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)

Petty[edit]

Hi Beeswaxcandle,

As you have perhaps noticed, I'm quite active in getting the Economic Writings of Petty done. But I still have a few problems and some questions. In the near future I'll get in contact with you to ask you if you could perhaps help me with these things.

But for now my most important question concerns the second volume. You asked about that.
I have imported the second vol here: Index:William_Petty_-_Economic_Writings_(1899)_vol_2.djvu. But I think the quality of the OCR is really poor.
I used this file in archive.org.
Perhaps this one is a little bit better?
Or do you perhaps know better possibilities for this?

I would be happy to hear from you. Greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up Question Re: Hebrew Accents[edit]

Since you're the last person to help me with this, I figured I'd bother you about it. This is a more advanced version of the previous problem.

On page 1 of Brown-Driver-Briggs [1], I've started proofreading and found a trickier variant of the problem you helped me with earlier. Now, the very first word of the main text on the page has an issue.

The word is "Aleph." In the Wikisource version, it's first letter is Ā. In the scan, the Ā has above it a little < or "ole" on top of the first accent. I've tried to use the Hebrew keyboard you showed me to put an Ole on top of a Ā, but when I put it into the text, the ole shifts into the middle of the word. This makes sense -- no reason a Hebrew accent would play nice with the Latin alphabet.

So I guess there's a couple possible solutions. If you can give me any guidance or direct me towards someone who could, that would help me out. If you don't want me bothering you, just let me know.

First, I'm wondering if there's some way to force a simple "<" less than symbol to stack on top of the letter. If there isn't, I'm wondering if it would be acceptable to produce a work-around. All the ole is there for is to indicate where the stress comes when you pronounce "Aleph" (it's on the A). So I'd be perfectly happy to just write the word as Ā'leph. If there's no way to do reproduce the original look, I'm thinking we could at least reproduce the original intent. Alephb (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that multiple modifiers don't like playing together very well. It could be set using LaTex (maths notation), but that would look odd as an inline thing. I've got to go out to a meeting shortly, but when I come back I'll have a play and see what I can come up with. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Alephb: The character is א֫. Write &‌#1451 followed by semicolon after the Hebrew character, you will get your ole. Hrishikes (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Not quite. I have no trouble sticking an ole on a Hebrew letter anymore. But BDB, page 1, sticks the ole on top of the letter A of the transliterated word (in Latin letters) Aleph, not on top of the Hebrew letter called Aleph. The problem shows up on the very first entry on this page (the problem becomes clear if you look at the scan) [2]. Alephb (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Alephb: You can use {{Letter position}}: A  ֫. Hrishikes (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I didn't know about that template. Could be very useful for dealing with some of the abbreviations in renaissance texts. So, Ā< would be a solution. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Wow. That is super-nifty. Given that Brown-Driver-Briggs is absolutely crammed with weird character issues, this might get me out of several scrapes. Alephb (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Page loading[edit]

Hi. Are you still having page loading issues? Also, can you please let me know which browser and version you are using? Thanks in advance. — Ineuw talk 20:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Not any more. Whatever it was that Billinghurst did to the nop gadget seems to have done the trick. Firefox 52.0.2 (32 bit) on Windows 7 is my main browser for Wikisource. However, the problems in the weekend were happening in IE8 (Windows) and whatever the latest version of Safari is on the iMac as well. Note that it was specific to the Page: namespace. While I occasionally have slow page loading that's normal in a household with an inveterate internet video watcher. They go to bed and my connection speeds up. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Essentially we have the identical setup, both OS and software. My second browser is Chromium 58, which also exhibited the problems. — Ineuw talk 08:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

New Texts[edit]

I don't understand why you made this edit. The book was already listed. It is currently listed twice. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Just an oversight. I simply didn't see it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Author:Boris Korzhov[edit]

Just wondering why we have the author page. Do you see that it still sits within our criteria for hosting author pages? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

