User talk:Akme

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Hello, Akme, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Carl Spitzweg 021-detail.jpg

You may be interested in participating in

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{CotW}} to your page for current wikisource projects.

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the 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! Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:A Set of Rogues.djvu — TOC[edit]

Pages 9 thru 14 have been done for the table of contents, though may need some formatting on the italicised lines. Not sure what you think whether we should do a smaller there? If you think that smaller is better, we just need to add |sm to the {{ts}} template down the page. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Frankly, *I* think it’s perfect. It will be some time before I get the hang of the coding behind it (if ever). Akme (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It isn't that magic, you are just seeing some repetition from previously doing ToCs. The formatting is our cheat code in {{table style}} and that is just snippets of style, and this is abridged form is easier to read when proofreading than text with lots of CSS interposed. Apologies for doing all those chapters, rather than just one or two to show you how, I wasn't thinking, and you were far too polite in waiting for me to lead on what was next; though have cottoned on quickly with the process. Never be shy in gently giving me a shove to fill a knowledge gap, and sometimes waving is important as I get distracted by trying to be too many things to too many people, and still get a little time in for my projects. In fact the whole crew here is really helpful and anyone active will usually be able to assist directly or through WS:S. Anyway, you are doing a great job in your proofreading, it is looking really good, and following up behind to validate is easy. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I really appreciate all the help.

<Apologies for doing all those chapters … you were far too polite…>

It wasn’t politeness ["I just love work. I can sit and watch it for hours."] I’m a typical Windozer, more comfortable with GUI’s than coding. But I must say it’s a thrill seeing a somewhat complicated piece of coding come off in a layout the way you want it. And some of the formatting examples makes me itching to learn CSS! (I must also mention that I’ve had some experience of the helping nature here.)

CSS is not my comfort space, so I learn from, while guessing that surely it is possible somehow! That and looking at some have put into templates here and elsewhere. Fortunately for us, books rely on simple formatting, and that suits my nature, and my skill set. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 04:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

<Fortunately for us, books rely on simple formatting, and that suits my nature, and my skill set. :-)> Mine too! Only a lot more :)

Woohoo, you have completed a work. Now you have the (hopefully) joyous task of adding this work to the template:new texts which inserts the work to the front page. While I have your attention, do you know anything about the author? I will start the author page, and knowing a little more about the author allows us to have biographical info, put any sister links in place, and to ensure that there is the right data at Wikidata. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

No, thank you. I think the honour belongs to you. Even if I ignore the fact that most of the difficult work was done by you, my ISP is giving me too many problems to even think of learning something new. Besides, there’s a bit remaining in the TOC and the cover page.

I’m sorry, too, but I don’t know anything about Barrett - except that I liked this book. here’s something I just found: I hope it’s of some use:

My apologies: Seems I was mistaken in assuming that only finished books were displayed in ’New Texts.’ And adding a new text is a snap - even for my limited intelligence :) Added this. Thank you for all your help and guidance.Akme (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The Lost World[edit]

Please note when validating this book that the text needs to be looked over very carefully. The text came from a different edition than the scans, so the punctuation and even the words will sometimes be quite different. For example, I just proofread this page and found a number of odd differences. I've seen some similar differences in the pages you've proofread that you did not spot. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning: I will. I did notice, though, that the text was US English while the scans were British English. I’ll also redo the pages I’ve done--carefully :) Akme (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Underscore in Gutenberg[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you are changing the underscores in My Man Jeeves to double quotes. That is not correct. Underscores in Gutenberg works are substitutions for italics. For verification, you may compare the scan pages of The Poison Tree with the Gutenberg version, link of which is given in the translator's author page. With best wishes, Hrishikes (talk) 05:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I did? I thought I'd changed it to italicised words (two ’s)—I'm aware of the gutenberg convention of using underscores for italics in their text files. If you’re right, it means I’ve become careless again.
Thank you for warning me: I’ll go over the chapters again with the gutenberg original.

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)

Hansom Cab[edit]

[1] All good, thanks. Moondyne (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I’ve been somewhat nervous handling the not-so-common code--ever since I messed up in a big way while inserting (edited) images. (You know, fools rush in etc., etc. :)) Akme (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


If you need a project to work on, what about Index:The Iron Pirate 1905.djvu? --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems interesting, thank you. Will look into it as soon as I finish my current project: Tom Brown’s Schooldays (Completing the 30 odd pages of the Stage 1 work, left hanging by the previous proofreader.) Thanks, again.Akme (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Ummm. . . I am the previous proofreader for that work. And I didn't leave it hanging. I've been working on it steadily for the past month. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Uh, sorry. I should have guessed it - anybody alert enough would have done so already - nobody leaves only the end portion of a project uncompleted (unless forced to do so). And now - since you’re doing a much more professional job than I normally do - I’ll move on to The Iron Pirates :)

A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man[edit]

Thanks for catching my mistakes on A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. I seriously don't know how I missed so much. You're right that someone used the incorrect edition for match and split. It took a lot of cleaning up due to how different it was (even the quote style was completely different!), but apparently I still missed way more than I should have. Anyway, I apologize for being so careless. The Haz talk 04:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You’re very welcome. Actually, I’m a bit careful because someone (in another project) pointed out that I was not while validating--luckily at the beginning of my proofing. The same problem there: the scan and OCR were from American and British editions respectively. The stuff you missed were nothing compared to what I had; I had to go back and redo the pages. Made me more careful, as you can guess :)Akme (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The Prisoner of Zenda[edit]

Hi, I have added the source file, Index:The Prisoner of Zenda.djvu. Although it is the 1921 edition. Regards, Hrishikes (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I actually did want to see the source (some time back, though :) ). I suspect many of the non-English words in this file are missing their accents (/breves /whatever).Akme (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I am sure another file with the accent marks can be found, if searched. If you point to a specific page where accent marks should have been present but actually are not, then I can search by that parameter. Anyway, in view of your earlier interest in the Jeeves series, you may be interested in the links I have added in the author page for Right Ho Jeeves (1922 and 1957 editions). Hrishikes (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Well … comparing your file with the version I’ve just finished: pg 8 (near the bottom), attache/attaché is missing both the accent and the italicisation. Since it’s shown thus in the Gutenberg file, I’ve left it as is.
And thanks a lot for the Jeeves links. I’ll be going back to the Wodehouses soon.Akme (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The Amateur Cracksman[edit]

now has corresponding index. I failed to find the first edition (Methuen, 1899), though. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC).

