User talk:Htonl

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives

Admin?[edit]

As a frequent contributor, I believe you qualify to get the admin tools (page deletion, blocking of miscreants, rollback tool, etc.). If you would like, I will be happy to nominate you at WS:ADMIN. --Eliyak T·C 16:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

See WS:ADMIN#Htonl. --Eliyak T·C 15:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Did he accept?? Having worked a bit with him on those Constitution pages, I'd support him in an instant if he is willing. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, he accepted on my talk page. --Eliyak T·C 21:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sysop[edit]

Hi Htonl,

You are now an administrator. If you know any other languages than English, please add them to your name at WS:ADMINS. Thanks!—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Test layout available via gadget[edit]

At the last update, ThomasV created the capacity to have a test display space layout. Turn it on as a gadget and it is the default layout, still needs to be edited within the common.js space, so, not in the prime view and hopefully not breaking anything, though others can easily view and comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - though I already have a test layout in my personal common.js. Where are the definitions for ThomasV's test layouts? - I couldn't find them in the main common.js.
As for the thing I was trying to do, I found that I could make it work without editing the layout definitions (by using "text-align:inherit;" in {{Subsec row}}), so it's sorted for now. (But I think I've exposed a bug in Mozilla's that occurs when CSS properties are changed by Javascript.) - Htonl (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I am no css afficiando! this editbillinghurst sDrewth 00:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Listing in new texts[edit]

Hi. I’ve been amiss and forgot to add new texts to the {{New text}} template. When should they be added? When uploaded? Completed proofreading? Transcluded to the main namespace? — Ineuw talk 19:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any rule, but I would say the work should at least be transcluded in the main namespace - I don't think it's really a work if it's just a DjVu file or just a bunch of Pages. Personally, I don't add a text to {{New texts}} until it's proofread (though not necessarily validated), but that's just me. - Htonl (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Then, I wasn’t all that amiss. :-) — Ineuw talk 21:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Mind if I bug you for a moment to upgrade [1] for me? Mucho thanks! StateOfAvon (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Upgrade in what sense? I'll be happy to do it if you tell me what I need to do! Cheers, Htonl (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned subpages[edit]

Hi, I'm working my way through Special:LonelyPages and I've just found a set of RSA acts that aren't linked to from anywhere. It's the Copyright Amendment Act, 1980/Front matter along with the 1983, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1992, and 2002 for the same. I'm not sure from where to link to them, so thought I would bug you. Any thoughts? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm, yeah. Basically those are so that the corresponding Pages don't appear on logs of untranscluded Pages - it was Billinghurst who created the first one and I just followed his lead. I guess they could be linked from the corresponding main page somehow. I'll think about it. - Htonl (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Oops, my oversight. For lack of a better space, I have done a simple link from the notes section to the front matter. I don't think that they need to be much more, just to link in. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. - Htonl (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Index of works[edit]

Index:Blaise Pascal works.djvu, could you possibly port the page numbers and headers across - it contains the works for most of what you see on Author:Blaise Pascal; and I don't mind proofreading it...just need the brute force done of putting the pages on the pages...if that makes sense...t'is a shame you are lacking so many works from so prolific an author! unsigned comment by Movedcolor (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2011.

I'd be happy to do it, if you explain what needs to be done? I've fixed the page numbering on the page list on that index page; is that what you're talking about? - Htonl (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping you could create the "{{header=title, author=blaise pascal}} and the {{Index:Blaise Pascal Works/Page 157}} to {{Index:Blaise Pascal Works/Page 164}}" on each of the "essays" - since they are all sourced to the same Index file :)
Well, I fixed up Comparison Between Christians of Early Times and Those of To-Day for you; as for the others, it doesn't really make sense to set up the essay pages until the corresponding "Pages" are filled out with text. But you seem to have mostly figured out how our system works here (somewhat complicated, I know!) so why don't you try doing it yourself (following what I've done as an example) and I'd be very happy to answer any questions or help you if you get stuck. - Htonl (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I was going to do all the PAGEs for the essays tonight if you could set them up, it's easier for me to just click on them inside The Title of the Work if it's already set up, etc. I'm just trying to compile a full bibliography right now, hoping to start proofreading the essays in an hour or so - hoped to rope you (as an active person online at the moment) into setting them up for me to make it easier :D

