User talk:Ineuw

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search



{{nop}} vs <section end=…/> placement[edit]

As this is the second time I have seen this kind of edit I thought I'd better make sure we are thinking alike before proceeding. To my way of seeing the matter, nop should always fall within the section block, as eventual transclusion usage needs to include the paragraph end marker. Alternately are you assuming transclusion will always make use of the <pages> tag, as it introduces an extra paragraph ending itself?

I have just realised I may be defending an anachronism which may not in fact matter (vipers to both the left and right?) Anyway, was swapping nop and section/end deliberate and if so why? (My curiosity alone. No, I don't think I've been sniffing thinners again!) AuFCL (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@AuFCL:. Sorry again, I was too tired to respond last night. If one analyses the two, (nop & section tags) it really doesn't matter in what order it is placed. {{nop}} is an empty <div></div> and from experience, anything inserted after nop ends up on the following page, which is not important for a section tag. It's only my tight a**ed neatness that demanded this order. Ineuw (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem. (Well there is in fact: but normal people who only use the outside-nop-and-<pages> case will never see it. If they were transcluding using the rather more rarely-[Hah! ~10,000!]-used and unfixable-by-edict {{page}} they would find all the paragraph ends swallowed. This is what I get for being a sad little student of useless esoterica.) AuFCL (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


I want to thank you for all your hard work validating Notes on Osteology of Baptanodon. With a Description of a New Species! This feels selfish of me to ask, but one page is still left invalidated, and I was wondering if you could do me a solid and check that one too. I owe you one. I'll try and proofread/validate some of your own contributions but it'll be a few days before I can get to it. Thanks again! Abyssal (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Abyssal: I appreciate your kind offer but there is really no need to validate anything I do. That's not why I did it. It was a small project of a few pages. I didn't do the page with the table because I wanted your permission to redo it. So please let me know if it's OK. --Ineuw (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure. You can redo the table if you'd like. What's wrong with it? Abyssal (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
@Abyssal: I thought that I can make it look closer to the original but on 2nd look it wouldn't be. So I will check and validate it.Ineuw (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! You're really helpful! Abyssal (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


These 2 gadgets can be deselected in your prefs. I added the lines they would have added/set straight to your common.js.

<script src="/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-ocr.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&1172795"></script>
<script src="/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-old_LST.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&2147806"></script>

These 3 are outdated when compared to the current wiki-code (thank you Inductiveload). I'd turn them off.

<script src="/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-markblocked.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&3642077"></script>
<script src="/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-NopInserter.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&3832640"></script>
<script src="/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-Fill_Index.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&4988218"></script>

These 2 will always load. They are not gadgets but part of the core Wikimedia software on the servers...

<script src="//*"></script>
<script src="//…ly=scripts&skin=modern&user=Ineuw&version=20140815T232551Z&*"></script>

Clear yo cache

clear yo cache
clear yo cache -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks for your time and taking the trouble. — Ineuw talk 07:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

A you're welcome![edit]

For thanking me. :P Abyssal (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:Wisconsin Rapids directory (1921).djvu[edit]

Did a file patch ( now at commons)..

Question is there a bot task to up move the pages from 31 onwards to reflect the new layout? unsigned comment by ShakespeareFan00 (talk) .

@ShakespeareFan00: I believe that there is. Go to the bot requests and post a precise request for the move.— Ineuw talk 00:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Done, BTW Can we create a page somwehere for 'technical-fixes' so the Scriptorium isn't clutered?.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Like minds think alike. I was thinking the same thing and the namespace would be Wikisource: like, Wikisource:Files need repair or something like that, but the actual name I leave up to you. Take the initiative and create it, with one caveat: search Wikisource first, there may already be such a page. — Ineuw talk 18:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Well there is a Category but this would be a more formal noticeboard/to-do list...ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think anyone would object to a page as well. The difference is that a page must also be managed. — Ineuw talk 21:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikisource:Scriptorium/Rebinding‎ Currently I merely copied the header from Help and tweaked the wording.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

About your side note and my common.js: Please note my comments[edit]

self.layout_overrides_have_precedence = true; What the lofass is this?

Its that gadget that allows contributors to set a specific dynamic layout (override) for readers. I just assumed you had this enabled but upon a second look seems like assumed too much. you can rem this line if you don't want the equivalent of enabling this gadget,

self.proofreadpage_disable_ocr = false; I want this disabled. would this enable it???

If you don't want the OCR button to appear in the Page namespace toolbar, set to "true" instead.

self.proofreadpage_raw_lst = true; What the lofass is this? — Ineuw talk 01:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the convoluted way section labeling is set up for us. raw (or old) LST uses <section begin.... & <section end... tags instead of ### character markers. Leave set to "true" if you want to use tags.

These settings in your .js file are not affected by what you have selected in your User prefs/gadgets tab BUT they can screw with resources if one (true) contradicts the other (false) or vise versa. Since these 3 "gadgets" are nothing more than a parameter and a true/false value, it was a waste to make them gadgets in the first place. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Now it clear to me. Again my gratitude for what it's worth.— Ineuw talk 02:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
See-ve-shen. Fwiw... when you've disabled the LST & OCR gadgets in your prefs, lines 324 & 325 in User:Ineuw/Sandbox2 should [eventually] disappear - indicating 2 less things loading "outside 'n willy-nilly" of the built in ResourceLoader. This leaves just the Index-fill gadget (line 326) - which InductiveLoad isn't around for anymore & can use a "refresh" - that lies outside of the "normal" module load scheme for you. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed code because of security issues[edit] Done as recommended. — Ineuw talk 03:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Reflective and helpful comments[edit]

Gday. I read one of your talk page comments to a user, and felt that while you were well-meaning, your words didn't come across that way. wm2014:Programme was interesting for some commentary about how the WPs are viewed, especially with regard to new editors finding things to do and to achieve. I encourage you to listen to the talk by Raph Koster, and reflect on how enWS can use the learnings of the WPs and be a place where newcomers feel that their efforts are worthwhile. I plan on putting some words together about WM2014 once I get out of backlog life. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Google Front pages[edit]

