User talk:Esme Shepherd

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Wikisource

Hello, Esme Shepherd, 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:

You may be interested in participating in

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{Collaboration/MC}} 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.

Have questions? Then please ask them at either

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 username if you're logged in (or IP address if you are not) 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) 07:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion of Index:Landon in Literary Gazette 1822.pdf[edit]

Hi Esme, do you have plans to transclude this work to the main namespace? If you are wanting assistance for tranclusion, then please ask. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hi - I've had a look at this but it instructs me to add a new page and I cannot find how to do this. Where, and how should I name it? Esme Shepherd (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the title used on the scan that you have, though feel welcome to amend it. From there you can add. Actually I may get one of our resident poetry experts to assist, she is way better on this stuff than me.

@Londonjackbooks: Can you please assist. My looking at the work it looks like individual works as subpages with a created table of contents utilising {{auxiliary Table of Contents}} on the root page. The edition detail that is on the top of each page may be better poked into the header and then utilised in the notes field of each subpage. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: I am giving it a look-through... There might be another option with subpage-creation. I'll get back on this soon... Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Index" is actually a TOC, and is labeled "Contents". Most of the "work" is divided up into a series of sketches &c., with occasional poems peppering certain "sections". An alt option for subpages would be to divide/title subpages thusly:

/Song [single poem] @p1
/Poetic Sketches - Series 1 [6 sketches & 4 poems] @p2
/Poetic Sketches - Series 2 [6 sketches] @p19
/Songs [3 poems] @p33
/Sketches ... Dagley [3 sketches] @p36
/Poetical Sketches - Series 3 [6 sketches & 1 poem] @p42
/Dramatic Scenes [2 scenes] @p70
/Fragments in Rhyme [11 fragments & 1 sonnet] @p78

But then we would lose the ability to add edition details for each individual piece in the notes sections. For this reason, I am leaning toward Billinghurst's method, but would like to solicit a third opinion... @Beeswaxcandle:? Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Esme, I see you have already begun transclusion... For a Mainspace title, I would follow the title used in the scan as Billinghurst suggested above (Poems in The London Gazette during the year 1822 by Letitia Elizabeth Landon (L. E. L.) the poet everyone is talking about)... modifying that as you see fit, as it is rather long... But ".pdf" need not be in the title for a Mainspace page. I have further opinions, but am reticent to offer them currently. I will leave it to you to seek further inquiry as you see fit. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am playing it by ear and will post again if I get stuck Esme Shepherd (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Sometimes we learn better that way. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Shepherd (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC) I have transcluded Landon in The Literary Gazette 1822/Poetic Sketches - Sketch Third but the second page is left aligned even though both pages are centred using center block/s and center block/e in Pages and appear correctly centred there. Why is this?[reply]

Poem tag needed to be inside {{center block/s}} template on this page. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, subpages should have the same base title as the title page Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Shepherd (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Oh dear - it might be easier to make new header pages at this stage[reply]

Move pages rather than convert to a redirect[edit]

As each Wikisource page ha an underlying identifier AND is linked at Wikidata, we would encourage you to move the page, then convert the created redirect into a disambiguation page. Converting an existing page into a redirect causes issues. Also to think about pages on watchlists, etc. Knowledge for next time. :-) Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Esme Shepherd (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC) I was a little worried about this but surely only one page can have any particular name. It would be better if you discouraged editors from using page titles that are NOT UNIQUE to the work they are posting. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by moving a page. Can you explain, please?[reply]
    Let me start with the reading material
    • Help:Disambiguation about how we manage works with the same title. Unfortunately it is not possible to preclude any title, so we plan for how we manage this.
    • w:Help:Move WP's nice text on how to do a move ... using the dropdown More > Move.
    Please ping me with questions. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Shepherd (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC) Thanks, I noticed that disambiguation pages state "If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page." and I was hoping that would solve the issue. I will try your recommended route if the issue arises again. I wasn't expecting to find common titles usurped so frequently.[reply]

Yes, we do have legacy issues, and there was an earlier conversation (years ago) about pushing harder for extended titles to a nomenclature, however, it was just going to be doomed to failure, especially when putting in wikilinks in something like DNB. The reference on the disambig page is meant to indicate that you should put the link to where the work is (or might be) hence why we will set up "Dawn (Smith)" and play loose with redirects. There is no perfect way to do this. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 16:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image issues[edit]

Esme Shepherd (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC) I am in the process of proofreading "Improvisatrice. pdf", which I picked up at page 91 this morning. When I reached page 95, I found no image. The images up to 94 are all present and correct but after that, all the pages show the following message:[reply]
Error generating thumbnail:
Error creating thumbnail: Reading profile /etc/firejail/mediawiki-converters.profile Reading profile /etc/firejail/mediawiki-converters.profile �]0;firejail /usr/bin/convert -depth 8 -quality 95 -resize 1240 - /tmp/transform_66e513481da5.jpg �convert: no decode delegate for this image format `' @ error/constitute.c/ReadImage/501. convert: no images defined `/tmp/transform_66e513481da5.jpg' @ error/convert.c/ConvertImageCommand/3210. Parent pid 3374, child pid 3376 Parent is shutting down, bye...
Esme Shepherd (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC) P.S. This has only happened today. Yesterday, all the images were visible. Therefore, it must be some kind of glitch, which hopefully can be resolved.[reply]

