant and no-effort solution that someone suggested. Even with the shaky search function we have, this is still a better way to find works on the site than pages and cats. Your portals would not make me blink twice, they are unobjectionable, other stuff that turns up in notes and wikisource:pages has made me very wary. A good answer, but it becomes an answer to the wrong questions. Providing the potential to repurpose an original document with 'links' the author didn't literally make is not something we should even consider.

  • Your quite clear proposal has already been diluted by vague and wild interpretations of what this might for, and no one can rightly tell them otherwise. If someone does something foolish, we can't ask for a reliable resource because that is what we try to be. Moreover, a link to a source from wikipedia would be editorially reinforced by a link back - a circular reference. If the link is removed at the other end, the incorrect connection is retained here - this is worse. If we have a source that establishes a connection between texts, we don't need to create a new document. If wikipedia cites a document, the document should not have an internal link back to wikipedia or any other POV. We have published POV, there is a big difference. People arrive from wikipedia and get the idea is the same sort of thing, a sort of appendix without the constraints; they view what exists as a grey and barren landscape that is a virgin territory for subjective linking. This is, for numerous reason, pointless and dangerous. Our meta pages have always attempted to make up for short-comings here or there, the primary focus here should be to get more published texts, lots and lots more. Cygnis insignis (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I typed a long response but I'm getting bogged down (and you keep changing your post! :-p). The short version of my response is that I agree that if we had multi-criteria search (in which one of the options was LOC or dewey numbers), portal pages would be much less useful and I for one wouldn't spend my time on them. I also agree that POV can creep in on portals and in linking within the text of our works. I still think, however, that there is value in portal pages (at least until we have better search), since they make it possible for readers to access works that they would not be exposed to through Wikipedia (since Wikipedia biases its sources for post-1923 works). And I don't like the idea of our readers being pushed out of our library every time they want background on a subject, especially when that background is available in public domain sources (with page images!)

That said, I don't think I understand your opinions on what specifically should be linked and what shouldn't. You mention our links being dependent on whether WP links are in place, but I'm not sure why that needs to be the case. So do you mind if we work with examples? Here's a list of potential link combinations:

  1. Link WP articles to works (i.e., w:Federalist Papers --> The Federalist Papers)
  2. Link WP articles to authors (i.e., w:William Shakespeare --> Author:William Shakespeare)
  3. Link WP articles to non-author people (i.e., w:Theseus --> Portal:Theseus)
  4. Link WP articles to subjects (i.e., w:American Civil War --> Portal:American Civil War)
    1. For 1-4, this would most often be done in the "External links" section of article.
  5. Link WP articles to references (i.e., w:Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions --> Contemporary Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions)
    1. This is done in the references or notes sections of articles.
  6. Do the exact reverse of cases 1-4 above in the notes section of our works (i.e. The Federalist Papers --> w:Federalist Papers)
  7. Put a link to relevant WP article(s) in the notes section of our works, regardless of whether or not they are referenced in the WP article (Contemporary Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions --> w:Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions)
  8. Put a link to relevant portal(s) in the notes section of our works, regardless of whether or not they are listed on the portal (Contemporary Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions --> Portal:Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions)
  9. Put links in our works to specifically mentioned other works (Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 --> United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/5th Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 74)
  10. Put links in our works to indirectly mentioned other works (i.e., "Patrick Henry said '___' in a speech" and linking "speech" to the speech in which Henry said the quoted words)
  11. Put links in our works to relevant Wikipedia articles (The Federalist Papers/No. 18 --> w:Amphictyonic League)
  12. Put links in our works to relevant Author pages (The Federalist Papers/No. 18 --> Author:Mestrius Plutarchus)
  13. Put links in our works to relevant Portal pages (Page:Works of John C. Calhoun, v1.djvu/367 --> Portal:States' rights)

Feel free to add examples if I'm missing some.

In my opinion, 1-9 are not controversial: the notes section is the place for metacontent, and it's helpful for readers. Personally, I think 10-13 are useful, but agree that there is the opportunity for POV abuse (especially with 11 and 13). Are we on the same page (at least for 1-9)? —Spangineerwp (háblame) 02:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Very sorry for the conflicted edits, I've been thinking about this for years and started drafting an essay on my position. I'll take some time to consider your response, because I place a high value [on] your opinion in most matters. Cygnis insignis (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC) [clarify, strike inaccurate] 06:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem, and thanks: I respect your opinion too, and hope that in the end we will understand each other's views better, and each find methods that the other doesn't find too terribly egregious. =) —Spangineerwp (háblame) 02:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
[Interim reply] It's subtle points that I bury in my cant, but I have sought approaches that greatly simplify matters for contributors, and improve the possibilities between the sister sites. This may seem like I'm largely stating the obvious, but I hope to a simple formulation.
  1. No prob.
  2. bio to our author index, fine
  3. mythical, subjective
  4. subjective, disputable, limited to what we have, so arbitrary or unevenly selective (to somebody). BM portal currently gives undue weight to Garnett
  5. Probably, but I have seen that constrained there. If verifiable, in the notes: I've deep-linked quotes and so on.
  6. 1 & 2 are unobjectionable, 3 and 4 if they exist.
  7. An editorial decision means no.
  8. Same thing, with advantage of local, but disadvantages above.
  9. Absolutely. The most under-valued and unrealised potential of this site, over any other I am aware of! A thing that made me a devotee, I do more linking here than I did at the other place. Hooray for internal links, and for the author's references to other authors. Nothing subjective, no editorial decision, no intervention or interpretation. This is okay.
  10. If it is unquestionably a reference to a work, or an author's works, it's fine with me.
  11. in the text no, barrels of monkeys, pandora's box, cans o' wyrms
  12. Usually, I see that as a cross-namespace link, but works by author is well within scope.
  13. You linked conscription from a quote of an unnamed author in Goldman's essay on pacifism (or something) a while back. The portals were something I could largely ignore until that point, that was a game changer. The Wikisource:ns connection from Mermaids to Swift was harmless, I kinda regretted removing it (twice); if the link had been from Swift's text in mainspace I would be more concerned.
  • The POV abuse is just an aspect of what can be considered as a conceptual problem, or a matter of 'scope', in essence anything 'subjective' is a POV; I use these terms to distinguish the treatment of an object, not as depreciation. An encyclopaedia [encyclopædia:] like wikipedia is a document that contains page/article titles referring to 'works' like:
  • w:Federalist Papers. This article's subject is a work, and there should be a wikimedia link to and from the document here. Facts regarding the document are subjectively given there, an edition is represented here . Simple, however
  • w:The Raven (poem), an FA page at the other place and one page here, ... it's one thing. Like many pages here it was fixed to an undefined source, or struggled to be a meta-text arrangement of whatever people felt like adding. Presenting the poem in the article is questionable and longer texts would certainly be beyond their scope. One of the reasons the sisters sprang up, and worth considering when regarding past and future developments. Poe's Raven has one article there, with many related facts and links to related subjects. It has one version page here now, with objective links to many things with that title. It's not one thing, a fact that has widespread implications. Our single version of many texts are novelties, or incomplete, or unverifiable. This is easily fixable, but not when I have to push the editorial, subjective, and unsourced works aside ...
  • w:American Civil War. An article on a subject, quite a complex one, that would have lots of incoming links here. What does the unpublished and uncitable Portal:American Civil War provide to a reader that is beyond the highly flexible and peer-reviewed scope of the wikipedia community to provide. Or will it duplicate things there?
  • Wikipedia is, from the POV of a library, just another document. Wikisource is not an appendix to that document, despite the intimate elationship, it is a library. It is a digital library, able to wikilink explicit references in documents to other documents. A library contains documents, and makes them accessible ... hopefully without discretion. I could point out that it is not conventionally published, though widely-read, unreliable, but improvable, and noisy; with that we can quietly help by providing a large catalogue to link-to.
Put another way, how would you describe the type of subject material in our Portal:ns, without using that word. Is it a bibliography? A reading list? A subject index, with a tiered structure, running out in parallel to wikipedia. I confess I never use Portals, never really the seen the point at en.wikipedia, though I tried to update one for a while. There happens to be a link to one at WS:PD, ponder on whether we should keep that?


—phew! Cygnis insignis (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks—this is helpful. Let me start with your opinions on #s 7 & 8. You don't like links to Wikipedia or Portals in the header notes section of pages. What about quoting Wikipedia, as many of our works do? Or a simple note describing the work (like the one at Alien and Sedition Acts? It seems to me that if you oppose links because of the potential for POV, then you'd oppose any note at all. Why wouldn't it be clear to a reader that the notes section is separate from the work? And how would a work's annotated version (such as what you support here) be accessed?

I've given some thought to the idea of building these pages in Wikipedia as bibliography pages. But I don't think it would work; for just one example, see w:American Civil War bibliography. There it's pretty clear from just the first few sentences that anything we have to offer would be scrapped, because it's not new enough. Without Portal:American Civil War, and incoming links from relevant WS works (even just in the notes sections), no one finds Acton's essay on the subject, or any of the other public domain books we have to offer, without specifically looking for Acton himself or wading through mountains of search results.

Also, in my mind, Portal:American Civil War is citable to precisely the same extent as w:American Civil War—that is, not at all. Wikipedia is not a reliable source; it attempts to summarize and quote reliable sources. Both WS portals and Wikipedia provide a gateway to reliable sources; the difference is that Wikipedia is biased against public domain works (and therefore requires readers to use google books or a brick-and-mortar library), and WS portals are biased toward public domain works.

As for #4, and the general concern that portals won't be NPOV because they reflect only what we have and what people think belongs in them—this is a potential problem, I agree. At some point in the future, if portals become popular, we will need to set some guidelines. I have a couple thoughts: first, if a controversial subject has more works on one side than on the other, someone who cares can add more works to make it balance. And there should always be a neutral description and link to Wikipedia (and other reference sources, such as EB, CE, and NSRW, if available) in each portal. Thus I see the POV problem as relatively small and something that self-corrects, and thus outweighed by the advantage of having an easy to use access point for readers from Wikipedia and from our works. Second, I suppose that even with a "include everything" policy, organization or other aspects of the page might become battlegrounds. I don't really have an answer for that, other than saying that Wikipedia deals with the same issues and it works out for them. Wikipedia has a good system in place for what gets included, but the emphasis of an article, and how many words are spent on each aspect, is a matter of consensus. Same thing would be true here.

Something I just thought of—what's your opinion of using categories like Category:American Civil War or Category:Conscription? Aren't these just as prone to POV?

I'd say that portals can be all the things you mention. They're reading lists, in the sense that they include material that is freely available on Wikisource. They're subject indices, in the sense that they group works that are related to each other. They are bibliographies, in the sense that they provide an access point to someone beginning research of a subject (and that's exactly what someone is doing when they click the "Wikisource has source documents related to:" link on Wikipedia, or a "For more documents on this subject, see [[Portal:___]]" in the notes section of our works). —Spangineerwp (háblame) 16:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Page:A Treatise on Geology, volume 1.djvu/47[edit]

Yes, even after double validation it can remains error, or words which look like weird. I found easier to retrieve the position of the line in the image when keeping the line breaks, you only need to look the cursor position in the page to get approximately where the line is, and read the first words around this position in the image, especially useful for long text like page in double column format. Phe (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If you prefer it, I'll leave it that way if I do anymore. I find it harder to proof than collapsed paragraphs; it creates more screens to scroll through, not to mention the fiddly formatting. Try switching between vertical and horizontal modes for different texts, you might find it is quicker. Or continue with what works for you. Regards, Cygnis insignis (talk) 11:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I undid a couple and revalidated, then remembered that I made a couple of minor fixes. Sorry if I fouled anything, hard to get a clean diff, revert away if it is a problem. Cygnis insignis (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
If the removing of line break is already done, no need to undo them, in doubt feel free to revert to your first validated state. Anyway thanks for these validations! Phe (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Conan Doyle sources[edit]

The sources for all CD short stories I added are clearly identified in notes section of header template. I will upload original scans to wiki-commons once I have time. I am aware of the option to have scans and transcripts side by side but how-to-do-it is written in a very unclear way. If you could hellp - that would be great. Here is one, for example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Brown_Hand.djvu

I agree, they are almost useless, I doubt anyone could make it more confusing if they tried.

I'll create the index for the work, ask me when you reach a hurdle: Index:The Brown Hand.djvu Cygnis insignis (talk) 10:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I found and solved one of those, the text layer was missing and the scan was incomplete. I uploaded and created Index:The Strand magazine - No 101 (May 1899).djvu, you should probably arrange for the deletion of the other file at commons. Cygnis insignis (talk)
Thanks! Will delete the other file!
I think I figured out how to do it! Here it is: Index:Captain of the Polestar.djvu Captain Nemo (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Anon talk page[edit]

  • diff "Please don't mess around with articles.--Longfellow (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC) "
  • Your recent comment at an ip's talk indicated a problem, but not what that was. The four contribs were left unchanged, and appear well intentioned: the template invited users to try and fix the page. Cygnis insignis (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I was most puzzled by your message. Altering "2" to "100" was obviously wrong. It seemed to me that this IP was making unconstructive edits then immediately reverting them, not a damaging thing to do but not helpful. I note that you did not sign your welcome; was that intentional?--Longfellow (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, why do you ask? Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

To quote 'Enry 'Iggins[edit]

I've got it. I think that after a lot of farnarkling that I have a better schema for marginal notes that allows for a free right margin Copyright Act, 1956 (United Kingdom)/Part 1. While it still needs a little tweaking, and the documentation, the setup when used with indented page, the value used in the DIV wrapper to create the left margin for the marginal note is the same as use to create the marginal note in the body. Would welcome your comments. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been meaning to comment on the progress, it was very interesting to watch the solution emerging. I did some line numbering with the same display trick in Page and main, but I had float-center and didn't need to solve this problem. I nearly posted during discussion to say I saw justified use of justification, so I'm glad to hear you got the regular format working. I believe this will often be used side-by-side with other docs, two windows on the screen can make text look weird, worse when justified, but I do this all the time. I have an application for it ... somewhere, I'll show you the result when I'm done.
In short, I'm very impressed - the third time in a month you managed to do that! Cheers mate, Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Zygoballus electus[edit]

Thanks for the feedback concerning The Salticidae (Spiders) of Panama/Zygoballus electus. I think all the points you raised are helpful. I don't have much experience on WikiSource, so I'm probably dong lots of things wrong :P To answer your first question, I'm copying the text directly from the book. I don't have a scanner, and the book is quite old and delicate so I don't have a good way of scanning it at the moment. How to I indicate this method of transcription in the article? Is there a template for that? I suppose I should at least get the title page scanned so that I can prove it was published without a copyright notice (as many scientific works were at the time). I'm planning on transcribing a lot more material from this book and will be creating a parent page some time soon. Kaldari (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ta,[edit]

I know it, and most of the time use it:) Where did I miss it? Captain Nemo (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Those are quite good, btw. I am reading and validating them slowly. Captain Nemo (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A Biographical Sketch of an Infant[edit]

Hi, I did. (Mind, Vol. 2, No. 7 (July., 1877), pp. 285-294). I placed it at the top, it was published in the journal Mind in 1877. 23:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I got it through the academic journal search JSTOR. Unless you have a subscription you can't access the actual document, but it was scanned into digital document by Oxford University Press. How do I reference this?

Romanes lectures[edit]

I wanted to thank you for going through and validating some of the Romanes lectures I proofread. It's always nice to see some of the small works you add make it to validated status. :)

I noticed you changed the style on some of the actual pages themselves. I know I've been gone for a month and a half, so did I miss a discussion where we are moving towards "indented-page" or is that just personal preference? Either way, I don't care, I just don't want to use "prose" if everyone has decided to use the other.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I enjoyed them both -
My position is there is no consensus to apply a style preference to the text, here or at the sisters; indented page is needed to clear the page-scan links at left. To clarify: If I'm doing poems the class is not needed at all, so I don't add one. Opinions on what the widths, and the inclusion of justification, varies from User to User - and they are all right!! If there is a page full of text a reader can set that how they like, if a reader wants it another way there is any number of controlling that - but not if we impose one preference. Not everyone agrees, some suppose that reader doesn't know how modify their display and we should apply width and justification:; alt least, that is the only reason given than some like it. Readers know I think, reading a lot on a landscape screen requires adjustements. I personally dislike justification on the screen, I want a choice, and narrowing the width means I have to keep 'paging-down' - I keep losing the next line with both. I understood prose was imposed to make nice the display of poetry and fragmentary writing, we have found better ways of doing that now. These are some reasons to avoidit , there is little proffered to support their use; there is some discussion at [[Talk:Mediawiki:Common.css]] - deciding would require a vote, avoiding it makes it simple for everyone to get on with it. It wouldn't fly as a practice at WP, with good reason, and I see no reason to present it differently here.
This is the short version, 'cos I like ya :-) Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Letters of James Henry Carleton[edit]

I'm surprised that you have placed Letter recommending removal of the Navajo to Bosque Redondo in Category:Texts without a source when the source is plainly set out as "notes = Page 56-57, Navajo Roundup: Selected Correspondence of Kit Carson's expedition Against the Navajo, 1863-1865 by Lawrence C. Kelly, Pruett Publishing Company (1970), hardcover, 192 pages, ISBN 0871080427" Perhaps there is some other way to reference the source? Fred Bauder (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I will copy the entire letter, and other letters, into the article. I just didn't want to miss happy hour... Fred Bauder (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Westmorland[edit]

Wikisource talk:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica#Westmorland. The pages are close to completed but they need a second pair of eyes to look over them as there are bound to be a few things I have missed. Also they need the article division templates put around the articles so that they will display properly. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I used this version for my reading as the one on the right of the page is not as clear.-- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Philip Baird Shearer#second look. I think that is what one does next. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Um[edit]

I just discovered that I have unwitting entered into an... edit war?[7] What's going on there? Do you still want these reverted even though I removed the blanks from the transclusion list? Do you want that reverted too? Hesperian 02:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I should claim a prize for participation in the greatest edit war over 'nothing' :-) If I recall correctly, I was going to amuse the user with the petty rationale, but the discussion veered off. I deliberately left it proofread as blank because I was waiting for a second opinion on whether Tamerlane_and_other_poems_(1884)#cite_note-0 was significant to his facsimile. I later decided it wasn't. Cygnis insignis (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. A situation where the collation of blank pages might actually be important enough to preserve! Trust you to notice... and then consider the implications. ;-) Hesperian 03:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Indian Fairy Tales[edit]

Started to validate notes and references. There are quite a few wikilinks to add, correct, redirect, etc. So maybe once you have time you could go over validated pages again and doublecheck? Cheers. Captain Nemo (talk) 07:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll continue to do that, my watchlist has been filled your validations and fixes. Linking refs in pages like those is an interesting exercise, I try to tidy up the targets so I don't need to keep fixing deeplinks. The rest of the series is mostly proofread, but not live, you can probably guess what the name of the ref will be, eg. "More English Fairytales/The Black Swan of Trespass".

Your other contribs have been great for building the links, those Grimm tales will have lots of references. I've also been linking to de:wikisource, which has a mind-blowing set of Grimm editions. If you see a better way to do something, let me know in the edit summary or note it here; I would be very interested to hear your comments and ideas. I usually show what I mean by editing a page, so let me know if you don't use your watchlist. Cygnis insignis (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Finished! and there are other editors at work on ODD, i see, so it will be done soon. What's next?:)

On Grimms: German links is great idea (though my G. is below rudimentary). Also, would be good if we coordinated on the uniform look of (i)the running header and (ii)tale pages. Let me know what how do you think them should look. Also, what's your thoughts on overall structure of Grimms' Tales? It's quite messy now. How about this: The main page is "Grimms' Household Tales" and all individual tales are at "Grimms' Household Tales/tale's name". Though it was published in two volumes I don't think it's neccesarily good thing to split it here. Shall we discuss it somewhere?Captain Nemo (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice one. Transcripts of the work are available elsewhere, but I'm pretty confident ours is the best.

