User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2010

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2010, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.


Re:Script to force UC to Nice Sc[edit]

That would be amazing (I just did page 318 manually)! But you would have to really walk me through it; I have no idea how to do scripts or anything.. Thanks so much, Wrelwser43 (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you just use a double bracket at the beginning, and a closing double bracket at the end of the entire list? ResScholar (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Great! This will save me a lot of time in the future, thanks! Wrelwser43 (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


I was looking at your page User:Billinghurst/header and thinking those might be good as WS templates. see also w:Template:Administrator topicon. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I stole the design from Jack Merridew, so no authoritative claim over it. I would however suggest that we may more want to create a more focused link like billinghurst (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Good Idea, are you up to making them? JeepdaySock (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


I never got to thank you for the welcome and the award. So, thanks! :-).

I would like to, and intend to make actual contributions, but I'm incredibly busy right now with college, work and all that. I was thrilled to find out about Wikisource, I'm always looking to get information directly from the source texts and original documents etc, not to mention the great works of literature already here.

Take care! unsigned comment by Temporalty (talk) .

Very welcome. We are always here for a drop in visit, and there will always be something to do! -- billinghurst (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

London Times obituaries[edit]

Billinghurst, you were responsible for contributing many of the Times' obituaries. According to this website, the U.K. keeps copyright of these anonymous works 70 years after publication. The U.S., however, treats foreign works as copyright 95 years after publication with the exception of those works in the public domain in the U.K. prior to January 1996. This would mean all anonymous works published in the U.K. after January 1926 would have been still copyrighted in 1996, and thus not eligible for the exception.

Do you agree with my reasoning? If so, Canada has a 50 year after publication rule and would be able to host these works up to December 1959. I'd be willing to assist you in moving them, if you need help. I hope I'm not totally messing up the DNB project by noticing this. ResScholar (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There has been no renewal of any of them, so they should be free of copyright. It is my understanding that renewal of copyright would be required, and one could claim that newspapers have been published within the US by previous statements made within WS. So, I think that they should stay. billinghurst (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay. What attracted my attention to them was one of them in Category:Works with no license template. Would you agree with me that the license {{PD-US-no-renewal}} is the way to go? ResScholar (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Seems fair enough and I would feel that some sort of UK licencing would also be appropriate. billinghurst (talk) 05:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for saying hello. I just popped by to see what I could use as a target for inter-project links at w:Portal:University of Oxford and w:Portal:University of Cambridge. Regards, Bencherlite (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

We haven't really got into portals. We could look to do either a Wikisource:University of Oxford and one for Cambridge, or we could have Wikisource:Universities of the United Kingdom#Oxford #Cambridge. billinghurst (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello again. The sort of thing: English Traits/Universities by Emerson; The Autobiography of Charles Darwin with its section on Cambridge. It is true that the text here are not yet very adapted to search or linking by a theme; something we're talking over. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi billinghurst, I was trying to remain uninterested in this category and its purpose, but you caught my attention. Why no bastard titles in mainspace, or this sort of thing? Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I have picked a vague name, this tag is to indicate that a page hasn't been transcluded as is, and probably never will be, or is unnecessary to have transcluded. It is part of the work and gets validated as necessary, just not transcluded. I am trying to identify pages that have been validated and proofread and to be transcluded (list at User:Hesperian/V). No bigger or lesser judgement than that. Probably should be a __HIDDENCAT__ just not got there yet. billinghurst (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
A little further detail:
The list of validated pages that are not transcluded anywhere can be divided into two groups:
  1. Contiguous blocks of pages that represent entire works or chapters that have been validated but no-one has bothered to create mainspace documents out of them. Probably no mainspace document exists; or maybe there is a mainspace document but it doesn't use page tranclusion. In most cases, the fact that these are not transcluded is a problem that should be fixed, and Billinghurst has been fixing them.
  2. Isolated pages scattered here and there, that for one reason or another have not be transcluded into the mainspace document; for example because they are blank; or because they are endmatter that the transcluder decided to omit. In most cases, the fact that these are not transcluded is not a problem. All Billinghurst can do it make a note that he has visited the page and doesn't see any problem with the fact that it isn't transcluded anywhere. That is essentially what Category:Not to transclude does.
So "Not to transclude" means "The decision not to transclude this page is unobjectionable." It doesn't mean "Don't you dare transclude this page!" If you want to transclude one of those pages, just remove the category and go right ahead.
Hesperian 13:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Suave. What he said! billinghurst (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Cygnis's diff above shows you putting that category outside the noinclude tags. If that page ever gets transcluded anywhere, the transcluding page will end up in that category. One could argue that this is a feature not a bug: if ever you find a mainspace page in that category, you'll know that someone has transcluded a "not to transclude" page, and you should have no difficulty tracking down the page and removing the category. Hesperian 13:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I like the thinking, and we can make a sexy note to that effect on the Cat page to demonstrate our forethought. billinghurst (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


I did some tests and the indexes need to be hardcoded into the categories. The hot cat category is only temporary. When you edit an index that has been edited with the hot cat and hit show preview the category has already disappeared before you save the page. When you place the category in there manually and hit show preview it stays. The hotcat is the problem but I have no idea why. Any suggestions? --Xxagile (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Beyond head-butting the computer, none at the moment that is useful. I'll chat to ThomasV to see what is trying to be pegged where and how we may be able to resolve the issue. billinghurst (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Issue identified in that the Index: page utilises a template to format the form, and HotCat was adding outside of the template. I have sought guidance on where we need to modify HotCat code, and have prostrated myself before a programmer and asked for their assistance. :-/ billinghurst (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Phe has been a treasure and undertaken the update quickly. I have played and not been able to break it. If you go to your gadgets, you will see a new version of the file in the DEVELOPMENT section. Turn on that version, turn off the version up the page, save, and ctrl-f5 your page, and give it a go. Get back to me and I will look to promote that version in preference. billinghurst (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
It works! You can tell because it puts Category:Index Proofread in front of the automatic category of index [1]. The ones that were added by the old hotcat puts the Category:Index Proofread behind the original index [2]. Thank you for getting this worked out so quickly. :) The next question, I guess, is do we start removing the automatic category? or do you think we should wait a short while to see if any bugs crop up? It's fine with me either way. --Xxagile (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that we remove the Index: category at this stage, and it is fairly easy to modify that template at a point of time.
Note: When you are using the new hot cat it throws the category into the table of contents area so the page numbering is moved below the picture. I don't personally see this as too much of a problem. It is only a change for the works that don't show a table of contents on the index page [3].--Xxagile (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Part of the different look is due to a change that I made in the Index: page template, so here is the alternate view when I manually moved it. My response falls along the line of ToC should be seen as good practice and included wherever possible which would make it a moot point. billinghurst (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for clearing that up. And thank you for the help. I appreciate it. --Xxagile (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for adding me to the group. --Pmsyyz (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Chapter XVI[edit]

How do I add the last page (page 165) to this chapter of "Live and Let Live". I tried adding it but it doesn't work. Page 165 has the next chapter on it. So I don't know how to cut it off. The page doesn't show. I managed to do the next chapter ok. Thanks. Angelprincess72 (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Made change to Page (diff) and also shortened the page numbers in the <pages> tag. It looks excellent! billinghurst (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I finally know how to transclude the text properly.angelprincess72 (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I had the early advantage of sitting in IRC http and asking questions to get things right. billinghurst (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


Hey Billinghurst,

Thanks for the award.Angelprincess72 (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

How to annotate a source's error[edit]

Hey, I just discovered my awards for November and December. Thank you! I'm real new here, but am enjoying myself immensely!

I have seen that you have been participating immensely. Glad to have you on board. We are all pretty laid back here and you are obviously invited to express your opinions wherever. Always open to good suggestions and ideas; plus if you have works that you have found at or and you need advice to bring over, call.
We would also encourage you to express opinions at Wikisource talk:Proofread of the Month or Wikisource talk:Collaboration of the Week

I believe it was you who told me a few weeks ago that we should not "correct" typos or mistakes found in the source, but that there are ways to annotate them. Now I have come across one on a page I am actually working on, and I need to know how to do that. The page is: Page:A Beacon to the Society of Friends.djvu/79 (and I don't know how to make that a link). The source has split the word greediness with an extra "di":


A quick lesson or a pointer to the page with instructions would be appreciated. Thanks!!

DonDon-WS (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would do the more obvious {{SIC|greedidiness|greediness}} which gives greedidiness, info at {{SIC}}
Others might do greedidiness{{sic}} which gives the silent greedidiness
billinghurst (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Xmas thanks[edit]

Thanks for my December award and for keeping this project stuck together. Don't forget to have an xmas drink. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! It is nice to have a little fun and be able to smile about the world, and gently reflect that we are progressing. Celebrate success! billinghurst (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Title fix[edit]

Thank you ! Cirt (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Thumbs-up position.jpg

On WP[edit]

I was going to create from Robinson, Anastasia (DNB00) and gift-wrap; someone got there first. I did w:Daniel Guilford Wait from another of yours instead. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Kewl. I popped {{w:DNB}} on Anastasia there. billinghurst (talk)

Query on edits[edit]

Please undo the changes to this: Page:A Voice from the Nile, and Other Poems. (Thomson, Dobell).djvu/16. Thanks Cygnis insignis (talk) 06:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You haven't expressed your query on the edits, so can I ask why that is? The edits to the table do not change the look in the Page: namespace, and add access to the Memoir from the main namespace and from the Index: namespace. Or is it the change to the ———O——— that is the issue? Not trying to be difficult, as I think that it adds access to a part of the work that is otherwise hidden and not evident from most pages. billinghurst (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't appear on the page, the 'fake' entry in the TOC is potentially confusing. I think that introducing these Heath Robinsonian solutions, such as this and rejoining text where the printer inserted an image, affect accessibility and needlessly ignore the golden rule - don't write in library books. If there some identifiable problem, as in this case, add a note; most would be able to edit that more easily than discovering where that text in mainspace is coming from and how to fix it. All very clever, but not desirable I have to report. 07:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Whereas I think that this is a little utopian. If we were reproducing the book as a book, that would be ideal, however, we are taking it to a new medium, and the display in this medium should be taken into account for the readability of the masses who will never edit. as that is case in point. Works had images inserted with their contemporary technology, we should be open to tweaks that improve usability, as I was told in the early days remember that this is a wiki.
That said, I accept for works that are your projects that is your choice and I accept that. I especially note your statement about adding commentary, and this I will endeavour to do. billinghurst (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
EC: Hesperian's clue is a good one.

<Hesperian gets curious and pokes around> @Billinghurst: Here's a clue: Cygnis was higly complementary about this diff. What do you think of it? Hesperian 06:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I am outcomes focused. I don't mind how we link to chapters not originally listed in table of contents in works, so long as we can help the user get to bits and pieces, and it is easy for simpletons like myself to code. If someone has a better solution, then I am always happy for them to undo my work and implement it. Noting that if we do implement that component, would your solution for the Index: namespace to manually add such lines; I had liked my includeonly method as it did it display there. billinghurst (talk) 08:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I transcluded the pages as per the style of other pages of the work, otherwise it is incomplete. Linked to it from the author's page. Some of the pages were on the list of validated pages. At this point in time no other special intent, though I am often creating, proofing and validating pages all around the place. billinghurst (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Please remove that as well. Cygnis insignis (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy to hear of improvements that you think that can be made, however, I don't understand your position on what has been undertaken. Are you indicating that it is better for pages to be hidden away in the Page: namespace, and to only to raise their head when there is a purity of perfection? To me that makes works possessive, and not collaborative, and doesn't encourage people to come and contribute. They cannot see where they can contribute. To me, this is a wiki, I am not understanding from where you are approaching this matter. billinghurst (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who has worked with Cygnis insignis for quite some time, I highly recommend you revert yourself where he has asked you to, and then give him a little time to show you how he proposes to handle the situation. In the absence of polarising discussions like this one, neither of you have particularly extreme positions on this. Case in point: I assure you that Cygnis does not think it a good idea to make a page unreachable merely because it is no listed on the contents page. Hesperian 05:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  1. I said above that I am happy for people to undo my work and implement a better solution. If it needs to be done, then do it, it doesn't need me to go and do it. Never have you seen me in a revision war, or raise an angry word.
  2. The other page is a new creation, so undoing it is a deletion, not an undo. Again, if someone has a better idea, then delete it. Or prepare something better and replace it. What is there is not wrong, it just may not be to your preference.
I am simply going through and bringing forward a whole heap of text that has been validated or proofread, and I get people being cryptic with me, and asking me to do things that they can themselves achieve. If there is no note on a work that there is something in process, then what else is expected? I check for notes. If it is evident from looking at a work that it is someone's love, I leave it. That said there has been a significant number of works that have had transclusion omissions. Nowhere have I been out to cause any problems, and I am not in the zone for games or guessing motives. billinghurst (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'll clean it up. Cygnis has taken a break, and it may help his resentment to abate if this is cleaned up to his satisfaction in the meantime.

I've already butted in over at Cygnis's talk page, so I won't repeat here what I've already said there. I do not doubt your good faith, and I appreciate that this is merely routine maintenance; but an unfortunate choice of category title has created a perception otherwise; fortunately it is easily fixed. I found Cygnis' posts to be perfectly lucid, but I recall having difficulty when I first started working with him many moons ago. Maybe his writing style just takes a bit of getting used to. You'll have to take my word for it that he is not wilfully cryptic.