@Hesperian, @Samwilson: either of you have an opinion worth sharing? Noting that it is Index:Improvisatrice.pdf. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Beleg Tâl: and another — billinghurst sDrewth 16:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Billinghurst: the problem is already known, I also see it in the yesterday's evening, and Beleg Tâl as well. See the topic on the Scriptorium/Help: Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help#Problems_with_File:Special_301_Report_2014.pdf. And Beleg Tâl kindly assisted with the problem and registered an issue on the Phabricator (as marked on the Scriptorium's Help). Now waiting the solution (maybe it'll come soon). Regards, Nigmont (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, tracked at task T164045. I just put a note at WS:S as well to make sure people know about it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improvisatrice transclusion[edit]

Hi, I was going through your transclusion. It seems that it does not conform to the convention here. You can compare with other works. For example:

  1. The name of the work, as per title page, is The Improvisatrice and Other Poems; but you have named it Improvisatrice (L. E. L.). I could not understand the reason.
  2. Title, printers, frontispiece, front, title page, advertisement, contents 1, contents 2 — this whole lot should be transcluded together. Is there any reason for separate transclusion, contrary to the custom here?
  3. There is no serial number of the items in the contents portion. Wherefrom did you get those serial numbers?
  4. Was there any reason to split the last stanza (after the rule) of Hindoo Girl's Song and shift it to Indian Bride?
  5. The pdf file itself seems to be artificially created, and not the 1824 version. An 1825 version is available at https://archive.org/details/improvisatricean00lelluoft

Hrishikes (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Shepherd (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • My compilation is based on the 1824 edition but to avoid duplication and to direct readers to actual sources, I have not duplicated the poems that are already transcluded from The Literary Gazette. That is why I avoided the actual title. There are, I know, other works entitled The Improvisatrice.
  • I am happy to put all the lead pages together. I wasn't sure about this but I would prefer it anyway.
  • The contents are linked to this volume or to the Literary Gazette collections, as dated.
  • The passage after Hindoo Girl's Song is a linking section, a part of the Improvisatrice's monologue that seems too short to require a separate page. It leads into and announces The Indian Bride, so it surely ought to be included there.

Esme Shepherd (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would you like me to add an explanatory header. I have provisionally prepared one in Category: Letitia Landon's Poetry.
Duplication of works are found in plenty in this site. They are normally treated as different versions or editions of the same work. Portions are not to be removed from the file. If there is some copyright problem for a particular page, that page can be blackened, but not removed. Even blank pages are not to be removed. As for the name, there may be other works named The Improvisatrice, but is there another work named The Improvisatrice and Other Poems? (the "other poems" portion is not to be ignored). The name in the title page should match the name of the work in the main namespace, except in exceptional cases, where contrary justification exists. Please pick some random works here and go through them, as well as the help pages, for a better understanding of the procedure here. Hrishikes (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Complete source works[edit]

Esme Shepherd (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have one in hand but have some issues before uploading - The title is incidentally 'The Troubadour; Catalogue of Pictures, and Historical Sketches' and the file will so be named if that is what is required.
  • There are issues with Tables of Contents - try as I will I can find no way of reproducing the columnar format of these tables in Wikisource. I have examined quite a number of cases but none help to reproduce the requisite format in cases such as this. The whole thing seems to be a nightmare.
  • The other issue with the Table of Contents is that the original, which it appears I am required somehow to reproduce, is designed for an in the hand book and is utterly useless as an aid to navigating an electronic book in Wikisource. Have you given any thought to this? Item one - page 1; item two - page 257. Really?
No one has said that you need to reproduce the TOC exactly. But the file should be uploaded as is, without editing the contents of the pages (except in special and justifiable circumstances), so that the original can be verified by any reader from the side-by-side display of scan and transcription. This verifiability is the whole point of our exercise of scan-backed proofreading. Hrishikes (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dropinitials[edit]

Esme Shepherd (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC) I am a little frustrated to find that when using dropinitial decorated capitals in poetry, center block does not work. Lines are split prematurely and the right hand side of the page is never reached. I am therefore forced to inset all lines using gaps and this can go on for pages![reply]

Usually you will get better response at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help, and it would be useful if you can give examples of pages where you have tried something so others can look directly what you have tried. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


More Image Issues[edit]

Of the 99 images in Fisher's drawing room scrap book Plates, 15 are not showing on the Category page. At first they were also not appearing on pages, but now they are. They do appear when clicked to view. At first, one of the Fisher's drawing room scrap book Signatures was acting in the same way, but this has corrected. Esme Shepherd (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC) I should add that this problem arose sometime yesterday.[reply]