Getting the look is matter of preserving significant formatting, I think, put up an example of what you have in mind on the talk. I may have been lazy with some of the page headers, I'll have a look at that. Creating a deeper structure for this work is probably unnecessary, though I think the volume's number and title pages should be available. The structure of this title is complicated by the existence of other translations here. The variations of the title should target a page that leads to what we have, I suppose the talk of that page can be used to consolidate and expand these. Cygnis insignis (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Not going for deep structure was my initial thought as weel, but then I noticed that while working on the second volume you've created subpages: [8] and that put me in doubt:) So, how about the following. No deep structure at all. Every tale is just at the page with its title, say "Cinderella". When disambig is necessary, it becomes "Cinderella (Grimm)", when further disambig is needed it becomes "Cinderella (Grimm/Hunt)". That is Tale(Author/Translator). And the original page becomes disambig page? The details of the edition are then available via header and transclusion. That also allows some room for variation in titles with different translators.Captain Nemo (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
running header-wise:) here is what i've been doing: {{rh|{{sc|Tale}} 7.]|THE GOOD BARGAIN.|31}} Captain Nemo (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy to dispose of the smaller formatting, it does mess with smallcaps. cygnis insignis 10:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I tried adopting that approach, but it creates more problems that it solves. That text is a section, p.56—7, of a work with the title Grimm's Household Tales, vol. 2. 1884 London: George Bell and Sons. Grimm's tale #98 is a title, and like How sweet I roam'd from field to field it is a title given given to 'sections' of many works; it is not the title of the source of those transcripts. The german site has a disambiguating and subjective title for their numerous editions, subpaging provides a more objective system of diambiguation. The convenience of relative linking to an authoritative title is shown by the consequence of moving Indian Fairy Tales, I could move all the subpages with one click! Having to rename and rejig several works, with numerous sections that are claiming their own title (albeit disambiguated) is a nightmare - esp given the various treatments as subject. This also requires reiterating the info on the source throughout the notes of every section of the work. Consider how the title is referred to in that work's notes, the citation is the information centralised at the parent page - almost all of this is given in the text of the original title page. I believe the sustainable practice is to present and arrange the transcripts by the objective circumstances of the source, to 'know' and add nothing more. Cygnis insignis (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I'm almost convinced:) A few thing still to agree upon 1) title. IMHO, should be Grimm's Household Tales rather than Household Tales (as it is now) but without volume and tale numbers; thus a tale whould be, for example, Grimm's Household Tales/Riddle. 2) there was smth else, but I dont recall it now:)Captain Nemo (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Was it that each volume has notes, these would be separated naming or subpaging the volume number. The options would be:
  1. Grimm's Household Tales/Notes
  2. Grimm's Household Tales, Volume 1/Notes
  3. Grimm's Household Tales/Volume 1/Notes
This doesn't account for ambiguity with other translations. I think we already need the parentheses, Grimm's Household Tales (tr. Hunt) has been proposed as a style.
  • Sorry if this isn't helping, I'm trying to discover a SOP for these situations. If you think you have a way of doing it, be bold and nominate pages for merge or deletion. We'll try and model it to see what emerges. cygnis insignis 10:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Hy Cygnis, can you tell me what is wrong with how I categorized an Encyclopedia Britannica page? [9]

Also, since I'm here -- the other day I asked a question at WP:Britannica, do you think I'll ever get an answer there, or is it better to use the Scriptorium (or somewhere else) for stuff like that? Thanks! -Pete (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

dropinitial not working[edit]

Hi Cygnis insignis, In order to read the first line of the page [10] I had to change the "dropinitial" to "largeinitial" here [11]. I played with it a dab but couldn't figure out why the dropinitial was not working correctly. Wanted to let you know, perhaps you can get it to work properly. Daytrivia (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It works for me, do you see a problem at any other page? eg. this page Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Nothing else but I see your work but [12] Daytrivia (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
? Would you prefer the large initial ... Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, at least for now. Thanks. Daytrivia (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Done, put it back when you are finished please. The work is an important biographical resource on the poet, interesting if you have read a bit about him. Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks much. I'll put it back when finished. Daytrivia (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
FWIW it functions fine for me in the earlier revisions. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much Cygnis insignis. I reverted it back to your last. I still cannot read the first line as it seems to be superimposed perhaps it is my browser. Anyway, thanks again. Daytrivia (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you using some version of Internet Explorer? Cygnis insignis (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I am at work now and on the Reference Desk. Everything looks outstanding from here. I use IE 8 at home on Win 7. Thanks. Daytrivia (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

And now for something completely different:)[edit]

Run into an interesting problem! What am I supposed to do if footnote starts on page x and ends on page x+1??? here's example: [13] Would really appreciate any help with this!!!Captain Nemo (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I applied the solution, the display [14] involves transcluding the section "text" for the Pages that contain 'overflow'. I had a minor part in developing this solution, so I may be bias, but I've never found a problem with it - it is reasonably stable here. The whole text will spill out from the start of the footnote. I believe that this contains the most complex combination of refs, with trick formatting and footnotes running over 3 pages. Page 3 of your work starts another, I can apply it later if I've failed to explain how it is done. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Muchos gracias! Captain Nemo (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


Do you lurk the mailing list? Thomas has been working on a patch for this. On the first page you simply name the ref:

<ref name="foo">Footnote text before overflow.</ref>

and on subsequent pages you put that name in a 'follow' parameter:

<ref follow="foo">Footnote overflow.</ref>

No need to section out the page text from the overflow; no need to manually style the overflow; no need for any of that includeonly crap. How cool is that! Can't wait for it to be rolled out! Hesperian 00:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Div class of prose rather than float centre[edit]

Re this revert: the reason I made the change was to fix the page numbers/links, which fly off to the left hand side of the page (underneath the sidebar) using the float centre template but not with <div class="prose">. I'm far from attached to this solution, but it is a problem that needs to be resolved, so I've undone your revert for now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

What is causing it is a mystery, there have been a number of recent changes that may afect this: the page should not need a div class?! The prose class currently throws the Page links away from the edge of the page, indented page is unaffected and produces the same result. cygnis insignis 09:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Page:English Fairy Tales.djvu/125 - what about font size?[edit]

Hi,

What about the font sizes on this page Page: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:English_Fairy_Tales.djvu/125? None of the alternatives that I know about seem to do the job! Another editor (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. How do you upload images and put them in the text? What is to be done about images? Another editor (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 :-) use {{x-smaller}} and so on. A tale in More English renders it another way, 'extract'.

I hope you find what you need at Adding images, the online viewer is linked from any image I reproduce: enter the page number near top right. Good fun when you know how, the silhouette image of 3 bears might be a good start. cygnis insignis 22:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I know how to upload an image once I have it. But how do I extract the image from the text? Another editor (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Cool, a couple of steps to get to that bit: Go to IA.org's online viewer for a jpeg, eg. p. 96, open it in a image program and convert it as described. I have named the images by page, copy the code [[File:Page 85 illustration in English Fairy Tales.png|frameless|center|alt=]] and plonk that into the page. cygnis insignis 22:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
But how do you extract the image from the image plus text? Maybe this is just over my head. Another editor (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
It 's intuitive, only simple when you have done it before :(

I think you mean, 'how do I get rid of the text?' You make a 'selection'. Click at one corner and create a rectangular frame over the part that is illustration, the command will say something like "crop". Fiddle around and you will get it. Then convert it to greyscale, (grayscale) and 'adjust the white point".

Or just ask me, I'm happy to do it. cygnis insignis 22:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, for example, on the "English Fairytales" pages, I avoid proofing the ones that have images, since I don't know what to do with them. Another editor (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
It's tricky, I mark them problematic so I can find them easily. You could mark as proofread and add the following code: {{use page image}}. You seem to enjoy proofreading, that is the single best way to contribute. Cheers, cygnis insignis 23:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the tip. I do enjoy proofreading. I'm glad its a contribution! Another editor (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Me too! Btw, lots of the tales have shortish articles at wikipedia - I've been linking those too. Let me know if you want to start a new book, I'll set it up. cygnis insignis 23:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "staring a new book" means. I see that there is another format that eventually the pages go into. It involves something about trancluding, which I don't fully understand. I see what you are doing by linking, though I didn't know it was to wikipedia. Another editor (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
If there is anything else you are interested in, a favourite book or subject, I can get a scan and you can do that too. I like Jacobs and Batten, so I found the scans and brought them here. An example of a link to a sister site, wikipedia, is in the header's notes over at this 'main-space' page English Fairy Tales/The Cauld Lad of Hilton. I will try to get the tales you validate as main pages, where the reader can find them. Cheers, 23:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

outer div[edit]

I had that discussion the other day as I had problems with sidenotes. I just added a <div class="indented-page"> around the existing div and it worked fine. Yes, it means extra, though it turns out to be easy if you still want the page numbering to occur on the left edge. Note I had left the existing div in place. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


anchors with parentheses[edit]

Hi Cygnis

perhaps this is what you are looking for : Old Deccan Days/Rama and Luxman; or, the Learned Owl#.2856.29

ThomasV (talk) 06:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


I think that was solved, thanks. The character didn't display in main for a short time, even when I cleared my cache. This works for me, and was how I implemented it: Old Deccan Days/Rama and Luxman; or, the Learned Owl#(56) cygnis insignis 06:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

what do you think?[edit]

What do you think about using <poem>, as it removed the need for using all the <br />s in poetry? (Also, it allows easy formatting of the lines.) Regards, Another editor (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I used it, wrestled with it for ages, I discovered how to wrangle it and produce a reasonable result. Then it was improved, the background code changed and broke what i had done on a lot of pages. So I continued on, it happened again, breaking even more pages. Twice bitten! The code is apparently some spooky work-around, the templates and break I use do what they say, and what they are intended for.

I suspect that poem was adopted because it allowed new users to fake the formatting, centring or even right alignment with a series of leading spaces. Allowing users to easily create content was desirable, but users want to do things once, not go back and fix what was an unstable solution. It is better to use a principled, compliant approach that allows others to reproduce or improve what I do.

You noticed that a quote mark was outside of the left edge of the block, I replaced that with another solution; documentation and code for that becomes readily available, and probably portable. I doubt that poem tag would do everything I have managed without it, what
does, and how it behaves, is self evident and widely understood. cygnis insignis 13:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand how frustrating it is when formatting breaks! Where is all this documented? I am learning by copying what I see done, through trial and error. I see that there is not uniformity in the solutions editors come up with. Is there a place where the commonly accepted use of html and css is set forth? Are there rules? Thanks, Another editor (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
When you preview a page, a list of the templates used in the page will appear toward the bottom. A template resides in the 'Template namespace', eg. Template:Float right, and they should have documentation. We have also some guidelines, like WS:Style, and other pages linked from Help:Contents. I adopt practices, then replace them with better ones when I find them; that would be the only rule. Was something breaking for you here, or elsewhere, happy to help if I can. cygnis insignis 14:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I probably will be asking you some questions. Another editor (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
No worries, use your watchlist so I can demonstrate a solution. The templates you have seen would be amongst the most frequently used, some templates wrap around a block of text, Template:Center, Template:Smaller block etc., others change parts of the text, {{smaller}}, {{smallcaps}}. Once you have a suite of these, you can proof as fast as you read. I enjoy sharing what I read and enjoyed, showing others how to do the same is also a good thing. Cheers, cygnis insignis 20:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
My watchlist is made up overwhelmingly with pages that I have edited. Is there a more helpful way of organizing a watchhlist, so that I can pick up on the things you suggest? Another editor (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
You must have checked the preference to watch what you edit, you should also tick "Hide my edits from the watchlist". The list will only show the changes you didn't make, there are also buttons on thate page to temporarily show and hide whatever. cygnis insignis 16:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! What bulked it up is the pages I create are added to the watchlist. Another editor (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Great news that you were creating new pages. You probably want that, but usually not to have them appear on your watchlist. The number of pages on these can be very large, but these are quite manageable when you play around. cygnis insignis 05:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

How do I download a scanned file?[edit]

Hi,

I found a scanned file I would like to put on Wikisource. It is here. How to I manage to do this? Thanks, Another editor (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If the guidance at Help:Adding images and so on is not providing answers, let me know where it needs clarifying and I will try to fix it. Get the djvu from "All Files: HTTP" on that page and upload to commons, as File:In the roar of the sea.djvu or similar, then create a page here: Index:In the roar of the sea.djvu. A form will appear when you do, add what you know then watch what I do. cygnis insignis 05:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I went to "all Files: HTTP" which gave me this. I downloaded the last zip file scandata.zip and but that gave me a bunch of files that looked like xml files and some unreadable files. There was nothing I recognize as a scanned version of the book or than could up load. I downloaded inroarofsea00baririch.djvu, but I don’t have a program that can open it and apparently I would have to buy one, a professional version of something, according to the directions. Should I try to upload it without opening it? What is the next step? Should I try to download another one of those versions of the file to have better luck? Another editor (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Also, I have only uploaded images in the past. None of the directions explain how to upload a djvu file (like how to choose the right license, as all the options apply to images and do not refer to a PD for a book). I will need more explanation on how to do choose the right licensing options. Another editor (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I think I did it!! See: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Inroarofsea00baririch.djvu Another editor (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I have made a mess of things. I could only access a few of the scanned pages, so I moved the djvu to other names, but that didn't work and now I cannot access the original file, Index:In the roar of the sea.djvu (as I moved it to a dysfunctional name) or any other, at all. I have ruined the whole thing, Another editor (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks like you figured some things out as you went. No need to open the djvu file, just download from archive.org and upload to commons. When uploading, however, you need to put in the name you want to use (don't just use the file name from internet archive). To change the name now that it's there, you need to move the file on commons (not Wikisource). Once you do that, you will need to move all the pages you created on Wikisource to the new title. For now, I recreated the index page that you had lost after attempting to move the index page, so you can now see the proofed pages at Index:Inroarofsea00baririch.djvu. Feel free to keep working on the file at its current name; if you want to move it you can ask for help if you like, but no worries, all of this is easy to clean up if you make a mistake. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 02:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I think I will do no more moving for the time being. Perhaps I should not proof any more pages, if they will need to be moved individually after a name change, unless it doesn’t matter what the name of the file is on the Commons. Does it matter? Another editor (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I moved everything to Index:In the Roar of the Sea.djvu, including all the djvu pages. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 18:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Headers[edit]

Saw your edit to Help:Editing Wikisource. What are your thoughts on these examples:

In general I'm beginning to see the advantages of fewer headers in the main and page namespaces, but these examples keep me from being ready to get rid of them entirely. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 20:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen" is not the title, its the title of the text found at p. 49-118 of Essays on Political Economy. I think the title page and toc of the source should be included, what the publisher provided is able to be linked; I've never found a reason to otherwise. What we 'know' about the text is irrelevant here, we merely present the text and don't presuppose how it will be used or what might be 'useful'. This library is a source, the sisters should and will link to it, reuse it, explain it, decorate it, and repurpose it. When users get to the sites documents they have arrived at a primary source, the delightful thing is they can use it however they like and leave the source as is. The value of a library is that it doesn't change or add to its published works. Moving beyond the scope of a library greatly increases the complexity, new users should be directed to the primary purpose - adding texts to the catalogue. Can you see a problem with my approach with the transcription, arrangement, and linking of my contributions. I try to reduce the unnecessary decision making, the erroneous corrections, the splitting and duplication of vaguely defined acquisitions and 'adding value' by however that is conceived. There are millions of books and most are inherently useful, adding them to the catalogue is the priority; what wikimedia does with them is handled elsewhere, N, RS, V, peer review; why have that lot here too?!? If there a better way to present a book, maintain text integrity, simplify and increase contributions, gain serious and sober interest, and give the site a reputation for text integrity, then I have tried to implement it. I think my later efforts are the way to go, with no trace the contributor, others may look at it and see the potential for "useful" linking and rearrangement, and no doubt disagree on their ideas for that, but I'm confident the reader will get want they want and expect from a library. cygnis insignis 12:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Read that three times and you may glean what I see makes things simple, or noisy, complex, and unproductive, here is the short version from the page in question "By the nature of Wikisource, original texts should not be changed, ..." cygnis insignis 12:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at what I did to Essays on Political Economy and Essays on Political Economy/That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen. It seems somewhat more difficult to navigate now (since there's no TOC on the subpage), but the simplicity is nice. Is this structure and layout in line with your preference? —Spangineerwp (háblame) 16:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that would satisfy anybody's preference, the editor noted the pages numbers to the parts of the essay in the toc (which you linked:). The [notable] link you created in the notes is about the text, it is immediately clear that it is wikimedia content. I've linked to anchors at content here from wikipedia, and used left-to-right navigation in the notes for subsections. Another advantage to bundling this type of user created content is that it can be merged, massaged, and improved. DYK, btw, that you can link wikipedia by adding | wikipedia = to the header. If a user has something to add about the text, related discussion or media from a secondary source, the link to wikipedia or commons is there for them to improve. The header, indexing, site architecture and the rest of wikimedia is 'under construction' and subject to fashions and ad hoc arrangements, we make do and cross our fingers. The clean text is everything below the header, and it is much simpler if that part of the page only becomes closer to its source. As far as the content goes, some careful proofreading and it is job done - one can start on working on one of the redlinks the last book created. cygnis insignis 17:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Related to this discussion: would you prefer to see Kelo v. New London at United States Reports/545/Kelo v. New London, since that is the work we are using as a source?

Pardon the intrusion - There has been a recent return to the effort to reign in USSC cases and the related Reporters over on its WikiProject pages. Although the namespace & other naming issues have been ongoing, the rule of style currently is to stick to the case party names (Kelo v. New London). Visit the Project discussion page for the specifics. George Orwell III (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
That's fine; the question is meant to be conceptual. I'll get involved in discussion there should I want to advocate any changes. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 22:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What about situations in which the source text does not treat the text the way modern readers do? The most authoritative source for the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 is Elliot, but in his book he puts the resolutions of 1798 and 1799 in one "chapter", with merely a blank line separating them. Should we not make a concession to modern readers and give each set of resolutions its own page?

Thanks for your patience; I'm coming to agree with you more, but I'm still not entirely convinced... —Spangineerwp (háblame) 21:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I was convinced by what could be applied as a practical, appropriate, and scalable solution to our texts. I used to think the header was inflexible, and led to confusion, but I eventually realised I had been looking at things inside-out. I reckon that others will agree when they see how it greatly simplifies matters, not by my trying to convince anybody that this is no different to texts with the meta-title The Raven.
The first example is not p. 469 et seq. of Kelo v. New London, that is a section of a work. The 'authority' of the publication is a moot point, we display and attribute text verbatim, but they are certain to be a more reliable 'author' than "Wikisource:". The work has its own arrangement, I expect that regular users of these documents are familiar with this and would use it in a citation.
  • The front matter of that volume should be included, we must assume the publisher included it for good reasons, it would negate the need to replace it with our 'wikified' arrangement.
  • The page has a subpage, with targeted links, but doesn't link the title of the source, which has a separate set of subpages for the volumes.
  • The subpage arrangement for the original title links to the cases, but the reader needs to go to the work namespaces to find a way back to that. They don't contain the prefatory content the publisher of the source thought to include.
  • More new content needed creation, eg. the nav template for the "opinions", because the header has been re-purposed to the new titles and packaging. If we are repackaging the content, because the original is somehow inadequate, then the library in which it was found (Wikisource) becomes part of the citation.

Apparently this required the creation of a cross namespace link to a new Wikisource:page to gather all this, and the rest above, I don't see a requirement for this. Creating new titles, and wrangling new content in headers and templates, solves problems that need not have emerged. Or problems that are already managed by the (single!) article of that name in our encyclopædia ... that place has used the title for a topic or subject, we have legacy issue as wikipedia editors attempt to edit and adapt the architecture of an online encyclopædia to an online library. The latter usually contains the former in its 'reference section', and its 'architecture' is primarily indexed by actual titles and authors of the acquisitions, the 'objects' in their catalogue.

  • Wikipedia has one article for a text, wikisource may have one or many publications with a text of that title. cygnis insignis 07:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Limiting the number of daily edits[edit]

Hi Cygnis, I am replacing the article titles of PSM with a template, and this will generate a lot of daily edits. Please feel free to let me know the daily limit of edits you, or any administrator wishes to deal with, and I will organize my work accordingly, as I also have a lot of images to clean and upload to the commons. There is an average of 77 article titles per volume (*24 volumes). I hope this helps. - Ineuw (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If it is just a mechanical and standard replacement why waste your personal time, add it to Wikisource:Bot requests and have a more beneficial use of time. 02:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Another advantage of billinghurst's suggestion is that the contributions can be hidden. cygnis insignis 03:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately they are not just standard replacements. I am enclosing the titles in the {{PSMTitle}} template, and fix a lot of minor omissions from my early work which is not up to proofreading standard. In any case, thanks for the advice. - Ineuw (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood a comment I made, I thought you should get a second opinion before making a series of edits. I would ask someone to look at an example before rolling out a change, to save myself the trouble of redoing something hundreds of times, perhaps you don't mind doing that or having it pointed out after it is done.

