User talk:Hesperian/Archive 5

The following text is preserved as an archive of discussions at User talk:Hesperian. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Hesperian. No further edits should be made to this page.

Div classes discussion

Hi. Just wanted to let you now – since you seams to be the main contributor – that I change from div "indented page", to div "prose". I think it looks better, what do you think? Should we do the same thing for all the pages?
Cheers,
—The Illusional Ministry (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it does look better, but there is a major problem with the text overlapping the page number links on narrow displays. Can this be fixed? Hesperian 00:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is solved if you use indented-page and then prose, in separate divs; but class="indented-page prose" and class="prose indented-page" do not work as intended. Hesperian 00:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Cygnis, Moondyne, Billinghurst: what layout do you prefer, this or this? Hesperian 00:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• The first one, indented-page. I occasionally use 'prose' to force a tidier page, 'left-text' is also superficially appealing and I've played around with that. They do introduce problems, these are some: not wrapping to screen width, the flush right margins affect legibility, and they suggest the page is a facsimile. They also create a lot of white space; the user wants the text, we should fill the page with it. Main-space pages already contains a lot extraneous material, what is left for the page proper is valuable territory. I would agree it looks better at first glance, though I think it becomes irritating after reading twenty or thirty pages. Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I would identify flexibility of line length as a merit of indented-page, by resizing a window, etc. If we fixed the width for text, to adjust it to other page content for example, we should think about following the original format - as a facsimile. @'unsigned' below , when would you use indented-page as a preference? Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I prefer 'prose', though use all, depending on the circumstance. My reason is line length, as it allows me to flick rather than travel along a longer line. If 'lefttext' didn't have such a larger leading top margin, I would use it more.

Adding prefs to comment for Cyg billinghurst (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • indented-page: For DNB/encyclopaedic type work and shorter length articles where it keeps it to a page rather than scroll down
    • lefttext: newspaper channel articles
    • prose: to replicate a book, though that is often a case by case, and I have used all

• [ec] indented-page for me. All that white space is just annoying and with widescreens in common use it seems even worse. And as for printing ... Moondyne (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• When reading large docs on-screen with long unbroken lines, I often "restore down" my window and reduce width to something my old eyes are comfortable with. Apart from that, I generally maximise my current window. Moondyne (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Increasing the font size to something outrageously large reduces line width (relative to the text size) plus it lets you slouch back in your chair. ;-) Hesperian 01:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wondering whether there is some magic that we can do that allows users to switch b/w the modes of lefttext/prose/indented-page for their own preference. We code in the editor's preference and the other are available. I presume that if there are people who want to redefine a class, then they can do that in their own skins. billinghurst (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue. I am sympathetic to the comments about wasting screen real estate. But it is also a design truism that long, unbroken lines of text are hard to read. ...though now that I think about it, our screen layout is no different from Wikipedia's nor billions of other web sites. I guess I'm leaning back towards sticking with indented-page.

@The Illusional Ministry: I guess you have better leave things as you found them, since at least some users of indented-page will not appreciate you changing it over to prose.

Hesperian 23:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that was a bit unclear in my first post. The text that I referred to was: The Perth gazette and Western Australian journal/Volume 1/Number 1, where the original text is in columns. Using prose here I think is more true to the original source; — plus, its way easier to read :). The Illusional Ministry (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As a note, I have asked Pathoschild if he was able to see how we could easily code to have these three available for easy display, and allow for users to prescribe their preferred class. I caught him in IRC and he was okay with me adding it to his talk page and it is here. billinghurst (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. Me, I don't know how to do that. Hesperian 12:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I take your ignorance, and I trump it with my incompetence and apathy! [And the reason why I discussed it with someone with .js nous  :-)

Atoning for early sins

Hi, This is in regard to the first six images embedded in PSM volume 1 and saved on Wikisource instead of the Commons. I worked out a system standardized image naming and an upload template for PSM, and would like to rename these, update the links in which the images are used, and then move them to the commons. No one else is using these images, but I will make sure before any changes. Once on the commons, I will mark them for deletion. Do you see any problem with this scenario? Thanks, — Ineuw (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds eminently sensible to me. Hesperian 23:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Strange expression

[1] Can you tell me what the 30/100 dollars is all about?