I am not sure how anyone would be expected to address such a statement, the information is incomplete, and there are no links. People are unlikely to do the legwork to interpret your question rather than answer it. And again, your user talk page is not the ideal place for the community to respond to questions. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but this error clearly must relate to the change made in the media viewer and it is hardly likely to be confined to my images alone. Esme Shepherd (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{fqm}}[edit]

Thought that I would point you to {{fqm}}. It may be useful for some of the poetry type work that you have been doing. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Shepherd (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC) Thanks, I think I have used it once, although inset quotes seem to be most usual in the period in which I am working.[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LEL excerpted works[edit]

Hello! In Wikisource:What Wikisource includes (with regard to excerpts), it states that "selected selections ... are generally not accepted." I came across this Index and noted that the poems contained within the work were excerpted/compiled from a larger work. I further wondered about the compilation/compiler, and whether they had placed the work of selected poems itself into the public domain. There is no external link to any such claim at the Index talk page or elsewhere (that I noted). I am not well versed on copyright, but remembering a past issue where a contributor asserted that there may be possible protections on compilations (with regard to order, etc.), I was curious. Not concerned, just curious. Thanks for any input :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Shepherd (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Firstly, the compiler is myself and I am quite happy to have my compilations in the public domain. The reason for the excerpts is that the whole volume (in this case The Casket) contains numerous works by a number of authors, none of which are relevant to this particular Category, namely Letitia Elizabeth Landon. Indeed, some of my compilations have had to be garnered from a variety of other sources where the original volume is just not available. My aim by these means is to maximise the usefulness of Wikisource.[reply]

I understand. Using myself as an example, I have transcribed many fugitive pieces by Florence Earle Coates that were parts of other works containing various authors. If the complete work was not available at Wikisource, or if it was unlikely that it ever would be in one's lifetime, I transcribed the work as in the original (or as close as possible) and supplied a link in the Mainspace notes or on the Talk page to any reference available online. Then list the work on the Author page. I am sympathetic to being willing to have one's compilations in the public domain, for that was my introduction to Wikisource, and I was met with my compilation being a candidate for proposed deletion :) Not saying that will be the case with any of your efforts, but my uninformed instinct is that works hosted here need be handled 'differently'. I am just at a loss as to how to explain how exactly. I will think on it further. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Shepherd (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC) I can say that the vast majority of my sources are scanned from originals found on line. I did have one issue with a small number of poems that could not be traced anywhere but in a modern 'hard' source, namely Sypher's Landon. Poems from Annuals. I enquired whether or not I could transcribe these and was told that would be okay. Of course I have credited that source, which is a book I do have in my possession.[reply]

Ok. I may be misunderstanding inclusion guidance, etc. As for the compilations, they seem to me to present a more nuanced issue. I don't have any clarity of thought about this at present, however. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More image problems[edit]

Esme Shepherd (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC) I am experiencing image distortions when editing. These correct if I select 'show preview' but are nevertheless annoying. The issues are: 1. Image appears very squashed horizontally thus rendering it unreadable. 2. Image appears extremely enlarged, so that only a little of it can be seen.[reply]

Esme Shepherd (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC) This problem continues. Is everyone else having the same distortions or is it just me? If it is just me, why?[reply]

Poem about L. E. L.[edit]

Wondering if this poem by @Peteforsyth:'s Author:Frances Fuller Victor is not about 'your' Author:Letitia Elizabeth Landon? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Shepherd (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC) Thank you, I sure you are right although the 'clang of armor' is a bit fanciful! Cape Coast Castle was merely a trading station by that time. The opening quote is from 'Claribel' by Tennyson, who was clearly (although this is rarely acknowledged) influenced by L. E. L..[reply]

Nice to see more connections made, thanks for the ping Londonjackbooks! -Pete (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate file[edit]

Esme, are you aware the indexes Index:Landon in The New Monthly 1837.pdf and Index:New Monthly 1837.pdf are duplicates of each other? Which one would you like to be deleted? --kathleen wright5 (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Shepherd (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Index:Landon in The New Monthly 1837.pdf is the one in use in Wikisource. I have since lost my file 'Landon in The New Monthly 1837.pdf' due to a computer crash, so I don't want it lost. I don't remember why there exists Index:New Monthly 1837.pdf but it does seem to be surplus to requirements. Thanks.[reply]

Esme Shepherd (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)P.S. I think I abandoned titles like 'New Monthly' because obviously there is far more material in a magazine than selected poems by one author.[reply]

Blank pages[edit]

We don't proofread and validate blank pages. The grey button No Text should be used instead.--kathleen wright5 (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Shepherd (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Thanks, I only discovered this a little while ago, and I'll try to remember in future.[reply]

Textual differences in Hymns for Childhood[edit]