The images I have seen look great, and commons and wikipedia will be benefiting from these too; I've already used one in a biographical article. This is an enormous set of volumes, if your efforts toward improving them didn't appear on recent changes I would wonder where you were :-) cygnis insignis 03:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you want my opinion on how PSMTitle should be used? cygnis insignis 03:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments as they are very encouraging. I most definitely need help with the {{PSMTitle}} and please feel free to change which I will gladly follow as good advice. As you can tell by the number of saves - I was struggling with various concepts but am very flexible about how it should really look. - Ineuw (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks great, although the result will vary under different circumstances. Serif fonts, with fine adjustments to weight and height may conflict with reader's own preference settings. In essence there are two moderately important qualities of the format, those indicating the heading's 'level', it is centred and larger or smaller. The more important priority is the information provided by the text, that is what we generally concentrate on. Readers prefer an error-free, simply formatted, clean text, they don't want an imitation of the scan that is one click away. You could try to convince the community that readers will think this is very important, again, before you go ahead apply that to volumes of unproofread text. You could add the standard templates by using subst: in a template with a similar design to your creation. Geting the code tuned is not really my field. Not getting distracted by matters of low or no value is the best advice I can give, I don't always follow it. cygnis insignis 16:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. Personally, I prefer sans-serif Arial, because serif text is not as clear (yet), and the font related dimensions are different. To be honest, I am less than satisfied with the Times Roman, (but then it could also be my monitor). I created the template to standardize my work while learning the intricacies of HTML/CSS/Wiki. I didn't think anyone would care, since I had no clue if others are interested in the PSM project. Again, I just don't want my continuous re-edits to take away others' time since I learned not to assume that others can devote as much time to their commitments as I am doing now. - Ineuw (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Most sans-serif works well on most displays, some are very good for mixed font-sizing, and it is perhaps easier to read with longer texts. I see all sorts of interesting stuff turn up in PSM, I have done a little proof-reading and linking when a related text turns up in searches. The cross referencing to other works might need its own project, that will be huge :-) You have definitely given everything a flying start, others will come and help, but these things take a while to get momentum. cygnis insignis 18:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much![edit]

Thank you for fixing Page:In the Roar of the Sea.djvu/159! Another editor (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, pardon me sticking my nose in. Let spangineer know it is resolved :-) cygnis insignis 19:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

A present:)[edit]

Index:Grimm's Fairy Tales.djvu -> Edwardes and Taylor translation, I'm also on a lookout for a good version of Taylor translation.

Nice one, the illustrations are not too bad either ... I will need the source to get the jpegs. I think I will create the versions pages and lump everything there, I was also thinking of creating a table or index to link all the direct translations of their work. I have never done anything like it, but I have seen it done at Author pages. We could redirect every permutation of the title (not their other works) to a disambiguation page - on steroids! That would be a nice complement to the elaborate arrangements at the German sister, I'm very impressed by the simple and thorough job done there. cygnis insignis 15:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is the source: http://www.archive.org/details/grimmshouseholdt00grim

The plan sounds goood!! I'll try to help.Captain Nemo (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, for a reason I sometimes note on the file: everything I have got from "scanner-nicole-deyo" is the highest quality available. I wonder if she knows she has fan :-) cygnis insignis 08:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed the escalation of Jacobs-mania:) I hope to retaliate soon with a version Taylor translation.

On emphasising originals for translated works: here is a very modest solution, have a look at interwikies.

Nearly finished the whole set of books, this one has some versions of tales also found in the Grimm's collection.

I never 'see' the interwikis, the 'interlanguage' links, I have to look for them - I suppose people know they are there. I think it proper to make them more prominent, but that label can do the job if can also point to master versions page. cygnis insignis 12:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is smth else of interest. Cheers,Captain Nemo (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I should have done that instead. Can you go to your browser history and add the source at Commons, adding image only takes a few moments when it is there. cygnis insignis 07:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Done. Captain Nemo (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I knew it was NYPL, I'm President of the scanner-nicole-deyo Appreciation Society. cygnis insignis 08:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Cindy's version in Lang _IS_ Welsh translation. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
No, its English. cygnis insignis 07:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 :) Captain Nemo (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

In his intro to BFB (http://www.archive.org/details/bluefairybook00langiala) Lang says that his Cindy is from "the Old English version of the XVIII century". It seems that that is Welsh source as well. Captain Nemo (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: S. B-G[edit]

I had never heard of this author before but I find certain of his writings unexpectedly intriguing. I don’t have any goal such as gathering all his writings together, but I get pulled into some of them and can’t stop! Another editor (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for your interesting edits into pages of Horses and roads. I'm studying the new templates and tricks, and I'm listing them into User:Alex brollo/Templates and tricks to learn; one by one, they will be discussed, and probably most of them robbed, into it.source. ;-)

In the meantime, Horses and roads has already been quoted in specialized web forums, and will be read and studied into lots of countries! It's an unbeliavable book for "horse addicts"! --Alex brollo (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought it made a good example, you can find some more at User:Cygnis insignis/contributions. Some of these have internal links, using the headings and page numbers in the 'table of contents' and index. Have a look at Indian Fairy Tales (Jacobs)/Notes and References for anchors and links to the rest of the book, and other pages on wikisource.
That is good news :-) I thought it was quite interesting, I have noticed that pages are quoted elsewhere. They also turn up on google searches very quickly. cygnis insignis 14:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
yes, when searching by Google "Pumice foot horse" (then I discovered that "pumice foot" is an old alias for laminitis), I've been astonished to find Index:Horses and roads.djvu as the fourth Google entry.... :-)
Abour anchor templates: I didn't find something similar to it:Template:§. It's mostly interesting, but it needs a row of css code to show all its power. Can I introduce here a slightly modified version of such template into Category:Experimental templates so that any interested fellow can take a look and have a try? Obviuosly, I'll add the css code too, to allow a test adding it into personal vector.css, and I'll test it adding that core into mine own vector.css.
Feel free to tell me if I'm wasting too much your time and patience. ;-) --Alex brollo (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
That's so cool, there is a lot of treasure for other sites here: wikipedia and wiktionary could give that definition and point directly to a citation. I think this is an important point, google makes our text immediately available and people can use it elsewhere - with a link here. Books like this are a good choice for this reason, unusual words and phrases and historical insights are preserved, can be found, and then re-used. Wikipedia is missing a lot of facts like your example.
That sounds fine to me, I will have a look at it later. Once you have a working example, put a quick note on the scriptorium. All ideas on templates are useful, but it takes a lot of time before the best way to do it. There is a handful of templates needed to do most things here, and it is easy to 'over-think' when finding new solutions. Someone made the point that a link from Page to mainspace would be handy, but adding a link is not the likely to be efficient. There are hundreds of Pages in a book, someone might need the link. The first user would be adding a template for the second proof-reader, to remove one click. The button "what link here" is available from a click or keystroke, modifying this to redirect to the transclusion is likely to be the solution.
You're fine, I'm interested in what you have to say :-) You will get an opinion that is based on a lot of thought about the project, some of my views are quite firm because some approaches can waste other people's time. If it helps get more books, more quickly, I'm very interested in helping. Post your messages here as often as you like. Cheers, cygnis insignis 11:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Template:§ is running. I added some doc, underlining the need of a little bit of additive css code. Take into consideration that such css (if it runs into Common.css) allows to highlight InvisibleAnchors linked from anywhere of the web; obviuosly, from any other wiki project too. Presently the template is running into it.source, la.source and ru.source (yes, we have a Russian user into it.source, deep in mathematics...). --Alex brollo (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

About my experimantal templates[edit]

  1. I posted a note into Scriptorium about Template:Anchor2 (please rename it if you like!).
  2. about Ns0: far from being built as a link from NsPage to Ns0, it's thought to be a tool to collect into one place only (nsPage) ALL the data needed to build Ns0 version or anything other you can imagine from the proofread text. If you think about, you'll note that presently the data about structure and content of a book are splitted into two different places: nsIndex+nsPage, the text; ns0, the structure. This is the deep reaso why it's so difficult to run the Book tool on proofread books. By Ns0 (take into consideration, it comes from layman tries of one user only so far... ) ALL data are put into one place only. You can guess that I've some (primitive! far from professional!) database experience; database-oriented fellows hate splitting of data here and there and hate redundancy too.  ;-) . The link shown by Ns0 is merely a trick to use a little bit of the data contained by the template. To proof that Ns0 data are all what's needed to build Ns0 version consider that:
    1. Ns0 contains the name of final page and the title of a chapter;
    2. a third implicit data is, the number of the page containing it;
    3. a fourth implicit data is, the position of the template into the page and its relationships with the text and any other Ns0 template into the page, and this can be treated by an algorithm to find precisely the need and the position of any needed section tag; when section tags are added, the fourth data is, the relationship between Ns0 and section tags;
    4. by former relationships, an algorithm can get all the params of pages tag (index, from, to, fromsection, tosection) and can "know" the name and address of previous, and next, chapter... t.i. such algorithm can write the Ns0 subpage in an automatic way. Then Ns0 templates can be deleted (they are redundant), and if you like you can move, rename and so on subpages in ns0.... then a reverse algorithm can add Ns0 templates again into nsPage, since simply main namespace data and Ns0 template data are exactly the same in a different format. --Alex brollo (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I strongly agree that any redundancy and splitting of the crucial, real world data is not good. This is not limited to en.ws, scans sometimes have this data ready for the templates at Commons upload, citations at wikipedia etc., and the four namespaces here: 'Main', Author, Index and Page indexing. This is possible, of course, but this is not how templates are used here. The forms and templates here currently allow control of information from elsewhere, but require knowledge of scripting to reduce duplication of author, title, page numbers and so on. Some of this is possible with <pages, it should autofill a header when a subpage is created; billinghurst uses it I think, might ask him about how to use that.
I understand why you want it in the transcript now, and agree that would be a good thing for fragmented pages. However, I don't think dividing works into the smallest possible section is a good thing. This would surely be working against exporting the text, in 'books' or other means. I can explain my position more if you want to hear it, though I see how it solves the 'problem' of how to improve en.ws page statistics ;-)
Thanks for the thoughtful message, I'll let you know if I see some related discussion emerge. cygnis insignis 14:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 :-) You'll find it forsure, since all the Ns0 idea comes from a talk I read here, somewhere, I remember that ThomasV was defending the js which creates chapter code, but the problem was the need of "numbered", standard names for chapters. That has been my starting point: I'd like the freedom to use explicit chapter names, as similar to original title as possible,and to avoid that automation is obrained through a "reduction of degrees of freedom". Ns0 supports any complex, multi-level structure for chapter names. I already tested it into some poetry, complex books, where there's an obvious need of many small chapters grouped into collections and multiple "books" into the same book (I was working on it:Indice:Poesie (Carducci).djvu when Ineuw catched me as a spider cathces a fly into his net....). Take a look to the big, even if partial, summary of that Index page: ::I can build/refresh it simply writing:
 print sommario(listaNs0("Indice:Poesie (Carducci).djvu"))
into the beloved Idle interface of my bot, Alebot. As you can imagine, listaNs0() lists data from pages containing Ns0 template, and sommario() builds the list of links coming from that data and from some data of Index page. --Alex brollo (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
About Template:Anchor2. One of my questions on the opportunity of "finely split" chapters was a nonsense one, since I found that tect of chapters is unique, and the list of topics under the title is merely something like "a sorted list of contents". But I see an opportunity to put at work Template:§, linking those titles to their target into the text. Let me think a little bit (there are some transclusion related issues....)--Alex brollo (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I think what I did at here is right, it is harmless or helpful and a lot less bother than splitting it up further. The context of the poems is important there, so is the title page and original table of contents. cygnis insignis 22:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
And this all sounds very promising, cheers for getting involved. cygnis insignis 22:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I need my beloved {{tl:Pt}}![edit]

Thinking and thinking, this is the conclusion: I need my Template:Pt. I'm going to introduce it as "Experimental template". It simply displays into NsPage param 1, while transcludes param 2. It's like a simpler, and much more generalyzed, version of {{Hws}} but doesn't add hyphen. So, I can write a double link for that issue previously mentioned, running both into Page and into Ns0, using our Pt. --Alex brollo (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little lost, that template solves many different problem (if they are in fact problems). I will take some time to process what you are proposing, but I should assert my position on one aspect of this. Labouring to make the Page:namespace able to navigate elsewhere is inverted. The purpose, and what actually happens, is that the ocr is proofread by two users - the end! The namespace may be visited for verification, or some improvement in the future. The Index and Page namespaces serve the main page, ns0, enhancements, compromises, and namespace dependent templates are useless when the page is done. Two people spend about 120 seconds at each of the hundreds of pages in an Index, any additional keystrokes or distraction from its primary purpose is probably unwarranted. The links should serve the reader, the author's references, and not be modified for something that probably wont be used - or accessed another way. If the scheme involves making more high quality transcript available for readers, it is a good thing. If it requires a User to add functions that other Users already have, reducing two clicks to one with a <0.5% chance they use it, then the question may be wrong. The link path should be through main space, or not in the transcript, it causes distraction and confusion. You might consider {{djvu page link}} with this in mind, it tries to make a link out real world data to arbitrary and inconsequential data: the page number in citations is forced to the numbering of the scan. Once it is done we don't need to know what that was, once an Index is done we have all the information in a neat arrangement. This is used in a table of contents to link the first page of chapter - only. Only we (Users) need to know the offset in numbering, and this is well arranged by the Index; not deferring to the real page number only adds confusion, whatever the merits of allowing the user to access a small number of other ns:Page targets instead of referring to ns:Index - where that same information appears!

If you are avoiding a similar situation, or unnecessarily adding even one click to the proofreading process, your proposals will get my strong backing. cygnis insignis 15:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I vaguely understand your points; I too am going to consider Index and Pages as "THE" central point of books and the core of wikisource, but I do this in a confuse, uncertain way.
Just to let you try what is coming from Pt (here called {{ShowTransclude}}) and {{§}}, take a look to Page:Horses and roads.djvu/26, where I added internal links between the subtitles of Chapter 2 and InvisibleAnchors into the text. The probem was, to build links running both into nsPage and into its transclusion. They run, nor they take you back again into nsPage if you use them from a transcluded link. I discovered (but it has been much more a matter of luck than a matter of "intelligent design"), that they run too into this test page:User:Alex brollo/Viewer test.
As you see,I consider that here I'm spending a pleasant holiday, but I presume that it is an holiday too for my it.source friends: sometimes they got tired trying to follow me.... :-P --Alex brollo (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I think you understand my point, probably because we think about the same sorts of things. Examples do make things easier to talk about, and what you have to say is very interesting. It is enough that you get the ideas out there, and good that we don't rush to implement them all. My primary focus is to make things easier or people to contribute some of the millions of books in the world, new templates need to be pretty amazing to compensate for the complexity they add. What you discussing is not new, just tricky, I expect 'background solutions' in the software will resolve many problems we struggle to overcome with elaborate templates and thousands of edits. Keep me updated on what you have, and I will take some time to consider it soon. Nice chatting with you :-) cygnis insignis 17:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is a pleasure for me too. My work on Horses and roads is going to an end in some days; is has been so surprising that a book printed in 1880 has so a modern content. Is is really a pity that no one of us barefooters could met J. T. Denny (Free Lance); some of us was so foolish to presume that no book about barefoot horse exist before late 1990. ;-)
Data to build the former example message (there's a trick, you'll find it as soon as you edit it...) are well hidden into the invisible section "Another data container" of User:Alex brollo/Data... something like true variables, but well hidden into their container. And no js is needed to use them. Just another joke, as Viewer test. As I told you,I'm spending some holidays here, and they are fastly going to their end.... --Alex brollo (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Index quiz solved[edit]

Going on to consider Horses and roads an experimental work, I have a good template to link analytical links and anchors. The same template will give back any metadata of the work calling it individually "by name". --Alex brollo (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a good look a bit later, thanks for letting me know. cygnis insignis 22:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
There's only one test link running so far: link to page 1 under "Springs", at Page:Horses and roads.djvu/245, and into its transclusion (done just to test it it runs) into Horses and roads/Index. I've to add many data into {{HAR/Data}}, I only added one. --Alex brollo (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Yep, I saw that one. cygnis insignis 23:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for feedback[edit]

Hi,

If you see me doing something wrong (or less than satisfactory) please feel free to let me know. I am still operating in a trial and error mode for many things. So feedback is appreciated! Another editor (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are doing good stuff, the validation is especially appreciated. If you look at my file descriptions, I give the link to the website. You can get a jpeg image there, djvu is not a good source for illustrations. See Help:Adding images, which i hope does what it says. My conversions are adequate, someone showed me up the other day with a sharper image than my own :-) this is why providing a link is good, so others can improve on what we do. Watch what you edit, I try to explain what I'm doing in the summary. cygnis insignis 19:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
You can follow what I do at Commons too, if you need to, I use a unique login across the sisters. I'm usually here though, as you have probably noticed :-) cygnis insignis 19:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I read the Help:Adding images but it is not too helpful. I’m not good at understanding directions, not understanding the jargon etc.:) I can’t find the other sources for images. The online versions of books have the same quality of images as the djvu versions, in my (limited) experience. Where do you give the link to the web site? (I followed one link on an image you uploaded to Commons - trying to figure out how you did it - and the link was an error message and did not lead to the image. So I was confused. Could you be more specific on how to get images other than the djve? Another editor (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Page:Devonshire Characters and Strange Events.djvu/481 - nicely done! Another editor (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to improve it, or encourage others to fix it by making a mess of it. The online version of the jpegs is very definitely better, djvu is for text.
  1. Go to this link: devonshirecharac00bariuoft
  2. You will see a link at left, at the top of a list of links, it says "Read Online" and is linked here.
  3. Click the single page icon, not the two page view.
  4. Click zoom to "100%".
  5. Right click and save it.

That is as plain as I can make it, I'm not good at following or giving instructions it seems. cygnis insignis 20:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that is very helpful. I hadn’t figured all of that out about the online versions. One last question: how to you get it to go to the right page number for an image buried in the text? Another editor (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Two ways: find the small box next to "Page:" then type the real page number. If the page is not numbered, use the djvu numbering Page:Devonshire Characters and Strange Events.djvu/481 … 481 (- 1) gets typed as n480. cygnis insignis 20:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I’ve tried that. I must be punching the wrong button after I type in the page number. It just ignores my number and replaces it with the next page number. Can you give exact step by step information on how to do that? (Sorry to be so dumb; the page number thing has frustrated me for a long time.) Sorry! Another editor (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
It will do things like that for a couple reasons. 1. type and hit enter, or 2. use the scroll. Your browser may cause problems, check it is updated, using firefox is the solution to most problems. cygnis insignis 21:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I use firefox and it just update to the newest accepted version. Maybe doing images just isn’t my thing. Another editor (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

makeref[edit]

G'day,

Feeling proud enough of my new makeref() function to share the love: When I'm proofing and come across a footnote citation, I don't like to have to scroll down to the bottom of both image and text, find and proof the footnote text, and move it up into the citation position, before moving on with proofing. Instead I just dump a <ref></ref> where the citation belongs, and continue proofing. When I get to the bottom of the page, I proof the footnote text and then move the footnotes one by one to where they are cited. With makeref(), I don't have to manually move them. I just highlight the footnote text, click the function button, and it moves the text inside the first <ref></ref> on the page. Works with multiple footnotes too. It is cool. :-) And there's an overflow version too.

