User talk:Hesperian

---

Archives: … • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • Last archived on 27 March 2013

---

Gildersleeve

Hi,

You marked Index:Gildersleeve and Lodge - Latin Grammar.djvu as "to be checked". What could be wrong with it? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Amir. See Wikisource:Scriptorium#"To be checked". If you are sure that there are no missing or mis-ordered pages, then you can promote it back to "To be proofread." The best way to check is to page out the "<pagelist />" tag. Hesperian 05:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up

Hey again,

After going through some of the reversions made to Indexes you just re-statused, its obvious the status-wording is still unclear to some. It doesn't show the need to start (let alone have a completed) pagelist. Something more like

• Source file must be verified against a pagelist before proofreading commences.

... might work better. Some folks will swear the file is "just fine" until its proven otherwise (you know, ~440 out of 700 pages into the proofreading process before they realize something is not right). Anyway, I hope you see my point and come up with something along those lines if you don't wind up using the above. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines. Hesperian 10:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I had a go. Feel free to tweak: the selection box message is at MediaWiki:Common.js, and the category link text is at MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index template. Hesperian 10:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

"To Be Checked" 14 volumes? BY WHOM? http://archive.org/search.php?query=Confederate%20Military%20History

Hesperian, in marking the Confederate Military History volumes (about 14 of them) I saw that in 2005 a user: Brian0918 (Talk) uploaded some or all of those CMH volumes. I wasn't on Wikisource at that time. I came to en.WS around 2006. But if someone (who?) is to "check" the source of those volumes I see them located on Internet Archives as follows and I seriously doubt that anyone will be interested in checking those volumes and more so all of the works that you are marking "to be checked" Your idea "sounds" sound though. :) Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

http://archive.org/search.php?query=Confederate%20Military%20History

If no-one checks them and they sit in a "to be checked" category for years, that is fine. They were sitting around untouched anyhow. But hopefully if someone does come along who wants to start proofreading one of them, they will see the necessity of checking the file has all its pages before they throw themselves into proofreading and potentially make a big mess. Hesperian 10:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

When I found those 14 volumes uploaded, long ago, I just started editing some of them. I did not think that any administrator would allow such huge mistakes. I thought administrators watched over and searched for mistakes and especially when someone uploaded 14 volumes. When I arrived circa 2006 and saw the volumes I worked on editing a few as I really did not know the volumes had any problems. But of course I am aware that you are correct. They have been sitting around and for a very long time and obviously, just as you state, "If no-one checks them and they sit in a "to be checked" category for years, that is fine." Let's see, the year 2013-2005 hmm, no more for me just wandering around trying to proofread these or any other works in such a case. No person has cared to correct the oldest of mistakes. It is good that you noticed (I didn't) and seek needed corrections in all of our works. "If only" you had been around way back then. You do good work and have a sharp eye. Kindest regards to a true guardian on en.WS —Maury (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Bots

Notice that Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2013-03#90_day_warnings_posted got archived [1], it is scheduled to mature/expire on or about April 5, 2013. Next time it will only be a 30 day window Wikisource:Bots#Confirmation so should not have an archived problem. I don’t see a need to return the section to Wikisource:Scriptorium, (but it is your call). When you get your part done, let me know and I will do the housekeeping at Wikisource:Bots/List. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Questions

Hey again.

Don't know if you're the right person to ask but you seem to know what you are doing to me, so I figure why not...

• DjVu Smooth -- a graphical editor for DjVu documents. ScreenShot

  Don't even know if its worth it but it seems like an viable alternative to the dead-end DjVuLibre development. Even if we wind up just being able to delete, insert or reorder pages within a bundled DjVu source file, its still better than the huge nothing to date by the coders.

  Interesting; I'll have a play some time, thanks. Hesperian 07:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• I was wondering if there is any way to recover the standard HTML header tags (H1, H2, H3, etc.)from being automatically detected & incorporated by the wikicode. After playing with the mobile and print-as-PDF options today, its clear that the lack of use of these relatively common HTML tags confuses the crap out of even the most simplistic file-format conversion routines.

