User talk:Digipoke

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Carl Spitzweg 021-detail.jpg

You may be interested in participating in

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{CotW}} to your page for current wikisource projects.

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome! Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The Rough Riders[edit]

Hi Digipoke, thanks for your contribution to my ongoing project with the Rough Riders. I always appreciate the help! As you continue to experiment, help out, and make edits, I encourage you to both review various editing policies and to check out how other people have formatted and coded their pages by pressing the editing button on pages that already exist and have been proofread or validated. I see that you already have a certain grasp of how to use HTML effectively to format pages, which is great! Here on Wikisource, however, we strive to use Wiki markup as much as we can because it provides a standard that everyone is familiar with and because it helps protect Wikisource from outside tampering. That being said, once you become a little more familiar with wiki markup, I think you'll find that it's a lot easier to use than HTML and CSS. I've just made some edits to page 157 that I encourage you to take a look at. As a new contributor, I encourage you to make a few changes to your preferences that will make your editing easier and that I changed shortly after becoming a contributor. Under the "editing" tab of your preferences, go to the bottom and uncheck the box that says "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" because the new enhanced toolbar can cause some problems when editing. Namely, it makes it so that the header and footer fields are automatically obscured, and this new toolbar doesn't have the Button category plus.png button that allows you to toggle visibility of these fields, which are very necessary, especially when using the {{RunningHeader}} template (usually to list page numbers and any type on headers and footers of a page) and for listing references (done in the footer). If you want the header and footer pages to be displayed automatically, you can go to the "Gadgets" heading and check the box that says "Show header and footer fields Button category plus.png when editing in the Page namespace." Also, don't forget to sign your name to posts with four tildes (~)! Happy editing, and if you have any questions, I'll do my best to try and answer them! Polyglottalstop (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You're continuing to make good edits and get better each time. I've already made some changes to and validated pages 160 and 161, so I encourage you to look at what changes I made using the "compare versions" tool under the "view history" tab. I've also made substantial edits to and validated all of your page edits to "All quiet along the Potomac and other poems," so I encourage you to look at those as well. Thanks! Polyglottalstop (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips Poly, I was trying to find that header/footer button for quite a while. I looked over the changes you made to some of the pages and was wondering what's the {smallref}/<reference> tags in the footer and how/why do you consolidate the text. Thanks. Digipoke (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing! The {{smallrefs}} template simply displays the footnotes in a smaller font size, which I think looks truer to the appearance of an actual footnote in a book. Without {{smallrefs}} template, references/ is the tag that usually displays any references or footnotes created by the ref and /ref tags in the body of the text. If you look at the different revisions of the text before and after I added {{smallrefs}}, you can see the difference. Alternatively, you can pick a page with a footnote, delete {{smallrefs}} from the footer, and preview to see the difference. Sorry for not explaining what I meant by "consolidating the text." Instead of leaving the text the way the OCR produces it,—because it very often leaves small amounts of text on a line or weird things like that—I always use the backspace/delete key to make sure that the text is in coherent blocks. Mostly, it just makes editing easier, but it can also help prevent weird spaces in the final product and it helps me catch things like typos produced by the OCR (like himgry for hungry) and hanging half-words (like when you see something like ammun- ition instead of ammunition). It's kind of hard to explain, but if you compare revisions on the several Rough Riders pages that I've validated, you can see what I mean by consolidating.Polyglottalstop (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Referring to main namespace rather than Page: namespace[edit]

Gday. Welcome to your PotM. A little local knowledge that I thought worth passing on. When we are doing internal references to works, we don't wish to direct them to the Page: namespace pages, we wish to refer them to the work in the main namespace. If you have a look at these changes, you will see how I have undertaken that with the PotM. The neatest thing is that with our left marginal page numbering, each is actually a page anchor, so you can use #pp page number referencing. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Blackletter[edit]

Hi. I took the liberty to modify Page:Marriagewithdece00mayow.djvu/9 to format title with {{blackletter}}. In case you want to use it also later in the work. Since I am writing, another suggestion: in case you still do not have them, I suggest that you get User:Hesperian cleanup scripts. Your proofreading speed will boost. Contact him or look for them in Scriptorium. Bye --Mpaa (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Not proofread/proofread[edit]