It just clicked: $154,388.30 Moondyne (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like ⁸⁰⁄₁₀₀ to me. Hesperian 23:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like 3 to me. Moondyne (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You were right again. Here's Sadler that Rev. Powell was quoting from. Moondyne (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It was me

Hi Hesperian, Yes. It was me. I didn't notice that I wasn't logged in. (An occasional Firefox bug.) Please delete it, it's one of the copies finished experimented with. — Ineuw (talk)

Thanks, yet again

I am fairly well exhausted, and dislike the feeling of indignation - righteous or not. I'm taking a break.

You should notice the newly validated text in your contributions, you may be unaware that Zh also validated some of it. FT for Feb/Mar I would reckon. Cygnis insignis (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay; not too long I hope. This place is more fun when you're around. I think this is mostly just a misunderstanding: two people with philosophical differences, seeing the world in different ways, and unaware of how their actions look through the other person's eyes. There is enough good intention here on both sides to overcome it, if you want to.

Thanks for that. I must have cleaned out my watchlist at some point, and lost all those pages. I have been largely unaware of validation, and constantly surprised to check in and see how much has been done. Thanks to you and Moondyne, and I'll thank Zh too, now that you've let me know.

[If you're still | when you're next] in my neighbourhood, I have a beer in the fridge with your name on it.

Hesperian 07:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Illustrators get Author: pages?

For the illustrators of the works that you have undertaken, how have you been handling them with regard to Author: ns? Create a page for them? Have you been crediting them in the Notes field of the {{header}}? billinghurst (talk) 10:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems like a no-brainer that documenting works illustrated by someone is within our scope. I'm not fussed whether people want to use Author: or Wikisource: namespace for it. Personally I use Author: namespace. e.g. Author:William Westall, Author:Ferdinand Bauer. Whether the illustrator gets a mention in the header depends upon the importance of the illustrator to the work. There are of course works for which the illustrator is more important than the author of the text. Hesperian 11:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Capt. Stirling to Governor Darling 18 April 1827

Do you have this or know where to get it? Moondyne (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're after something in the public domain i.e. available for use here, try Historical Records of Australia Ser. 3 Vol. 6: 551–578. If you just want to read it, you'll find it in Shoobert (2005), Western Australian Exploration 1: 20–42. I have the latter, but no access to a scanner at present. If you care enough to come and get it, I'm happy to loan it. If you just want to know what it has to say on a specific topic, ask away. Hesperian 05:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Bugger. PD, so I guess I'll need to get hold of a scannable copy of HRA sometime (27 pages - hmmm), which won't be anytime soon I guess. Moondyne (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You could still post the text based on Shoobert—the text is public domain regardless—but you couldn't back it with scans.

Incidentally, Series 3 Volume 6 was published in 1923, which is just past the no-brainer US PD cutoff date. The PD rationale for this is therefore somewhat more convoluted: 1. The respect to Stirling's intellectual property (on the unlikely chance that an heir of Stirling claims the rights to them), the copyright on this posthumously published work expired in 1973. 2. The editor of HRoA, Frederick Watson, died in 1945, so copyright on his works fell into the public domain in Australia in 1995. 3. As a work that was in the public domain in its home country on January 1 1996, US copyright was not restored under the URAA. I think that logic is sound, but you ought to double-check it before you invest any energy in getting hold of scans. Hesperian 11:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For [2].  :) Wknight94 (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. Hesperian 04:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Blank line

Documentation has been added to {{Blankline}}, but I'm still ripping them out. Cygnis insignis (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Rip away, says I. A pointlesser template I have never seen. Hesperian 04:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

comment or change? 05:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, here is the conversation. If NOP was at the top of the page, does it make a difference? I am just doing what I was encouraged to do in my early days, so cannot say that I have dug any deeper into questioning it than just knowing that it works. If it makes no difference, then we can merge. It is not one that I really want to try and bot to fix (ie. shifting a blank line to the previous page nop. From the newbies perspective BLANK LINE is easy to remember, NOP is less so. Not that I am arguing, just not aware of your reasonings behind your beliefs. billinghurst (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:Cygnis insignis#{{blankline}} considered harmful for background. The key points are

1. Putting {{blank line}} at the top of a page, according to our current practice, causes the text to misalign with the page link when transcluded. (This could be solved by putting it at the end of the previous page instead.)
2. Suppressing the blank line in Page: namespace is a solution looking for a problem.
3. "I don't need a way to insert a blank line. I already know how to do that: hit carriage return; twice if necessary. What I need is a way of stopping Mediawiki from stripping trailing whitespace when it transcludes page content."