I happened across this book and noticed quite a few discrepancies between the scan and the transcription. For example, the errors on this on page. These go beyond scannos or typos with some significant differences not only in spelling and capitalisation but also word choice. Or this page with two comma errors. Or here? That's a high error density for some short poems. How did this happen? And how did @Kathleen.wright5: not pick up on this while doing her proofreading—which was very fast? Were you copying in another digital text and not checking? BethNaught (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Shepherd (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Sorry about this. I haven't checked yet but thought I had my text from this Dublin edition. It was originally published in America and I have another edition from there of 1840 with illustrations. It is possible I posted the wrong text but I was intent on proofreading through it and correcting in due course, as with all my other postings.[reply]

Esme Shepherd (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC) The text looks like the 1840 text. I have a separate text file for this and I can't remember how the two texts have become confused. I wasn't able to find the 1827 American edition although the Dublin edition does say it is a reprint. Again I apologise for the mix-up and I will check through it all carefully - I have made a start on this but it is unwise to rush.[reply]

It didn't click with me early enough that you hadn't proofread them yet—I'm very sorry for jumping at you! So the issue is with the proofreader, not you. Sorry again. BethNaught (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've now been through all the text and I'm happy to regard it as proofread. Strangely, the poem Birthday lines on p.58 does not appear in the 1840 edition! One question, if I may:the printer's page markings in the footers were all taken out by Kathleen.wright. I know they don't show in the final product but I always but them in, so that the page appears as shown. Do I need to add them, or not? Esme Shepherd (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, consensus is that printer's marks, not being part of the author's work, are not required, but also not forbidden. In my opinion Kathleen.wright removing them was pointless. In the future feel free to choose whether to add them. BethNaught (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. My texts are all scanned. I format them and try to remove all spaces before punctuation etc. but there are bound to be the odd corruptions that I have missed. Sometimes my word-processor adds to these (I ought to have turned auto-correct off!). Anyway, making them perfect! is what proofreading is for! Esme Shepherd (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Esme Shepherd,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikisource and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Esme Shepherd,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Shepherd (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Noted. Will deal with soon. Been on holiday.[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Esme Shepherd,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missed transcluding a page[edit]

Hi. When transcluding a work you missed Page:Italian Literature.pdf/56. Can I please leave that with you to remedy. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No issue, at all, we all do it. That is why we added the check tool to the Index: page template and it appears on each Index: page. Plus why we do the categorisation to mark the works we have checked, and those to be checked. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluding files[edit]

For 'Adelaide Contents.pdf' see 'The Fate of Adelaide. Table of Contents' in Wikisource (19.5.2017). I will deal with the two Felicia Hemans files shortly. Esme Shepherd (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relative links[edit]

Hi. You can use relative links as in here. They are future-proof in case subpages need to be moved in future. And it is also less typing ... Mpaa (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've noticed these recently and will give them a go. My entries are all from templates where I use copy and paste, so the typing is not much of a problem but I occasionally run into problems with minor errors in page names (most often from TOCs): for instance, the inclusion of an unwanted comma. This leads to dead pages and I'm not sure how to deal with these-they just get abandoned. Is there a proper course of action? Esme Shepherd (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relative links reduce a lot maintenance burden. Please use them as much as possible. If the page with wrong title has already been created, just move it to the right name. If it is just a link in a page, just fix the typo, I guess. I am not sure I fully got your question, so an example would help in case my answer is not satisfactory. Mpaa (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I ought to have known that but the problem first arose long ago before I knew how to rename and somehow I've never put two and two together! Esme Shepherd (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3 pages missed transcluding[edit]

Hi. I was checking transclusion and noticed that 3 pages were missedin a work Page:Hemans in Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine 34 1833.pdf/20, Page:Hemans in Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine 34 1833.pdf/21] and Page:Hemans in Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine 34 1833.pdf/22 — billinghurst sDrewth 11:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page signatures[edit]

Hi Esme Shepherd,

Just a little "headsup":

I notice that on talk pages you tend to put your signature before your message rather than after it. It's generally a good idea to put it after your message simply because that is the convention everyone follows, so it helps them to keep track of the conversation. But in addition to that there are some software changes planned that depends on signatures being added in the conventional way. Once those changes are made it will be even more important that the signature is placed at the end of the message or it may prevent those function from working as intended.

Please don't hesitate to let me know if you need assistance with this. --Xover (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point noted! Esme Shepherd (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Works by Peter John Bolton[edit]