...there's more I'd like to bring up but I guess that will do for starters. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It strikes me there is no way to prevent MediaWiki from consuming these headings and spitting out something different, but it must be possible to write some client-side javascript (e.g. a bookmarklet) that consumes that "something different" and spits out something less confusing to the file-format conversion routines.But I'm not sure if a dirty hack like that could be reliably incorporated into our print-as-PDF functionality. Hesperian 07:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thats the rub - the wikicode doesn't actually "invade" those HTML header tags themselves - it adds a bunch of spans set to defined classes that inserts the section [Edit] url to the right and (if there are 3 or more headers in the textarea) creates a list-item based TOC from the user added text found between the "==" before the first section. For instance, this section titled Questions in the rendered HTML becomes (wrapped for easier viewing)...

<h2><span class="editsection">[<a href="/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hesperian&action=edit&section=5" 
title="Edit section: Questions">edit</a>]</span> 
<span class="mw-headline" id="Questions">Questions</span></h2>

The opening H2 tag is not "touched" by the wikicode. What I was thinking of is somehow having the wikicode detect the H-tags when set to some defined class or id so that it dumps out of the usual addition of the before mentioned bells & whistles. Then normal style settings could be manually applied/defined as needed. Something (using a phony 'proofreading' class) like...

<h2 class="proofreading" style="text-align:center; border-bottom:none;"><span>Questions</span></h2>

... produces ...

Questions

Now that gets detected more often than not by even the older PDF spec.-based converters (ver 1.4 = Acrobat 5.x). If we can get "it" to stop adding the edit-section & mw-headline span classes somehow, the availability of all 6 HTML pre-defined header tags should be returned for our [re]use.

The current practice of using the center and/or larger templates to define chapter or section headings just isn't optimal when it comes to this area. Thoughts? -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about css, but it seems to me that when generating PDF you want to use a different style sheet, one that centers h2 tags, and pushes anything in the editsection class to display:none.... Sorry if I'm misunderstanding the issue. Hesperian 10:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see; there is the further issue that our headings are never marked up as headings; they are marked up as divs. Hmmm, I don't know what we can do about that. Hesperian 10:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The above effectively removes the automatic [Edit] section from being generated - the remaining problem is preventing the "mw-headline" span from being generated which in turn would prevent the generation of the header tag text becoming an item in the default TOC (See page top above - you now have 2 Questions in that TOC list). I realize that entire TOC list can easily be done away with but the point here is to try to preserve the functionality of the section headers using "=", "==", "===", etc. under the wikicode while recovering the straight HTML H1, H2, H3, etc. tag functionality for user manipulation (And normal page-break-before, page-break-after, etc. detection by the usual file format converters out there).

Right now, we make every chapter or section title an enlarged, centered div (which only looks right here on en.WS by happen-stance; not normal file-specification compliance). Same thing with every book TOC we generate; instead of a simple ordered, list-item target and label, w/page numbers floated right, we're screwing around with floating divs or tabled cells. Sure it "looks" right in our browsers but that's only because we've hacked the wikicode intrusions to render on our monitors as if we were being format/specification compliant; not because we actually are being format/specification compliant. Its not like this is rocket science either: have a chapter header title or two in your book transcription project? Use the appropriate level header tag to depict them; everybody else does! -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hairy Pooter cloke botavisibility

We are seeing the disturbances that you are making. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Pink Slip

Hesperian,

http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:The_history_of_yachting.djvu/197&action=edit&redlink=1

Are these several pink slip pages that give a warning still valid or am I to ignore them. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Maury. You can ignore them. Before the file was updated, those pages contained images, which I tagged {{raw image}}. I had to delete them all when I learned the file was faulty and would need to be re-aligned. Hesperian 00:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, and thank you Hesperian for the speedy reply. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

image code

Hesperian,

I have found unusual code for image work in the following book. Please look at the code behind the image. It rotates the image without downloading and re-uploading the image. This is the 1st time I have seen this code and if this code is proper to use then perhaps many of the raw images you have done can be rotated the same way. It is totally new to me. The rest of this book has many images but no others are like this one. Will it work properly in the mainspace and when people download the book?

http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:The_power_of_the_dog.djvu/153&action=edit

Kindest regards,

—Maury (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Maury, the jpg image linked to is correctly rotated. "upright" simply provides a scaling factor for the image thumb. Hesperian 05:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I needed to know for positive one way or another. Thank you. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

clarification

Hello Hesperian,

You state that this image needs cropping and has duplicate text.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Incidents_of_travel_in_Central_America,_Chiapas_and_Yucatan.djvu/527

(1.)The mark on the far right of this image is connected to the original page image. I am guessing that you mean the image needs to be "cropped" at the bottom where the original text was printed. Is that what you refer to?