The trivially implemented {{nop}} does a better job than the heavy-weight {{blank line}}, so I recommend the former.

I think "nop" is an appropriate name for a template that does nothing: note that {{nop}} does not force a blank line; it merely preserves the blank line that precedes it. However, if you can think of a more newb-friendly name for this particular context—e.g. {{preserve break}}—create a template redirect and I'll be delighted to use it. Hesperian 2010-01-05T08:04:52

Been doing some exploring and can report the following.

• that where double hard return and {{nop}} are used that it expands the line spacing between paragraphs, and it also breaks the auto-indent of class=lefftext
• that where a single hard return and {{nop}} are used that it continues the normal spacing and does not break auto-indent

Example The Story-Teller at Fault see single hrt/nop between [134] and [135]

So this would seem that we just need a template at the next line. I am still exploring and considering your information. billinghurst (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The background behind both templates can be seen at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2008-09#New paragraph at top of page. When the bug is fixed, the template would be replaced with a literal blank line. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Move it

I think that a move to its own page would be good. Can I suggest that we link back the nine dot points of discussion on WS:S and then have a PARTICIPATE HERE link. It keeps it opportunistic. billinghurst (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Good idea; I'll make a start some time in the next hour or so. Feel free to beat me to it; if you do, feel free to refactor into separate sections or whatever. Hesperian 11:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Saw your request to CM

Grabbed these two

• Index:Obit Joseph Henry Gilbert.png
• Index:Death of Sir John Bennet Lawes.png

and started to transcribe the former, and may get to the second. All in among other work. billinghurst sDrewth 00:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Goodonyamate. I've been working through Makers of British botany, each chapter of which is a biography of a botanist by a botanist. Along with transcribing each chapter, I make author pages for the author and subject. Gilbert was a challenge because he wrote so very many papers, none of which were particularly earth-shattering. Having obtained a full list of the 76 publications of Author:John Hill from Hill, John (1716?-1775) (DNB00), I was hoping I might obtain the same for Gilbert; but that was not to be, and as you can see, in the end I copped out. Hesperian 01:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If you check Lawes obituary, it lists their publications, and refered to it in Gilbert's obit. billinghurst sDrewth

"About 130 separate memoirs or papers have been published. Some of the more remarkable of these have dealt with turnip culture (1847), the amount of water given off by plants (1850), the fattening qualities of different breeds of sheep (1851 and 1855), ...."

Those are topics, not titles; and there's no authorship information that would let me weed out the non-Gilbert ones. Sorry; I feel like an ass, telling you your efforts ain't up to snuff, but it would take a hell of a lot of research to get from where we are now to a solid bibliography; and I don't care enough to bother. I be moving on to Makers of British botany/William Crawford Williamson 1816—1895. Hesperian 06:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Obituary_William_Crawford_Williamson.png billinghurst sDrewth

Golly! Hesperian 10:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

People research (in British Isles or Oz) is my specialty, I have lots of available resources. Don't ask me to write a sexy article from it however, as my text is just too plain boring. So if you need people finds, then always happy to help. JV often does it. billinghurst sDrewth 11:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments and lazy with {{rh}}