Index:Botanistsguidet00wauggoog.djvu for example has a Google front page. Would it be reasonable to replace this with a blank but otherwise keep the same layout? Plan on doing the 'patch' myself, but wanted a second opinion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: No problem, will try later today.— Ineuw talk 18:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: Yes check.svg DoneIneuw talk 22:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Help Laura ?[edit]


You are a smart fellow, can't you possibly help this near-blind girl with the proper color code? Mine as you may recall is medium grey with a black text. —Maury (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Ackermann's Repository[edit]

This conversation was moved to Wikisource talk:WikiProject Ackermann’s Repository of ArtsIneuw talk 20:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Advice please[edit]

Hi, I've been proofreading Popular Science and think I've picked up on most things, but if you could have a look and give me some feedback that would be great. Specifically, has a loose line in with some footnotes and I don't know what to do with it. It looks like a typo to me? Cheers, Zoe --Zoeannl (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for contributing to the PSM project. You are doing great. My only comments are that we insert the {{rh}} (Running header} templates to insert the page titles as in {{rh|123|''THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY.''|}} and we use the {{smallrefs}} for the references which reduces the footnote font size. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask.— Ineuw talk 14:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

You fixed my word fraction problem! Thank you so much! I truly had searched through the Help files, but couldn't find anything that might work. I’ve made a note of this for myself, in case I ever see this again. Susan Susanarb (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome. It was sheer fluke. I was checking on the condition of the documents queued for validation and was curious why it wasn't proofread. I often use the {{over}} and wrap it in 70% font template so that the contents fit the line height. Never used it for words though. How did you keep track of this??? — Ineuw talk 23:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Please pardon me if I am barging in unwanted, but if you are both talking about this page, may I suggest replacing {{over}} with {{dual}} to eliminate the solidus which does not appear in the original? I'll run away now. AuFCL (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
An excellent idea. Thank you.

Your intentions regarding {{FIS}}?[edit]


I note in passing your edit here and am moved to ask just what you are attempting to achieve, as I do not believe (this) template really works like that. (In particular | width = 430px|215px ; if you meant | width = 430px then fine; but as you've expressed it the 215px is processed by FIS as an unreferenced and thus discarded positional parameter, and I am pretty sure that is not what you meant at all.)

Now despite the above rant I did not come here to carp; on the contrary, if you were having difficulties "bending" the template to some new or obscure purpose with which I might be able to assist, then here is an offer to help.

Regards, AuFCL (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. I corrected the page/template. There is no problem. Unfortunately, I am currently struggling with Xubuntu and need to get back to Windows from where this all began with Autohotkey. — Ineuw talk 02:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@AuFCL: I generate this, as everything else with Autohotkey. I wrote the explanations, the possible parameters & why into the template - for the benefit of those who wish to use Autohotkey - with the idea that it's easier to erase than to add. (I am the only customer who uses it so far.) and I overlooked the double parameters. — Ineuw talk 02:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 | cstyle       = margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:8px <!-- no dhr needed -->
 | file         = 
 | width        = 430px|215px <!-- 430px is page width -->
 | float        = center|left|right <!-- One of the three -->
 | caption      = 
 | talign       = center|justify <!-- One of the two -->
 | tstyle       = font-variant:small-caps
 | margin-right = 8px <!-- if floating to the left -->
 | margin-left  = 8px <!-- if floating to the right -->
 | tmleft       = 11px <!-- For Caption Indent when justified -->
 | indent       = -11px <!-- For Caption outdent when justified -->
Thanks. I get/got it (eventually!) At least this is a more acceptable public answer than the simple one, viz.: You are mad. I am mad for noticing you are mad. Offer to assist in your state of ongoing madness not yet invalidated. I am mad to admit any of the above. AuFCL (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

In response to your comments[edit]

@ShakespeareFan00: I noticed that you are driven by some higher power to instruct others to make everything neat and tidy on all English language wikis (are you proficient in other languages?). I noticed that you did it on Wikipedia, by tagging a lot of images to be moved to the commons, a gallery which myself put to good use by moving some 19th century B&W images. Nevertheless, for the past weeks I was wondering, how come you don't do it yourself? After all, no one seems to be objecting to your efforts. Have you considered that we are occupied with own projects, and your unending stream of missives are somewhat annoying? Based on your past contributions, I am convinced that you are very capable to do the tasks by yourself. Finally I must ask, do you do windows? — Ineuw talk 15:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
In respect of re-titles, I posted here, because it was my understanding that Mpaa had access to a re-title script (which needed some permissions he has and I don't) which relocated pages as well as the index. My reasons for the requests on Scriptorium first was to give time for objections. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Also I as a normal contributor don't have deletion or AWB rights.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
In respect of the "windows", please clarify on my talk page :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Further to the above. It was MY understanding this was collabrative project. if you would prefer that cleanup efforts 'just happened' then that's entirely reasonable. Most of the time I mention or query things because I am concerned about acting unilaterally. If asking for comment or objections is annoying, then perhaps I should just be getting on with it? (with the risk that other people might get equally annoyed about the lack of consultation).ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not collaboration assigning tasks to other people. You did that to me when you dumped a list of documents on my commons talk page. It's not your role to assign jobs to others and then come up with reasons and excuses as to why you can't do it. If you have something that you want done, create a wish list on your home page. I did it, and so do many others do it. If you don't have rights, ask for them. But do the work and don't tell others to do it. I did that only once at the beginning, when I knew nothing about editing, and the result was that I was ignored. And, nobody will get annoyed with your contributions. You do good work.
As for "doing windows", is a jestful inquiry to whether you also clean windows, and that's all. — Ineuw talk 18:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
It is well-known by people (including me) here on wikisource that Ineuw created this project and that he "heads" or "oversees" the project - long before he even became an administrator. He does the image and text work in an excellent manner but also in a specific way that others don't usually use. I sometimes (rarely) edit about two pages and Ineuw usually has to fix whatever I did that is not his style with images and text. I too am in this position with 52 volumes of the SHSP (Southern Historical Society Papers} that I wanted and got placed on wikisource. It was stated that I would be the "head" of that project overseeing it which is similar to Ineuw's project.

