User talk:George Orwell III

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
George Orwell III (talk page)

(Archives index, Last archive) Note: Please use informative section titles that give some indication of the message.

Re: Template:SimpleLeader/doc[edit]

Pardon misunderstanding. I thought your intent had in fact been to capture a particular point in evolution of the template. Just for my edification, what is the advantage of referring to &hellip?curid=349627 over {{dotted TOC page listing}}, unless you anticipate retiring the whole template/development line (eventually)? Otherwise I must be missing the point… AuFCL (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


"Not in the slightest attempting to teach/suck eggs, but this might be handy? AuFCL (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)"

...I just wanted to stop it from appearing on "the list". Using the page id method accomplishes that while also landing on the current version as if I kept the proper interlink. Move on; nothing special about cleaning that list (for now).

The bigger remaining problem is {{dotted TOC page listing}} being called by {{TOC row 1-dot-1}} (less than 100 uses) and {{TOC row 2dot-1}} (less than 500 uses). Completely insane. I don't know where to begin on that front so I went ahead and recycled {{Dotted TOC line}} to mirror {{dotted TOC page listing/sandbox}} - thinking a fresh forked start might be better in moving forward - but that raises all sorts of other issues & I can't seem to focus on an approach either way. Comments? Thoughts? -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

O.K. clever.

Once again, pardon the fact I was previously thinking somewhat at cross-purposes to you: i.e. I was thinking in terms of evolving {{dotted TOC page listing}} and its sub-variants and perhaps eventually eliminating things like {{Hansard/TOCwa}} (~2 uses?) entirely; whereas I think you are approaching it in terms of starting a new line entirely(?)

My thoughts run along lines of: all approaches being similarly painful, might as well produce a "reasonably generic" approach—i.e. your work on the "recycled" {{Dotted TOC line}})—and then (maybe via some kind of robot?) dragging all the outlying cases back to the now-trusted central instance.

Right at present I feel I am being a bit of a useless onlooker merely playing catch-up. Thanks for your kind explanations. I think my best strategy is to hold off for now and maybe jump back in later if there is anything I can usefully do without interfering with the general scheme. AuFCL (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Consider the current approach not just for TOCs but html tables in general - all inline styling via template or templates; first to attain a "baseline" table setting throughout, then to have cell or cells / row or rows / column or columns deviate from that "baseline" by further (or contrary?) inline styling. The eventual problem(s), even with shortcuts such as table style parsing, is that application of such methods become too complex for the newbie to easily grasp all the way up to exceeding built-in resource limits, etc. (e.g. template bloat).

I've "solved" the need to waste setting "baseline" inline resources once before by defining classes for each cell expected in a single table row - see this 4 column list of EOs using {{Eolist-item}} where hardly any inline-styling, to override the baseline(s) or otherwise, is needed. I was thinking of starting something similar for TOCs from scratch with a 'new' family of templates mirroring the EOlist-item approach OR at least prune the attributes that can be class defined in the existing template(s) whenever possible and see what can be done to eliminate/unify templates at that point. I just don't know if the effort is worth it when folks are so hard to "re-train" if you understand what mean by that. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The basic idea is sound, and I for one applaud it. However, doesn't it lay a lot of responsibility on the part of sysops to preempt all the nuance CSS which users "just expect to be there," however unreasonably? This whole tortured issue of tweaking potential leader content is representative of the problem, and regrettably I personally am nowhere near even the suggestion of an answer. (That aside, please continue. Sounds good, bearing in mind I think I am condemned as(/to be) one of your retraining converts. AuFCL (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah, but even the leader tweaking takes place within an unmodified TD element. The "constant" problem is sometimes the cell (TD) is styled and in other instances the element (usually a DIV) within the cell (TD) is styled. If the table related elements were css defined to some agreed upon standard(s), then templates could strictly deal with formatting just the content - as well as allow overriding the definitions (if need be) - using inline styles. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Point accepted. Still sounds good. I probably had 'content:' on the brain. AuFCL (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
...and class-"basicWS" is drawn from MediaWiki:Common.css/Tweaks.css I see. I can see I shall have to get more of a grip on the CSS storage structures (not because I really need to; rather more because I'm a nosy b*****r.) AuFCL (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
right - I broke most of the definitions out into "sub-pages" hoping to identify what is needed and what is mirroring the defs coming down from the servers (work in progress). I added basicWS & commonWS a few weeks ago in hopes it would be applied in some form or another as explained earlier. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer[edit]

@AuFCL - is Media Viewer working for you in the File: namespace? If not, disable it in your user prefs for now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't quite follow this hint: as I do not believe I ever enabled Media Viewer (and it no longer appears to be on the list of alternatives, at least under that name. Checked if it appeared if I suppressed enGB as well: no dice.) Maybe the option only appears if previously enabled back when it was on the Beta program? AuFCL (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Preferences, Appearance tab, Files section. Apparently, this is what you should see if it is "working" File:Media_Viewer_Desktop_-_Large_Image_Opaque_Info.png for all? image files. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Eep. What can I say? I am an idiot. Yes, it was selected (now OFF.) Frankly if Zonotrichia atricapilla was supposed to change its appearance it must be pretty subtle. (I think that must mean it was working for me all along, no?) AuFCL (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I've never seen any change in my File: namespace's layout but that is probably due to my still running IE8. I just saw the new layout as depicted in the linked PNG on a friend's laptop (iMac w/ Safari) for the first time last night. Otherwise, it was just loading modules that never seem to change anything for me here and thought I'd mention it. 'nuff said. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Revert button[edit]

Dear George, we had already an unpleasend conversation @Captain Nemo. (Example: Author:José P. Rizal is still faulty.) The revert button is for vandalism! You use it for edits you don't understand and/or dislike. Your behavior is arrogant and unproductive. I will stop correcting errors at Wikisource. --Kolja21 (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kolja21: ??? I never touched that author after your edit. Please clarify.