No idea now why I created it 6 years ago. I can only assume that there was a redlink from a work at the time. Given that 2028 is a couple of years away yet, I see no problem in losing the page in the meantime. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

backpocket[edit]

FYI: Found and started on Index:Outlines of the women's franchise movement in New Zealand.djvu. Seems pretty simple so far and has some images that I am guessing will be of value. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Page:Original Waltzing Matilda manuscript.jpg/1[edit]

You're probably the only regular editor who's good with LilyPond. Would you be interested in doing "Waltzing Matilda"? It shouldn't be too hard, and is a fairly high-profile work which was nominated for feature status a while back. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: Yes check.svg Done Quite different from the version we sing today. It's just recognisable. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Chopin's Nocturne Op. 9, No. 2[edit]

Hello, Beeswaxcandle. I was wondering if you were familiar with the above Chopin Nocturne, and if so, whether you would mind if I emailed you with a request. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: Yes, I'm very familiar with it. Feel free to drop me a line. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Moving File:DoD USS Liberty Inquiry Press Release 28 Jun 1967.djvu[edit]

Can you please explain why you tagged the file as a candidate to be moved to Wikicommons? I'm not being snarky, just trying to learn. Thanks. Mox La Push (talk) 04:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it just the djvu file that you think should be moved? I was planning to create a page with the transcribed text of the press release. Mox La Push (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@Mox La Push: We only host files that are PD under our rules, but not accepted by Commons. Anything that is acceptable to Commons (and this file is) should be hosted there. Yes, it's just the file. The proofread text definitely belongs here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for clarifying. I will plan to move the file to Commons unless someone else does before I do. Mox La Push (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Score proofreading[edit]

i salute your singular determination on score editing. i gave up after trying a single voice. this is a big hole in digitized content: lots in pdf or out of print, and people still scrambling with xerox copies. would you consider a wikimania lightening talk or hackathon pitch. if we could find a coder to create a visual editor interface, it could reduce the learning curve. we could recruit some choir minded editors; wikisource could become the place for PD scores. Slowking4SvG's revenge 17:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Slowking4: I have no idea what you mean by "a wikimania lightening talk or hackathon pitch". However, I believe that the best home for PD scores is the IMSLP project. Snippets of scores, such as those sprinkled through the DMM or in Fugue (Prout) are what I see the best use for scores here. The score on Cox and Box (complete)/Rataplan took me about 8 hours to produce and even now I'm not that happy with it, which is why I haven't completed the rest of the opera. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
(Sorry to interject) If we're talking visual editor interfaces, I had this idea a while back that this could be accomplished by taking an existing WYSIWYG LilyPond editors like Frescobaldi and writing a script tool that will convert it to syntax that the <score> extension can read. This would be easiest I think, especially since we don't have a lot of people itching to write new editing tools. If I get a chance in the next few months I may try my hand at it myself. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: I wasn't aware of Frescobaldi (the program, I know the composer's work well) and have been doing all Lilypond in a text window and compiling it. I've downloaded it, but I'm missing a dll file to be able to run it to see how practical it is to copy/paste the text from the editing window into here. I note that it's not really a visual music editor like Sibelius or Finale, it just previews how the text version will look when compiled. However, it may well be enough (once I've sorted the file issue). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
about wikimania - the programme is out, https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programme and thoughts turn to how to occupy all that coder talent. and there is time to proselytize about all the neat-o wikisource stuff going on. also a beginner’s guide would be nice in order to welcome newbies. Slowking4SvG's revenge 10:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
i am a fan of IMSLP and also cpdl.org, but these are pdf based. a roadblock to getting to pad / phone use is music transcription. there is also a lot of sheet music not digitized. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I use pdfs to play from on my iPad via the ForScore app—they are an essential part of my workflow for music. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Registration Acts of 1836, England[edit]

