User talk:Cygnis insignis/Archive 3

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Mumblemumble[edit]

I DO tend to ramble... Sorry about that! Because I'm challenged in the technical department, it helps me to document everything to serve as a reminder for future edits. I thought that documenting Stops-specific issues on its Index talk page (as opposed to the Mainspace talk page) would be okay, but perhaps I'll rethink placement and create a section on my own Talk page from now on with future texts (or wherever else would be more appropriate). Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I guess I really don't know what you were trying to say in your comment... Were you "chewing" on something (literally or figuratively) or making reference to my tendency to ramble on? For either are plausible! wink Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

[The following brought over from Index talk page ]
I'll take a stab at it:
  1. Format: Are you refering to the {{larger}} formatting? The text in the original source was "larger than..." what is found in most texts... It was a judgment call on my part (looking at it in a purely "artistic" way as opposed to a technical way). But you are correct (if I read you correctly) that compared with itself, it really *can't* be "larger"!
  2. Standardization: With regard to page numbers, the text is unpaginated... Are you referring to page numbers in the Mainspace that link back to the Index:page (I can only guess if this is what you mean)?...
  3. Precedent: I leave all my work here to the "Powers that be" (i.e., those with more technical knowledge and WS "tools" than I have at my disposal). Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

That should have been grumblegrumble I suppose, some minor points of style that I raised too late.

  1. Yeah, that is what is meant.
  2. I assumed it was paginated, but I was wrong. I do think that function should be used for page numbers, or noted with - (or —) to indicate the absence of those. I didn't always think that, but came to that conclusion for a myriad of reasons.
  3. By precedent I mean that FTs should reflect 'best practice', uncontroversial and easy to emulate in other works.

    some reflection on your parenthetical remark. Using tools and possessing technical know-how should be irrelevant, unless it makes transcripts 'better' by something like a factor of 10, solutions should intuitive or self explanatory. Once seen, or shown, then the contributor should be able to apply or adapt the solutions when they encounter another barrier to completing an index. It is the cause of much regret that I struggled to make things work by slaving over one or two pages, I have a 'palette' of solutions that usually allow me to carry on and share the fascinating bit - the text itself. I see users going down the same path, but coming to the conclusion that they are wasting their time. You don't need to how the tools work, just when to use them. Many will be happy to share their scripts and buttons with you. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 10:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cygnis. RE: Tools, technical knowledge, etc.: Some years ago—totally unrelated venue—I was told by a person I respected that I should leave a certain task to others who were more knowledgeable about it... It wasn't rocket science or anything, and besides, I was having fun and learning something new... But I conceded, and the idea that I should "stick to what I know" has since stayed with me—albeit as an unwelcome sentiment for the most part... No one has told me that here at WS; to the contrary, I've been told to "play away" and make mistakes, and so I have (albeit trying not to make messes like I did with Little Pretty Pocket-Book—a prime example of where I should have stuck to what I knew!), and I appreciate the help you and many others have given along the way to make things better (i.e., your "best practice")! While we may feel it is a waste of time to struggle and slave over a page or two, usually something is learned in the process... Even if the learning comes as you watch those more knowledgeable picking up your pieces! :)

I don't mind a little grumbling... Usu. just means something constructive is around the corner! It is, and should be, all about the Original Source here; and we should be "all about" the author's business and intent, for as you said, the most "fascinating bit" is "the text itself"! Thank you for your comments... And although I don't think the day will ever come when I can wrap my mind around a script (from all those I've seen),—I will be sure to continue to knock on doors here when I need help with some far less complicated formatting issues! Have a good day :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Hi Cygnis,

thanks for the welcome message. In this page there wasn't a problem, but I only transcribed, not formatted, the text, and in the Italian Wikisource the violet symble means "complete but not formatted text". I edited here by case, because I help the XIIIth century project on it.source and we needs scanned texts from that time. So I found something in Internet Archive and... you know the continuation! I intend to enter other books by St. John Lucas and I can partedipate in the collaboration of the week. Soon, Erasmo Barresi (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Formatting help[edit]

Please help! Not sure what I did wrong... Something just must not have pasted right... Thought I followed the same formatting as Price Fixing's Table—double/triple checked, but to no avail, and now I am brain dead. Thanks ahead of time, Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

George Orwell III got to it. Thanks though! Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Pardon, I forgot to mention I couldn't find a problem (and that was why). CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
That's okay, thanks for trying though... Looks like it had something to do with header notation(?) Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the table header needs to start on a new line. I think a single return would also work. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Author moves[edit]

Cyg, although I know that there is a good argument to use the common name for authors and I've said so myself before, that's not what's been discussed before at Wikisource:Naming_conventions and the template documentation has been that way a long time. I think some could see your mass moves as disruptive unless we talk this out at a major forum.--Doug.(talk contribs) 14:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC) BTW, I reverted your change to the documentation.--Doug.(talk contribs) 14:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I've tried broaching the subject on a number of occasions, in a number of different forums ... it was ignored by the prime mover of this ridiculous rule. My mass moves? I do what appears on my watchlist, I'm not a process editor who makes up these crappy rules and implements in thousands of edits, with bogus links to proposed conventions which state "THIS IS A DRAFT!!!" in bold and large letters. Please undo your revert. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, well, I saw you move more than one and change the documentation too. I'm not so sure about the change to the documentation as the status ante seems the more appropriate pending discussion. I tend to agree with you that the (proposed, draft, preliminary, whatever) policy is a bit overkill and would generally support the creation of all possible redirects and no hard and fast rule except in cases of actual conflict; but at the same time, I don't see a good reason for the moves either. I really think we really ought to be discussing it. If you broached the topic now, I for one would neither ignore you nor be in direct opposition; though I don't see enough need for a change to start a thread myself. On the other hand, I don't really support the undiscussed moves by anyone on either side.--Doug.(talk contribs) 14:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I've given about twenty reasons not to have a single rule, this one is good enough in the mean time 'Author intent!'. When the expanded name of C. J. Dennis, T. S. Eliot and so on appear in the title, I have to go to the page to realise why it is on my watchlist. It is regrettable that I felt the need to undo a good faith edit by yourself, but look at it this way: I'm taking the political hits that appear to be consequence of actually thinking things through, over a long period of time, and what is construed as 'insubordination' for daring to ask "why?". CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The revert is of no consequence from my point of view. It was done in a similar spirit to our sister project's BRD. I will participate in any discussion on this that I notice but I won't make a very serious effort to change things either way. Although I see the rule's proponents' point about conflicts, I don't support a fixed rule and tend to think that a redirect will fix any problem that can be fixed and makes the name of little consequence (though I do see your watchlist point, which I hadn't thought of before). Actual conflicts of names have to be dealt with as they come and no rule will prevent them all (and the chances of two authors with the initials T.S.Eliot actually using them seem to me to be somewhat less than two authors having exactly the same name) but I know others see a rule here as more important than I.--Doug.(talk contribs) 15:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I could argue that it was boldly added to template documentation and I reverted that, albeit too late to stop this edit war. I honestly looked for this 'rule' before, and finally did today when I gave up using my time contributing and spent it hunting through documentation. Conflicts due to similar names need resolving, of course, and expanding them is a sensible way of doing that. What appears on a watchlist is weak argument, but it indicates the larger and unintended consequences of having a maverick rule. The sisters are also constrained by wonkery, rules invented to suit the purposes of the persistent yet otherwise disinterested, and a sensible approach has a better chance of prevailing in those larger communities, however, the situation here is greatly simplified by the text being produced in the 'real world'. If a page title needs resolving, the references in properly published texts are an important consideration. Without checking, and unless the incoming link is piped, the author would almost always refer to T. S. Eliot as T. S. Eliot (the example given in the documentation). CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I have to admit that I tend to agree with you, I have several times had the discussion and each time questioned the draft and the link to project talk space as authoritative but had each time been assured that this was the way we do it here and this has all been thoroughly discussed before. At the same time, I do think that the whole point of redirects is to make all of this relative, such that it doesn't really matter what name we call something so long as the name one is looking for will get you there. If pressed to support a particular rule, it wouldn't be either your method nor the other, but one of place all author pages at the name of the nom de plume and redirect everything, and that conflicts be addressed with the more significant authors being given first position with navigation links everywhere. Thus I would use Author:E._e._cummings (only for want of an initial lowercase in mediawiki) and Author:Mark Twain with redirects (or dabs as necessary) from all conceivable possibilities. Conflicts among little known authors I would simply resolve with dabs.--Doug.(talk contribs) 16:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I was one of the vocal supporters of italicising species at the other place, my real world wonkery led me to discover how this was done, using {{DISPLAYTITLE:DesiredTitle}} (now done with a template). It doesn't seem to work here. There is some help at w:Help:DISPLAYTITLE#Changing_the_displayed_title and an example at w:Ebay. Putting e e cummings under my nose could be seen by some as disruptive :P CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Re WS:FTC#The Art of Nijinsky[edit]

Yes, I would be interested in seeing it promoted. How do I do that? Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Solution to a different problem[edit]

  • Cyg, Inductiveload has taken up the idea of a technical solution; I know you do not favor this but I want to draw your attention to the issue he has actually addressed with his prototype as I hope you will agree that we do need that. I had suggested {{ls}} as a model and inductiveload took that and created a sidebar switch that will turn on archaic type so that one can see long-s in the mainspace. Currently it only works for long-s as it was done as a proof of concept but I am hoping we will soon have it functional for {{oe}}, {{ae}} and a yet to be created u<->v template that I'm developing. So, please take a look at his prototype which he mentions at Wikisource_talk:Annotations#Technical_solution_to_the_mess; hopefully you'll agree that for what is actually is designed to do it is excellent and that the ability to see such characters is important, since at some point historically they are each linguistically significant (we are not at the moment talking of including ligatures, though that hasn't been discussed much). Part of my reluctance to work on some older works that I have on deck has been the lack of a good way to handle these long-s and its ilk in a way that makes sense - this would address that.
  • On the "annotations question", would you be at all willing to consider it if all it did was switch wikilinks on and off (internal as well as wp and wikt) and if it was set to off by default? Thus all users would see the unwikified text unless they specifically asked for more. Since it would not hide external links or footnotes, attempts to introduce those could easily be removed.--Doug.(talk contribs) 11:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I haven't got around to replying, but you may have noticed I'm thinking about it. For more on ligatures there some discussion in the archives here on æ, Æ, œ, and Œ. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 20:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that link. I see that you saw my work on a style guide entry and I'd be interested in your thoughts should you wish to offer them on the talk page or here. Also, User:Inductiveload's .js script is now working as a client side switch (rather than relying on the functioning of {{custom substitution}}, which was causing multiple problems); the template ({{Long s}}}) is now working merely as a marker for the script. I would suggest that this prototype could be expanded to allow the alternate display of a variety of characters if the user setting up the work desired it. Because it relies on a script knowing the substitutions required, it has no practical applicability to the "annotations problem" - though I acknowledge that replacing characters, beyond mere typographic conventions, may be seen as a form of annotation-lite. I've heard a few people comment that they think we should replicate the typography as perfectly as possible. For my own part, I don't see the value of even true ligatures and I am pretty much resolved to abandon the use of fake-ligatures (e.g. ƈt/{{Ligature Latin ct lowercase}}({{ct}})) and draw the line at long s and, maybe, r rotunda (which unfortunately will not display in many standard character sets).--Doug.(talk contribs) 09:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
My primary interest in this area is where it presents a barrier to contributors, 'do I reproduce this ligature?', and that the contributions present no barrier to the reader. I don't believe that adding æ is a problem, except that many platforms require a lot of keystrokes; {{ae}} resolved that problem and the User can carry on. Long s does present a problem to almost all readers, 'is that an s or an f?' requires thought that is unrelated to what the text is communicating ... it is an s. The only work that I am considering making that an option, by whatever means, is The fables of Aesop, as first printed by William Caxton in 1484 ... (1899), in other works I haven't bothered because I think my time is better spent on transcribing a greater number of pages. The other ligature I have encountered on a printed page is the ct, and that is rare, I ignored it because I'm not aware of any loss of meaning.