Thanks for the alternative code, it is neater than mine. I am just an ugly hacker, outcome focused. :-) I have added some more of my laziness bits to my monobook. With {{running header}} I just usually script it with the empty parameters like {{rh|||}} and it seems to work fine. billinghurst sDrewth 20:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but I have an obsession with newb-friendly code. I endorse the use of shortcuts when editing, but once you've hit the save button you've gained full benefit from them, and I'd like to write a bot to convert all those "rh" called to "running header", "hws" to "hyphenated word start", "c" to "center", etcetera. I don't know if I'll ever get around to it, and if there would be community approval for it, but for my part I'll keep writing them in longhand. Hesperian 00:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I was meaning the tripartite split, rather than use named parameters. If you hate abbreviated, I can amend my toolbar to add full code rather than short. With relation to the other components, AWB could easily run through and do a template replacement with ease. I already automatically replace header2 to header. I just have to get this blinking PC setup fixed after its loss of sight of how to run applications. Trés weird. billinghurst sDrewth 01:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that too: I think named parameters are easier on newbs than a row of pipes. But do that thou wilt; either I'll get around to converting them one day, or I won't. Hesperian 05:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

P/child told me that editreason is the name of the summary field, works nicely. billinghurst sDrewth

Acceptable to have soft redirects for la:s works

Do you think that for works that are only in Latin and at laWS, that it is acceptable to have a soft redirect in enWS pointing to them. Here the specific examples of which I am thinking are Bauer's and Brown's works. It would be too easy to wikilink these works and have them be red forever, whereas a {{softredirect}} at least has some use. billinghurst sDrewth 01:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

For a long time I was interwiki-linking works like these. Then I decided that it was wrong to make blue links to works that don't exist (interwiki links are always blue). So I changed to redlinking them to local titles. Then I decided that was wrong too, for the reasons you've just given. Now I leave them unlinked unless I know there is a translation. If you're finding lots of redlinks to Latin works, they are errors of which I have since repented. (Ferdinand Bauer's Illustrationes is an exception because I did actually begin a translation; you'll find it in Page: namespace somewhere.)In general my preferred way of handing these is:

• If there is no known English translation, then we should link directly to the la: work if it exists, else don't link at all. There is no need for us to have a page at the title; a soft redirect to a non-existent work seems like a terrible idea to me.
• If there is an English translation, the title here would be better as a {{translations}} page, rather than a soft redirect.

Hesperian 02:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Thx. billinghurst sDrewth 04:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries... but after some reflection I find I'm unsure how this came up. User:Hesperian/Script lists the most common redlinks in botany articles, and I'm struggling to find anything there that shouldn't be. Am I missing something? Hesperian 04:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I was just coding links in Life of Flinders and it had me looking, then thunking. billinghurst sDrewth 13:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate some assistance at User talk:Inductiveload

This person has brought some nice stuff in, and wants to make better djvu files, and that is more your expertise than mine. I will try and hunt up some of the earlier conversations, however, they are so widely spread. We should look to round them all together, fwiwi. billinghurst sDrewth 03:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm there with bells on.... Hesperian 04:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

poem formatting

I want to document some solutions to formatting poems quoted in texts. With few exceptions, as you would be aware, poems are formatted as a centered block and smaller font size. If this is continued over the page, the section will realign, add unwanted line spacing, and look crummy when transcluded to our page. I have previously avoided the problems that emerge by substituting an indent for center formatting of the block, but this was also unsatisfactory for various reasons. I saw you provide a solution recently ... somewhere. Cygnis insignis (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you can't open a template in one transcluded page, and close it in another. I could give you the details of why but it probably isn't important. However you can open a table in one page and close it in the other, and you can open a html div in one page and close it in the other. So my solution is to put the whole thing in a table—you already know how to use headers and footers to span a table across multiple pages. Just tell the table to align=center style="font-size:smaller; ".

first page body

{| align=center style="font-size:smaller; "
|-
|<poem>'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
did gyre and gimble in the wabe.</poem>

first page footer

|}

middle pages header

{| align=center style="font-size:smaller"
|-
|

middle pages body

<poem>All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.</poem>

middle pages footer

|}

last page header

{| align=center style="font-size:smaller"
|-
|

last page body

<poem>All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.</poem>
|}

That fixes font size and horizontal alignment. Whether line spacing at page breaks needs improving, and if so, how to improve it, are open questions. If I recall correctly, you can't move the <poem> tags into the headers and footers: they have to be opened and closed on each transcluded page.