Hesperian 07:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Disconcerted over Category name? Sheesh, I am happy to rename it, even said that, just an indication of what meets needs would be fantastic. Tried asking nicely, and felt that it was ignored. <shrug> billinghurst (talk) 08:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, let's just rename it and move on. Nothing more needs to be said. Hesperian 12:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, fuck a duck. I thought I'd pitch in and help but you've already done it! Good on ya mate. Hesperian 12:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Weak smile. I feel like a man juggling sharp knifes with his donger, while someone shoots at his feet yelling DANCE!. billinghurst (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm done mucking around with Nile. I'm on a hiding to nothing really, trying to produce roughly what Cygnis would want, without rendering your efforts there a total waste of time. It helps a lot that you don't give a fuck; thanks for that. Hesperian 13:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ta, yum. :-) Hesperian 14:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hardybar here; i can't seem to get a response from my talk page, so I am trying here. Please check out my request for help, Re: a Semper Paratus page; category: song lyrics.

Well spotted[edit]

[4]. Thanks. Moondyne (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I am just the humble requestor, and the trundling fixer. Hesperian wrote the script that does the hard yakka. billinghurst (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I should have known ... Moondyne (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Information about this edition"[edit]

I was wondering if you would like to add your name in the "Contributor(s)" and "Proofreaders" section for "Information about this edition" on the Live and Let Live page.--Angelprincess72 (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Jane Eyre[edit]

Thanks for proofreading all of the remaining pages of Jane Eyre, I am now in the process of validating all of the pages and adding them to the text version of Jane Eyre. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Odd defaultsort[edit]

As can be seen on the second page of Category:DNB No WP, some newer pages are piling up as if defaultsorted under letter D. This is likely some artefact of DNBSet, but I don't understand quite what. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Would have to go and look (and fuzzy brained tonight) Is it only happening with entries in this category? -- billinghurst (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I did a test on an affected page (diff) and it came out under D again. In the "No WP" category there are recent pages not using that template, and correctly sorted by initial letter. Which is why I suspect some gremlin in DNBSet. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Issue identified, and it is within the base code as it was picking up the sortkey from the Index: files [5]. ThomasV has recoded and it hopefully will be in the update. We can either way for the update, or we would need to remove the sortkey's from the vols. I would rather wait, though can be guided.billinghurst (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, it can wait certainly. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi Billinghurst,

Some images added to your toolbar here. Regards, --Zyephyrus (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to them. :-) For some I stopped adding images as that just slowed the process, and for some there wasn't icons that I could readily find. I believe that I did add them to the example toolbar for general availability. If I could find nice images for <section b&e=...>, I would ask ThV to add them to the Page namespace toolbar. billinghurst (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I propose this one.--Zyephyrus (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Public Domain Questions[edit]

Just a quick question: can books on Google Books in the public domain be uploaded to wikisource, and if so, how? I'm looking in particular at Thomas Carlyle's Latterday Pamphlets, which is here. Also, is there a place for this specific type of question? The scriptorium didn't look right, and I didn't know where else to go. Thanks so much! Wrelwser43 (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You can (and convert to DjVu), or you can get it in DjVu from (follow the http:// links). Scriptorium is quite a suitable place to ask. No one here particularly bites. billinghurst (talk) 05:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Now, all of the DjVus from have some sort of watermark saying "digitized by google," or something to that effect. That's okay? Wrelwser43 (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we have others that way. We try to be reasonable and practical. If you want a clean version then the alternate is to convert the PDF to DJVU yourself (via available software or websites). Or if there is an available public domain PDF file that is not at, then to upload it there, and at some point(short-term) it will be converted to the other available forms and be downloadable. billinghurst (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I managed to upload it to Commons, but I can't figure out how to get it on here. Wrelwser43 (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Create an Index:Latter-day_Pamphlets.djvu page. Pick one from this list as an example billinghurst (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

When will books published between 1923 and 1927 fall into the public domain? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

95 calendar years from publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Yikes! Bummer... I heard it might be 2018, etc... Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


Billinghurst, I noted on another talk page where you mentioned that your use of linking was questioned by another user, and I was wondering if you could point me to such an example... I too am "interested in the biographical detail [and] interlinking of works and people" and have used linking as well on WS when transcribing works by Mrs. Coates and other authors related to her... Or perhaps it is not the same sort of "linking?" Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A book that is probably uncontroversial with regard to linking would be List of Carthusians, 1800–1879. You should find both local and WP linking in the A-Z pages. We also do amounts of that within DNB. billinghurst (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense to me... I have done similarly here. It does add research value for visitors to the site. What would be considered more "controversial?" Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Anything with a hint of Point of View, and this is where we have some conjecture and identified some differing philosophies. At this point of time, I cannot be more explicit and I am going to stay closer to strong biographical works at this point. billinghurst (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your time. I have looked over Point of View, and it has been helpful. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Tartini and Burney[edit]

Thank you for the welcome and the note about I'll take a look later. I notice that you added a copyright template to Tartini's Letter. You seem to have put PD-old for both the author and the translator, at least, when I look at the source. But when I look at the saved page, it says that there's no information about the translator. Charles Burney died in 1814, so obviously, he is public domain also, but I don't know how to fix that. In fact, I think the template on Charles Burney's page is a bit odd too. Thanks. Rigaudon (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I did a typo in the template that Prosfilaes subsequently fixed. I had a blond moment. For translations, the copyright template and instructions are at {{translation licence}} billinghurst (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Author deletions[edit]

Thanks for the cleanup, but try to be careful what you delete - Author:Christine Chaundler for example lists a book written in 1920 and you deleted it as "no works in the public domain". Now maybe it didn't include dates on the authorpage, but that's no reason to delete it. Instead I'd focus on deleting only those author pages shown to be modern commercial authors (not Popes, political leaders, etc) and vanity authors (where they are creating their own page) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle. 16:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough about the page, though do acknowledge that there are no works onsite, no data, and no evidence that the page needed to be kept. If you know some data about it, then it would have been great if that could have been added rather than left nude, and it is barely undeleteable. Give me the credit for the amount of research that I have done on the other authors for whom I put their work into context.
Further, with relation to the politicians, etc. this has been discussed and resolved at Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2009-11#Author:Lise Bacon et al. Any that have works are bypassed for the moment. Though many do have works that do not look to be released to the public domain. billinghurst (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
As a favour, it would be nice when you know the data, that you could add it, rather than revert a delete and just leave it in the same poor state that in which it was. I have been out and searched for the data on this occasion. billinghurst (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for letting me know that; and sorry about deleting the pages. I owe you the credit for putting the authors' pages up, and I promise to put in as much data as possible in the author's pages, and not delete them if there is information that can be put in. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

AP, you haven't done anything that is an issue. Deletion is something that admins do. You are doing lovely work! billinghurst (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Obstacle of ignorance[edit]

Hi, Billinghurst, wishing you a happy and prosperous new year. At your leisure, could you please advise about the following?

  • In the Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1/October 1872/Literary Notices transclusions, there is an empty page which I resolved by the use of the Page: template to exclude it, instead of the preferred single line <pages index=" /> tag syntax. (I am developing code based on that). Spent the past two days trying to understand the Mediawiki LST on how to include/exclude multiple pages/sections in a tag, but the examples are lacking.
  1. lst is #section, we just gave have the option of the name. I think that creating more options (code) on how to handle is creating redundancy, there is enough existing code to do everything necessary. There is section transclusion information at H:SIDE
Sorry for the muddle caused by the word 'coding'. I have no intention to add to wiki code, about which I am very impressed. It was about VB code for my use to generate text files for pasting the header text with all the links, page names, etc, a task which I find totally boring and prevents me from proofing and reading. H:SIDE instructions are fine and use them. I was looking for documentation if the <pages index=" /> tag can handle multiple from/to and section assignments in one line.
Your anchors are working fine Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 1.djvu/789#C, you just had relative links and Page: is a flat hierarchy, in that space just consider the / as a naming character, not an indicator of a sublevel. Links have to be fully directed from one namespace to the other. billinghurst (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Aside from relative links, I was concerned about the workload of anchoring 'in text' references. Fortunately, the index entries are all alphabetically reorganized titles and sub-titles in two or three variations, depending. Thanks for your patient help. — Ineuw (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for your faith in me, nice to be appreciated ;-) Jan1naD (talkcontrib) 16:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


Thank you so much for creating an index version of the text, and sending your bot to proofread all of the pages. I will validate them all and apply the pages to the original version as I did with Live and Let Live. I will also ensure that the full chapter titles from the index version are added to the original version, and I will also ensure that I add your name to "Information about this edition" on the Villette talk page. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Very welcome. If there are further texts that for which need to find a .djvu file, let me know. Especially the case for Gutenberg texts as there is usually a scan somewhere in some sort of condition that we can do something to for import. billinghurst (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I will definitely let you know if there are any texts I need in djvu. version. Right now, I've decided to take a break from revising, and contribute. I've only been here 4 months and contributing is my favourite pastime activity; and I am completely addicted to it. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Multilingual edit summaries[edit]

Hi, this edit of yours caught my eye. Thankfully, I saw your name a split second before I clicked undo. It took me a few seconds to realize that this was an English expression, and not illiterate German for "makes love to my mother's mother". Just your bad luck, now you're on my wikilulz list. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, silliness, silliness, silliness. May it brighten your day. smiley billinghurst (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Join me on Billy's beigest campaign.
What's this, diss de doctor day? Just because my userpage has a cosmic latte background? Paradoctor (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome message[edit]


Thanks for correcting the dash issue in the article A Dirge for McPherson. I always try to contribute whenever I find a misspelling, a missing article, but mostly at Wikipedia.

Bcartolo (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No probs. And thanks for contributing! We are happy to steal you away from WP we just need to know the right bait. There are lots of fun things to do here, and we love being able to house the references to be used at WP. billinghurst (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for debugging my new copyright tags[edit]

Thanks for debugging my new copyright tags for posthumous works, i.e. Template:PD-posthumous-50 and the like. When I tried the new series at The War Prayer I saw superfluous }} without knowing where exactly it was from. As I have found deaths more than 100 years ago alone not 100% worldwide public domain, using the new tags helps identify which works were posthumously published. :-) --Jusjih (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no probs. It is called teamwork. :-) Thanks for doing the licences. I was going to get a picture of someone with a mop and bucket, however, Commons search is busted. :( billinghurst (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


Can you move the page 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Gadwall to 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Gadwall? This is the spelling used in the EB, and the only one I've ever seen. Also, I'm slowly copyediting the pages on Robert Fitzwalter in the DNB, and I'm going to start the page soon, and start expanding his Wikipedia article—should be massive! I can't find if page breaks are included in the DNB Manual of Style. —innotata (TalkContribsw:) 22:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Both pages exist currently, so the choice is a permanent or a soft redirect that will be deleted in a few months, I went for the latter. At Wikisource, editors who have been autoconfirmed can move pieces, and I would have thought that you had met that criteria.
With regard to page markers. The method of transclusion from the Page: ns to the main ns using the template {{DNBset}} will automatically put in active hyperlinks at the page break. Here is a recent example Cozens, Alexander (DNB00). I am presuming that you can see the numbers on the left hand side of the page, if not, then we have an issue. billinghurst (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Bother, the DNB style looks a bit harder: I thought just cut and paste like with most texts. I don't think I'll be able to do it very easily. —innotata (TalkContribsw:) 00:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Really, we think that this is easier. On the Page: article, all one needs to do is to format, and have the section markers place at the front and end of each article. Then create the new page in the main namespace paste in the {{DNBset}} template, and complete each line of data (as relevant), then save. The template does the rest producing the article. Voila!
If you just want to typeset the article, I am happy to do the main namespace component, though it isn't actually difficult, and besides, it won't break anything if it is not got right, and readily tidiable. billinghurst (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed it's easier, once you've done it the first time ;-) Then just repeat what's been done before. And of course, the article is always kept in step with the latest corrected version of the page. And if you think that doesn't matter, maybe we should offer a prize for anyone who can identify ten DNB pages that are prefectly correct in every respect as of now? Jan1naD (talkcontrib) 17:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll take your money any time on that. But anyone can put up a page with {{DNB00}} and proofread text, without being called a Luddite. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'm done with the basic proofreading, so I'll start the page after I make a run through and look for errors. —innotata (TalkContribsw:) 20:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

External Linking[edit]

What is Wikisource's preference with regard to external linking? Is the following permissible or is there a more preferred method:

Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Worth reading {{textinfo}} and {{edition}} and seeing what you can do with those fields first. We try to keep a blend of clean, though useful. billinghurst (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
OK?: On Re-reading "The Sick King in Bokhara" then Talk:On Re-reading "The Sick King in Bokhara" Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Nice. We tend not to use the PREVIOUS field in such a way, as its intent is to navigate through a work. Two reasons, 1. we presume, maybe incorrectly, that the author link is sufficient; 2. these links contain metadata and as metadata is improved, we will better utilise that within search engines and the like. billinghurst (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The English Constitution (1894)/The House of Lords/indented-page[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion. You created it; you decide. Hesperian 11:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done as I have mentioned before, not protective over them. billinghurst (talk)
Yeah, I know. All the same, I reserve the right to pass the buck :-) Hesperian 12:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but some of us wish to buck the pass. Remember I am a Tigers supporter. :-/ billinghurst (talk)
I'm too excited about today's test match to be getting obscure footy jokes right now. Hesperian 13:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to see that your user page is experiencing the white page of death. :([edit]

Sorry to see that your user page is experiencing the white page of death. :( I'll continue the uploads as soon as we get that fixed. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Matt, there is absolutely zero need for speed. Charles has his start, and has his hands full already.<g> billinghurst (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
(Typing with toes) It's great that CE vol.1 is up there now. The very first article shows the extent of the work required to make the text conform. Also we now have the pictures! There are cool maps later. This is really recreation for when I can't face any more DNB, but some header and template work seems indicated. Plenty to think about. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the heads up. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 04:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


Thanx for your help.