Hi. I saw that you created many pages in Index:U.S. Department of the Interior Annual Report 1880.djvu. If you are done with proofreading a page, please mark the page as proofread. So the next person to proofread the page will be able to mark it as Validated. --Mpaa (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not actually reading anything, just editing the pages to make it easier for others to read. I've left out some tables and I'm not sure if there are mistakes in the OCR text. Didn't want to mark it as proofread in case people assume it's been checked/read through and just check valiated. Should I list it as Proofread even if I'm just editing the layout and not reading the text? Digipoke (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
It is Ok as you are proceding then. I had a quick look and saw formatting, wiki codes, etc. and then assumed you also proofread. --Mpaa (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Style of work[edit]

Digipoke, I was thinking that you should contact Beeswaxcandle on what he was thinking for how to style Narrative of an Official...Guatemala book (which he and I are working on together). On page 113 (djvu) you put in the symbol at the bottom of the page, and my views on this are complicated:

1) I used to believe that we should have each page on here match as closely as we can the original (and still do a bit now). In that way, the symbols would be good to put on the page.

but

2) I now believe that, with the invention of an ePub maker, we (the wiki community) should start trying to make the book look good (albeit staying close to the original)

I put those in the footer because I thought those didn't show up when the pages were transcluded. Does it show up in an ePub? If so, it's probably a good idea to leave it out. Digipoke (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

When I transclude the chapter I'll let you know if it does show up. - Tannertsf (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Presidendial calendars — new WS:NARA project?[edit]

Hey Digipoke, I want to thank you for all the work you've done so far for WS:NARA! Wikisource's efforts so far have been awesome. I recently talked with a staff member here in the Office of Presidential Libraries, and one project he was interested in doing was the daily calendars of the presidents. Right now, these are scattered across the websites of each of the presidential libraries, in different formats and only sometimes with a text transcription or text layer on the PDF. I think these would be excellent additions to Wikisource.

One of the most approachable of these is the Nixon calendar (links to the PDFs here). I have uploaded the first year of these at Category:Richard Nixon's presidential daily calendar, and all the others can use that exact same format, just changing the title to represent the month. Does this sound like a project you would be interested in working on? I put up a summary of the other calendars at Wikisource:WikiProject NARA/Presidential calendars. Dominic (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like an interesting project. I'll help out wherever I can. Are you looking for the same type of setup as NARA, with indices and djvus? Digipoke (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I can make the index pages with the pdfs. Should i put them in the same type of table as the Works to Prepare page and put them on the Presidential calendars page? Digipoke (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, whatever you think works best. I just wanted to ask someone personally because it's a big project, so it might take some individual attention. I was planning on adding the calendars to the WS:NARA progress table once I finished uploading an entire administration. Dominic (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added the first month to the Works to Prepare page. Were you talking about something like that? If the same format is going to be used, it's going to be quite long so maybe it should get it's own page. If this is fine I can add the rest of the index pages when I make them. Also, the OCR text for all the pages only shows up on the first page. Any idea how to move them to their respective pages (manually takes to long). Bot?? Digipoke (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Also are PDF indices fine or are DJVUs preferred?
Some of these are questions that you probably need a more experienced Wikisourceror to answer. As for formatting the project page, it's really up to you. It's likely that we want only a single index page for the entire Nixon presidential calendar, though. I'm not sure how that works with multiple files involved. Dominic (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been told from the start that DJVUs are preferred. Something about PDFs not totally working well with the site and transclusion. - Tannertsf (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Alright, will check around and try and upload some DJVUs.Digipoke (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Doing great![edit]

I hope that you are enjoying your time here. You have picked up the skills quickly and doing a fine job. If you have works that you wish to be considered for the Proofread of the Month, then please consider adding them to the discussions at the project's talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Will do. Digipoke (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Index:Presidential Daily Diary, compiled 01-1969.pdf[edit]