Hesperian 13:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant, I do it the same way up to that point. Anything frequently used, that requires keystrokes and moving the cursor, is deserving of a script or button. The wise thing for me to so would be to make those keystrokes too, and dump the useless stuff in standard buttons and 'suite'. Does it invoke the footer ref changes? cygnis insignis 14:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, keyboard invokation would be cool... I'll have a think about that.... No, I've kept that separate. Hesperian 23:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
That was easy. I just dumped a copy of Pathoschild's regexTool function into my js page, renamed it "regexToolWithShortcut", and added the ability to specify an accesskey on the anchor.[15] <shift>-<alt>-c now invokes my cleanup function. I suppose for you it would be <ctrl>-c, which might be problematic. The big challenge in all this will be defining sensible, memorable shortcuts that don't mask other functionality; e.g. would like to use "h" for header, but that's already mapped to the history page link. Hesperian 00:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The situation is complicated on this OS, for reasons I have never understood; safari uses control-option-[key], all others use control-c -l -h -r and so on. Control-y is easy to remember, it's a question … cygnis insignis 00:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Coates' Mine and Thine (1904)[edit]

Bit confused about this page: Index:Mine and Thine, Coates, 1904.jpg (see the page's Revision history). The pages attributed to it are from a different text of Mrs. Coates' which I have already completed as an Index page: Index:Florence Earle Coates Poems (1898); and I have already started developing an Index of Mine and Thine here: Index:Florence Earle Coates Mine and Thine (1904) (I just need to upload the page images before I transfer the text from the Mainspace)... Can we just delete Index:Mine and Thine, Coates, 1904.jpg? [I undoubtedly somehow contributed to the confusion!?...] Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ignore the indexes, or mark as used or not to your own taste. Get the main pages sorted first, we can dispose of the what is not needed when you are done. cygnis insignis 16:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! I see that the page has been deleted. I am not very efficient, but am enjoying the process! Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
It can be baffling at first, which makes it more fun when you crack it :-) These indices has us chasing our tails, hope you have it sorted now. Someone else developed some templates you might be interested in, {{float center/s}} and {{float center/e}}, a lot simpler than the method I suggested. The coding is 'evil', but it does the job for now. cygnis insignis 02:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
VERY nice! Looks as though it's Billinghurst's creation? I'll have to give it a try on my next multi-page poem! Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Every page has a history, in this case the creator was another user. cygnis insignis 02:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Question that I can get no answer to[edit]

In the Index, what is an easy way of figuring out the numbers of a given section, so as to put the section together? It seems like neither the page numbers nor the djvu numbers are relevant and the only way to get the right numbers is to scroll through pages, which is arduous and confusing, to determine the limits of a given section. Thanks, Another editor (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I answered you at billinghursts page. Don't get discouraged, and focus on less confusing things. cygnis insignis 16:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It gets boring just proofreading. It is not challenging enough if I don’t get more involved and learn. But it seems impossible to progress. Another editor (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll direct you to the thread above, I did my best to explain how to add an image, your response was; "Maybe doing images just isn’t my thing." You have requested explanations on things, then explanations of explanations, from several users. I don't think anyone can do more than they have. If you want to learn how to do more than you are, then read the answers you have been given. cygnis insignis 20:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Your explanation for adding images didn’t work. I downloaded several, according to your directions, and they were not good. The extra size on old book scans makes no difference and merely accentuates the flaws; is not worth the effort, those who control things like putting sections together and other more complicated things and prefer not to share the power. For me, it is a useless endeavour. An editor must see some positive result, or it is not worth the humongous trouble involved for no positive outcome. The joy of Wikisource is gone. I think Wikisource is for the very few. I forecast that most editors will not find it sufficiently rewarding unless they are plodding away on their own personal agenda. It is easy to criticize the newbie as inadequate. The answers give to my questions are not sufficient. They assume a lot of knowledge of the technical sort. Or else they merely repeat the obvious that I knew on the very first day. I humbly suggest that Wikisource work on being more helpful to newbies. I for one am no longer going to endlessly proofread articles for others so the technicians can do all that really interesting work. I feel like a grunge. Sorry! But if you are honest in wanting feedback, that is it. I think Wikisource is doomed to the one hundred active users furthering there personal adjenda (whether it is useful for Wikisource or not), and will never attract more because of it’s anti newbie attitude of "It’s the newbie’s fault." Well, goodbye. Another editor (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Further, it is not a good practice to delete a person’s question at Wikisource:Scriptorium. That kind of behaviour would never be tolerated at Wikipedia, a generally much more uncivil place. Please do not be rude to newbies. You may think you are superior, but we are all human. Why don’t you become an admin at Wikipedia where you may be more suited? Just a suggestion. Another editor (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I expect to get a paycut for my inadequacies, but I'll note what you say, "An editor must see some positive result, or it is not worth the humongous trouble involved for no positive outcome." cygnis insignis 22:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for you kind answer. You have outed me which is not considered a nice thing to do. John Vandenberg has been advising me from the beginning and advised me on my new name. But, thanks to you, I am gone. Bye. I hope you are kinder to others who come here for the first time on the advice of the checkuser John Vandenberg. I have been a major contributor to all sites I have worked on. But you have driven me away from Wikisource. Thanks for you efforts. You have gone against the advice that John Vandenberg, my mentor. Thanks again. I am sure Wikisource is better off with out me, thanks to you efforts. [edited] Another editor (talk) 13:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
John didn't advise me of anything, you 'outed' yourself, if you are communicating with him then why did persist in asking others for what you say were unsatisfactory answers? If you are happy to use that account at commons, then why not here? Why dig up a sleeper account to edit here? Your advice seems to have been bad all round. I hope you find something that brings you joy and satisfaction, I honestly have no grievance with you - at least none that I am aware of. You have me at a disadvantage on that score, all my interactions can be found from my unique login. cygnis insignis 00:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
John advised me not to use my former name, as he thought I might be treated badly by those who sought to hassle me, as you have done. John is not on Wikisource often so he is not available for answering questions. He also originally advise me not to post on his talk page in order not to connect my former name with him, as he wished to encourage me. So we communicate with chat. He has recently changed that policy, so now, if I were staying here, I could post on his page. I could even change my name, he said. But that is before your hassling began. Now I will not. I urge you to be nicer to newbies on Wikisource and not take it on your part to out users because you think they are not "catching on" to Wikisource fast enough. Just say that you are unwilling to answer questions, rather than delete my questions without telling me from Scriptorium, so as to confuse me. Perhaps we will meet again on happier hunting grounds in the sky. Another editor (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
John was afraid that someone would connect my former name here. So thanks for doing that. You did you job well. What was you purpose in doing that? Anything good, or just to put me down? Another editor (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Of course John did not advise you of anything. He assumed you would stay out of it. He had no reason to think you would focus on me and thus would out me and do me in, so of course he did not warn you against it. He assumed you would be responsible and not underhanded. I asked you questions because you were editing the same pages as I was and John was not. A horribly big mistake on my part, and the means of driving my off Wikisource. Another editor (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
How did I "out" myself? How did I know you would be out to reveal me? How did I know you wanted to do me in? I had no way of knowing and never did John. He did not the least expect that anyone on Wikisource would wish to do so. He said this was a nice place where editors did not seek to do each other in. Another editor (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • [Don't worry - I won't be uploading anything more again - you said enough]

Your words were enough. I am done here at Wikisource. Another editor (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

  • [Note]

Since you do not answer my emails, I will state here that I will no longer edit or proofread any projects or pages that you are involved with. Hopefully that will satisfy you concerns about me and prevent any further need to out me. Respectfully, Another editor (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

  • [I ask you to redact further insinuations you have made about my behavior.]

John advised me to use another name here so I would not be harassed. My name on the Commons was never an issue, and it was not foreseen by John nor I that someone would take the trouble to out me and make it sound like I was doing something wrong. I was not. There are no rules about such things, and John, being a checkuser, assured me that I would not be accused of sockpuppetry. He said I would be safe at Wikisource and that no one would harass me, or out me as you have done. I ask you to redact your unwarranted insinuations and accusations that I have done something wrong. I don’t know what you have against me, other than that I did not understand your directions perfectly. Please redact you insinuations.

I did nothing harmful to you to warrant your insinuations and attempts to harm me. I have done my best for Wikisource and followed all directions from John. You have spoiled the plan that John and I were working on, so I ask you to redact and apologize.

Please stop moving my remarks around and burying them. Please reply as to you motives for wanting to harm me. Another editor.

Index:Mine and Thine, Coates, 1904.jpg[edit]

has been blanked and a speedy delete request placed on the talk page. Can I let you handle this please? Hesperian 23:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to give you a heads up before you got in. I'm still pondering what to do. cygnis insignis 23:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Perrault's Goose is cooked,[edit]

over to you for images and validation:)

How about this one (Russian) or something from Scandinavia(Asbjornsen) for next? Captain Nemo (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Neato! The site is experiencing "system slowness" at the moment, so I can't look at either. I was very fond of 'Russian' tales once, houses walking around on chicken legs and so on, but I reckon this empty page is a priority - I was stunned that I had to create it! cygnis insignis 03:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Make your choice of the version! More are here

I thought I created Asbjornsen page (without umlauts?) when validating one of Jacobs' notes, or, at least, I had such intention:) Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC).

I finally managed to access IA, East of the sun and west of the moon: old tales from the North and Index:Popular_tales_from_the_Norse_(1912).djvu seem good choices. I'll have a poke around for some Russian tales sometime. cygnis insignis 19:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop moving and burying my comments - please respond[edit]

Why do you which to harm me?

You could end this posting if you would be honest with me and tell me why you wished to make insinuations about me. Why? When I have only wished to help you by proofing your fairy stories and editing them. I was trying to aid you. Why should you turn on me? Another editor (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you delete the outing? Otherwise, I will attempt to have it oversighted. Another editor (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Horses and roads[edit]

http://rockleyfarm.blogspot.com/2010/09/horses-and-roads-1880-book-rediscovered.html

Yes.... that book will be never forgot again.  :-) --Alex brollo (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

About {{HAR}}: as you noted, I only applied it into analytical index in a simplified form (no anchor). So, they run, but link only the whole page/the whole chapter. As soon as I'll find some time, I'll add anchors both into the template (and this is not so much time consuming) and in pages (this is really hard.... I've to think a little about! I presume, I'll download all links with their anchors, and then I'll sort them for page, so that all anchors of a page could be added with one edit only). --Alex brollo (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

w:Talk:Bessie Rischbieth Moondyne (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ta. cygnis insignis 04:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Milton[edit]

I noticed that a quote from Milton given at Page:William Blake, a critical essay (Swinburne).djvu/299 does not appear in Milton (Blake). On further investigation, Milton (Blake) is missing pages upon pages of text, when compared to Page:The prophetic books of William Blake, Milton.djvu/25 et seq. Do you know if Milton (Blake) is based on a published extract/version? If so, from what source? If it just a random extract, then it ought to be tagged as incomplete. Hesperian 00:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The source is around somewhere, it was the addition of it that inspired my efforts on his works. Few anthologies printed more than a selection of his 'prophetic books'. I needed a scheme for that Index, think I have one now. That's where I'm up to, I'll mark the existing as incomplete. cygnis insignis 04:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Should have known you'd have it well in hand. ;-) Hesperian 04:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


lol. Hesperian 00:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Horses and roads: update[edit]

As perhaps you saw, Horses and roads has been proofread, but far from finished. I'he to add {{Anchor2}} to all Index entries. Feel free to take a look, and to use the idea, if useful. It's complex to explain, but pretty simple to use, IMHO. I added test anchor links to the first entry of the index, "Abelorna, experience of", and they are running really well both into nsPage and ns0. I'd like to know your remarks if possible. --Alex brollo (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Idea for simplification[edit]

What would you think about a process for community review of templates, which would indicate the "importance level" of a particular template? For example, a template like {{hyphenated word start}} might be judged to be "important". Thus, it might get a little icon on its template page and some text saying that it should be used whenever called for by its function. Other templates, like {{}} and {{namespace link}} might be judged "optional" and get an icon that specifically states that their use is optional and that where a work consistently uses or does not use them, they should not be changed without a consensus on that particular work.

Unfortunately there will always be cross-wiki folks who think that we should standardize using the most complexity possible. The problem that I see with a rigid and thorough style guide is that a) it promotes wikilawyering (an aspect of Wikipedia culture I don't want!) and b) then the style guide becomes a battleground, and the traditionalist troops have to be rounded up ever time a "reformer" comes along and says that some optional template should be mandatory.

Personally, I often don't mind doing extra work when converting a text. But I agree with you that we don't want to suggest to our impressionable new users that complexity is required. So perhaps prominent notices on our templates would be helpful in this respect? —Spangineerwp (háblame) 01:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Index:A short history of social life in England.djvu[edit]

Hi!

As I responded to your comments on Billinghurst’s page, your efforts at validating pages at Index:A short history of social life in England.djvu were not wasted and I tried to show my appreciation to you by working on your Popular tales from the Norse (1912) pages, and will do so more in the future. It was very kind of you to do that. Thanks! Mattisse (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I was reading it, I validated it as I went along, showing your appreciation is really not necessary. I don't mind if you validate pages I created, if that is what you want to do, I feel indebted to the author's works and this is my way of 'paying it forward' :-) I add and validate stuff because I enjoy making information available, any kindness in that is very generalised, the reader's benefit is usually what I have as a forethought.

That said, you helped me race through a few indices already, we did good for people who are unlikely to thank us personally. I hope this helps you understand where I am coming from. Cheers, cygnis insignis 13:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Humanity And Peace[edit]

That is for an administrator to decide, I just but up the lack of copyright tags. Honestly I do not think that they fit and should be deleted; but that is beyond my control. Wabbit98 talk 8:10am(PST), 30 September 2010

It is for the community to decide, admins apply the consensus view and mop things up. I prefer to explain actions like deletion before undertaking them, a simple misunderstanding by the uploader, and it is possible the misunderstanding is mine. Please don't add copyright declarations to things which are uncertain, it obscures texts that need checking; ignore it if you are unsure and someone will attend to it. Thanks for the response. cygnis insignis 15:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

w:Ælfric of Hampshire[edit]

I saw your edit summary. What I do is now in place there: I created the "DNBfirst" template over there for just this application. The new ODNB is a subscription site: the UK government has made sure any UK public library user can read it, so it's not an outrageous choice of reference for verification. But by adding the link to DNB at WS also, the rest of the world can have a look at free content from an earlier edition. That is obviously not the end of the story, because the "extra notes" field here should be used for any massive problems with the old DNB content (and there is much to note); and the Errata that we can post here should be posted and used (probably transcluded) with the biographies. We can't put that all in place at once. But we can start to define the style of updating and annotation that should be used. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, especially for the template. I'm not clear on what is going on, and hope I have fouled anything by trying to link in. w:Ælfric Cild lacks any proper reference, and so remains an orphan, this illegitimate child might be adopted by that article. Uncertainty is a notable fact, it seemed to me that the 1st ed. is cross referencing more effectively than w:Ælfric. I thought it should be lumped together there too, though I also wishing I had never tried to unravel the links to them by that stage! I'll give some more thought to what you say on extra notes and categories, and keep my eye out for working examples. cygnis insignis 21:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Did you see what is written at w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/DNB Epitome 01#19 about Ælfric Cild? I presume that was User:Tagishsimon, who has worked over volume 1, and is tracking some of the confusions down. You'd be very welcome at w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography with this sort of specific query. There is a kind of split screen effect in tracking the cross-wiki issues, which we may get used to in time. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh!, no. Good show by that user, but I'm still in the dark as to what to do. I had read that talk a couple of times, I was blinking at 'unclickable = unencyclopedic', so I missed the mention of your talk "Reference Commons"; is there a transcript around? cygnis insignis 11:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hah. There were old-fashioned transparencies for the talk, but owing to volcanic ash (not kidding, it was the only reason I was giving the talk at a conference at short notice) there was no old-fashioned OHP, the organiser of such things being stuck in Madrid. So it was a mixture of me squiggling on a whiteboard and holding up the transparency of w:Josias Shute to show how nice it was to combine text from the DNB with engraving from the National Portrait Gallery, his role in preaching on St. Helena against wage cuts for seaman, and isn't it great that people used to give whole sermon series on the plague of frogs. I was asked for a version of the slides by the visiting WMF high-up, but owing to complications started by Larry Sanger, and his talk page on Meta being redirected, nothing happened. I was really trying to conceptualise the points I see about treatment of reference material here, including hypertext issues a bit but not getting onto categories. But obviously I was using an analogy with Commons in its role of support for other WMF sites.
Look, some of this work is still up for grabs, in a sense. We have mechanisms in place with those DNB Epitome lists. They allow us to check when articles are in place for the DNB biography topics; and even to track when DNB content could usefully be added to the existing articles. We don't have the sort of mechanism for rating the articles, or even for flagging up when the content has been fact-checked. Such things traditionally go on Talk pages in WP, and we were talking about using the "extra notes" field here for errata. So there ought to be some sort of coordination involved: don't know what. There also is a need for the WP DNB project to generate "topical lists", to break down 10,000+ articles to add into more manageable and attractive tasks in subfields. The latter is what I'm struggling to match to some aspect of the WS category system; and what I'm not so far finding the clear solution to. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I've become used to these coincidences over the years, I was looking for an edition with the William Marshall, who provided your image of Shute, I was creating the author page for Quarles while linking DNB to the other place.
I recognise the value in what has been done, even more after working through Category:DNB no WP a little. I also see that need for topical lists, and the potential advantages to the cross wiki project. There are, of course, many ways to skin these cats, I think I know who can provide the elegant solutions. cygnis insignis 20:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

mindless chit-chat[edit]

Whilst googling the background of a curious comment in the Fellowes, James entry in Redgraves, I encountered this extraordinary overflowing footnote. Thought you'd enjoy it. ;-) Hesperian 04:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


Life contents pages 19 through 21 use relative links, but 22 and 23 use absolute links. I've validated them all, but it seems to me the linking ought to be consistent. Hesperian 03:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I stopped doing that, for the reasons I gave, thanks. I've tried to go back and catch things like that in early transcript, before you get there, because I have probably found a better way. This is no bad thing, I probably hit a snag and intended to continue when I found the solution or scheme.
  • That title piece for chapter 1 of Gilchrist really bugs me, your solution is probably the only reasonable one. The other images look okay, so it irks me that that introduces what I think is the only online transcript of the expanded edition - I hoped I'd forget all about it ;-)
  • Speaking of schemes, would you mind commenting on this approach - a devilish workaround to avoid displaying another evil (which is hiding in the centred block wrapper in any case).
Cheers, cygnis insignis 07:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
    • <shrug> looks okay to me. Hesperian 12:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Which? Both? cygnis insignis 13:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, the title piece for chapter 1 of Gilchrist looks awful. The "devilish workaround" looks okay to me.

Hugh[edit]

Can you think of any reason why I oughtn't nominate Hugh for WS:FT. I probably wouldn't bother, except that there is a 'general malaise around featured texts', so I figured I might as well. Hesperian 11:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please return WELCOME template[edit]

In this situation you do not have community agreement for the action you have undertaken. That you do not like it is not enough reason for the actions that you have taken, and I ask that you return to the status quo. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is the discussion to have that nonsense? Where is the assertion "I do not like it" given as a basis for moving it, except as a way of disregarding every other consideration and concern? Develop it to your heart's content where lies, the first thing to do is make it as least as useful as the replacement. cygnis insignis 13:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Is that a "yes, you will" or a "no, you won't"? — billinghurst sDrewth 14:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
It is two pertinent questions, unanswered in a year. cygnis insignis 14:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Is that a "yes, it will be returned to the status quo" or a "No, it will not be returned to the status quo"? — billinghurst sDrewth 14:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Status quo? Where is that established? I can't answer a question if it is couched in several unsupported assertions. cygnis insignis 14:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but that is bullshit. You know what I am asking, and you are being deliberately difficult. Is the means that you are treating a fellow administrator who has politely for you to undo your actions? Are you working under a collaborative approach? Are you acting with the collaborative will of the community? You have taken no steps to take this to the community and have acted unilaterally due to your seeming preference for a plain welcome message. Please return the welcome message to the message that existed a week or two ago. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Philip K. Hitti - Syria A Short History[edit]

Hi. THIS DJVU is User:Feydey’s project and I would like to load up its images to the commons but don’t know which license to use. {{PD-???}}.

Apologize for disturbing you. I just found the answer on the commons. It’s {{PD-US-not renewed}} licence. Have a nice evening. - Ineuw (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

For my own education, shouldn’t this be on the commons? Can you please advise? Thanks. - Ineuw (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That's nice of you to do that. I don't know why it isn't there, but I'd find out before uploading. cygnis insignis 05:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

ORC doesn't load - do you know why?[edit]

I may have screwed up somehow. The scanned pages of Index:The varieties of religious experience; a study in human nature.djvu do not show up. If I click "ORC" button in the tool bar, a very garbled version loads. The original is a scan by Microsoft[16] and seems quite clean. Do you know what is happening? Thanks! Mattisse (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for Index:The varieties of religious experience, a study in human nature.djvu. (I suspected that my uploading a newer version screwed things up, but I couldn’t figure out how to fix it.) Thanks! Mattisse (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

You have new messages
Hello, Cygnis insignis. You have new messages at [[ WS:AN #The {{welcome}} template, an issue of its being changed |WS:AN]].
Message added 12:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You have right of reply. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


You have new messages
Hello, Cygnis insignis. You have new messages at User:George Orwell III/Sandbox.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lonesomegeorge (talk) 07:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Thanks for your message, Cygnis.

new text[edit]

The link on the talk page is helpful, but it is not source of the transcript. I assume you typed it using the physical object, the book, can you note that as well: "Transcribed from …" or something? If someone wants to verify something, like the underscores_in_the_chorus, or improve it they will be obliged to ask the creator. The work is probably available as scan, though not that edition obviously; having that—or a copy of an authoritative web source—is the standard we work to. Do you see it another way? cygnis insignis 11:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Can I clarify your question, please? Which page are you referring to? If it is one of the Victorian songs I have transcribed, I have made it clear using {{textinfo}} that I have sourced it to a well-known book available in many libraries that provides an accurate copy of the original sheet music. In my experience, copies on other web sites are not 100% reliable.--Longfellow (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The one you added to Template:New texts, Ta-Ra-Ra-Boom-De-Ay, and that is what I am asking you to note [in text info], that you transcribed it and the link was not the "source".