Thank you. Frankly, though, I wish it had been done a bit earlier -- I’m sure you can guess why :) But a transcription project -- with two pairs of eyes on it -- is always better than a copy/paste/edit one. Thanks again.

Not to sound too greedy -- but is there any chance of getting the second volume, The Black Mask?Akme (talk) 03:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, will do it soon. But again, it will be Scribner's rather than first UK edition. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC).
Wow! Thanks a lot!Akme (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Here it is: Index. The third volume is also in the works:) Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC).
Thanks -- yet again :) I’ll get to it as soon as I finish on the Father Brown. Akme (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
By the way, adding scans is quite straightforward, see here. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC).
I finally managed to muster up enough courage to do it: Index:Bridefrombush00horn.pdf. I DID mess up by creating an Index page on wikimedia(!), read the error messages there, and finally did what was required. Thanks a lot! Akme (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


I would suggest trying this:- w:Category:Punch (magazine) cartoonists

Punch was a Satirical/Humorist magazine published in the UK. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I know that, but the only kind of attribution I could find was something like "reprinted from Punch." I’ll try your link some time. Thanks Akme (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Subpage naming convention[edit]

Hi, I've just noticed that you've been using naming convention for subpages that's different from our norm. Our strong preference is to use "Chapter 1", "Chapter 2", etc. rather than a bare number. The reason for this is that having a standardised way of naming means that wikilinking is made easier. I've just looked at the Style Manual and realised that we haven't been explicit about this. That's because the Style Manual is not meant to be a strait-jacket. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I’m sorry. I’ll use that method for future works. I saw this method in a few works and thought it was ideal (for me only, unfortunately.) —Akme (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The Moonstone (US edition)[edit]

This work is already transcluded at The Moonstone, why create the duplicate (with an awkward disambiguation)? Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC).

Oh God! Once again I’ve stepped in it. Sloppy work again! Perhaps I should stick to proofreading. Somehow I got the impression that that file was a copy-paste job from PG (as was the "OCR"). I’d found enough differences between the OCR and the scan (besides the usual UK/US spellings) to justify (to my thinking) a separate edition. Perhaps I’d confused this with some other work—since I’ve been working on this off and on for quite some time. I’m sorry. Do you think the work I’ve done on this could be deleted? I’ll remove the link, of course.
And thanks for informing me before I got in too deep :) -Akme (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
No worries, I can easily delete the pages you've created. Whenever a work is a transclusion there will be a "source" tab (between "page" and "discussion"), clicking on it leads to the corresponding index (so it is easy to check). Also in the "display options" there are switches that allow you to see links to specific transcluded pages (choose "page links displayed"). Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC).
Thanks a lot -Akme (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


Hi Akme,

I moved this work down to "To Be Proofread" status because I noticed a number of images have yet to be proofread and validated.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, somehow I was under the impression that images didn’t come under the "work proper" category. And thanks for the timely warning: Looks like I’ll have to revert the changes made in the status of one or two other works. —Akme (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The Mystery of Edwin Drood[edit]

Hi, all the chapters for the work have already been in place (see Chapter I, etc.). There is no need to create duplicates, you can just replace the existing text with the transcluded one. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 06:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC).

I’m sorry -- again! If possible, please delete whatever I’ve done (excepting, perhaps, the Front Page). Perhaps I could redo them properly, later. —Akme (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Images for The Floating Prince[edit]

Hello. I was wondering if you, or someone else, had plans to add images to The Floating Prince, etc. I wouldn't mind working on them, but if they have already been created somewhere else—but just not uploaded yet—I wouldn't want to duplicate the work. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I’d really be happy to see you take this up. While I’m okay with editing of the images, the other stuff defeats me -- all the tagging, describing, etc. I can name a few other projects where your help will be invaluable -- if you are interested ;) —Akme 18:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll get started with The Floating Prince in a bit, and potentially future projects. I like working with images, but in moderation... Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Images are finished. I believe, however, that this text is made up of several distinct short stories—not chapters. The stories are not successive/related to one another. If it's alright with you, I would like to move the Mainspace titles to their respective short story names; eg., rename The Floating Prince and Other Fairy Tales/Chapter 3 as The Floating Prince and Other Fairy Tales/The Reformed Pirate. But I wanted to get your input first. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I wanted to comment that you should be removing spaces at the end of each line when proofreading. Not sure if that's policy, but a good practice. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
You’re welcome to make any changes you think are right. I think you are right about renaming: I’ll remember to do that in my new projects. (Incidentally, the second story in Floating Prince is a sequel of the first.)

I’m not sure I agree with you about removing the blank spaces at the end of each line (though I do remove it for the last paragraph, since the software doesn’t always join non-blank lines there.) As with PGDP (, the proofing arm of PG) I believe that this makes it inconvenient for the next proofer to find his place in long paragraphs (esp. in, say, the works of the 19th century or someone like Henry James.) However, I will follow that practice from now on, regardless of feelings :)

Thanks for the interest —Akme 04:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Just looked at (some of) the illustrations. Nice work. Thanks, again. —Akme 09:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure! Again, feel free to get a second opinion on the end-of-line spaces before you change your practices; I have just always been under the impression that they may be problematic... not sure of the technical reasons. Thanks for letting me know about the sequel bit. I will make note of it. Let me know if you want images larger. I usually don't set width, but it is your call. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Mainspace layout suggestion[edit]

Sorry to bug you with another proposal, but I was wondering if, instead of using "max-width=450px" in the Mainspace, you use the {{default layout|Layout 2}} tag. I have used "The Floating Prince" as an example. It also justifies text. Let me know! Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

That seems good: I never saw this anywhere, surprisingly, and I’d be really happy to implement it henceforth. But how do you know what the (fixed) width is? To me the ideal--in children’s books, at least--would be to have a maximum width of 600px, and with the horizontal images around 3/4th of that width. (Also--this may be beside the point--with all, or most, images of standardised width--say 250px for the vertical and 400px for the horizontal ones. Excepting those where the text flows around them.) Will it be alright with you if I change the width in your images accordingly? —Akme 10:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not well versed on the technical details of layout, unfortunately, or what looks best on what device is being used for viewing, etc... Feel free to adjust images as you see fit! Thanks again, Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Just noticed that you’ve already completed the Mainspace-names conversion! And here I was thinking of starting on this while you worked on the images ;) Thanks again —Akme 14:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Image projects[edit]