I think that Greek should be reproduced exactly, where possible, because I am actually ignorant of the language. On other matters here I feign ignorance, because Users should never add what they 'know' (even if they are right), reproducing the text 'as is' is more important.

I'll add more on this if I think something is confounding what is actually very simple. I hope you don't take it personally if I attempt to stifle 'issues' that are very unlikely to be encountered by those who want to share texts they are interested in (or others are likely to be). You have probably noticed I get shitty when people continue to 'make it personal', in whatever way, especially if their mainspace contribs are negligible. Opinions on what is best have more gravity when one actually undertakes the tasks, contrary opinions are cheap when Users spend time on how something should be done, but never actually get around to doing it. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

With regard to recent edits, I left comments on this this Talk page. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I get what you're saying now... How about this? Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Mind if I change your formatting?[edit]

I would like to change this (your) formatting to the following (see below) so that it has the same formatting as the rest of the poems in the text (which I just completed). Major changes are {{gap}} to non-breaking spaces, {{larger}} title font, and removing author link since one is available in the header section of the Mainspace page. Biggest change would be the line height; you might think it is unnecessary (probably is), but I have used it in the rest of the work, and it doesn't seem to fail any copy/paste/pdf, etc. test... Criticism welcomed! Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

{{c|{{larger|THE RETURN OF THE EXILES}}}}
{{block center/s}}
<span style="line-height: 2em">
{{small-caps|The}} gates of the Siberian waste stand wide;<br />
    Great joy has thrilled the mighty wilderness;<br />
    The message of the Lord has come to bless<br />
The souls in bondage: broken is the pride<br />
Of the invincible tyrant who doth ride<br />
    On human hearts, and thrones him on distress!<br />
    Fallen he is! his victims numberless<br />
Fill the long roads by steppe and mountain-side.<br />
<br />
So when our Lord descended into hell<br />
    And broke the fetters of the spirits in prison,<br />
        A glorious company to heaven made way.<br />
What triumph more divine doth history tell<br />
    Than Truth from her captivity arisen,<br />
        And Faith rejoicing in her holy ray!</span>
{{right|{{smaller|''George E. Woodberry''}}}}
{{block center/e}}

Thank you :) Sounding "Taps" now... Londonjackbooks (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The short answer is that's fine, you can finish and I know the discussion is still ongoing; consistency is good, but that is an argument for doing all poems at the site in the same way. I think line spacing is a printer's or publishers prerogative, another could do it differently with no detriment to the author's intentions, so it should be ignored. If you want to preserve it anyway, why not use two returns to produce a similar result? I'll blather on about why it is better to link authors in the text another time. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 06:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll be all ears. Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Three things, four...[edit]

  1. Your "recon" of Treasury of War Poetry material ("Belgium" and the like) has been very helpful. I like when all I need to do is copy/paste your handiwork. The text has turned out to be very tedious, but a good "exercise" nevertheless!
  2. Thanks for the heads-up about the "Watchlist." It was there all along, and I never paid attention... Less junk in my email is fine with me!
  3. Why is it better to link authors in the text as opposed to "merely" in the header?
  4. I guess there's no four... or I forgot what it was! Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Vigilantes[edit]

Thanks for making a WP article! I'm also thinking that I should "collapse" the reviews into something like the articles listed under the "Works" section instead of having all that info on the page. What do you think? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I quoted the content of one review over there, because it was mentioned in a secondary source. Including the chunk from the preface was a bit iffy, it was a lazy way of providing a sense of the pitch and tone of the group. I might make a proper start of the article, we'll see.

The trend over here was to make a 'Works about' section, and there have been some suggestions and ventures into Portals. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 20:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Index request[edit]

Would it be relatively easy for you to get this text uploaded at Commons? My track record is not good as far as uploading PDF/DjVu to Commons is concerned... But from Commons, I can take it from there. We have some of the work already, and I'll have to do a "match & split" (if that's the right term), but I'd like to eventually get that text off my "to do" list too... At your leisure...feel free to "pass the buck" too if you're busy. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind doing it, but did you note the second series, 1919, is shorter than the 1917 edition ? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 00:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Comparing TOC's... I'll get back with you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Huh...what's up with that?! OK--I'll go with the longer one! I'll just "move" the current Mainspace work to the new title then tweak (fill in, etc.) the new info & whatever else it takes when I match & split. Thanks for finding that! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Kinda weird though that a 1917 title would include "1914-1919" in its title—but I don't know how these things work... Another difference: "To all those who have fought for freedom" (1917) v. "To all those who died for freedom" (1919). And "The chief difficulty experienced has been due to the necessity of eliminating some material that he would have willingly retained had the scope of his effort permitted" (1919); wondering, then, why there was a "demand for a Second Series" as stated in the 1919 intro...? Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks like I had already been aware of the 1917 title back in Feb when I "adopted" the 1919 version here on WS... I guess I assumed the 1919 version would have been longer. Ah well! Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Shall I upload one of these files? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, sorry—I think "more is better!" so yes, please, to the 1917 version edition! :) Thanks for doing this! Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I put it up here, did you want a quick and dirty toc? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I am certain you would do it much quicker than me! So if you are willing! Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, you are being very generous... I'll fiddle with the TOC tables (i.e., adapt what I have already begun with 1919) when a good chunk of time presents itself. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
There is a few I would be interested in doing too. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Help yourself! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What should the Mainspace title be so I can do the links correctly in the TOC? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The title is easy to change, with search/replace and relative links, I took the long one title. My current thinking is an arrangement like this A treasury of war poetry, British and American poems of the world war, 1914-1919/Belgium, conveniently sized sections; I should have hit your watchlist, but you could review a couple of ways of handling redirects/versions by my mainspace contribs. I think it saves some fiddling about to link through redirects at disambiguation and author pages, let me know what you think. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 00:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
OK thanks. Haven't checked my email yet for watchlist items since I got back. I'm trying to play with the TOC, and have given it a start in my sandbox. I think I'll do the Belgium section of the TOC next and see how best to link everything (I finished with England, although it still sits in my sandbox until I complete the whole first TOC page). I will be slow-going, but please feel free to comment/criticize. I'll be off and on the computer at random intervals anyway... P.S. I think I mastered the table structure OK for the TOC, but I can't figure out how to separate the sections (England, etc.) well enough so that they're centered (instead of aligned-right in the first column as they currently are)... help welcomed! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I cleaned up the toc text a little, hope that helps. If you look at the index you will see what I did with Belgium, linking the section name and the page. This is what I did with Index:An argosy of fables.djvu (you need to page down a bit), which has tables beneath each section heading. You could run it all together as one table, or just put it where it is needed and use a regular center template for the sections. Hopefully glancing at the edits will explain what is happening, difficult to describe and easier to show. You can use the "Watchlist" link in your browser's window, or click the 'diff' links in the page history to browse. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 00:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Yup, I think I get it. I like playing with stuff like this, although I'm slow at it... But if you don't mind waiting as I plod—and I might have random questions along the way... Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
That's fine...

Looking like there are some poems from the 1919 edition not present in the 1917. Might be interesting for me to comb through both editions "for fun" at some point to find the added ones to the 1919 not present in the 1917... For another day though. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I had the idea it was the other way round, there is more poems in the edition with the "1917" copyright notice. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 01:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
There are more poems in the 1917, but I think glancing through, I thought I saw one or two that were added to the 1919 that weren't in the 1917. I could be wrong... It was probably just a premature thought at this point, and perhaps in err... The 1917 definitely has more poems, and it is the one we want here. I'll keep my random thoughts at bay... :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Its possible there are different poems, some may not have been licensed for the US edition. I've said it is okay to post your thoughts, I don't mind chatting about what we do here with those who actually do something. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 01:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

First page of TOC is basically done, but for the centering of each Part (due to columns)... I don't know if each Part needs it's own table or not. I tried that earlier, but even with the same assigned table width, each table was a different size (maybe due to the auto margin written into the formatting?)... Out of my realm of understanding... Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC) [Leaving the computer for a time... Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)]

I use width=100% ... setting widths begets more problems. This relates to the 'type facsimile' that I'm always going on about, a semantic equivalent, attempting a 'photo facsimile' of what is in the scan is a slippery slope. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 02:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
What I just tried adds up to 100%—Does that count? ;) It still looks good when the window is minimized too... Thoughts? Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC) [Day is done... Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)]
Most importantly, it passes the copy/paste test (albeit with centering loss, of course... but good rendering into a Word doc)—even on FB (with same loss of centering... tried it just for fun... I copy lots of WS material there, so transcription is important!)...but fails in a FB Note; —passes the print-preview/print test, and reasonably passes the PDF-preview test... Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not very good with tables, and can't give a review of its web compliance. Good news that it copy-pastes, I think that is important; coding shouldn't interfere access, preferences, and be simple to reuse. Remind me, what is FB? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC) [Ha!—Facebook Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)]

Can "we" get...[edit]

"Your" Butler's Analogy activity caught my eye... Can we get this? I wouldn't mind plodding through that eventually... There might be another/better edition; I didn't research it very thoroughly (although I should have if I'm bothering to ask you, I suppose!) Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup... 1865 seems to be the earliest ed. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I had never heard of Joe Butler until today, and haven't 'read' through this lecture. I see other books with that title, listed by that author Does the work you linked contain the Analogy? Would you like me to 'teach you how to fish? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 21:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
It does not contain the Analogy; but since the lecture discusses the Analogy, it would probably be good to have that here too... I'll keep fishing (you needn't for me)! Sometimes I have the patience for fishing, sometimes I don't. My technique isn't the greatest, as I am no expert, but I can usually muddle through (if I understand your "analogy" correctly!) First I'd heard of Butler as well, so I looked up some biographical/bibliographical about him and his works, and thought it might be something I'd be interested in transcribing/reading. More boring thoughts are related, but I won't bother you with them! [I'll take a look at the bigger picture you linked to in a bit, for I am now off! Thanks, by the way!] Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I found uploading from archive.org a bit tricky at first. I recommend using firefox then go to the page linked from "all files: HTTP", eg. [1] and right-click to get a menu of options. Choose 'Save link as' or similar command (which actually means 'Download linked target as ...'), give it a better name, then upload to commons. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 22:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Simple enough instructions... I attempted it with Fifes and Drums a while back, but pages rendered incorrectly and I needed help getting it fixed. I've been hesitant to try it again since. I find riddles as difficult to "get" as I do some of this technical stuff, but riddles are much more interesting (still don't get it—even though an answer was provided—but the closest I got to understanding was this)... Ah well... Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Treasury of War Poetry TOC link arrangements[edit]

Sorry for the interruption, but I was wondering if you had any more thoughts about author/title linking in the TOC... I had given "a thought" in reply on my Talk page (@Link arrangements), but I didn't want to continue building the TOC until I got your opinion. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! :) I'll wrap my mind about it/anchors soon... Off for now! Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Title redirects to anchors?[edit]