Plus, I only changed one recent edit of your's where a lower case "x" in the GND string should have been a capital "X". Is Author:Archibald Standish Hartrick the Author you really mean? Wasn't my capitalization correction of your edit (a removal) the optimal GND file at the end of the day? -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I owe you thanks...[edit]

...but for what I am (for I hope obvious reasons) not sure. Does it even make sense asking just what in hell happened in the last twelve hours? (If too painful then just accept the undirected thanks and move on...) AuFCL (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It all started with BeeswaxCandle deleting some giberish added to your front User: page by an annon. IP contributor earlier today. For laughs, I opened the "new" page view stat tool I had just discovered & that's when I saw the jump in page views and the like starting back around the 26th of May. I don't know who or what was going on exactly. After pouring over the data, I've come across several accounts getting blown up for weeks at a time then whatever it is moves on to someone else (see Logs in Admin Noticeboard for the top 4 offenders). Funny thing is, its almost always a User: or User talk: page that was never created (by the owner) or deleted by one of us at somepoint. Weird stuff.

That's why I figured the best thing to do was undelete something of your's and move that to the open User: page to "close" or "throw off" whatever it is pointing to that url. ... or maybe you are just that popular on the interwebs? ... know where flight 370 went down for sure? ... playing in the world cup on the side? One never knows for sure who's on the other end :) -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Pretty much as I had suspected, but thank you for filling in the blanks. Perhaps there is a lesson in this (for me too of course) and that is when a new user is {{welcome}}d, perhaps a dummy User page might be worth creating as well? (At least until the spammers evolve. Hah! Anyone for an arms race?) AuFCL (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
..and where is MH370? Well according to the aircraft spec.s, without refuelling about the only place you can guarantee it isn't is (maybe) Heathrow airport. AuFCL (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This may be a rather long shot (and is almost certainly not worth following up) but I wonder if I provoked somebody when I made this edit? The timing curiously matches the sudden surge in pageviews directed against my user page. AuFCL (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Diving into stuff like this really isn't my bag. And I see not much has changed in the last ~24 hours but I took a stab in the dark anyway and blocked that IP for a day just in case it is still somehow behind this (if it ever was that is). I'll come back to this in day or so.

Either way, if this continues to be of concern I'd open a discussion on the Admin Noticeboard where there has been some movement since my last concerning other User: accounts w/similar traffic.

FYI... I'm slated for a workstation replacement in the coming week (still trying to bribe my way down to Windows 7 instead of 8) so if I suddenly "disappear" for any noticeable amount of time, please understand its not of my choice. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


Do you know why the pagelist elements at Index:The Bostonians (London & New York, Macmillan & Co., 1886).djvu that are labelled with mdashes have so much left padding? It looks horrible. It seems to me this is a recent change of appearance but maybe it has been there for a while but I have not noticed. I had a look in the template and the css class is "index-pagelist", the definition of which I cannot find. Hesperian 02:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Pardon my interference, but where-ever it comes from, I do not believe any class to be the offender here. Each dash is prepended by a <span style="visibility:hidden;">00</span> and that I believe is the origin of your padding. May I venture a run-away javascript might be a useful direction for further researches? AuFCL (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that hint. Culprit is PagelistTagParser.php, lines 66–71, written into the code by Tpt on 23 November, presumably deployed here more recently. Hesperian 09:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Congrat.s on pinning it down. I was close, but gave up after realising it was no longer JS. The best (nasty!) "fix" I can think of for the moment is to put something like a > span[style="visibility:hidden;"] {display:none} into your common.css. If this seems too scary, you might want to put multiple lines and qualify the "a" selector with .quality0, .quality1….quality4 viz:
a.quality0 > span[style="visibility:hidden;"] {display:none}
a.quality1 > span[style="visibility:hidden;"] {display:none}
a.quality2 > span[style="visibility:hidden;"] {display:none}
a.quality3 > span[style="visibility:hidden;"] {display:none}
a.quality4 > span[style="visibility:hidden;"] {display:none}
On second thoughts, doing it that way might be best for now. AuFCL (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
FWIW... I know Tpt has recently added several parser tests to the PrP extension but I can't see how any of those would affect a change in the normal .php(s) and typical rendering. IMHO, the first step would be to bring this to Tpt's attention. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Update: Looks like Tpt knew about this and has applied a patch already - see Problem is, the patch won't likely come down to us until the next 1.24wmf "upgrade" is released next week. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
…which is what I meant (but apparently did not make clear) when I wrote "for now" two responses back. Must admit I'm mildly concerned about that public function testIsNumerci. Looks like a possible typo. for testIsNumeric to me? AuFCL (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Good catch! I left him a note about it on his French talk page.

Plus I see no reason to patch this locally. Its not like a super major exclamation-point spacing violation or anything. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Osric: A hit, a very palpable hit. AuFCL (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

About FI and FIS[edit]

Hi, here I am seeking for news about FreeImg and FreeImg/span. The idea is, to re-import the updated version into it.source and perhaps to convert it in Lua. Did something substantially changed into the code (yes, I could browse history, but I feel more comfortable to ask you for a brief comment)? Have you any suggestion/warning? Are they somewhere in wikisource world other similar templates/modules? Thanks! --Alex brollo (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Offhand, I'd say 'yes' some changes were made and stuff was added/removed as well but I'd need to review things myself in order to accurately list them too; sorry. @AuFCL:? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello @Alex brollo:. As I am not sure of the starting point for your familiarity with FI/FIS, the most recent changes (~April?) were to add some page-selection capability (ability to select which image within say a TIFF or PDF file) and a limited ability to rotate the image (mainly achieved through the application of CSS classes.)