Hello, well, for starters, birth certificates from 1837 only entered the name if any, sex, date and place of birth, name, surname and occupation of father and name and maiden surname of mother - not anything else, except for date of registration and signature of registrar - further, if you check the schedule to births, the sex of the child is not specified and isn't in - in it's place is the name and surname of the father (!) so if you put the sex (male / boy), of the child in the column and shunt all the other items one place to the right, then it will make much more sense - even though, as stated above, the actual certificates don't sadly furnish parents date and place of marriage - the deaths I have a similar problem, no place of birth is given in the certificates from 1837 - the age cannot be Leominster so again, the age should be placed in the correct column, the sex of the deceased is stated in the certificates not given in this schedule and the other items shunted one place to the right - the marriage certificates supply occupations but not place of birth, also marital status, and occupations of the father of each, not specified in this schedule.

I trust this clarifies what I specified before ...

Yours truly, Neil, South Africa.

I have no idea what this is in relation to. Could you please elucidate? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

New[edit]

Your proofreading and editing has me hopeful you can help me get started.

Any starting advice for someone with a lot of work cut out for them? Kethertomalkuth (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Score check[edit]

Could you please look over Page:The Wonderful Visit.djvu/121 to be sure the short score is completed correctly? I have not used LilyPond before, and although I could figure out some things, I could not get the bars in the correct location nor does the audio play. There may be other syntactical issues of which I am not aware. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: I figured out how to get the partial bar. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Looks pretty good as a first attempt. I've simplified a little. The << >> pair indicates music that needs to happen simultaneously, when there's only one line they're not needed. Also, the automatic stem direction mostly works pretty well. I'm not having any playback problems. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. The playback problem must be at my end. I'll try from a different computer when I get the opportunity. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Proofreading Quality check notices[edit]

Thanks for the reverts on the relevant talk pages.

However, it was left because the item mentioned had been missed on both a proofread and validation. If you think it's not appropriate to warn about missed items like that, perhaps you could suggest a more appropriate response, other than to fix the relevant formatting or typos?

I've also had some comments on my talk page recently about typos in template calls, as a result of which I am in the process of reviewing a number of pages. In the process of that review, the missing formatting on the validated page concerned was identified. Either Wikisource wants 'perfect' transcription (within the limits of the relevant markup) or it doesn't. Missed formatting on a proofread or validation (something concerns had been directed to me in the past about) is not a 'perfect' transcription.

Some recent comments on my talk page suggested that a 'perfection' standard for proofreading and validation should be applied, and thus, I am currently of the view that if there's a perfection standard being applied, it should be applied equally. If you think otherwise than you are welcome to take this up with the contributor(s) that have raised concerns on my talk page (both recently and in the past) or more generally, due to despite my best efforts to be 'perfect', a few typos occasionally slip through.

I am currently considering owing to the relevant concerns being raised, if I am able to continue to contribute effectively, owing to the apparent allegation of incompetence being implied by the relevant comment on my talk page. In response to previous concerns of this nature, I have reviewed specifc past efforts, attempted to avoid typos (using preview more frequently), and yet I STILL get concerns about missed typos or things missed in proofreading (and validation.).

On that basis I am having to conclude that there IS a first-time perfect standard being applied by some contributors, and that certain contributors like myself are apparently no longer welcome to contribute "new material". If this is so, then it should be applied equally, and hence the "Quality check" messaages wording.

However, you have deemed the precise wording as "inappropriate", which I am not going to dispute.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Warning people in relation to a single error on a single page is inappropriate (just fix it and move on). Telling an established and experienced editor to stop working on anything until they have fixed all the mistakes they have ever made (which was what you implied) is way beyond that.

If there had been egregious errors on that page, then pointing those out would be appropriate. If there is a pattern to errors, then a warning is also appropriate. The "other" admin was bringing your attention to a pattern in your editing. The choice is with you to act on that warning and take more care over ensuring that you don't leave faulty template calls on pages (whether in progress or proofread), or to continue on blithely leaving them for other editors to clean up later.