Why not just click on the from the index page Index:Blaise Pascal works.djvu?  ;-) - Htonl (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Because it does not tell me what pages from the Index belong in which essay and I cannot figure out how to tell, it took me like twenty minutes to just set up the one work I did, without proofreading it or anything, just to put the Index:Works of Pascal/405 or whatever, to figure out what pages were necessary in that essay.
Because Also, to clarify, only a bibliography of all his works except the letters translated by Fauberge...they are just boring. I will let somebody else do them some other year - but I was very disappointed to see you only had Pensees by Pascal and wanted to help contribute :)
OK, I'll give it a go - you may need to adjust the "section" tags once you've done the transclusion, though. - Htonl (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I've set up a bunch of the essays with headers and page references, so you should be good to go! - Htonl (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Much thanks, let me know if you see me making any errors; just discovered the yellow button to click :) Any idea what I did wrong on Epitaph of M. Pascal, Pere - I proofread the page and it disappeared! Movedcolor (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that was my mistake, I put in a reference to an unnecessary section tag. I've fixed it now. - Htonl (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


Awesome, much thanks! We make a good team...pretend that doesn't mean "I have more work!" *shifty eyes* But while searching for Pascal works (I did a decent job proofreading the interesting ones, and just rushed the boring few) - I found The Christian Library and wondered if you could upload the Indexes for each volume and give me a link - I'm wanting to create The Christian Library and start proofreading all the works that don't exist on this website yet. Movedcolor (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have done a full ToC for the index page (after some moving to subpages), though there is the need to create top level page, and transclude the leading pages that lead to the subparts. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Citing British (English?) case law on WS[edit]

Hello, Htonl. I posed a question the other day on GO3's Talk page, and he referred me to you. I'll refer you also to the following Talk page to give you a better idea of what I am trying to do. Please let me know if I have thoroughly confused you! Thanks for your time, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I should preface my answer by saying that I am not a lawyer and I know precious little about South African legal citation, and even less about English citation... That being said, it's my understanding that each judgment should stand alone as a separate work under the litigants' names (e.g. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company). A law report volume isn't a "work" of itself, particularly since many cases are reported in multiple reports. But of course if you have a DjVu source for a whole law report, absolutely do upload it and create an Index: page; we can transclude multiple works from a single DjVu.
In reference to the abbreviations you ask about over here, as far as I know they mostly refer to particular law reports that published the judgment. There's only been a neutral case citation standard for about ten years - more information about that at BAILII. You may also find w:Oxford Standard for Citation Of Legal Authorities useful.
In summary: I would make each judgment a mainspace work under the appropriate title, and for creating links similarly just use the title; if you have useful DjVus upload them, but don't feel you have to transcribe the whole thing. Don't worry too much about numbering; the lawyers often don't seem to get it right either. - Htonl (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Also: just a note, in the UK and other Commonwealth countries (except maybe Canada) the standard for naming seems to be "X v Y" - note "v" rather than "vs", and no period after the "v". - Htonl (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Perfect! Thank you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Index:Notice 1490 of 2008.djvu transclusions[edit]

The maps at this work are not transcluded. Is there value n transcluding them to sit with the work or appended to the work? — billinghurst sDrewth 04:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

and Index:Notice 1998 of 2005.djvu fits into that category too. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
At the moment the maps are attacked to the works by including the files in a gallery at the end of the text. Would there be some advantage to including them via transclusion instead? - Htonl (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
<shrug> Your work. I am just checking for pages missed in transclusion. I will mark these as not requiring such. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the note. - Htonl (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Index:Administration of Justice (Further Amendment) Act 1927.djvu is proofread, though not transcluded. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Curiously, it is in fact transcluded at Administration of Justice (Further Amendment) Act, 1927, but that doesn't appear on "What links here" for the pages. I suspect that it's related to the bug discussed here. - Htonl (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Long time standing problem in certain specific situations but I guess folks are slowly starting to see this more and more for the first time or something.

Basically, there are too many(?)/unhelpful(?)/over-inherited(?) opening and closing div tags within labeled section(s) plus (in this last case) a 'not-up-to-the-task-in-dynamic-layouts' sidenotes template among other template quirks being [over]used throughout the content in addition to a HTML table across a page-break (and so on?)... for the current proofreading template/coding to handle with any grace under transclusion. Eliminating the need for section-labeling seems to be the easiest work-around in most cases. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I see you've made it work - thank you! I'm going to do some tests to see if I can figure out exactly which (combination of) the things you've listed triggers the problem. - Htonl (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Urk, I missed that, apologies, I was finishing up and going out the door. I have seen cases where the transclusion is not registering, and a simple /null edit/ does the trick to cycle the links. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
No need to apologize - it really wasn't working at first here either. Your "null" edit is only a local and temporary fix (in most cases, afaict) however. Again - in basic terms, you've managed to "fool" a second user-added noinclude tag that exists somewhere between the default header & footer non-included fields on a page somewhere in the range of pages being transcluded to the mainspace. You will see it "fixed" but this goes back to the version and type of browser and the double-noinclude-tags bug/workaround being used in addition to one's local cache and something java-ish that mini-fies it until the next "touch" by another user usurps it (or expires?).