This is the broadest outline of recent changes I can think of. Please let me know if you need me to dig out the details. AuFCL (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Something is jiggered with Template:Chart[edit]

Something is jiggered with Template:Chart, it has scripting errors. I cannot see which underlying templates invokes which module, hopefully you know the underlying guts of the components. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:, Not really my baby - I just imported the latest revision(s) at the time from WP in hopes it would set things right (I think it did at the time fwiw). Its John Vandenberg who did away with our locally developed version and instead imported the christmas tree of templates and sub-templates in the Chart family we have now so maybe he knows more than I do in this case.
Update: Its not the Chart template et. al causing LUA errors, it was the documentation subpage causing a timeout. I disabled the call to the documentation for now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
On a related note, this is but one "family" of templates that relies more and more on advances made in LUA scripting over the passage of time. We have fallen woefully behind in this aspect. I've tried to keep WS as current as possible to new/replacement Module:s found primarily on WP with some good fortune to date but find myself "boxed out" more & more by high template protections imposed on WP when it comes to differences, collaborating, etc. Not being an admin there, is there any worth in applying for the "lesser" right of (I believe) template editor and how should go about it? TIA. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I pretty much guessed something like that, though was in the middle of other issues, so just had to drop and run. Found similar issues trying to resolve other errors when the template was <includeonly> so was hiding all the components to resolve but showed all the bits for the documentation. <ugh> Re template editor right, I have granted that (it is admin allocatable) and left a note to that effect at enWP. I much prefer the low fuss approach, as I know that it isn't your wish to be playing in that pool.— billinghurst sDrewth 06:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Earle cites, for example, "Lynch vs. Turrish, 247 U.S. 221", which is was 247 U.S. 226 (wrong-now fixed) here at WS. Is the second number in the case citation a page number? If so, would not page 226 be the first page of the case? How would Earle's "221" come before 226? Not sure how these things work... Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You're not going bonkers - You've come upon an error in the original case citation listing here on en.WS is all. I've fixed up the redirs and listing to correctly reflect the case's real start page, 221. Thanks for that. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Good to go. I did a little more digging, and found this website... Too bad WS doesn't display page numbers as well for reference. Thanks for making the corrections, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
"We" couldn't work that in at the time because the inline page embedded page numbers thing [the 'page numbers within text' option] wasn't working and that is how almost all court reporters are published (see this example page & scan for where pages 535, 536 & 537 originally started in the original record to see what I mean).

I'm sure there is a way to back-track and work page numbers in with a BOT but without actual scans to back up all the current cases to begin with, it seems more work than its worth right now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the explanation, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Shaw essay on Ibsen[edit]

As you are the only person to reply to my copyright inquiries, I'm posting this question directly to you. Shaw (d. 1950) published this essay in 1891, without copyright claim stated, but in London. Is it eligible for upload at Commons? Here? Thanks for any assistance you can provide. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why not as it was published in 1891 in the US (pre-1923) as well... & assuming they are both relatively the "same" content-wise of course.

And fwiw... that whole U.S. requirement to affix copyright, etc. etc. was made formal in the 1909 U.S. Copyright Law(s) so anything published before then should not rely on that nuance in your considerations regardless. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

So, to be sure I understand, a work published in both the US and the UK prior to 1923 would not be under copyright in either country, even if the author is British and died less than 70 years ago? I just want to clarify that it's OK to upload the work to Commons. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is the way I've come to operate the requirements (and even more so if the work is pre-1909 & published in English in both nations). I find this table of checklists to be quite helpful whenever I face these questions - though it does tend to overstate post 1996 & restoration cases a bit. Plus Commons is good for policing stuff like this & the worst that can happen is we'd need to host the source file locally instead.

Again, I'm but one American idiot - you really should ask these @ Possible Copyright Violations to get a wider & more accurate view. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the Cornell link; that will be useful. However, it does look to me as if that table only considers status of works with regard to US copyright. As I said, you're the only person who seems to field these questions here, so I might need to ask on Commons. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Index:NTSB RAR-92 01.pdf[edit]

OK, If you'd like to consider a cleanup on the HTML tables at the rear of this, I think I can this one is nearly complete. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


Is Template:Index still needed or can we cull it? It is unused. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
+ Template:Elementbillinghurst sDrewth
also Yes check.svg Done -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The last is a bit of a shame, as I understood and applauded the intent; but was awaiting it reaching a stage where I thought I might be able to usefully contribute. (Obvious) offer extended if you ever want to resurrect it. AuFCL (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
In the end, that wasn't the optimal approach for the task at hand as some block elements 'can't use' inline elememnt attributes and vise versa; in addition to even more caveats coming into play when, among other nuances, display:inline-block is set for example (thus the birth of the Paragraph tag template approach where every tag should host its own 'table' of parsed stylings to select from in order to avoid such pitfalls).

I know that seems excessively redundant at first - hosting x number of basically the same set(s) of attributes & their values for each element over and over again - but thats the 'path of least resistance' when it comes to balancing newbie usability with customized flexibility imho.

