User talk:Beeswaxcandle

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, 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


Footnote without a Reference[edit]

I'm now adding links to the index in the Swift volumes, and found a footnote problem that I'm unsure how to fix. This page in the second volume has a note at the bottom of the first page of a dedication. Leaving it in the main body of the text resulted in this odd appearance in the full dedication. It could go to the beginning of the footnotes by attaching it to the title like a footnote. Or it could stay where it is (in the middle of a word in the first paragraph) by treating it like a block quote and moving it more to the center of the page. I lean toward the first option, and could make it a footnote. What do you think? Thanks for your help, as always! Susan Susanarb (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Susanarb: Hmm. It's an editorial mess-up. The reference to Irenaeus takes us back to the title page (page /53) some 50 pages earlier and correctly not transcluded to the Dedication. Definitely needs to be a footnote. I suggest you put an anchor on the quote on the title page and put a link back to that from the first paragraph (rather than the direction you have done) of the this footnote and attach the full footnote to "posterity". The link on the quote should be to Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume I/IRENAEUS/Against Heresies: Book I/Chapter XVIII. I'm in the (slow) process of sorting out the Ante-Nicene Fathers and Irenaeus is the next on my list (after Clement of Alexandria), so once I've got there I will hopefully be able to point the link to something closer than the entire capitulum. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! In the end, I made the link go both ways. So, on the title page, the link fixed to the quote goes to the footnote in the Dedicatory, the link on Irenaeus's name goes to his Wikipedia page, and the link on the quote's citation goes to the link you gave me. In the Dedicatory, the footnote still links to the title page, as that is the only place that someone will wonder "What does this refer to?" I think that's the best it can be, so I’ll leave it there. If you can improve it, please do! Susan Susanarb (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Only amendment I've made to to change the Irenaeus link to his local Author: page in preference to the Wikipedia page. We try to keep readers local rather than sending them out of enWS (where possible). If a reader wanted to then look at the Wikipedia article, they can choose to do so from the Author: page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense. I'm afraid I've stopped looking for author pages consistently because they are not always there. Susan Susanarb (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I link to those that should be created as well—even though it's a redlink. Periodically a couple of our editors go through the list of redlinked authors and create pages with as much info as they can research from other sources. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

transclusion monitoring templates[edit]

Hi. {{index transcluded}} should migrate to {{index validated date}} rather than be in addition to it as per Special:Diff/6548187/prev. Ta. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Never noticed the index transcluded template before. Must be a new thing. Found it hiding on an Index: this morning. Is there any way its presence could be made more obvious? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

{{playscript}} for lines spanning 3 or more pages[edit]

Hello, Beeswaxcandle. Is it correct that {{playscript}} only works for lines spanning at most two pages? Is there a way I could make this page work using the template, or should I seek alternate formatting? If the latter, do you have any suggestions? Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Londonjackbooks:, I've managed to make it work across more than two pages. Have a look at the Nurse's speech at The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet (Dowden)/Act 1/Scene 3#25 through to page 27. I put the {{playscript/s}} in the header box and {{playscript/e}} in the footer box on the middle page AND didn't put anything into the body. On the first page the speech begins with {{playscript/s}} (the {{playscript/e}} in the footer is optional) and on the third page begin the speech part with {{playscript/e|end of speech.}} This method also works with more than three pages. See Mercutio's Queen Mab speech in the next scene, starting on page 34 and finishing on page 38. (By the way, please ignore the tangle of footnotes on these pages, there are two sets of footnotes throughout this edition of the play and each page takes about 30 minutes to proofread—The hours do not stride on apace.) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch... and I will happily ignore the footnotes. I burned out on footnotes working on Byron; probably should have followed your two-set strategy with those volumes, however. A bit early, but have a great New Year, BWC! Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Malformed categories ip address at it again[edit]

This has deleted again. Can something permanent be done about this, the ip address this time is 50.109.159.27. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I've put low-level protection on the decade categories for the meantime. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Mein Kampf[edit]

Adolf Hitler ‎died in 1945. James Vincent Murphy ‎died in 1946. United Kingdom is now in 2017. Translation by James Vincent Murphy is now Public domain. --Abelium (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright until 2016. not 2039. Please unprotect Mein Kampf and Mein Kampf (James Vincent Murphy translation) and restore Mein Kampf (James Vincent Murphy translation). --Abelium (talk)

recheck needed[edit]