I knew I had another question... When listing titles on author pages that link to "anchored" pieces that are within a Mainspace page (let's use "Lochaber no More" as an example), is it advisable to create a Page for the poem [["Lochaber no More"]] (or maybe [[Lochaber no More]]) and then make that page redirect to the anchored link? That way, if someone searches for the poem, it'll be easier to find...? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The page title "Lochaber no More" could be created with the same link, as a redirect:
#REDIRECT[[A treasury of war poetry, British and American poems of the world war, 1914-1919/Scotland#Lochaber no More]]
because is unambiguous and there is only one version. I would link through the redirect for incoming links, unless the edition is specified (which it is in the work's TOC, if that needs pointing out). Searching shouldn't be a problem, but creating a redirect is a good thing. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 21:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and what should be done about the already-existing WS pages from the "superceded" 1919 version? Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If something is identical then I replace it, but I'm making it sound easier than it is. Do we know where this came from? If it is vaguely sourced and redundant then it might be better to bin it. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 21:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
It came from the unindexed 1919 edition of A Treasury of War Poetry that got a start here some time ago which I am "overwriting" with the earlier 1917 edition (which contains more poems). As far as I can count, there are 24 poems that were already completed here from the 1919 edition (most of which were created before I stumbled upon the text some months ago) that will eventually be overwritten by the 1917 edition. Do you recommend simply deleting the Mainspace title page for the 1919 edition as well as the 24 associated poems (listed in the TOC on that same Mainspace title page)? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I would do the index separately, create the edition in mainspace, then worry about creating versions, redirects, and disambiguation if I thought it mattered (the works are noted elsewhere). Determining whether the existing poems are worth keeping requires investigation of the source and any differences. It is likely, on balance, that the work is redundant and can be deleted/replaced. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 22:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the direction!... I'll eventually get it sorted out in my brain! :) Turning over the computer helm for now... Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Pages not transcluded[edit]

From Page:The prophetic books of William Blake, Milton.djvu/71 through Page:The prophetic books of William Blake, Milton.djvu/76 are not transcluded. Not sure what is the essence of the work, and those pages, so I will leave it in your hands. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

They were always transcluded, though the page links weren't showing either. I removed some anchors with dodgy names. I believe it was working correctly, and am assuming that something else changed. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, it may have been that the receiving page just needed to be "dev null'd" to reconnect of the underlying database bits, I have stumbled across a few that needed that. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Colored background[edit]

Hi. I saw you often work with pictures. Do you use Imagemagik to remove background? If so, what command do you use? I am a very poor use and the first thing I could put together looking at the help was: "convert input.png -colorspace gray -white-threshold n% ouput.png". Is there something better you can advice? Thanks. --Mpaa (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Q&D is my way, though I have played around with lifting the ink off the page; what you have looks right in theory. I grab jp2 files from the online viewer, then convert to greyscale, adjust the B&W points, and crop to content. Sometimes I use an open source IMP to rotate a fraction. Unless the files are fat (like colour), I save out to PNG. The whiz at scripting this stuff is InductiveLoad, there may be something for Imagemagik or similar. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 23:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
inductiveload (talkcontribs) has designed some filters to do things like that with GIMPbillinghurst sDrewth 00:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :)[edit]

Re: edit. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Accidental duplicate title[edit]

Explanation here! Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I started typing "The Heroes" into the search bar, and saw an already-existing title in the drop-down menu (didn't know it was the one you created)... Didn't click on it (but shoulda)—assuming it must be a disambig page or else another title... I'll try not to assume anymore! Thanks for the fix :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Trailing gaps[edit]

Sorry to bug you again... If you need to widen a trailing gap, do you use px or em? E.g., from {{gap}} to {{gap|4em}}—or some px value? I noted where you told me once that "The value px will render according to the resolution, limited by the user's device, an em is relative to font height, honouring the user's preference"—but wasn't sure how it could/should apply to trailing gaps. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, em, is what I reckon. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Um-K! Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Cab you give me a second opinion on the formatting for this poem, on the leading gaps? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I "cab" wink, but after I run an errand and get some coffee :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I've got a cold. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
If you really do, feel better soon! As to gaps: second and third lines of the first stanza have same indentation and need only one gap (as per here and elsewhere—although the last line of first stanza is aligned left elsewhere...and some renderings have no indentation at all). I'd move the {{block center/s}} below the poem title, and maybe instead of successive {{gap}}s, you use {{gap|4em}}, {{gap|6em)) and the like?
Your opinion on my second opinion—and what you think about non-breaking spaces (see directly below)—I anxiously await, as you complete yet another book single-handedly! I think you are a robot :) All seriousness aside, answer at your leisure... Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I was more concerned about the 2nd and 4th stanzas, but I will have another look. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 21:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry—I'll take another look too, but I have to run gain... I'll read your comments on gaps too, but I might be a bit... Thanks; your opinions are appreciated. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I do not believe the fourth stanza is "inset" like the second... For two reasons: First, because the text in the original image is aligned as far left on the page with respect to the header (not that this is a 'natural' indication, however,—for if you look at other poems in this volume that continue on to the next page, most are centered on the page... It is merely 'lucky' that it is aligned left in this case). Second, based on the poem as it is rendered here on pp. 101 & 102 of another text. The third & fourth stanzas also have the same 'alignment.' I noticed as well that you have assigned small caps to the author's name. Habit from another project? With respect to my original comments about the lines in the first stanza, I still stand by them... May I tweak the poem? I think also, that I will cease to worry about pdf rendering as you suggested. Perhaps it will be worked out in the future... Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I noted your preference for gaps over non-breaking spaces... But me and my pdf-rendering obsession (I don't know why I've become so obsessive about it... I don't even use it all that much!) likes to see this instead of this... Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I prefer several gaps, it is easier to read when it gets tricky. Using 12-16 nbsp can be done with loop or some such thing, but it is a different way of doing it. Using 2em gaps match other defaults, and gap does what it says: I've come to the conclusion that it is a good thing. If someone is passing and wants to fix a bit, they can probably 'see' what is going on. PDF is not a format I would worry much about, what we provide is great. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 21:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be "cad" then? Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Crewe who?[edit]

I believe this "Crewe" to be this Crewe based in part on his birth/death dates (1958-1945), on this and other various online sources, as well as the fact that War and English Poetry (mentioned in the Intro, p. 36) is by "Lord Crewe" (or, "The Marquis of Crewe")—online shown as written by Robert Offley Ashburton Crewe-Milnes and was wondering what you thought? (even with great supporting evidence, I still doubt myself; but I'll ask now anyway, and feel dumb for doing so later) Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I would assume that was right, that there could be only one Lord Crewe and noting as "Crewe" indicates we are supposed to know who he is. I searched on the title and found several refs to Lord Crewe, luckily this [ODNB entry http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/printable/32628] is explicit "his A Harrow Grave in Flanders would find a place in several anthologies". As a bonus, this can be cited as a fact in the article and give a link to the text here (through the redirect). CYGNIS INSIGNIS 06:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, and done. I wrote a small mention in the WP article pointing to the poem here as well (not happy with my use of dashes though). I guess we had a WS article on Crewe already, so I added the poem to that too. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Rupert Brooke[edit]

What do you think about making III. The Dead, & etc., redirect to 1914 and other poems#13, & etc.? The long list of Brooke's poems on his author page kind of bothers me; is it useful to have all the poems listed there? Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I see you already redirected The Treasure (Brooke). Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I made The Dead (Brooke) a versions page, but widowed that one; I don't think it is not a proper title when divorced from its context, despite what the en.wp article tells me. When I can be bothered I will subpage the lot to the 'complete works', which contains another "1914 & other poems". A list of poems at the author page is good, though an exhaustive list would be pointless in some cases. I add to them as redirects or versions, usually because it is noted elsewhere or linked to here. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
OK. I won't touch anything then, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to dissuade you from sorting it out, just trying to give some background. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 17:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
You're not dissuading me,—and your background info is helpful... I may return to Brooke later, however,—a result of a compulsion of sorts; but right now I'm just "going through" the author pages & links to TWP sections. I get easily distracted... Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I noticed some of that, it is amazing (and distracting) to see how many author pages are missing. It's satisfyin' to be able to put a notice at the article that the author's works are now here. If readers are confused by the article, they can at least see texts like "The Dead" as they appeared. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 18:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The thought occurred to me that I should ask you whether you mind if I do some proofreading of subsequent pages of 'The Fallen' section—or if you were wanting to finish it yourself? There's lots else for me to do...I was merely drawn there initially for author page purposes (and to get a feel for your formatting), and decided to "stay" and finish. But I don't mind proofreading elsewhere if you wanted to finish the section yourself...? Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Collected Poems[edit]

I recently came across a 1943 edition of this work (copyrighted by Edward Marsh—a reprint of the 1915 version) in a bookstore, and took it up. It has an intro by George Edward Woodberry that I like—a name familiar from the TWP. It concludes with a biographical piece by Margaret Lavington, which I haven't yet read... You had mentioned above that when you could be bothered, you would subpage the lot to the hosted version... But if you could, could we get an index uploaded, and I could transcribe the work so it is not an 'orphan'? It doesn't matter to me which edition; though I notice that the one hosted here does not include the Woodberry intro, and contains a 'memoir' that the 1915 [1943 reprint] edition[s] do[esn]n't include... I'd leave it up to your judgment as to which edition to host, although I have my preference—which might not be an informed one... Update: Looking further, maybe we can host the original 1915, but still host the memoir, etc. somehow and refer to it in the notes section of the Title page (Main Page) header?? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I glanced through the selection listed at openlibrary, and see that you can have the memoirs or Woodberry. I read the Lavington bit and some of the memoir, btw, the background had my estimation of his worth suddenly drop then sharply rise (I have mixed feelings about his works). They note that the Times correspondent who reported his death was his friend "WSC" and that he had written a paper on James Thomson (B.V., not the earlier one). Anyway, I would recommend a scan from the U. of Toronto or NYPL; I would choose NYPL (Woodberry, Lavington, no memoir) because Ms. Deyo's scans are excellent and she notes any problems. The memoir here is incomplete, I suspect it was OCR being cleaned up, but I don't think there is a problem with getting scan for that section (redlinking the title/edition, cross-linking to the complete) if you think it is worth doing (I don't). I had a similar problem with the Just So Stories, I linked an extra tale (already here) from the notes when I replaced the title with the scanned version, so I had come to the same conclusion you have. Apologies if this creates more questions than it answers … CYGNIS INSIGNIS 04:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
<chuckling> I always expect some added food for thought when I ask you a question :) I think I would like to work on the NYPL version—it helps that the scanned pages are easier on the eyes than the edition containing the memoir! Either my age is catching up with me or I look at a computer screen too often, but I think I'm gonna need to acquire a pair of reading glasses soon... As far as 'worth' and works are concerned, a critic I am not :) I am happily ignorant of the mechanics of poetry... If one catches my fancy, all the better! As I had mentioned, I liked the Woodberry intro—It's often pleasing to read the prose work of some poets... There's an eloquence to their writing that I wish I possessed—for I'd have begun writing at length about Mrs. Coates's works and times if I had the talent, but I wouldn't do her justice... so I build the framework, and hope someone with the necessary knowledge and eloquence will do her justice one day. There is currently someone that I'm 'working' with who is reading through her works here on WS with the intent of writing a piece on her, however... And I also recently had the honor of speaking over the phone with the son of Amos N. Wilder as a result of an inquiry I had about the association between Mrs. Coates and his father (just reread this again, as if for the first time—speaking of the prose work of some poets; it's no wonder that his path & Mrs. Coates' would have crossed, all told!)... Just gives credence to the notion that if you build it, they will come :) Long story short, NYPL edition, with 'memoir' linked in the notes sounds good with me :) Thanks as always, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I created Index:Collected poems of Rupert Brooke.djvu. The problematic page is a choice of dubious restorations for the frontispiece. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 20:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Question... Would I be able to scan the same image from my 1943 reprint of the 1915 ed. and use that? Or would that be a no-no? Busy now, but I'll check back later. Thanks :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The image is desirable if it is an improvement, which is likely, and could be added to the media category at commons. I would stick to the version in the copy of the edition that I have, if it was missing or rubbish I would replace with another and make a note of that on the talk. In principle, deviating from a single source for a transcript can compromise the integrity and cause all sorts of complications. This may seem petty in some examples, like this one, but the alternative is to take the role of editor and create a new version of the work ... a slippery slope. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 22:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Not petty at all—and why I come to you with questions. You can 'ptui' the teacher perception all you like, but you do teach, and I do learn. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be missing actual page 'x' (virtual page 13.5)!? Nope, make that two missing pages... Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This caused by the scanner flipping two leaves instead of one. This happened twice, there was actually four pages missing. I wasn't very impressed with the text-layer of the options at open library, so I hunted archive.org directly and found another. The U. of Toronto is also a good source for scans, so I replaced the file with that. I hope I have it correctly aligned now, apologies if I messed up. I did the missing before I found your transcript of p. x, xi., the other missing pages were before those (p. v, vi., or iii, iv.) CYGNIS INSIGNIS 03:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I should have checked here for any updates before I got started again. Thank you for the fix... I was oblivious about what was going on behind the scenes, and I wouldn't have been clued in to any 'mess-ups'—I at least wouldn't have held it against you... And far be it from me to expect perfection (Heaven knows!)... It's the willingness and the attempt, and I appreciate it :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Turns out my 1943 edition is more than a mere reprint, for it has a different typesetting (if that's the right word) and pagination, and includes an extra poem at the end ("Fafaïa"), plus an Appendix which includes "fragments" of poems from Brooke's last month, and some other "lighter" poems... Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
More complete then, bonus! Well, for you anyway ... hosting them here is probably not possible. I just read a teaser for a review of a recent edition, "Gavin Ewart's new introduction - thankfully, after Marsh's love-laden memoir - is a balanced if rather unenthusiastic reassessment of Brooke's poetry." There is some other stuff if you search on Fafaïa. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Always a danger when being eulogized... Balance is always good; and unenthusiastic is at least better than gush. (okay, well maybe I don't always subscribe to those sentiments...) Better to let the poet's poems speak for themselves... Maybe I'll look into Fafaïa—or else just read it ;) But... My last question for the night, since I'm up too late: Should I use sections for the Main like you set up for the TWP work? or have individual poem pages? Either way, should I "move" the poems from the 'Memoir' edition to join with the Indexed version? No need to respond any time soon, I'll be asleep! Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 06:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Much more to be found searching for 'Fafaïa' without the ' ï '... I found this 'review' and subsequent comments nice... Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, going through the Memoir, I'm not seeing much of an 'assessment' of Brooke's poetry on the part of Marsh (re: the 'teaser' review mentioned above); nor does it really seem unbalanced... Just a lot of letter excerpts written by Brooke, and some background commentary framing them—and it is always good to get a first-person perspective (i.e., Brooke's own words)... But I'm no critic! Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The American Review[edit]