Because they are huge projects and because people do things differently too many people with the good intention of helping do more harm than good. It creates the extra problems of correcting any and all of those "good intentions" and making more work for Ineuw to re-do work that specific style that Ineuw uses. Sometimes it is just easier and better when only a couple of people work on large projects since we all have our own, and often different, way of doing something. There is plenty of work to do for wikisource. We need not just step in without asking to work on someone's project. Kind regards to all, —Maury (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

And I have that issue with the Ruffhead Statutes which need a consistent style  :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
If there are specific people claiming a specific work, then the Index page should ideally indicate this, or there should be a page that records claims like that, it would partly cut down on these sort of issues, albiet it wouldn't replace commonsense. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a discussion elsewhere about how to re-title stuff en-masse, so we don't have this discussion again. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
On seconds thought strike that, I have an idea. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I've put in an AWB feature request here Wikipedia:Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature_requests#AWB_Request_from_Wikisource.-_Regex_block_move. and the following. If implemented, this would solve both halves of how to re-align pages on works that were re-titled, If AWB can take care of the mundane stuff , I don't need to annoy you with the details, the cleanup "just happens!", which is presumably the outcome everyone wants? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Just do what you feel needs to get a job done. Trust yourself. — Ineuw talk 03:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

PSM: Re: User:Ineuw/Sandbox8#Poems[edit]

<poem> really is a rather awful tag, especially in the sense that it makes the gross (and entirely unreasonable) assumption that it will be terminated with </poem> on the current page. Are you sure you want to encourage its use as indicated here?

[If you are looking for an alternative; as horrible as it is I suggest enclosing the block in {{centre block}} (or equivalent) and using an explicit <br/> betwixt lines…] 06:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@AuFCL: Sorry for the late reply. I am resolved to using the <poem><poem/> tags for several good reasons. One of them is adding <br/> to each line defeats the purpose of saving on work. Another reason is that every template must be closed, so there is no difference. Changing it is not an option. Sorry.— Ineuw talk 21:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Both fair points; and of course it is your "right" to lay out the rules for PSM. I only raised the matter due to my personal revulsion of the poor "fit" this particular tag has with the LST concept—it is almost by design unsuited to the wikisources. There have been proposals for several years to eliminate it which one day might actually be acted upon.

Never mind, I'll try to fit in with your established practice; but please give me a prod if "muscle memory" occasionally rebels (as it does) and I forget. AuFCL (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not about "my" right to lay down the rules. It was all worked out in detail with Mpaa over two years ago. You can fault me for not writing it down properly.89 Many editors contributed, but until recently no one stuck around to proofread long enough to warrant my stopping work and writing a manual for myself. Also, the poem layout is used as it is on hundreds of poems already. Also I tested {{centre block}} and found {{block center/s}}{{block center/e}} to be superior since I can span pages of poetry and with an eye to other contributors I don't want to use two different templates for the same thing. — Ineuw talk 00:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
As usual nothing is written in stones. If you want to re-evaluate, I can easily provide a list of pages with <poem> tags:
Vol 1: Popular Science Monthly Volume 1.djvu/187, 230, 425, 453, 467, 471, 672, 699, 716--Mpaa (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
You are right. It is nothing to do with your right to write the rules. It is "our" right to assign arbitrary condign blame upon you for not clearly delineating them and every possible perverse inconsistency which may arise, not excluding future changes in areas you cannot reasonably be expected to have anticipated… (I think you get the thankless aspect of authority when seen through the unreasoning filter of auditorial responsibility.)

About now in this tease I'd better take some heat for not elaborating earlier and typing "{{centre block}} (or equivalent)" when my mind was going "if I start listing out the /s, /e, /c alternatives somebody's little brain will pop."

Listen Bud. We are more or less on the same page. O.K.? AuFCL (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

By the bye, did you really mean to reveal yourself as a DDG paranoic (as indeed—but of course would never—am I—er…)? AuFCL (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Go on, add Greasemonkey. You know you want to. AuFCL (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Did you check out my collection? I use DDG because I find Google intrusive and irksome. I already have Chrome and they still offering it. — Ineuw talk 03:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Shrug: [edit]

Umm, you know everything I want to say about this already, so why should I bother to? NFINFINFINFI… AuFCL (talk) 09:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Please say it. In my view, I would delete it. Certainly not necessary to add to garbage stored on the Commons. I would also get rid of the numerous images of the AK-47 stored on Wikisource. — Ineuw talk 13:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I think I just did. In all likelihood I shall never be forgiven… doubly so if proven right. AuFCL (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wiki mark-up meets your macro[edit]

See even the most simple of wiki mark-ups (2nd paragraph; 3 hashes = bold text) behave strangely when you wouldn't expect it to.

That is exactly why you can't trust anything but straight html (tags) to work in all the possible scenarios editors might face. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I have the HTML codes in my Autohotkey macros, so that's what I'll use. Now good night. :-)

May I borrow your browsers (and eyes) for a moment?[edit]

Hello Ineuw.

I appear to have uncovered a minor glitch in caption handling within {{FI}} (you may be glad to know to the best of my knowledge {{FIS}} is unaffected.) I have mentioned the matter (and an initial proposed solution) to friend GOIII which of course he instantly bettered. With your wider array of captive browsers than I can get easy access to would you please be so kind as to view the last three examples on each of these following two pages and let me know if anything "breaks" unexpectedly (yes, the very first one fails in Firefox, being an example of the fault I was looking into; but are the others all O.K. in the other browsers, please?)

Apologies for so shabbily subverting your time; however your feedback will be most appreciated!

Regards, AuFCL (talk) 08:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@AuFCL: Glad to oblige. Done and posted results alongside the test cases. All is OK. What is interesting is that Opera engine is also Gecko, like Firefox. — Ineuw talk 16:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, very much appreciated. GOIII's instincts are right again.