The second point is not a question, it is a request to contribute texts that can be more easily improved. I'm not likely to order a book from a library to check whether the underscores appear. Copies on authoritative websites may be inaccurate, not as potentially inaccurate as being submitted and proofread by a single user. The advantages of scans are well established, e.g. Help:Proofread. cygnis insignis 14:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have re-formatted the note and I hope that meets your point. If you could please point me to a web site that gives reliable texts of any of the Victorian songs that I have transcribed, I would be very grateful, as I am unaware of any such sites.--Longfellow (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I don’t quite understand this issue. Even if the book published in 1984 has "the underscores_in_the_chorus", how do we know that the "original" did? The book published in 1984 is those editors/authors versions of the songs, isn’t it? And if we copy a book published in 1984, aren’t we violating a copyright, even if the book relies on "original" sources? Aren’t there probably other versions of the "original" sources? Or is the book published in 1984 and exact copy of a book not under copyright? Perhaps you could clarify how this works. I am confused. Mattisse (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
In order: 1) We don't know, if it does it is an accurate transcript of that edition. 2) If it is a facsimile of a public domain text, they cannot be accurate and claim a copyright; the rendering (printing, digitising) of it has some slight and questionable claim as property [probably none], that would be void when a user transcribes it here. 3) therefore, no. 4) yes. 5) the prefatory material, cover, and other new material in a photographic scan of that edition may be problematic. This is largely irrelevant, we want to do what they would profess to do, give access to a text that is PD. Getting the original scan is the simple solution, other approaches are a bit 'testy', and next to useless in comparison. 16:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The book presents facsimiles of original sheet music so the text is undoubtedly accurate. However, the book is in a very large format and wil not fit on an ordinary scanner. Also, there are marginal notes that will be copyright and would have to be trimmed off.--Longfellow (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Mixed up versions[edit]

I downloaded and proofed Index:Arminell, a social romance (1896).djvu and seemed to have made two versions of it: one that is correct (I think) Arminell, a social romance (1896) and Arminell, a social romance where there are formatting errors. I’m a little confused. Each version has chapters, but one version’s chapters and the main page contain template error messages. I think Arminell, a social romance and its chapters should be deleted. Should I request deletion of the main page of the incorrect version? Will that delete the chapters also, or merely leave them marooned? What do you think? Mattisse (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could give me a few clues?[edit]

I am having tremendous difficulty formatting Audubon and His Journals. I have tried copying other pages to use as a model without success. Is there any explanation anywhere how to format these pages?

A particular problem is why the clickable links on Page:Audubon and His Journals.djvu/21 are not clickable when trancluded to Audubon and His Journals. How do I link this page and begin the book sections? (As it is now, the page is marooned.)

Thanking you in advance for any information you can give me, or direct me to read. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Where would you like the links to be, and to target? You could use Template:Namespace link, instead of Template:DJVU page link, but I just link the section or page, eg. links at Indian Fairy Tales (Jacobs)#xiv and Indian Fairy Tales (Jacobs)#xv. cygnis insignis 20:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I added {{Namespace link}} to that page. It makes the chapter title a link in the main namespace but not in the page namespace. As Cygnis says, it's clumsy and doesn't really add much value. {{DJVU page link}} makes page numbers appear as a link in the page namespace and without a link in the main namespace. It's also unnecessary. Just brackets gives you a result arguably as good, just not quite as easy to navigate when working in the page namespace (but not as complex either). Either way, the subpage names I suggested when making these edits are just that—suggestions. —Spangineer (háblame) 20:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

But the problem remains. On other pages I have looked at the links work but on Audubon and His Journals the links to the sections do not work. They are red linked. On the original page, someone else formatted it. I can only copy, as I don’t understand any of this. Mattisse (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
They redlink because they dont exist, I started the first here. Note that the changes to the index affect the labels on that page; I strongly recommend using the actual page numbers or nothing (-) is none is given in the text, e.g. the toc says the intro is at page 1, so pagename#1 [concept: Changes in Page and Index are intended to make the normal page work, not to be 'read' by anyone when we are done] cygnis insignis 22:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thank you so much for fixing those pages on Audubon and His Journals. I have become unbelievable frustrated. Perhaps now I can figure the rest out. The problem is that I don’t understand the technology behind it, so everything I do (except proofing) is totally guess work. (I did fix the category problem on the Commons.) Best wishes, Mattisse (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You do that well, and have done a lot of it! the illustrations you uploaded look v. good too. cygnis insignis 22:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No Treason[edit]

Glad to see you're interested. If you have any suggestions for internal navigation as I go, let me know. —Spangineer (háblame) 17:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Just created No Treason/1 and No Treason/2. Once Number 6 is done, I'm thinking that the title page should look like this, with only the title page of Number 1, the Introductory remarks, and links to the numbers. Thoughts? —Spangineer (háblame) 16:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I will read more closely when you are done, I think I've said that I wish I knew more about that period; I'm more familiar with 20C stuff.
The structure for this work seems fine to me. I could suggest another way I'm testing; but that is relevant to larger series, and I'm not sure I can explain it yet. In essence, the principle would be to commit to the limit of the physical object. A navigational page would list the volumes, however that arrives, the order of the sections is determined by the page numbering.
If I wanted to apply this where it probably doesn't matter (I think it does elsewhere), then I would list the 3 vols., the explanation for the absent numbers, and the link to the sisters on one page (in main-space, like a versions). You also note there is an intro for the lot in v.1, do you see what I'm suggesting, and how that might benefit someone accessing the work? cygnis insignis 17:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand your idea. I just finished the third (sixth) number, so I restored my previous edit to No Treason and added a link to WP. Is your idea substantially different? —Spangineer (háblame) 17:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Please[edit]

I am asking you to please not introduce more complex, arcane formatting to an index that has a simple solution in place in all the other pages. I worked with an editor on putting together Haiti: Her History and Her Detractors which had much more complex footnotes than Index:Audubon and His Journals.djvu has, and our simple version worked just fine. I’ll make a bargain with you to avoid works you are working on, if you will do the same. I will not ask for you input in the future.

You and I have a fundamental disagreement on what is pleasant and pleasurable in the way of formatting, and what is unpleasant and distressing. (Your solution of continually zooming Firefox back and forth for pages and footnotes, back and forth, back and forth, never enjoying just reading as is possible on Wikipedia and almost every other site on the web, is a deterrent to me and makes the reading not worth it.)

Is there general consensus that your addition of continuous complexity is a virtue and to be desired on Wikisource?

Best wishes, Mattisse (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Cygnis tends to be one who wants less complexity, not more. In this case, however, adding some complexity is considered by many users to be a significant benefit, because it makes it possible for text to appear on the correct page. This makes it a) easier for the user who validates the work to do so and b) easier for the reader to confirm that the text in the main namespace matches the page.
(b) is really the primary purpose of the page namespace. Nearly all our readers read the main namespace, and only access the page namespace if they want to verify that the text is correct. They can most easily do that when the text that we enter matches as closely as possible the text in the image.
Footnotes that cross two or more pages make this difficult. There are several ways to handle this, but they all involve adding some complexity. One way is Cygnis's way. Another way I used at Page:Nature and Character of our Federal Government.djvu/55 (which I copied and adapted from someone else).
With either solution implemented, the text entered matches the page image. If there are readers who read in the page namespace (and there may be a few, but again, not many), they can read the text just like they would read a book—turning pages to read the rest of the footnote.
You don't need to feel obligated to implement this more complicated solution yourself, but I don't feel like it's justified to discourage others from doing so. It is the purpose of the page namespace to have text that closely aligns with the page images. I hope this makes sense, but if you still disagree and want to push further, the best thing to do would probably be to bring this topic up in the Scriptorium to see what the consensus is. —Spangineer (háblame) 19:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
And incidentally, I agree strongly with Cygnis regarding the quality of your work—we are glad to have you and appreciate all the proofreading you are doing! —Spangineer (háblame) 19:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I don’t have a problem with others. They can do as they like. I have a problem with Cygnis reverting my preference on an index that has all the other pages done by my preference, which worked well on Haiti: Her History and Her Detractors, for example. He reverted my preference twice without discussing it with me. As I have said to Cygnis, I find reading the "works" or whatever they are called on Wikisource a chore because of the formatting and therefore never read them. I would like to see a count of readership. How many people actually read (not just access and realize that the format is unreadable) the "works", or whatever they are called, on Wikisource? How many people are willing to constantly flip Firefox zoom settings (and reset window size) back and forth in an a attempt to read a "work". And how many potential editors are driven away by the escalating technical knowledge required to edit here? The advice, "Never mind, just proofread and leave the really important technical formatting to us heavies" is somehow not very welcoming. Best wishes, Mattisse (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


ThomasV has implemented an extension to the refs tag that will allow us to simply use

<ref name="foo">This footnote</ref>

on the first page, and

<ref follow="foo">overflows.</ref>

on the second. It is just a matter of patiently waiting for the extension to be approved and deployed. Hesperian 23:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Essays on Early Ornithology and Kindred Subjects[edit]

What's the issue here? [17] The file for the book links to Archive.org; I've uploaded all the illustrations from the Project Gutenberg version. —innotata 15:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The PG image seems fine, but I fancied seeing if the online viewer had a larger and better image. The djvu would not be a good source, so I made the comment that linking the source of the djvu would be handy. I uploaded a comparison [18] I was probably heavy handed with the conversion (too light), but there is a little more detail, not much though - click on the beak to see if you can be bothered getting those images instead. I don't mind doing it if you give me the nod. cygnis insignis 16:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I see more detail in the Project Gutenberg version's bill, and the background looks worse, probably because of the conversion, as you pointed out. If you think you can get a better version from the Internet Archive version, please do. —innotata 22:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Internal link templates[edit]

Not sure whether it was my edits to this category, or my creation of a template, that started your question. In case it was the latter, thought that I would point to my scribbles in the former. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The former, but which question? cygnis insignis 05:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
wtf is lkplbillinghurst sDrewth 06:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
No objection to the shorthand, but a descriptive name is a better title; I think it incongruous to have the full title of the work with that as a suffix. There are serious downsides to using templates, not evident to creators and habitual users. Most templates have little net benefit to others, I think they are more often used to restrict flexibility.
I'm much more interested in your response to the statement/invite that followed on. I envisage a form that autofills, obviously and already possible, and that can be clipped or modified to suit the purpose. If users can cite a page here with a click, they would see the value in adding to the library. cygnis insignis 06:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

To double-space or to single-space?[edit]

That is the question... May I have your opinion as to whether lines of poetry from this text should be double-spaced as rendered in the original or single-spaced? Thank you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the loose spacing is significant, but I don't anticipate much of problem if each is split to its own subpage.
I do think you should use {{gap}}, which ever way you go, anything less than about 12 leading spaces is hard to distinguish. Gap gives you 2em as default. Again, not as much of a problem if there is only one level of indentation. If you want to see one of these featured sometime, I can validate if it is needed. cygnis insignis 16:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this ok now?[edit]

Alaska Days with John Muir?. I don’t know how to make it better. I tried to fix the TOC. Mattisse (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I’m going to put this again under "new text", unless you say it still needs work. Ok? Mattisse (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I undid my edit yesterday, it's there. cygnis insignis 19:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Great. Thank you! Mattisse (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikisource:Annotations[edit]

Hi Cygnis insignis, I saw your comments on the Wikisource:Annotations page. I felt like it was the wrong way, procedurally. I think the proper way is to use the talk page for suggested policy changes. Since it's a backwater page with little readership, you would probably post on the Annotation talk page your proposed changes and position, notify other user talk pages who are or where active at one time with Annotation discussions, as well as notify any other important Wikisource people or pages about the discussion. Then give it time (few weeks or a month) for people to contribute, then see what transpires. But I don't think you should use the main policy page itself as a place to post your opinions of the policy. Anyway, just wanted to let you know in case it's not on your watchlist. Thanks, Green Cardamom (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

{{smaller}}[edit]

Response/question for you on my talk page...and thanks for the tip! Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Treasure Island[edit]

Hi,

There is a problem with Treasure Island which you picked up on in the TOC. There are two versions of Treasure Island, one that has a source Index:Stevenson - Treasure Island.djvu and the other (I just discovered) that the TOC is from. (So the TOC needs to be modified to match the source, even though all the links in it go to the sourced version.)

Although, I guess someone modified the TOC to match the sourced version, it actually comes (I think) from Treasure Island/Baker Intro which has its own set of links, e.g. Treasure Island (1911)/Part One, Treasure Island (1911)/Part Two etc.

Before I saw your edit, it posted on User talk:Billinghurst‎’s page. (Also, in a past version there were apparently some POV concerns. - I am always nervous when a version has no source identified.

Thanks,

Mattisse (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at this when I sorting The Dead Man's Chest, after noticing the surge of enthusiasm; it's a shame that this was largely a waste of time. I also tried, unsuccessfully, to find the version with the lush images, though there is now a link to commons at the page. You might post at User:Jack Merridew, he or she had some interest in this, but I fear the solution is to start again.
You are a quick study, what have you gleaned from this situation? cygnis insignis 11:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
From what I can gather, there were concerns about the first version of Treasure Island on Wikisource. See Talk:Treasure Island. Then apparently the editor decided to combine the edition he was working from with the 1883 edition. See Revision history of "Index:Stevenson - Treasure Island.djvu" The edit summary of November 16, 2010 says "(the text has no source, so I use it for the edition of this first edition of the book ; please, let me work)". I read your note to User talk:Marc about overwriting the File:Stevenson - Treasure Island.djvu. Since I proofed Index:Stevenson - Treasure Island.djvu, I believe the text of the current Treasure Island is accurate to that edition, which is not illustrated.

The problem (from my point of view) is what to do with the unsourced version (Treasure Island (1911)/Part One, Treasure Island (1911)/Part Two Treasure Island (1911)/Part Three, Treasure Island (1911)/Part Four and Treasure Island (1911)/Part Five and Treasure Island (1911)/Part Six), as it is not tied to the Index and contains the lush illustrations. It also contains "Annotations" - Introduction to 1909 Annotated Edition, by Franklin T. Baker and Stevenson's Introduction to the 1912 Edition which links to The Art of Writing

I removed these from the Treasure Island page so that page only contains the TOC and links to the 1883 version. It is my belief that the page previously contained extraneous matter to the 1883 edition as well as material from another, unidentified edit. However, please feel free to correct this and return it to it’s previous format [19]. I may harbor incorrect notions of what the title page to a specific edition should contain. While I greatly enjoy wonderful pictures, I wonder if illustrations from a different (and unidentified) edition should adore the page or be added to the text. Mattisse (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If it was accurate there was nothing to do. What do you think was meant by that edit summary?
There is a link to that edition at the article.
I agree. cygnis insignis 16:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd not seen the stuff at /Part One, Two, &c. That's a later edition that the illustrations are from? They should be dropped from the 1883 edition, then. I've been looking to flesh-out the Pages: for the djvu file and had not realized that the TOC is somehow entangled with the later edition. In the pages I cleaned up, I saw various punctuation differences and paragraph breaks. As I see it, the goal here has been to hew more closely to the scanned edition and to migrate the raw text to the page namespace. I'll have a look at the other version. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:Image upload help page.[edit]

Hi, and thanks for the comment. If it’s OK with you, sometimes later I would like add more detailed info on the Commons Category selection, and add this [transfer/upload form] as well. The current upload form listed in Help is great for beginners and occasional uploads because it forces familiarity with the required info. The 2nd form is faster for mass uploads of a project (like PSM) because only three bits of info needs changing from image to image: 1. Description, 2. .djvu number in the URL 3. The category. - Ineuw (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Living and learning :-)[edit]

Ha, ha on me! :-)) I now saw what you meant about the alphabetic order of the index pages of A Study of Mexico when displayed in the main namespace, (I didn’t see it earlier, and didn’t understand what you meant). I really don’t mind correcting it, but can I put it in accurate alphabetic order? Thanks.Ineuw 04:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Line Break[edit]

Does this look right to you? After some testing Template:- seems to do the trick.--Xxagile (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Support[edit]

Well, I may be missing something (seriously, am I missing something?), but as I understand it the arguments against adminship are:

  1. Longfellow previously operated multiple sock accounts and used these to establish identities
  2. Longfellow was circumventing a block on Wikiquote
  3. Longfellow was continuing to use the email abilities of his sock accounts
  4. Longfellow over-reacted to questions regarding his past editing.

As I see it,

  1. Two years is enough time to allow a fresh start, as long as that particular brand of sockpuppeteering is in fact over with.
  2. That is an issue for Wikiquote's admins.
  3. It's not clear to me what the purpose or content of those emails were.
  4. I am more willing to see this in a different light now that I know that Longfellow was probably a bit paranoid about his past coming back to bite him.

In other words, I don't have a good argument against adminship. I try to avoid acting out of peer pressure or while caught up in an emotional situation, so I'm not going to change my vote at this time. Thanks for bringing it up. --Eliyak T·C 06:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

A Topographical Description of the State of Ohio, Indiana Territory, and Louisiana[edit]

Dear Cygnis,

In answer to your question "Why have you undone [the changes I made]?". The answer is ignorance, pure ignorance. I touched wikisources for the very first time yesterday, when I uploaded the djvu and spent some time proof reading and editing - a task I will continue today. I also started to put together a page which transcluded the text and was playing with the heading to make it prettier. That was when I must have overwritten your edits. I have just gone back in and reinstated the edit you refer to. I will also review the pages I touched yesterday to make sure I haven't done any more damage. Please bear with me while I learn the ropes. And if you can offer any advice, I am very ready to learn.

Thanks,

David Rowswell (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You have new messages
Hello, Cygnis insignis. You have new messages at David Rowswell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hid edit summary[edit]

Gday Cyg. In the current situation, I believe that your edit statement is unhelpful to get the site back to a civil society that we profess that we want. I had hoped that someone else may have taken this action, however, it seems no one is as concerned/as brave/around to have the same opinion as me. Hope that you don't mind too much. <shrug>— billinghurst sDrewth 05:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Then you fail to understand why I did it, and that I was protecting my account. You said "Potentially libelous information"? Explain that. cygnis insignis 10:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
You are correct Cygnis, that is the unfair characterisation, so I have changed the reason. We are the administrators asking for and expecting civility, so it would seem appropriate that we are seem to follow that practice. I have no problems with your edit and there has been no effect to that part. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Your edit summary contained a nasty attack in it. Edit summaries are not for disparaging others. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
It was very accurate, a targeted and personal attack, they know exactly what they are doing or should be blocked if they don't. The suck poppet's contributions were purely intended to create drama and sow discord, or had that effect. I'm not privy to what is said elsewhere, but I expect they are playing others there too, as well as seeking to disrupt the site. cygnis insignis 15:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
He was not a sock puppet but an individual who dealt with Poetlister acoss multiple wikis and known by the CUs of Wikisource, including John Vandenberg. It is also saddening that you think that there is ever a justification for attacks like that. It would be nice if you assume good faith and not make edit summary attacks. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
And I am a big boy who doesn't need you to come in and have a third party accountability. Sometimes minding one's own business is a virtue. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome (haha)[edit]

You think I'm new here, ha? Not so. You just wasted time by "welcoming" me. I would want nothing to do with you pack of fools who welcomed Poetloser into your midst. He is a liar among a pack of liars. Hahahaha!!! Chutznik (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

You have new messages
Hello, Cygnis insignis. You have new messages at Template talk:Plain sister.
Message added 10:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

as this is usually an area of your participation — billinghurst sDrewth 10:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of title pages[edit]