Not sure that you successfully completed your transclusion check of Index:True stories of girl heroines.djvubillinghurst sDrewth 11:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Page:Instruments of the Modern Symphony Orchestra.djvu/12[edit]

What was the reason for starting again on this? If it's an issue with the original being All-caps, I can agree with you on that. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Page:Instruments of the Modern Symphony Orchestra.djvu/57[edit]

Images here (as with others in the category at Commons) are preliminary until someone with more bandwidth than I can get the JPEG scans from IA and crop/white balance them, something I can't do easily with the bandwidth I have (sigh) :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

In respect of the musical scores, these will be uploaded as images, as I don't know how to easily do these using lillypond. Your contribution in cleaning up images and scores (or a recomendation on whom to approach would be appreciated.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Instruments of the Modern Orchestra[edit]

All pages mapped out, but I am going to have to ask for someone else to do the scores as I don't know how to do these. Despite your concerns, I would appreciate it if this was an area where you reconsider your involvement in this effort. I am going to take 48 hours away from this work so that the scores can be added. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Also my apologies for getting somewhat heated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I got this far in my sandbox User:ShakespeareFan00/Sandbox/Scoring, and then got stuck completely, the lillypond documentation being useless to tell me HOW.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Instruments of the Modern Orchestra[edit]

Thank you, Please award yourself a barnstar for adding this to Wikisource :)


Would you be interested in doing something related to this at Wikibooks? (The thought was to do something for all 128 GM instruments. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but my time constraints mean that my focus is here on enWS. (I'm also not sure what I could contribute to a book about General Motors.) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I meant General Midi , but your good-humor is appreciated :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
MIDI? I'll do almost anything else than deal with MIDI in any shape or form. The battles I've had with it over the years with trying to get synthesisers to talk loom too large in the memory. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Archving New texts[edit]

According to the edit log, Girl Heroines was added as a New Text on 31 December, so why was it not archived as such? --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Which time zone are you looking at? According to my view of the log I added the work at 13:17 on 1 January (NZ daylight time). I try to archive based on UTC, so translating it was 00:17 on 1 January and therefore wasn't a December addition. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Bleh. I wish the clocks were all still set to the same time zone as they were back when I started. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Tom Swift[edit]

I'd left the ones that need a pagelist alone, because I figured you might have a specfic style/standard you were using for these. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know what you mean. Can you give me some context? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The following Index:Tom Swift and His Electric Locomotive.djvu, Index:Tom Swift and His Electric Runabout.djvu, Index:Tom Swift in the Caves of Ice.djvu, were recently uploaded. I hadn't pagelisted them as I normally do with new Index pages I find as I understood you were steaming away on others in the same collection. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

/* Phe-bot & others */[edit]

Beez, I saw where you used Phe-bot for England and I ask, is everyone allowed to use it? It looked like all pages in volume 1 of 5 have already been proofread except for headers showing page numbers. Can it be used just to format pages? I have to format all pages by hand and hope they are correct. It is a _very slow process_. Are all bots listed in one area and stating what they do? Who is allowed to use them? Nothing I do is an automatic help bot or gadget. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The way I'm using Phe-bot is performing Match and Split. See Help:Match and Split for guidance on how and when to use the bot. This is the only automated process I use here. I should say that sometimes using the bot is quite complex. It's taking a couple of hours to process each chapter of this work. That's because of the formating complexities in the original mainspace version (I wish I'd picked a simpler work to do this weekend). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you kind;y, —Maury (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Ragged Trousered Philanthropists[edit]

I don't know whether you noticed, but the title page says "Robert Tressall" [sic.] --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought I had made a typo and completely missed that. I see that in the Wikipedia article there's mention that all the early editions used "Tressal" and it wasn't until the 1955 complete edition that the spelling was corrected. I'll adjust it. Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

/*dot dot dot dash dash dash dot dot dot = sos */[edit]

Beeswaxcandle,

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:Atlantis_-_The_Antediluvian_World_(1882).djvu/423&action=edit