I've created a fork, so I need to move some of these pages and I'd like to know what you think. I did notice that you had already created The American Review: a Whig journal of politics, literature, art, and science but for some reason it didn't register with me that you used the full subtitle. A few hours ago I created The American Review: A Whig Journal (based on the title of the matching Wikipedia article). I was working backwards from the Poe story and didn't question the fact that I was missing volume one until later.

I've been thinking about the best way to merge the two. While matching Wikipedia's title has some merit, the full title is better for a Library entry, although I would prefer title case (ie. The American Review: A Whig Journal of Politics, Literature, Art, and Science). I also prefer the chain of sub-pages used by PSM rather than comma-separated terms; PSM is the largest collection of periodicals on Wikisource, making it a reasonable standard, and it should make potential future reorganisation and navigation easier (volumes and issues can be moved or renamed without seriously effected the links or navigation structure). So, putting them together, "Valdemar" would end up at The American Review: A Whig Journal of Politics, Literature, Art, and Science/Volume 02/December 1845/The Facts of M. Valdemar's Case, and "The Raven" will end up at The American Review: A Whig Journal of Politics, Literature, Art, and Science/Volume 01/February 1845/The Raven. This is only slightly longer at the top of the page than "Valdemar" is at present and it's the most accurate name. What do you think? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I threw that together just to get The Raven up, and to catch the attention of anyone doing more on the volumes (there are a few things worth transcribing). Do what you think is best, I'm generally impressed with your approach.
You raise some interesting points for discussion, I'm in two-minds on some of them. I've done some work on Folk-Lore that outlines some of my thinking, each file (volume) is the main title and there is one level of subpaging. One concern I have raised about PSM and other series is that using the "/" as a separator in the title, which makes sense in some ways, but there is no 'page' at some of those levels. Folk-Lore was issued quarterly, as is arranged that way in the collected volume; the crucial point is the objects I'm dealing with are the volumes. It has the additional merit of being simple: one level of subpaging is confusing enough to many wikimedians. I'm very wary of separators like colons, parentheses, and dashes, though I would prefer to use them. I am a stick in the mud for title case, but the modern library convention of lowercase has a lot of appeal, eg. predicting titles for redlinks and avoiding screwing up links within works. This is because the site lost some of convenience of subpaging when the Page ns was introduced, linking whatever the parent title is, or becomes, with dots and slashes. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 21:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll proceed with the plan I described. I have considered your points (and will bear them in mind in future) but it still seems the best option to me at the moment. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

unwarrantably defaced[edit]

Ha ha, love it! Hesperian 04:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

...A habit that keeps me from checking out library books :) I deface, therefore I own! Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... always slow at the start... I think I get it now! Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

formatting[edit]

Surely there must be a better way than my probably poor improvisation to render

* * * * *

correctly??? Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Any better? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 22:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
BTW, it is a fullwidth asterisk * , but they do not appear in all character sets. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 22:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Much more better :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Better, but not perfect, using * makes the line spacing appear uneven :P CYGNIS INSIGNIS 22:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes it does. I tried playing with that either yesterday or a couple days ago (no history)... So can I just copy/paste your full width asterisk when necessary then? How about when a single asterisk is used? Can your solution be used then for two or more asterisks? (sorry...) Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, I have confused myself... Which one? (very sorry...) Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I used the full width aster, but later found it wasn't rendering on one Windows platform I was using; I decided using a regular one was fine. Using {{***}} doesn't give you control over its position, it's a remnant of some templates that were ill-founded, the letter spacing approach can be formatted like regular lines. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 22:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Crazy house here at the moment, but I'll go over what you've written more thoroughly when I'm back at the helm... Thanks also, by the way, for your help in the Italy section. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Synchronicity[edit]

A concept that I am not familiar with, but I'll look into it as you suggest. My daughter is probably familiar with it, as she is much smarter about those things than I am! (Brings to mind her mention once of "parallel synchronized randomness" from a movie she likes)... Hopefully it's not too "out there" for me, for while I am prone to having my head in the clouds, I try to keep one foot in 'reality' as well (something my husband 'helps' me with—us representing the extreme polar opposites on the Myers-Briggs scale—speaking of Jung!)... And with regard to your anticipated exit, "bummer" is an understatement. Exasperation notwithstanding (you are human, right?), I've learned more than formatting from you, and I have likened the experience to being in a classroom setting (which I miss) with a good teacher who doesn't just feed you the information, but makes you think about the process as well. With that, thank you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

And now, too, it seems I have the backdrop for this poem! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have completed Chapter 2. The prince will have to be kept waiting, but I think he would understand! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of abusing Wikispace, some thoughts: So far, I find the concept reconcilable with Jesus' words that "with God all things are possible." That's good, because if I would have any "bias" at all against a work such as this, it would be my belief in God. I am relieved that the concept deals with acausal occurrences—"[coincidences] in time [that do not necessarily occur simultaneously] of two or more causally unrelated events which have the same or a similar meaning" (p. 25)—i.e., situations that do not involve cause and effect, "transmission," and are not products of mere "wishful thinking." That it is not the latter is a great relief, for that would present yet another bias on my part, and also the reason for the warning, "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!" Better to "get what you need" from God; it usually has a more rewarding outcome anyway! Not to mention, surprises are usually much nicer to receive than "gifts" you've ordered and/or contrived for yourself! I also like that it takes into account the "exceptions to the rule"—not just dealing with raw statistical data which, without the exceptions, would fail to present "a true picture of the world as it is" (p. 61). Reminds me of the Howells poem "Statistics," which reads, "Your facts are facts, yet somewhere there is God." I have to admit, I read through the statistical part of chapter 2 (with all the graphs and data) very quickly, and with basically no comprehension whatsoever! Hoping since you recommended the work, you don't mind my giving my first impressions!? Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Overlooked it before, but Howells and Jung both touch on a similar point: Jung stating, "It is sad but unfortunately true that man learns nothing from history. This melancholy fact will present us with the greatest difficulties as soon as we set about collecting empirical material that would throw a little light on this dark subject, for we shall be quite certain to find it where all the authorities have assured us that nothing is to be found." (p. 33) And the melancholic realist Howells offers:

And from these figures science can discern
The future in the past. We but return
Upon our steps, although they seem so free.
The thing that has been is that which shall be.
Dark prophet, yes! But still somehow the round
Is spiral, and the race's feet have found
The path rise under them which they have trod.

Yet somewhere there is God. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Final thoughts on the matter: The concept only admits to an existence of acausal occurrences. What is absent, however, is mention of the source of the occurrences (which can either be Good or Evil, in my opinion). If the source can't be discerned, it is better for the experience to be left behind and forgotten about than risk the dangers of misapplication. "We are not as strong as we think we are!" Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

{{Pline}}?[edit]

Maybe this for line numbers? 1

Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I knew about that one and unfortunately it doesn't help. The example given at Template:Pline/doc#Example_of_right_alignment doesn't work, for me at least, the numbers are nudged to the next line. This is the same problem I [now] have with my float right solution, previously the breaks did keep things in order. I'll see if the solution is found where I have done it before, just not in the mood to discover that is also broken now. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I figured you would have known, but thought I'd throw it out there anyway. As for me, I'm in the mood for coffee :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sectioning[edit]

I wasn't sure what you were doing as far as sectioning (I think that's what the formatting is for?) on this page... Wondering if it's something I should be doing on the other pages(?) or whether current anchoring has superceded it? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that I intended to transclude the bit I was interested in, but changed my mind because you set about doing the whole work. They have no effect, unless the section of the page is invoked.

There has been a practice of slicing works into the smallest sections possible, the result is multiple pages of data, icon, header and site info surrounding several, or one, sentence. The user may need to click several times to read just one page of the book. In an example like the DNB this is probably not going to be a problem, it is excessive IMO on works like SBDEL, doing a lexicon in this way would be insane. If we take an example like SBDEL, if a reader browses through the other entries they would get an insight into Cousin's witty and bias approach to the entries. I start from the position that a book can appear on one page, eg. Portuguese Folk-Tales. There needs to be some reason to begin bothering with sections, placing a requirement for multiple clicks to discrete chunks instead of scrolling through the adjacent pages. Doing the Treasury this way would make the page too large for many, so I created a section the next largest division (Auxiliaries, or whatever it was) to suggest this structure. I wouldn't bother with anchors either, the pagination does this very effectively and it is a universal means of referencing. KIS

The opposite approach would be to break it down into individual poems under their own title (not subpaged); the only benefit, as far as I can see, is increasing the site's page statistics and putting "us" ahead of the French and German sites ;-) CYGNIS INSIGNIS 06:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I kept you from transcluding anything. I understand your points about the DNB and SBDEL, and agree with how you separated (sectioned) the Treasury "for me." As far as your stating you wouldn't bother with anchors, I think I'm too far gone with anchoring now—almost half the work being done already with TOC links, redirects, etc. already done. But for me to make note for any future endeavours,—a question: With no anchors or sectioning (within an Index:page), how would someone searching (in the WS search bar) for a particular poem title get them directly to the desired poem on a page which contains dozens of other poems without using anchors or sectioning? I don't know how "pagination" as you mentioned would apply to a poem (title) search—maybe it doesn't? Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a slight advantage to adding anchors, but I think the effort required often outweighs this; it's time that I could spend adding more content. A point has been made in discussions on sectioning and subpaging that anchors would be required, but this is not so when the Index provides pagination. The link to the scan that appears at left is also an anchor, the way to link "directly", from redirect, or a versions page, or disambiguation, is to use Work/Section#PageNumber. This is what I did with Treasury, on the fly, when I was taking a break from whatever I was doing. What your extra efforts did was allow this to be replaced with a link structure Work/Section#PoemTitle, this goes "directly" to the anchor on the page. The link to the page number is something you can add to your toolbox, it is close enough to 'directly linked' in my book. I might use {{anchor}}s in a long text when another text refers to it, or quotes it, but this would probably be to a text that has no page number (because it has no scan).