Hesperian 11:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Page:The Perth Gazette and Western Australian Journal 1(2).djvu/3

I understand that you might not agree with the proposal that I made in the scriptorium. However :

• I used this page as an example to demonstrate a new technology. The modifications I made to this page were not supposed to last forever, but they merely are a proposal, and this proposal was properly announced in the Scriptorium. By reverting me, you do not just change the page, but you are also sabotaging my demonstration. There is no way the rest of users can make up their mind on a proposal if you remove the demonstrator.
• I reckon that I could have setup a separate page to demonstrate this technology. However, reverting me is not appropriate in this context.
• Texts added to Wikisource by you do not belong to you. In particular, the comment " I prefer my texts to be as published" is not appropriate. The Perth Gazette is not your text, and any decision about its rendering belongs to the community.

ThomasV (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello my friend. I am sorry that I sabotaged your demonstration. I have reverted myself for now.

As for text ownership, we may have to agree to disagree on that. Naturally I conform with community consensus on all matters, even if I disagree with it; but in the absense of consensus, I think it is reasonable for the person who contributes a text to lay it out according to their personal preferences.

Hesperian 12:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I am also sorry if my tone came across as less than collegial in that edit summary. I am very angry about events on the English Wikipedia right now, and this might have leaked into my language over here. Hesperian 13:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the demonstrator. Please understand that my proposal is about the popup window, not about whether text should be rendered as corrected or not, which is a separate issue. If the community prefers to display uncorrected text, then I can link the popup window to the SIC template, and delete the Corr template. ThomasV (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Hesperian 13:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Index:Journals of Several Expeditions Made in Western Australia.djvu

Just purged the file and made the text layer available. Just in case it is of interest. billinghurst sDrewth 12:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay.... Maybe I would be more enthusiastic if I understood what "imported the text layer" means. I can find nothing in your contribs or logs, here or at Commons, to give me a hint. Thanks for letting me know but! :-D Hesperian 14:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I did, however, find something else in your Commons contribs that made it worth the visit. Good luck with that! Hesperian 14:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Ta. Hesperian 00:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikibreak

If I should happen to go offline shortly for a lengthy period of time, it is because of internet connectivity issues, not because I don't love you any more. Hesperian 01:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Flipping and other image management

Hi. Thanks for the image flip from it's original vertical. I am never sure how much I can divert from the original. Thus, I stick to what I know until someone shows me the way, even if it means forcing the thousands of visitors to that page to flip their monitors. :-)

Every few days I re-check my uploads on Wikimedia, images, description improvements, categories, etc. There are other images that need flipping and I have the original uploads. — Ineuw (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There is service at Commons where people undertake image work. If you have a look at Commons:Category:Image cleanup templates there is the template Commons:Template:Cleanup image which probably will find someone who will do the task for you. billinghurst sDrewth 10:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Named refs and the Page:ns

With Index:The life of Matthew Flinders.djvu, there is constant refs to Flinders' Papers, and have added ref tag on each page. However, when we come to the main namespace, we are going to have a string of these refs at the end of pages. If I use name= it works well in the main namespace, however, doesn't work for each page. The only cheating means that I can think of is to create a special template that uses #ifeq to flick between the two. Can you think of a means so that we can have both being neat? billinghurst sDrewth 09:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

there is no reason name= should not work in the Page: ns ThomasV (talk) 09:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe use name= but give explicit contents each time?

<ref name="FP">Flinders Papers.</ref>

<ref name="FP">Flunders Poopers.<ref>

<references>

yields

---

^[1]

^[1]

1. Flinders Papers.

---

i.e. conflicting or repeated contents for references of the same name are simply ignored.

Hesperian 05:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Back

I'm back. That was agony.