Is there a way to keep the dots at the end of many words in this book . …… …… <--and here! from turning into a underscore line? Please look at this link and you’ll know what I am trying to say. Thank you kindly, —Maury (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Umm. The way it's been done by Nigmont is the way I would do it. The ellipsis character … is the correct one and should follow the full-stop. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, good, because that is what I have been validating. Either my editor or my eyes or both are getting too old because the ellipsis seems to get smaller once beyond the full stop. They seem to blend together. However, I enlarged it and saw they are all the same. There is a saying I read here, "Just because you can doesn't mean you should" but conversely _just because you should doesn’t mean you can_. <smile> Thanks, Beez —Maury (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Beeswaxcandle, I believe the following is the method I was seeking above. It was used by Billinghurst,[ … ] but not Nigmont and they look different in spacing and size of dots. . . . Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Two questions and Thank You[edit]

First of all thanks for you welcome!

I have two questions for you. Working on a play of Lord Dunsany I noticed some spaces (for the sake of some sort of alignment) between ACTOR and the words, e.g. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Selections_from_the_Writings_of_Lord_Dunsany.djvu/46 Should this preferably be included in the text when proofreading? If yes, what is the best way ?

NB: I spent (quite) some time looking for a clue in the manual, but was not able to find a clear answer. Did I follow the wrong strategy or could this be considered a useful addition?

Another Question: Anything else by the author Lord Dunsany (Edward Plunkett (1878–1957)) to be expected in the future?

Yours Sincerely.

Man de Pier.

MandePier (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@MandePier: Rather than making an exact replica of printers' tricks like this, our main focus is on reproducing the text in the way the author intended without the constraints of the printed page. My usual way of dealing with this sort of thing is to look at the preview and see if it flows OK on the screen. If it's too jammed up, then adjusting is needed. One possibility for a play is to use {{playscript}}. Otherwise I would set it with just a single space.

There does seem to be quite a lot published by Dunsany prior to 1923, so we could certainly add some more of his work. It really depends if we can find scans. Is there something that you're particularly interested in to start with? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Dunsany a.o.[edit]

@Beeswaxcandle: Thank you for the information on playwrights. As for Lord Dunsany: anything that needs proofreading. ("The Poet Speaks With Earth"-perhaps?) I also wonder if 'Selections from the Writings of Lord Dunsany' is not already published.?! Did it really need further proofreading?! See, Selections from the Writings of Lord Dunsany (1912)( https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Selections_from_the_Writings_of_Lord_Dunsany) or am I missing something?

Also I would like to mention: Robert Munro, see: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Robert_Munro and other source on the Paleolithic and Neolithic.

Last question: on the Plates of sources like https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Plate_XXVIII.jpg I read 'Digitized by Microsoft.' Is this a donation by Microsoft' of does it mean something else? Should this not be erased, or just ignored?

Thanking you again.

MdP MandePier (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@MandePier:, the copy of Selections … isn't scan-backed. Our aim is to have all our printed works backed up with scans. So, yes, proofreading is needed. We also need to split the book into subpages.
For Author:Robert Munro, I see that there are a couple of Index pages already loaded and waiting to be proofread. You can access them by clicking on the link "transcription project" on the Author page.
The phrase "Digitized by Microsoft" is a watermark that they added at the time of doing the scan. Some editors here are erasing it before uploading the files. If it turns up in the OCR of a page I delete it, otherwise I just ignore it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

re: tagging; best practices[edit]

hi;

this item:

A Neglected Anniversary

was written, in 1917, by an american author, for whom we have a page

i even included a link to the wikipedia article about the piece

so

why did you, who clearly knows far more about using tags & license templates on here than i do,

think it was "better" to tag the item "no license", which could get it deleted,

instead of just fixing the license?

when it would have taken you about the same amount of time to do either?

with all due respect, that does not seem very helpful, or wiki-collabourative of you.