I've declined your speedy delete request for now, until I know what is going on. What index has this been replaced by? Do the subpages linked to by the index need to be moved somewhere, or should they also be deleted? Hesperian 00:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been replaced by Richard Nixon's presidential daily calendar - 1969. The first 39 pages are the same as Presidential Daily Diary, compiled 01-1969, so you can just delete everything. Digipoke (talk) 09:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Done. Hesperian 11:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

polytonic orthography[edit]

Hi. Cheers for the supplying the missing greek at the Æsop pages. I don't know the first thing about ancient Greek, if the scan is good I can sometimes transcribe what I see on the page with my character palette. On this page I see what appears to be different diacritics at the iotas, what you transcribed as Αίσωπείων. I appreciate this may make no difference to the meaning, but I hope to put what was given in the text. Assuming there is actually are different diacritics here, am I being too obsessive in wanting to preserve complex polytonic orthography? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 23:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the second ί to ὶ. I think all the letters are right except for the omega(ω). I looked through all the greek letters and the only circumflex omega WS has was ῶ. I didn't see the one in the book and wasn't sure what else to put down. You can check for yourself. At the bottom of the page where it says select, choose greek (it has more letters than the enhanced toolbar). Digipoke (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Ta, I've never known what to do with that one myself. I use the palette on my platform, it sometimes offers more clues than the one at the site. As I say, I have no idea about these things and leave it to those who read Greek. Regards, CYGNIS INSIGNIS 00:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Page:Narrative of an Official Visit to Guatemala.djvu/533[edit]

Please be careful ... I'm currently putting these pages under construction .. thanks for helping .. but I have a little system going with this. I will copy the header stuff though.- Tannertsf (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Executive orders[edit]

Hi... hope this finds you & your's well,

I see you've started creating/proofreading some of the supplemental GPO publications of EOs not printed in the "original" CFR or FR indexes. If you plan to stick with proofreading any of those, please try to use the {{SigR}} and {{SigL}} templates whenever possible to maintain signature/footer conformity as close as possible to the GPO Manual of Style guide(s) (as well as our jumble of style guides re: the Page: namespace).

Any questions on EOs or other Executive instruments - feel free to drop me a line. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Will start putting in the {{SigR}} and {{SigL}} templates when proofreading. Would it be better to proofread the "original" indexes and not these? Are these on wikisource? Also should I move some of these proofread pages ro the mainspace if they're not there? Digipoke (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Those EO-range .DjVus are actually the ones ommitted from the compiled publications so in fact they are even "more rare" as far as EOs go. The unresolved issue for the EO project (basically Carl Lindberg and I) was how best to proofread and present these additional EOs in realtion to the compiled ones, and later, the ones standardized by/with the creation of the Federal Register. See the Table of Scanned Indexes for all the EOs that currently have scans but aren't neccessarily worked on enough yet to be ready for any major transclusion to the mainspace. In general, anything earlier than Truman is pretty much in a state of unresolved & incomplete flux - including the basic lists for each President - to be honest about it.
I ask to be mindful of just one thing - most Indexes have been realigned so that the published CFR # page matches the .djvu/# page (makes for easier roll-out for templates and Wikipedia linkage when pages line-up 1:1), but if an Index does not match, please do not create any pages in it. I guess you can transclude/replace them to the mainspace as they get PR'd but the problem then becomes how to label/page# them since there never was a real page number in any real compilation for those to the best of our research so far ever.
There are serveral other considerations, in my opinion, that need to be resolved before potential contributors can really take a whack at all those Indexes, but progess has been slow and I am first contstrained limited free time in addition to first insuring my admin. role is not just a button to be collected but one that is properly fulfilled. -- George Orwell III (talk)

If there are still things to sort out for transclusion, maybe I'll just stick to proofreading a few more orders. I probably won't be doing to may more if there is a lot to sort out, seems like i'll just be getting in the way. Will these indexes be replacing the EO's w/o scans when all the problems have been solved? Digipoke (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well the issues are more about mainspace presention &/or stylistic in nature than substantive so there is absolutely no harm in PRing and transcluding those either way. If any changes are to be made in the future, they will not be the kind that makes PRing "moot". Plus, we now have tools that make moving hundreds of pages, if need be, an automated process whereas at one time there was no such option.
The hope is to replace at least all the EOs from ~1929 to today and we know scans exist for that range (we don't have the 1990's converted & uploaded just yet on top of the ones where pages aren't aligned to match yet), but anything prior to that literally involves 'original research' since no definitive collection was ever made public nevermind formally published. All we have is a listing of all the possible numbered EO issued (starts with Lincoln) and that hasn't been cross-checked for accuracy since 1941 either. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

smiley[edit]