Also shows that not all Geckos are necessarily alike (or perhaps F/F 34.0 has a bug?)

As the other browsers already work I don't really see the benefit of modifying the template defaults as the problem is obscure and will (I hope) eventually go away if/when firefox is upgraded/fixed.

In case you are interested the issue revolves around the single reference to "inline-block" which appears in {{FI}} (but is absent from {{FIS}}.) According to our friend this probably ought to have been "inline" instead but I have now added a new parameter (not yet written up!) "sdisplay" which can override it at need. AuFCL (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

AuFCL; polite, friendly and non-aggressive reminder re: documenting your changes. TIA. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
🎶Carrie doesn't live here any-more…🎶 P,F&N/A note: any fool (BEEP! redact alert!) umm mentally-challenged person of the completely respectable and not at all to be denigrated persuasion can cut-and-paste in a totally respectful fashion whilst paying homage to the legacy of small furry (and not forgetting our twittery or reptilian friends either), can they not? This is not intended to be a judgemental assertion in any sense whatsoever…

How could I resist that mournful look? Yes check.svg Done AuFCL (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Deleting other people's comments[edit]

Why did you delete my comment here? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't delete your comment, in fact I saw it. There was an edit clash, so I left the page waited until you finished and the I added my comment.— Ineuw talk 20:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
As the edit shows, you replaced my comment with your own nearly 40 minutes after I made mine. It is poor manners to replace other people's comments with your own. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I never, ever erase anyone's messages or posts intentionally, so please be careful as to what you accuse me of. The only thing I can think of, is that I didn't close the edit window and returned later to the open page and recomposed my message. Rather than accuse me, why don't you just repaste your message? — Ineuw talk 20:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) I suspect what happened was that when the edit conflict was found, the back button was used and then that earlier version of the page was edited without realising that it wasn't the latest version. I've got caught on this a couple of times and now have the habit of refreshing before editing when there's been an edit conflict. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
That's exactly what I did. I had my post typed up and clicked on save, which triggered the edit conflict, so I went back trying to copy my post (to retrieve it), but this time I couldn't, I got confused and didn't close the window. Edit conflicts happen to me occasionally, but I always yield. — Ineuw talk 20:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's all take breath and be realistic here; the deletion of somebody else's post -- especially a regular contributor's never mind a fellow sysop's -- is never likely to have been done intentionally or hardly ever done without some sort of convoluted 'good reasoning' yet to be revealed behind it (what else could the point of such a futile action be?).

Please; lets try to keep that reality in mind in moving forward. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Seeking image resolution[edit]

I know exactly squat about manipulating image files such as .svg files.

We have one that is suppose to be a button icon for WikiEditor but it doesn't appear in IE; apparently it does appear in the other major browsers. Somebody said it had something to with the mask and? IE's inability to render the image when present (or just broke?)

Long story short and if you have any chops in the .svg area given some free time, would you mind taking a look at it →Insert-ilink.svg← or The goal is to get it work in IE but not if radically altering the current dimensions and junk is needed in the process.

No big deal if you can't but maybe you know somebody else who is good with stuff like this. -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I have the time, and Inkscape installed, but know squat about .svg files yet, that doesn't mean that there are no solutions. I can do some high quality images with Gimp. However, The File:insert-ilink.svg is empty and is not an .svg format. Downloaded it and tried to open it with Inkscape. Also, if you use the Image viewer - it's empty. Nevertheless, I am curious. Can you upload in another format or provide a link as to what it should be? — Ineuw talk 18:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
This is the same circle-jerk that is taking place on the development side. I know its there cause even with IE, I can view the source...
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<!-- Created with Inkscape ( -->

   inkscape:version="0.48.4 r9939"
         id="stop3761" />
         style="stop-color:#ffffff;stop-opacity:1;" />
         id="stop3769" />
         id="stop3763" />
         id="stop8231" />
         id="stop8233" />
       gradientTransform="matrix(1,0,0,5.6369887,0,-3352.5089)" />
       y2="721.07123" />
         y="705.51801" />
    </mask>                 -->
     inkscape:window-maximized="1" />
           rdf:resource="" />
     inkscape:label="Layer 1"
         d="m 847.87034,708.6932 c -1.78875,0 -3.22236,1.30374 -3.22236,2.89165 l 0,1.55466 c 0,1.58791 1.43361,2.89165 3.22236,2.89165 l 2.90712,0 c 1.78875,0 3.22236,-1.30374 3.22236,-2.89165 l 0,-1.55466 c 0,-1.58791 -1.43361,-2.89165 -3.22236,-2.89165 z m 0.51649,1.76812 1.7863,0 c 1.10879,0 1.69598,0.40915 1.69598,1.39344 l 0,0.99498 c 0,0.9843 -0.66558,1.28893 -1.77437,1.28893 l -1.7863,0 c -1.10879,0 -1.59148,-0.34383 -1.59148,-1.32813 l 0,-0.99498 c 0,-0.98429 0.56108,-1.35424 1.66987,-1.35424 z"
         style="fill:#dcdcdc;fill-opacity:1;fill-rule:nonzero;stroke:#393a3d;stroke-width:0.69803369;stroke-linecap:square;stroke-linejoin:miter;stroke-miterlimit:4;stroke-opacity:1;stroke-dasharray:none" />
         d="m 857.87034,708.6932 c -1.78875,0 -3.22236,1.30374 -3.22236,2.89165 l 0,1.55466 c 0,1.58791 1.43361,2.89165 3.22236,2.89165 l 2.90712,0 c 1.78875,0 3.22236,-1.30374 3.22236,-2.89165 l 0,-1.55466 c 0,-1.58791 -1.43361,-2.89165 -3.22236,-2.89165 z m 0.51649,1.76812 1.7863,0 c 1.10879,0 1.69598,0.40915 1.69598,1.39344 l 0,0.99498 c 0,0.9843 -0.66558,1.28893 -1.77437,1.28893 l -1.7863,0 c -1.10879,0 -1.59148,-0.34383 -1.59148,-1.32813 l 0,-0.99498 c 0,-0.98429 0.56108,-1.35424 1.66987,-1.35424 z"
         sodipodi:nodetypes="ssssssssssssssssss" />
         d="m 9.90625,8.3125 c 0.219379,0.2493818 0.400172,0.5353409 0.53125,0.84375 l 1.21875,0 C 11.78881,8.8397468 11.967186,8.5700989 12.1875,8.3125 l -2.28125,0 z M 6.375,9.09375 C 5.9621997,9.4039663 5.725025,9.7591417 5.71875,10.0625 l -0.03125,1.25 c -0.0151,0.72807 1.26414,2.375 3.53125,2.375 l 3.6875,0 c 2.26711,0 3.46875,-1.61553 3.46875,-2.34375 l 0,-1.28125 c 0,-0.2949291 -0.211045,-0.6348842 -0.59375,-0.9375 l -0.4375,0 c -0.63503,0 -1.1133,0.14044 -1.40625,0.4375 0.224818,0.1572379 0.34375,0.3524935 0.34375,0.53125 l 0,0.75 c 0,0.45142 -0.90722,0.78125 -2.3125,0.78125 l -2.28125,0 C 8.28222,11.625 7.75,11.29515 7.75,10.84375 l 0,-0.6875 c 0,-0.1767274 0.1306645,-0.3924485 0.375,-0.5625 -0.2943153,-0.3314596 -0.7859446,-0.5 -1.4375,-0.5 l -0.3125,0 z"
         inkscape:connector-curvature="0" />
But if that is of no use - I already know pursuing its recovery is pointless. We have the .png variant the .svg is suppose to "replace" and remain as a fall-back if for some reason your browser is being preventing from using its native .svg support (e.g. something else thats become a problem thanks to wiki-markup).
Best place to get the png would be the source -- HERE. I'm pretty sure I've forgotten what the exact specs are suppose to be but I'm sure the answer lies in c:Category:WikiEditor toolbar icons somewhere. just find a matching svg there and copy the 22 by 22 or whatever deimensions the svgs are suppose to be. Let me know. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh... fair warning is given. If you manage to fix this one you might have to take a look at them all. :) Thanks again -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
How much time do I have? — Ineuw talk 02:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
as much as it takes. Even a crippled set of svg toolbar icons will do as the image is merely cosmetic & has no bearing on the button's function. No Image IS however a problem for obviuous reasons.