With respect to "perfect" transcriptions: while that would be lovely, we are realistic enough to know that we can't achieve that 100% of the time. However, we should be able to achieve between 90% and 95%, or even 98%. When any of us spot something missed and fix it, then we bring the book and the site closer to the 100%. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

On your second point (about telling other contributors to stop until they've fixed previous mistakes), I feel I've been told that implicitly by some other contributors on at least three previous instances. It's never been directly expressed though, and has been expressed as an extension of the "slow down" or "take a break" comments you've noted. I have recently and previously asked for details of SPECFIC works where the issue has been identified so to focus any reviewing more effectively, the response to that wasn't necessarily helpful.
I get the distinct impression from the tone of your comments and those of the "other" contributor, that you aren't interested in hearing further arguments on this matter. With that in mind I will continue reviewing past efforts back to March 2017, which is when I took a previous break from editing over previous concerns of a related nature which I had self-identified.
However, I am giving serious consideration as to to withdrawing from future contribution, unless their is a change in attitude from certain contributors, and some technical measures implemented to ensure certain "mistakes" never reach the database at all. ( As mentioned elsewhere it should be possible to amend the edit/save UI so it won't save pages with undefined templates, This should catch many of the examples the other contributor's been able to identify.)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I no longer see the scanned text on the right side of my screen[edit]

I really appreciate all your help, and I hope I'm doing everything correctly because I really enjoy proofreading. One problem that has surfaced today is that I no longer see the scanned copy on the right. Is there a button to refresh this information? Or has the rest of the book just not been scanned? The book is Tom Swift and His Photo Telephone.

Thanks again, Maggie Mkjames100 (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mkjames100: It's frustrating when that happens. Usually what needs to happen is that the cache needs to be purged for the particular index. You can do that by going to the Index: page and clicking the recycle image in the top right corner. Because doing so will take you off to Commons, I generally try to remember to do it in a separate browser tab so that I don't have to try to navigate back again. It's alright for me at the moment, so maybe you just need to close everything down and restart.
I'm glad you're enjoying proofreading. You're doing fine with those little tweaks I suggested. I'm making a few other changes as I validate, but don't worry about those for the time being. When we've finished the book, let's pause for a review of things. I've also been transcluding the chapters to the mainspace. You don't need to think about that process yet, but it does give you a chance to see how the finished product looks to the reader. Please feel free to ask me anything as we go. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Poor Validations[edit]

I generated this query recently, https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/20681, as you had raised concerns about the level of edit quality of another contributor.

It doesn't necessarily list everything ever edited by them, but it might help identify pages that would need to be reviewed.

I was in the process of reviewing (and if necessary) re-proofing some of my older efforts, when I got somewhat fed-up with playing "hunt the quirk" again, and so am considering an extended absence until some core issues are resolved. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: OK, but I'm not that interested in berating people for things they did years (or even months) ago. I'm much more interested in helping editors improve their current work. If someone is validating pages I've worked on in the last month (at the outside), then I'm interested to see what I can learn from their validations and apply to my ongoing proofreading. Longer ago than a couple of months? It's too long ago to affect my style now.

How does this apply to you? You may well have made some poor proofreading decisions in 2012 when doing the Cutter's guide (to pick a work at random). That was five years ago. There's no point me auditing your work from then. Your skills have now progressed to the point that you can now see that they were poor and you have learnt how to fix those pages (and simplify things at the same time). Now, what can you do to prevent this type of problem from creeping into new works? What have you learnt today/yesterday/this week that you can apply to make sure that proofread pages are even closer to the ideal? And when it all gets too much and you're dreaming in templates, then turn off the computer and go and exercise or cook something or read a physical book while savouring the feel of the pages beneath your fingers. The last of which I'm about to do. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I am STILL re-reading old material, though. At least until I got called on poor validation technique in early 2013. This means I'll also re-read some work nominally "validated" by others, and on which I can report I've not been finding issues. I also note that in my my back efforts there seem to be some works that are in partially validated state or proofread only that have been that way for just under a decade now, However given this is a relatively small project, that's expected. I'd of course like to know if there are still typos I'm missing, but I will assume you have a long watchlist as well.