I'm a french contributor so the english Wikisource is a little unfamilliar too me (plus, I'm not familliar with everything on the french Wikisource :S ). So don't hesitate to check what I do.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You are doing perfectly fine. I will see if I can assist anywhere to make things easier, or if you think that you need a hand, do ask. billinghurst (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!...[edit]

...for [8] :) Wknight94 (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Most welcome. We are going to be finished it really early. I may have to round up some validations to fill the gap until February! billinghurst (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Heh, I'll keep my eye open for the next one. Wknight94 (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


Its a lonely occupation but not always a thankless one... thx for the thx Billinghurst Victuallers (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Mac Flecknoe[edit]


I've just completed the text of Mac Flecknoe that someone had started earlier but left unfinished. I thought about proofreading it as well, but I couldn't find a definitive version on the Internet. I found these: [9], [10], [11]. It is said that the 1684 version is the authorized one, but there are differences even in two of the 1684 texts (e.g. "Fleckno" in one and "Flecknoe" in the other). Which do you think I should use? The first one seems to be pretty good, but I'm not sure. Also, should I include footnotes or is the poem itself enough? -- DJózsef (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't make the decision, we work by citing the originating sources using {{textinfo}}, and obviously the more primary the source the better. So when there are differences that we have identified, we can be annotating differences, or if the version difference is significant, then we would host both versions of the work, and utilise a disambiguation page {{versions}}.
Ideally we get a copy of the work from an early source and looking at, they have My recommendation is that we to download the .djvu version and have it installed at Commons, and proofread it. Having the text already makes this a very easy task. Would you like for me to get that set up? billinghurst (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine. Thanks for doing it. – DJózsef (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


How do I get the scanned images from djvu. pages, and add them to Wikicommons to insert them into the pages when I am editing? Thanks.--Angelprincess72 (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Application that I use
I use the Firefox browser, and have the FireShot addon installed. That allows me to take snapshots and crop. [If you don't have that, then I also have the freeware image application IrfanView, which does similar.]
Taking snapshots
While you can take snapshots of the .djvu file as you progress through, one of our skilled image people here has found that you get better quality screenshots if you open the file on using their inline browser and take snapshots. Saving the files with a name that relates to the image, either the figure details, the Page details, or a combination of each. (This just makes it easier to find, and better when searched)
Uploading to Commons
I upload using the derivatives option via Commons:Upload, where the files can be linked back to the original djvu. [Tip. Add a Category that relates to the work, and make that a common feature of all the uploads]. Now I cheat when I use the tool, and use the back key, add the new image details, etc., then upload. Need to be mindful when cheating that you get all the detail right, esp. filenames, and files selected. Always a good idea to determine the overarching categories that you wish to apply, and often the uploaded djvu file is worth looking at (amend if necessary).
Other things at Commons
While at Commons, you may also wish to individually categorise the images, or you may wish to build a specific page for the images, use <gallery>, that links to the work at WS, WS, WP. That depends on your dedication level. Now I am sure that there are better practitioners, however, if you want a glance at some of my doings, you can look at my upload log
Anyway, that is a rough idea of what I do. Others may comment and improve or add their experiences. billinghurst sDrewth 21:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Snapshots? Isn't it easier to export from DjView? You can also convert the entire file to PS, PDF or TIFF, and then use some tool to extract all pages in one go. Paradoctor (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
While I have the viewer, and many of the files upon which I work, no, I don't find it easier to extract a page that way. If one doesn't have the viewer, and the file, then its not easier. Also depends on the lossy aspects of the image, and I am not the person to speak to on that regard. There are some examples of screen shots from the various applications on WS, though cannot remember where at this point in time. billinghurst sDrewth 03:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I have downloaded Fireshot for Firefox, and gotten familiar to how it works. Are all images used from the original work derivative works if they have been sourced from as a snapshot and retouched; and the novels they are from are on Commons? And how does the licensing work on Commons? Thanks. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
IMNSHO they are derivatives of both, as they are the same, I am not into that level of hair-splitting. Our derivative works are of the simplest form, in that they are snapshot, whereas others may do more to the works, eg. merge images, etc. So the application of a licence is of the original work, and your contribution. If you wish to modify the licence to just be of the original work, that would be okay too (again IMNSHO). billinghurst sDrewth 00:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much Billinghurst. I have now uploaded my first file onto Commons using Fireshot. I added the decorative header from Jane Eyre that was on page 11 using the "derivative works" option. This link links to the original image I uploaded onto Commons. Taking a snapshot and uploading it to Commons was easier than I thought! Thanks again.

Scottish Record Society Uploads[edit]

sDrewth buddy, I realize you are a busy guy, but when you get a chance can you create a list for the Scottish Record Society volumes so I can upload them? I want to try out my connection when I get a chance! No huge rush. Thanks. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Won't get it in a huge rush either. To do that properly, I would need to get the deeper titles against volumes, and I cannot find a ready publication list, so that will take some time. billinghurst sDrewth 00:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

re: Fancy[edit]

My pleasure :-) best, Ziel (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

References in A Beacon to the Society of Friends don't go anywhere.[edit]

I'm pretty stoked about finishing my first proofread of a *whole book* !! Thanks for your advice and your congratulations. I'm learning tons as I go. In the completed work, clicking on the reference numbers doesn't go anywhere. What connects them to the actual footnotes, and shouldn't the footnotes appear at the bottom of each transcluded chapter?

I may go back and concatenate the "smaller block" quotes that get broken at the page breaks, unless someone beats me to it. DonDon-WS (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Oopsie. Needed to have either <references /> or {{smallrefs}} added at the places where we wanted the references added. I have had my bot account do that task. billinghurst sDrewth 04:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


Looking into it, thanks. Jude (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


This is about Template:PD-USGov, not Template:Header. After editing PD-USGov in good faith as I see w:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government that the USA can still hold the copyright of works covered by {{PD-USGov}} in other countries (if allowed there), two users make massive reversions. What would you think? I am not insisting my thoughts, but I just want to present a truth. The Selective Service System looks like a US federal governmental agency, yet its [ website] does claim copyright, which may pose problems somewhere outside the USA.--Jusjih (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

re: User talk:[edit]

Billinghurst, I was so busy with text that I didn't log in and I don't want another account under my IP address. I have completed about 10 books now and am still working near the end of an 11th. Kind regards, William Maury Morris (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


thx Victuallers (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


I was just wondering, isn't the licensing for this scanned book supposed to be PD-old because William Shakespeare died over 70 years ago, and this edition was published in 1847? It says the licensing is PD-US.--Angelprincess72 (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Different scenario due to the illustrations and editorial content. The illustrations will definitely have their own copyright, as they will have their intellectual property; and depending on what editorial additions and changes have been made, they may have intellectual property rights. So Shakespeare's text can be reproduced, the new additions have their own copyright. So the tag for this book would be determined on the combination of the three lives of the author, editor and illustrator. billinghurst sDrewth 22:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)



Thanks for the autopatrol rights.

For the radio button (we speak about Help:Page Status, right ?), as I'm not really fluent in english, I prefered to select Not proofread. But apparently I'm not so bad so now I think I will select proofread. I still prefer to let the validation stage to a english speaker.

Yes. Okay.

One question, in this diff : why choose {{smaller}} for B.C. and {{sc}} for A.D.? Does it matter ? (I allway use sc on the french speaking wikisource). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You had B.C. so I changed them to B.C., whereas you had a.d. so I changed them to a.d.. Hmm, does it matter? From the look, no difference. For consistency for a work, it makes sense to chose one or the other. From English convention it is upper case, and it would seem to be at that period to be upper case, smaller. I don't think that we offer better guidance. billinghurst sDrewth 21:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanx. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Salut. {{smaller}} does look better, though I wouldn't have thought it. Toi, tu joues à go? Je ne joue plus serieusement, mais ça m'interesse toujours. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
{{smaller}} is better for copy/paste too.
Je commence à jouer au go, mais je n'ai pas un très bon niveau.
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi from alex[edit]

Hi Billinghurst. I got an email from wiki at, with a strange content:

The Wikisource page User:Alex brollo has been created on 19 January 2010
by Billinghurst, see for
the current revision.

But, my user page has been created by me much time ago.... what such a message means?

Alex, I have NO idea. I don't remember editing a page, but maybe I did. Looking at your words, is that a different server than English wikisource? Is it oldwikisource?
If it's a different wikisource, it might be this bug, triggered by your userpage being deleted. If it refers to en.wikisource, it may be a random glitch, or it might be a related bug. In that case, you might want to report it to Bugzilla. Paradoctor (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A second, much more interesing question. I'm going to learn something about js, just some basics; my dream is to build a customable post-OCR tool linked to a edit bar button. I've been suggested to take a look at your monobook.js and I found rmflinks(), a very interesting js script, but it calls regexTool() function, and I can't find it ... nor I can understand how the function comes into live (is it linked to a botton event somewhere?)

The regex tool is in your gadgets. Umm, I am not an expert in coding, I am good at stealing others people's code and adapting the bits that I need to do a task. It is one of Pathoschild's creations. If you cannot find the right Mediawiki: file there call out and I will go digging. billinghurst sDrewth 17:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologyze for my silly questions. I've much to study to "break the js wall"! --Alex brollo (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

PERFECT Billinghurst, I just uploaded regex tool and it promises to be (almost) exactly what I'm looking for. :-). Thank you. --Alex brollo (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Yust to tell you again THANKS! I'm going to build up a "main regex cluster" to fix some usual and typical Internet Archive OCR scannos for Italian language (Italian, as you know, use lots of apostrophes and accents, any one of them being the source of peculiar scannos), and a brief list of "special regex clusters" to be used and personalized for particular works. I.e. I'm working on an ancient horsemanship work, where a tipical scanno for "Polledro" ("puledro" in modern Italian; the colt/the young horse in English) is "Poliedro", that is polyhedron in English... :-) --Alex brollo (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
A suggestion from a style of coding I found into it.source:

your code:

function lines() {
        var editbox = document.getElementsByName('wpTextbox1')[0];
        editbox.value = editbox.value.replace(/ \n/g, '\n');
        editbox.value = editbox.value.replace(/\n\n/g, '<p>');
        editbox.value = editbox.value.replace(/-\n/g, '');
        editbox.value = editbox.value.replace(/\n/g, ' ');
        editbox.value = editbox.value.replace(/<p>/g, '\n\n')
can be simplified so:
function lines() {
        var editbox = document.getElementsByName('wpTextbox1')[0];
        editbox.value = editbox.value.replace(/ \n/g, '\n')
        .replace(/\n\n/g, '<p>') 
        .replace(/-\n/g, '') 
        .replace(/\n/g, ' ') 
        .replace(/<p>/g, '\n\n')

--Alex brollo (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

not prose[edit]

The link you provided discusses what an 'expert' considers a reasonable page width, though this is not the only issue, ours happens to be as wide as the user makes it.

Amongst the problems I see is the fact that if the user tries to look at two windows side by side, the prose class is likely to force half of the text to be hidden until it adjusted. If they print it their own margin settings are ignored and they get a column of text down the middle of the page. The results on hand-held devices that I experimented with are also not-good.

You will also notice that the text in the linked example is not justified, it has a ragged right margin like a wikipedia page ... and this one. Justified text was okay when done by skilled typesetters for dead-tree version, where it often has single spacing and indents instead of line breaks for new paragraphs. Apparently I am not the only one who finds justified text more difficult to read, especially when the lines are shortened by the div class, there are various opinions on why this is so.

Indented page is not a whimsical preference, it was implemented to keep the transcluded content clear of the links to Page: space; it emulates the versatility and familiarity of a standard wikimedia page. I don't think we should decide how wide the user's page is and I'm certain that they know how to resize a window or change the font size. I've tried pretty hard to see how it would be advantageous to implementing prose or lefttext as the defacto default, other than the otherwise easily controlled length of the line you mention I have failed to find anything. Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I had rolled over on this baby, and have been using i-p as the default choice for pages created recently, as not wanting to cause a fuss. I await a technological response (if one ever arrives) that allows users to make their own choices. I will admit that I hadn't considered handheld devices in my original thinking. billinghurst sDrewth 06:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


I noticed the speedtip said 'begin', instead of 'end', after adding the code I swiped from you, assumed it was ok to change that here. How do I get the icons to appear? Cygnis insignis (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you have caught me out my copy and paste skills. <eyeroll> I cheat, I turn the icons off as it was a little quicker to load with the text. To get an icon one just needs to add in the full raw url and a choice from Commons:MediaWiki edit toolbar billinghurst sDrewth 04:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but I think I want to turn them off too. How do I do that?