Look I know nothing and hid the only "mask" section (open the drop down above), saved it and the icon came back -- it doesn't look the same as png one which has sort of a haze effect at some edges or something.

Any way - I'm going to try and upload a zip of the icons in their august 2014 state - I know its been tinkered with since so the older the better I suppose. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the .png is very hazy, and I can convert .png to .svg and vice versa (which I did), but if it was a crappy picture to begin with, the results don't improve.— Ineuw talk 05:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm telling you [re]create the file based on my edit copy and paste above. I forgot wiki doesn't do zip files but I'm pretty sure its not protected. See HERE -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
TLDR; I hope THIS is what you needed --Rochefoucauld (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for trying but he's got to re-work the image on top of disabling that mask thing. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
It's best that he re-works the image. I find the current image to be very good. . . and I am way too far behind with the graphics work. Perhaps next time I can be of help.— Ineuw talk 09:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Current image is nothing more than the last thing I tried -- hiding the mask element in the xml -- and placed the finished edit in raw format in the collapsible box above ( as far as I can tell that is ).<?p>

Thanks anyway <closed/no suitable replacement(s)> -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Anything new to report?   No?   Still bein' a wise guy?   Ehh?   I ougta fix your wagon!

Don't make me reset your font-size and line-height back to their foundations at just about any point or to any element in the document structure that I want to.

#mw-content-text {
        font-size: 1rem;
        line-height: normal;

Neat huh? Never heard of it before today.

You should apply it from now on before any templatized, font-sizing needs a review, an adjustment or something. I wish we could have come to sort alternative as a community to what Vector has built-up & built-in by the time we're up to rendering the above id - but now I don't have to bother thanks to this tid-bit.-- George Orwell III (talk) 06:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@George Orwell III: Can you please provide me an example where and how the above CSS would be helpful?

Nothing to report yet. I really need more time for exploring Inkscape. It's not difficult, it's just a lot to practice to remember to gain a measure of proficiency. It's going to take awhile. Believe it or not, amongst the 6,000,000 odd images on the commons, there isn't a single usable image of a chain link, but there are several images of women chained in various positions (BDSM) :-) — Ineuw talk 07:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Page Naming[edit]

I hope you don't mind my asking here. Regarding Index:The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night, Vol 1.djvu, you recently renamed some of the pages. I wanted to ask about the "not" pages, they are clearly labelled with roman numerals in the scan, shouldn't these be kept in the page names (I originally extrapolated the numbers back to "i" too). I'm also not sure about centering stuff vertically in the page, it just creates unneeded empty space in transclusion (see The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night, Vol 1), and to work properly some empty space should be added after the text too --Jellby (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Please ask away. The "not" stands for "notes" but I changed it to "pre" for "prefatory" to be more relevant. My idea is to indicate the group of pages which will be merged into a single page in the main namespace, rather than the roman numerals which are visible only in the page namespace and they carry no importance in the index display, Also they don't appear in all sequential pages. Feel free to remove or add the "Dhr|25" below the title. It's your project and I only used it as an example.
The above issues are cosmetic. What is most important is that you organize the pages and settle on the naming + volume designation. Using "Vol 1 .... 2" in the title saves declaring sub pages for each volume, but before one makes a final decision, I recommend to check how the contents are organized. Is it Volume + Book + Chapter? or is it just straight Volume and Chapter? — Ineuw talk 09:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Google page in scaned books[edit]

Hi! I read Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard#The wind blows on Wikimedia Commons. I want to upload some books for transcription (mostly in the greek wikisource) and I wonder if you could give me a clue (an open source software perhaps) in order to remove the frontpage google adds before uploading in commons. Thank you in advance! Ah3kal (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ah3kal: The free software is "DjVuLibre" and I use a DOS/Windows batch file with the terminal command "djvm" and keep a blank .djvu file in the working folder.
REM djvu.bat