Cygnis, you just deleted several title pages I had been setting up without any notice to me nor citation of a policy (no content does not apply in my opinion as the page had information about the text and a transcluded page image - which is meaningful content). I had set up the title pages with the template {{use page image}} with a view to transcribing them shortly. I am of the belief that setting up the mainspace title page is important to showing off new works and quickly getting blue links up to works. I generally set it up as soon as I have an index, together with the Author pages and any relevant dabs or {{versions}} page. I have several other works that I'm working on that consist of only a transcribed title page or a small fraction of the pages transcribed. I see other editors transclude entire unproofed works, without anyone questioning their actions. I find this less useful, but I have no complaint so long as the work is being actively worked on. I respectfully request you undelete the pages or enter into a discussion with me about why they shouldn't stand and I sincerely hope that you will talk about such things in the future because if I wasn't active on IRC I would consider this a really serious BITE, in fact, I do. But being a very experienced wiki editor, I'm sure we can work this out if we talk about it. If we have a policy on this I am glad to abide with it and all too happy not to waste my time.--Doug.(talk contribs) 06:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I made a notice of it?! Please use the page namespace to build works. "mainspace title page is important to showing off new works" I agree, and yes, the main-space is littered with titles pages to works we don't have. They are frequently deleted for the reason I gave. We don't have 'stubs' here, incomplete texts are useless and there is no need to do it. Use redlinks, or your user space, this places no constraint on getting on with it. What has IRC to do with this? cygnis insignis 06:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
IRC has nothing to do with it except that I'm p*ss*d and folks there were helping to cool me off and keep me from making wiki drama out of this as I'd be inclined to do. If I deleted pages like this without telling the editor at a certain other wiki I'd likely get de-opped so your actions were shocking at the least. Where exactly did you make notice? I want to know so that I can see it in the future. Where is the policy on this so I can make sure I'm not violating any others. I understood that unlike other wikis, editors were relatively free to structure and order works as they saw fit so long as they stuck to the original. I didn't see anything about this in the MOS or any guideline and we have LOTS of pages that incomplete. I disagree entirely that they are useless, especially if they are being worked on.--Doug.(talk contribs) 06:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
[Well that sounds more exciting and interactive than correcting ocr]. I made the notice on the scriptorium, beneath your comment [20] This is simple, we do not have that work or any usable part of it. There is nothing in this response that I had not already addressed, the page can be recreated when there is something to show. Do you want me to move it to your userspace? There are a lot of abandoned works in main-space, this is one of the huge advantages of the Page workspace, if people want to start something they can do that. cygnis insignis 07:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I think we have a fundamental disagreement because from where I see things we absolutely do have all of those works. The fact that they haven't been transcribed yet does not make them useless, nor does deleting the title pages encourage people to work them. Creating a title page and a table of contents is manifestly useful and will contribute to getting the work transcribed. If you insist that every work be fully transcribed/proofread before it's transcluded in anyway to mainspace, I would like to see the discussion of this policy - I believe you are mistaken but if the policy exists, I believe it is wrongly conceived and needs to be modified. I would sincerely like to discuss the policy. In the meantime, while we are talking about what should be the rules, I again request that you undelete the pages in question. Some of which I think may have been transcluded by other active editors, though I can no longer see - maybe they were all of my work.--Doug.(talk contribs) 07:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
BTW, I note that that "notice" was after the fact, not leaving a lot of opportunity for discussion of whether it was right. And I've always found it best not to question the editing priorities of other editors; we all have different styles and ways we like to do things.--Doug.(talk contribs) 07:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The only distinction between this deletion and its precedents is that you were active. Please read what I have said again, and tone down the rhetoric. I have not interfered with your ability to continue working on the text, I'll ask again: Do you want this recreated and moved to your user space? cygnis insignis 08:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
That is a huge distinction. Active editors are normally afforded a degree of liberty and, more importantly, consideration of their work and an opportunity to talk about it. We should assume that an active editor has a plan and is going to continue editing, if we have questions about the value of the work or the rationality of the plan, we should ask! --Doug.(talk contribs) 08:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and to answer your question, I still believe that the work should not have been deleted and pending discussion of that I think they should be undeleted where they were. That's what I'm asking for, not userspace pages.--Doug.(talk contribs) 08:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The deleted pages—temporarily deleted I hope—contain some code, misleading migration templates, and some random and uncited facts. I haven't deleted anything significant in terms of effort or content. There are innumerable opportunities to complete a short text and present it in main, or chip away at a larger one, the sense of accomplishing something being proportional to the time and effort spent. cygnis insignis 10:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I may have copied a DjuVu migration on to one that needed a different template, you could have pointed this out or fixed it. The notes were largely from enwiki but I could easily have cited most of them had you mentioned it, so far I have yet to run across a work with cites beyond enwiki for the notes but I can do better. I certainly dispute your thinking the text was "random" and I find that even further insulting. Again, I find the transclusion of the title page itself to be of value. Many works that are transcluded are unfinished, including all the other ones I'm working on (excepting one that I hadn't transcluded). I see other editors transcluding bare OCR with no complaints from anyone so long as they are "chipping away" at it, as you say. I consider most to be in the same class as what I did. With Three Books of Occult Philosophy I am transcluding as I proof, and the same was planned with these but the Title page is often a lot of work and is nice to simply {{use page image}} on in the meantime, which is why we have that template by the way. If we aren't going to transclude it the template is pointless. Again, I can see some point to your argument, as I noted to Hesperian below, but I disagree with it and would discuss it; the appropriate tactic to take if you have your own interpretation of policy is to discuss it, not use your tools without prior notice. Your beliefs about my effort's significance do not excuse this. I'm a live editor who has a talk page.--Doug.(talk contribs) 10:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
You are disagreeing with something that is established practice, and are unable to provide a reason other than assumed right to do what you like, where you like. Should I set about restoring the hundreds of deleted pages, based on your utopian opinion? Your contributions do not indicate someone who is about to build three thousand pages anytime soon, there is a lot of old discussion made new, a lot of declarations of what 'we' do, a lot of instant and unconsidered reactions to thoughtful comments, and now a lot of noisy indignation, feel free to prove me wrong. cygnis insignis 11:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Apparently it is your established practice, at least one of the pages you deleted was not my work but those of an established admin. --Doug.(talk contribs) 11:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
That undermines your claim to be personally offended. Which page? cygnis insignis 11:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Cygnis insignis that we ought not create blue links that are guaranteed to engender dissatisfaction in any reader who follows them, and I would be opposed to any personal policy of routinely creating such unsatisfactory bluelinks, and then moving on to the next work, only to do the same again. The degree of transcription required to turn a link blue depends upon the nature of the work. For a novel, which a reader might reasonably be expected to read cover-to-cover, one could argue that the whole work should be ready for transcription before transcription is started. For an encyclopedia of stand-alone articles, one might reasonably commence transcription as soon as a single article is ready. Hesperian 07:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I understand that concern, though I don't just move on to the next one, I have set up several lately because I like to move back and forth and the purpose isn't simply to create a bluelink but to show that the work is being brought online. Although I disagree on the point of whether they should be up, I'm really personally offended that the deletion was done without prior notice and without a reference to firm policy or a discussion. I can understand your position Hesperian and I think it's worth talking about - though I thought I'd found a Utopia here in WS where I could work away without being bothered by policy debates except to keep up on what template was required. I had gotten my wikimotivation back to do real valuable work on some texts that really interest me and I got the wind knocked out of me by an admin taking action based on his opinion (even if it's a widely held opinion) without saying "hey dude, I don't think that's really valuable and may create the false impression that we have the whole work up" or whatever. We can disagree over policy and I can read consensus on a talk page and stop until I've caught up on some of these works but for admins to take action on their opinion is unacceptable.--Doug.(talk contribs) 08:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Seems that there are some half-way measures here. We don't want a series of head pages with no body, and we don't want to make us all drones of one another in how we work. Our principle for readers is to manage their expectations, if it is a work in progress then we say so. I would think that some of the works can be actively constructed chapter by chapter, and works in the 19thC were often produced in that means, I would rather have a quality chapter by chapter approach than a sea of red with poor proofreading, which we would not delete. I would suggest to Doug to pick the priority works of interest, and he is building, and let them build in quality in main namespace, and the head-only beasts be moved to his user space until they have some framework. I also see benefit in use of {{incomplete}} even though it can be a little lame. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
"drones of one another" and "in progress" is an irrelevant tangent, the page namespace allows anyone to do as little or as much of what they want, when they want. The situation is compromised as it is, to the opinions of users rather than readers. A site that took itself seriously would not present anything less than validated text. Having two and a half chapters of a novel lying around sucks, having three facts in a stub at wikipedia is useful and will be built upon; the arguments for the other place cannot be transposed here in this situation. As a heavy user of online text, my opinion of sites that don't deliver the whole text are not worth visiting, I was cited in the last discussion, but it said better above "guaranteed to engender dissatisfaction". cygnis insignis 11:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I think this incomplete example is pushing the boundaries, I created it with some reluctance. cygnis insignis 11:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure, and you have your opinions on how it should be, and are probably considered at one end of the argument, and others would have a different point of view, and would spread across the spectrum of opinion. And it is opinion and wish, and we try to cater for that difference. What we all want then is to lift the quality, and to support completion, not to stop undertaking or the beginning of works. To imbibe the culture, practices, and quality control that we want as outcomes, not to scare off those who are trying on site for fit, especially those who may not be used to your direct nature and turn of phrase. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll just address content issues, because you know what they say. The outlying opinion that 'validated only should appear' is the minimum standard at similar sites, proofread once is a much lower bar than that. This is perhaps justifiable, if the corrections are few and simple to fix. Any "spectrum" that included a lower standard of quality than proofread (in main) needs justification and evidence it improves the text, and doesn't drive readers and serious users away. This extended part of the so-called spectrum describes an entitled void that might become time wasting garbage striving toward mediocrity. A typical text here, a earlier de-facto standard, was a copy paste of distributed proofreaders/gutenberg. cygnis insignis 15:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

George Smith Memoir[edit]

Thanks for the review…did I pass ? JamAKiska (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. It's great to say those later volumes going up, I'm interested in the period. I saw a couple of minor glitches on the memoir, and a font-sizing problem, so I did a quick cleanup as I read it. I didn't have time to validate it. Does that answer the question, or am I misreading something? cygnis insignis 17:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

In your opinion ...[edit]

is the Rabbit book ready for FT or does it still need some work on the images? To me they are still a little small. Alternate is to put in Mrs Caudle and bump VRabbit for another month. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

{{***}}[edit]

Question for you here if you get a chance. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

A Treasury of War Poetry (2nd Series)[edit]

Based on your recommendations on this work's Talk page, I have started to rework the text and titles being that I have an interest of sorts in the material. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Page:Europa's Fairy Book.djvu/276[edit]

Hi, I'm just came across this page. It's the only one marked in the work as not proofread. I can see you were having second thoughts about it and I wonder if you've come to a decision. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I would have liked the deeplink, but I need to ponder on it a little more. I marked it as proofread, though I use these labels to indicate actual progress (I don't see that as a goal ...) Hope you are enjoying the text. cygnis insignis 07:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Just out of interest, why do you care about that page? What does it matter? cygnis insignis 07:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, only just seen this question. (For some reason it didn't show up when I checked back that evening.) I was working through all the texts in Category:Index Proofread looking for ones that could be moved to Done or had got there by mistake. I saw that there was just that one page and didn't want to change the work to Not Proofread without coming to you first. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
(You may have needed to clear your cache) Pardon the phrasing of question, but I was grumpy at what appears to be emerging as a trend; users overriding the page status without applying the required solution. I think it is problematic to approach this from the maintenance category, not the actual point; I mark pages so I know where I'm up to, where the few remaining things to be done are, it puts me in a difficult position because someone is merely trying to be helpful in adding to the fully proofread or validated texts. I recognise that it is satisfying to improve the rating of something that appears to be tantalizingly close, but this is unhelpful as I get around to fixing up this or that. In the example you brought I wanted a second opinion of a minor point of formatting, it began at that page. cygnis insignis 09:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I should have also said that where there were only a couple of pages to be done I was proofreading them where I could see what needed to be done - mostly Title and Contents pages. But I checked the history each time to see if there was a reason it hadn't been done, which then brought me here. On reflection it probably looked over-enthusiastic on my part, sparked as it was by Hesperian updating his list of Indices.
I'll be heading back to the G section of the Grove Dictionary of Music shortly. I needed a break as each page takes ca. 20 minutes to proofread the first time. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
That's a huge job, kudos to you. I have been doing some similar works and was considering using Thomas' overlay. I think scripts and buttons make the task a little easier, and are especially useful for this type of work, Hesperian made one that converts uppercase to smallcaps with a keystroke. cygnis insignis 04:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Apostrophes into Index:Horse shoes and horse shoeing.djvu[edit]

I saw your edit into some pages of Index:Horse shoes and horse shoeing.djvu (thanks). I found that you replaced ‘. . .’ with '. . .'. Is this a matter of preference, or a specific guideline? I put lots of that kind of special apostrophes… I'll fix them into all proofread pages if they are deprecated into en.source. :-( --Alex brollo (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The standard practice is to use straight quotes at wikipedia, and has been here despite some support to add this "enhancement", and I think I have argued strongly for not deviating from that. The reasons for avoiding the curly ones are many, and the preference for assigning them has a questionable basis. Using a mix begets a series of consequences, illustrated by this example—

The same authority asserts that the Tartars, who ride so much, never shod their steeds. ‘In the winter time, when, on account of the frost, roads are rough and hard, they cover their horses' feet with the recently flayed hide of cattle, if nothing else is at hand.’

Notice that the transcription had a 'keyboard apostrophe' after horses', though the text show horses’, and this distinction in usage would need to be discussed and documented; I personally think this works against the aesthetic point of view that supports usage. I don't dislike them, like most I don't notice the difference (if one is rendered), but adding them is a different matter altogether. I also personally think that using several characters for the two modern ' and " is a legacy of justified text with incremental spacing, something that modern typography is moving away from. It has a very small semantic value, made redundant by the single space before or after the mark: _"a quote"_
My position is, however, not based on this review of matters extensively discussed elsewhere, implementing anything other than the 'keyboard characters', the 'straight quote-mark', is experimental and can be removed if it is objectionable. So, this is my apology, nothing personal :( cygnis insignis 08:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
No matter at all! I love and appreciate any style edit, since they are the key to learn different habits and get good suggestions on topics that - usually - aren't documented, coming from talks here and there. Italian (as any other language!) has different conventions for such characters since double quotes are conventionally used as a rule to "delimit quotes and talks" (please be patient with my English!). I drive a bot which converts straight apostrophes into typographical ones, basing on a difficult algorithm to save straight apostophes when used as a part of wiki markup; I personally hate wiki markup when it encourages "not well formed tags", and the use of double and triple straight apostrophes to obtain italic and bold is one of the more insidious and "bad-formed" shortcuts to simplify formatting that anyone can imagine… no matter, this is wiki: a project based on an excellent database, with a user interface which violates any good rule of databases and of well-formed code… :-( --Alex brollo (talk) 09:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Cheers. Nothing wrong with your English, you often make interesting points and explain them clearly, if you can understand Australians you are doing pretty well ;-) I found that wiki markup surprising when I first encoutered it, more surprising is how well it usually works; the virtue of simplicity outweighs the weirdness of typing '''''Cephalotus'''''. I suppose you know we have an escape at en:ws {{'}} ... Another interesting book, by the way. Regards, cygnis insignis 09:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


You have new messages
Hello, Cygnis insignis. You have new messages at Beeswaxcandle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

naming style - opinion sought[edit]

Seeking a 20 cent opinion. Need to disambiguate Men of the Time, each edition of the work is going to be different akin to a Who's Who. Thinking that rather than disambiugate on year that it may be better to disambiguate based upon edition, eg. Men of the Time, eleventh edition or Men of the Time (Eleventh edition) especially as that was how something like DNB cites it. You comfortable with that approach, and if so, do you have a preference for comma delimited or within parentheses. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I reckon that's the way to go too. And I lean towards using a comma for several reasons. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Another option is to subpage: Men of the Time/eleventh edition/entry ... CYGNIS INSIGNIS 04:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Gateless Gate[edit]

A wikipedian needed to post a translation of a 13th century Mandarin work, and has done so at the link above. Have asked Jusjih to review the copyright interpretation for us. This 1934 published translation did not renew their US copyright claim in the early 1960s. This inaction on their part qualifies this work as public domain within the US. The copyright tags with this article reflect this interpretation.

Another interesting feature of this specific work is that it cannot be found on AI or other sources of public domain material…as such this editor used an on-line version for posting. The portions of this work that were verified followed this version word for word. As this work does not contain a side-by-side proofreading file, needed to get a more experienced point of view on this matter, especially with regard to formatting. This editor will continue looking for an up-loadable file format.

This WS text will be used to support the wp The Gateless Gate.

In good faith believe we have covered all of the bases on this one…JamAKiska (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked at this and forgot to reply. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, things were moving quickly…needed experienced pov (which happened) to ensure we were not unintentionally crossing thresholds…seemed like great teamwork in action as many viewpoints were quickly brought together.JamAKiska (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A Couple of Orphaned Poems[edit]

Hi, I've just come across To —— (Poe, 1850) which seems to be a duplicate of Al Aaraaf, Tamerlane and Minor Poems/3. To ——, but the dates for the second is 1829. I can see that you were disambiguating Poe's various versions of "To --". Should the 1850 version be on the disambiguation page as well? (The reason I'm asking is that it's on Special:LonelyPages.)

The other poem on LonelyPages is Keats' To, which I've added to the To —— disambiguation page. However, I now wonder if I should have moved it to To (Keats) as well? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The first link is now on the versions page, I intended to add it so thanks for finding it. I never noticed that special page before. The page was well sourced when I found it, so I tried to preserve it; I didn't check whether it was a duplicate, and would keep it anyway. I doubt I fixed everything with that attempt at dab and versions, I think it always worked at the author's pages.
I had an idea that all variants on the title should redirect to a disambiguation "To —" or "To", finding non-alpha characters with search was difficult. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sister Links[edit]

I am new here, so I would not know when sister links are appropriate or inappropriate[21]. How do get to know which is correct? ----Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:27, 1 March 20-11 (UTC)

Local links are best, where possible, linking to titles and authors page is encouraged, that is what the reference in the text is to. Linking sisters is problematic, as at wikipedia and elsewhere, but it is possible to create a separate version to annotate with links here. WS:Style gives most conventions, hope that helps CYGNIS INSIGNIS 18:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
WS:Style states that "Words or references that may be difficult to understand can be linked to their Wikipedia or Wiktionary entries". I think that the subject matter of this book is quite technical, and I would suggest that this should be applied to this book in order to make the text more understandable. I am not sure I would characterise links to Wicktionary is "problematical" myself. The question still remains, how would you know if sister links are appropriate or inappropriate for a particular text or is this your view that links should not be included in this case? ----Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Read the bit above that "Note" If you would like to do an annotated version I will set it up, I guess you can decide when it is or isn't appropriate. I recommend you assume that a user is capable of getting a definition, article, or related image when they desire it, they are capable of finding wikipedia if they found their way here; we don't have to link everything or decide how it will be used - that is not the purpose of a library. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 18:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
This does not answer my question as to whether sister links are appropriate or inappropriate for a particular text as there is no clear policy or guideline on the matter of annotations, but I am happy to go with your view if this is your preference. ---Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Navigation popups, restored the working stylesheet[edit]

Apologies to have inconvenienced you. The new Resource Loader and how it is called, and remnant files have been problematic in part, so under instruction cleared out one file to see whether it was part of the problem. Now that I know that someone is back and using, I will put that part aside and return that functionality. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Addendum. I now have the update working (down the bottom in development), and you may wish to see if it is functional for you. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting piece of "social history"[edit]

Hi, You might be interested in having a look at the preliminary and ending pages of Index:In a Steamer Chair and Other Stories.djvu. I've not seen anything like it before. It looks to me like someone has given the book to someone about to travel the Atlantic. The giver has stuck various pictures and clippings into the pages and then written various notes on any spare bit of page. The book has then somehow turned up in the University of Toronto library in 1976, 84 years after publication. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting, I think it's a nice bonus when buying old hardbacks. I have found the ex libris of notable persons in a few indices here, another nice detail. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 09:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Correcting PSM images source[edit]

Hi. Among the items I need to improve in the PSM project, I created THIS LIST to be used for the replacement of the images’ Source = line in volumes 1 to 40 inclusive. Subsequent volumes’ Source were correctly specified. First, I am checking with you if this is what you meant? And second, can you point me to someone on the Commons who could run this correction at their leisure? The person on the toolserver, who helped me in the past, is not available. Thanks.— Ineuw talk 11:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Euripides[edit]

Yay Cygnis insignis! [That's my way of saying "Thanks for helping, I'm at a loss for words!"] ResScholar (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed your edit summary about guessing the offset, I checked and it should be fine. If you need any tips or tools I'm happy to help, seems pretty straight-forward though. The ocr seems good too. Nice choice, btw, CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Panizzi and his ilk[edit]

Hi, I suppose the real question is should the disambiguation pages exist for articles that are part of a Dictionary/Encyclopaedia/etc.? If they should, then there needs to be a way of getting to them. If they shouldn't, then we'll need a deletion process. Is that a fair summary? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What are the probable paths to any section? I searched for "Anthony Panizzi" when I was looking for references to that subject, because he is an author I linked every mention I could find at this site; for example Special:WhatLinksHere/Author:Antonio_Genesio_Maria_Panizzi (references to Anthony Panizzi). Pages generated by searches and so are more powerful, making them is very likely to redundant to the largest document arranged by subject, replete with overlays of redirects, dabs, portals, infoboxes, and everything else. If any references here are notable, i.e., worth creating a page for, it should be noted there.
Put another way: Pages here would be the target, the end of a path, the important links here, the library, are the Authors and their references to other Titles. Do we make pages for every conceivable subject, biographical in this example, and link everything to everything? Conceptually, as a 'source', I would expect links to be from our dictionary or encyclopaedia and other wikimedia sites–one-click-away–I don't bother so much with 'diambiguating' here as much as the other place, where more it is much more likely to be used.
I don't see why meta data like similar should be out the header, if it should appear at all is dubious, and think the link name should appear. People should know where they are going. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 00:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I understand what you're getting at and it makes sense to keep dab pages purely for works with the same (or very similar) name. However, to do that will need some clarification at WS:STYLE#Disambiguation pages. What's the best forum to seek the appropriate consensus in? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I suppose the talk page, perhapsit needs to be more explicit about using a bit of caution; I am averse the notion of title being extended too far with individual 'sections'. It creates detours, and complicates the navigation of the site, but it is useful for Titles. If other authors keep referring to a title, and it is ambiguous, I might think about sorting it out in main. I'm not consistent with the way I style these pages, I just make the path if it is likely to be a problem; finding solutions is less important other aspects of the site. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 01:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Help please - The Natural History of the Newspaper[edit]

