User talk:Beeswaxcandle

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Beeswaxcandle (talk page)
Note: Please use informative section titles that give some indication of the message.


User talk
  • If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, and {{ping}} me to let me know you have replied.
  • If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
  • Please click here to leave me a new message.
Archive to 30 November 2012

Archive to 31 May 2013

Archive to 30 November 2013

Archive to 30 November 2014

Archive to 30 November 2015

Archive to 30 November 2016

Archive to 30 November 2018


Picky picky I am[edit]

Aside from the other note at Index talk:The History of Ink.djvu, I've also got a bee in my bonnet about small caps for special words as seen in The History of Ink.

Compare these two versions, using plain caps, and using sc. (BD2412 and I had an edit conflict, and thus this page provides a good example)

I think the second using {{sc}} better approximates the original, not least because of letter heights.

Elsewhere I think I've seen people using {{smaller|PAINTS}}. For comparison that would be

The old inks were PAINTS; the writing inks now ...
The old inks were paints; the writing inks now ...
The old inks were PAINTS; the writing inks now ...

What is to be used? Shenme (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably paints; I'm not trying to impose any formatting on the page, just creating pages. BD2412 T 03:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. My own preference is to use smallcaps. However, I don't mind which is decided on—as long as it's consistent. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Fombombo[edit]

Hello and happy Public Domain Day!

When you have a time for it could you please undelete Fombombo, Index:Fombombo.pdf and the related pages (Page:Fombombo.pdf/XX) as we chatted about it in 2015 on my talk page.

I would like to finish that book but as I haven’t worked on WS for long, it would be better not to start from zero. --Nonexyst d 16:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, all done. I didn't restore pages with no text as they're easy enough to redo. I've made a couple of adjustments at the same time. When there is no printed table of contents, we use {{AuxTOC}} when we want to provide one. I've put it together for you on the mainpage, but have left the one you created on the Index alone. Also, we use Arabic numerals for chapter subpages rather than Roman. So, alongside restoring the first 8 chapters I've moved them to Chapter 1, Chapter 2, etc. The AuxTOC has been set up for this. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

for semi-protecting my talk page. No more pings! Doug Weller (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations![edit]

I know this stuff doesn't mean as much here, but you made your 100,000th edit recently.[1] Congratulations!!!! Thank you for your contributions to Wikisource!MJLTalk 22:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC) edited: 22:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Spam/Spamming[edit]

Same nonsense BMI stuff as always. (Link) –MJLTalk 03:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

How does patrolling work?[edit]

Hi, I've come across a proofreader User talk:TE(æ)A,ea., working on Phil. Review while checking my watchlist, and s/he is still being patrolled after being quite active for more than 6 months. I was just wondering how the autopatrolling worked? Is this a red flag? Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 09:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Not a red flag. Just a way of keeping an eye on the new and new-ish editors and giving them hints and tips as required. I haven't had a chance to do a general review of their edits recently. I suspect that once I do, I will give them the autopatrol bit (unless someone else gets there first). The worst thing to do to someone (I believe) is to give them the bit and then take it away again, so I tend to be conservative. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

LilyPond[edit]

Hello Beeswaxcandle. I have been away for a while, but I just alighted on Chopin's Nocturne, and noted an error message... Are there issues with LilyPond? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Not that I can see other this one. None of our other big scores are failing. I've copied the Lilypond code into my off-line apps and it's compiling there just fine, so I'm not sure what's happening here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. Okay, no problem. Can you possibly point me to a score of similar composition here (if one exists) that was created since the Nocturne? I could try to compare them and see if I find anything odd (unless you think there is no point). Thanks if you can, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Seems to have also affected all 4 instances in my sandbox as well. So I'm guessing it's something exclusively present (or absent) in the markup of the particular score (Nocturne). Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
There are some longish scores in Fugue (Prout)/Chapter 9, but they all seem fine. You might be best to log a Phabricator ticket. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I will look into both at some point soon :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Odd, the MIDI player seems to read the code fine, even though it doesn't render on the page. @Londonjackbooks: I'd be happy to help creating a phabricator ticket if that's something you're not familiar with, just let me know. -Pete (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah, Thanks Pete! I just found your input here because I was going to look into it a bit this morning... Selfishly, I would love for you to create a ticket... In the meantime, I will take a look at the markup in comparison with another score while I am feeling ambitious. Thanks, and no hurry (Não te apresses)! Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, I created task T230499 on Phabricator. Important to point out, I don't think this ticket is likely to lead to a solution in itself; the benefit, I think, is that it creates a space to collect ideas about what might be happening. Whether anybody knows enough to contribute something, is a very open question! But, at least it's there. Please feel free to add to it if I missed anything in my description.