(2.) Raul added the text at the bottom of the image so is that what you mean by "duplicate" text?

I want to be sure I understand your comments.

Respectfully,

—Maury (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Maury, yes I meant the caption at the bottom; In my view that is text, not part of the image; and now it is duplicated as text.

I'm not too fussed though. In fact, I regret pushing those pages back to problematic. I would prefer to sit in the background and provide an image service, without thereby imposing my own standards on images everywhere. If you want to disregard my comment and push it back to proofread, that's fine. Hesperian 00:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I choose to disregard your comment and push it back to proofread. I could have easily cropped the image more than I did but I chose not to and here is why. The images are placed on Commons in a Category and others not on en.WS can use the images with that text. Raul's text is best and I did not want to remove his text because it is clearer plus he was ahead of me placing that description text in image areas while I edited the images. I didn't feel inclined to remove Raul's text because we are friends (Raul lives in Mexico City. I met him on en.WS long ago and we have done several books here on enWS -- we work very well together and respect one another and became good friends to the point where I know his family and he knows mine and I have telephoned him.) I did not want to hurt his feelings in any way. Thus I saw no harm in the double text but I do see harm in removing any of the text. Perhaps next time I will not be concerned about others outside of enWS using the images. So, now you have my explanation. Again, it would be easy to remove either of the texts. I thank you for your reply. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Roger that; I will re-validate for you. Hesperian 02:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sir, missed this one. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Incidents_of_travel_in_Central_America,_Chiapas_and_Yucatan.djvu/533

—Maury (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Done; with my apologies for wasting our time. Hesperian 02:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Demotion for no image

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Nicaraguan_Antiquities_%281886%29.djvu/58

—Maury (talk) 06:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You lost me. Hesperian 06:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw where you "demoted" a page with no image. I too saw the above page (link) that has been validated and it shows an image on the scanned page but no image on the validated page (page 50). The image is (I think) a small rose. —Maury (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I see; actually I suspect you saw me demote an index because it contained pages that were marked problematic. [Oh! I did not notice that, I was busy editing —Maury (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC) ]

I am willing to tag that missing image and demote the page... but it there any reason you didn't do so yourself? Hesperian 07:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Demote because of the image? Yes, I felt I did not have the authority. There are lots of image left out in our works and many are straight lines where the book shows an ornate image.

I also get the feeling that the image must be large and important because I don't think people are going to bother with tiny images. Perhaps the same with company logos and bookplates showing a person's name and a university name the book was donated to. Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Forced user renames coming soon for SUL

Hi, sorry for writing in English. I'm writing to ask you, as a bureaucrat of this wiki, to translate and review the notification that will be sent to all users, also on this wiki, who will be forced to change their user name on May 27 and will probably need your help with renames. You may also want to help with the pages m:Rename practices and m:Global rename policy. Thank you, Nemo 13:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion

Long story short... got tired of the extra 9 to 11 validation failures always generated by the color-coded proofreading status bar whenever I check a mainpage work against the HTML5 Validator at W3.org. I'd like to reduce the 2 dozen or so guaranteed "errors" per page down to about the unavoidable 5 or 6 bangs by asking for a change in the code that generates the bar.

That generation, I believe, takes place right around HERE (~line 1770) in the code in the form of a simple (and horribly outdated & deprecated) html table.

I'd like to replace it with something approaching the following:

                $output = "<div id=\"pr-quality\">
<table class='pr-quality' style='color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; border-collapse:separate; border-spacing:0; border-width:1px; border-style:outset; line-height:40%; margin: -0.45em 0.00em 0.00em 0.01em;'>
<tr style='text-align:center;'>
<td class='qualityf' style='padding:0; width:0;'>&#x3000;</td>
<td class='quality4' style='padding:0;' width=\"$q4\"></td>
<td class='quality3' style='padding:0;' width=\"$q3\"></td>
<td class='quality2' style='padding:0;' width=\"$q2\"></td>
<td class='quality1' style='padding:0;' width=\"$q1\"></td>
<td class='quality0' style='padding:0;' width=\"$q0\"></td>
$void_cell
</tr>
</table>
</div>";

... and the $void_cell (line 1770) would just be....