You mentioned that there are some projects I could possibly help out with with images. Could you point to a few so I could see what might be of interest? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Here you are :
1. Five Children and It (Edith Nesbit): Index:Fivechildren.djvu half of the images done around 2 years back.
2. Baboo Jabberjee (F. Anstey): Index:Baboohurrybungsh00anstiala.djvu Images from "Punch," where the story was first serialised.
3. Nicholas Nickleby (Charles Dickens): Index:Nicholas Nickleby.djvu
4. Blue Magic (Edith Ballinger Price): Index:Blue_Magic.djvu Only 5 images to be inserted (and validated) for book to be validated.
5. The Russian Garland of Fairy Tales: Index:The_Russian_Garland_of_Fairy_Tales.djvu
There are a lot more actually—the problem seems to be that most of us here, unlike you, don’t seem to have the ability to work with images.
Thanks —Akme 13:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I think I've narrowed it down to two... I can get started on Baboo and Russian Garland soon. The images for Five Children available here and online are not great quality; Nicholas Nickleby has a lot of foxing to the images... there are other versions online (at Google Books) I might be able to work with—perhaps in the future—but I have yet to find a version which includes this title page; Blue Magic has music scores as images, and I would not know how to work with them.
I noted your comment above with regard to titling, etc. All that should now need tweaking is image size (if you wish to tackle that); otherwise, it should be good to go. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
You’re right about Blue Magic, of course; I’d forgotten that the problem pages were mostly those with music scores. The previous proofreader had done a quite wonderful job of converting them to notations, but unfortunately they doesn’t scale down well.
And yes, "Floating Prince" does seem good enough now. In the one chapter I examined, the images were very clear. Any minor tweaks could always be done later. Thanks —Akme 15:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Some more, in case you are interested and find the time:
I worked on the image tags. To my mind the results make the quality of your work more apparent. I’m hoping to do some cleaning up of the paragraphs, as in your suggestions (and the Style Guidelines, too), before "adding" the book. —Akme 06:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Noting your validation of the images pages, I suddenly had the realization that I added the images without proofreading the pages first, even though I marked the pages as proofread... Usually, when I work on a text with images, I proofread the pages even though I mark it as problematic (for missing images); then, when I go to add the images, I already know the pages have been proofread, and so I automatically mark the page as proofread... Well, you could say I assumed you had already proofread the images pages as well, but I didn't even get to the point of assuming—I was just running on auto pilot and marked them as proofread without thinking or assuming. Long story short, if the pages were not actually fully proofread, I will go through them and do a double-check—unless you tell me that you had proofread them already... Sorry about that! Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Same problem here, unfortunately. I did do the initial proofing; the second time I just assumed you’d done the same, so it was a casual affair, with the focus on image size and cleaning up the blank spaces. I don’t mind proofing it again: I’ve only done the cleaning-up of the first story; when I go over the rest (casually) I can re-proof the validated pages —Akme 15:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
How about I proofread the image pages and you just worry about the general clean-up? Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
You’re more than welcome :) —Akme 03:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Image pages have been re-proofed for The Floating Prince. Images have also been added to Baboo Hurry Bungsho Jabberjee, B.A.. You may wish to resize them; I have left them as thumbnail size again. This time, I actually proofread the pages! Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Images added to Index:The Russian Garland of Fairy Tales.djvu. I left them as unproofread so you can resize. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh my God! Do you realise that your speed (with quality) is giving me a nervous breakdown? But thank you, anyway. (Joking aside, I really appreciate it. Now I can remove it from my "left hanging" list — once I add the "width" tags, of course!) Thanks again —Akme 14:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Use of {{scan}}[edit]

Good morning! Your edit on the Stockton author page led me to ask at the Scriptorium what the understood use of {{scan}} was. It has been my assumption that its use on an author page was for the purpose of pointing users to an Index, and that when an index is completed, the scan link is removed and just the blue-linked title remains. I'm still waiting for more responses, but I am of the opinion that a page full of scan links looks bulky, and that blue links are sufficient,—but I didn't want to make an assumption in case I was wrong about the matter. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

(A very good morning to you too) Well … you may be right (and probably are, too :)). But I do feel that link=Index:{{{1}}} is useful for separating the PG-copy / no-source-on-WS books (and there are really many of them) from those with source. Also, I feel, a book is really "finished" only when it’s validated: I use this method to keep track of books which I could possibly work on; or even to provide source for those books which don’t have any. (There are times when I have clicked on innumerable links, just to find one I could work on.)
But chances are that, as usual, this doesn’t agree with WS policy or opinion. And again, there are places where I’ve gone overboard in marking even the validated files. So do feel free to make corrections. (BTW, not really related but … is there any way to mark the PG based copy-paste jobs? [PG], perhaps?) —Akme 12:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
It would be good to have a way of identifying unindexed works from indexed ones, but then you get into the aesthetic aspect of doing so... Plain blue links are cleaner, in my opinion. I am not aware of any templates/tags for marking PG works, but you might ask around. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Adam Bede[edit]

Thank you SO MUCH for proofreading a sourced edition of this novel! --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

/* Please Proofread the Red Ads */[edit]

Akme, I have been validating Will you please proofread the Ads at the end that are presently colored red? Then I will to do the images to be validated. —Maury (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow! Do I really understand correctly—that you mean to add the "missing images"? That would be wonderful! I'll get on to the ads soon. Thanks. —Akme 03:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
(Some time later...) Thanks!

You're welcome Akme. I also validated most all of your book. I appreciate the "Thanks".

Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

New hardcopy of The Scarlet Pimpernel[edit]

A new 2016 paperback edition of The Scarlet Pimpernel can be found at Amazon UK for £8.49. The Scarlet Pimpernel at Amazon UK --kathleen wright5 (talk) 06:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I just got the Barnes and Nobles Classics 2005 edition. Thank you, anyway:) —Akme 06:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

We wouldn't delete long standing chapters. They will get moved and/or turned into redirects or dated soft redirects. PLUS we would only remove a work if it is an exact copy of the edition. If it is not that edition, it then becomes disambiguated and becomes sets of editions. [I undid your deletion request for the chapter 1, and we can look at it when there is new content.] — billinghurst sDrewth 06:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh ... okay. Thank you for informing me before I made a mess of it with renaming the other chapters. —Akme 08:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Proofread works, all being transcluded?[edit]

Hi. I have noticed that you have been doing an absolute truckload of transcription work, congratulations. What I am uncertain about is whether all these works are being transcluded, and as they are not necessarily linked from the Index: pages, it isn't obvious; hence I am here asking. If it is all being done, and it is simply delayed from the completion of transcription, fantastic. I am just not wanting to see lots of transcription work done, and then not have it viewable in the main namespace, which would be a terrible waste. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean (I'm even more dumber than you think.) Can you give a specific example? OTOH, if I did understand rightly, some works have been left hanging as I'm unsure how to proceed. e.g., Adam Bede (vol 1-3): (I've been meaning to ask but always forget while something else catches my fancy) Should I transcribe it as 3 separate volumes or as a combined edition? Thanks —Akme 04:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
There is no right or wrong answer for transcribing multi-volume works, though I tend to just do them as one work, maybe as a joined, or maybe as separate ToC — depends really. You can see an example of a joined work at My Life in Two Hemispheres.

My comment came about as I saw The Country House and noticed another on another day in the past week, and knowing whether you transcluded a work means digging digging digging, rather than casual noticing. We don't have good means for checking whether a work is transcluded or not, so I am asking in order to find out, in case there is stuff we can do to assist. FWIW if transcription is your favoured activity, and transclusion is not, then just dump a note onto WS:S asking for someone to do the transclusion, or to help. We are pretty good in helping out in that sort of means as we are a community. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! That's just the answer I needed (esp. the link to My Life in Two Hemispheres). There are a few works, taken up on a whim, where I'd be happy to see the community take over: those without artistic illustrations, mostly. Now I just have to remember their names :) Thanks again. —Akme 05:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Try looking at your Index: ns contributions.

Can I take that as "if I find any older works untranscluded that I should just do them?" One never wants to take away the part that someone likes to do. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if it's over two months old. Yes, yes, yes, (definitely!), for those over three months old: it almost certainly means that they've been forgotten :) —Akme 06:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It isn't me you should be thanking...[edit]

...regarding Page:Alexis de Chateauneuf - The Country House.djvu/81 I take my hat off to you. How on Earth did you make out the caption? I tried quite hard and eventually gave up sort of hoping nobody would notice! AuFCL (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You can keep your hat on. I cheated: I looked at the gutenberg file, then I at the other plates—which have the same inscription, only the numbers changing. But thanks for the undeserved compliment anyway :) —Akme 04:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

image source[edit]

Hi. I see you that you are focused on adding or improving texts, so excuse me for interrupting that with a query. I just noticed on recent changes that you added an image to Page:Dickens - Edwin Drood (Chapman and Hall, 1870).djvu/117. Can you tell me if the source for that image was File:Dickens - Edwin Drood (Chapman and Hall, 1870).djvu-117.png or from somewhere else? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 19:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

All images are from the zip of processed images at mysteryofedwindr00dickrich (TIA; from where the djvu file came). I do hope I've not messed up what someone else (you?) have done. I can undo the changes if that is so. It's not deliberate, believe me :) —Akme 08:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
That is what I do: get the zip of jp2 data (a fairly large zip) from 'TIA', do my best to clean it up, then convert that to png. Just to clarify, another user uploaded the tiff files (enormous) and made it available from the template as a png, eg. the example I gave above. The idea is, as I understand it, is to use the highest quality file and apply 'incremental changes'. One advantage of this is avoiding the download of a zip file containing a lot pages you don't need for image processing, like text pages. I thought you may have overlooked this, and wanted to alert you to what was going on. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I definitely did overlook that; rather, I didn't notice it at all. I'm quite sure that the pages were marked Problematic, so I just went ahead to complete the proofing. (I hate seeing the file marked "to be proofread," when all it needs are a few images.) I'll check in future, though. Thanks again —Akme 13:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Short Stories/Mine Haus[edit]

Hello. I understand your intent but have you considered the impact on or about Short_Stories/Mine_Haus#48? I am afraid your edit re-introduced that space between the opening quote of " sem-terry," and the rest of the word which I had eliminated back here. (Perhaps the comma was overkill.) I know this is a fuss over a tiny space but I wanted you to be aware there was a reason (however silly) for doing it this way. I shall leave the matter in your hands. AuFCL (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry: I've changed it back. But, I must clarify, I made the changes only because the rollover preview showed two extra quote marks (which - I didn't think to check before - did *not* display in the transclusion.) Thank you for bringing it to my notice :) —Akme 08:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
My turn to be surprised. So it does! Taking {{Hyphenated_word_start}} for example, the line which displays the pop-up reads <span title="{{{title|{{{2|{{{s|}}}{{{e|}}}}}}}}}"> so that is where the extra quote marks come from. Well I suppose it has to use something, and in most cases the enclosed word does not already contain a quote mark. Good spot, though! AuFCL (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Two Magics[edit]


Not sure if you're aware—there's no reason why you should be—but I've been working through the prose fiction of Henry James in chronological order for over three years now. So far I've proofed 13 novels and 78 short stories. I'm doing What Maisie Knew now, and Two Magics is next on my list. The index you're working on is one of a very few that had already been uploaded and started before I got started on Henry James. I've been keeping an eye on it, hoping that it would still be there when I got to it, and I noticed when you started proofing "Covering End".

To come to the point: some contributors here, upon finishing proofing a work, seek for someone to validate it. I don't know if you're one of those, but if so can I ask you please not to do so in this case, as you already have a keen validator: me. I'd appreciate the opportunity to validate this so that I can keep my chronological run going.