REM append path to operate in any folder
@echo off
path=%path%;C:\Program Files\DjVuLibre
@echo on

REM delete the Gooogle page of the book, assuming it's the first page.
djvm -d "File.djvu" 1

REM append a blank page as the first page
djvm -i "File.djvu" "Blank.djvu" 1

REM see results
  1. Download the book to a folder where the batch file is.
  2. Batch files don't accept extended characters beyond ANSI 127, that is ANSI 032 to ANSI 127. So one must temporarily rename the file, for characters beyond that range.
  3. Enclose the file name in double quotes in case there is a space in the name. (I always do, regardless.)
  4. Edit the batch file and replace "File.djvu" with the file name.
  5. Run the batch file, and then check the results with the DjVuLibre GUI.
  6. Upload the file to the Commons.

I hope this helps. I you have any problems, post here for help. — Ineuw talk 20:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! You save me a lot of time! Ah3kal (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

New Proposal Notification - Replacement of common main-space header template[edit]

Announcing the listing of a new formal proposal recently added to the Scriptorium community-discussion page, Proposals section, titled:

Switch header template foundation from table-based to division-based

The proposal entails the replacement of the current Header template familiar to most with a structurally redesigned new Header template. Replacement is a needed first step in series of steps needed to properly address the long time deficiencies behind several issues as well as enhance our mobile device presence.

There should be no significant operational or visual differences between the existing and proposed Header templates under normal usage (i.e. Desktop view). The change is entirely structural -- moving away from the existing HTML all Table make-up to an all Div[ision] based one.

Please examine the testcases where the current template is compared to the proposed replacement. Don't forget to also check Mobile Mode from the testcases page -- which is where the differences between current header template & proposed header template will be hard to miss.

For those who are concerned over the possible impact replacement might have on specific works, you can test the replacement on your own by entering edit mode, substituting the header tag {{header with {{header/sandbox and then previewing the work with the change in place. Saving the page with the change in place should not be needed but if you opt to save the page instead of just previewing it, please remember to revert the change soon after your done inspecting the results.

Your questions or comments are welcomed. At the same time I personally urge participants to support this proposed change. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Author redirects[edit]

For example, Author:William Anderson, which you deleted, was redirected to Author:William Edwin Anderson. I would like to keep these, as it allows one to use the "what links here" tool to find how the author "nickname" is used. And for EB1911 it allows the original author name as specified to be used to redirect the initials. This procedure (creating redirects for all the alternative names) is the suggestion at Help:Author pages, and I think it makes sense. I am restoring this particular redirect. Library Guy (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Library Guy: Apologize and should not have deleted it, as I have no problem with redirects. In the Author namespace I deal almost exclusively with contributors of Popular Science Monthly where 90% of the time I move a page is because I found the full name, (which I prefer to use in the PSM article header). This change is always noted in the summary of the changed page. — Ineuw talk 21:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Missing pages on book you uploaded. Can you fix it?[edit]

A couple of times on the Index page it was posted that pages are missing by others and therefore the book was marked from done to needs missing pages. Our Sister Republic: Mexico (1870). The book that you uploaded indeed has those pages missing. However I found identical pages [pages 487-490]. I trust that you have the knowledge required to fix this for I know I do not. Here is a link starting with: p.487 There also may be full copy on IA I didn't look there.;view=1up;seq=509

Kind regards my friend and a continued "Happy New Year" & BTW, thanks for the card and kind thoughts. —Maury (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I found another good IA copy NOT scanned by Google in which the image + blank page between page 490 and 491 is deleted. Will have to work out with GO3 how to insert and how many pages and move the existing pages over. It will take a few days.— Ineuw talk 18:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Your recent message[edit]

If you can suggest a means by which it could be repaired it would be appreciated, when I hit the technical limitation in Mediawiki, I sttopped because I wasn't sure HOW to proceed.

In addition, prior to your message I was not aware that this was already a "claimed" task. I wouldn't have "butt-in" as you have described it had I been aware that matters were already in progress. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I specifically requested a bot operation because I don't know how to do it, and left it to the people in the know.— Ineuw talk 18:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Fair. BTW Do you happen to have a list of active projects, so that we can avoid conflicting again?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
In addition you mention some seemingly abandoned efforts? Any in particular as over the last 6 months or so I'd been trying to track these down :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)



I apologize if I annoyed you in e-mail earlier today but I thought this account of mine had been hacked or my computer had gotten a virus! I could not log in to see anything to read about what was happening. —Maury (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. . . but I think Wikipedia servers or related to the servers were hacked. Also, I noticed that not one of the usual help crew is around to repair the Charinsert and I suspect this is the reason, but then I also have a vivid imagination.— Ineuw talk 03:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

— vs. {{—}}[edit]

Hi there, I noticed that a number of the edits done to pages I've proofread were changing instances of {{—}} to —. Is there some guideline as to when to use either? -Einstein95 (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Einstein95: Just noticed your post (for some reason, I got no notification). There is no difference. The braced emdash was the result of my forgetting to remove the braces after I do external spell checking. If I don't add them then the spell checker stops at every occurrence.Ineuw (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ineuw: So I should replace {{—}} with — ? Say on Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 43.djvu/341. --Siddhant (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
@Siddhant:Please do remove them. I do that whenever I notice them. — Ineuw talk 13:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Of interest?[edit]

Hey again.

Just got done making Vector my b^tch and thought you might be interested. Go to Gadgets --> Interface and check out Collapsible Nav Menus. It makes the entire sidebar menu morph into something like the existing personal flat list in Vector's top-right corner. Let me know if you can finally move closer to the wiki-baselines or not (and of course if it has any trouble w/FF or Chrome etc.). Prost. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I like! Just a note, you realize that the menus stay open? (I switched back to Vector because this feature in Modern is too close to the Previous/Next buttons and interfered with pagination. — Ineuw 17:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I know! I know! I couldn't figure out how to replicate that mouse-hover/change-focus thing -- though I know its possible -- under Vector without making a mountain out of a molehill (right now its mostly just .css with the original arrow-collapse script-let they removed from the vector extension a few weeks ago). And just "breaking the cookie" is not an option; we still need Display Options retain the last invoked Dynamic Layout settings & such. I'll figure it out eventually (with the caveat somebody doesn't speak up about missing logos or broken functionality elsewhere).