I use a script in a text editor that removes spaces before punctuation (except full stops) and strips spaces around emdashes. It also removes line breaks, but I switch this off if I'm doing text with poetry innit. I haven't found a problem with using this, is it a good idea for a script in the sidebar? Cygnis insignis (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Turn off = no image. This way the "speed tip" text shows, and I usually have an added space (to separate). Well, that is how Firefox shows it, though I notice that Chrome is a little different and shows a broken image.
Is it a browser setting or do I add this somewhere?
Sounds like a nice addition. The nice thing about the sidebar thingy is I can just click those that I want to run. FWIW with some of the poetry, I am now adding a style to the poem tag and I am finding that it is easier to remember how many em I use, rather than spaces, and I can just run the line stripper if it isn't too many to repair. billinghurst sDrewth 05:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to work out how to do it sometime, but if I learn about javascript I'll forget something else :P Do you have an example of this poem styling? Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I don't learn javascript, I just copy, and modify the bits that I need to be change. I cannot code, I cheat well. For the poem tag, it is a simple <poem style="margin-left:XXem"> where XX is the number of em to indent. billinghurst sDrewth 05:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Cyg, I had a blond moment today; juggling many things, it should have been margin-left. billinghurst sDrewth 11:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

index form[edit]

I find these forms fiddly, I'm not sure why they are necessary. As it is, the field names are a little ambiguous and their definitions remain arcane. The diff says "source=" and that is what I think is useful to include here. I appreciate that it interferes with the magic in the background, but what is the purpose of retyping the suffix djvu given in the title? This could surely appear automatically somewhere, perhaps with a commons icon next to it. The only reason I would click on it is to get the link I included, the actual source of the data and the others "scans" [formats] available there. Cygnis insignis (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I reckon that the name of the "source" field is confusing. Typing "djvu" or "pdf" in that field, only to display a link to the djvu file might seem a bit useless. To understand why this field is there, remember how index pages used to work previously, before we supported the djvu format. Old index pages used to link together individual jpeg images. In that case, the source field was supposed to be filled with a link to a category where the scans belong. Now that the extension supports djvu files, this field is less useful.
However, I don't think that the meaning of the field should be changed to indicate where the scans come from. The source of a djvu or pdf file should be indicated on the file page on commons, and not on the index page, because the djvu file might be replaced/updated many times during the life of an index page. Users who update the file at commons will not necessarily update the source information at wikisource.
I don't know how many old-style index pages remain at; if the answer is zero, maybe we could provide the link to the file automatically, without having users fill a field.
ThomasV (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
When updating the files, it gives ready access to the file, which is particularly useful with all the purging that I have been needing to undertake to reunite texts with their images. I would agree that the field name is self-evident, and that it maybe has morphed over time. File type is possibly what it should be labelled, and I have thought about doing something, however, I stir the pot often enough. The issue is that it may or may not be a Commons file, plus providing a link through is advantage, just as there is a link from the File: to the Index: billinghurst sDrewth 10:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, I modified the javascript so that it auto-fills this field of the form, when the index is djvu or pdf ThomasV (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

OT: Web text alignment[edit]

Sorry to bother you with a somewhat non-WS question... But do you know what HTML coding to use in order to float lines of poetry on a REGULAR web page the way Wikisource can

Float lines of poetry
   without disrupting the text alignment
or indentation ?

Thank you, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Noting that I am no expert. It will need to be done with CSS and the float attribute, like the templates that have been coded. Use of <span style="......."> using the elements as explained at floating ->
So {{float right}}'s code is <span style="float: right; display: block; margin-right:0"> with the offset value mentioned changing the value of margin-right. For an expert on this seek out Jack Merridew (talkcontribs)billinghurst sDrewth 22:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: DNB[edit]

Thanks for the pointer. I was planning on looking for the instructions for adding material from the DNB, but I really didn't know where to start & figured if I got the material close enough to be useful, someone else would helpful cross my t's & dot my i's. Best -- Llywrch (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

fix OCR[edit]

I'm going on with my idea from your monobook.js scripts, thank you again. I'm writing brief notes about some trick I'm using into it.source (the last one is, the js routine to fix OCR's by IA) here: User:Alex brollo/WIP. Take a look sometimes if you like. --Alex brollo (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

  • A gentle elbow to your ribs, mate, in case you had forgotten

Notice 1490 of 2008[edit]

Thanks! I did notice that it was validated, but I'm wondering if it's really interesting enough for {{new texts}}. I mean, it's not terribly meaningful of itself; it's here because Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996/Schedule 1A refers to it to define the boundaries of South Africa's provinces. - Htonl (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is. It demonstrates the diversity of the site, and if you do your linking right, it will flow through nicely. billinghurst sDrewth 15:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Film that Wasn't[edit]

On the discussion page, I commented that I received the explicit permission of Ram Loevy to translate and post the piece. I have worked extensively with him, and received the transcript from him today with the explicit understanding that it would be translated and posted. I am therefore removing the copyright violation notice. Danny (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Danny. Sounds like the way to go. billinghurst sDrewth
You need to prove that, preferably by having Loevy sending an mail from his official mail address to m:OTRS stating that he releases the speech under a suitable free license. Paradoctor (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Correct that there will need to be an OTRS permission, though the discussion is better on the talk page of the work, which is where I continued it. billinghurst sDrewth 03:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured but not locked texts[edit]

The following texts are featured but not locked:--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. Finished with the War: A Soldier’s Declaration
  2. The Times/The Late Mr. Charles Babbage, F.R.S.
  3. South Africa Act 1909
  4. United States patent X1
  5. ACLU v. NSA (District Court opinion)
  6. The Wind in the Willows
  7. J'accuse
  8. German Instrument of Surrender (7 May 1945)
  9. A specimen of the botany of New Holland
  10. Fatal fall of Wright airship
  11. Charles von Hügel

Magna Carta leaders[edit]

Can you find which of these Magna Carta leaders, besides the 25 sureties, were included in the DNB and add them to Wikisource:WikiProject DNB/Most wanted articles? I don't know how they were each listed. —innotata (TalkContribsw:) 20:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

As an idea, why don't we start Wikisource:Magna Carta and we can see what we can collate, including a To Do sort of list. To start, I will import the WP page and munge it. billinghurst (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


I was over at Pathoschild's talk page begging Javascript help (which I got), and I saw your comment about doing the same regex fixes over and over again. Why not do what I just did (with Pathoschild's help), and fill your sidebar with trivial scripts that do precisely what you want?

If you have his Custom regex installed (and you do), then you already have the ability to add a link to the sidebar; it comes for free with his code. So to handle your dashes problem, all you need to do is add to your monobook.js:

function rmflinks() {
        regexTool('fix dashes','dashes()');

function dashes() {
        var editbox = document.getElementsByName('wpTextbox1')[0];
        editbox.value = editbox.value.replace(/--/g, '—')

Piece of cake, huh. Hesperian 11:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I will try it out. Sweet. Then I will try a couple of others. I had plans to go back and run the bot through them to tidy the beasts. THANKS! billinghurst sDrewth 11:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
If no inconvenience created I try too. Thank you Hesperian, Pathoschild, Billinghurst :) --Zyephyrus (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a fine example of four-way collaboration: I just poked into your monobook.js and discovered your brilliant idea of removing spurious carriage returns. This is a better application that anything I had thought of. But I reckon my version is better than yours: you seem to have separate functions depending on whether there is a space at the end of each line. I say strip the space first, then replace the paragraph breaks, then convert the remaining line breaks to spaces:

function whitespace() {
        var editbox = document.getElementsByName('wpTextbox1')[0];
        editbox.value = editbox.value.replace(/ \n/g, '\n');
        editbox.value = editbox.value.replace(/\n\n/g, '<p>');
        editbox.value = editbox.value.replace(/\n/g, ' ');
        editbox.value = editbox.value.replace(/<p>/g, '\n\n')

Hesperian 13:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


I've added Robert Fitzwalter's DNB entry at Fitzwalter, Robert (DNB00) (As you predicted, it was a little diffcult to sort out th set template, but it should be easy next time. Ah, and how do I find if Gilbert White's page has been scanned up: if it has I'll do it next as it was by Author:Alfred Newton.), and I've started working on Fitzwalter's Wikipedia article at w:User:Innotata/Sandbox, the reference style of which I suggest you take a look at. I think I'd like to make more of this sort of reference appear around Wikipedia, namely in the bird and other animal articles I work on. How do I start adding a new text to Wikisource? (I've been thinking of some from the Internet Archive, which has .djvu files etc.) Also, what do you think of adding just two or three articles from scientific journals no longer in copyright? Can I even add scientific papers t all? —innotata (TalkContribs) 16:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Files found at should be double-checked that that they are in the public domain, and if available uploaded to Commons:, do pick a logical and reliable file name as it will carry through. From there, at enWS, create Index:filename.djvu for your file (more instructions at Proofread) and from there the <pagelist /> tag on that page will create the cascading Page:filename.djvu/1..n pages.
With regards to other works, if it has been published, in the public domain, and takes your interest, then great. We encourage users to upload a full edition, rather than the one article, however, we don't complain if it is just the one article. We would say that when reproducing an article from an edition, that it should be framed in consideration of fitting the remaining edition (there are examples if you need them). Also see Wikisource:WikiProject Academic Papers . I will look at the examples later when time permits. billinghurst sDrewth 23:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The one thing I'd like to ask about is how I double-check if something is public domain. At any rate most I've been considering are from the 19th century, so they probably all are PD-old. —innotata (TalkContribs) 00:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely {{PD-1923}} and when we have the authors' dates of death, we can amend as required. billinghurst sDrewth 01:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So even if these works are published in Britain, we use the American copyright rules—I know nothing about this. —innotata (TalkContribs) 23:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is never so simple, however, basically the answer is YES. The starting text and links at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations are the best short guide for my likes. billinghurst sDrewth 17:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Update on Grove's Dictionary[edit]

Hi, I've finally finished proofreading the C's from Vol. 1 and the Appendix. This has included transcluding them into a single sequence. See A Dictionary of Music and Musicians/C.

I've mostly only done internal wikilinks to the C's themselves because I knew what the pages were called. This means that I suggest they we don't rush to get them validated, which will cut down on the number of passes that they will have to go through.

At some stage I'll suggest a WikiProject for the Dictionary, but I want to get pull together various tips and details on what I've discovered so that there's a chance for consistency.

I'm debating with myself whether to carry on to the D's or go back to the A's and B's and apply what I've learnt from the C's to them. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! You do know that you are going to be considered the resident music expert now. smiley Have a think about whether any of your learnt lessons could be applied by a bot, and if they can, then add the requests to Wikisource:Bot requests. If unsure, then do feel to ask a question here, or alternatively pop into #wikisource, (if no client use with the channel being wikisource billinghurst sDrewth 09:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


I wanted to ask: if at the end of a transcription page there is reference linking to the main text on the page, and the reference carries on on the next page, what html do I use then? to avoid marking them as two seperate references? Thanks Angelprincess72 (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My means of resolution is a little crude, however, I find it easiest. I copy the text from the latter page, include it on the earlier page. I put a comment <!-- --> into the footer noting what I have done. On the latter page, I put the text into the footer, above the <reference> tag, and do a little formatting to make it look the footnote. If that sounds double dutch, point me at the work and I show you in situ.
[There was another means suggested, however, I remember finding it problematic on a work, and I haven't got back to finding a fix.] billinghurst sDrewth 22:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

First page:

{{#tag:ref|Footnote text before overflow.<includeonly>{{#section:Page:[Second page]|overflow}}</includeonly>}}

Subsequent pages:

<section begin=text/>Page text.<section end=text/>

<div style="font-size:smaller">
<section begin=overflow/>Footnote overflow.<section end=overflow/>


"foo" is substituted with the name of the file, 'fum' is a placeholder for the page number. This has tested and deployed. I'm happy to demonstrate this, or add the fix, if anyone wants to use this method. Cygnis insignis (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I don't think that I used the #tag to start, that would explain it. Though as I said, it takes remembering. billinghurst sDrewth 05:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I found the problematic pages and demo'd it. Hesperian had a eureka moment some time after several users had wrestled with it, even I got 'close but not quite!' Getting it to work with the <pages index= style, instead of {{page}}, can be done as I have at this page. Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I thought about suggesting one, but you have found it was no good?; just out of curiosity, what killed the idea? Cygnis insignis (talk) 07:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
as it is a tag, so it needs #tag, and then it needs it at both ends for two section tags if only they had thought of an open and close tag like <section name=yaddada> text </section>. Have a look at User:billinghurst/PotM watch to see the evil output. And that is just for subsequent footnotes. I will park it and think about it on a clear day. I think that for a template that the bulk of the coding will be at the ref tag, use overflow as the default tag, but allow for others. Not today for resolution. billinghurst sDrewth 09:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