But If you have the time and still cope with an "urge" to stamp-out stupidity, why not start similar templates to Paragraph tag like Div[ision] tag and Span tag yourself? -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: last paragraph above. O.K. That should extend me just enough to make a fool of myself. I have a couple of minor ideas in that area anyway. (2½ points: 1. No spare time immediately. 1.5. I intend to start off slowly on this. 2. Open invitation to look in from time to time and stamp out my stupidity should it come to light [please?].) AuFCL (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I've taken your kind offer a little too literally, but I have made a (trivial at this stage) start on {{span tag}}—based heavily upon your very own {{paragraph tag}} but with a limited variant attribute ability. I hope this remains within your perceived bounds of utility. If it is a Bad Idea please let me know before I push the concept too far. AuFCL (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
No worries - its along my lines of thinking exactly. The question was always the approach to a closing tag and I would have folks type </span> too rather having start & end tags. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Index:Practical Treatise on Milling and Milling Machines.djvu[edit]

To aid transcription is it possible to get the pages noted on the talk page rotated?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

125 Stat.[edit]

Volume 125 awaits! Would you like to do the honors? I should be able to tend to it in the near future if you prefer. Hope things are well. Tarmstro99 16:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I got it:) I can do the 'trim excessive margins' thing on it over the weekend and have it up by Tuesday or so. Thanks for the heads up & hope this finds you & your's well too. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Request sanity check on Dropinitial template please[edit]


Absolutely no urgency on this as (sofar as I am aware) I have a working, just not terribly pretty solution. I noticed the {{Dropinitial}} template was generating margin: CSS-value strings which Firefox 31.0 at least completely rejects. Things like margin:0.00em0.10em0.00em0.00em; (prior default) are being treated by this browser as effectively identical to margin:0 0 0 0;. You will see my couple of false attempts at correcting the template and if you have any suggestions for a more robust approach I would value them.

I hope at worst I am salving an outright browser bug? Regards, AuFCL (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you over-thought the solution. Your last would have spaced only the default values (when no overriding User: input was made). Putting the space "outside" of the #if string produces the spacing regardless of a manual input or the automatic default being used. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Brilliant! That both works and looks a lot neater. Much appreciated. AuFCL (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: your recent edit of MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index template[edit]

Noted in passing: I suspect the second id="ws-author" should most probably be id="ws-illustrator" perhaps? AuFCL (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. id="ws-translator" actually. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Lesson for both of us then. I noticed the edit just at the point where I was about to rush off and attend to domestic demands; my primary alarm was multiple occurrences of identical id= values and was not paying (sufficient) attention outside that narrow scope. Good thing you were, and perhaps also good I didn't have the control bit or I might have made a stupid "correction" no matter how well-meant. AuFCL (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

problem with not connecting to wikicommon file correctly[edit]

I'm at wikimania right now and I had a talk with the wikisource guys during a meet-up. if there is a bug with the arabic wiki page is it possible for me to create pages in the multi-lingual domain till it's fixed? When is a document created there?

Re: old.wikisource versus en.wikisource[edit]

I started by Multilingual Wikisource because it is used in other projects as well, so bug fixes would have more impact, but I'll take a look here as well (probably not today) :-)

Careful - the "trend" for other language-wikisources lately has been to import our scripts; not the old.wikisource ones.

Where can I see the "page-highlighting" script?

It's part of our MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js file when it probably should be its own .js. The "problem" at one point was nobody knew that highlighting & toggling was suppose be working with the introduction of "Dynamic Layouts" (e.g. on any mainspace work transcluded in from the Page: namespace (Boyle, Roger (1617?-1687) (DNB00)), you should have a 'Display options' sidebar with 3 working choices. On Mul.Wikisource, many complained these options do no appear let alone work when it does appear). When en.WS divested from importing these scripts from old.wikisource and hosted our own versions did we correct the broken features.

And by "re-writes of Base.js & PageNumbers.js" you mean local changes on English Wikisource or recent changes to the Multilingual Wikisource?

Local English re-writes. If you compare ours to, you'll see alot of differences - the remaining headache being MediaWiki:Base.js overriding the normal LST scheme only to disable it again as a default. Its when we tried to isolate Base.js from the now working PageNumbers.js did the portlet-display-option & their cookie settings go a bit overboard.

What is the problem you noticed with the cookies? Helder 01:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem, it works but it seems [to me] its a bit overkill & probably does not need to deviate from existing cookie approaches that any other sidebar option use by design ... but I've been wrong before. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Other issues
Some of the existing "issues" that existed prior to deprecated .js modules, etc.
  • The sidebar 'Display options' should only appear on mainspace and Translation: space pages that contain content transcluded in from the Page: namespace. Currently, the 'Display options' header without any options under it is always generated for any main namespace work (like Executive Order 13625) and/or is generated in the Translation: namespace with just the layout options (Translation:Phoenix Pin) regardless of having transcluded content within it or not. I'm sure this can be corrected somehow by detecting the proper ext.xxxxx.js file or something similar.
  • arrgg... my memory fails me!! I know there are more things and will add them here when they come to me.