Sorry if I haven't explained this very well before, or I misunderstand the question, an example can be seen at this diff. The poem is well known, my #371 is close, your #In_Flanders_Fields anchor is more 'direct', unobjectionable as long as you don't mind the extra work, and check that it does work. It is more complex, more edits, and therefore there is more to go wrong, eg. the title of the anchor is not an exact match, say "In Flanders field". CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

OK! Now I get what you meant with regard to pagination, and how TOC linking to the page number worked (remembering your initial handiwork now—seems ages ago!)... I don't mind the extra work; but I'll keep "your way" in mind for future projects. You explain things just fine; my thought process is merely slow, and I have to "digest" information differently than most ;) Please make sure that you say farewell before you leave for good and don't just disappear suddenly—so I can be sure to dump all my formatting questions on you beforehand! Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
It's cool, I'm told I think differently to most people. The process, or digestion, I undergo is astonishing to others, even when I'm right. Explaining how to contribute here was easier when I learning, I tried to document some this in the guidelines, some things have become so familiar and obvious that it has become more difficult. I keep a list of some things I have done here, I should add some notes on the tricks I have learned and the occasional innovation. There is also some questionable wonkery, which I can't decide if it is me being clever or inappropriately droll, eg. linking a blank page because an editor mentioned it, or putting a link under an ellipsis to the omitted part of a quote :P CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Perseus, A Book of Myths.jpg

This user is a
WONK

Wonk, clever, droll—I'd say all of the above ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm comfortable with those descriptions, whereas "teacher, professional", or [ptui] "expert" sends a chill up my spine. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Ha, noted. Stricken from my vocabulary and mental picture! Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm... "Wonk" and "wonkery" are more at each other,—but they are different from "wonky." Your definition/connotation and mine may be at odds! Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I had chosen Beowulf based on: "Beowulf's anger, if slow to kindle, was a terrible fire once it began to flame. A few of those flares-up had shown the folk of his uncle's kingdom that no mean nor evil deed might lightly be done, nor evil word spoken in the presence of Beowulf...those who knew him saw his eyes gleam as the good steel blade of a sword gleams when it is drawn for battle, and when he asked his uncle to allow him to go to the land of the Danes and slay this filthy thing, his uncle smiled, with no surprise, and was very well content... [Yet] 'most gracious, most keen to win glory,'...a very valiant hero, a very perfect gentleman." But I digress... Let me know when I become an annoyance. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Those same lines struck me when I read them, Beowulf is one the great stories. There is a lot that is less likeable about Perseus, so it is interesting in its interpretations. I think the image sums up 'wonks', and perhaps me on occasion. Sorry if I'm slow to reply, I'm trying to get my sore head around several things at the moment. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
No apologies!.. Better to tend to your head anyway... And to use a word I just learned from Howells, don't ever let me give you any "guff"! ...And it appears the same page is problematic... I have left explanation in the page's history... New one for me. NEVER MIND—I'M A DUMMY!...I just figured it out... Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Does this even happen anymore at after-supper discussions?

"Before the discussion began the secretary was asked to look in the dictionary to find the precise definition of a cynic..." Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

<Nostaglic sigh> … no. Maybe at Rotary meetings. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
One can always hope, in Heaven at least!—Where I thoroughly intend to sup with Mrs. Coates, her brother George, Thomas Merton, Jack London, Rich Mullins, and I am beginning to think Hamilton as well (among others not coming to mind)! Oh!—and Dostoyevsky! From the now living, I shall not name, but I have a "list"! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I like London a lot, so I will have to look at the ones I don't recognise. Strange that I didn't recognise Jack L. in your tag, I saw it without an apostrophe; it brought up other connotations and I thought no more about it. I met someone who didn't like Dostoyevsky, that is the only thing I remember about them. How goes the War, Treasury of? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
A somewhat random lot... I've always been curious what Mrs. Coates would have thought about Jack London and his writing, although it wouldn't change my opinion at any rate! Not liking Dostoyevsky speaks volumes in my opinion! The War is raging, and never ceases to be inspiring! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I read the following about fairy-tales and the "process of discovering" in The Idiot yesterday... Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I've not read the work, think I started to and left it on this bus. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah. Maybe someone else picked it up then. I've been reading it since spring. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
(Again with the light coming on a little too late in my head,—I get it!) Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I enjoyed some of the poems, the little I did, more satisfying was providing a sample of poets who had no works here. There is often a decent article at en.wp, remarkable individuals, whether they were good or average poets. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 17:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Many more author pages still to be added. I started adding them initially as I went along, but have resigned to saving that more tedious work for last so's I don't become impatient with the slow progress of completing the text as a whole. They do tend to be remarkable, don't they? Sad when creating those author pages to note some of their death dates and how they correspond to the war years. I'd like to think I should be as brave if the necessity were to arise, but am at least thankful that there are still warrior-poets out there fighting the good fight—My better-half included, although I don't know about the poet part! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Just finished the last chapter (+Appendix) of your suggested reading. Speaking of London, quite a few years back, I had purchased a 1916 edition of Jung's Psychology of the Unconscious (I have only scanned the pages of it over the years, however, and almost sold it once) after having learned in Russ Kingman's Pictorial biography of London that the text both "enraptured and enlightened" London to the point that he stood 'on the edge of a world so new, so terrible, so wonderful, that I am almost afraid to look over into it.' (p. 269) I then, of course, proceeded to read the The Star Rover. I think my favorite London novel, however, is the The Sea-Wolf. Thank you for the Jung recommendation! Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I like his early stuff and The Iron Heel; not always successful experiments, but I'm fond of earlier 20C Amlit. I don't know much about more modern stuff. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 19:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Random taste here. Merton's No Man is an Island being my favorite book, for no mere utilitarian reasons—but that it speaks to my hermit tendencies, as well as convicts me of the necessity to step out of my box every now and then when compelled to do so. Funny, I own a book of his poetry, but haven't read it yet (Merton's en.wp article leaves some important considerations out about the author that I may have to correct some day... Same with London's come to think of it...)! Enough from me... Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Something incorrect in an en.wp article! I didn't look, I may do some day :) CYGNIS INSIGNIS 20:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect only in its omission of facts, which tends toward misrepresentation. I only looked due to our dialogue :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Here's a "bit" from a note I wrote in April in anticipation of seeing the film "Of Gods and Men":
...On Pasternak, in the same text, Merton writes: "[Pasternak] stands for courageous, independent loyalty to his own conscience, and for the refusal to compromise with slogans and rationalizations imposed by compulsion. Pasternak is fighting for man's true freedom, his true creativity, against the false and empty humanism of the Marxists—for whom man does not yet truly exist." (p. 31)

Merton noted that Pasternak "remained an artist and refused to prostitute his writings to politics." (p. 38) And that Pasternak's "writings about the revolution never quite succeeded with the Party because he was always interested too much in man and not enough in policies and the party line." (p. 36) "The protest of Dr. Zhivago is spiritual, not political, not sociological, not pragmatic. It is religious, aesthetic and mystical. We cannot fully understand the author's view of the modern world if we insist on interpreting him by standards which have nothing to do with his work and his thought..." (p. 46-47)

"...since man's spiritual substance is his freedom itself, it is precisely this freedom which is devoured by politics and transmuted into a huge growth of uncontrollable precocity. Hope of attaining true freedom by purely political means has become an insane delusion..." (p. 47)
The en.wp article might have one view Merton as a "mere" proponent of "social justice"—which his writings do not convey... Peace and Justice according to Merton—in my opinion, but which I hope to document in the en.wp article at some point—is achieved on a personal basis...voluntarily and not under compulsion (unless compelled by God)—especially not when compelled by the State... Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Just a heads-up that I sent you an innocuous and inconsequential email via Wikisource email. After a rash of 'coincidences' (and one which was to even follow the email), I felt obliged. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I had a quick look, thanks for the nice message; I'll have another read a bit later. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Noted. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Just for fun, I have created my own word (couldn't find it in any dictionary, so I claim it for myself): "sublineal" - that which is near or almost to the point, but not quite perhaps; an imperfect attempt at reading between the lines; (sublineal messaging) a practice used on occasion by those prone to acts of wonkery, but best used sparingly—if ever at all. wink Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
There are of course, exceptions—if that was the intent! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I had trouble getting my head around what you meant, I suppose you are referring to the "digitised by ..." watermark; I don't even see that anymore. I had to make a script to remove another corporation's logo that appeared on every page of the text layer. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 21:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Noooo... Ignore me—I'm being foolish. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Btw, that was a good catch, word -> world, I thought it was the former and only glanced at the context. Pretty sure I would not have picked that up later, cheers. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 21:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm having that problem working on The War Indexes (back matter)... which is why I haven't upgraded them yet to Proofread status (There are still some incomplete anyhow). Saving that for last once the "Fallen" section is complete, when hopefully I'll have a fresh set of eyes. I find myself popping over every now and then to your fairy tales—finding many correlations with some of The War poetry subject matter, which is really not all that surprising. I've thought to read through some of them more thoroughly and validate them at the same time... But I find when I've "stayed" too long reading them, I start to turn loopy (evidence above)! Perhaps later. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll try to avoid overusing it :) I had a bit of a look at the memoir you are working on, a nice break from the war poetry. I keep thinking to post tips and tricks somewhere, might as well be here: You can get the plain text file for a djvu and do all sorts of tricky things with a text editor, eg. find and replace OCR errors. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 18:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Appreciated! The Hamilton book is actually complementary in many ways with the war poetry. Not sure how a "plain text file for a djvu" would help with Hamilton's work... I'm scanning all the pages by hand because I own the book, and it is not available anywhere online that I could find. I like showing in the images of the pages how the book was put together anyhow (couple good examples: [2] & [3])... Scan by scan, no damage to the pages was done and no broken binding! It's as though an artist had a hand in creating it! ;) I get OCR "readings" (wrong word, I'm sure) from this website. It is very accurate. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
That's a good thing you are doing, I'm glad it didn't damage the book. The good thing about OCR is that it repeats errors, though it varies from book to book; once I notice an error a few times I can remove them all from the rest. I will try that site out, next time I need that service. I used to mess around with creating text layers, but I have been using near perfect text layers from libraries in your hemisphere. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 18:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for finding those errors in the book of myths. ---the one on the title page is espeshually embarrassing as there is so little text on the page. --Canageek (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but that is when someone is more likely to overlook OCR errors. I do things like that all the time, I try to wrangle greek characters, or add an image, then forget to double check the text. Good OCR makes me lazy, there is probably dozens of things I missed. This is why we have the page status system that requires a second person to check the proofreader, our grey matter corrects little errors without us even realising it.