I wanted to bring this to your attention. Apparently, there are three pages missing from the djvu text. I validated the text per another copy I had. However, this may be of some concern to you. I can go through and help angelprincess72 validate the rest. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we found that :-( Speak to Angel as I uploaded the work for her how she would like to have that managed. The vol. 3 at look poor, though you may be able to find something that covers it there. billinghurst sDrewth 21:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I managed to find the last 4 pages that were missing on, and I was wondering if it would be possible to just upload those 4 pages, out of the 500+ pages the novel has, and add them after this page.--Angelprincess72 (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
If you have a djvu editor (mine only goes up to 100 pages) then you could just add the four pages and reupload the djvu on commons (and only the final pages would change, and since they transclude none of the formatting should break). However, it would require a djvu editor. You could manually upload the pages to common and "force" the djvu transclusion to take normal image files, which would be complicated to work out. There might be an experienced editor who knows how the format works that could achieve such a feat. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for validating and formatting the pages. I'm hoping to finish off the rest of the novel ASAP, and have it fully done by the end of this month; less than 150 pages left now. Thanks again. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)--Angelprincess72 (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Further on Grove's Dictionary[edit]

ThomasV came back to me and with some gentle nudging assisted me to see what you were trying to tell me - problem was the old laptop I use to edit on doesn't have an up-to-date browser or javascript on it so I couldn't see the example. Having temporarily wrested control of the iMac back I am now of the opinion that the suggested transclusion method will work. I've given a longer reponse on my talk page. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Though important reminder for us that it doesn't work in old browsers, then again, you have your iMac back. :-) billinghurst sDrewth 09:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User List[edit]

I was just looking on the User List to see if there were any new people I could welcome to this site, when I came across some usernames that were inappropriate. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that is not the best list to use, it is full of dross. :-( When someone creates a universal account on one of the English wiki set (WP, WS, WQ, WV, WIKT, SPECIES, ...) basically logs them into all of the wikis, hence they have an account here, and it shows at the place where you looked. They will show whether they are globally blocked or not. In short, not a good list to use.
Personally I use Special:RecentChanges and take it out to b/w 500-1500 entries and look for those who have specifically created their account here (this is where they show), or for users who have a red talk link. Then I use either {{welcome}} (account users) or {{subst:welcomeip}} for (IP addresses). A few people around the world doing that during their day usually covers the newbies. billinghurst sDrewth 03:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
If you're looking specifically for newly created users accounts, you can't go past the User creation log. Hesperian 04:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
again note the differences. Local creations have something like
  • Kensa (Talk | contribs | block) New user account ‎
Yeah; there others are accounts that are automatically created when someone who already has an account on some other WikiMedia wiki comes over here for the first time. I can't tell you how spooky it is to visit some other wiki and have someone welcome you before you've even made an edit. :-) Hesperian 04:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

A job for the local wikignome?[edit]

If you're interested, this list contains a very large number of uncategorised categories. Hesperian 14:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


Thank you for upgrading my user status. It's interesting to try out different types of wikiwork. I've now finished the proofreading of the Anthony Roll and I would like to make it a featured text. I noticed that the preference here seems to be to nominate texts that are considered to be more or less perfect. However, is there any review process where I can submit the text so that others can help out with tweaks and advice?

Peter Isotalo (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at Wikisource:Featured text candidates?
For a text to be considered it would need to be proofread twice, ie. validated, and for this to occur others would need access to images. Easiest way for this to happen is for them to be loaded to Commons as DjVu files and to progress through our proofreading system. billinghurst sDrewth 15:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd love to do just that, but as far as I know a full facsimile of the Anthony Roll has yet to be published. The only complete publication of the text is the transcription in Knighton & Loades (2000). This includes the illustrations of the ships that I have scanned and uploaded, but virtually no views of the handwritten text. The kind of proofreading you're referring to will not be possible until the Pepys Library and the British Library decide to publish the Anthony Roll as a true facsimile.
Does that mean that it can't become a featured text right now?
Peter Isotalo (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily, though it does add a level of complexity. Take it to the candidate page, recommend it, explain the limitation and participate in the discussion.
Right-o. I've nominated the text. It'll be interesting to see what ppl think.
Peter Isotalo (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


Just to let you know that I have several times in the last few days deleted redirects created by you when moving PMS pages around. Ineuw had retargeted all the links and requested deletion of the redirects, and that makes good sense to me. I've used G7 (Author request) out of sheer laziness, even though technically it was you who created them. My rationaleexcuse is that PSM is his baby really, and you were just being your usual helpful self. You will feel free to poke me in the ribs if you dislike this abuse of G7. Hesperian 00:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

/me waves his magic thought bubbles around to show whatever Hesp needed to get it done so its awl leggy-jitamit. billinghurst sDrewth 01:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Musical Notation[edit]

I saw some transcription works that have pages with musical notation. I have a free musical notation software (similar to LilyPond) that is published under the GNU Public License; and I was wondering if I would be allowed to copy the music notes from the scans to the software, and then upload them onto Commons as derivative works. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Not my area of specialty, so it may be more worthwhile taking this to Scriptorium. My questions would be: What is the form of the final output? Were you looking to load at WS or Commons? Ummm, that is probably it. billinghurst sDrewth 13:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of adding the notes to wikisource. They would be in png. format. But would I not have to first upload them to Commons?
That sounds fine, and yes, upload to Commons would be best. Do note that there is a derivative upload capability, and it would be my recommendation that it is used to align with the original djvu. Also, look to a nice naming pattern for the components, and consider creating a category named after the work, and adding all additions to it. billinghurst sDrewth 14:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
If you show too much promise in this field, I can see that you will be our local expert. billinghurst sDrewth
Will do. I'll post a message to the Scriptorium ASAP.--Angelprincess72 (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No apology necessary[edit]

Thank you for your kind words. No, I'm fine at this end, and I hope my kerfuffle didn't cause you any distress. I can be quite the little pugilist when I think I have a good point. I do feel bad about the background color comment; I'm really not that boorish, it just looks that way. Live and learn.Ingram (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


Please check out Trench, Richard Le Poer (DNB00) and see if I did it all properly. BTW, how much linking should there be within the page? I did not do any on this one. TIA Ww2censor (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No consensus about wikifying, really (I think it will be more important in the future, when fewer of the links created are red). I added a little format. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Pages 172 and 173 of the Carthusians[edit]

Hi Billinghurst, I noticed a couple of links on these pages that don't work. Thought you might want to know.Yes check.svg Done

Thanks. Cannot get to them until tonight my time, so maybe skip them and validate them after I have corrected. Thanks for these notes, it helps, as I have learnt lots more since I did that work. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Pages 189 and 194 of the Carthusians[edit]

Heads up, there are links in the pages that don't work. Yes check.svg Done


Page 214 of the Carthusians[edit]

Hi Billinghurst,

Heads up, page 214 has a link that doesn't work. Yes check.svg Done Thx

page 216 Carthusians[edit]

Hi, Just a note to let you know this page has a link that doesn't work.

Yes check.svg Done Thx — billinghurst sDrewth 01:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hi, Billinghurst, I hope you are doing well. Thank you for the helpful input at Wikisource:Administrator's_noticeboard#User:Wild_Wolf, and especially thank you for the polite way in which you have chosen to explain your valid points. I have unblocked Wild Wolf (talkcontribs), and will defer further to Wikisource:Administrator's noticeboard as appropriate. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I do try to focus on the ball, not the person. If I am not playing nice or forgetting my manners, I should be {{trout|polite}}'d. Thanks for your consideration of alternate views. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


I made a comment mentioning (and thanking) you, at WS:AN. Please see [12]. Again, thank you, Cirt (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind thoughts, any one to one thoughts is by far enough, no need to go bigger and broader. It is all part of my WYSIWYG packaging. winkbillinghurst sDrewth 01:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Request input on templates' creation[edit]

Hi. A low priority request for your input on this proposed TEMPLATE. Thanks. — Ineuw (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Umm, why are we doing this? It seems that we are creating a series of templates that seem to have little perceptible benefit, and are going outside of the style. There is plenty of discussion around about this, looking to how the artificial presentations can be problematic between browsers, screen sizes, or simply on different gadgets to access the web; and it seems to me that you have been not keeping up with the discussions.
  1. Keep it simple (KISS principle), do not keep adding templates that are totally specific unless you can demonstrate that there is both a need AND a benefit
  2. There is an existing style … Use it. The escape clause is unless you can clearly demonstrate that the style does not meet the requirements and that using it is actually detrimental to the work
  3. The rest of the community seems to be able to keep our works to the style, and have them looking clean and usable, without creating a whole new layer of complexity. Maybe look to how the community is doing their work.
Not to say that this is all my original thinking, that is to say that some have expressed their points at me from some of my earlier thinking though maybe not in the form of a clear principle
My reflection on what should be our overarching principle
  • the most important thing that to do is to be true to the text and its structure
    so not get hung up the presentation of a work in the original media (a book)
    so if someone would like a printed direct replica of the original then all they need to do is print out the djvu file.
  • the web and the wiki is a dynamic media which should give readers the opportunity to dynamically present the information the way they would like to see it
    we are not in a book medium, we shouldn't be trying to replicate it
    be aware of our biases and not hobble a work based on its form at that time of publication. That is keep text, text format and structure, but we should neither constrict nor impose
I really believe that you need to reflect upon the approach that you are taking as I am seeing it as complex, constricting and imposing. Whether others see it that way, or having an impost is for them to address. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Much thanks for the wise comments, and I am taking everything under advisement, some of which was already considered beforehand. Also, there was an unfortunate wording in the note. Based on past experience, nothing would be done without community and administrator input in the public forum. Good night. — Ineuw (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


I'm okay with finishing up for the month. --Xxagile (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look[edit]

A curious thing is happening with Lewis, Samuel (DNB00) whereby the next article about Samuel Savage Lewis is showing up there. I thought I had used the proper section begin and end tags on the source page Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/201, as I did previously but something is still wrong. TIA. Ww2censor (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I am only seeing the one article, and that is the correct article. Cache issue for you? (or someone has fixed it in the interim) — billinghurst sDrewth 05:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, that is because I stalked your talk page, fixed the problem, and didn't bother to mention it here. :-( Hesperian 06:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
And as I was distracted and couldn't be bothered stalking histories to dig deeper (being more interested in the desired outcome). — billinghurst sDrewth 06:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Brilliant, I learn something new here every day. Thanks Hesperian. Ww2censor (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Little request[edit]

As we monitor Template:New texts in IRC, and many of us have it in our Watchlist, I was wondering whether you would consider (for our selfish interests) adding the name of the text being added to the edit summary, rather than solely +1,-1. Even if we just have +Name of work, -1 that would be most helpful. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. :) However, have you notified other contributors about this change in practice as well - or just me so far? Cirt (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Nope, not yet, just starting down that track, though those users who have been adding works where I have seen them finishing work, it has been part of my request. It has been a behaviour that I have seen that we have been lapsing into, and I changed my methodology first, and I thought that I should start with asking other administrators first, as we should be exhibiting the behaviour that we request of others. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Nod, understood, perfectly reasonable. Though aren't some of the others I linked to above, also admins as well? Cirt (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Probably. You are welcome to borrow the beating stick and help me on my journey to change the world, starting as of this week. <laugh> — billinghurst sDrewth 22:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Heh, perhaps, thanks. Cirt (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. 01:02, 21 March 2010
  2. 14:21, 20 March 2010
  3. 14:59, 17 March 2010

Billinghurst, could you please leave a helpful note regarding this, for these three editors as well? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Do feel welcome to contact them and pass on the message, though when you do, you may find that I have already been there. Please don't play games with me, I asked something reasonable and I am no hypocrit, and I am on no vendetta. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Billinghurst, I am not playing games. I am helpfully suggesting others that you may wish to contact, as you already did with me - in order to give them a similar notice. As you already started this practice, I would rather defer to you to leave the actual notices. -- Cirt (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I just checked the three user talk pages of the users linked to above. It appears you have not (yet) left them a similar notice. Perhaps you could do so now. :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: Okay, well per your suggestion to do so, I have given a similarly worded notice (modeled directly after yours) to other users that have also previously used the +1, -1, edit summary at Template:New texts. Billinghurst, again I just wanted to say that I was only deferring to you on this to do this, as you had started this notification practice. I greatly respect both your judgment and your work on this project and I hope that there are no hard feelings. I hope you are doing well. Yours, -- Cirt (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Poor man's talkback[edit]

I don't have TB on this server and so will do it manually - I left a reply with questions for you at User talk:Marc Kupper#Size 11s on Senate Joint Resolution 26.2C 21 January 1955. Marc Kupper (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

10:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Numbering List[edit]

On a transcription page, how do you carry on a numbering list that appeared on the first page to the second. For example, this is the first page, and this is the second page of Postface to 114 Songs. In the example with the pages, how do I carry on the numbering list on the second page starting with #8 and #9? Thanks. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You stop using the # and convert to ye olde fashioned lists as perw:Help:List, and I would do that on both pages. At the end of the first page wrap the </ol> inside a noinclude tag, and then when you start the list up on the second page start the start with <ol start=8> and wrap that in noinclude too. So in Page: ns they display fine, and then when transcluded they should continue nicely. I'll let you play and if you need specific editing help, then give me a prod. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 23:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Billinghurst. It worked! The list looks really good now. I'll keep that website in mind next time I'm stick in the same situation. Thanks again. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
/me shimmies ;-)


Hi Billinghurst, I hope you don't mind me coming to you for advice. I want to create a page for a musical play (available here), with a table of contents, list of characters, and lyrics for all the songs. Now, how should I create the page? I can download the whole publication as a pdf or djvu, but the problem is that the pages can't be written as exact copies of the original because the original also includes the music, which I believe we don't have the means to reproduce. This means that matching the Page: namespace pages with pages in the originals would most likely not work like it does for other works that are faithful reproductions of the original pages.