Also, I wonder...I haven't done much with scores myself, so I don't know if I can do this...but, have you tried a process-of-elimination approach? That is, cut out the second half of the score, and see if the problem persists...then cut out the first half, and check again. See if you can narrow it down... -Pete (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It was the first score I ever did. Can't say I knew exactly what I was doing! Thanks very much for creating the ticket, and I may try to play with the score... but if memory serves, it's not completely... what's the word... linear? But I don't remember specifically. I'm glad things are well with you :) Later, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like @Ankry: finally solved this! See here. Also, this is a really lovely piece...I'm enjoying a listen as I type. (Ankry also suggests this should be on multilingual Wikisource, since it doesn't have any English language content.) -Pete (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The Message and Ministrations of Dewan Bahadur R. Venkata Ratnam[edit]

Can you help in the multivolume work of R. Venkata Ratnam. I have started the main page. How to link to the various volumes of his work similar to the "Castes and Tribes of Sothern India" Thank you.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Index:Directory to Heath's Book of Beauty 1833.pdf[edit]

What to do with something like this? It is an excerpt, and cannot easily be transcluded like that with any value. Trying to reconstruct it from the parts is way too much trouble. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

We've already got Index:Heath's Book of Beauty 1833.pdf, which is transcluded (I think it's only Landon's poetry out of it and not the complete text, but that's a different issue). I suggest that deleting the Directory and its pages is the best way forward. I can't see that there's anything useful there that isn't in the other. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Index:The Army and Navy Hymnal.djvu[edit]

Thanks for the adding score to this, would you also be considering adding appropriate instrument choices, in the way the earlier IP contributor had previously? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the default piano is an inappropriate instrument for these hymns. I doubt the users that this hymnal was designed for had access to pipe organs while at sea or in the field. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay. That I can agree with. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The thought was flute or brass actually. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

talk pages deleted[edit]

en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author_talk:Charles_A._Buck

en.wikisource.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Morphy:_His_Later_Life

You should restore above conversations because there is no proof buck was born in 1866 or died in 1916, the questions was asked to provide sources!

Morphy, his later life, main page was reverted by billinghurst, january 11 is wrong, i have the copy of the original book, it says January 1902.

They were deleted because the discussion of Lubock's (sp?) defence is out of scope. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
whatever he said about the part on 1866 & 1916 not being sourced, about january 11 1902 being wrong you should have left!

Delete The Meaning of the Glorious Koran[edit]

I see you've placed a placeholder at The Meaning of the Glorious Koran; can we simply delete it outright? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I did it that way as a sop to the editor who created it twice in 24 hours. They complained about the deletion on my talk page (archive3/item 55). It really doesn't worry me if it gets deleted now. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:54, 28 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)

👍[edit]

billinghurst sDrewth 22:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

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

Reverse[edit]

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/9634089 Could you reverse This Page to this version 2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:7108:44FC:B410:6E1B 23:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Declined without evidence that the article you wish to have put back in would meet our inclusion criteria. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Please Edit[edit]

File:His Excellency Mr. Sukavich Rangsitpol Minister of Education ThaiLand 1995-1997.jpg 2001:44C8:448A:2853:3C4B:5194:4FE8:9737 08:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

No. You have not specified what you want edited, nor why. You have to give us more than this. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
It was relating to the author page which had a dead image, pulled from WD. I have edited WD to poke in that image. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

November Proofread of the Month[edit]

Hi Beeswaxcandle,

The Proofread of the Month hasn't been switched over to November's yet. There is a suggestion on the discussion page, which seems to be suitable (has a DjVu on IA and has support). Do you know when the PoTM will be switched over?

Thanks, DraconicDark (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The Meaning of the Glorious Koran[edit]

Could you please use the defaultsort template so that the page is listed under M for meaning in the category pages instead of T for The. Thank you Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Nez Perce Christianity[edit]

Hi, thanks for addressing my request re: The Souvenir of Western Women/Nez Perce Christianity. I think I didn't give enough context: nobody was proposing that should be removed from the Wikisource tranclusion, merely that it be appended to the end of the previous item (The Souvenir of Western Women/Susan B. Anthony's Visits to Oregon), as it was in the original book. That's now been done. I think it's clear that it should be in one place or the other but not both.