On a side note, do you have a check or guidance list for known mistakes? Like the typo words list I was at one point compiling, or clearly bad syntax like {[ or {{{ entered instead of a {{ (I recall doing a sweep for the former very recently.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

acting simultaneously[edit]

I clearly wasn't paying attention to relative time and created author pages, then you did. I pushed them one way, and you may wish to change, anyway, I will leave it with you. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

?locked out[edit]

/* Somehow I, William Maury Morris II, have been locked out. Please look into this and restore my account */

Beez, please look into the password change. Somehow it was changed and then I changed it to ZEB.........., But that did not work either. -- William Maury Morris II

PS Thank you for the kind note about my wife on my AOL account.

Maury

Maury, I can't see that you are locked or blocked. Theoretically you should be able to get a password reset from the login page. The link should come to the email address that you have linked to your account. If you've already tried that, have you checked your email spam folder? I find that some Wikimedia emails end up there. If that still doesn't work, let me know and we'll see what else we can try. @Brother Officer: Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks like there is success, I see an edit from 22 Aug. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    • There was a success after several failures but I kept trying and got a success then didn’t recall it after I tinkered with volume 6 and then I forgot the change I made and was back to locked out again. The code that was sent to me did not let me back in. I tried moments ago and once again it was a success and here am I once again. I have used the same log in for years. I think I must be getting too old in the memory cells. I’ll write the new log in down this time. Thank you for your reply and statements. It’s good to be back! —William Maury Morris IITalk 13:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Beeswaxcandle,

Do you notice an issue with the wiki editor? It turned to a very terminal like feel since yesterday. Any idea what is going on? -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

MOS[edit]

I see nothing in the WS:MOS that (a) prohibits the use of dates for disambiguation of editions, (b) prohibits relative links, or (c) mandates Arabic numbering. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation is pointless when there is no other hosted edition to differentiate from; relative links are fine, but they don't work on the transclusion on the Index page and show as redlinks; I thought the Arabic numeral expectation was in the MOS. It's in the talk page for WS:Naming conventions, but this never got completed. However, it's still a convention here so that the format of titles is standardised to make wikilinking straightforward. I'll now go back to more congenial tasks. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
(a) All three of Douglass' autobiographies went through multiple editions, often with significant changes, such as the addition of illustrations. We have two editions of his third autobiography ready for transcription, and it would be much easier to place the work in hand at a disambiguated location now, rather than have to move the whole thing later. It promotes stability of linking from external sites. (b) Sounds like a Phabricator request, to me. (c) I most often opt for Arabic numbering myself, but there are works (such as the present one) where I find Roman numerals make everything else function much more smoothly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
(b) isn't a Phabricator problem. It's simply that when using relative linking, wikiware is looking to link to a subpage of whichever page the link is on. This means that a transcluded TOC to an Index: is trying to link to subpages of the Index. Therefore they appear as redlinks. By making the link explicit in the TOC in the Page: namespace we avoid this problem. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
(b) is a Phabricator problem because we have no means of specifying the base href for the links. If we could override the page location with another location in the Index namespace, telling the wikiware the correct starting point for the relative links, then relative links wouldn't have this issue. It's a Wikisource-specific problem, because of our use of the Index namespace. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Stanza spacing opinion sought[edit]

Hello, Beeswaxcandle. Since you validated, I was wondering if I could get your opinion as to how stanza breaks should be handled with this poem. For the whole work, I used two line spaces for stanza breaks, but this poem may need to be handled differently? In my opinion: one line space before the two-line instances, and two line spaces after the two-line instances. Thoughts? At your leisure, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

So treating it as a sort of refrain? That works for me. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding a new book to wikisource[edit]

I am new to Wikisource and I am interested to know how to add a book to Wikisource for Proofreading & Validation. The scanned copy of the book I am interested is available in archive.org and I do not see any copyright violations as well.