There is an upside or two already - the drop down's width only takes up max space when a single heading is opened; the others remain as wide as their labels happen to be (eventually I'll get all of them to "slide open" into the same general screen-space rather than just drop straight down. Plus its far more more akin to Minerva(?) (the mobile mode's layout) than any other skin still using sidebars of any sort. I'll touch back later. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Version b2 -- Now you can just hover to open menus (or click on them to pin open) and much less "bouncing" when going from one page to another. Please check it out against your testbed and report any issues you might come across. I'd like to announce it for wider "testing" after tomorrow's 1.25wmf22 update if possible. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Will do it right now.— Ineuw talk 19:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@George Orwell III: Really like it!!!. I like the idea that the menus shift over so they are not covered when a menu is selected, also like the fact that inapplicable menu items are hidden (like when I select Tools "What links here"). My only comment is - would it be possible to move the whole group of these drop down menus to the right, as much as possible, because when I go to click "next page" it's difficult not to hover over the new menu as well. BTW, I am using the Vector, not the Modern skin in WS.— Ineuw talk 20:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Here is where I can use some advice as a sysop with the community's interests in mind and not so much as a "greedy" User at heart.

First, it should only work in Vector - if you switch away from Vector and then back; you should be forced to re-enable the gadget manually again.

Second, some background info first. [mw-]head is the shaded top "bar" from left to right on any Vector page and is where the Vector tabs (view, talk, watchlist, edit, history, etc.) reside along with the personal tools flat list found along the top-right of the head. This header is intersected on the left from top to bottom by [mw-]panel -- where 1.) the site logo and 2.) the sidebar menu of tools, options, languages etc. originally reside. (Please recall "we" killed the logo on our own in User .css before all this; this is important later below).

My first "problem" is the Vector tabs and personal tools in head are further separated into #left and #right DIVs; the personal tools, search bar and some tabs like edit, history are in the right DIV (p-personal atop them) and view and talk by themselves to the left. The gadget takes panel, makes it a flat-list and moves it atop this left DIV container to mirror the right side (then "eliminates" the left margin altogether, closing the sidebar).

So in order to move the panel flat-list further to the right and up against the personal flat-list like you ask, it would screw up the original Vector skin design first and foremost (not easy to rectify so can't you be bit more careful and bit less limp wristed? :). In addition to that, our "lack" of a logo of any sort would probably not go over well with the higher-ups principle wise. User: wise - we'd need to do what we do now; kill it in our personal .css afterward. The problem either way is the ~11em left margin the logo normally takes up is not easy to recover because of this principled logo question. Should we care? Screw principle and recover ~11em at the price of those who do want a logo? Isn't that OK since its a voluntary Gadget?

Finally -- I can't figure out how to get the left panel flat-list to clear right(?) and float under the personal right flat-list when the browser window width is smaller than the total width of both lists. Currently, they both overflow over each other when I shrink browser window width past that trigger point. Any ideas on how to get the left list to "flow" right under the right personal list in those cases? -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW I've refined it to the point where I think its stable enough to work with if I do say so myself. I had to change the gadget's naming scheme to Sidebar Flat-list cause Collapsible Nav was already in use on a number of projects already in addition to not being very "accurate" anymore. Let me know what you think - suggestions still welcome. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@George Orwell III: Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. I like this layout as well it is very neat and no problems. I also like that the way it works, the {{nop}} is closer to the pagination controls.— Ineuw talk 03:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ineuw: Great. I'm counting on you to let me know if you come across anything odd/broken/needs improvement if you keep using it (please let me know if you stop using it btw). In case you didn't notice, you can still "pin" menus open by clicking the arrowhead - though it won't cache that state past the screen you're already on. If all goes well, I'll "announce" it to the masses Wed. after tomorrow. Thanks again. -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment on a PSM issue[edit]

Can you contribute your thoughts on Wikisource:Scriptorium#footer_string_-_what_to_do.3F Thanks. --Siddhant (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Just delete it, we never use it!!!!.— Ineuw talk 03:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


Ineuw, are you aware this is broken? Moondyne (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Moondyne:Thanks for letting me know. I am correcting them. — Ineuw talk 15:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I had to fix them anyways for another reason, and I am curious if you saw the problem, or was it revealed programmatically? — Ineuw talk 05:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I just stumbled on it while reading. I had thought the template was faulty but I now see that its just useage. {{Pt|THE FISHES OF JAPAN.|}} vs {{Pt|THE FISHES OF JAPAN.}} I can fix those. Moondyne (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
First, I added the second segment later, so they were missing in the early titles, but I am fixing them quickly just don't remember how early. — Ineuw talk 14:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Yikes! Moondyne (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Vol 33 was already OK. I am correcting Vol 11 now, (probably until Vol 15). Besides, I check every page as I proofread because I have to anchor the titles, etc. for the indexes.— Ineuw talk 14:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

some formatting feedback required[edit]

Hello, I would appreciate any thoughts on my couple of recent formatting edits to Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 31.djvu/817. Feel free to revert. Here is how it looked in my browser: screenshots --Siddhant (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It's perfect. Thanks you so much for helping. My solutions are often made out of ignorance. My only wish is that the whole project remains consistent in looks. I am aware that there are elements that could have been done better, and I corrected many by returning to the beginning, but when I started, I didn't know anything.