Hi Esme Shepherd,

I just happened across Author:Peter John Bolton (yourself, I presume from your user page?), for which you appear to have created most (all?) the linked pages, and noticed that these do not appear to be previously published works. Could you explain what these are and where the associated files (PDF) come from? --Xover (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Author page was set up by Beleg Tâl back in 2019. All these files are from previously published works, the PDF files being built up from original pages therefrom that I have searched out and put together. I have merely added explanatory covers to these compilations. Esme Shepherd (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Ok, so the compilation as such is not previously published?
Is there any particular reason you are doing it this way rather than proofreading the relevant poems as part of the works in which they were originally published? --Xover (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The original publications include 100 and 100s of pages that are irrelevant to the subject. I may say that my method was approved for use years ago. I don't claim any rights over my compilations, which are wholly in the public domain. Esme Shepherd (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no requirement that the entire work in which the poem appeared be proofread, just the page or pages that contain the poem. And we have traditionally considered individual poems to meet the bar for being considered works in their own right in terms of being able to have their own page in mainspace. This can be combined with a portal that would serve as something like a table of contents for the set of poems (because portals are allowed to be thematic collections made by Wikisource contributors).
If you're already collecting the original pages where the poem appeared, you've already done the most labour intensive part (apart from the proofreading itself). Uploading and creating an Index: page for the scans of those original publications will be a bit more work and a bit more complicated than the same job for the PDFs you've made yourself; but on the other hand you would no longer have to create that custom PDF. And things like the table of contents page could be created directly on the Portal: page without needing to go by way of the PDF first.
I'd be happy to help with the unfamiliar parts of this (uploading original scans, creating an Index:, setting up the Portal: etc.). Perhaps we could find some good test case, maybe something that you've already proofread so we don't have to waste your time on double effort, and try to set it up in this alternate system for comparison? That way you could see how it would work and we could discuss the pros and cons of the approaches based on some concrete experience. --Xover (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely understand where you are coming from. All these PDF pages have been proofread and in many cases validated. All of these PDF files have been transcluded onto the Author pages. This has taken years of work that has been approved and accepted by wikisource moderators, who would surely have pointed to a Portal approach in the past had it been necessary. In the case of Landon, there are well over a thousand poems from over a hundred sources, but no individual poems have their own page in mainspace, as far as I can see. In fact hundreds of these 'poems' are actually integrated multimedia presentations that incorporate a plate, a poem and a text. What you have at present is a very rich and valuable resource on her Author page, which it would be sheer madness to disturb. I am now 79 years old and heavily engaged in Joanna Baillie's plays and Landon's novels (all from complete volumes), so if I began a conversion to Portals, there is no knowing if I will live to complete it. Esme Shepherd (talk) 09:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it make more sense to delete Author:Peter John Bolton, which I didn't create and is a bit of nonsense really? Moving the goal posts in the way you are doing is causing me a lot of stress and anxiety and, when you consider all the hours of hard work I have done on behalf of wikisource, I cannot see how it can be justified. What I have done has been accepted and I can't see why it cannot be left like that. All this material was published a long time ago and I have added nothing to it. Esme Shepherd (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, it was certainly not my intent to cause you any stress or anxiety. If I did that then I have to apologize!
Don't worry about the existing works for now. There are many ways to skin that cat, and one of them is to leave them just exactly as they are as an exception to our general practice. Nobody wants to lose all the great work you've put in on these!
What I am proposing is only to try an experiment with a different way of setting such works up to see if we can find a way that lets you keep working in an acceptable way, but one that is more in line with policy. There's no real urgency here, and nobody is proposing to delete anything (except in the general sense that at some unspecific point in the future the community might decide to get stricter about such issues). --Xover (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reassurances. The main objective is for the Author pages to have listed all the sources of works by that author. That should be Wikisource's objective also and it is particularly true of authors like Landon, who published in so many different outlets that after her death most of her poetry was lost and her stature as a poet was overlooked (or rather deliberately neglected). So obviously we need to maintain this status quo. However, the files of extracted works at the moment begin with a title page that is mostly superfluous: that is, the title itself is the file name, so that isn't needed; naming myself as compiler was mere honesty and can be removed; and lastly an index, which is needed in some form. So, given an index and the file name, no title page is required, only the original scanned pages. I should remark that these scanned pages are not necessarily from the title source but may be from other contemporary publications, facts that need to be noted. This is mostly due to unavailability but it is also due to impracticability, as in the Bijou Almanacks. Does the above fit in with a Portal approach? I can at least think about it. Esme Shepherd (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little bit pressed for time just now (real life interferes), so apologies in advance that this'll be a little hastily written. I'll expand later on things I'll inevitably muddle or be unclear on. I'll also note that in what I am outlining below, I am not proposing that you be the one to do the new and possibly complicated stuff I'm talking about. From my perspective the most labour intensive jobs and the ones requiring your specialized knowledge are 1) finding the poems in their originals, and 2) proofreading them here. Everything else to do with uploading, setting up indexes, and technical stuff like that are possible for others to do, so I am not primarily proposing that you spend time on any of it.