I thought that I was going crazy, then I saw Santa's helper. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 00:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Are you stalking me? <laugh> Nice work. I have added to {{new texts}} though don't be shy about adding them yourself. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Haha! Nope, not stalking, just like to do the shorter works, but you just seem to get to them first. :) - Digipoke (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I can explain that most easily in that I go and hunt them up and bring them in. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Mystery solved! Is there special page that catalogues works (indexes) by length? - Digipoke (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

A note of thanks[edit]

Many thanks for your help in the PSM project.— Ineuw talk 01:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Just wanted to thank you for helping out with the Pentagon Papers project. Page:Pentagon-Papers-Index.djvu/4 in particular looks really great. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure no problem. Happy to help. - Digipoke (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice follow-up and tidying[edit]

I see that you have been following up on some of the works that others have been adding, and tidying to style, and in a really nice way. Great to see! You may also consider patrolling the works (Mark as patrolled) if you are doing the following through RecentChanges. If you are there is a good (ajax) gadget that works nicely and comfortably. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

As a follow-up, have you, or would you consider being a fellow administrator? I would be happy to nominate you if think that is a step that you would like to take. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll enable the gadget. I'll think about being an admin, but at a later stage as I won't be on as much for a while (real life stuff). -- Digipoke (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
(-: … Lifus interruptus :-/ — billinghurst sDrewth 13:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Is use of {{multicol}} a bad thing to do?[edit]

Hello Digipoke.

I noticed you have carefully removed any use of {{multicol}} from several of my recent edits (e.g. Page:The Oak (Index).)
Would you please be so kind as to elaborate why?
Am I doing something wrong; or is there a outright some problem with this template (i.e. should I avoid using it at all?)
Perhaps specifying the font colour (i.e. black) like I did was regarded as bad practice?
The only public discussion I have been able to find suggests using tables for formatting is frowned upon, but I am a little at a loss as to how else to represent things which consist of multiple columns otherwise. I would appreciate your views. MODCHK (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a transclusion issue. The columns dont line up properly. In the first page in the left column it went from A to C and on the right from D to G. The next page left column started at H. So when it's transcluded the left coulmn read A, B, C then straight to H. Like this:

A
B
C

D
E
F
G

H
I
J
K

L
M
N

It's messy and harder to read/follow. So for things with columns it's simpler to just remove the columns. There might be a template concerning this. I'll see if I can find it. - Digipoke (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
You could play around with {{DGRG column}} used in Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography. It shows as columns in the pagesapce but straight text in the mainspace. I haven't used it, though, so i'm not sure how well it works. - Digipoke (talk) 12:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. It is hard to get the idea out of my head the end product is not paginated, so I now see your point! And in any case the main driver to use {{multicol}} was the inter-column line, which makes no sense at all in the transcluded output. Which sort of puts paid to the utility of {{DGRG column}} as an alternative as well. However thank you very much for doing the research.
If I have got it right, then there should be no problem using {{multicol}} for single-on-page tables? This is about the limit of what I think might be acceptable. What do you think? MODCHK (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The way you made the table on that page was exactly right. You might be able to get a similar result using multicol. For simple single page tables multicol will work and is easier but for more complicated works, make a table. Tables can span more than one page, I'm not sure about multicol. Also look at {{table style}} for shortcuts to use in a table. - Digipoke (talk)

Is the signature required?[edit]

Hey there, Digipoke. I've noticed that on Page:How to Write Music.djvu/5, you've marked the page as problematic because the signature needs to be added. Is the signature required for the book to be complete (i.e. did the book originally belong to some famous person, &c.) or can it be validated otherwise? Thanks,—Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed now, thanks. —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)