A common.js script that doesn't need loading[edit]

Hi, I'm in the middle of biting the bullet and moving to WikiEditor. I can't work with half a toolbar on a small laptop screen. In the process, I've just looked at MediaWiki:Common.js and note that there's a script being loaded for DL links for use in the Dictionary of Music and Musicians. I assume that ThomasV put it in about 3.5 years ago. We dumped that method of doing the Dictionary as it wasn't behaving as expected and Phe said that frWS weren't doing things that way anymore either. As a result the script for MediaWiki:Dictionary.js doesn't need loading for everyone, everytime. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - I always had the feeling it wasn't up to scratch but since I never used it myself, I left it alone in case other folks did.
Since I have you, I'm curious to know if you also lost your tool bar when NOT logged in. Plus - do you have nop inserter gadget enabled? -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Can't tell you about not logged in as I never edit without being logged in. However, I do have the nop gadget enabled, but I've only ever had that appear in the tools menu on the left side of my screen (monobook). I've just switched it off and tried back to the old toolbar, but it's still overwriting with a cut-down version of the WikiEditor bar. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
You should see what happens when not logged in - your common.js file has over 150 errors in it (if one can trust IE's debugger that is). Might as well check your preferences per Help:WikiEditor/Troubleshooting afterwards. -- 03:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:Paradisus Londinensis 1(2).djvu[edit]

What happened to Plate's 18 and 89 in this?

They appear to have been omitted from the original scans. (Although are present in the Google Books PDF) 11:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

fuck if I know. I didn't upload the file originally & never worked a single page in the file either - looks like I only re-ran an OCR routine on it to add a text-layer. Personally I wouldn't wipe my ass with such garbage uploads but some folks can't resist putting the cart before the horse it seems. I can't fix it at the moment either so move along to something worthwhile. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Tweak common.js[edit]

Sorry to bother you; is it possible for you to tweak my common.js so that a new line is not inserted after a <br /> is added? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: DONE! How about now? -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Like magic! Always appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Page replacement help[edit]

Hello. No hurry on this, but there are images missing from Volume 5 of Byron's Works, and I have uploaded page replacements to Commons from a similar edition of the work. I have created a gallery of the images here (the work's Talk page), hopefully for your convenience. Please let me know if you need anything else. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm out of the page replacement business for a bit. I just upgraded to 64bit Windows 8.1 & IE 11 so much of my "old" software still sits on my old workstation & I don't know when I'll get around to importing all the tools I need to do this again - sorry. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem. I believe it will take a while for that volume to be completed anyway... Slowly but surely... Do you know anybody else who knows how to do the task? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

{{FI}} or {{FIS}}[edit]

I am only using {{FIS}} for images because it's good for left or right offset and centered images and thus find {{FI}} redundant. any comments? — Ineuw talk 09:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

<shrug> lofas a sheged be? <-- very poor Hungarian>
What else am I suppose to say here exactly? Use what works for you.

Personally I'd use FI for whole page (or centered) images only - you might not see any difference nor may there be any actual difference as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

If I may contribute my—probably unwanted—2¢:

I am inclined to use FI everywhere I can get away with it (perfect for centre and full-width situations.) My only quibble is that float= usage "drops down a line" with respect to flowed text around the image; and this last I consider is a problem affecting all <div> usage (and even affects "raw" [[File:…|side]] usage as I'm sure you both would know—do the developers?) under mediawiki and not at all specific to FI. AuFCL (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You know the answer to this - change the containing div to display:inline or display:inline-block depending on the situation no? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
In short I pretty much represent the mirror to @Ineuw:'s original statement, so you still hold the casting vote. (You probably didn't want that rôle either.) AuFCL (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
What in blazes am I missing here - Vote for what? Deprecate one for the sake of the other? I'm confused -- who is complaining exactly? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 :-D Ha ha. Your Hungarian delivers the message perfectly. I like a person who speaks their mind. A minor correction "lo fas" should be "lofas". Also, judging from this and your response to the following post, it's time for you to take a nice vacation. In all honesty, I was wondering when you'll hit this point. My best advice would be is close this office and don't respond to idiotic posts like mine and the one below. Remember, I am on your side. — Ineuw talk 23:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. Its not you folks. Its Microsoft and their god-damn changes from XP to 8.1 & from ie8 to ie11 that is making me "irritable" today. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Kulcha differences. Don't sweat it. As Ineuw stated earlier: we side yours are on: O.K.? All is appreciated. AuFCL (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

CharInsert and WikiEditor in ProofreadPage[edit]

Hi, I have a suspicion that there's some interaction going on between the various extensions. In the Page: namespace the CharInsert section is putting itself above the WikiEditor toolbar. In all other namespaces, it's below the edit window. I tried not logged in at work this morning so that was the Vector skin on a big monitor and it was doing the same. Except that it was initially drawing in the usual place and then redrawing above the toolbar. My normal set up is FF (currently 31.0), Win 7, 14″ screen, monobook skin. I've just tried not logged in on IE8 and it does the same. If I had a larger monitor I wouldn't worry about it so much, but with a small one I'm continually scrolling to see the character list, the page image and the insertion point. It's particularly bad with the Greek tranch of characters as these are usually footnotes with the text on the image and the insertion point in the edit box at the bottom. If you've got any thoughts that could direct me to a way of solving it, I'd be appreciative. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoa! That's a new one. Can you do a screen grab so I can "see" what you mean exactly. CharInsert "was" suppose to replace EditTools (old setup where character stuff was in its own div container after the edit summary, etc.) and I see you have already toggled the setting that controls that (true/false) since this post so I'm wondering if anything has changed since then.

Please be patient, I am also struggling to learn Windows 8.1 & IE 11 for the first time on top of all this Wiki stuff. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Phe:, @Tpt:

== The new location of the CharInsert ==

Many thanks for moving it to the top and for the space gained at the bottom.— Ineuw talk 03:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

First I post and then noticed the above post from User:Beeswaxcandle Here is my screen grab: — Ineuw talk 03:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

New toolbar layout.jpg
@Ineuw: -- Same thing as BWC? only happens in the Page: namespace?