Hesperian 02:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. While I was aware that you were working (and doing a wonderful job) on Henry James' works (I've been seeing a few uploaded to the New Texts) I wasn't aware that you were doing it in chronological order, and that is why you hadn't worked on Two Magics yet. I did check to see that nobody had been working on this for the last 3-6 months: seeing none, I assumed it was uploaded (mainly) for The Turn of the Screw, and thought I might as well finish it.
Re. validating: I'm not one of those who look for validators: so you've a clear field there :) And, FWIW, my very best wishes on your project. —Akme 04:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, nothing to apologise for; and thanks for the kind words. Hesperian 07:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


Since I see you are working on this, and I know you proofread quickly, I'll suggest that you nominate this work for FT once it's validated. It could make a good October selection. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. But I'm not really proofreading it—just doing what I call a "glance-over pass" using Book2scroll (I edit the page only if I notice anything worthwhile.) It's only a temporary break from formatting. I do agree with you though; it would be a good choice for an October FT :) —Akme 18:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Considering I did quite a lot of this, I would also support an October FT nomination.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Moved gutenberg version of AofGG[edit]

I see that you have finished the proofreading of a scanned version of AoGG, so I moved the existing Gutenberg version out of the way, and created a {{versions}} page there. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I was just trying to generate enough enthusiasm to compare this version to the gutenberg (prior to replacing it if both are same) :) —Akme 12:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Index:The Adventures of Tom Sawyer.djvu[edit]

Want to help?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, some images! I'd love to help, but there are too many half-finished works which I've taken up that I need to finish first. Unless you'd like some help with the images?
Of course, for a work like this there should be no end of volunteers :) —Akme 16:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
feel free to do the image work, and I'll keep on with the text. BTW do you have a list of unfinished works?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, sort of, from the usual place: the Community Portal: Category: Proofread, Not-Proofread & Split into sections —Akme 17:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
ShakespeareFan00 Excuse the intrusion. You could try User:Humbug26/indices as another source. Humbug26 (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Lot better, since it contains the name of the book, not the djvu file. —Akme 16:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for linking the images. I was going to leave the actual proofreading to a new contributor, User:BU Rob13, but will continue doing OCR cleanup/initial formatting as before. I suggest you co-ordinate with them concerning image additions, which looks like it will be more complex than I thought. At the moment, getting the text is the important thing.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The Rainbow letter[edit]

Thank you for this. You managed to format it in the way I was aiming for. BethNaught (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I did? Then this must be the first time I did something right here. You gave me such a shock! :) —Akme 14:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Page:The Adventures of Tom Sawyer.djvu/63[edit]

For me the two image mis-align very slightly. But as I've said elswhere I'm not sure you'd get very precise layouts here without resorting to a complex solution. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It displays fine on Firefox for me, but probably the ratio is not exact. I'll try replacing the files with the larger image of an easily divisible size. —Akme 11:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You might also want to look at {{Flow under}}, which means the image doesn't need to be split at all :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

A lot better, thanks. So I'll carry on with editing the images. Hopefully it won't duplicate AuFCL's(?) efforts unnecessarily, but it seems more trouble to check than to upload all remaining, chapter by chapter. The proofreaders can then select whatever suits them. —Akme 03:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

After creation can be added to WD[edit]

Hi. After you have created the author page here, you should be able to add it at Wikidata in the Wikisource section. The linking from that end creates the relationship and then the linking from this side. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. If you're referring to the details of Jonathan Sturgis Sturges, I've just finished doing the necessary. I hope :) —Akme 11:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and when we add them to Wikidata, then we can rely on Wikidata to provide the authority control data. If WD provides that data, we just need to have the template without any parameters here at WS, and the magic will automatically happen. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, got it. Thank you again. —Akme 07:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Chapter nn, rather than roman numerals[edit]

Hi. The community long ago moved to having chapters utilise numbers rather than roman numerals, so I am wondering whether you transcluding of Nisbet's work was purposeful or just incidental? — billinghurst sDrewth 08:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that: I thought both were equally valid (and I find this way more convenient in the 'Next' and Previous' fields). I'll change over from the next work. Or would you like me to do it with the remaining chapters (and rename those already done? —Akme 08:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Preference would be for them to be renamed. The reason for the policy was that we future proofed inbound links by using an agreed nomenclture for internal links to works. Re linking, I have a script that does -1/+1 for prev/next which works well for numeric chapters which you can steal if you are using the TemplateScript gadget. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thank you, I will. (Even if I do wish you'd said so earlier--I've almost reached the end of this.) I'll use 'Move'--somewhere on the Menu at the top of the page iirc--scripts and such creatures are beyond my limited intelligence :) —Akme 15:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Done. Not as messy as I thought it might be. At my end at least :) —Akme 03:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The difficulties of people being on different time zones. :-/ Thanks, and did I accidentally make a bit of a mess earlier, easy to tidy up, however, a mess all the same. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The Poetry of Architecture.djvu[edit]

Akme, you’re a good editor and you are welcome for the validations --Maury (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Uh, thank you. The thanks for the validations was for showing me that a blank line before [dhr] was unnecessary. (Not to mention my other mistakes / omissions) :) —Akme 09:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

[Dhr] or [dhr] give the same result = 2 blank lines above text and two blank lines below text. If you drop 2 blank lines and apply [dhr] you have 4 blank lines. You may want to take a look at I like your choice of subjects and especially the images. Kind regards, --Maury (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Missed a page[edit]

Hi. With Index:Mary Rinehart - More Tish .djvu one page was missed from transclusion, though it was marked as fully transcluded. I am wondering whether you were using the checking facility tool behind the Crystal man.png icon. One of the purposes behind my introduction of the Category:Fully transcluded was to check our work and pick up these cases, so I ask that the check be run prior to the categorisation. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. I will do so in future. Which page was it? Akme 03:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Thx. Re where ... umm, one at the end of a chapter, which is where I usually miss them. My edit should be easy to spot from Special:RecentChangesLinked/Index:Mary Rinehart - More Tish .djvu. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I did think it would be something to do with adding chapters: for some reason, I was finding a lot of difficulty concentrating on that, and almost gave it up :) Thanks again —Akme 03:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Century Magazine link[edit]

Hi. I recently created this template to make linking of these works easier. {{Century Magazine link/article name/volume/issue}} and it replicates Template:Littell's link in that manner. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Very nice, thanks. Any chance of getting one for The Strand Magazine? —Akme 04:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Template:Strand Magazine link noting that no examples until you have pages in place. Feel free to create shortcut redirects as you feel appropriate. Also to note that I have not done shortlink "lkpl" templates to this point as was no clear need, though can do some once there are real examples. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Wow, thank you! —Akme 05:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Joseph Young[edit]

There is ambiguity. Is it w:Joseph Young d:Q14711662 OR w:Joseph Angell Young d:Q14711657 who is the apostle. Then for the article itself on the JY author page you state by Brigham Young, though there is nothing evident on the article about Brigham. If you could remove that ambiguity that would be fantastic. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're right, it's Joseph (not Angell) Young, the elder brother of Brigham Young. The article clearly mentions him as being a contributor to Book 70 (LDS church). I just didn't think there would be two of them with the same name at the same time, both highups in the LDS church. I'll make the corrections :( —Akme 04:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Summary usage for template:new texts[edit]

Hi. When adding a work to template:new texts it would be great if you could use a descriptive summary. It is a good practice for that page as that page adds straight to the main page. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. I always mean to, but, in recent times, I always seem to forget. —Akme 16:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Validation assistance[edit]

Would you be able and willing to assist me by validating a work? I've just finished proofreading, and wouldn't normally be so rushed to have it validated, but I started this work in order to feature it this February.