You will also notice that all section titles are templates, which allow for modifying the font & looks. Recently changed the article title template {{PSMTitle}} from Arial to Liberation serif which is closer to the original and because it's supported by all browsers (Tested). — Ineuw talk 14:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ineuw: Thanks. Yeah, I saw your recent changes to all titles. One question, couldn't you make the thirdsecond parameter to the PSMTitle template optional, instead of inserting a "|"(pipe) character in most titles which don't need a third parameter. --Siddhant (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@Siddhant:: there is also a template for that, {{Float_right}}.— Mpaa (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mpaa: Ah! Works perfectly. I had seen it earlier, but I was worried that making it _float_ might not allow me control in which line it appears. Looks like it does keep it in the same line. A little perplexing, but works. Thanks. --Siddhant (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I may be on a different page, but that template began as a very simple template, without "|" separation between the two parameters. I noticed that the reference number displayed a large font, just like the title. So I added the optional second parameter with a 75% font size for the reference number. This second option was in a <span></span> and the combination of that within the <div></div> forced the author name much lower that it should have been. Then, the font and padding parameters were modified because of mwf software updates and the author name dropped even further. Last week when I changed the font and tried to reduce the space between the author and the title — I couldn't, so I used a table in the template, which made the 2nd parameter obligatory. The vertical bar didn't exist until volume 19, and then it was missing only 1 - 2 titles per volume until Vol 32. Anything later than that doesn't matter, because I must edit the pages to add anchors and some other minor modifications. The other advantage was that a good number of titles were corrected. — Ineuw talk 00:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok. --Siddhant (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

year of death of Author:Mary Alling Aber[edit]

Hello, in this edit, you added birth and death years for the author. What is the reference for this? I understand that this is a very old edit, but I have been unable to find any source for those dates. Why I'm looking for sources is because I believe that the death year—1915—is wrong. Any pointers to any sources would be very helpful. --Siddhant (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Siddhant: Hi. Wherever and whenever you come across something questionable, please feel free to correct it. My "mania" is only about the consistency of style while its' being worked on. My striving for consistency is only to present a comprehensive and organized effort, hoping thereby others will accept it. But after completion, I cannot and will not have any say in the matter. After all we are a free and open web site. . . . Think I created a monster and will soon post my views on the subject of consistency of the PSM project.

As for this author, I've spent the past hour looking for that information and also came up with nothing. the LC names authority is down for maintenance, so I am limited to what's available. I also tried and the NYT obits which is usually a very good source, but no luck. — Ineuw talk 18:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Fraktur fonts[edit]

Hi, please don't think I was being critical. As you say, I use the font family myself from time to time. I just don't want us to unthinkingly replicate every nuance of a 19th Century publisher's armoury for a 21st Century audience. Which is why I've been asking a few "why" questions recently in response to various "how to" questions. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Took no offense whatsoever and I agree with you. Mostly done it in the name of familiarization with web related matters of the free software world. Too much to learn in too little time.— Ineuw talk 16:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Font size revisited[edit]

I see you're tinkling with "Sandbox 5" again after being idle for a bit & thought you should know I removed the local "post typography refresh" tweaks that at one point made "whole numbers" out of the current fractionalized Vector defaults. Fixing font templates is not going to help until selecting a sane site-wide font-size & related/relative line-height is made. I had thought a calculated 14.00000px would multiply and zoom nicely but it doesn't for all browsers in all the same scenarios. Seems to me everything should be based on the industry "default" (16.00000px) especially Vector content to get the best (small, smaller, smallest, medium large, larger etc.) multipliers as far as font size goes but NOBODY is "concerned with Paragraphs" like we are at Wikisource when it comes to this nuance so they focus on making H1 through H6 "font-size friendly" first (Wikipedia article sections) and that is why we wind up with 0.8750em and 1.6 (both cause calculated fractions under IE at the minimum) as Vector default for paragraphs it seems. It should be paragraphs determining all the other types of text-related elements like side-notes or headings & not the other way around like we have now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking in on me, really appreciate it. Understand what you're saying about different browsers.

I don't know if you have Firefox installed, but I installed an interesting FF add-on named font finder 1.1.1. When I specified 1.0 rem fs and lh to see the "industry default" it reported 17.000px. not 16.000px as you mentioned. This is same on Wikipedia HERE

So, I thought I might be better off to use fractions of 'rem' rather than float between so many different measurements. However 'rem' is a dynamic measurement and 'pixel' is a fixed measurement. In Sandbox5 page I did some "rem" conversions. What do you think? (By the way I am well familiar with points, mm, cm, in, pica and TWIPS.) — Ineuw talk 04:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ineuw: not sure your add-on is "calibrated" because that Wikipedia sandbox reports 16px = 1rem for me (IE11). BTW, Rem should only be used at the top-level or major-level containing/parent element to [re]establish a baseline that "everything" under/within it "should" look to render themselves accordingly. All other height effective measurements should be in em (save simple borders or when line-height is in play).

Plus in your local sandbox 5 you can't screw with headings (H3) or (UL) lists because for example they do not always have the same line-height as paragraphs or will usurp/modify the calculation for elements from that point on (specifically Vector uses line-height 1.5 for lists and 1.6 for paragraphs normally). So right now in a nutshell; Sandbox5 does not "reflect" nearly the "same" when the under mediawiki's influenced rendering is compared to just my browser and a copy of your experiments outside of mediawiki influence rendered using my own local .htm w/ matching css to account for Vector, etc. Its not you; it's Vector et al. behind this craziness.

Here's a bit outdated article that does a fairly decent job of what we're actually trying to accomplish in the end by setting and adhering to a FS & LH baseline from the work's outset -- too bad he bases his examples around 12px rather than 14px or 16px which -- by today's monitor standards -- is thought of as "easy reading". Still the logic behind the premise given is sound and, in my view, should be something we need to [re]establish on Wikisource to finally put these redering "differences" to bed once and for all.

I tried to imitate his "lined paper" background approach at various [supposedly] fixed pixel heights with just as illuminating results/findings -- the current incarnation at User:George Orwell III/Lofas in case you're interested (see your Vector.css too). I just wish I had a "better" graphic for background(s) cause the lines still seem to get blurry at some setting or another and are not dynamic nor friendly to resizing like I envision a .svg based background would/could be. Any thoughts? Ideas? re: Lofas? -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)