I don't know what happened but I'm not behind the change and it's not happening for me under Win 8.1/IE 11 either. — George Orwell III (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Exactly the same. I don't know who did it, if it wasn't you. (still take the credit and we chalk it up to a miracle.) But you should ask He seems to be looking into things and perhaps reading some posts where I commented some time ago about the lack of vertical editing space without having to move the scroll bar. — Ineuw talk 04:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
That's one option, but I don't think anything he did caused that - otherwise I suspect it would happen in all the namespaces. I don't really know which extension a new bugzilla for this should go under either. - ProofRead Page, CharInsert or WikiEditor. Either way, the best case scenario would be to make that position a per User: option instead of "fixing it" back to the way it was before; that would solve BWC's problem while letting you keep it there. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@Ineuw:: I didn't change anything related to this (at least not intentionally). And for me (on Firefox 31) the tools are below the edit area (above the summary field). Helder 00:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC) - just to be clear - w/Firefox, the CharInsert bar appears above the Summary: field in all namespaces including the Page: namespace (the namespace where at least 2 users report the bar appearing above the Wikieditor tool bar.) -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
In my previous comment, I was referring to what I see when editing this page (ns = 3). On Page:A Compendium of Irish Biography.djvu/615 it appears above WikiEditor toolbar. On Wikisource:Authors and Help:Audio it appears bellow the edit area. The results are the same with Google Chrome 36. Helder 01:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Well again, not seeing this under IE11.

The only thing that leaps out me is the fact all the other namespaces w/WikiEditor enjoy the benefit of a null clear:both div tag prior to the start of the .editOptions div while the page namespace doesn't have one and that happens to be where the #editpage-specialchars div is 'inserted before' normally. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I modified the CharInsert css to include a clear:both ; any changes for you folks? -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I don't care if the CharInsert appears on top or bottom. For me it's the same, so don't worry about me because I now have vertical screen space. I only mentioned it to back up BWC and I understand his concern. It is still on the top for me after you included clear:both in Windows XP, Firefox 31.0. In a short while, I will provide you with a table of all OS + browsers I have installed. — Ineuw talk 03:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Well then its something more than I can isolate -, how about you? -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to flog a dead horse . . . I created this small reference table of Browsers and OS's for what it's worth. Everywhere it's on top.— Ineuw talk 04:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

re: Windows 7 Ultimate / Internet Explorer 11... F12 Developer tools should "tell you" fairly quick what's possibly causing the bar to load above WikiEditor in the Page namespace. There's really not much else I can do about on this end; an hour or so into it & I can't even find a way to force-replicate this. Looks like one of youse should open a bugzilla on this. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Here is the Windows 7 Ultimate / Internet Explorer 11 output: Perhaps it helps you. User:Ineuw/Sandbox2.19:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll look through it but its really the "next button down" (Console and/or debugger) in the sidebar of F12 Developer Tools that tells us what is going on with the loading of components.

On a side note - you still have the Old LST and OCR button gadgets loading when their equivalents are being loaded directly in your common.js file. This means they are loading 2x for no good reason. Please disable the 2 gadgets in your User Prefs and the lines your Common.js should still enable those features with less loading & resource drain. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I will try again. — Ineuw talk 01:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

tl;dr above. In short the charinsert stuff flops around in Page: ns and has for a while. Similar the old toolbar loads in different slabs. I put it all down to ResourceLoader, and the order that it is fed. It even flops around on the same page depending on the caching. <shrug> As long as it is there, I put up with the variability. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thnks. I agree the loading must play a role here in some way (& was the reason coders walked away from the old EditTools scheme for CharInsert in the first place), but the fact its only happening in the Page ns - and is bouncing in above the WikiEditor UI where CharInsert supposedly doesn't have a position setting coded for in it - reveals some inconsistency between the way normal edit boxes (textarea) are rendered versus the header-body-footer design in the ProofreadPage extension.

Fwiw... I pinged Tpt & Phe for this discussion but I doubt that will get their attention anytime soon. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@billinghurst: actually, I would say ResourceLoader is what allows you to be sure that modules will be loaded in the correct order. It is usually just a matter of setting the appropriated dependencies for each script (let it be with the option "dependencies" on MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition or with mw.loader.using( ['some', 'modules'] ).done( andSomeFunctionWhichUsesThoseModules ) ). Helder 01:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Of all the people and of all our issues, you'd be the one we'd beg to review & refresh our various gadgets/scripts that have been "left behind" over the months of deprecations & the like related to .js usage. I think I correctly mirrored the RL dependencies for CharInsert & CharInsert core javascripts for example but the 'placeholder' portions no longer seems to target the correct container to insert itself before under the latest core refinements (at least not before the right one in the page namespace that is). -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
For some reason, if I disable the gadget and then execute mw.loader.load( 'ext.gadget.charinsert-core' ); (copied from MediaWiki:Gadget-charinsert.js) in the console after the page is loaded, the tools appear in the botton even if I'm on "Page" namespace. Also, if I disable "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" (some other script is still loading it even if I choose not to use it, but that is a separate problem) and re-enable the gadget, it appears in the botton. I'm not sure about the cause of this. Helder 03:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Not unheard of. Stuff like that happens for a period of time, goes away and sometimes comes back later; sometime not.