:/

Lx 121 (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lx 121: The onus is on the uploader/contributor to ensure that a work meets all requirements. This includes adding header, license and source. We don't summarily delete works without a license. Tagging a contribution with that template puts it into a category for an experienced editor to investigate. If there's a problem, then a discussion would be held to see if anyone else can find something. "not collaborative"? au contraire. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
comment -- good to know, but that is NOT what the template says. & really, why didn't you just add the correct license instead? Lx 121 (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
(ec) @Lx 121: I believe that it is an indication that you need to do more to retain the work. As at enWP you need to add citations, here you need to add sources, but in headers, etc. You have been left hints about what to do adding works here, yet it seems that those hints are not actioned at your end. Please read some of the links on your user page. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
read them, replied.
if you don't value the work i am doing, i can stop doing it.
i guess you guys feel you don't need to get more people working on this desperately under-manned & neglected wikiproject?
also, i still haven't heard how tagging it "unlicensed" was better way to improve the wiki, than adding the license that you knew how to use & i didn't?
& i'm sorry if i seem a bit short-tempered here; but you broke the "wheaton rule" before i did.
with all due respect, Lx 121 (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Lx 121: We are happy to lead, though we cannot do all the legwork. We need for users to learn and to adapt their efforts when they are shown the community style. If you have questions then please do ask them, WS:Scriptorium/Help is a supportive environment.

The project is not looking to be a copy and paste of other people's transcription efforts, we are looking to add works that can be proofread and validated. Verified text for us is important. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Rationale query[edit]

Hello & question. If you were asked why you prefer to use block center and breaks instead of the poem tag, what explanation would you give? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I only ask to have at the ready some answer that consists of more than "I prefer its use because of its stability and flexibility." What are some technical reasons behind its stability and flexibility that the poem tag lacks? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for delay—RL gets in the way sometimes and I wanted to give you a considered answer. I find the poem tag problematic in most uses. In fact the only time I use it is to set long lists where I don't want to use a table or html lists. I've had problems with alignment at page breaks when using the tag; line wrap is awkward on long lines (remembering that we don't know what screen width a reader will be using); because block center uses tables, the margins behave consistently; it's easier to wrap block center around other templates; block center with explicit breaks gives a better line height than the bare poem tag; using a double line break between stanzas in a block center gives a more pleasing inter-stanza space than does two br tags in a poem tag when transcluding; and when I use block center I know that it will behave consistently for all readers at whatever screen resolution and size they have.

However, all that said, the main reason is that I don't have to think how to set a poem regardless of its length when I use the block center technique (or block left/right if that was needed); whereas doing it with poem tags and colon indents requires a lot more thought on how it will look when transcluded—which might be days later for long articles or chapters.

In terms of the technical reasons block center is table based, the poem tags simply surround text that is then constrained to look like a poem.

Hope this helps, happy to continue discussion as required. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

More than sufficient, thank you. You added reasoning to my intuition. Hoping you don't mind if I copy your answer to my WS housekeeping subpage for future reference? Always appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


Beez, don’t the pages still need to be formatted when viewed in edit mode? I think they do but now I am beginning to wonder after seeing so many that aren’t. —Maury (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@William Maury Morris II:, I'm not sure exactly which pages you're referring to, but if it's the Scottish Songs, there are some directions on how to do the pages in stages. As long as they aren't tagged as Proofread until all three stages are done, then it's OK. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
No sir, but thank you for your reply Beez. That is not what I refer to whereby these examples where I take breaks show.

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:A_Week_on_the_Concord_and_Merrimack_Rivers.djvu/408&action=edit

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:A_Week_on_the_Concord_and_Merrimack_Rivers.djvu/411&action=edit

When one looks at these 2 pages marked as "proofread" but then looks again when in edit mode and sees text not formatted, are the 2 pages ready to be marked as proofread? I have always believed the text even in edit should be not have broken paragraphs, stray words, etc. I believe every page of this sort should be proofread and then mark the (outside) of edit mode look proper. Some people don’t bother to perfect in edit mode and for some reason it looks fine after proofread -- but is it really proofread. I say "no" and therefore cannot/should not be validated. I am not working on Scottish Songs. I did a few pages and got back to my 9 volumes of Cassell’s Illustrated History of England which is fascinating but also tiring. So, what is the answer? Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

There are a couple of proofreading mistakes in the first one (preemption should be preëmption). With respect to the linebreaks, these can cause problems when transcluding, which is why I remove them. They look OK in the Page: namespace, but don't behave in the Mainspace. This is also why I transclude chapters as I proofread them. Then I can check immediately that everything is as it should be. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)