If it was just a matter of me not stating the issue clearly enough, perhaps you could delete. Or, if you understand but think that's the wrong decision, could you please explain why on Index talk:The Souvenir of Western Women.djvu so that we can come to some kind of agreement and move on from this detail? -Pete (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Please advise on whether or not a salvaged retail binder of a defunct business should be scanned[edit]

Thanks for your instruction on how to use sic to deal with errors in original documents.

You seem to be a person to approach with this next issue.

I'm in possession of a loose-leaf binder which was salvaged from the now-defunct Kroch's & Brentanos bookstore which was located at 29 S Wabash in Chicago. It was found in rubble by a worker who was involved in the demolition of the building. It's titled "Branch Reports Fiscal 75-76" It's a ring binder (the rings open and close to accept pages with 3 holes in their margins) filled with very detailed reports on each of the branch stores in the Chicago area. Its introductory page is signed by Willian J. Casey. Maybe the best way to convey what this is, would be to write here a portion of what Mr. Casey wrote on the introductory page.

"Communication is acutely important in an operation like ours, when you have two nationwide competitors actively competing for the same business in our trading area. The enclosed branch store reports are basically constructive observations of the managers, assistants, and department managers of K&B Branch Stores."

This binder contains hundreds of pages. It's a compilation of each manager's 1976-76 report regarding the store that he or she managed. For example, one manager writes "Our stationary department had an increase of $3,543.44 or 2.04%. We have had one full time employee in this department and a great turnover in part time students." Another store manager writes "At least three times (if I remember right) we have needed repairing on roof. Whenever we have a heavy rain for a long time, we get out covers and keep our fingers crossed that it will be this time we are spared the job of cleaning up. We have an ample supply of waste containers just in case and thank goodness I'm in walking distance as I check a few times before going to bed."

Along with such plain-word reports, the binder contains many graphs and charts showing sales numbers, salary amounts, and other detailed financial data. Each store section is introduced by smiling portrait photographs of the managers, assistants, and other staff in that store.

The Kroch's retail establishment has passed into history and many would consider this to be useless garbage. It was about to go into a dump truck and be carted off to a landfill never to be seen again, but it was salvaged, given to me, and I held onto it because I think it's a significant "document" in the history of Chicago retailing. I think it would be interesting and valuable to those who study commercial/retail history. To just toss it away doesn't seem right.

Considering copyright, privacy, and all other relevant things, what is your advice on what to do with this? Ernst76 (talk) 08:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ernst76: Sorry for delay in responding. Because these documents have not been published they are a documentary source. At enWS documentary sources have to meet the Wikipedia notability requirements, and have a license that permits us to host the documents. Because the reports cover the year 1976 they are within copyright, so you would need to obtain permission (or a release) from each author in that source. All that said, from a social history perspective I agree that the "time-capsule" you have is indeed interesting and valuable. Here in New Zealand some of our museums or libraries would be interested in equivalent documents, but I don't know the American attitudes to such. I'm not sure what else I can suggest. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for Updating Source on Watts' Hymns[edit]

Just wanted you to know that your source edit was highly appreciated.ThePlanetarian, Very much new to the Wikisource process. (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Portal:Proofreading milestones code to identify?[edit]

Hi. The page hasn't been updated for a while, and an ugly count shows 3465 is the current tally. Did you have a script to run the count at particular times? I think at one point I had a rough DPL means, but cannot see that I kept that code. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I was doing it manually by trying to keep an eye on the Index validated category. I lost focus at enWS for about six months (too many things going on) and lost track completely. I'm not sure how Adam was doing it when he started the page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Manual? Mad man! BTW hope that you are well and that wasn't one of the things going on. Let me see if I can figure something out. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 12:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Gaurav Gaikwad page related issue[edit]

Hello what is the issue with Gaurav gaikwad I have provided all the reference links which are eligible for creating wikipedia page

This is Wikisource, not Wikipedia. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Editing toolbar[edit]

Hello Beeswaxcandle. Hope all is well. I was wondering if you had any insight into the following: The customized toolbar has been gone for some time, which is sort of fine... But the one button or option I really care to maintain/have better access to is the <br /> button that I just click, click, click down the ends of lines of poetry. It is presently located to the right of my character insert toolbar, but that is located at the bottom of my editing window instead of at the top (although it sometimes but rarely shows up at the top)... which is not helpful. Do you have any insights? Thanks if you can help :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, this time I can't help. When they took away the older but more useful toolbar, I didn't opt into the new one. My own solution to poetry line breaks is to type it once and then copy/paste it on to the end of each line. I'm principally a keyboard user in preference to mousing, so this is the best solution for me. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
OK. Thank you Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Transclusion Help[edit]

Hi Beeswaxcandle,

I was wondering if you'd be able to help me regarding the transclusion process.