This entire mash-up of compounding issues has 2 caveats that "need" to be in place before one can begin to troubleshoot this from my trials; 1.) the mainspace page numbering needs to be set to inline rather than pushed by various user settings or dynamic layouts to one "margin" or the other and 2.) not being logged-in insures that any tweaks or edits that may appear to have resolved the problem while logged-in actually "sticks" for the largest possible number of potential vistor's to the page and all their various browser versions/settings in play (i.e. minus a real testbed to work these problems properly, basically all you are doing is reinforcing 'your browser stinks and mine is great, yada yada yada....' but not really "solving" anything for anybody except yourself to put it mildly).

Lastly, the issue with sidenotes for plain-old-poetry versus sidenotes in complex-legislation needs to be addressed as well, but that's somewhat separate from the missing page-number and/or source-tab issue more often than not. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

So getting rid of the excessive HTML tables fixed Administration of Justice (Further Amendment) Act, 1927, but it doesn't explain what's going on with South Africa Act, 1909, Further Amendment Act, 1925, which I've now (temporarily) stripped down to two paragraphs and two instances of {{Left sidenote}}. The source tab and page links still don't appear. - Htonl (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
And, dammit, now it does appear. Never mind. - Htonl (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't touch the table and/or div formatting in the 1927 Act - I just elininated the need for section begin & end labeled tags altogether. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
No, I know. What I mean is I did, and then went back to using labelled section tags, and it worked. (And eliminating the table formatting was he right thing to do anyway, since using HTML tables for things that are not tabular data is A Bad Thing™.) In light of my further discovery, detailed at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help#Weird problem with page transclusion, it may have been the mere fact of editing the mainspace page that fixed the problem. - Htonl (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
<sigh>well whatever you did offset the inherent padding/margins in the current dynamic layouts by the same amount that one's mouse-hover highlighted text outdents or overlaps for most people (about 2 to 3 ems if I remember right). Now your list-item identifier overlaps the the list-item text by that same amount.

The proper fix is to make a list-item found in print behave like a list-item should in Wiki-basterd-HTML (see here for example). Until then, a plain-old html table is next closest thing to aactual structured/repeating list-items as far as how it displays or behaves in the end for the typical reader. You can't do the div tag thing around here because the simple paragraph tag would also be needed to buffer away all the various classes or styles already made as the [near] defaults. The HTML table works just fine across page breaks if you write it up long hand rather than rely on Wiki templates, clases or styles - but thats not the normal or even accepted way to do contribute - so we're stuck picking the lesser of two evil's( to div or not to div; to table or not to table, etc.), rather than striving for basic compliance to begin with & my heart goes out to you because I've been there & done all that too. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any problem with the offset/outdent in either Firefox or Chrome. What browser are you using - could you perhaps take a screenshot? And yes, it's very annoying that everything we would need to do custom lists "properly" is in parts of CSS3 that no-one supports yet. I'm not seeing that the div/positioning-based approach is inferior to using HTML tables though. - Htonl (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh I fully understand you're not seeing any "problem" and that is what I was alluding to earlier with your browser/puter/settings stink - mine rocks; blah blah blah.... - but that's just taking advantage of a happy Wiki-code loophole & not really being compliant to long accepted uniform standards. What I'm trying to say here is the combination of specific conditions in legislative cases can make for more problems down the road or for others while another slice seem to fully enjoy the fruits of their labor.... But, when one goes to export, print or even convert to other language Wikis or file formats, what renders so nicely here under Wiki-code & one's setup might not always be the case for us so I feel its best to practice a consevative approach until new standards (CSS 3) catches up with our collective desired applicattion.