It may be a while before I action anything (.e.g. the above comments). Hesperian 04:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

snark hunting

A hazard of my not using ocr is getting complacent and missing things like this, a difference appearing elsewhere. The history of the page shows another change from bribe to bride,

It never will look at a bribe:

and someone else wrote a history of that on that! What do you think about splitting the Fits? Cygnis insignis (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that bri[b|d]e commentary; it stinks of non-notable OR. Splitting would be unobjectionable; so too would not doing so. I guess I'm lean slightly towards keeping it all on one page. Hesperian 10:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If you mean at en.wikipedia, I only just noticed that. I actually skimmed a snark.blog entry, that went into some detail, after I found the correction in the history. I can't repeat the google search which produced, which is a shame because they provided an illustration of the 'bride' :-)

The formatting scheme was changed halfway, split fits allows me to dodge reformatting the whole lot. The Crabb Robinson thing you validated today (thank you!) has a properly centered block across a Page tranclusion, the problem emerges when the text is indented. The simplicity of wiki indents is appealing, but they seem to introduce yet another line spacing to wrestle with. You know all this, and I've said it before, so no reply necessary. Cygnis insignis (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The markup you call "wiki indents" actually produces HTML "Definition List" entries. Wiki markup supports a trifecta of list types: the numbered list ("#"), the bullet list ("*"), and the definition-less definition list (":"). The wikicode

:The crew was complete: it included a Boots—
::A maker of Bonnets and Hoods—
:A Barrister, brought to arrange their disputes—
::And a Broker, to value their goods.

actually yields a list of two items, each of which contains a line of text followed by a sublist of one item. Conceptually it is an utterly inappropriate rendering. No wonder the line spacing doesn't look right!

Oh, okay, I won't reply. ;-) Hesperian 13:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I told you not to do that! Tables with breaks is the neatest solution, I think this just needs breaks if there is a solution to the indents. I've been using {{gap}} like Gaffa tape, would plastering it about to control indents be a conceptually abhorrent way of avoiding the alternatives? Think I have a solution to the structure of the pages. Cygnis insignis (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

{{gap}} is, I think, appropriate here. I consider its use here exceedingly improper, because those gaps are clearly paragraph indents, and there is a canonical way of marking up paragraph indents. But the line indents in your poem—what are they? paragraph indents? margin changes? I figure they are just plain old gaps. Hesperian 23:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

re: the style is viral!

I did the conversion on the snarky thing, comment if you feel like it. The code in Page:space is great, thanks to two three-letter templates, your insight into issues produced a mind-blowingly simple solution that worked perfectly in its application ... "a line is a line" Fixing and copying it would be a doddle for any user, and it can be tweaked by whatever means are known to the user, makes proofreading much easier too. Cygnis insignis (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think what you've done is probably best... but we may never achieve perfection in poem formatting. This version passes the rendering test and the code test with flying colours, but it barely passes the copy-paste test, and probably fails the speech browser test. (Do you feel like this guy?) Hesperian 01:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

A more pragmatic morality, a sop, when compared to the damper optimism of that other fella who rode an ass. Would converting to {{page}} or somesuch resolve any of these access issues. Cygnis insignis (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is sadly iconoclastic on the subject of that "other fella"; the article needs a spoiler warning ;-).

I doubt it.

Your version is nice clean code, but those double-line breaks cause MediaWiki to declare each line to be its own paragraph, which means most style-sheets will jam a lot of unwanted line spacing in. Personally I see stanzas as analogous to paragraphs, and lines as... um... not so. If you can prevent MediaWiki from putting paragraph breaks between each line, you get what I think is a nicer layout:

The crew was complete: it included a Boots—

A maker of Bonnets and Hoods—

A Barrister, brought to arrange their disputes—

And a Broker, to value their goods.

or

The crew was complete: it included a Boots—
A maker of Bonnets and Hoods—
A Barrister, brought to arrange their disputes—
And a Broker, to value their goods.

On my screen both of the above look better to me, because they have much tighter line spacing. But the code doesn't look as clean and simple as your

The crew was complete: it included a Boots—

A maker of Bonnets and Hoods—

A Barrister, brought to arrange their disputes—

And a Broker, to value their goods.

