Thanks , I figured that :) Most suprised to see a different arrangement.. BTW Please consider getting an account, and thanks for your lillypond expertise in adding and checking the scores on these :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome
Hello, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. Creating an account on Wikisource has many of the same benefits as creating an account on Wikipedia. For one thing, if you continue to edit without a username, your IP address is used to publicly identify you.
In any case, I hope you enjoy donating your time to grow the Wikisource library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question. Again, welcome!
line 2 - column 10:
include files are not allowed in safe mode
--------
line 13 - column 44:
unknown escaped string: `\flexa'
--------
line 13 - column 44:
string outside of text script or \lyricmode
--------
line 13 - column 61:
unknown escaped string: `\flexa'
--------
line 13 - column 61:
string outside of text script or \lyricmode
This page is specifically for the text as it appears in the Illustrated Victorian Songbook. The lilypond transcription you added does not match the image from the Illustrated Victorian Songbook. You can create a new page for the version from the Army and Navy Hymnal, but you should never replace an existing edition from a specific source with a copy from a different source. That would misrepresent what the source has. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: As I said, "it's the exact same harmonisation" (compare if you are not sure); the only things that are missing are the lyrics (which are already given below; fwiw I have put them in too, not very complicated, see Help:Score, or other examples from the A&H Hymnal) and minor musical indications (which I added). See Wikisource:Sheet music for why lilypond is preferable to images 107.190.33.25415:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The harmonization is not the issue; the content you added does not match the source. Putting content from one source in to another document is inappropriate. Open up a screen of the two side by side and you will see multiple differences in content. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: Is it the line breaks? That can be fixed by adding #(layout-set-staff-size 16) in the "layout" section of the score (to reduce the size of the music and allow it to fit properly). From what I see, that only difference that can't be replicated exactly is the clearly handwritten "1861" that appears in the image. Or is it that the score in image format is from another source; in which case it should not appear there either? 107.190.33.25418:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not just line breaks. What you added had a different title (since corrected); different text in the upper left; different text in the upper right; different time signature marking; different placement of the dynamics; . . . There is almost no part of what you transcribed that actually matches the source. You cannot replace an image showing what was in the work with a transcription that does not match that image. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: 4/4 and C are musically equivalent; FWIW I have fixed it. The exact placement of the dynamic is not particularly important either; and in any case Lilypond won't allow it to be in the exact same spot as in the picture since it naturally avoids such placement conflicts. As for the minor textual differences; you could have either fixed it yourself or asked me here without reverting the whole edit. 107.190.33.25419:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikisource presents the text as it was published, without altering or editorializing. "Musically equivalent" and "not important" are editorial choices which should not be made. There are still differences between your version and the original image. I have asked you to fix the text, but you have not yet corrected all the differences between the original and your copy. Please correct all those differences. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As for the different punctuation, I copied that text that was below (which has some differences with image) so any errors should be fixed there too. 107.190.33.25420:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can apply Wikipedia policies on Wikipedia; they do not apply here. Here, you are expected as a proofreader to find and correct mistakes, not to introduce them and say that it's somebody else's problem when your errors are pointed out to you. When you remove the image from the page it becomes incumbent upon you to ensure that the transcription is correct. Once that image is removed no one will be able to compare against it to make the necessary corrections. While you have corrected many differences from the image, but there are still obvious transcription differences. Please fix them.