The work is The Clandestine Marriage, and co-author David Garrick (the Laurence Olivier of his age) has his 300th birthday this February. It's also a comedy play on a topic suitable for Valentine's, so it seemed a good choice when I started it, but serious health issues have delayed my proofreading, and now only three weeks remain to have the work validated, nominated, and approved in order to feature it as originally planned. - Would you be able to assist? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd be very happy to, but will probably be able to do so only after the 18th. I could peg in with the others then if agreeable to you --Akme 14:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, although if Londonjackbooks and Beth Naught continue at their current pace, it will be done in another 2 to 3 days. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
If you've those two, anyone else is superfluous :) —Akme 14:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Lord Dunsany - The Sword of Welleran.djvu[edit]

Based on the given 1957 year of death for the author, this may not be out of copyright in it's origin country, which means it's not PD-old-70 as claimed, and thus may not be suitable for hosting on Commons.

It can still be hosted locally as it would be PD-US (by publication date), so you can ask for it to be transferred. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm fine with it's being deleted. I can't remember why I imported the file: by 2016 I knew the copyright rules for UK, and there is no way I could have mistaken Lord Dunsany for an American. I've a feeling I imported it for the illustrations, but I really can't say: I'd completely forgotten about the file. Please do go ahead with the deletion:) —Akme 03:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

fl and fi ligatures in Tom Swift[edit]

Hi, I see you're validating Tom Swift in the Caves of Ice. I was reminded that I had forgotten to trigger a bot task to fix the fi and fl ligatures that had slipped through. I had to use the OCR button for many of the pages and for some reason it put in the ligatures as single characters, which makes searches fail. I've just made the bot request, so it will make the validating easier. Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That should make it a lot easier. I have the same problem with these ligatures (and with curly quotes) every time I use the OCR. It's even worse when the spellcheck fails to mark every odd one. I'm quite sure that I must have missed more than a few. —Akme 09:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I have the 'fi' replacement available as part of my cleanup script, if that is of interest. Feel from to poke user:billinghurst/common.js if you need it or others. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Lord Dunsany - The Sword of Welleran.djvu[edit]

I have brought it over from Commons as we can host it here due to its year of publication. We do have an existing text paste, which we may need to review in detail to work out whether it is a separate edition, or not. Consider poking Zhaladshar about that ancient addition. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a feeling that my main interest in the file was the illustrations. They probably so intrigued me I forgot to check about the author:) Thanks again —Akme 02:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Russian Folk-Tales[edit]

I recently noticed the excellent job you did! It's a big help for me, as I'm using it for an English reading class this semester. I just have one question. Would you mind if I changed the category for the individual tales from Folkore to Russian folkore? I think categorising all individual tales directly as Folklore clutters things up a bit much. I'd also like to go through the tales and link them to the texts on Russian wikisource at the same time. Thanks! Mudbringer (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the (probably) exaggerated praise:) I agree with you about better defining the category. And you're more than welcome to make any change you feel right. Especially since, as a teacher you probably know a lot more than me. While I do my best, there are many areas in my work which could do with improvement. I'm so glad you reminded me that I need to relook at my older works for improper or over-categorisation. [Edit: Linking it with Russian texts would be really wonderful!] —Akme 14:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Page:Dorothy Canfield--Hillsboro People.djvu/134[edit]

There is a poem on this page. You had a bit of a problem when trying to align table cells. I had something similar at another site. If you are still interested in the solution, take a look. Humbug26 (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! I've bookmarked it to study when I'm a bit more free (and less tired). Thanks again. —Akme 17:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

In Bad Company, and other Stories[edit]


I've just removed the quote you'd put in the header of A Kangaroo Shoot because it doesn't appear in the source, but I've since noticed you've done cquote or note throughout your work, so I didn't delete anything else and came here! Is this a new idea or am I just behind the times?! Since it's not how the source document is presented, I think I will take some convincing that it's a good idea. I know that WS policies discourage slavish reproduction of, say, original layout, but this is more than that, since although I could see where the quote I deleted came from (penultimate page of that story), I'm not sure where you're drawing the others from? There is always a possibility, of course, that there is a "hide header notes" setting somewhere which I could happily turn on, although I'd still need convincing that the notes/quotes were warranted since they don't seem to be sourced from the original. Thanks. CharlesSpencer (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, actually, all the quotes are from the source. I find this an easy way of giving an idea of what's in the work. But thanks for pointing out that this may be distracting/irritating for others (even though I'll probably continue using it in other works :) )

But you're welcome to remove it in this work, since the text was added to WS by you. Hopefully, too, you'll be able to finish it. Thanks. —Akme 07:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I reckoned they probably had to be - I just couldn't find the other ones! But given the Australian subject matter, I reckon that gets a "No worries, mate!!!". Thanks CharlesSpencer (talk) 07:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 00:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The Oregon Trail[edit]