                $void_cell = $ne ? "<td class='qualitye' style='padding:0;' width=\"{$qe}\"></td>" : '';

Problem is - I don't know my ass from my elbow when it comes to stuff like the above & the WikiCode. I'm just making logical guesses here & there and thats why I'd feel better if someone else took a look at my guesswork first.

For instance, I assume the {$qe} value in $void_cell represents the total number of possible pages (=100%) that could be created in the Page: namespace from a single Index:ed source file; not the number of pages actually created, recieving a color Pr status & displayed by the color-bar. As the number of these newly created & Pr statused Page:s grow, the {$qe} value should shrink in proportion to that number and then disappear altogether when all the possible pages have been created & have recieved some status or another as a result.

As far as I know, that is not what we've been getting all this time (no white "color" portion framed with a dotted border has ever appeared in any status bar that I've ever seen). This is why the bar doesn't currently reflect any worthwhile scale from one work to the next; a 4 page work with 3 pages created looks no different than a 400 page work with only 40 pages created. I know the bar will never perfectly reflect any given work but it should be closer to that goal than it currently is or has been to date.

...and why Thomas V bothered to set a class for just some elements (bad practice - every key element being "hard" coded should get a class associated with it at the same time regardless of that class ever being actually defined with attributes & their values anywhere or not) and still opt to try to set window-dressing attributes along with the formatting-related attributes in the .php makes no sense to me. I can't even find the pr_quality (or a pr-quality) table class defined in any css file either and that is where those color & border fluff settings should be defined... but I digress.

Anyway, is any of this close to being on target and do my assumptions align with .php reality? is it worth pursuing? TIA. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Quote "no quote"

Hesperian, I get the idea I made a mistake on removing what appeared to be quote marks. So, what is (") that you corrected? The page showed the dialog, "I wish you would go! I replied.

That caused the "I replied" portion to appear to be in italics. Also, is it really of any value to validate the many pages I have been doing? You already have the mainspace shown for the 3 volumes. Are the validations needed? I believe so but I am not sure and I don't know why since the 3 volumes are done. You don't make enough mistakes to worry about validating. I did find other mistakes and posted them so that they too could be seen.

BTW, today is my birthday! May 12th 1947. I outlived my father. I made it to age 66 today and on Mother's Day! But she too passed away long ago. Signed, "Route 66" -- and that route is also gone forever but I traveled the length of it after the military. It has been re-routed. I'm very sleepy now. Kindest regards to you ole fellow -- or young lad. —Maury (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Maury. No, you did the right thing; and so did I. There should have been a double quote there to close off the spoken text. Instead there were two single quotes, which italicised the remainder of the line. You removed the two single quotes. I added the required double quote. Teamwork!

I saw that you made some other fixes and stated what you did in the edit summary; that is excellent practice.

Yes, this work is already accurate enough to put into the mainspace, but community expectation is that works always benefit from going through validation; and this particular work is certainly benefitting, as demonstrated by the fact that you are finding and fixing errors. Only you can judge whether there is enough value in it to make it worth your while to do this and not something else. If you think that there aren't enough errors to make it worth your while, and that you would be better off investing your time in something else, then by all means leave off. Eventually someone with an interest in reading the book will come along and validate it for us.

Happy birthday, Maury. :-)

Hesperian 09:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that duplicate section. I had been awake a very long time so yes that was weird to me too. Thank you for your reply. I needed to know the information you have given to me. I find that those three volumes are interesting. You don't make many mistakes! I am also considering re-doing the 2 volumes of "Exploration of the Valley of the Amazon" by Lieutenants William Lewis Herndon and Lardner Gibbon (U.S.Navy) that I first placed on WikiSource many years ago which are not in the format we use today. I would like your opinion on re-doing them or leaving them and working on something else. I also found two very short books on England that are interesting. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

raw images and my lack of attention

At some point in your gentle explanations about the migration to {{raw image}} you probably explained what was the situation and the means to handle new images that we stumble upon. Well, it would seem that I didn't pay attention. I have marked some today with {{use page image}} and am hoping that you have some magic wand with which to find them and update them to your new schema. Thanks and apologies. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

G'day mate. There is nothing more for you to do. Occasionally, as I feel like it, or get poked, I will run a sequence of scripts, culminating in the upload of raw images for any newly tagged pages. Hesperian 12:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Sweeeeeet. Service with something approaching a smile. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)