Can you suggest me how to add that book to Wikisource? Scanned link - https://archive.org/details/boytravellersinf01knox

Also it would be great if you could tell me how the sources, which are Validated completely, are transformed into a readable book with chapters and links?

Cyarenkatnikh (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cyarenkatnikh: OK, several different things here. First off, all of the Boy Travellers books are out of copyright so any of them are fine to bring in.
Next, you need to upload the .djvu file to Commons. At the bottom of my page User:Beeswaxcandle/Works you'll find a link that shortcuts the uploading process a little. Open that link in a new browser tab, click the "log in" link in the pink bar at the top, then authorise Commons to talk to Internet Archive on your behalf. The page will reload with a green bar in place of the pink bar. In the first box put "boytravellersinf01knox" and in the second box put "Boy Travellers in the Far East Part 3" and click "Get metadata". Fill in the fields to the best of your ability. Then click the "upload" button at the bottom of the input window. This will upload the .djvu file.
Once the file has uploaded, then you'll need to create the related Index: page. It has the same name as the file, so Index:Boy Travellers in the Far East Part 3.djvu (you can use this link to create it). Again fill in the metadata fields as best you can (some of them you can copy from either of the two Boy Travellers books we've already got here). Make sure to select djvu in the Scans field (this is important for linking back to Commons). You won't be able to do the pagelist initially, that's fine. It's best done a little later anyway. Also, leave the Table of Contents field blank for the time being. For the Summary field I usually use "New Work", then click "Publish changes" and the Index will become available.
The Pagelist command is explained in Help:Index pages#Parameters. Once you've done the pagelist you'll know which pages have the Table of Contents (TOC) and then you can "transclude" the relevant pages as in the linked example on the same Help: page.
Now, in terms of transcluding books into the Mainspace, you don't have to wait until the pages are Validated. However, all the pages for a chapter or section should be in Proofread status. The simpler explanation of how to transclude is at Help:Beginner's guide to transclusion. My own preference is to use the "Manual header" technique rather than the automatic technique described in the first section of that Help: page. We try to start with the Main page for a work. It will have the Title page and the TOC on it at least. It will also have the work's categories and license. There must be a header template on this page. For the chapters, these are put onto subpages that have the same name as the work's main page and are followed by a / and then the Chapter with an Arabic number. For example, The Boy Travellers in the Far East, Part 3/Chapter 6. Even if a work uses Roman numerals for the chapters we change them to Arabic. This is to make linking between works consistent.
There's a lot of information here. Take your time, ask questions and if you need me to tweak anything for you, let me know. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Missing apostrophes in Fighting in Cuban Waters and Boys of the Fort[edit]

Hi, sorry to bother you, but I've stumbled across a couple of books you started, and have been validated, and have numerous missing apostrophes. I've done a lot of such corrections and the past, but I'd rather not take the time to work on them just now. What I often do in cases like this is go to edit the first chapter, plug in the last page in the pages tag and click preview. Then all you have to do is search in the browser for space-d-space or space-ve-space and so forth, and then it's easy to open up the page view and do the corrections. (Sorry if you've already thought of that ...) All the best, Mudbringer (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Found another one: For the Liberty of TexasMudbringer (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
"Boys of the Fort" fixed.— Mpaa (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Did what I could find on all of them.— Mpaa (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
@Mpaa: not sure what you fixed, but I meant corrections like these: Special:RecentChangesLinked/Index:Boys_of_the_Fort.djvu. It's a bit more complicated than I was thinking at first, with eye dialect like 'most for almost missing apostrophes too. Mudbringer (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Looks like I underestimated the change. I was following your suggestion above.— Mpaa (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Music question[edit]

Is there ever a time that a musical note is notated (if that's the correct word) but not played? For example, the second "g" in the following:


X:1
T:
L:1/4
M:12/8
K:Cm
Q:"Andante." 1/8=132
B/|(g3/ g/)f/g/|]

If so, how would one "program" coding to make the note "play" silent? Apologies if I'm not clear. Also, I would like to try transcribing Chopin's Nocturne to Wikisource using a file from IA. Being that it contains no lyrics, is that something WS would include? If so, would you recommend LilyPond or ABC? I played with ABC in a sandbox, and it plays somewhat ok (I did some tweaking by ear), but even strict transcription does not render the same output as the file image at IA. Any comments/recommendations welcomed... I don't wish to take up your time on this, especially if you don't think the music is WS material. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the tied second g should not sound again, but merely lengthen the dotted crotchet (quarter note). I don't know ABC, so can only recommend Lilypond. I find that it does a reasonable job of turning a transcription into a audible file. However, what Lilypond does very well is the score output. I have no problems with enWS having some scores—particularly if there is a reason associated with another transcription project. Here's I would do the first phrase in Lilypond:

{ \time 12/8 \key ees \major \tempo "Andante" 8 = 132 \partial 8
  \relative b' { 
    bes8-2\( |
    g'4.-5 ~ g8 f-4 g-5 f4.-4 ees4-3\) bes8-2 } }

I would comment, as a pianist, that the particular edition you've found is over-edited. Chopin did not put all those fingerings in, for example. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. That is good to know. By fingerings, are you referring to the smaller-sized notes that "trill" along? If you happen to know of any music sheets online or elsewhere that could be transcribed here that are more faithful to Chopin's original composition/intent, I would be grateful. As well as any links to a more faithful performance (sound or video) for comparison purposes. I will take a look at Lilypond. ABC seemed "easier" but for the issue with notation rendering. As usual, I have a selfish motivation for wanting to add the piece here, having written lyrics to the music, and wanting to ultimately produce a music sheet (not here at WS, obviously) with both words and music that I could copy albeit only in preview/edit mode. A Christmas gift for a family member. I have already done so with the ABC version in my sandbox, but I am not happy with notation output, which is why I have come to you. Thanks for any help. No issues if you can't. Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, btw, for the LilyPond preview. I have been building upon it slowly. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
By fingerings I mean the little numbers printed above the notes. They indicate which finger to use to play the note. These are rarely done by a composer except in pedagogical works and are added by the various editors. This page [3] at IMSLP has some recordings of the E♭ major Nocturne listed in the first half of the page. In the second half are some scores that have been scanned. The clearest is the second from the bottom of the page, but some of the editorial bits mean that copyright is legitimately claimed. There is a first edition scan of the complete Nocturnes on this page (the first of the Scores). This is Chopin's original approved publication of the Nocturnes (1833) and is the closest to what you need. I've attempted some answers to your questions on your sandbox. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Since the Kistner version is public domain, am I able to then save/upload the pdf file to IA from the IMSLP site? Thank you for answering some of my questions. Another quick one: Is there a LilyPond equivalent to <!-- -->? I will pose subsequent questions to the Help:Sheet music discussion page, unless there is a more appropriate place. Thank you so much for your time. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you can upload the Kistner to IA. You could also upload it to Commons and then use it as an Index. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good, will do. A Matthew Arnold quote comes to mind that "poetry is so difficult!" —Not poetry, but music! :) Thanks for your help! Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll hold off on playing in the sandbox... I didn't realize you were helping out! Thank you! I'll have a look at what you have done. I have been all over the LilyPond help site, but I just could not make heads nor tails... grace notes or smaller notes... what the 8 is for... dotted lines... etc. :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep going, I'm about to go out to a concert and won't get back to thinking about this for several hours. However, it may well be that the cadenza solution may have to be used to get the bar to break partway through. I've only managed to get in 8 of the figures, when 12 are needed. [The problem with the Lilypond documentation is that one has to know a reasonable amount of music theory to find the information needed. I've got ca. 45 years experience of reading and playing music.] Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Enjoy the concert :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Each morning, I wake up to find welcome adjustments/additions to the sheet music. Feels a bit like the elves and the shoemaker :) Sort of. Thank you.