Hi Akme, do you remember working on The Oregon Trail a couple years ago? I just uploaded the file listed as the source, and have been doing a match & split. I'm about halfway through that, but just started to notice that the files do not match entirely. Note the last few words in the last two paragraphs on this page, for instance. Is it possible you were actually working from a different edition than the one you linked? -Pete (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I certainly do not remember working on this, though I've always meant to ;) It's quite likely it was copied from the gutenberg file, and only casually matched to the Internet Archive version. My apologies. I'll be happy to help in proofreading and ridding this file of the mismatch. —Akme 04:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's a good guess -- I looked for some of the mismatched text on the Gutenberg page, and it matches. The Gutenberg transcription does not seem to mention the edition, or included a title copyright page from the original, or link to a it stands to reason that the editions might have gotten crossed up when linking to an online version at the Internet Archive.
It would be enjoyable to work on it together, if you're game. I propose we simply match it to the one it's now linked to, from the Internet Archive. Do you happen to know of a template that we could put at the top in the meantime, to indicate "edition confusion"? -Pete (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you: it should be enjoyable working on this, since I always meant to. But I may have to limit my work to light proofreading: removing mismatch, adding RH's and chapter titles. Will that be alright?
Frankly, I feel that indicating the "edition confusion" is unnecessary. The changes seem minor--a word here or there, or--at most--a sentence removed. This edition (per title and copyright page) is "author's copyright edition, 1901). Just my 2c. —Akme 17:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Based on a recent conversation with a librarian, I feel that it's important to note these inconsistencies (and is one of the main things that will help librarians take Wikisource seriously). But that doesn't mean I think it's a big deal...just that it should be possible for a reader who cares about such things to find the info. How about this -- I moved the comment (and expanded it a little) to the talk page -- there's already a link on the main page, pointing to the talk page, called "information about this edition" -- so that seems to meet my goal, without intruding unnecessarily into the page of the main work. Better
And, as for your efforts on this work...I'll enjoy working with you to whatever extent you're able. No pressure! Thanks for your quick and thoughtful replies, already. -Pete (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
That seems right, I guess. And the more librarians actively interested, the better for the quality of work at Wikisource. Thanks —Akme 03:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and a small point[edit]

Hi Akme, thank you for your recent corrections to some works I've proofread and validated...looks like I was a bit sloppier than I realized, I appreciate your efforts. One point, though, might bear consideration: changes like this one are, I think, unnecessary. This is a trick I learned from @Billinghurst:; the {{hws}} template isn't really necessary in such cases, and I don't think it adds anything significant to insert it (as long as {{hwe}} is used properly on the following page). If you disagree, no big deal -- to each their own! Just trying to save you a little effort. -Pete (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, sorry for my recent neglect of The Oregon Trail -- I haven't given up on it, just got into too many projects at once! -Pete (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the use of {{hws}} is set predominantly to help newbies manage the hyphenation aspect. Putting the same into footer achieves the same result of putting it inside <noinclude>. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. That trick should save me some pain. But there may be a problem: The fact is that I was glancing over the book (chapterwise) and I noticed something like "pany" (or "company") there; IIRC, 1 or 2 pages after the transcluded page. (Incidentally, this doesn't appear in the transcluded individual pages) Which is why I made the changes. So, perhaps, something has busted in the code :). Good luck with your projects and thanks again. —Akme 03:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
If I'm understanding correctly, that's a separate problem -- an oversight of mine -- related actually to the {{hwe}} portion, not to the {{hws}} portion. What happens is this: I use the "runningheader" TemplateScript to fill in headers. There is a bug (note-to-self, I should check to see if it's been reported on Phabricator) in which it will populate the header not only with the proper contents, but also with templates that followed it...such as hws. So, if I'm working too fast / not paying attention, I forget to delete stray hws templates from the header, leading to messiness. I'm sorry to see I missed so many of them...I will be more careful in the future. -Pete (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. Cute tip; if it works well, should save quite a bit of trouble —Akme 06:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
And it does—perfectly! Blessings on Billinghurst (and you, of course.) —Akme 11:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Page end hyphenation and hws/hwe/auto-hyphen hoohah[edit]

I've now lost track of the note about some recent change where hyphenated words would now be automatically taken care of, so we (sometimes?) don't need hws/hwe? Do you remember seeing that?

Anyway, on start of PHILIPPA'S NERVOUS PROSTRATION, the page ends with "news-" and the next begins "papers". Yet there's no {{hws}} nor {{hwe}} magic, nor even a hyphen on "news". Is this an oversight or even more wonderful magic than implied by that note I can't find? Shenme (talk) 05:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the hyphen. You're right about the note (you need to add hws/hwe only if you want to preserve the hyphen): it used to be there on the Discussion (Scriptorium) page. It's gone now; probably been archived. [Edit: Do see the prev. message for avoiding the hws part of it] —Akme 05:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, here: hyphenated words. So merely by ending the page with "... news-" and then leaving the start of the next page as "papers ..." all will be joined up happily? Upon transclusion (?) the word will be automatically joined up with hyphen discarded? Too much magic makes me sneeze! Shenme (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Spicier with spaces?[edit]

Another question regarding Wiggin--Ladies-in-waiting and PHILIPPA'S NERVOUS PROSTRATION in particular.

There are instances of formations like "does n't". I figure it is a stylistic variation of the time in which it was written/published, just like "to-day", "to-night", and "to-morrow" can be seen written in that era.

See page 292 for an example.

My bias is to preserve the "signs of the times" (such as "to-day"), much like preserving the particulars of original Shakespeare or Chaucer. I wonder how you feel about "does n't"? Elsewhere in this same text I've seen this expunged, in favor of the modern flavorless "doesn't". What is your desire? Shenme (talk) 04:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(added) See page 295 for an instance of "could n't" and one changed to "couldn't"! Shenme (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Please ask this question at the scriptorium: I do my best, but I'm certainly no expert. As far as "Philippa's" is concerned, I personally would prefer "could n't" to "couldn't." But you are welcome to change it as long as changes are consistent, at least for the story. OTOH, if it's my carelessness, I apologize. [I think this question was raised at the Scriptorium; I forget, or missed out the answer. —Akme 08:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@Shenme: Or see this discussion on the topic which we recently had. What you're seeing is a half-space in the contraction, and there are several ways people handle them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Thank you. I had just found that discussion by narrowing down searches for " n't" :) I'm going to peek at those other discussions . . . Notes accumulated at User:Shenme/notes.
I'm thinking the determination is two-dimensional. If the insertion of spaces was entirely an artifact of printer pecularities, then modernizing to micro-sized contractions is reasonable. But if the insertion of spaces was an artifact of "the times", then alteration/deletion approaches translation of "to-day" to "today" and "Thou" to "You". You begin to lose reference to the era and the author's natural language.
Would it be reasonable to re-open the discussion at Scriptorium along this two-dimensional line, or just leave sleeping spaces lie? (Though see my notes at how often the subject resurfaces)
(Thank you for your forbearance, Akme - I wanted to avoid using a bullhorn at Scriptorium) Shenme (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
You could always broad a discussion if you feel there is something to be gained or resolved. In this instance, there is more than one interpretation, and I don't think we'll find a one-size-fits-all solution. I tend to preserve the space only if it appears in dialogue where the pronunciation is clearly dialectic, or in some poetry where collapsing the space would alter the rhythm. In most cases, I consider it to be a printing artefact akin to the half-space that used to be placed around an em-dash, or before an exclamation point, and collapse the half-space therefore. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
"In most cases, I consider it to be a printing artefact akin to the half-space that used to be placed around an em-dash ...": Most cases, I think I agree on the whole. And FWIW: In a 3-vol set by Jane Austen, the first two volumes have the spaces preserved, the third doesn't: In some (quite short) books by Herbert Jenkins, only the last fourth of the book doesn't. —Akme 07:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Title pages for Chickens[edit]