The author pages for the relevant poems should definitely list all their works. There's a caveat that at least some of them were very prolific so we may have an organisational problem there, but that's a luxury problem we can address whenever. The big thing is that it should list the author's works, not my or your notional "collected edition" of their works. That is, it should list either the individual poems, or collections where that specific collection has been previously published.
The existence of an author page for you, and the title pages included in the PDF files, are not in themselves the problem. In fact, under the circumstances both are necessary. The problem is that the PDF files are not directly representative (scans of) a previously published collected edition of the poems it contains. For example, in the late 18th century, Edmond Malone edited a collected edition of Shakespeare's plays and poems. As did Samuel Johnson. They both consulted all the early Quarto editions, the Folios, etc., and then compiled what they considered to be "authorative" texts. These are both fine to scan, upload, and proofread. Malone's edition would live at The Plays and Poems of William Shakespeare (1790), with subpages for each of the plays. In addition, we would list that edition of Hamlet on the wikipage Hamlet (Shakespeare) as one of multiple editions of the play that we host. But if I were to go grab scans of the plays from a couple of different old editions, stick them all into a PDF file, and upload them here, we would have a collection that had not been previously published. We would be substituting the editorial control of a publishing house and a notable editor with the judgement of some random and anonymous internet person (me). That is the issue that conflicts with our policy.
So, to address that… The setup I'm thinking of for this is to first identify the original place one of the poems of interest were published, and upload scans and set up an index for that published work. For example, if one poem was published in The Rambler, or The Gentleman's Magazine (or whatever it may be), then we find a scan of that issue of that periodical and upload a scan, and set up an Index for that. Then we proofread only the page or pages that contain the poem we are interested in, and transclude it onto a wikipage named after the title of the poem. We do this for each of the poems of interest, even if each poem was published singly in a different publication.
Once that is done we have the poems themselves here, but we lack an organisational framework for them. Your self-made "collected editions" provided that, but as explained above, that method runs into policy problems. So to cover this need in a policy-compliant way I am thinking we use portals. Portal: pages are subsidiary pages, sort of like Author: pages but for works that are connected by something other than the author. They can be for things like documents produced by a government (i.e. doesn't have an individual human author), or they can be more thematic, like Portal:Children's literature. I am thinking we can use Portal pages to create whatever collections or subdivisions of poems that are needed. For example, we could have a portal for Portal:Landon's romantic poetry, or Portal:Poems by Landon published in English periodicals, or similar collecting criteria. On Portal: pages we allow the creation of our own collections and organisation of works, and they can be edited directly like wikipages with lists or tables of links without needing to go by way of PDF files and index pages to collect or create tables of contents. --Xover (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am still thinking about this and there are a number of issues I would like to resolve. As regards PDF files for the volumes I have made extractions from, I do not currently have them to hand on my computer. Many pages have been scanned from GoogleBooks and although the full PDFs are generally downloadable, they are not always so. However, I may be able to obtain a good number of them. If I were to upload a PDF, which category do I put it in? A category is insisted on. There is a category for Gift Books, in which, after a bit of a search, I discovered one gift book. If I upload The Literary Gazette, 1820, it ought to go to a Category:The Literary Gazette, or something like that (there may be more than one), presumably within Category:Magazines about literature. This particular file has about 850 pages of full broadsheet with three columns per page. To start with the page bodies will all be blank. Landon has seven extracts, each of which is a page snippet, so if I were to copy the proofread and validated texts into the appropriate page bodies, even though they stand alone, they would presumably require labelling. Is the portal when set up directed to these page numbers/labels? Esme Shepherd (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a task that will take years and I am unlikely to live to complete it, I must point out the drawbacks that I would face. For one, the necessary tools are just not in place. I have a PDF for The Literary Gazette, 1820 but, at the moment, I cannot see any way of proceeding with this method. Having indexed it, I cannot leave it as needing a text layer; I have made that mistake before, only for my file to be overwritten. The snippets of text to be entered are each only a small part of a page. Even so, the whole page must be marked as proofread, even though most of its text is not there. In fact this text has already been validated. How am I to indicate this? Otherwise a great deal of other contributors time will also be wasted. To make this method viable, it must be made possible for small parts of a page to be dealt with individually and, even if I were able to create indexed files with my snippets of text in place, I cannot yet get to grips with how these are put into a portal file, nor what conceivable advantage would be gained.