Help is always available for people who need a hand with components. DjVu is the preference, and usually load to Commons (being published 1917 it is okay). We then create an index file to the same name, and here I would recommend Commons:File:Kern, Have a heart, 1917.djvu and Index:Kern, Have a heart, 1917.djvu. Use of <pagelist /> will show all the pages.
At WS, the principle is content is king, and many will try to replicate the work thereafter, it is NOT the necessity, just a really nice thing to do. It is the art of the possible, not performing the impossible.

My idea was creating separate pages for the songs included, and linking to them from the table of contents (see my sandbox).

Are you talking about the main namespace presentation, ie. the transclusion from the Page: namespace to the mainspace? A song per page sounds ideal, though reserve final opinion until we could see that it actually works. All that sounds really feasible.

I noticed that there's no Category:Musicals, and couldn't find any precedent, so I thought I'd get a second opinion on whether it's a good idea to start creating such pages. Do you think it's a workable idea? Or maybe I should wait until we get software support for displaying sheet music as well? Also, any thoughts on how to get the page started would be really appreciated. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The difficulties with presentation would seem to be the primary reason for lack of musicals. Good? Only your patience is the judge of that. The diversity of content would be welcome.

Oh, and thanks for the award, by the way. It makes my user page look all shiny! Jafeluv (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. smiley
I think that AngelPrincess72 may have some useful comment about this.
Little steps, lets get us the file, and the index in place, and look to whereto from there. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The index has been created at Index:Kern, Have a Heart, 1917.djvu. I had actually already transcribed many of the songs from different sources before I found out that the whole thing was available as a single file (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11), so I think a lot of the text can be copied from those pages. However, I don't know how to divide the text to the Page: namespace, since like I said the structure of the pages is quite different than what's in the original. In the original, for example, the start of verses 1 and 2 are often on the same page, and the end of both verses on the next page. In a transcription, though, it's better to write all of verse 1 first and only then verse 2, I think. Jafeluv (talk) 11:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I've had a good look through the work, and I don't mind creating the musical scores and uploading them onto Commons. That is, if its OK. I'll also help in proofreading/validating. Overall, the work looks really good. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I've just looked at the licensing, and I saw that it is still in copyright in my country (in the UK its 70 years+, and this work is 30 years+), does that mean that I won't be allowed to upload the music. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Naturalist's Library[edit]

Do you think you can proofread and format the frontmatter of that The Naturalist's Library volume I've just added? If you do so, I'll be able to use that as a model for adding the other volumes which have been digitised. I don't know exactly how this text should be formatted for Wikisource, but I think a main page The Naturalist's Library and subpages /Mammalology, /Entomology, etc. with subpages /Volume 1, /Volume 2 would be correct, though there is another sequencing of the volumes, based on date of publication, to be found at the start of the frontmatter. For information on the series, there is w:Sir William Jardine Thanks, —innotata (TalkContribs) 18:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Had a play at Page:Jardine Naturalist's library Bees.djvu/5. If you want the indent as per the vol. 1, then we will need to carry that formatting through. It is there to demonstrate the difference. With relation to the naming, we are recommending a generic approach of actual titles being /Volume 1, /Volume 2, ... as in when we come across a reference in another book, we don't want to scramble to look at what we have, and we cannot scramble what we don't have, though may have one day in the work. Think of it in terms of how works will reference Jardine's and how we can then pre-link. If that doesn't answer question, then do not hesitate to get back to me. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for not getting back. I've been editing recently, but only on Wikipedia and the Commons. I don't understand entirely. Since this is a forty-volume work, I thought I'd proofread three or so sections of most volumes available, and larger parts for those on ornithology and icthyology that are of special interest me. I think the second volume order would be simpler, in which case the bees volume would be Volume 28 or something like that (don't quite remember. Your tagging of it as volume 4 is incorrect, as it is the fourth Entomology volume, but the twenty-eighth published. —innotata (TalkContribs) 23:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I just went off the cover, the larger expanse of the question hadn't resonated. Neither choice is wrong, and it will come down to how you think that it works best in the main namespace, especially with regard to linking. How do the books cross-reference each other? Do they do straight volumes 1..40 or do they do by the framework? We may need to do a series specific template for getting the referencing to work easily, however, it is still what is the sensible approach about adding the links. In short, what is reasonable and practicable, for set out, and linking. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know which ordering system is best. Their is little cross-referencing, and it seems to use any system: publication, topics, or titles. I'm inclined to go with the order of publication for ease of use, and since there would be little to put on a page such as The Naturalist's Library/Entomology. —innotata (TalkContribs) 19:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Here's another possibility: using the volume titles, producing The Naturalist's Library/Bees for the volume I'm working on. —innotata (TalkContribs) 23:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Yep, one can only tell from how you want to bring it to main ns, refer to it, how much fuss you want to spend on sections, want to reference it from the same work, or from Wikipedia. So we remain truthful to the text, yet want to make it available to a wiki and a search engine environment. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm now inclined to favour volume names, since the volume numbers are too confusing to look through. These are usually used in references to the book. By the way, I created the DNB page White, Francis Buchanan White (DNB00) recently. The chap's name didn't have an extra "White", obviously, and the correct name is used for cross-referencing. So I've created a redirect White, Francis Buchanan (DNB00) until you opine on the matter. Also, why is the current proofread called Bulldog Drummond instead of the Bull-dog Drummond in the text? —innotata (TalkContribs) 01:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Fixed Bull-dog, thanks for the heads-up. With regard to redirects for DNB. I don't work on a purity model, I work on principle. Happy with the redirect, it meets the principle of finding the right bloke, and the text is still the text. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 01:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the encouragement on the List of Carthusians! unsigned comment by Envirogrrrl (talk) .

/me shimmies — billinghurst sDrewth 02:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


What do you think about offering User:Jan1nad some extra tools, rollback at least. I am seeing a lot of good work the user is doing. I am not here enough currently to make the decision or the recommendation. JeepdaySock (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't have rollback. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
It's a nice thought, but all any tools would probably just confuse me. At this stage I'm quite happy just plodding along ;-> Jan1naD (talkcontrib) 12:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Hah! Sit down, shut up, press the red button and enjoy the ride (as per the instructions)!winkbillinghurst sDrewth 12:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
We are happy to have you Jan1nad, keep up the good work. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

we always need one[edit]

What in heaven's name does that mean? Or don't I want to know? :-) Hesperian 11:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Dunno, sounded catchy, suitably vague, terrifically ambiguous, and forever unbeige. :-) Or do you think that we don't need a Hesperian — billinghurst sDrewth 11:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Uh, okay. As long as neither of us know, I'm happy. :-) Hesperian 11:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

DNB Volume 35[edit]

Is there an automated way of moving the correct OCR onto a page from 6 pages later? Or just copy/paste each one by hand? I've just done DJVU 7 to 11 by this method.--PeterR (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Safe in their Alabaster Chambers[edit]

I've found evidence that this version of the poem was written by Emily Dickinson in 1859. I did a Google Books search and found it in The Oxford book of American poetry 2006, page 164. The URL is to long to list here. Kathleen.wright5 07:00 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Kathleen, that is sufficient knowledge for me. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


If I were to update this at random times without consulting you, would that make it harder for you to track your progress? Hesperian 08:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

...And would it suit you if I converted it over to this format, so that you can easily identify long-stale works? Hesperian 08:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be okay on both accounts. I usually follow "Been there done that" links and fits in with my doing it at random times, and harassing you at random times to do it. It is very unscientific my methodology. Very mood(ish) :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 08:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Ta. My decision to run it and my other scripts follows the same formula. Hesperian 08:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Done. In my experience it is highly satisfactory to be able to say that you've done the job "up to April 2008", for example; and to know that it will be done "up to April 2008" forever. Much better than being done "up to D", and knowing that next time the script runs you'll have a whole lot of new A, B and C articles to contend with. Hesperian 05:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
You have new messages
Hello, Billinghurst. You have new messages at Samwilson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

header button[edit]

Thanks I was wondering why I couldn't see certain things.Daytrivia (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

How do I keep sentences together when sepatated by new page? [13] Daytrivia (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Stanhope, Charles (1753-1816) (DNB00) it is the formatting on the transcluded. One just needs to not have carriage returns between the tags and the text. Did the light edits to correct. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I am noticing no author listed at [14] for Charles Stanhope (1753-1829) however the very next article is by Author:Gerald le Grys Norgate so my presumption is that he gets credit for previous. Is that right? Daytrivia (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not a new article but a "subarticle" announced by the name in small caps. The article ends on the next page withe the {{DNB GLeGN}} template you were looking at. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah ha! Okay then. Thanks. Daytrivia (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that we would generally still want to link to the subarticle, as it will have a … see Stanhope, Charles (1753-1816) in the ToC. So, we would use {{anchor}} at that place to enable us to link to the specific spot. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

you messing with "my" page?[edit]

Hi. I see you've been at MediaWiki:Common.css, which is a great way to get my attention. I'm not seeing anything amiss, but I'm not sure where the new bits are used. If I can be of help, let me know (which is a bit of a request, as I know I need to focus here more). Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Woohoo Jack's back. Leftoutdent, I am using in The Indian Biographical Dictionary (1915), and also going to use on Alumni Cantabridgiensis and Alumni Oxfordiensis. Didn't bother to embed in the document. The other bits are around tables of contents in Page: namespace, eg. Index:The life of Matthew Flinders.djvu and the other blessed work Index:Notes on the churches in the counties of Kent, Sussex, and Surrey.djvu. I would like to look how we can simplify the production of ToC if we could. I have some text around that in Wikisource:Style guide/Tables. I also would like to see us better document the stylistic aspects of Common.css so people know what styles are there and how to use them. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Great, I'll look into the details at the pages you link. I need a mellow break from teh-toxic-wiki. I recall some talk w/John about better ToC implementations and agree that things could be a lot cleaner. And documentation always helps, although I've always had trouble focusing on that for long; too tedious, and often unread. Also, I mentioned to an en:indef'd user that this might be a good place to be and offered to show him the ropes. I decent sort, really; I'd not have made the offer otherwise. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
When I say document, I mean something readable aka very simple, a ready reference list of those available, and what they do. Not bigger than Ben Hur. Kewl beans about the newbie, I like the idea of finding the right bait to steal them away from other wikis on a more permanent basis.

In recognition of award recognition[edit]

I find it astonishing how you able to keep track of Potm participants, cheers for doing that. Even my trivial edits, this and another were noted - don't tell me how, I like the mystery :-) Anyway, this is my acknowledgement of your efforts. Cygnis insignis (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

ahhhh, 718smiley.svg Street magician in Troy, NY.jpgbillinghurst sDrewth 23:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare format[edit]

Shakespeare, William (DNB00) is my project for this weekend, and there is an apparently tricky format question, because it employs sidenotes. I'm currently working on the theory that the format in pagespace and in the transcluded article can simultaneously be kept sane by starting each new page with <noinclude>{{sidenotes begin}}</noinclude>, but we'll have to see how that stands up. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Tried various forms and it all ends up looking less than glamorous. I have set the first page using {{float left}} as that does pretty much what the Dictionary does, and it seems to work well. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, OK, that's probably the solution then. I'll proceed through the pages and come back to tidy up later. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll bot it, it is an easy fix. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Well that was exciting. Just when I thought I actually understood the DNB typography, Charles finds something new. I looked carefully at the sidenotes in the image: they appear to be in same smaller typeface that is used for "authorities." Perhaps this should be used? I hesitate to do this myself, both because Charles is actively working on this and because I never have gotten clear on exactly how we do the smaller font: {{small}} <smaller>, , or whatever. -Arch dude (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Probably, fairly easy to bot it when the article is finished. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
All posted now. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Done the formatting, though we may wish to revisit for consistency. There is a formatting issue with the references that is obviously beyond my brain solving tonight, so I will stop farnarkling and get back post-sleep. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank Sdrewthbot for me. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

re move[edit]

You removed something here, when you previously indicated you intended to move it. Cygnis insignis (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Too tired to give a sane response and delve through what I have done right or wrong. I went to move something that I thought had been added, realised that what I was doing was incorrect, and reverted my edit. If I have faux pas'd then I will need to look at it tomorrow and see if my sanity is there. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


Dear Andrew,

I stroll here quite seldom, as I am a wikignome, and I like proofreading a page or two every now and then.

My main interests are Greek and Latin (and of course Italian) language, ancient History and music. Are there books covering these topics and waiting to be proofread/validated?