I uploaded a blank title page. File:Mother Careys Chickens-0011-alt.jpg. I recently saw an example of how to use these Page:Glen Aldyn Plays.djvu/1. So, it is there if you want it.

More about title pages. I was going to upload a librivox recording of the book and make a different version for them. That will be two "versions" and one "written work" at wikidata. I try to use the title page when there is a scan involved. So, if I put the cover at wikidata for your version, I apologize for the next apology which is: I am going to change the cover which is in the Infobox to the title page and I am sorry if you changed that.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Category for short stories in periodicals[edit]

Hello. I do not know if you are already aware of this, but Category:Short stories in periodicals now exists. Best regards. James500 (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I certainly did not. Thank you. —Akme 08:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Page21-619px-The Rover Boys at School.djvu.jpg[edit]

Hi. In 2016 you uploaded File:Page21-619px-The Rover Boys at School.djvu.jpg with the edit summary Replacement for page 9 (scan page 21) of The Rover Boys at School.djvu. As far as I can tell, this image scan is not currently used anywhere. So, since it's clogging up some maintenance categories… Would you object to deleting it? --Xover (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

If you wish. But, I feel, it may be better to replace the spoilt page in scan with this—if you can. But it's your call. Thanks —Akme 15:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh. I didn't realise the DjVu still had a problem. Sorry. I can indeed replace it (and feel free to ping me for any other such DjVu doctoring you need). But I take it then, that you have no objection to deleting the single page image once the DjVu is fixed? --Xover (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
None at all. Thanks a lot. —Akme 15:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Done. Thank you! --Xover (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Wow! Some speed! —Akme 16:37, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Need reminder where source pages from[edit]

I saw Walker_of_the_Secret_Service/Chapter_13 wander by in Recent changes and looked at it. Is the source only in these pages? That is, not included from pages proofread/validated elsewhere? I ask because I came across "for tune" easily enough. Perhaps it is not yet in final state? Shenme (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The link to source is in the discussion page. Thanks for improving the file —Akme (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

A problem with EPUB version of Middlemarch[edit]

Hello. I am very sorry to bother you, but EPUB version of this great novel does not contain text, only a table of contents Emojione 1F613.svg Is it possible to put chapters from Book 1, Book 2 etc. together on the novel's main page? --Ratte (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

When you remove all the links from a work's main page, it breaks the downloads. Please see The Age of Innocence for one way to avoid breaking the EPUB downloads. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Uh, sorry. I became aware of this problem quite some months ago, but somehow I haven't been able to get around to it. (One reason possibly being that I can't remember which files have been messed up.) I'll clean this file (and others which I can remember), as soon as possible. Thanks for reminding me of it. Also, thanks, Encylopey, for the solution. —Akme (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, it's done. Please check if it's acceptable now. Thanks. —Akme (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The Labyrinth of the World and the Paradise of the Heart[edit]

That’s great, thanks a lot! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Happy to help :) —Akme (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Bat Wing[edit]

Since no good deed goes unpunished, and I noticed that you had done quite a bit of work on Author:Arthur Henry Sarsfield Ward

Bat Wing, or rather File:Bat Wing 1921.djvu, was brought to my attention. It's tagged to not be moved to Commons because it is still in copyright in the UK until 70 years after Rohmer's death (1959+70=2039), which is correct if this book was first published in the UK. However, if the book was either first published in the US, or it was published in the US within 30 days of the UK publication, different rules apply and it is eligible for hosting on Commons as a US work.

And when I went looking for evidence of first publication I found that US newspapers start talking about this book at the end of April 1921, but UK newspapers first mention it towards the end of May 1921. So despite Ward being English, it certainly appears as if this book was first published in the US.

Do you happen to know anything about this book, or Ward's books in general, regarding this? Is there anything that makes it more plausible or less likely that this was the case? --Xover (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I know next to nothing about Sax Rohmer, besides the fact that, in genera,l I like his writing. It's been ages since I've worked on his books, I think. —Akme (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. --Xover (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome. Doubly so, since you've reminded me that's it's time for another go at Rohmer :) —Akme (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@Xover:: Actually, it seems I do have some information on his works in my comp. According to Wikipedia, the book was first published by Cassel, London. (As far as I can make out from WP, all books prior to 1927 were first published in UK, then the US; reversing thenceforth.) According to another site—which may have closed down now (—Bat-Wing was first serialized in Short Stories (UK) in 3 parts. —Akme (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The Eyes of Max Carrados[edit]

Many thanks for your help with this title! -McGhiever (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Quite a coincidence — I was just thinking of messaging you. Why not complete the fine work you started and add this entry to the "New texts" on the main page. Just click on the "add" in the "A partial listing of some new texts (add)" and follow the instructions. Excuse me if you already knew this :) —Akme (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
@McGhiever:: I took the liberty of adding it myself. I hope that's okay with you —Akme (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


Thank you for letting me know that this is possible, I apologize for not being aware of it before. I suggest not correcting anymore instances of two-em-dashes instead of bar2; there are quite a few. I'll take care of it; I'm going to run PastLovingBot through the pages again to catch and fix all instances of it. I will later also run the bot through other works I've done like Waylaid by Wireless and The Fighting Coward (1924 film) to fix this very error in all of those too. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. (And, okay, will do) —Akme (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)