Most of the text is up now, its not a bad read if you are interested (and you might spot some of my tyops). CYGNIS INSIGNIS 17:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Indexes[edit]

What was it you did with one the text indexes you were working on recently that 'filled' in info? Did it have to do with links, page numbers, etc.? Would something like that make life easier for me here? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The index I did had many more items, but it is probably worth doing here. The trick is Hesperian's, last used here, and this is the way it goes:
[[A Book of Myths/{{subst:#ifexpr:{{{1}}}<11|Prometheus and Pandora|
the title/       substitute a page number with a link to that page, in that section

repeated for each section of the work. If the number it is wrapped around was less than 11, it would create a link [[A Book of Myths/Prometheus and Pandora#9|9]]

It is fiddly, but fun when it works. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I'll take a closer look when I'm done with some other stuff. If I think it'll take me more time trying to figure it out though, I'll likely opt for the old-fashioned way... Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't mind doing it, as I have already invested that time. Let me know. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 17:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I will let you know, thanks. I might want to tackle it myself just to learn something new, but first I want to get some more mundane proofreading tasks out of the way... Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok... Starting out on a smaller scale, say you build this whatever-it-is... How does it/can it apply to the Table of Cases for the work? I'm afraid I have no idea what's going on, or even what I'm trying to do! :P Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
You know what you are trying to do, and as much as I do about what is going on.
While it may appear that way, you'd be surprised! I assumed (nay, hoped) that somehow all the little page numbers would miraculously be filled in after you say "Hocus-pocus"—but then realized that there was probably more to it, and wasn't sure if I needed to manually add formatting to the Index pages before the whatever-it-is can do its thing—whatever it is. Once the "substitution" takes place, however, is the whatever-it-is page (like your mars) still necessary or can the info be deleted? I'm sure most of the above is answered in what you have below, so I'll play with that in a little bit. Thanks again, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Discovering how to wrangle find and replace with a text editor can save you a lot of key-strokes. I could also work out how to script this using Pathoschild's custom regex, you can just click on as a preference; this would be easier (for you, I would have to learn how). You could mark the page with {{Sdelete}}, I kept /mars for the 'how-to' in the page history. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 20:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I would like to figure out how to use a text editor. I think for now though, I'll just do the "plain text" (is that how you'd refer to it?) proofreading to complete the text, and next week I'll tackle the magic. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This is how you apply it

|-
|Debbs, ''in re'',
|align=right|{{subst:User:Londonjackbooks/test|17}}, {{subst:User:Londonjackbooks/test|42}}, {{subst:User:Londonjackbooks/test|53}}, {{subst:User:Londonjackbooks/test|57}}, {{subst:User:Londonjackbooks/test|73}}
|-
|Devenant's Case,

But the question is, 'how do I wrap that palaver around every number'. One way is to use a w:text editor; have a look at w:Comparison of text editors to see if you have one already, or where you can get a free one. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 10:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I applied this, but it doesn't work properly (yet). There are no page numbers, so no anchors, but it will go to the right chapter. If you do the fiddly bit with the Treasury, as you did here, I can easily apply it. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I'm gonna finish proofreading/building the Treasury back matter pages first. I'll let you know once I've built the fiddly thing. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok. So can I overwrite this with stuff from TWP? Or will that mess anything up for the Earle piece? Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Yep, your subpage has done its bit. The subst: business leaves the result when you save it, so you can overwrite it. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Done. I can look into getting/figuring out how a text editor works if you'll briefly explain the step(s) I'll need to perform post text-editing... I don't have enough time to do it now, but there's no hurry at this point anyway. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Here is a quick method:
go to Special:Preferences#preftab-8, click "Add a sidebar menu of user-defined regex tools ..." and save it.
Click the button that now appears in the sidebar, a form opens, add /([0-9]+)/g to search for all numbers, and replace it with {{subst:User:Londonjackbooks/test|$1}} (being careful not to change numbers that are not pages;). Preview it to make sure its workin', save it. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 17:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Not seeing any new 'button'... what does it look like/say? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
"Custom regex", in a grey font, in the side-bar, under the toolbox. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 19:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, using the default skin (vector), it appears in a drop-down "scripts" CYGNIS INSIGNIS 19:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh—does it only appear in edit mode, then? I just saw it as I was about to tell you I didn't see it!? I'll try it out now... Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Just curious, is there an "opt out" option in the Search 'bar' where you can opt out certain numbers, much like in a Google search ("these numbers [/([0-9]+)/g]" -"but not these numbers [1917, etc.]")? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Many ways. I never bothered to work out a search pattern, you could limit the number to 3 to exclude years. If the odd number occurs (nopunintended), not a page number, I would just fix it. If something like 2em is used in the markup, I would replace them with a special character eg. § and reverse it after the operation. It is pretty crude, but that takes me less time than doing it the clever way. One good thing about text editors is the multiple undo, and remembering find and replace patterns; for novices like me it allows go back and do something first, then repeat the other patterns. I hope that is enough to get you started, it is good fun when you get it to work. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 20:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Done! But not without an initial "Duh"... I started applying the substitution to the TOC and made a great big mess till I figured out that I was supposed to be in the back matter! All the back matter is done now—thank you for your help! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
And thank you for your explanation to my "opt out" question above... I just now gave it a thorough read, as I merely glanced at it earlier in my haste to make waste. Your detailed instructions are always appreciated. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

To err is human[edit]

Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The tales were so disturbing that I kept looking to the notes and other sources, when I should have been proofing.

I've often thought the shift in usage for 'humane' is interesting. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

They do often tend to make me "loopy"—and I am too easily distracted. I am setting my eyes on creating author pages now—sorry for the added diversion! I noted the different usage (human/humane) too, and thought to look it up, but haven't yet. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Don't know about its accuracy, but... "When An Essay on Criticism was published in 1711, the English spelling of the word human was humane and it was common to capitalize the first letter of many words. Thus, in its original form, Pope's line about erring humans was: "To err is Humane; to Forgive, Divine." [4] Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Mirror[edit]

can u proofread this? --Skylark92 (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

sorry about that i should have looked at the date. --Skylark92 (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

hi[edit]

The royal blue book: prize productions of the Pittsburgh international ... By Robert Humphrey Davies

is what iam trying to work on but my header template is not working what iam i doing wrong? Thank you. --Skylark92 (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

link function[edit]

I wrote a 'link' function that wraps every number on a page in

{{subst:User:Hesperian/i|}}

You just need to be careful to undo wrapping of years etc before you save.

Also I changed the tail of /i from

#{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]

to

#{{{1}}}|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}]]

This way, when

484–5

incorrectly links as

{{subst:User:Hesperian/i|484}}–{{subst:User:Hesperian/i|5}}

it can be trivially corrected to

{{subst:User:Hesperian/i|484}}–{{subst:User:Hesperian/i|485|5}}

Hope you find it helpful.

(The dash range problem could perhaps be fixed automagically....)

Hesperian 00:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Very helpful, thanks, I'll grab that next time I do one. I'm not sure if it is a good idea to incorporate this, but I suggested above that eliminating numbers with more than three digits would nearly solve the year problem.

I was going to resurrect an old discussion on fixing spacing around quote marks, reporting that while one pattern could wrong, it never happens: ?_" !_" Then Murphy intervened on a recent text and proved me wrong (it still saved me a lot of keystrokes). As I pointed out back then, the patterns apply to particular text layers and adding it to a general cleanup function would be hazardous. Let me know if you want me to ramble on about my pre-processing of ocr, there may be wheat amongst the chaff, eg. \n"_ works perfectly with my favourite scanner's text-layers.CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


Considering formatting revamp[edit]

For some time, I have been considering tackling a complete formatting overhaul of the Florence Earle Coates works. Since I got here, my formatting practices have been all over the map, and being particularly obsessive about her works, I wanted to bring them up to date so they represent the better formatting. I wanted to get your opinion on the desirability of doing this—and, if desirable, what the best way would be—as some would advise just letting it be and focusing my energies on other worthwhile tasks... Following you around as I have been prone to do, I have also been meaning to ask you what all the monobook activity is for, and what it does. It may be over my head. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Quick answer. I often go over old transcript, usually because I land at them again when linking to them; incoming links make this as much a priority as applying what I have since learned to new works.

Monobook is the old 'skin', you are using vector unless you opted out of this new style. The activity is adjusting the running header to a new section, or work, the rest is mostly routines that use on each page. The scripts use a framework developed by User:Pathoschild, the same thing that I instructed you add to apply the index linking wizardry, these were written by Hesperian. The rest of my monobook.js (javascript) is some buttons above the edit box that you will actually use, I select text and it wraps a template around it: larger, smaller, drop initial and so on. Things like small-caps and author links are scripts, not buttons, because they will rationalise the selection, eg. selecting text that is ocr'd as upper-case and hitting small-caps will convert it to lower-case. I could fill this page with explanation, but you want this and should experiment with how they work yourself ... it is intuitive. The only thing you need to change is the running header, I will show you how when you copy this to your vector.js CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Overwhelmed at the moment, and short on time. I will print out your explanation and stew over it during some down time, for I think it'll take some slow digesting on my part. Thank you, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Before I create a vector.js page, what do you recommend my default skin be? It is currently vector, but only because to have opted out would have meant that I'd have known why I should opt out (or not) in the first place! What are the pros and cons of each (vector v. monobook), or does it not really matter (i.e., personal preference)? I looked over the Tools and scripts page, and your monobook.js page... Is code written differently for vector than monobook, and vice versa? Answer at your leisure... Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Monobook was the default skin, the new default is vector. In theory the difference should be superficial, and it becomes a matter of taste, however, there were some aspects of the new skin that were arguably undesirable. When it was introduced there were teething problems at this site, so many users opted out until these were resolved. I think most have moved to vector now, I don't change things unless there is really good reasons to do so. My monobook functions were swiped from Hesperian's vector.js, so there should be no problems with sticking to that skin. There is another way to add running headers, a button that copies earlier left or right pages (verso and recto), you add it once and the script can repeat it two pages later. I haven't tested this more straight-forward approach, you could ask Inductiveload about it. Snipe: he or she (I'm presuming he) chooses to be insulted by anything I say, for what reason was a mystery to me, so I will leave it to you to enquire about getting that button (and not concern yourself with this). The other functions are very useful, especially 'cleanup', and require no further input or modification, so I would still strongly recommend getting the vector.js functions. Just do it, the page and anything it does can always be undone. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 10:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I will then... And I will pretend to not be concerned as well, and may inquire about the running header button in the future. Presuming that Inductiveload will see your comment, may I say that it seems to me that you are being either naïve, rashly bold(?), or purposeful in your statement—or else merely confident that the issue will be Worked out for good...? I hope for the latter, but that is because of my distaste for conflict, which I try to avoid at all cost—and wherever possible... Our time here is too fleeting. Which brings me to:

1914 et al. poems[edit]

All but for (actual) page 20, this book is Validated... I started looking at your TOC to see how I could tweak the TOC in the edition I'm working on and get it at that 100% width you recommend; then I decided to go ahead and validate the rest since the book's not too long. Wasn't sure if you merely made the page problematic to make note of something (the name?) or whether there was an actual problem (which I didn't see). Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

When I did it I couldn't be bothered double checking something—what was probably a diaeresis—by viewing the online jpg. Now done, hope there weren't too many errors. Cheers, CYGNIS INSIGNIS 04:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Like you have said, OCR tends to repeat the same errors... We just have to catch them. ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Not to mention human errors... which I likely made in the TOC (see here) but can't figure out how to fix it. Sorry! Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I think I fixed it... Maybe not the best way, but it worked. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I can only give you a mark of 5½ out of a possible 10, a B- if I'm feeling generous. Would you like to request an extension before your grade is entered to the permanent record? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 02:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Wit! Hooray! :) Never cared much for grades, but grade away if you'd like! I'll learn better, though, if I see your corrections on my work! Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Doing what I did (before you broke it;) would only get you 7/10, a passing grade. There is a solution using a nop to force a new line ... I'm averse to the solution that places it at the beginning of the page. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 03:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Thinking while driving (still legal in these parts),—If I may 'quibble' over your use of the word "cheating": To cheat is sinister, to improvise, sensible. Or, if a thing is absolutely essential—to borrow a phrase from some west coast Warriors—"Whatever It Takes"! Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Versions[edit]