I made a few changes since your last edit (forgive incorrect music language usage!)—all subject to your approval:

  1. adjusted natural, etc. marking in two places to match original image [4] [5]
  2. added cadenzas because bar placement was off in last couple bars [6]
  3. more marking adjustments to match original image [7]
  4. added scale durations [8]
  5. another tweak to match original image (in bar 9) [9]

So, have I been ordering notes wrong? Ex:

<c a f> is correct, and <f a c> is wrong? Do you go from top to bottom order on the scale? Many thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I've adjusted the cadenza so that it covers the whole bar. This does away with the need for scaling durations.
In terms of ordering notes in a chord, there is no wrong way. Because I changed the first in each of the two series, I then had to change the others to make the relative notes work. For treble clef chords I mostly go from the top to the bottom. This puts the melody note as the first. When we come to do the bass clef chords for the accompaniment, we'll mostly do bottom to top so that the bass line is more obvious when reading the raw Lilypond text. It will also reduce the number of octave leaps needed. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thank you. I had added scaling durations for sound purposes. Not necessary for transcription, but for my listening pleasure :) There was also the matter of a missing natural mark (if I remember) in one of the set of small grouped notes... I'll check for it again. Not to be picky, but listening to the sound file, one of the high notes in bar 22 sounds "off", yet the image matches the original. Otherwise, aside from what is probably unavoidable sound-rendering-wise in bars 16 & 24, all sounds and looks good to me. Please let me know when you are happy with the treble clef portion. I'll then copy it for my purposes, and set to working on the bass clef portion as well. I have uploaded the Kistner file to Commons. Is it the case that one can not split a score between two index pages? Thanks again, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah, OK. That bar is marked "senza tempo" (without time), so the sound version can be played with anyway you like to make it sound good. In this edition the three times that high d is there the flat is missing. In my other editions, it's there so looks like a typo on the part of the publisher. However, just like texts, I don't think we should amend it in this edition. Yup, bars 16 & 24 we're pretty much stuck with because midi is fitting the notes in exactly where they come against the beat. I suspect that as we add the bass clef line we'll find a few more things for the treble line. In terms of splitting the score across two pages, it's a nuisance to do but it is possible. I'm going to suggest creating the final sound file off line and then uploading that separately to Commons. The link would then be in the Notes field of the Header. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for getting started on the bass clef. I have made some note/marking adjustments based on original image rendering. I have also restructured the sectioning of the sandbox and included a new "Talk" section directly under the Nocturne so I can ask questions/make comments there from now on rather than here at your Talk page. Are you okay with me continuing to add to the bass clef? Things may be busy in RL this month upcoming and beyond, but I would still like to contribute :) As an aside, I have begun writing a biography on the "poetic life" of Florence Earle Coates. It has been a long time coming, but I feel I now have sufficient info to tackle it. Chopin's nocturne "sounds" much like Coates' poetry reads to me (I particularly like Brigitte Engerer's playing of the Nocturne), and I have always associated it with her poems. I came to find later that Mrs. Coates was apparently quite proficient at playing Chopin's works in particular. That served as confirmation for me :) Thanks for all, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Of course I'm happy for you to continue on with the bass clef. I had some spare time before the onslaught of RL strikes and I wanted to get you started. I also wanted to experiment a little to see if we could put the pedalling into a different voice—it works!—so that we could focus on the notes. Your fixes for bars 2 and 6 have shown me something I hadn't noticed before: musically these two bars are the same. The bass line is identical and the second half of the treble is also the same. The first half of bar 6 is a florid version of the first half of bar 2. Looking ahead, bars 14 & 22 are also the same as these two. I must study Chopin's musical language a bit more. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)