The text below the image may differ from that in the image, and without a scan of the other verses it cannot be determined whether they match the source or not. It is not unusual to find different punctuation or phrasing between the text placed between the staves and the text placed below them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is if you find "obvious errors" it's much simpler (and usually faster) to try and fix them yourself (especially when it's something as simple as punctuation, which doesn't usually require wading too much into lilypond). I couldn't find a WS guideline which says "you are not allowed to make mistakes" (in fact, AFAIK, the whole point of the proofread/validation system is just in case there are such mistakes) so if there is such a guideline please be kind and point it out. Otherwise, if there are still mistakes in the current version, either fix them or (if you'd rather not mess with lilypond) inform me kindly what the mistakes are exactly so I can fix them without being informed 50 times that "there are still mistakes" (which isn't really helpful). Thank you, 107.190.33.254 20:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC) @EncycloPetey:107.190.33.25420:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The proofread / validation system expects there to be a source to compare against. Your edits removed the source image completely. If you are unable to spot the mistakes in your transcription, then I will revert to the last faithful version (with image). It should not require this much prodding to get you to correct your mistakes, and I shouldn't have to tell you what they are. Side-by-side comparison is how the proofread / validation system works here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: Quote from the main page: "Welcome to Wikisource, the free library that anyone can improve." As far as I understand from that, this is supposed to be a project where we improve on each other's work. Telling others that "they can correct their own mistakes" and being unhelpful about it isn't quite collaboration nor is it an improvement... Anyway, I've gone ahead and checked again, if there's any other minor detail that I missed be nice about it, unless you wish we make a trip to the local equivalent of w:WP:Dramaboard (wherever that happens to be, I'm not particularly keen in discovering it)... 107.190.33.25421:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Part of this process is trying to teach you what is not acceptable on Wikisource. Rewriting text into something "equivalent" or claiming that differences are "unimportant" shows a profound lack of understanding of the mission of Wikisource. Claiming that you'll make changes if you're asked, but then complaining about having to make them is acting in bad faith. Reverting admins and threatening them is not collaborative. Replacing authentic text with new text that is not faithful to the original is not improving the text nor "collaborative". Repeating that change over and over when the problem is pointed out to you is willful bad faith. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When will you understand? None of the mistakes you point out were "intentional" and all of them could have been easily fixed with a little patience and/or googling for "how to do x thing in lilypond:; as for the "equivalent" claims that was not "editorial" judgement, that was for simplicity's sake since I wasn't aware of how to do it differently and being a knowledgeable musician I figured "if somebody knows how to fix it great, but it's not a particularly important problem" (by default, when you specify a time signature of 4/4 using \time 4/4, lilypond will instead put the sign for w:Common time instead - now it might not reproduce the exact same thing but it's such a minor difference you shouldn't be reverting the whole of the edit over it). When you say there are "errors in the text"; instead of being condescending and ordering me to "fix it", please do point out because if they're there it means I haven't noticed! Why don't you go ahead and revert everything at Index:The Army and Navy Hymnal.djvu - I bet there's at least a few mistakes somewhere there... I don't know which Wikipedia policies apply here, but w:WP:AGF must surely be one of them. 107.190.33.25400:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that you are unable to spot differences such as "4/4" vs "C", or the difference between lyrics present and lyrics absent, or completely different titles, extra dates, different punctuation, and the difference between capital and lower case. You complain about condescencion, but in the same breath complain that I don't hand-hold you through the difference between capital and lowercase letters.
None of the Wikipedia policies apply here; this isn't Wikipedia but a separate community with its own guidelines, principles, policies, and goals. But even on WP, AGF ends when the other person demonstrates bad faith as you have. I can only assume good faith until actions demonstrate otherwise. None of your reverts were accidental or unintentional; those were deliberate and truculent, as were your responses and edit summaries. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When you appeal to WS:AN, it is then up to the admins to decide that a matter is resolved. Please do not presume to act on their behalf. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: See this. I have checked again and what I see is mostly trivial differences (trivial being the handwritten 1861, which is not part of the original publication; the exact placement of the mezzo-forte indication; the presence/lack of hyphens in some words due to constraints imposed by lilypond): the punctuation is the same; and the harmony is correct (I notice no obvious wrong notes either from a quick look at the score or when listening to it), and in any case the harmony is taken from the corresponding A&H hymnal page and it matches all known sources (i.e. the A&H scan, and I have double checked other hymnals for comparison just in case; ex. [1]). 107.190.33.25420:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to check other hymnals. This item is explicitly for the version published in the Illustrated Victorian Songbook. If other hymnals differ, then we would create a separate page for their edition of the hymn. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked other hymnals because there was one note in the harmony as published that wasn't clear (a bit smudged) so I verified to see what was correct. 107.190.33.25419:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All thoughts and opinions on how we should best approach that going forward would be welcome.
PS. Did I mention that user accounts on enWS are free, and you don't even need to provide an email address? :) --Xover (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet, or who does not use it.
We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify them.
Such an IP address can be shared by several users.
If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.