You might be interested about Greek writings in unusual or specific fonts to translate into unicode Greek, or about checking footnotes or whatever written in that alphabet which could need a scholar in such field. I am. - εΔω 12:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That is works out of my comfort zone, though do know that we have snippets that require Greek on occasions. Apart from the works at Category:Index Proofread (works needing valdiation), and the much larger Category:Index Not-Proofread nothing particular as a work springs to mind. Others may have more particular knowledge area. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion request[edit]

Can you please delete Index:Jardine Naturalist's library Entomology.djvu and the three pages added so far? The file I uploaded doesn't seem to have colour, and I've found a better one which does (I'll upload it as a new version at the Commons). —innotata (TalkContribs) 18:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC) (I'll make sure only to upload colour files for this book now). —innotata (TalkContribs) 19:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that there is a need to delete it, as it is dynamically represents the corresponding File:Jardine Naturalist's library Entomology.djvu. We can look at the other pages when the new file replaces it. The one thing that we will need to do is to purge the file and maybe the index to make sure that the renew their data. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
OK. The new file has substantially fewer (blank) pages, so can you delete the last page of the current arrangement? —innotata (TalkContribs) 16:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Now I am a little confused. When I look at Commons, I don't see that the file is updated, it is still the file from 25 March, and here I just see the same file. Has it been uploaded under a different name? — billinghurst sDrewth 04:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll upload it once you delete the pages at the end.—innotata (TalkContribs) 16:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I deleted 492, 493, and 494. Is that what you wanted? Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. —innotata (TalkContribs) 17:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


You appear to have broken the smallrefs template, nothing is appearing since your recent changes. Cygnis insignis (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Should be fixed. Was semi still in action, as we were hunting down transclusions stuff. Put it to an operational state. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand this reply. Try to appreciate that I often waste time triple checking my suspicions of the cause before posting them, and eliminating the possibility that the error was my own, it seems reasonable to expect a little more caution.

Why did you do it? Is it not possible to do it another way? Who is 'we'? Cygnis insignis (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It wasn't intentional, and it was my oversight that it was in a semi-broken state. My intention had been to say that it was still in progress, and I had not finished for the day. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Is it not possible to do this in a sandbox, rather than using an 'operational' template. Cygnis insignis (talk) 03:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and that is where it was taken. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Mind how you go, or I will come back and assail you with poetry. Cygnis insignis (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
You may force me to sing, and that is specifically listed in the torture section of the convention against human rights. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think about it, the only reason you were able to change this template the way you did, without breaking a great many pages, is because the columns parameter had to be called by name. If I had set it up so that it could be called it with an unnamed parameter, then the columns parameter would have been locked into position number one. That's what you've done with font-size now. Once this new version has been rolled out for a few months, font-size will effectively be locked into position number one, and no-one will be able to make any further revision like the one you've done here, without also revising a great many calls. This is why I dislike unnamed parameters in most contexts. They are good for widely-used, simple templates where the parameter order is absolutely implicit; e.g. you don't have to read the instructions to know that a {{subtract|10|4}} template would yield 10-4. But in this case, I would say that the font-size argument will be rarely used, and it is certainly not implicit that it would be the first parameter, so it would be better to force people to write |font-size=. Hesperian 04:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Now you have me confused. I haven't touched that aspect. I have just added group and refx, both of which are named parameters, and that has been my practice for a while now, unless it is solely a one parameter template.— billinghurst sDrewth 05:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
My bad, sorry. I must have been looking at the wrong diff... but I still can't figure out how I managed to do that. Hesperian 09:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Team it up with my UNDO of a template that I didn't save though I am sure that I did. <sigh>— billinghurst sDrewth 09:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding IP Address:[edit]

I believe that this IP adress should be blocked, as they have been posting inappropriate material, as seen by their contributions. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. For future cases, we would encourage a report to be made to WS:AN as that is a page watched by many administrators, plus if someone is in IRC there will be an alert sent. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Coriolanus by William Shakespeare[edit]

Hello! I need help! What does "raising" mean in this text:


  'Tis this slave,—
  Go whip him fore the people's eyes:—his raising;
  Nothing but his report

William Shakespeare "Coriolanus" Act IV, Scene 6.

  • The simple interpretation is at mediawiki's dictionary wikt:raising, better yet is the article w:Raising (linguistics), but that is probably not going to get you full marks. You can search for commentary using google, put in the work, act and scene. Read several of these to understand the scene, then apply the interpretations to the subtleties of meaning in the phrases. Here is an example: sparknotesCygnis insignis (talk) 10:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

content and contributors[edit]

There is a saying in collaborative communities, such as wikipedia, variations on this include "discuss content, not contributors". There is an obvious application that relates to NPA, but there are other advantages to adhering to this simple concept in all general discussions; this includes identifying a view with a particular user or even as praise toward them. I could elaborate on the disadvantages of naming users, and how this distracts from the issues at hand, though I would ask that you take a little time to consider why this may be right. I don't, for example, own this idea, thus ... 14:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me now that posting this on the scriptorium as a general comment may be more polite, but not as effective I think. I targeted you because of your enormous and widespread contributions. Discussing this here is a testament to that, a compliment of sorts, and to your good-humour and influence. Hope this okay, given I am effectively breaking a rule I otherwise try to adhere to. 16:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I am going to give my very best quality vague look to equate with whatever I did was at least three days ago at the end of an ugly week before dragging myself away to an unholiday and I remember not now, and looking at edits hasn't helped. In general I do not try to personalise especially in the negative sense, though if someone has skill in a zone or good ideas to assist then I may suggest. In fact I may even plead stupidity, as I cannot work out NPA and here is no help. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding annotations to 'A Fight at Dame Europa's School'[edit]

I regret that you disapproved of my annotations; however, I see your point, and I agree that it's best not to overly wikify that entry.

However, I do feel that certain limited further annotations are warranted - simple NPOV ones like names of characters - especially given that there is certain limited annotation there already. I began annotating not least of all for the sake of consistency.

But also because I feel that it takes nothing away from the work, on the contrary, it only enhances, to clarify the allusions and references which would have been so obvious, indeed essential, for the original contemporary readers of the work. The spirit of the work seems to be its particular presentation, not its subtlety. However, I acknowledge that it's also easy to go too far with annotation if one forgets the guidelines.

In conclusion, I will gladly defer to your wisdom and judgment. How about if I run every edit I had in mind by you first, and you can say whether you think they're good or not? You get the final say.

And is there some other way we could communicate, more expediently perhaps than on this talk page?

Best regards. unsigned comment by‎ (talk) .

I would prefer communication here on this issue as this is more a community discussion than just with me, though you can email if you have an login account. Generally I save the email link for personal or confidential matters.
At Wikisource, we do have further information at Wikisource:Annotations and there are a number of means in which we can add definitive information. The focus of WS is as a library that wikilinks should unreservedly add value, and are fact, not be based on a person's opinion and are supported by an evidence base. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Unifying Global accounts[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to unify my global accounts, however I'm having trouble with the Wikisource one, which is the only outstanding one to tie in. I assume this is because I typed in my password incorrectly when I first set it up. I have gone down the route of trying to get a new password sent, however my e-mail address will have also changed since then. My username is Richard Harvey. As a Bureaucrat I wondered if you are able to assist in sorting the problem? 13:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not a bureaucrat here at enWS. Best spot for the request is at Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard and one of our two bureaucrats will manage from there. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Staple-gunning, eh?[edit]

LOL. I have so little time for WM project these days... I'm sure the copyvio team on WS is thinking of doing the same.

Thanks for the upgrade. MLauba (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Recurrent whole paragraphs with minimal differences[edit]

Thanks for your suggestion, billinghurst. I've now moved my question to the Scriptorium as you suggested, and provided a link there to a skeleton as you proposed. Please do let me know if there's anything else I can do to help advance this prospect... CharlesSpencer (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

billinghurst, I think I have made some progress on the basis of your excellent draft, for which, many thanks! The only thing I can't quite button down is making my #ifeq: print a colon as first character of a string (it's currently in brackets to force it to appear). Also, is there any way to use the template to generate section tags as alluded to in your question? This would mean that {{{chapter}}} set to, say 8, would convert all of:

(section begin=chap##chapter## /) (section begin=chap##chapter##title /) (section end=chap##chapter##title /) (section end= chap##chapter##/)


(section begin=chap8 /) (section begin=chap8title /) (section end=chap8title /) (section end= chap8/)

Is that possible? Thanks, kind regards CharlesSpencer (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The colon is due to it being wikified, not the #ifeq: so just wrap it in <nowiki>:</nowiki>. For the other define a new parameter of {chapter or similar, the conversion of parameters happens before the use of section tags, so they will create themselves fine. You should also be able to use number in same tags, presuming that it is the same number parameter as in the body. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
addendum. There is means to make more resilient and produce error checks, however, sometimes the KISS principle is all that is required. We should look to create a proper template with it, and then do stick Category:Specific article templates and we can look to document it. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
<nowiki>:</nowiki> duly incorporated. Thank you for that. Just thinking how this would be used in the wild once properly perfected and documented. I think that calling it via {{subst:name}} makes more sense than just {{name}}, BUT the #ifs and #ifeqs remain (albeit with self-fulfilling parameters if I'm reading them correctly), and, peculiarly, the tags defined by template parameters don't get resolved out by subst either, nor even by double subst, for that matter! (i.e. subst-ing already subst-ed output). What am I doing wrong, do you think? CharlesSpencer (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense to subst: it though that requires a little trickery, and should be left to the absolutely last thing as in this case we need to subst: the internal components (the #ifeq: +++). Along the lines of {{subst:ifeq:}} though we have to design it so the substitution doesn't take place when we save the template [see ugly bits at Help:Substitution]. It usually takes me a play or two to get that tweak right. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
OK! I've put pipes in for the proviso and sidenote parameters, which are the only optional ones. It now SEEMS to do what I wanted it to do. Next steps prior to the subst: nightmare? Do we now need to make it more robust such as putting in both-case explicit #ifeq: tests (currently gender is "m" for masculine and anything which isn't null for feminine, for instance)? What else? Ghastly thought occurs to me: once we're really, really done, is there any way of asking a bot to trawl effectively the inverse of our template over the Private Acts, so leaving me with page after page of faithful boilerplate, flecked only with the actual names, dates, numbers, rates of pension, etc. needing to be proofread? Now that would be TRULY useful! CharlesSpencer (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


Thanks, I don't do this very often. :) Evercat (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Page errors[edit]

Hi Billinghurst, Just getting your attention to at least one page error which I plan to correct. Here [15] should be here [16] it seems there may be other pages mixed up as well. I generally copy "full text" from and paste it which is my plan with some of these pages. Unless there is an objection or an alternative. Thanks. Daytrivia (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The above info has been fixed. Thanks. Daytrivia (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Letter to the Catholics of Ireland[edit]

Thats a pity that that article I added had to be deleted, as per your message. I checked back on the Vatican's website and they do indeed reserve their copyright there.....I do not know if it makes any difference if it was read aloud throughout Ireland and Northern Ireland or not. I expect there is tonnes and tonnes of other stuff on this site that similarly could be regarded as breaching copyright somehow. This is rather limiting for this project. Any way, all the best. Formosa (talk)

Does it make any odds that CNN have taken the gamble and put the letter, in its entirety, on their website? [17] Formosa (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Things to note. Wikisource hosts matters clearly in the public domain with regard to copyright, what other places do with regard to a work's copyright status is their choice, and their duty of care. Comment about use … there are provisions in laws for the fair use of a work, or the licensing of a work and what arrangements they have they can use. That is just how it is, there will always be some limitation or consequence to every action or inaction. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
"Things to note. Wikisource hosts matters clearly in the public domain with regard to copyright, what other places do with regard to a work's copyright status is their choice, and their duty of care." The Pope's letter is in the public domain. Of that there is no doubt. Are you seriously suggesting the Vatican would dispute that....There is a word for that suggestion but I will not use it. Formosa (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmm and thinking of the pages you directed me to....wouldn't the Pope (a Head of State/Government) fit into this tag:


The Pope's letter is certainly an edict of a Government (the Vatican) and it was entirely official and publicly made. What do you think? Formosa (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Interesting argument, and I did take that into consideration, though I don't see that a letter is an edict of government. If you wish to dispute it then there is a process at Wikisource:Deletion policy. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking (in my not so humble opinion)[edit]

Hi Adam sk, looking at the edits in The History Of England From the Accession of James II/Chapter I, to me it looks overlinked. Generally here at Wikisource we try to do light wikilinking, especially with regard offsite like w: and wikt:. Generally we would encourage linking locally to Authors namespace, and to other works (whether they are hosted now or appear as redlinks), to the wider WMF some would say link if you can demonstrate that it adds value, is NPOV and is evidence-based. A little guidance at Wikisource:Style guide#Wikilinks. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I totally disagree with that. If one were to err, why would one possibly err on the side of underlinking? My links are all NPOV and evidence-based, and I think that whether or not something "adds value" is highly subjective. And I think that the policy is just hopelessly ambiguous when it says "Commonly used words or well known references should not be linked." Commonly used by who? Well known by who? I'm shocked by how often in my day-to-day life, I come across people who are just totally oblivious to things that I consider totally common knowledge. Let alone people who are young, or for whom English is a second language, or whatever. Linking makes a work more accessible to people who might not have the necessary background to understand a work, especially one like this where Lord Macaulay makes all sorts of oblique references.
And then, secondly, I think that one of the wonderful things about wikis is that, even for people who get the reference, if you want to learn more about a topic. I read Wikipedia like that all the time, and I see no reason people wouldn't want to read Wikisource in the same way. Heck, part of the reason that I'm enjoying wikifying Macaulay's History of England is that I'm learning a lot of interesting stuff as I do so. I knew next to nothing about the Middle Ages when I started, and now I do; my understanding of English geography is pretty spotty, but I'm learning as I go. Etc. And I think that for a lot of people who would read this work, they'd feel the same way and like the same opportunity.
So, I don't see what possible objection you have to "overlinking". Especially when if people don't want to look at the links, they can always just click on "download as PDF" or "Printable version" to see the text in a clean version.
So, anyhow, I see you're an admin, so I'm sure I'd never win a fight with you, but I think you're totally off base on this one. And I'm going to continue linking unless there's some good reason I shouldn't. Adam sk (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Billinghurst that this is horribly overlinked.