I've always found it strange we load MediaWiki:OCR.js from MediaWiki:Common.js for example, which is a toolbar button that should never be used anywhere but in the Page namespace - but it doesn't load like the other Proofreading tool buttons do. Then we have a "gadget" to "disable" it MediaWiki:Gadget-ocr.js. Nobody questioned it when it was introduced and now its been so long that nobody cares to ask either but it seems like the button generation script should be the gadget and users should choose to enable it if they want to or not; not the other way around like it is now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Since the introduction of default gadgets a long time ago (on rev:85902), we should not be creating gadgets to set global variables just to disable scripts which otherwise would be loaded. We just need to move the loader code into the gadget, set it as default and let users disable them (saving a request and making the global scope cleaner). Although we need to think in something to avoid loading Base.js multiple times (e.g. once per gadget). Maybe creating a mw.hook there and using it on the gadgets. Helder 12:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
That would be fine BUT I think you've fallen into the old Labeled Section Transclusion trap. The LST extension is part of wikisource's default package & the default method for using LST is to wrap content in <section begin.... and <section end... tags. At some point, this normal state was overridden in [what remains] of our MediaWiki:Base.js file (which is called, again, from MediaWiki:Common.js) to use ### symbols to wrap content instead. Then, the overridden LST method is restored by setting the MediaWiki:Gadget-old LST.js gadget as a site wide default! Its crazy!

So what you have in the sandbox needs to be further separated so this LST & OCR button nonsense no longer has anything to do with each other as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

So, I noticed this recent change to the ProofreadPage extension and then decided to paused the execution of the JavaScript code in the beginning of that function. Executing the three lines step by step, I can see the "editpage-specialchars" being moved above the "wikiEditor-ui" by the following line:
$editForm.find( '.wikiEditor-ui-text' ).append( $editForm.find( '.prp-page-container' ) );
Helder 22:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that should be .insertAfter instead of .append but I am confused as to why they are fiddling with the editForm at all as well as somewhat illiterate when it comes to coding so don't go by what I say. All I know is the core CharInsert.js should decide where the bar should go (before the editOptions container for most Users) via...

    $( '.editOptions' ).before( placeholder );

or before/prepend the old editTools container, which comes well after both the editForm & editOptions containers are rendered. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The gadget position its buttons correctly, the problem is that a few moments later the script from ProofreadPage extension moves it to another place... Helder 23:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Helder, then how did Inuew (directly below) manage to stop the loading of the CharInsert bar above the WikiEditor bar by avoiding some Gadget(s) in his User: prefs altogether and just added their equivalent self... message lines directly to his common.js file instead? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@George Orwell III: The Charinsert returned to its position at the bottom below the edit box. All I did was is set self.proofreadpage_disable_ocr = true; and removed the tick mark from the gadget for the section tags. — Ineuw talk 02:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
That's the ticket!

@Beeswaxcandle: - should see your talk page re: user's .js settings as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle, can we take it that your changes along Ineuw's remarks earlier today has also rectified the CharaInsert toolbar over the WikiEditor toolbar in the page namespace problem for you too? -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no change for me. Still showing up above the toolbar. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Resolved. See relevant discussion. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Old toolbar no longer appears in Page namespace[edit]

<UGH!> We have lost the old toolbar, and now I only have the advanced/newer toolbar. I haven't been in the page ns for a couple of weeks, so don't know when that occurred. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Now no toolbar with the setting on, and need to tick enhanced to have it on. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Slow down and back up a bit please. First, see Help:WikiEditor/Troubleshooting and you'll see that only one of three settings should be giving you the "old" toolbar (unless that's been demoted recently; I don't know of that happening however). Next, you should verify this behavior is happening when not logged in as well. Please report back. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
In the page: ns we have no old toolbar with the settings that I have had for years (tested Firefox and Chrome), and that has occurred sometime in the past two weeks, I have had no configuration changes in that time. No value in testing logged out as that gives you the default advanced toolbar. Old toolbar works fine in main and WS: nss. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
While personally I feel this is due to some combination of User Prefs settings and gadgets selected interfering with the normal loading of components and/or order of loading in relation to the Page namespace and the PR extension, others have reported the much the same and "blame" something to do with the Proofread extension itself. Please escalate Bugzilla: 69447 & lets also get Tpt & Phe in on the discussion.

Other than that, I can only go by the above instances where whittling down the amount and manner of the loading of certain gadgets has helped users in their move to using the new advanced (WikiEditor) toolbar - which if you look at LJB's and BWC's common.js files, they have moved their favorite old buttons to the new tool bar in anticipation of the "death" of the old toolbar scheme once and for all. I plead with you to [re]consider this avenue of resolution instead of giving CPR every three or four weeks to save some [apparently] super sentimental means of contributing that has been "dying off" for some time now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

That looks like the bug with the timetable about right. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
If so, then we might be looking at multiple fixes for other issues encroaching into this one - just go through the linked Blocks & See also bugzilla reports to see what I mean. Some of those seem pseudo related and can go as far back as being first reported in ~October 2013 if not older :( -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)



I don't know if your intention on this edit was to generate a "mention notification" (those from mw:Extension:Echo), but if so, it probably didn't because you need to be adding a new comment, signing it, and (due to bugzilla:54639) not rewritting anything in the page (which you did when changed "unknown" to "All"). Helder 00:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

yeah but I also added the Ping template. Wouldn't that notify Krinkle to the discussion in spite of the mentioned Bug? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Not if by notify you mean a notification from Echo. It doesn't really care which method the user uses to add a link to the name of another user (it can be directly, with "Ping", with "Reply to", etc...). Helder 01:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


Any objections to me making a start on this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Do not touch it until the Admin discussion decides the best way to host it - as a single file or by chapter files. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Continuation of the button fun[edit]