Hello, I've tried to download The Natural History of the Newspaper in PDF format, but the downloaded file does not contain any text except the heading and the public domain notice. Could you please check it? Thanks! --Reference Desker (talk) 11:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Aborigines[edit]

Hi,

While going through the problematic source file cat, I came across your Index:The aborigines of Australia.djvu. I can add the missing pages w/layer if you like but without complicating Archive.org's file integrity even further, we'd still be skewed by at least plus or minus 1 page in the current page-list (requiring the moving of every existing page to re-align with the fixed .djvu file as you know). Please let me know either way & TIA. — George Orwell III (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The index has several problems, there is still quite a bit to do. If there is an alternative source, I would use that to make a new index and start again. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 01:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Really? I didn't go deep into the work but other than a missing boomerang pic and the skipped pages - it didn't seem much was left to do. Anyway, it would be taking the original GoogleBook scan, extracting/applying a text layer and inserting the 2 pages into the Archive.org .djvu. I don't recall any other available sources save this GooBoo original. — George Orwell III (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Really :| If you create a new file I will proofread the entire index, less effort than the alternatives, but I had thought it better to wait for a good scan to emerge. The link given at IA [22] does not provide access, for me at least, that copy has the missing pages? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 02:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for not being more clear - It is THIS GooBoo that I was refering to. It has the missing pages within the 1988-1888 Centenial reprint of the Archive.org scans. If you rather that entire edition replace the existing, I can do that too (as I'm sure you can as well), but it is of a lower quality when it comes to the portrait of the author in addtion to 2 extra pages re: the Centenial. — George Orwell III (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I remember seeing that now, but I can't access that file either. I think it best to create a new index, rather than replace that one; if the transcript uses two sources I would note that somewhere. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 02:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
So go ahead with simple extraction and insertion of 2 pages into the existing .djvu but upload it to a new file name (--> producing a new index) not dL the entire Centenial PDF edition, convert that PDF to a new DJVU and upload that instead, right? If so, what new file name would you prefer? — George Orwell III (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded the 2 page insertion over the old. If that meets your satisfaction & is OK with you, I can re-up it to another file name of your choice. — George Orwell III (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC) The whole file to a new index, because I am wary of more booboos is those Gooboos. I'm happy to take over once the pdf or djvu is uploaded, though with some trepidation: there was enough obstacles to make me give up on this work. File:The Aborigines of Australia (1988)...? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 03:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. Give me some time to grab, convert and upload the 1988 re-print. That file name is correct? File:The Aborigines of Australia (1988) ?
I would think it still is technically File:The Aborigines of Australia (1888) ... but you'd know the naming practices around here better than I. — George Orwell III (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
As a guideline: the year of the edition is the objective description. This leads to another question, is the prefatory material (on the centennial) acceptable or should it be expurgated? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 04:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
File:The Aborigines of Australia (1988) ... it is (or will be soon).
AS far as inclusion/exclusion goes - you tell me (see dump here) — George Orwell III (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the prudent thing to do is to remove them from the file, and mention it in the notes. Cheers CYGNIS INSIGNIS 04:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Its up. File:The Aborigines of Australia (1988).djvu. Swapped the Centenial notes out for blank pages. The original portrait didn't comply with JPX specification during conversion (looked blotchy anyway and was in grayscale to boot) so I swapped in the existing page. Hope its not a problem that it retained some color. I trust you will follow-up on "removing" the old one when your done. Drop me note if needed. — George Orwell III (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Human Immortality: Two Supposed Objections to the Doctrine: Thanks for the cleanup[edit]

Hey Cygnis,

thank you for going through some of the text; I was hoping that maybe some point we could tie these works into the PotM at some point for help site-wide just like yours. I did have a question though regarding linking to the portals in the text.

I have seen it stated nowhere that this cannot be done; in fact, I find linking to portals through the text quite useful. Quickly, it gives portal visibility and help link up the barely seen, encourages further reading and investigation into our site for readers, gives access to sister sites (as in if I wanted to read about topic XX after seeing it blue-linked in the text, through the portal I can find the relevant wp article in place of opening wp in presumably another window and searching for it). - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Where does adding of 'useful' links end. The following can be safely assumed: users wanted a text, they are connected to the internet, they know about wikipedia and wiktionary if they want to access that, they are at a source and where they want to go next is up to them. The reader is not stupid, or incapable of accessing information! It is not the business of a library to guide the user, to make 'useful' suggestions, quite the opposite.
If this is incredibly boring, then we probably have it just right: libraries are 'boring', so is transcribing, and there is a never-ending stream of notions to make it more 'interesting'. A clean text is not a big lump of grey to someone who wanted to read it. The page is the terminus, the end point of a search, the desired target, they have arrived! Portals should link to texts, if they have any value, and at the moment they have very little; a link should be to a title or their authors because that IS what the author IS referring TO.
I'll refer you to my comment above, at 00:37, 19 March 2011, and many others besides.
CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, your definitions clearly differ from mine on several fronts: namely "useful" and "library." Some of the portals are taking shape, and I think they can provide users with quick access (why does WP bother linking... the search bar is right above the title; users can drag their pointer and click it, right?) And as I've stated, there is no requirement for such linking, and a past message on your talk page does not count as one for me to refer to as site-wide consensus; I do not know this, but I believe there are other contributors who may agree with me in finding use in linking portals. I also want to note that a blue link is not a juncture, but an option for the reader. I guess this should probably go to a larger audience at WS:S; neither or both of us should not be the ones to resolve and enforce such a rule, or convention. - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I've posted at WS:S to hopefully get some more input. I want to say that I disagree with you entirely in regards to the idea that the page is the end point of a search; I visit wp articles and tend to read most of them, but along the way I might open a few other blue-linked articles that I believe may interest me and get to them when ready. I think that can work similarly here. An example being: "hmm, "theosophy" is blue-linked in the source-text i'm reading? let me select it and see what works on en.ws are about that subject.. wow "Theosophy Religion And Occult Science"? COOL!" I don't see them as harmful in any way, and if overlinking is your concern; there are policies we can mimic from en.wp that address this very issue. - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Profanities[edit]

Hello again. Is there anything else wrong in Index:Satires and profanities -microform- (1884).djvu beside the cut-out in Preface (scan page vii)? — George Orwell III (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, several if I remember correctly, the first being the text layer needs a lot of corrections. I decided to ignore it—assuming a better one will come along one day—and invest my time more productively. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Well the degree to which text needs correcting is not the really a reason for declaring an Index in trouble or problematic, while missing and/or corrupted pages are. I've replaced the single corrupted page and refreshed the file but something scanned in 2006 is 5 years behind the optical character recognition curve and I don't expect much improvement for text @ that dpi. Still the status has now changed. — George Orwell III (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is. If it takes 5-10 times as long to proof, then time is better invested in one of the other million books to be added. I wouldn't do it, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone just to clear it from a category. Without wasting more time on it, I strongly suspect that was not the only problem. It was scanned from microform, it sucked!
If that really was the case, maybe you should have deleted it.
Some of the content is transcluded. I should delete it to stop it appearing in a maintenance category? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 18:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Where did you get the replacement image? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 17:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Alter et idem!
Same deal - other version(s?) exist on Google Books. Single-image extract -> convert to indirect djvu file --> insert indirect djvu into bundled djvu. — George Orwell III (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
And once again I am denied access, I'm not particularly bothered, someone will add it to IA with a sound ocr ... one day. I'm not short of other things to do mate [23] CYGNIS INSIGNIS 18:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Again sorry, I may have given you the impression the version I stubbled over was indeed "complete" in every sense - it was not... but the page in question was not corrupted being early on in the file. Btw, I am not sadistic enough to pass on better copy and uploading that one instead (yet:-) — George Orwell III (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

fielding's "Tom Jones"[edit]

Discussion moved to Talk:The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling 17:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Little Red Riding Hood: an entirely new edition with new pictures by an eminent artist[edit]

Wait, what? Admittedly, I don't know the full history of the text regarding Perraults' target audience; but I'm pretty sure this version at least was intended for children; the author wrote: "This is the traditional ending of the Tale—but it is a grievous one, which most children dislike.—And as I have heard a version related, in which poetical justice is done to the wolf, I insert it for those who prefer it:" - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove the PD tag? - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Problem with Page:Hebrew tales; selected and translated from the writings of the ancient Hebrew sages (1917).djvu/119[edit]

The refs on this page only show up in edit mode, could you please fix this ASAP. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Now fixed diff. Thanks for that, the other corrections, and the validation. I hope you are enjoying the tales, I will finish the Index a little later today and create the book in our mainspace. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Tales (Poe)/The Fall of the House of Usher[edit]

Hey Cygnis,

I saw that you removed the top-icon; I apologize if it found itself in the header. I am curious though, what browser do you use? I've seen it in Chrome, Firefox and IE with Windows, and Safari on a Mac with no problems. I could insert one of these (I think?) Template:- if you think that would help into the "Rt" template. - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

In response to the second point I raised, here are some screenshots of Firefox:
Screenshot of noise.jpg
with images suppressed:
Screenshot with more noise.jpg
More important than 'how' (the resolution of a technical problem is not consensus) is why. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 03:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
You didn't need to upload the image, I didn't think you were lying. I'll add a line break in the code; and if the top-icon (similar to the good/featured top-icons at en.ws) is implemented then the issue of being anywhere near the header will disappear. Regarding consensus; there was a discussion on it here for a period of nine days, in which the only opposition was from Billinghurst, who near the end was giving advice on where to place it. So it seemed agreement, between the discussion and the wikiproject,between myself, Prosody, George Orwell III, AdamBMorgan and even Billinghurst had been reached. - Theornamentalist (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
We'll, I've added the break, and it should under any circumstances not be found in the header; I think... it looks the same to me though. Check it out Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela - Theornamentalist (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh and I totally forgot that I had asked, but can you address the above two questions regarding edits made to Little Red Riding Hood: an entirely new edition with new pictures by an eminent artist? - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Facts should be added to wikipedia, if they are notable. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 03:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Linking this Children's book to the portal of Children's literature is appropriate; since when do we not include PD tags in the work? You have one here at the above work we're discussing! - Theornamentalist (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
And on top of this, what you are accusing me of (which seems to be the insertion of "facts" into work) you in fact, are doing in the above aforementioned work: Tales (Poe)/The Fall of the House of Usher with

"The Fall of the House of Usher" is a short story first published in Burton's Gentleman's Magazine in September 1839. It was slightly revised before being included in a collection of his fiction entitled Tales of the Grotesque and Arabesque in 1840. The tale contains the poem "The Haunted Palace" (page 73) which had earlier been published separately in the April 1839 issue of the Baltimore Museum magazine.

how come that still remains? I am not arguing to include a sentence; only a relevant portal link and a PD tag. Doesn't the information in "The Fall of the House of User" belong in wikipedia maybe a little more than a PD tag and portal link? I think you are being funny. - Theornamentalist (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I hope you are not offended but I reverted your edits; the wikipedia page is maintained by w:WikiProject Children's literature, but regardless of that, the author addresses this work towards being told to children --> Children's literature. As far as the PD-tag, please don't remove it again. Following your advice: "Facts should be added to wikipedia, if they are notable," I removed the editorial note left at Tales (Poe)/The Fall of the House of Usher. Finally, regarding the template and usage of {{Rt}}, against a fair consensus you can protest, but please do so at WS:S and not in the mainspace edits. Some of your actions remind me of Ownership; please see here. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want a sober discussion regarding content, what I have done and why, call back in a month or two. I made two short and simple comments on this, your responses have moved well beyond that. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 08:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Folk-lore Volume 5[edit]

Hi, I'm working through Special:LonelyPages again and I've just found Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review/Volume 5. It doesn't seem to be named the same way as the other volumes. Could you rename it to be consistent? If I do it there'll be a redirect, but as it's an orphan there doesn't seem any point to leaving a redirect. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I did that for now. I'm still weighing the pros and cons of both schemes. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 09:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Re-adding text quality and incomplete tags in text. [24] [25] [26][edit]

Hey Cygnis,

With the texts in question having been validated using our current scan indices, is it really necessary to have an icon that refers to the previous way of proofreading? The scan could be different from the assumed previous non-scan version, so using it is misleading.

Also, the index for William Blake, a critical essay has been validated (no need for a 50% proofread icon) and is listed in its index as complete, which I assume is disregarding the non-validated advertisements. It was my understanding that advertisements were not required in validating a book, as is reflective in the index status, so why did you re-add the {{incomplete}} tag?

Why did you revert my edits then? - Theornamentalist (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Shelley, a poem, with other writings relating to Shelley, to which is added an essay on the poems of William Blake[edit]

Edit: [27]

Please do not revert my validation without specifying why you are doing so. It is both unnecessary and unhelpful. I see that you also reverted a validation of the page by Hesperian in the past; if you do so, update the progress in the index to reflect the status of the contents; don't leave it as done.

Edit: [28]

This series of edits does not make sense; if you saw an issue with the red links for the contents in the Table of Contents field, fix it! Please don't delete a works TOC from the TOC field.-Theornamentalist (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The Grateful Dead[edit]

Hi. Would be interested in adding in a djvu index for The Grateful Dead. In particular this one: http://www.archive.org/details/gratefuldeadhist00gerorich. Would I replace the text on the current page, or create a new one? - Tannertsf (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't understand these edits[edit]

Sorry to be a bother, but I don't understand a couple of your recent edits, as described here. Could you comment or point me to relevant discussion? Thanks. —Spangineer (háblame) 21:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose this comment is where I want to leave it, for the time being. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 21:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Editing help[edit]

Looking for some assistance from someone with a better understanding of the system than I have. All of a sudden, I've lost the side-by-side image of the original page whenever I try to edit. Moreover, I cannot access the header and footer, the buttons to change the page status have disappeared and the menu at the bottom of the page with special characters etc instead appears as a large box with all of the characters in it. It is making editing well night impossible. Have tried adjusting various of my preferences, but to no avail. Any idea what might have gone wrong? George Burgess

I'm not sure, but others have solved it by defaulting their preferences. - Tannertsf (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I've experienced the same problem from time to time, it's very frustrating, but I return later and the problem seems to disappear. I checked the last page you edited and had no problem, and others seemed to be editing the Page:namespace successfully around the same time. I can offer no explanation of why this happens, but have seen that others experience the same thing intermittently.

The failure to load the image from Commons may be at the heart of it, a bug has been identified at that site, and it seems to beget a series of other problems. The suggestion to use Special:Preferences/reset is worth trying, and note that relevant preferences are found at editing and gadgets. You also want to avoid using the enhanced toolbar ("Enable enhanced editing toolbar"). The usual trouble-shooting suggestions include restarting, clearing your cache, and using Firefox.

It is not good that this happens, you want to be proofreading and not stuffing around trying to make it work, but I hope you persist and the problem disappears when you try next time. I had been enjoying doing Walter Gregor's articles, and had the idea you were too, so I decided to leave them for you to proof the first time. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 00:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. Resetting the preferences as suggested seems to have sorted it (though I thought I had already tried something that restored default settings). I'm originally from the North-East of Scotland, so have a particular attraction to Walter Gregor's articles - and as they're shorter than John Abercromby's ones there's more of a sense of getting the job done. Conscious that we're plowtering in the same puddle, but happy to proofread and for you to verify User:George Burgess

Good news. And thanks for introducing me to that lovely phrase :-) CYGNIS INSIGNIS 10:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

alternative source found[edit]

for Page:The International Folk-Lore Congress of the World's Columbian Exposition, Chicago, July, 1893.djvu/568 and others: HathiTrust, copy No. 81 (Indiana University). --enomil (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, that will help on a couple of other pages. I made a note of it. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 03:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead Man's Chest[edit]

Hi, see Talk:The_Dead_Man's_Chest - look forward to working with you. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikilink across two pages[edit]

Hi, don't know if you've dealt with this situation before, but I want to put a wikilink across a page-break in Page space (between this page and this one). I suppose I could wrap it in hws/hwe, but I'm not sure about it. Any ideas on how to do it so that it transcludes nicely? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I did that here with "King Canute" (used HWS/HWE)... It renders correctly... There may be a better way, though! Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Several. One way would be to put the link on each page (with the display after pipe), while two links to the same target is less than perfect, it is familiar to wiki-users. Another is using the noinclude/includeonly coding of the hws/hwe templates; there was some discussion about either adapting these or creating a new template, I favour the latter for several reasons. Another problem with a similar solution is suppressing the space after an emdash, I abuse hws/hwe for this because it so widely deployed. I can't remember where the recent discussion was, but Hesperian had something to say about this. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Eventually, I'll be applying an {{Annotation switch}} on top of the HWS/HWE Wikilink for "King Canute." Any recommendations on best use when I do that? Also, I think I remember a legitimately hyphenated word/phrase that is also a wikilink that will also have annotation switch applied... I'll keep my eyes open for more on this topic! Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
King Canute, how apropos! … CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not smart enough to know why! Guess I need to educate myself... (don't tell me!) Aah...okay... Google Chrome (at least on my computer) is slow to pick up anchors... I started scrolling down the page before I was directed to the section... Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

King Admin set his template by the Page:namespace and commanded the wikilink to proceed on to the next Page. Yet continuing to disobey as usual, the dashed wikilink transcluded incorrectly between the two pages without respect to his royal person. Then King Admin leapt backwards, saying: "Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of Administrators, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by formatting laws." wink Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

lol … CYGNIS INSIGNIS 19:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Found it! {{Linkable phrase start}} and {{Linkable phrase end}}. I also see that there is a parameterised version of {{Hyphenated word start}}, which includes a "hyph=" parameter to override the default hyphen. I haven't thought through it yet, but something in here will help with suppressing the space following endash and emdash. Thanks for the hints - and the Canute quote. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A Compendium of Irish Biography[edit]

I don't know how much work had been done on the pages of Index:A Compendium of Irish Biography.djvu but I started to create new pages that had been deleted. Can you have a look over some of my contributions and see if I am formatting correctly? I don't want to have to redo pages unnecessarily. Should these biographies be transcluded and if so to where and how? TIA. Ww2censor (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It all seems pretty schmick to me, though Billinghust set this up and maybe you should check with him. I think this work is a worthwhile investment, btw, if you carefully proofread the transcript you have done a good thing. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Pardon, I skipped over the part about "deleted". The pages were created by a bot and deleted after discussion here, let me know if there is any problems with the improved Index. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 02:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I have dropped Billinghust a note and will see what he says. The OCR seem very decent for the now file, so there is actually not a lot of editing, just formatting. Ww2censor (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Grateful Dead[edit]

An opinion needed. Do you think that this (Page:The Grateful Dead.djvu/197) and following pages should be proofreaded? Thanks. --Mpaa (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I would redlink it in the 'next' part of the header, to indicate its absence, and probably never get around to proofreading it. The end-matter that appears in the society's volumes has been useful to me, but it is not crucial to the completeness of the work. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hope I got your comment right. I did this. I will set thie work to proofreaded when I am done (hopefully) with the rest.--Mpaa (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Unusual request[edit]

Hi. A humble request as I saw your are active now. I made a mistake when uploading this djvu file File:Eyesofinnocence00lebliala.djvu. Is it possible for you to rename it to The Eyes of Innocence.djvu for me in Commons? I should put a rename request there, but that will take some time and I wanted to Match and Split this in these days. Thanks --Mpaa (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I can't. I would add the commons template "badname" and reupload it under a different name, then you can carry on with new file. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 21:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks a lot.--Mpaa (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland[edit]

Hey Cygnis,

Regarding the removal of the portal link to children's literature, I think we can compromise. After following your advice in looking at en.wp, it mentions that it remains popular with both adults and children, yet it is categorized as "Children's fantasy novels," part of "Portal:Children's literature," part of "WikiProject Children's literature," and gave the manuscript to Alice, who at the time was twelve, saying himself the work was a "Christmas gift to a dear child in memory of a summer's day." I also was no making the call on this; in the reference book "1001 Children's Books You Must Read Before You Grow Up" the author lists this as such. Despite all of this, I believe that we can both be satisfied; the route I believe you've taken is that since it can be considered both a work for children and adults, that it would be POV to only list Children's literature as the portal. I contest that if it can be both, we should link both as portals on the work. Both is better than none, right? We wan people to see what else we've got in the site. And besides, if any work can be considered two things or more, should it be practice to never list any portal on their page for fear of pushing a POV?