As to the size of this task, consider one case in point. To recreate my volume of The Bijou Almanacks, I will have to upload PDFs of The London Literary Gazette, 1835; The London Literary Gazette, 1836; The London Literary Gazette, 1837; The Mirror of Literature, Amusement and Instruction, 1837; The Herald, 1837; The Star, 1838 and The New Yorker, 1839. Even then, one of the poems is missing and cannot be found anywhere on the internet (I do have the first line). There is little or no chance of PDFs being made of the original volumes, which measure 3/4in by 1/2in. I have no doubt that Miss Landon would prefer these poems to appear of screen at the original size to be read with a magnifying glass! Esme Shepherd (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CC0 and PD-old for The Juvenile Keepsake?[edit]

Are you sure about the CC0 status for pages like this one? I feel like PD-old alone would be enough; after all, they are from the 1830s. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be the same Peter John Bolton as the compiler? PseudoSkull (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Shepherd (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC) Yes, that is me. I just want to make it clear I am releasing all rights, if any.[reply]

Well, I'll be, that I forgot to read your user page, somehow it slipped my mind. I feel like an idiot. :) Anyway, wow, that's impressive. Thanks for all the hard work with the compilations and then the transcriptions. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption Problem[edit]

At the moment and for some time in the past, I am plagued by a rogue file named File:Fileicon.pdf.png, which may invade any pdf that I try to upload. For one thing, the option of 'uploading a new version of a file' is not available to me because it will inevitably be corrupted by that invading image. I pointed this out several months ago but nothing has been done and it is still a bugbear as far as I am concerned. All I can do is triple check all files before uploading and cross fingers. Esme Shepherd (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}

I have recently copied the text code from one volume to another manually (68 pages in all) and following an investigation request to Mpaa, I was informed 'next time you need to copy text, ask for help, there are tools to do it with minimal manual work. No need to copy manually page by page.' However, I cannot see how to do this, so would be grateful for instruction, as that next time has unfortunately arrived. Thanks. Esme Shepherd (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I suggest writing a request to Wikisource:Bot requests. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have done that. However, the suggestion is that it can be done with minimal manual work and I supposed that meant I could do it myself with instruction. Esme Shepherd (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I am sorry, I do not know how to do it myself, but you can also try to ask directly User:Mpaa or at WS:Scriptorium. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will do that next time I have this problem. For the moment, I will muddle on with the long-winded method. Esme Shepherd (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Literary Magnet (1826)[edit]

Hi, I came across A Poem by Letitia Elizabeth Landon (L. E. L.) in The Literary Magnet, 1826 Vol. 4 while working on a few other items from The Literary Magnet, vol 4, and realised that the assumed date (1826) is off by one year.

Volume 4 was published between July and December 1825, despite it saying 1826 on the cover wrapper and index, which was printed the following year (and unhelpfully gives the year it was printed, rather than specifying the dates that the volume covered). The next volume—series 2, volume 1—ran between January and June 1826. For more information on this, see the Wikipedia article, and this N&Q note, which gives more information on the dates of specific volumes.

Unless you object, I'll make a request to rename File:Literary Magnet 1826.pdf on Commons, and make the relevant edits here.

P.S. Huge amount of respect for all the work you've done making all of these poets' works available! --YodinT 17:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm sure you are right. For some reason I cannot find my original for this volume, which ought to be in my Google Chrome library. I may have sourced it elsewhere. However, I do have the original page, which was page 215.
This agrees with Glenn Dibert-Himes and Cynthia Lawson's Index, which gives: in The Literary Magnet 4 (1826): 215.
Esme Shepherd (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS I've found the following reference: Anon, ., ‘The living poets of England. Mrs Hemans’, The literary magnet 4 (March 1826). Google Scholar. As File:Literary Magnet 1826.pdf has been validated and transcluded to Wikisource, is it really necessary to rename it? Renaming files with pages can cause a problem. Esme Shepherd (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that Hemans article is in Series 2, Volume 1 (March 1826) which can be found on Archive.org. Series 2, Volume 1 started in January 1826 (see this page), so it looks like Drs Dibert-Himes, Lawson, etc. were also confused by the title page of Series 1, Volume 4, and assumed that the contents were published in 1826. In terms of renaming, I understand the technical issues (making sure that the Index and Page articles are also renamed, and keeping redirects from the original names), and can make sure to avoid any problems: I'm just concerned that a reader would come across this and be confused about the year the poem was published, and so continue to share incorrect information (now that you mention the Index also assumes this, I've emailed Dr Dibert-Himes; will let you know if I get a reply!)
Ted R. Ellis III of East Carolina University also mentions this poem specifically in "The Literary Magnet, ‘Tobias Merton,’ and Alaric ‘Attila’ Watts" (June 1983): "there is a hint of a new influence in the magazine’s November number, which features a poem by ‘L.E.L.’ (Letitia Landon), ‘Lines to Alaric A. Watts’ (iv [1825], 215)." He goes on to say "I have been unable to identify either of the two editors who succeeded the Brydges as ‘Tobias Merton, Gent.’ and guided the Magnet through the completion of its first series in December 1825."
Incidentally, by the looks of it, L. E. L. did have a poem published in The Literary Magnet in 1826, but it was Series 2, Volume 2: "Lines Suggested by the Death of Ismael Fitzdam", which looks to be a reprint of this one (then again the vol 4 poem was also a reprint of this one also from the Literary Gazette 1823). --YodinT 22:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the title of the volume from which the poem was taken I know to be correct, namely The Literary Magnet, 1826 Volume 4, I do not see any need to change the file name. Surely, all that is needed is to edit the year of publication, a simple enough process. I'm not entirely happy about changing the file name, which at present does at least reflect what the volume was called, even in the date in the published title is wrong. Have you found page 215 to check you are looking at the right volume?
Esme Shepherd (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have now found my source on Google Chrome. It is titled LITERARY MAGNET OF THE BELLES LETTRES, SCIENCE, AND THE FINE ARTS;... Vol IV, 1826. The first page is titled INDEX to the THIRD VOLUME and someone has crossed out THIRD and written Fourth. So my title Literary Magnet 1826 is in effect correct and, as I say above, editing the date of publication to 1825 is a simple enough matter without the need of any file name changes.