Conversation quoted and continued from User talk:Beeswaxcandle#Button fun:

@Ineuw talk, the changes I was referring to were dealing with removing all the drop down tabs in the advanced editor (WikiEditor) and just placing the needed buttons across the visible toolbar. Those were a few edits back however. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
That is my dream. If the advanced editor toolbar would do away with the two drop down lists - the "Special characters," which is replaced by a better and more versatile ChrInsert, and the "Advanced". . . . and eliminate the 2nd row of the bars. — Ineuw talk 00:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
You mean like it is now? I can't get rid of the Proofread dropdown yet as I haven't worked out how to get those functions to work outside of it. But it should be down to two lines instead of three. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the back-up BWC, I was unavoidably away from WS for a couple of days. I think you answered Ineuw's request just like you did for yourself which is fine... but the old button temptress seems creep into his head regardless <sigh> -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


What would you like to do with the work on orphans? Continue it in September, maybe adding the workspace? Resume it later on?--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If there are no other pressing tasks, I don't see why not to continue it into the next month (and even expand it for that matter). I was surprised it got picked up so fast in the first place so I leave it up to you, Erasmo. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
There are no pressing tasks awaiting. We could do "Work index revision" (i.e., decide what to do with WS:Works), but it is not a high-priority one. Besides, I have the feeling that orphans get more attention than other maintenance fields. So yes, let's continue it.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for adding data. I am brand new to Wikisource. I enabled the gadget that is supposed to copy metadata from Commons but it did not seem to work and I haven't figured out why yet. And being new the rest of the workflow looks like Greek to me! Laura1822 (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Edited to add: Did you intentionally remove the categories I had added, and if so, why? Index:Ackermann’s Repository of Arts 1809-v01-Jan-Jun.djvu Laura1822 (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You won't have much luck categorizing Index: pages since they tend to "erase" manually added ones once the available fields start to fill up (like it did for me on my edit. Those type of Cats would go under the finished product in the mainspace (or under the File: itself over on Commons).

The Index namespace is more of a "workbench" until all the individual Page:s have been transcribed. Once all the Page:s have been transcribed and Proof Read, the content is then transferred (transcluded) into the main namespace where manual categorization is much the same as if adding Cats on Wikipedia. At that point, the Index: is pretty much ignored and just kept around for edit history purposes and the like. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I see. Is that explained on a help page somewhere? And how am I supposed to find unfinished projects that I might like to work on if works in progress cannot be categorized? Thanks very much for your help! Laura1822 (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
We should be submitting a bugzilla to Tpt to see how we can categorise Index pages successfully. Laura's point about highlighting availability is credible, and as we continue to make the entrypoint to WS scans more visible based on interests, categorisation is one that has value. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that. I would like to point out that as a casual user (before I activated my account and logged in), it looked to me like there was very little here since the in-progress projects were hidden. Laura1822 (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
A while ago Chris55 proposed to categorize index pages. We don't need a change to the extension, just community approval and maybe a script to remove the categories when one changes the status to "validated".--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Chris55. As a new user, I could give you a litany of things I found confusing, but the #1 would be the difficulty of finding something to work on. There's almost nothing on the main page beyond the Proofreading of the Month. Why not some links to Projects or Portals (and what's the difference)? These comments probably belong in a more public forum. Laura1822 (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Proofreading font[edit]

Does the proofreading extension use the "ugly font" like at PG/DP? I would like to use it for proofreading. If it's supposed to be there, then something must be overriding it in my common.css: can you fix it for me? If it's not, can you tell me how to add it? Thanks for all your help! I discovered several things I didn't know were evem there (like navigation arrows) after you fixed my commons.css! Laura1822 (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Laura1822, I don't know anything about an "ugly font" and couldn't find anything like that being set in your .css either.

I did bump up the font size in the various textareas (edit boxes) but I don't know if it that will help. I'm leery of making changes to your .css cause its basically set to cascade settings down from one section of the layout (or skin) to the next already and if I change a setting too "high-up" in the chain, one part or another is going to be so huge that all you'll see is part of a line/letter before it get's clipped.

Anyway, let me know if the changes need reverting/tweaking. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! The slightly larger font size is nice. I am talking about Project Gutenberg's Distributed Proofreading font, called DPCustomMono2: faq, wiki, direct link to font. If you aren't familiar with PG/DP, then I guess I asked the wrong person! I think it makes proofreading much easier, because many of the "scannos" (l for 1, 0 for O, etc.) pop out. (They used to call it "ugly font" in some of the old faqs and help docs, but those references seem to be removed now.) Laura1822 (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Laura1822, Okie-dokie.

If you have that font installed locally on your computer, I think it might work now in the edit boxes. I reverted the slightly larger font sizes changes I made earlier at the same time -- Plus I don't think that font will "float" anywhere else but in edit mode for the textarea fields. Let me know. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Works great, thanks! But of course it works in all editing spaces (like this one), not just within the Proofreading extension. I suppose that is a more complex request. Where should I make it? On the main Scriptorium? I am so grateful for all your help! Laura1822 (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Laura1822, check it again - the "ugly font" should only be in the Page: namespace edit boxes now (hopefully). -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Nope, still seeing it here. Thanks for trying! It's okay, I can live with it. Laura1822 (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Laura1822, check it one last time - after that, I'm out of ideas. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Perfect!!!! Yay, thank you!!! If I knew how to make a full-page image display as a thumbnail here, I would show you this ! Laura1822 (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Your recent post on Bugzilla[edit]

My hat (if I would wear one) is definitely off to you.— Ineuw talk 00:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)