Look I'm making too much of a tiny thing. You shouldn't let yourself get sucked in to my sick obsession with The Perfect Markup. Hesperian 04:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

A compromise could be to have the double spacing on the djvu version but a "clean" version in the article space without spacing for those wanting to copy and paste. The book version would also make it a pain in trying to copy out the whole thing anyway (as there is only 12-16 lines per page). Ottava Rima (talk) 04:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I just converted Stella's Birthdays to <br/>, I added it to the last line but was uncertain whether this was best - perhaps it should be return and nop. Spacing doubled when I accidently left a poem tag, but this behaviour could not be invoked by trancluding the content into poem tags in main-space. I have wondered whether it is possible to manipulate single returns in mainspace, they can be managed in Page: space, by things like the poem tags in the header and footer, which would just provide unformatted to play with. I think I'm a lot closer to providing some clear guidelines for these issues, allowing users to apply a solution and know what the pros and cons will be. Cygnis insignis (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you have it about right. I would omit the br before a blank line but. Use br to tell Mediawiki that you want to start a new line without starting a new paragraph (i.e. stanza). Let Mediawiki interpret a blank line as a paragraph (stanza) break in the usual way. Hesperian 10:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

PSM Categories

Hi. Thanks for your note, and I left a REPLY on the project's talk page, so that everyone interested can join in.— Ineuw (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

with our regex stuff

A couple of things,

• you may like function PrevNext(), it quick adds prev/next Chap -1/+1, though I didn't bother with smarts of checking whether it is Ch1.
• we probably should look to build a typical set of WS useful scripts so it can be an importable gadget, if we did so we should look at
  • split out into functional groups (main ns vs page ns), and probably offer choice separately
  • preferred/suitable order,
  • a nomenclature

billinghurst sDrewth 08:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

following a request I added replace regex to close the gap between a word and a following colon or semi-colon. Works fine so I merged into my lines(). Can you think of any case in a regular page that this would be problematic? billinghurst sDrewth 14:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've had that in my whitespace() function since day dot. ;-) And no, I haven't found any problems with it. Hesperian 14:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that you shared! (gasp mixed with posturing with raised eyebrow) billinghurst sDrewth 14:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean you're not watching my every edit?! (gasp mixed with... ) Hesperian 23:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I don't. Every edit is important to the project, whereas it is your opinion expressed in the unique delicate way that is just so special and has me on tenterhooks (hmm, or was that meat hooks, I am so easily confused). —anon

I have no idea what it signifies, if anything, but there is a line in your whitespace function that 1. doesn't end in a semicolon and is 2. followed by an empty line. Cygnis insignis (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ta, fixed. I don't know whether it ought to have worked, or, if not, why it did anyway.... Hesperian 01:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Now preferred over my text editor script, but it lacks a couple of things. Has you considered removing space before [ ?] [ !] [ ,] and around [ — ] with this function? Cygnis insignis (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering many things. Moondyne has been converting "i8" to "18", and something like that would have come in very useful on the last few pages I've proofed. I'll have a go. Hesperian 01:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I called mine custom cleanup, to separate for those things that reoccur in a particular Index from the nearly universal ocr fixes. Cygnis insignis (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a cool one:

function author() {
	var editbox = document.getElementsByName('wpTextbox1')[0];
        name = editbox.value.substring(editbox.selectionStart, editbox.selectionEnd);
        editbox.value = editbox.value.substring(0, editbox.selectionStart)
                      + '[[Author:'+name+'|'+name+']]'
                      + editbox.value.substring(editbox.selectionEnd);
}

On Firefox it converts selected text into an Author link. It probably won't work on Safari or IE. Hesperian 02:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I tested in Safari, seems ok. Why do you have your ref function using float centre? Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Because 90% of works I have come across centre the references block if it isn't full width... which is what float centre does. Hesperian 05:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we get rid of trailing white space at the end of a page? Moondyne (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

yep, something like "/[ \t\n]+$/g" ought to do it. Hesperian 10:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I got there in the end. Moondyne (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hesperian can you come on IRC please?