I'm writing on behalf of myself and three other staff from the National Library of Scotland who will be focusing on validating some of the works we're uploading. If they need to contact you individually, just let me know and I'll pass the message on! I know you've been in contact with some members of the team already regarding helping with our editing procedures, so am just in touch to learn more about the 'transclusion' stage.

Thank you! Anna

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I too will be able to help beginning later today. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Annalang13:, the first thing to do is to select a completed work. So, let me know which work you want to start with. I recommend one of the shorter prose works.
  • The next thing will be to link the title on the Index: to the Mainspace title (the name the work will be searched for).
  • Then we'll create the Mainspace page, fill in the header template, add the license and categories
  • Finally, we'll use a special phrase that will create the links for the text.
Yes, this does sound a little daunting when it's laid out like that. However, I promise that once you've done a couple, it will make sense and become easier. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Index:Bonny bell (1).pdf and Index:Bonny bell (2).pdf[edit]

Was this what you meant by 'uploaded' twice?

These seem to be not only identical text, but an almost identical printing. One scan seems clearer though, so I think theses are different copies of closely related printings. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle: Have compiled a listing of some of these near identical printings here - Wikisource:WikiProject NLS/Duplicates in respect of index pages, you might want to consider asking the NLS people, to do some duplicate identification in respect of uploads at Commons?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Categorisation glitch?[edit]

Index:Factor's_garland_(1).pdf

If the category is placed via the templated option - it categorises under W, when it should by normal rule categorise under? Am I missing something here? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet (Dowden)[edit]

This format will not download properly as an EPUB, as I recently discovered with the Yale Shakespeare series. The complete list of contents needs to appear on the first screen, since the download will only capture those pages linked from the first screen. I've made adjustments to the Yale Shakespeare to permit that to happen, such as at Macbeth (1918) Yale. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Scrambled NLS uploads...[edit]

Moved the list of "scrambled" uploads to Wikisource:WikiProject NLS/Scrambled.

I plan on looking at again soon, to try and figure out what should be where, unless others get to it first.

I would oppose deletion, as I feel thing can be salavaged, albiet it's time consuming doing the matching and re-alignment of the meta-data at Commons (which I'm not technicall editing at the moment). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The Pearl: Annotations policy[edit]

The London Aquarium at that time was showcasing a series of acts. One was "Princess Amazulu, Daughter of King Ceteweyo and Suite", a troupe of Zulu maidens supposedly led by an actual daughter of the defeated Zulu King Cetshwayo. An Orangutan was on display as well, billed as an "Old Man of the Woods", the literal translation of its name. Hotspur23 (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Improper deletion[edit]

I had mentioned that the index page had been improperly deleted because the pages which were included as a part of the index, which had a proofread text layer, were transcluded. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC).

seeking your 3 x 20c opinion, nothing binding[edit]

Three bits of significant (ugh!) maintenance that I have been considering for a while and just garnering cloud thoughts, nothing binding, not official positions, etc.

  1. Moving the (DNB00) works to be subpages of the 3 respective DNB publications, and all the template fixes that entail, leaving redirects
  2. Moving all (historical) roman numeral labelled subpages to arabic numeral subpages, as such getting clear alignment with style guide,
  3. Addressing author categories to be renamed to be clear that they are for author: ns pages.
    Getting more of this pushed from WD to me seems to have value. I have been progressing the "Biographies of ..." for works that I have undertaken, and there needs to be some alignment and some clarity.

How scary or unnecessary do you see these 3 tasks? If some were to progress which do you see as a priority and have most value? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that anything to do with WD is customarily ignored by me as outside my ken and interests, all three are big and messy. The sheer number of redirects left by moving DNB00 pages is daunting in itself, but nearly every time I go to link to a DNB article I have forgtten that they're at the root level and not subpages and I go in a big circle looking for the thing. As they are, they do plump up our total mainspace pages nicely.