Next question: I'll be overwriting some "orphaned" poems of Brookes' with versions pages pointing to 1914 et al. & the 1915 edition versions of his work. About those sonnets... How do you recommend I title the versions pages—with or without the Roman numerals? You can use "The Dead" (I & II) as an example. Remembering your statement that you "don't think it is not a proper title when divorced from its context, despite what the en.wp article tells me"... but not quite understanding what you meant... Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If you look at what we did with The Soldier (Brooke), you will see what I'm thinking. Note the plausible, though 'unreferenced', intro at w:The Soldier (poem), "The poem is the fifth of a series of poems [sonnets] entitled 1914". The poem has been reprinted without the numeral, as "The Soldier", someone, Brooke or Edward Marsh, assembled these five works as a series for a work entitled "1914". When they are printed together they are numbered, and need to be to distinguish between two titled "The Dead". I don't think this was ever printed separately as "V. The Soldier", so I don't think it is a title; I think it is possible someone made that up to disambiguate it here and that is not good. I added "1914: V. The Soldier" to identify that version, in the context of that edition. One could take the position that it is a title, but the same logic could be applied to a creation Preface or Chapter 2; the solution is to not create them. I considered pushing them out of the way, but you have since done the Complete poems properly. I think the title should be deleted. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Proofreading the Memoir, I just noted (Part VI, p. cxxxvi), "The five sonnets called '1914' had been coming for some time..." (italics mine). Would it be a stretch to 'move' the numbered titles thusly—from I. Peace to 1914 (Brooke)/I. Peace, and have them redirect to their respective versions pages (like Peace (Brooke))—instead of having them deleted like I had first considered?... Unless you or someone else gives input in the next few days, I'll go ahead and do that. Just to note, I have had it in me to do some highly objectionable edits top of yours so that you might come back from the dead; hopefully you're just taking an eye-strain break, but I'll keep the idea in my back pocket anyway... (That was a joke; probably a bad one... I'll shut up now.) Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to your spelling it out for me, I think I got it. Can you check The Soldier (Brooke) for me... I copied your "1914: V. The Soldier" titling, assuming that I should do likewise being that the Roman numeral is also in that title... Is that correct? ALSO... How should you order works on a versions page? Sort by Title first? Chronological? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I can't delete pages, but if you could, the numbered sonnets (I-V) can now be deleted. Versions pages are complete for them now. Thanks for your help; gotta run... Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm thinking that getting someone else to take a fresh look at it is the way to go, I'll ask that someone when I work out who they are. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh... I made a request at the Scriptorium a bit earlier... You can see what I have done there at any rate; I think I have explained my situation ok-enough?? Sorry! Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to defaultsort a redirect page?? Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess you can... The title shows up in italics, however, in the Cat page (see The Beginning); does that (italics) show that it is a redirect? I'll leave off with only doing that one for now, in case I'm not doing it right... Gotta go... Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

yep. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thx. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

PSM proofreading process[edit]

Hi. You were correct in reminding me of my commitment (of some 15 months ago), not to place unfinished works in the main namespace. That work was the "Autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini", a project which I abandoned because like all other endavours, it distracted from my focus on PSM where there is more than enough to do.

This issue was not mentioned in connection with the PSM project, and I continued placing articles in the main namespace for volumes 1 to 37, until your post on MY TALK PAGE. I appreciate and respect your standards of quality. It is something for me to strive for, but in relation to this project I am asking you to reconsider because this crates a major dilemma and seriously curtails my contribution as it slows me down to a crawl.

The work strategy, which took many months to develop, involves cycling through the components for the following reasons:

  1. Each of the components evolve from volume to volume, and the new information is crucial in modifying the strategy.
  2. Reduces the immense backlog of processing each component at once at a later date.
  3. Provides proofreaders with ready material (images) to complete pages quickly.
  4. Cannot guide interested readers to the Page: namespace for proofreading requests.
  5. Last and not least, holds interest by providing diversity in the process.

The process is as follows:

  • Proofreading article title pages by volume.
  • Placing the TOC page from the article titles.
  • Proofreading the content index by volume.
  • Creating the main namespace pages.
  • Assigning categories to the articles.

The order of these is changeable:

  • Creating and/or linking author pages to the articles.
  • Updating multi-part article list.
  • Cleaning and uploading images to the Commons.
  • Proofreading pages with images.
  • Proofreading pages with wiki tables.
  • Adding Wikisource links in Wikipedia.

Considering the above, I hope that you can rethink your position. — Ineuw talk 23:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Page name[edit]

Hi Cygnis,

I have a problem with capital letters. According to you, how do I have to name the textual version of this book? On the cover all title's initial letters are capital. But in Wikisource:Style guide I can read:

Sentence form (most words lowercase) is preferred, unless an original capitalisation is consistently used. Normal exceptions, such as proper nouns, apply.

What's the correct form (if it exist)?--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Some discussion on this here (2010-2011) and here (2006-2008) and mentioned also (when I inquired on this myself somewhat recently) here (2011). Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Kaballah[edit]

Thanks for deleting this page as requested. My only reason for putting a redirect was in case deletion was not possible. In the main Wikipedia project there are many pages with misspelled titles redirecting to the correct spelling, to increase ease of looking up; but I don't think this is necessary here. 16:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoops! Should have logged in! --Sirmylesnagopaleentheda (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries, anything for a fan of Flann. 16:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

LAST EVENING[edit]

To note that a word kept me up most of the night last night—"nonplussed" (the 'bewildered' definition, not the 'unaffected' one)—I didn't know what it meant, and didn't look it up until just a few minutes ago. Pretty much sums up my state of mind lately. What I know is that I can read Mrs. Coates' poetry with a much greater understanding than I ever could before. Something tells me she "got it." I don't know if it was I who discovered her some 25 years ago in a musty dusty basement of a used book store, or if she found me... Doesn't seem to matter either way! Perhaps unbeknownst to you, you had a hand in the increase of my understanding of her poetry. I know basically nothing of Greek Mythology and the like—but it is something that makes up much of her poetry! Reading some of the Tales has increased my understanding—even if only a little. Much will remain a mystery—or even misunderstood—but that's life! All that's expected of me is to follow the lead (even though imperfectly) of the One who authored the Mystery; I'm accountable to no one else! Thanking you for the Great Conversation... and not even sure if all I have been doing is talking to myself the whole time! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating, the Nth Am definition is the one I was familiar with. One of my dictionaries gives some interesting discussion of how the "informal" usage reverses the meaning. There is a word for that type of shift, can't recall what it is. I think the original meaning is much more useful, but I've made a mental note to avoid using it. My understanding of Greek mythology is pretty patchy, and reading some of those less known myths was an eye opener. I read up on Medea for a stage production with which I had some involvement, using that as gauge I reckoned that the work as a whole was a reasonably good introduction. You haven't been 'talking to yourself' in any conventional sense, I often find them thought provoking … when I received your message I spent some time considering the philosophical implications, especially regarding solipsism and theology. I don't recommend this before bedtime! ;-) Blake had some guidance on this, something like: think in the morning, act in the day, rest in the evening. Anyway, London, where were we up to regarding script assisted transcribing? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Will I need the "script assisted transcribing" after all??? I suspected, over the long weekend, that I might not—but because I usually get a failing grade where figures and figuring are concerned, I thought I'd better ask for clarity's sake. Also, be my guest with offering any pointers as to how I might simplify any other of my User/Talk pages & subpages; as usual with me, you can't see the trees for the forest! Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I, as usual, wasn't familiar with Medea's character... There is a lot that is unlikable about her person, so it is interesting in its interpretations... But that's the thing I've come to find about Fairy Tales: they don't necessarily mirror reality, they merely point to it! Carrying on... Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Funny how the morning tends to shed light on the previous evening's shadows! And I stay up way too late, being an incurable night owl. Good guidance from Blake. I am not familiar with solipsism, but since it is daytime here, I suppose I can safely search it out! As for script assisted transcribing, I am still on the same page where I left off before—the page following the table of contents. ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeesh! Solipsism certainly has not been my experience (before I run, because I can't leave thoughts hanging... it appears I caught myself here speaking of "my" experience!—that would be one of the main points of solipsim... But of course, even if I am merely "talking to myself", it is my belief that my thoughts are still heard by Someone...)! I find it difficult most days to live with myself as it is—and to think that myself is the only reality out there is frightening! ;) The external world can be mysterious, but I believe it is knowable—all things in Good time... :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Amended. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
My version (revision) of Blake's guidance: Think while driving, act when you've the time, and sleep in-between ;) Pretty sure Blake's way is less maddening, though! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

THIRD EVENING[edit]

Meant to say that I think Mrs. Coates must have drawn inspiration from this tale when she wrote Memoria. Maybe...? Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean, though perhaps they were both inspired by an earlier work. I recommend reading the Hersholt translation, described as "the standard translation" eg. "… kissed her doll with the caved-in pasteboard cheeks." instead of "… kissing the battered cheeks of her doll." CYGNIS INSIGNIS 01:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I will look into that soon. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
And also this: "alas, no one then heeded my clear eye, my trusty watch! My rose also grew up in rank wildness, like the roses in the parsonage garden." v. this: "Alas! no one thought of my clear eye or my sharp glances. My rose was also sending out wild shoots like the roses in the vicarage garden." Thanks for the reference... I think I prefer the "the standard translation." Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Me too, Hersholt deserved a medal for his translation, an' got one! CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Just thought I'd share: I've been trying to figure out for some time what J. McLure Hamilton meant when he said: "He was to do his work and I mine, without considering one the other. That arrangement suited me perfectly..." I think I just figured it out: While some work may overlap at times, the distinction is made where each one's Purpose is concerned. Hamilton's purpose might be clouded (and thus his work be marred) if undue attention is paid to the goings-on of the other instead of in the work he was purposed to do. :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I was going to enquire what the context was, but thought I should at least try to google an exact quote and see for myself ... and voilà! I know I get a warm feeling of satisfaction to find works one has transcribed in google results, is it the same for you. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Validated! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... I only started reading the intro-of-sorts a few minutes ago. The timeline of the story doesn't add up (unless I calculated wrong—even considering the difference) for it to have been anything other than inspired... What do you figure?—because I like stories to end well and not be a disappointment!? Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
[Comment after-archiving] Inspiration... I woke up thinking about Patti Page v. Doris Day and too-strict(?) policy at "the other place" v. too lenient... Such contradictions! Thanking you again for the Great Conversation! Always hanging around here more than I should, time to put my Mom hat on!  :) Respectfully, Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Annotations[edit]

By working on the author page from Antti Aarne on the german wikisource I have found "Aarne in Fennia, xxvii., 1-96, 1909" on Page:Europa's Fairy Book.djvu/260. I have checked it and there is no contribution from Antti Aarne at this place (there is Max [Theodor] Alfthan [1863-1914]: Bidrag till kännedom af Kymmene älf (no. 3 on xxvii, 96 pages)). Is there a way to set a annotation for this on the Europa's Fairy Book page, that there is no such contribution on this place or that no such contribution exist (can't find any other matching work from Aarne)? --enomil (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

When you say "no contribution from Antti Aarne at this place" do you mean 'in the journal Fennia, pages 1 to 96 of number 27 is not a paper (dissertation) by Aarne'? There is a slight error in the text, but I am not sure where or why; Jacobs is very reliable and this may be a printing error. Try looking at number 28 of that journal, which was published in 1909, and we can decide what to do.