Hesperian can you come on IRC please? Thanks. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I never touch the stuff myself. ;-) Send me an email if you want. Hesperian 05:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay I guess this works. I just wanted to discuss what you were planning on deleting. These are empty and unused categories? I trust you, I just want to make sure we don't delete anything we need. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll be taking it one category at a time. How about I discuss the first few/many cases with you; then, if you're happy that I'm going about this the right way, I'll go rouge on the rest. Hesperian 05:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good! Thanks. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just made a start:

Category:Pathology

Pathology is not a branch of physiology. Pathology is the study of the nature and cause of disease. Physiology is the study of how living things function. Their overlap—the study of how living things function in the presence of disease—is called w:Pathophysiology. Therefore I have removed Category:Pathology from Category:Physiology. I have left it in Category:Biology, and added it to Category:Medicine. Arguably the last of these is wrong, since "Pathology" encompasses the science of phytopathology (plant disease), which clearly does not fall within "Medicine"; still it seemed sensible, at least until we have Category:Human pathology.

Category:Human physiology

eminently sensible, but completely empty; and the entire Category:Physiology subtree contains only 11 works. Therefore I would delete until such time as we have something to go into it. If it has to be kept then it should also be put into the far more obvious Category:Human biology, which should be created.

Category:Animal physiology

It was already in Category:Physiology; I've just added it to Category:Animals.

Category:Philosophy of Science

It was already in Category:Philosophy; I've just added it to Category:Science. This needs to be deleted and replaced by Category:Philosophy of science, for capitalisation reasons.

Category:Medical specialties

This was an orphan; I've just added it to Category:Medicine. But it should be deleted and its only contents, Category:Hematology, placed directly into Category:Medicine. Categories like "Medical specialties" are only ever created to take the pressure off overpopulated parent categories, and Category:Medicine is not at all full.

Category:19th century education

Empty, and an unnecessary subdivision of Category:Education besides. Delete.

Category:Social Psychology and Category:Social psychology

Both were orphans until I put them into Category:Psychology and Category:Social sciences. The capital-P one is empty, and should be deleted as redundant to the other.

Category:Sex education

An orphan. I've just put it into Category:Education and Category:Health (we don't have a "Sex" category).

Category:19th century technology

This was an orphan until I added it to Category:Technology. All of its subcategories have nothing to do with the 19th century. For example, Category:Industrial processes is in here. And Category:Infrastructure shouldn't even be in Category:Technology let alone Category:19th century technology. Once the incorrect categorisations are removed, this will be fairly empty. Depending on how empty it ends up, I favour deleting it and upmerging to Category:Technology.

That is probably enough for you to get an idea of what I'm thinking and how I plan to go about it. Hesperian 06:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I have no problem. Thanks for letting me know. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ta. I'll give people a day or so to respond at WS:AN, and if no-one objects, I'll go rouge. Hesperian 06:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

To me there needs to be the reminder that it is better that we do not overly categorise too early (ie. hasten slowly), and that if one creates a category that it needs to be linked appropriately into the tree, not left hanging. Recategorising items in a larger category is easyish to bot. billinghurst sDrewth 09:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, people should be conservative about creating new categories. But, even more so, rouge admins should be conservative about deleting them again. ;-) Hesperian 09:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletions

Hi Hesperian. I am sorry about generating so much work for you/admins due to my changes. The errors originate 90% from the Indexes between volumes 1 to 4, which I abandoned as the basis for the table of contents for being frustatingly inaccurate. Now, I go through the volume and check every page for past errors, and use the same page by page method for new volume TOCs. The other 10% is my lack of focus or not knowing when to quit.

I wonder if there is a provision to allow trusted users to delete their own creations within 72 hours, provided there are no links to the page? This would eliminate concern about unnecessary categories created on first reading and then realizing the error after one sees the results HERE. This would save us both time because that's what it is all about.

Also, thanks for the category organization above, which noticed when I came to post this. — Ineuw (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

G'day mate,

Thanks for the explanation. It's okay. If I get annoyed at all the extra deletions, I just remind myself that you launched into an incredibly ambitious project almost on your first day here, and are actually following it through. Many of us lack your persistence.

I don't think there is any provision in the software for that, let alone the social mechanism to grant it to you. I understand you would like to be able to clean up your own messes—we all like that—but I don't think it can be done. Hesperian 23:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The above text is preserved as an archive of discussions at User talk:Hesperian. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Hesperian. No further edits should be made to this page.