For the author categories, I wonder if creating a new structure would be easier and then repurposing the old for categorising the biographical mainspace works. The transition would be a little fraught, but I don't think it would take much time for us to adjust to this.

WRT moving the Roman subpages to the Arabic, I would suggest that this is something that should be staged. i.e. works added up to 2007 (say) in the first stage, then a second tranch, then …. It's usually these older works that are being used as exemplars for creating newer works, and the vast majority of them don't need to be counter to our convention. Even for the Shakespeare play I've just finished I've used Arabic numerals for the Acts and Scenes, but piped them in the Prev/Next fields in Roman. The works that need splitting to subpages is a parallel task to this one, as is scan-backing them.

In terms of what would have the most value, sorting out the categories in the author: ns would be highest. The DNB00 pages aren't doing any harm, they're just inconsistent with the rest of our major reference works. The numbered subpages floats in between, and we'd need to be doing a lot of soft redirect work to enable management of incoming links. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

WRT The Romeo and Juliet you did: Are you aware that someone grabbing a download of the work will not get any of the text of the play unless they grab the download from a subpage? (in which case they will not get the front matter or appendices) There is currently no means for a reader to grab a download of the complete text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


For the record, the Style Guide does not mandate Arabic numerals over Roman. It implies that Arabic numerals are favored by giving only Arabic examples, but makes no statement that they are mandatory. However, it says this at the same time it says: "The section name should reflect those in the original", which could be interpreted to mean that we follow the source's numbering as well. While I agree that Arabic numerals are to be preferred, I can think of exceptions, especially in the works of Shakespeare where universal convention in reference works is to use Roman numerals for the numbering of acts in his plays. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: As weird as it may seem, I know that you have a talk page to where I can seek your opinion. I tried to word my approach personally so it could be seen to be pitched at a person. I would prefer to not have to do these things in email and be seen to be having a cabal. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
And I offered no opinion concerning the subject of your query. I did point out that your rationale of "clear alignment with style guide" is not "clear" based on anything in the Style Guide. This is simply a matter of ensuring you have as much information as possible before beginning such a mammoth undertaking. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Formatting/Poetry Transclusion queries[edit]

Hi Beeswaxcandle.

I have a few queries that I was hoping you'd be able to help with regarding formatting and transclusion.

1) Should catchwords be included in the footer of the page or just removed completely?

2) In the case of a prose text where quotation marks are shown down the side of a large chunk of text (Page 4 from Index:Travels from Aleppo, to the city of Jerusalem, and through the most remarkable parts of the Holy Land, in 1776.pdf) What is the best way of showing this or should it just be treated as a quoted piece of prose would normally?

3) We have several poetry collections which will require splitting where the name of the pamphlet is simply 'Songs' but they include different poems (e.g. Index:Songs.pdf), what would the process be for transcluding works with the same titles as others but different content?

4) I've started transcluding some poetry into sections (EncycloPetey has been v helpful with comments on formatting and links) but just wanted to check with you that the formatting was as you'd planned - For example, Alloway Kirk, or, Tam o' Shanter. A tale and man was made to mourn a poem with a sketch of Burn's' life Let me know if any changes need to be made as I'm going to send some process guidelines to the team.

5) With that particular work, I also wasn't sure what (if anything) to add to the author page as Robert Burns already has poems listed?

Thanks again for your help! --Annalang13 (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

coup de grace[edit]

Care to review and validate the last page Page:The Story of Nell Gwyn.djvu/160. [Urk! to nesting tables over a couple of pages, but you don't want to redo someone's earlier efforts] Then could you do the honours on double validating the index. Thanks if you can. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Not to worry, done by another. — billinghurst sDrewth 18:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Would you normally ...[edit]

Would you normally add editor = fields for all subpages of a work? I would typically add them to the base page, and other pertinent pages, rather than all [qualified with … that is my current practice, and make no promises about what I did years ago in my wiki-infancy.]

I am asking as need to fix special:prefixindex/The Harvard Classics Vol. 51 where they are added as authors, and the contributor fields are not used. Want a second opinion prior to doing. We have without editor v. with editors, and starting material. I will probably need to check the other volumes as well (and not commenting on the title itself not not not) — billinghurst sDrewth 01:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)