I hope I've addressed your concern, and with that I'm going to re-add the portal link to Children's literature as well as Fantasy. If there are others you wish to add, please do so; I will not object. - Theornamentalist (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

You have new messages
Hello, Cygnis insignis. You have new messages at SchoolcraftT's talk page.
Message added 13:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI — billinghurst sDrewth 13:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Quotes[edit]

Hallo Cygnis, I saw that you reverted my change from using the standard quotes ("") to the Unicode quotes (“”). To prevent a edit war, I wanted to ask you why you did this. I saw that some projects on Wikisource use the normal quotes while others use the Unicode quotes. Therefore, I concluded that it's up to every user which type of quotes he prefers.
However, on other wikis I learned the consensus that the Unicode quotes are better than the standard quotes and should always be used but are not necessary if a user thinks they are too cumbersome to insert. Is the consensus on Wikisource to always use the standard quotes? --THX-1138 (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. They break searches. See Index_talk:The_Life_of_Michael_Angelo.djvu. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The Grateful Dead[edit]

Hi. Index:The Grateful Dead.djvu is proofread now. I think you can delete subpages once created at requested text. Would be nice if someone could validate that. --Mpaa (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Point of procedure[edit]

FYI - Vote on point of procedure. Green Cardamom (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Cygnis, even if you don't want to vote, if you could participate in the talk page discussion, where you stand on the point of procedure for editing proposed policy pages. You are the principal person in this affair, a lack of participation in an attempted conflict resolution would not look good, I would have no choice but escalate it to some more formal CR procedure. Which is fine if that's what you prefer, it will just take a lot longer and involve a lot more people, and we have better ways to spend time than argue "policy page points of procedure" for weeks or months :) Green Cardamom (talk) 07:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead Man Chest[edit]

Hey Cygnis,

I know you have been active with The Dead Man's Chest even before I was, and I actually was going to talk to you about creating some type of excerpt template for works specifically of this nature; one which added a category for it and maybe some other stuff. I see that you've removed the single transcluded work, which is what Green Cardomom was trying to achieve; they have gotten frustrated with some of your edits and reverts, just talk to them! I understand where you're coming from, in that we cannot choose what to transclude, and that we are trying to best represent the work in relation to its' original publication. The fact that we separate works at all into chapters and such directly conflicts this in principle, but we do it any way for many reasons. In this case, a notable quatrain was being transcluded for ease of the reader, and for ease of organization. I feel that it is highly beneficial to host this work separately rather than sending the reader first to a dab page, and then to a portion in some publication, or to the separate portions within the original itself.

Take a look at Marriage of the Dead, or even better, Jabberwocky; writers intentions or not, we excerpt these things because they are of value. (Not a threat, I swear, even if it sounds like one) I may or may not revert back to how it was, I can't decide if I feel like getting involved. But I ask you to please use the talk page; this is where I discussed my intention and ideas, and its where you should too. Without that, especially on a page which I recently spent a lot of time with, it feels like you are coming along and simply making it cygnis.wikisource.org - Theornamentalist (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

clarification on linking[edit]

If an author or work appears more than once within a text, do you suggest wikilinking to the subject only once as representative of the whole text?—or once per each Mainspace (Chapter) page on which it appears? Do you know what I mean? Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think so. I do it around once per section (sub-page), but there would be many reasons to ignore that as a guideline; it would depend on the type of work. In the example you gave recently I would link every reference in the footnotes, the author is being very precise. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 19:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
No worries. I will try to think of some interesting examples and variations. Let me know if you have some more thoughts on this. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 20:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm always full of questions, and I'm sure more will surface as I plod along! I appreciated your reference to the "great conversation." I have dabbled in some of Adler's work in past years,—Thomistic philosophy, etc... Strikes a chord with me. That's why I like Wikisource (i.e., "original source," getting "back to the source"). I think the "source" part is sometimes overlooked; it is different from a resource... Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to archive or delete; the above topics prompted me to go back and re-read portions of Hutchins' The Great Conversation. (1952) The following passages seem to apply themselves—whether directly or indirectly—to the current discussion on annotations as well as to the debated purpose/intent of this sister itself:

[Conversation, p. xx] One of the policies upon which the Advisory Board insisted most strongly was that the great writers should be allowed to speak for themselves * * * Since the set was conceived of as a great conversation, it is obvious that the books could not have been chosen with any dogma or even with any point of view in mind. In a conversation that has gone on for twenty-five centuries, all dogmas and points of view appear. Here are the great errors as well as the great truths. The reader has to determine which are the errors and which the truths. The task of interpretation and conclusion is his. This is the machinery and life of the Western tradition in the hands of free men.

[p. 48] Sir Richard [Livingstone] goes on to refer to the remarks of T. S. Eliot: "In my own experience of the appreciation of poetry I have always found that the less I knew about the poet and his work, before I began to read it, the better. An elaborate preparation of historical and biographical knowledge has always been to me a barrier. It is better to be spurred to acquire scholarship because you enjoy the poetry, than to suppose that you enjoy the poetry because you have acquired the scholarship.

With regard to "experimental science"—I believe Hutchins, et al. is referring to natural science here, but are his comments not also relevant to our current debate on annotations?

[p. 40] The rise of experimental science has not made the Great Conversation irrelevant. Experimental science is part of the Conversation. * * * In the light of the Conversation we can reach a judgment about the question in dispute: How many methods of inquiry are there? [p. 46] * * * whenever a proposal is made that looks toward increased intellectual effort on the part of students, professors will always say that the students cannot do the work. My observation leads me to think that what this usually means is that the professors cannot or will not do the work that the suggested change requires. When, in spite of the opposition of the professors, the change has been introduced, the students, in my experience, have always responded nobly. [italics mine]

Another reason why I enjoy spending time here! —Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, sorry that I was slow to reply ... I'm doing three things at once and only noticed the 'new message' bar when I was closing the tabs in my browser. I very rarely archive or delete messages, it requires a demonstrated and persistent combination of arrogance, ignorance, and flagrant insults to prompt that. I'm not going to do it to censor a poignant quote that happens to be 'slight' copyright violation ;—)
It's years since I read that, you've inspired me to go off and read it again. What the author says about experimental science resonates within me for many reasons, it's something else I have given a lot of thought to, but I'm having trouble relating it to the discussion on annotations. In particular, I don't see how the activities of professors and students has relevance to an open community's efforts to build an online library. I do see a relevance to wikiversity, perhaps it would inspire something other than experimenting with unwitting volunteers at the other sister-sites. Feel free to elaborate on how you think it might have a bearing on that discussion.
You might also be interested in reading Garnett's essay "The telegraph in the library", I think it relevant to how technology can greatly improve the functions of a library without changing the concept of one. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 17:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Re: Experimental science and annotations: I didn't really draw much of a parallel between the two—more like disconnected, random thoughts filling my brain as I read the passage (that's usually how my thought process goes!)... But I think you hit on one of those random thoughts when you wrote, "I think it relevant to how technology can greatly improve the functions of a library without changing the concept of one." Other than that, the exper. sci. passage—with regard to professors/students and methods of inquiry—just made me think about the ongoing dialogue here with regard to proposed policy and the like... And how, with very few exceptions, Editors/Admins here have managed to continue to "respond nobly" to one another—even through disagreement. I have to say, I prefer to sit on the sidelines and watch and listen to you all and learn that way instead of contributing my two cents worth (goes to my non-confrontational nature). All of you have helped me so much over the past two years in your own ways with regard to "best practices" here, & etc. But I've learned much more than that even! So when occasional "accusations" fly, I find myself cringing—but not for long... for assuming (I get in trouble for that) that the majority(?) of editors here are male(?)... to use a word you once used,—it is also a boyish attribute to "get over" things quickly and "get on" with a task... Always a perennial student,—Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Re: "The telegraph in the library": Only scanned the first paragraph...Printing it out to read more thoroughly later, for I have to put on my "Mom" hat now... But I read: "where improvements can form part of the original plan, with no fear of impediment from arrangements already existing..." Brings some random thoughts to mind! ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Everything that you have said has been very helpful, pausing to think about that was time well spent; I especially appreciate the optimistic view on the flip-side of boyish attributes. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 20:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Use of <br> instead of <poem>[edit]

Same output as far as I know; I'm curious though, how come you prefer the latter? - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

[I think you mean "the former" (<br>)?] I asked the same question of Cygnis here, and was provided an answer. I'll go even one further and submit that instead of {{gap}}, you use non-breaking spaces. Print-preview the following in PDF mode, and you'll see why:

using gap[edit]

 "Man is all symmetry,
Full of proportions, one limb to another,
 And to all the world besides.
 Each part may call the farthest, brother;
For head with foot hath private amity,
 And both with moons and tides...

using non-breaking spaces[edit]

     "Man is all symmetry,
Full of proportions, one limb to another,
     And to all the world besides.
     Each part may call the farthest, brother;
For head with foot hath private amity,
     And both with moons and tides...

Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks LJB, I usually use poem simply for line breaks, and I used to love {{gap}}... hmm, maybe we should template nbsp. Gap is based off of em-space, I wonder why it doesn't render in .pdf - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I made a very quick quick check on {{right}} (if someone can retry, better) but the same behaviour when printing pdf is present for this template as well. I wonder what about the others and if it is worth while investigating more. --Mpaa (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe a good work-around waiting for a template version of nbsp could be to use {{loop!|10| nbsp }} --Mpaa (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

because ...[edit]

user preferences for image sizes are just that, see Special:Preferences#preftab-1. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 22:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

And read the documentation at {{smaller block}}. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 22:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you; was unaware of {{smaller block}}. - Newb

bug?[edit]

Ugh. So what's this bug you're talking about [29]? The old version looks fine to me, and the new version looks dreadful. You really need some kind of visual division between the end of the title page and the start of the preface. Hesperian 23:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ugh-ugh. In the earlier version a stray "}" appears above the page break before the preface. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 23:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Ugh, I see. That's not quite the visual division I had in mind. Hesperian 00:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
It was typed on the page like ... >} ... removing it solved the problem. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Charles von Hügel[edit]

Hey Cygnis,

regarding linking to the biography portal in this biographical work, there is no consensus for portal linking in the header? I suppose there are some who see this likely as extraneous (although I've never gotten a complaint), but I've never seen anyone but you remove portals. You may want to inform some of the portal proponents and maintainers, I think they may find this lack of consensus interesting. I assume that you read my messages as ignorant or sarcastic, or even hostile, but I would like to see where the lack of consensus in portal linking is, and how come it isn't enforced on a variety of works. - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Why did you create a new category at Commons? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
In order to host the images appearing specifically in the work. I had seen this being done when returning last winter, and since then have found it useful, not solely for proper organization either. Personally, with works that have great illustrations, I tend to visit the category to peruse, like with The fairy tales of science. Although I did add the comcat link there, the category had already been built and filled. - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The images appear in their context, and are listed with their descriptions at Charles von Hügel#xi. There is a gallery at Commons, and the images in the work populated the category; These are linked from the article and the author page here. Why did you only put some of the images into that sub-category? And if you finished doing that, what is the downside to that action? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, there are plenty of works which do not list illustrations, in which linking to commons would be necessary to isolate the media related to the text. That's what the parameter is for right?

I may have missed something, but what I did is open each page listed in the contents for illustrations and open up the resulting image. Did I miss images from this publication? I can't check just now. Anyway, as a reader I find it a useful resource in capturing all separated media for viewing, and is what I thought the parameter existed for, and as an editor here and there, it is proper organization; for example, before I created the book-specific category, someone selecting the commons:category:Charles von Hügel would have found an image of Elizabeth Farquharson; why?

You read this work? Ask me questions about him, I've read quite a bit. The arrangement of links to relevant content was fine, I put some time into optimising that page and sisters. You started emptying category, one click from the article and author page, so you could add it to the header of a work I poured effort into, that the community has agreed is complete. You don't give a reason to do it, other than the option exists: it could be done, so it should be done.
And this is just the very last thing you did. Why do you think I log into this site? Look over my last 500 contributions, it is almost entirely composed of the utterly unobjectionable creation of content. Then reflect on your own contributions, your demands for interaction, time and attention, to debate your experiments, your extremely inconsistent views, your reactive edits to wikisource and its sister, your announcements that the idea you had the other day is now policy and you closed it as supported by a consensus. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for belittling my contributions. It is a contest, and you won.

You did not answer my question. You also only seem to pick fights with me. Do you do a lot of work? Yes. Is it yours? Never was, never will be. It is not your page. You are not allowed to have ownership. If you want to be in control of everything you work on, go somewhere else. This is a wiki. Be sure to look at the site disclaimer about editing and contributions, and what the definition of a wiki is.

My edit reflects what the parameter exists for, the creation of a category which is properly organized out of one which was poorly organized. Those images do not belong in his category. Read up on category organization and sub-categories at commons; I am sure everyone will agree with me: that the book should have its own category.

It is reflective of site consensus for sister links. Is there a Wikipedia article? Yes? Link it. Quotes about this work? Yes? Link it. And so on.

I have never read this work and don't intend to, you are the expert and seem to have say on what appears in the header and notes field, why should I bother? Besides, I don't have to read it to simply add in a link.

I did not edit your extensive "content" work, I added a link to the images at commons; hardly controversial. In fact, bring this up at Scriptorium if you want it gone, even the parameter option for all works. By the way, I did give a reason, apparently you missed it, so I will repeat:

"Anyway, as a reader I find it a useful resource in capturing all separated media for viewing, and is what I thought the parameter existed for, and as an editor here and there, it is proper organization; for example, before I created the book-specific category, someone selecting the commons:category:Charles von Hügel would have found an image of Elizabeth Farquharson; why?"

What extremely inconsistent views? What did I do the other day that I closed as consensus? If I try to initiate conversations, it is because this is a collaborative site.

You claim that I'm hostile, ignorant, arrogant, and a "newb," yet I have never called you a name once. If you speak to me, do it in a respectful way. Can you get mad? Sure, but don't resort to speaking down to me.- Theornamentalist (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Listing subworks where different subject matter[edit]

At Author:Richard Garnett you took out the listing of subworks. (Person preference only: Within reason) I like to see a list of those works that may be included to add information/clarity about works. With the list that you deleted it was incomplete, and wasn't sure whether you were in the situation of full list or nothing, ie. don't do partials, or just nothing. For a work like this, I see that the other option is to add a small commentary on the content in a line below the listing. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I started that when then collection was incomplete [30], doing one every now and then; there was an edit swarm and the work is now complete. The title page (and the title itself) describe the contents and other front matter; that is just a click away. He also wrote a lot poetry, entries in reference works and other essays, and I think it worth indexing things like when it gets unwieldy, but I think it better to see that in situ (as transcribed, scan-based content). What commentary would one add? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 01:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Claiming a shortcut[edit]

With this diff I have gained the ability to take any damn shortcut I want. It may work for you too. Hesperian 05:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw your "yay" on RC and thought it must be good news :) I've just spent some time trying to get my head around your current script, can I just overwrite my outdated version? I had been meaning to get the latest and greatest for overflowing refs and other developments, but hadn't taken the time to fathom your arrangements for the .js pages. The functions for diacritical marks is also a bit of mystery to me, is that needed for the case conversion? BTW, did you notice Inductive's idea for grabbing running headers from previous pages? I haven't tested it, what I have works very well, but it may have a slight edge for quick fixes and works with short sections. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a valid reason for splitting into different .js pages, but it has created some annoying caching issues for me, so on balance I wouldn't recommend you follow suit. If you want to update, your best bet is to keep your own work-specific stuff (i.e. your equivalent of what is in my works.js file), and add to your monobook.js file everything in my proofingScripts.js file except the line where I import my works.js file.

The diacritics functions: if I want "é", I type "e", then highlight it and type Alt-Shift-'. Similarly, if I want "ë", I type "e", then highlight it and type Alt-Shift-:. It works beautifully for me, but I understand diacritics are already easy for you in your current OS/browser setup.

Haven't looked at what Inductive is doing; will check it out.

Hesperian 05:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

I believe this falls within your sphere of interest: Wikisource:Proposed deletions#Tamerlane and Other Poems. Hesperian 06:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

w:Goa Gajah[edit]

I took two of the pictures used in the article:

125.162.150.88 Jack 14:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please retract your vote and use your login, 125.162.150.88, for the reasons I mentioned at the talk of the user you claim to be. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll strike it, but can't log in; all my accounts are locked: sulutil:Jack Merridew, sulutil:Barong. Everyone knows this is me; see: w:User:125.162.150.88, w:Special:Contributions/125.162.150.88. 125.162.150.88 Jack 14:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Authorship of illustration on Title Page of The Wind in the Willows[edit]

Hi Cygnis, I had a question about the illustration on the title page of The Wind in the Willows. It's pretty clear that this 1913 edition is illustrated by Paul Bransom, and most of the illustrations are of a consistent style to indicate a single illustrator. However, I was looking through the illustrations yesterday, and my fiancée, who is an aspiring illustrator, noticed that the illustration on the above linked page is not only of an entirely different style, but that it is also distinctly in the style of Arthur Rackham. If it is by Bransom, he is definitely imitating Rackham. However, here's where it gets interesting: I work in a library, and I'm moving a bunch of materials in the reference section right now. I stumbled across a bibliography of old children's books, and I looked up The Wind in the Willows. The bibliography of the collection in question showed information for the 1908 first edition published in London by Methuen & Co. The note for the edition indicated that Arthur Rackham had been approached to illustrate the first edition but declined (and later regretted it). The note goes on to say that Rackham did illustrate for the 1940 edition just before his death. So, we know that Rackham remained a candidate of interest for the illustration of the book. Perhaps he provided just one illustration for this edition? It isn't clear from a cursory inspection, but it's prescient to note that while Bransom's signature appears in either the bottom right or left corner of every other illustration, there is no evidence of a signature on the illustration in question. Rackham, while he signed many of his pieces, often left them unsigned.

In any case, I know this is a small detail, but I think it's worth pursuing and verifying if we can. I think this book might be of help: http://books.google.com/books?id=ziBXAAAAYAAJ&q=Wind+in+the+Willows+1908+Methuen&dq=Wind+in+the+Willows+1908+Methuen&hl=en&ei=3yoeTpDXEsrOgAfx7KjKCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg

Let me know what you think, and sorry for the very lengthy message! Polyglottalstop (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick update: I've requested the above linked book through Interlibrary Loan, so I'll see if I can't dig something up. Polyglottalstop (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
No apology necessary, this is very interesting. During my crude attempt to restore that file I had the same thought, that it was not the same artist. I meant to find out more about w:Paul Bransom and uploaded the scan for another work he illustrated. My humble opinion is that you and your fiancée (congratulations, btw:) are probably right, Rackham seems very plausible. As Rackham was approached, perhaps he submitted some drawings, but moved on to something else. Maybe he was too expensive, and they commissioned the younger talent instead. I haven't seen Bransom's sketches to compare, however, the line-work is very confident, rather than detailed and technically proficient, and I don't see a need for the publisher to use a Rackham imitation as a hook. Luckily for us, the readers, we now have both editions. Let me know what you find out, I'll do the same if I discover more on this. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi.[edit]

What's up with the Oddysey translations? Some are google books, etc. Btw. Be right back.-Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Please! <smiles>--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you delete...[edit]

--the redirect "The Odyssey of Homer (Pope)"? I need to move the page "Odyssey (Pope)" there.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not an easy thing. The page has content in its history, it needs sorting out. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 22:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Can we reconsider this? The title of Pope's work is in fact The Odyssey of Homer, not Odyssey. I wouldn't think twice about squashing a history like that, in order to correct a title. Hesperian 00:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with that, when the related titles are resolved: Special:Contributions&target=Hodgson-Burnett%27s_Secret_Garden CYGNIS INSIGNIS 01:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

removal of edition[edit]

I don't feel like arguing about the removal of the poetry portal, but I am curious, are you against the whole idea of using portals?

As far as edition, I can't say that I disagree with your edit here; I find the link a little redundant in roughly 99.99% of the cases where its used. That being said, Londonjackbooks has written some of the best information I've ever seen in Discussion pages; be it about the sepcific publication, editions, digitization, or formatting; and in my opinion if this gets removed, there really isn't anything else anywhere on en.ws that needs to have the info box link to the talk page. Do you intend to remove this systematically or discuss it with the community? - Theornamentalist (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Good, and no … as a catalogue, per the developing proposal at central discussion, it should link to pages.

Template cruft … and no, just from FT works. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 18:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I am unsure if the proposal is really developing anymore, unless I've missed it, it is most likely archived and dormant. At this juncture with, from my knowledge, 2 camps for Portal listing (one which adds them to works, and one which does not) I ask that you bring up a current proposal or something at Scriptorium; this way, we don't have to play these games of "I uploaded it, I decide," or any continued and potential warring, in which I add, you remove, I add, you remove, I leave you a message, and so on. I want to hear your reasoning; no ten word sentence in an edit summary or the summation of piecemeal responses throughout months of back and forths does it for me. I think there is a solution on the horizon which allows for both of us to be fully happy, but for now, I think it is appropriate for you to begin a discussion, and we can all come to at least some way of functioning uniformly as a community. - Theornamentalist (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)