Again - for this specific set of circumstances (sidenotes, complex def & list items, etc.) for example - what you have set is an absolute position for a list-item bullets relative to its div wrapper rather than setting it to position:fixed relative to the list-item content first and then treat both as one block with, hopefully, a cosistent spacer between the two. This conflicts with sidenotes being the only absolute "outside-the-wrapper" content (again in this specific set of circumstances where dynamic layouts seem to collapse/overflow its margins/paddings by that 2 to 3 em text-wrapper here while it doesn't seem to there). In other words, your sidenotes will float along with its wrapper's offset margin hoped for the list-item only in relation to any of its parents rather than be always absolute left or absolute right. You might not "see" this and in fact overcomes a lot of dynamic layout induced overflow by tweaking using additional text indents that don't happen have enough content more often than not to force a text wrap to reveal this non compliance with the basic standards (once again taking advantage of template specialization under at least the English wiki code among other circumstances in this narrow case).

I just happen to expierence this overlap while others won't/don't - either way; it's not correct inspite the way it happens currently render. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I am emphatically not saying "your browser stinks"; you are saying you have seen a problem which I cannot reproduce, and I am sincerely asking how to reproduce it or for a screenshot so I can try to understand it.
Sorry for not being more clear; I didn't mean to say that you specifically thought that way. It was a generalization that speaks to the realatively low diversity of the somewhat regular contributors typically found on en.WS - not anyone in particular. Such a low user count not only makes for a hard time in reaching any meaningful consensus as far as guidelines go but makes for a poor environment when it comes to testing and implementing of templates that truly "work" not only for us, but across most of the common Wikis and/or thier usage.

I just took a at the underlying editing and see there are bunch of relatively new templates in play now so I'm not sure which one it is specifically but I've been down this road before and know that whichever template it is probably has a div setting of position:absolute when position:fixed would satisfy the most possible combinations of browsers and user settings that solves the first issue of item-bullet to item content overlap. If you make that change and "see" no change in rendering, then you will have fixed the loophole on this end of the spectrum. If the change in position changes the way it renders then something else has entered this equation since my last attempt to set this up more than a year or two ago. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought "position:fixed" placed a block in a fixed position relative to the browser window, which is surely not what we would want? - Htonl (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I thought it meant 'fixed relative to its parent' a parent that I thought was acting as another div wrapper that seems to be set to position:relative, no? At any rate, don't go making a mess out of what's already working for you though - the real issue was the apparent non-registering of transclusion (though in my expierence the null edit seems to be a dubious non-permanent solution to what is really causing the hang from a normal full transclusion). -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
As I see it, both the div/position-base approach and the table-based approach are compromises, and clearly we disagree about which is the "least worst" option. I do not see using tables as being somehow inherently "more conservative" than divs and it seems to me that wiki-tables are equally likely to cause problems when exporting/printing/converting. - Htonl (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
They both stink when it comes universal conversion or usage - that much is certain. I prefer the table because it pretty much always locks the bullet item to the item content. Both eventually fail to preserve the padding and or margin from item to its parent. That is not any issue for me since both approaches can be manpulated to fail the same way - well again at least they did the last time I really tested all this - making further editing elsewhere easier to rectify as well as scriptible because the "problem" is then consistent throughout the exported wiki content. Please realize that if you are not furthing this type of content like I frequently find myself doing, then I wouldn't worry about it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sidenotes[edit]

Saw your work using sidenotes, and wondered whether you had seen the alternate template that I set up {{outside}} which uses {{outside L}} & {{outside RL}} to push the outputs differently in page and main ns, but still maintains what I believe is a cleaner output. Have a look at Problems of Empire which is the latest work that I have used it upon. You may guess that I am not the greatest advocate of {{left sidenote}} family. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A Day's Work[edit]

Hi Htonl, Just wanted to let you know how happy I was to see A Day's Work on Wikisource. I've been wanting to read it for a while. I started validating the pages you've proofread, and may overtake you soon. One quick question: I noticed that the original text often includes a space in the middle of contractions, where modern English doesn't. (For example, "you 'll" or "I 'd.") I've been taking those spaces out in the interest of making the finished text easier to read. Should I be doing that? I read the help page on proofread, but it didn't really address that particular point. (I'm new to Wikisource, so please forgive me and inform me if I accidentally violate any social or editing conventions. Thanks!) Amaryllis07 (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to take the spaces out as you have been doing. The style guide doesn't exactly address this point, but it does say to "Remove extra spaces around punctuation". Really as long as it's reasonable and you're consistent, minor formatting issues aren't a huge issue. - Htonl (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Whoops! thank you[edit]

I cannot believe I did that. Thank you for bailing me out.

As you may have realised I am new to editing EB1911 entries, and was trying so carefully to follow your guidelines... well, up to that page anyway. Viewer2 (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, it was a very minor issue! Thanks for verifying all those pages. - Htonl (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)