Esme Shepherd (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the cover wrapper title page for the volume does say 1826; the typo on the first Index page that you mention really shows the level of care that went into this! Also to answer your question about page 215: as mentioned above, I've been working on other items from volume 4; here's the index: Index:The Literary Magnet 1825 vol 4.djvu (yes, I chose 1825 when I uploaded this, to show the years the magazine was published). I proofread page 215, and transcluded the poem here: The Literary Magnet/Series 1/Volume 4/To Alaric A. Watts, Esq. (see Wikisource:Periodical guidelines for the logic behind transcluding it this way). I'll make the necessary notes about the year this poem was published, and might also need to make a versions page to distinguish between your version, the version I've transcluded, and your transcription of the 1823 version of the same poem. What a kerfluffle over a decision made by a publisher almost 200 years ago! --YodinT 10:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say I've now changed everything except the file name and contents. --YodinT 11:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. As far as I can judge, the title 'Literary Magnet 1826' is correct and in line with all the other volumes of a similar nature, for instance 'Amulet 1826.pdf' is the gift book The Amulet for 1826, which as was always the case with gift books was published in 1825. The date of publication is always given as the previous year.
Esme Shepherd (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that for annuals, etc., which are generally sold at the end of the year and the publishers don't want to appear dated weeks after being bought. But for pediodicals, the convention is generally to consider when the individual issues were published, and nearly always the collected volume title pages give the dates that these issues cover. For example, just following the Literary Magnet:
I've never come across another periodical where the year printed on the cover wrapper/volume title page was for when the volume bindings were printed, rather than the year that the issues in that volume covers were published, to the extent that 1826 on the title page of Series 1 Volume 4 looks like a printer's error to me. Do you know any other examples for magazines like this? I noticed that for all other magazines at Author:Letitia Elizabeth Landon#Poetry in other publications and Author:Peter John Bolton you only specify the year the poem was published in the magazine, without specifying the volume in the title of the pages (though I might be mistaken!) Would it be possible to follow that convention here as well (and then, for this specific poem, noting the volume that it was published in on the page itself)? I think that would completely avoid this confusion?
This is also supported a bit by the fact that there are at least three L. E. L. poems in the Literary Magnet:
To me, having pages titled "Landon in The Literary Magnet 1825", "Landon in The Literary Magnet 1826", "Landon in The Literary Magnet 1827" would be much less confusing to readers than "Landon in The Literary Magnet 1826 Volume 4", "Landon in The Literary Magnet 1826 Volume 2", "Landon in The Literary Magnet 1827 Volume 4". What do you think? --YodinT 13:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The title in wikisource is now 'A Poem by Letitia Elizabeth Landon (L. E. L.) in The Literary Magnet, 1825' and I am happy with that. Unfortunately, due to an ongoing bug in the upload system, which I cannot persuade anyone to fix, I cannot upload an amended file, so the actual file will have to remain as 1826. Fortunately, this is an isolated case.
Esme Shepherd (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Improvisatrice[edit]

I note that we have both Index:The Improvisatrice.pdf and Index:Improvisatrice.pdf. Do we want both ? -- Beardo (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In File:Improvisatrice.pdf is the file Index:The Improvisatrice.pdf, 180 pages, 30.14mb, 22/3/2017. This is the basis for The Improvisatrice; and Other Poems in wikisource and is definitely needed. There is also a file 'The Improvisatrice.png', 127 kb, but I do not know the origin of this. It is not one of mine. The second version of Index:The Improvisatrice.pdf was not created by me and I do not think it wise to disturb it without referring to its creator. Esme Shepherd (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Index:The Improvisatrice.pdf has 339 pages and is the basis for The Improvisatrice; and Other Poems. Index:Improvisatrice.pdf has 180 pages and is the basis for Landon in The Improvisatrice; and Other Poems.
File:Improvisatrice.png says that it was created by you in 2017. -- Beardo (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Improvisatrice.png might say that but it is not true. I have never ever created a png.Esme Shepherd (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poems attributed to Letitia Elizabeth Landon (L. E. L.) from The Keepsake, 1838[edit]

I saw Index:The Keepsake for 1838.djvu created recently, so I moved the text from Index:Keepsake 1838.pdf there; just letting you know in case you want to do any other cleaning-up work with regard to the poems. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Modern British literature[edit]

Please see the header; the portal covers literature from 1900-1960. "Modern" literature does not cover the same period as the "Modern" English language. If you like, you could start the Portal:Victorian literature. I'm sure lots of people would appreciate such a Portal. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies: this was done inadvertently. Landon may have been a radical innovator but she was not modern! She would have had to live to a hundred.Esme Shepherd (talk) 10:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Esme_Shepherd&oldid=13746326"