By the way, as I was looking around I noticed that Vergleichende_Märchenforschungen gives a reference to The Folk-Lore Journal. Volume 6 and Jacobs' Indian Fairy Tales CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Here the TOCs for volumes 27 and 28 of Fennia:

Volume 27 (1907-09):
  1. Leiviskä, I., Über die Vegetation an der Küste des Bottnischen Meerbusens zwischen Tornio und Kokkola. Mit 4 Karten, 2 Kärtchenblättern und 2 Lichtdrucktafeln. P. 1-209.
  2. Bonsdorff, Ilmari, Détermination relative de la pesanteur à Helsingfors. P. 1-36.
  3. Alfthan, Max, Bidrag till kännedom af Kymmene älf. Med 3 kartor, 1 långprofil och 1 diagram. P. 1.96.
    Resumé en francais: Contribution à l'étude du Kymmene. P. 78-93.
  4. Leiviskä, I., Zu den Küstenfragen. 1. Über die Entstehung der Haupttypen der finnischen Küsten, die höchste marine Grenze und die Transgression des Ancylus-sees und des Litorina-meeres. P. 1-26
Volume 28 (1909/10):
  1. Mémoires présentés au IX. Congrès international de Géographie à Genève en 1908 par les délégués de la Société de Géographie de Finlande. P. 1-30.
    I. Alfthan, Max, Cartes statistiques de la Finlande. P. 1-22.
    II. Sederholm, J. J., Sur la Géomorphologie de la Finlande. P. 22-30.
  2. Cajander, A. K., Über Waldtypen. P. 1-175.
  3. Hausen, H., De gamla strandbildningarna pâ Aland och deras förhâllande till stenâldersboplatserna. Med en karta och 4 figurer i texten. P. 1-56
    English Summary: The Raised Beaches and Shore-Lines of Aland and their Relations to the Dwelling-places of the Stone-Age. P. 55-56.
  4. Hausen, H., Orografiska studier pâ Aland, med särskild hänsyn till rapakivi-berggrunden och dess förklyftningsförhâllanden. Med en karta och 10 figurer i texten. P. 1-37
    English Summary: Orographical Studies in Aland. With special reference to the rapakivi-rocks. P. 36-37.
  5. Grano, J. O., Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Eiszeit in der nordwestlichen Mongolei und einigen ihrer Grenzgebirge. Geomorphologische Studien aus den Jahren 1905, 1906, 1907 und 1909. Mit 9 Karten, 19 Tafeln und 18 Figuren im Text. P. 1-230

No Aarne in there.

"Die Zaubergaben" had 96 pages and is about the variants of KHM 36 like folk-tales. Does he mean this? It is in "Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seuran Aikakauskirja / Journal de la Société Finno-ougrienne", volume xxvii.

To "Vergleichende Märchenforschungen": The reference is to "Chamberlain (Basil Hall). Aino Folk-Tales. 1-51", see page 38 (Folk-Lore Journal, VI, 1, s. 15). --enomil (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems the ref should have been "Alfthan in Fennia, xxvii., 1-96, 1909", but perhaps you are right about the other vol. xxvii. I'll finish what I'm doing (no pun intended), and dig around with the leads you have provided. If we can confirm his intention, I can think of several ways to handle the linking. I will make a note on your talk in the next few days.
I had hoped to avoid adding the expurgated version of Aino folk tales, but I think I have a solution to that problem too. This will be easier to show than explain, so I will let you know when I do. I often find works in German (and other languages) that I would like to add, but becoming familiar with the different conventions and templates is still a barrier for me.
I also noticed a problem with text overlapping the header at de.ws, and uploaded a screen shot to show this: File:Screen shot from de.ws.png. Regards, CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I think "Alfthan in Fennia, xxvii., 1-96, 1909" makes no sense, beacause the Alfthan text is about a river. Aarnes "Zaubergaben" (magical gifts) is about the folk-tale of three brothers with three gifts (same year, same number of pages, same volume, but other magazine (JSFou)).
Short about the german conventions: give and take ("Proofread 10 pages and you can add 10 pages"), but with text shorter than 50 pages, it will not be so serious. Texts with more pages have to be introduced at de:Wikisource Diskussion:Projekte. Scans are always required. NOP = PRZU (+1 extra break befor); hws/hwe does not exist, the word is composed on the last page; letter spacing = template SperrSchrift; small caps = template Kapitälchen; ... but you can also ask user:D.H (german native, very activ on en.ws) or user:Doug (some contribs on de.ws), or me if you want to add a text and need a little help.
The problem with overlapping is known (for me), but it need a re-design of our Infoboxes. --enomil (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Apologies, I was doing three thing at once. I did grasp what was going on, and was refactoring my reply in preview. I neglected to remove what I thought you were suggesting. I'll get around to showing you what I think is a solution, and let you know when I do. Regards, CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I did the easy one now [5] CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


Proposed deletions[edit]

See edit Jeepday (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for the updated Welcome with the helpful links! :) Lini (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Site wide problem question[edit]

Thanks for the notification! Does this mean that I shouldn't proofread/validate anymore until the problem is fixed? Mattisse (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

So, when will it be fixed? --kathleen wright5 (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I wish I knew, so I can carry on doing what you were doing, I'm just another innocent bystander whose days work has to fixed. You should probably add your questions to the scriptorium. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The Grateful Dead[edit]

Happy to see you are validating this. It drove me crazy to proofread. Most probably some mistakes in there. But is nice to see when someone carries on your work :-) --Mpaa (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Making a link to a reference was how I arrived at it again. I've found very few mistakes so far, especially considering how many corrections there would have been; two interested proofreaders will usually do better than one. There are a few more links to be had too, a shame we can't redlink the ones in other languages. I think comparative literature will be a fabulous example of how powerful a wiki based library can be. If I don't get around to reading, and giving it a second proof, someone will … one day. You already made a valuable contribution, and readers will be grateful, I hope you are satisfied with that for the time being. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Anything for November's POTM[edit]

Hi, I'm just making a list of possible works for Validation Month. I'd like to see a range of things that will hopefully appeal to various tastes. Do you have anything that you would like the Community to have a go at Validating? Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey. Stuff ready for 'validation' is listed at User:Cygnis_insignis/contributions#complete. I can narrow it down to personal favourites, but I guess anything there might add some diversity. I think Poe's Eureka: A Prose Poem is very digestable to modern readers, and he thought it was his best work (see the article for the spooky facts). An argosy of fables is possibly a good choice, it is a long work, but the fables are short; the reader/proofreader can do a bit that is in itself complete. There are also a few Romanes Lectures that are ready for validation, I enjoyed The Atomic Theory and The Theory of Relativity and its Influence on Scientific Thought; this could lead to another benefit to the site. Most of these lectures were done by Zhaladshar, when they are all 100% I planned to nominate the set (to 1922) for FT. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 06:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Chesterton's Aquinas[edit]

Quick question that has no follow-up question (pure curiosity): Have you read Chesterton's Saint Thomas Aquinas? I've had it for some time, but never read it till now (still reading it). Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello London :) No, I haven't. There is an online version here, so I guess I could. I haven't read enough Chesterton to make my mind up about him; I like his style, but a couple of things have put me off reading more. Can you recommend it? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 00:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm only about 1/3 of the way through, so I haven't read enough to make a recommendation. I'm not usually comfortable with recommending books anyway—or with reviewing them (although I recently recommended Hugo's Ninety-three to family & friends—that impressed me enough). You can read the same book twice and come away with a different "take" on it both times, anyhow! Whole lotta underlining going on though, so it's definitely "speaking" to me :) I'm not that familiar with Chesterton the man—or his works, really. I started reading his Everlasting Man a few years ago, but only made a dent (the underlining stopped after a certain point early in the book; I may have just gotten distracted though). I was surprised to find Aquinas available online. I wouldn't think it was PD... but I'm still not well-versed in that area to understand it well enough. You remind me of a relative of mine, by the way. I won't say which :) Have a good one! Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
One chapter to go—I'm about to finish now, or in a bit. I suppose it is recommendable! I forgot that I had also read Chesterton's Orthodoxy some years ago as well (evidenced by underlining throughout the whole work), but my recall of details about it is null (for lack of a better word). I noted Chesterton referenced solipsism in Aquinas... You can probably go to your text link and 'find' the reference... Have a good day! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I only read the first few chapters. I'd planned on finishing it, but I was still thinking about Andersen when I returned from the real world. I just read the remarks on solipsism, and felt pretty chuffed that I had made a similar comment in an ongoing discussion regarding scepticism/atheism. I felt at the time it was lovely moment of inspiration, like discovering a fork or sacrificing a queen to win a chess game, I suppose you are going to suggest that was divine inspiration :) CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, before I make any sort of suggestion, I have to look up the word "chuffed"—and then wrap my mind around the rest of your comment (i.e., understand it) before I can comment further :) But as of late especially, I am not at all skeptical about the existence of divine inspiration! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Or perhaps an epiphany? Funny thing about inspiration... it can take many forms (I suspect), and we don't always know whether it is divine or not—but I'm pretty sure that any type of inspiration (by definition) can't originate from within ourselves (lest we become too chuffed with ourselves!), but from without. ;) I think you are, however, in good company! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I just now noted your summary comments (think v. feel). I wasn't sure what point(s) you were referring to, but much gets lost on me! In general, though, I think it's permissible to do both. Mrs. Coates would say (of Helen Keller):

Life has its limitations manifold:
 All life; not only that which throbs in thee,
 And strains its fetters, eager to be free.
The faultless eye may not thy vision hold—
Maiden, whose brow with thought is aureoled—
 And they who hear may lack the ministry,
 The august influence, of Silence, she
Who brooded o'er the void in ages old.

Prisoner of the dark inaudible,
 Light, which the night itself could not eclipse,
  Thou shinest forth Man's being to reveal.
 We learn with awe from thine apocalypse,
That nothing can the human spirit quell,
  And know him lord of all things, who can feel!

Mrs. Coates' first husband (who died early) was deaf, and her daughter Alice would also become deaf (like her biological father) as an adult. So Mrs. Coates knows a bit about that which she speaks (my English might not be so good here). She seems to place more importance on feeling, but I was never good at interpretation... Thinking and feeling... one tempers the other (in no particular order)—both are necessary. To use only one faculty would likely drive a person mad! I might not be making any sense! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Re: "the real world": I apologize if I have overstepped any boundaries with my back-and-forth Talk page dialogue with you... It was your response some time way back when I asked your opinion about why Mrs. Coates might have left out a portion of one of her poems when including it in her 1916 collection that I thought you might be an intelligent go-to person :) Put my Coates blinders on again for a time and was somewhat silent and oblivious, then came the annotations debates—which I found difficult to ignore (I volunteered as a librarian for two years at my kids' former school a few years back, so it's a subject close to my heart)... Sharing certain principles of librarianship with you (or thinking I did), and already having gained some respect for your work (and wit) here, I just didn't "get" some of the supposed 'vitriol' going on between Users... So I wanted to figure out for myself what was real... I'm sorry if I made a mess of anything in the process <hat in hand>. Sincerely, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Thinking while driving: A fork can be a very useful thing; and as long as a chess game is played with integrity—and the queen is a forgiving one (and willing to be sacrificed)—then I figure one can't lose in the end, can they? :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC) ...But there's probably another meaning that I don't get yet (there usually is)... especially since I don't know how to play chess! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Ha! I think I've 'got it'... But I don't know what to make of it! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Just curious: "...a demonstrated and persistent combination of arrogance, ignorance, and flagrant insults"? Or did you simply forget to archive? Hope you're well, Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)