At the very least, you should be linking internally where possible. The purpose of Wikisource is to create a linked repository of documents, so "Geoffrey Chaucer" should always link to Author:Geoffrey Chaucer locally, not the Wikipedia article on him; "Magna Carta" should link to Magna Carta here, not the Wikipedia article about it; and the poem "Jerusalem Delivered" should be a redlink to Jerusalem Delivered, a document we don't have yet, rather than a link to its Wikipedia article. Hesperian 03:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Definitely drop the links to basic geography (Asia, Americas), general years (15th century, etc.) and basic vocabulary (superstition, painting, eloquence, vassal, plant, mineral, wine, slavery, chivalry). Most of these would not pass Wikipedia linking guidelines, for good reason. Remove repeated links (English people, for example). As Hesperian says, change things where possible to Wikisource works and authors (in addition to Hesperian's examples, see John Milton and Edmund Burke). Change difficult vocabulary links to wiktionary. All that said, I don't mind the extensive linking of somewhat obscure geography (like Sandwich Islands, Glaxony, and Seine) and historical individuals and events (like Elizabeth I of England, Byzantine Empire, Viking Expansion, and Battle of Hastings). Is that a reasonable compromise? For an example that I hope follows the guidelines I'm outlining, see A Short History of Standing Armies in England—what do you think? —Spangineerwp (háblame) 04:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
As I said, I never anticipated being able to convince an admin of anything because I know admins will always support each other and gang up on people. That said, I'm going to continue linking in the same way and if you want to remove links or ban me, you have the ability to do that, and there's nothing I can do to stop you. Adam sk (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
So you're not willing to discuss anything? The three responses from admins that you've gotten are certainly not unanimously opposed to everything you are doing. Much of your linking is valuable, and unless you're unwilling to discuss I think we can at least approach general agreement on this. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 05:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
"[I]f you want to... ban me, you have the ability to do that" I confess I'm inclined to take up that challenge. We want to maintain an inclusive, welcoming, nurturing culture here, but that doesn't mean we welcome cultural poison, and people who respond to polite, constructive criticism with passive-aggressive nonsense like this, are just that: cultural poison. Tell me, Adam sk, is this the way you plan on interacting with your fellow Wikisourcerers going forward, or are you just having a really bad day? Hesperian 05:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, I've been doing this long enough to understand that there has never been "an inclusive, welcoming, nurturing culture" for non-admins at any point in the history of any Wiki-project. Tonight is a prime example. I was accused by an admin of "overlinking". I responded with a series of arguments that strike me as quite reasonable: (1) "overlinking" harms no-one and if an article is "overlinked" there are ways a person can easily view a text-only version of the article; (2) a well-linked page is beneficial to people who for whatever reason lack a background in the subject and who don't get references you and I might consider easy to understand; and (3) a well-linked page is useful for people who want more information on a subject touched on in the text. Instead of responding with arguments about why "overlinking" is bad for the project, I'm faced with a bunch of admins supporting their admin buddy and not offering any persuasive reasons for their positions. That's not the way people who support "an inclusive, welcoming, nurturing culture" behave. And then you start lobbing accusations of me being "passive-aggressive" and spouting "cultural poison".
Seriously: my position is that if you think that my adding links to this page is such a detriment to the project that you need to expend your time removing links and/or banning me, I would humbly submit that it isn't worth your time and that even if you disagree with my position, this isn't something worth fighting about. If you feel otherwise, like I said: you hold all the cards, so more power to you. Though I would note, that you probably could have added "Jerusalem Delivered", which is available at several places online, to Wikisource, in the time he you spent criticizing me. Adam sk (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
To Spangineer: I'm not unwilling to have a discussion and sorry if I missed your earlier comment. Please explain your rationale and we can talk through the issue. Adam sk (talk) 05:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. First, let me point you to w:Wikipedia:Linking#Overlinking_and_underlinking. Do you agree with this guideline? Namely, in response to your point 1, overlinking does harm most readers because it detracts from the actually valuable links. I can give you examples of this if you wish. Yes, this is at the expense of non-native readers of English, but if I go read a work in Spanish I'll do it with a dictionary in front of me and not expect that every polysyllable word be linked.
Your points 2 and 3 do not directly address the examples I provided of what I felt were overlinking—I think it's hard to argue that the examples I gave are clearly "background in the subject" (except, perhaps, things like vassal and 15th century... but again, see the WP guideline). And, you have totally ignored Hesperian's suggestion that would not result in the removal of a single link but would make those links more useful to this project.
The reason we're challenging you on this is because we like the work you're doing, and in general want you to continue. That has not been clearly stated, but speaking for myself, it's absolutely true. That said, I don't want to have to go through your work removing a few links and converting some wikipedia links to wikisource or wiktionary links to make it more accessible to readers and researchers. I hope that you can see why there are guidelines against overlinking, and that you attempt to work within them. I for one am not going to nitpick about individual links if you make a good faith effort on this. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 05:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate that, and I don't mean to be obstreperous about this. But I don't agree with your point about "overlinking" - I agree with the Wikipedia policy, but don't think anything I have done violates the policy in a way that "harms readers". Basically, I've added links to geographic locations that readers might not be familiar with and to time periods they might want to know more about.
And, like I said, I really don't think I overlinked. I would understand the concern if I had taken a novel, and insisted on including links to things like "bed" and "cat" and "toothbrush." But I actually think that the things I linked to are things that Joe Q. Public wouldn't be familiar with, and therefore linking is helpful to those people. As I've said before, even if this is "overlinking", I don't think it harms readers. Adam sk (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hi Adam sk. This is WS, not WP, where we all are community members, and incidentally some of us have admin rights. Please don't turn this into a pissing competition about anything else as that would be your attitude taking over, not ours. The opinions that you are getting are those of experienced community members with lots of works submitted, and really good knowledge about Wikisource and what works well for the site.

To the evidence-base, you haven't provided your evidence-base for your links, and without that evidence there is nothing to judge any credibility. Some of the links have elements of personal judgment or personal knowledge, and where that is the case we should look to use other means to take that perspective, otherwise it can be a he said, she said argument. In this we need to address the general principle of what, how and why we are doing, and the linking that I have see undertaken does not reflect what we would call the community's existing practice, nor reflecting that principle. We have had the general discussion before and we have reached a consensus opinion, so new community members may like to avail themselves of that opinion rather than defiantly telling us that we are being obstructive. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm not an admin (see above) but I find Adam sk's whole attitude decidedly unhelpful, and fully agree with the comments of billinghurst, Hesperian and Spangineer. Adam sk seems unwilling to understand the point of Wikisource, and as far as I am concerned, blocking that user indefinitely would probably be of benefit to the project as a whole. Even in Wipkipedia, which takes a more encouraging attitude to links, I'm sure they would have been blocked by now. Jan1naD (talkcontrib) 08:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Adam. I went to your page and started a conversation with you on a point, I didn't see it as an accusation, and I am not sure how else one can raise an issue on a point of difference. I didn't revert your edits, nor did I undo them, I started a conversation. This was the second time that I had been to your page as I had put a welcome message on your page with relevant information last November. I didn't bring the conversation to my page and I didn't rebuke you, nor say anything about being an administrator. I tried to have inclusive language and talked about how we had been doing things on site and that were based on our experiences. While I am biased about me, I do try to be a helpful and considerate member of the community, and in my opinion, a community where the admins just have tools to use for administrative duties, not to flaunt them. If you want to have the conversation about linking, then let's, though I would think that your user talk page is going to be less public and less watched than mine. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you started a conversation - but your tone throughout hasn't been "this is what I think is best for the project and here's why...", your tone has been "this is how we do things here and you must conform yourself to what we say". After you started the conversation, I responded by offering a rationale for what I was doing. At this point, no one has provided me with a rationale as to why "overlinking" is a bad thing. I'm perfectly willing to have a conversation, but if the conversation is just going to be you and your buddies saying "this is the way things are here", like I said, I don't see the point in engaging in that conversation because it's about power at that point and isn't really a conversation about what best practices are. Adam sk (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
There was an interruption to your contributions, a content issue on linking, I believe I provided a solution to that. Whether the various rationales on over-linking are followed there is optional. I will note that the wikipedia guidelines (linked above), is a discussion of links to other articles, not links to other sister sites. Other than that, I don't see anything stopping you from continuing with what you were doing. What other outcome were you hoping for? Cygnis insignis (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Completely unrelated topic: I noticed you relist the name, but I remembered what could have been a discrete resignation [18] Should we see if the account is active elsewhere, or maybe send them an email? Cygnis insignis (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Just being public doesn't make it public domain[edit]

I have deleted The Quest for Modernity as it is not a public domain document with regard to copyright. Please have a look at the links from Help:Copyright for further information. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Re the above - I had a look at that copyright stuff...I think you might be wrong. What you deleted was a transcript of a speech, Mr Ma made...It was not a work....How can that be copyrighted...If a man says something, is that copyrighted too? If you think so, where is your source...How could news reporters report the news if they cannot report what a public man says etc> I think you might be confused. Could you have a thing about it and let me know if I can put the transacript of Mr Ma's speech back up. Formosa (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, see the below from one of the pages you directed me to:

Published in Greater China Condition What is public domain Template Works ineligible for copyright in Mainland China Laws; regulations; resolutions, decisions and orders of State organs; other documents of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature; and their official translations. {{PD-CN}} Official works of Macao Official works, in particular the texts of treaties, laws and regulations and those of reports or decisions by authorities of any kind, and translations thereof. {{PD-MO}} Works ineligible for copyright in Taiwan The constitution, acts, regulations, official documents (including proclamations, text of speeches, news releases, and other documents prepared by civil servants in the course of carrying out their duties), and their translations and compilations by central or local government agencies. {{PD-TW}}

The copyright law that applies for Wikisource is the copyright law of the US, as that is where the data is considered as being located, not the other countries, they only apply in those countries and considered indicative only for Wikisource. The works that you brought forward were not constitution, acts, regulations, and official documents.
A speech has artistic merit for the original thought and hence it is not considered to be in the public domain and thus able to be located here until it is clearly in the public domain as considered by the law. There is no loss of copyright by public manifesto. Please see the component about Fair Use at Wikisource:Copyright policy. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


I think some or more of these might not be in compliance with WikiSource copyright rules...What do you think?

there could be might need to take these down. Thanks for your vigilence. Formosa (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The first falls under {{PD-USGov}}; and you are probably right about the second, and as it is a longer standing work, it should be nominated at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations and you should reference that it seems to have been missed after the cleanup of {{PD-Manifesto}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
So a speech by an American politician can be put up on WikiSource but a speech by a politician of any other country cannot. Is that correct? Formosa (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
No. Speeches that are explicitly released from copyright can be, and United States copyright laws does not provide copyright protection for those undertaking their federal government tasks. If another politician's speech is specifically made public domain, then it can be reproduced. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for the note. I think I know what needs to be done, but I am overwhelmed with work at the moment. Will try to take care of it sometime this week. Dovi (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do a version of first aid and stabilisation, though it will only be best holding pattern stuff. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


I saw you deleted the page Breslov. Where should the English Breslev books index go then? Isn't Breslov parallel to the index for Mishnah? Note that Nachman of Breslev will not be the only author; there will be others besides him and Rabbi Natan. In accordance with we'll title and index pages by the spelling "Breslov." Nissimnanach (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Nissimnanach

You had converted the links to cross namespace redirects, so they were deleted. If you are looking to create a listing for a subject matter, then they belong in the Wikisource: namespace, using the {{process header}}.
  • Main namespace is for works, and they all belong at the top level, and may utilise subpages.
  • Author namespace is for the authors, and list their works, and link to appropriate sister sites
  • Wikisource namespace is for select listings of works, usually based on subject matter, and has more flexibility for mixing works and authors.

billinghurst sDrewth 02:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think I am looking to create a listing for the Breslev subject matter. so I made the page Breslov and put the process header in it. Did I do it right? Thank you. Nissimnanach (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Nissimnanach
Not quite, I have moved it to Wikisource:Breslov which is a different namespace (the bit before the colon). — billinghurst sDrewth 03:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I made a permissions page Wikisource:Open_Breslov_Project/Permissions, applying GNU FDL to the whole project. This seems to be how the Open Mishnah Project does it. Is that in order? So I'll remove the no license tag from Likutei_Moharan. Thank you. Nissimnanach (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Nissimnanach
Nope. Each work is required to have its licensing, and that is each work will be different, even it is subtly. You would need to be able to justify GNU FDL, as it is not often one that is applied here. Such a justification would be on the talk page of the work, though it may also be on the project page if it is a broader type justification. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


Should that user be renamed? There is an interesting question there, whether, if we were to receive a DMCA takedown over a user name, we would be technically capable of actioning it. We could delete the user name and oversight the edits, but could we prevent the username from appearing in Special:Listusers? Hesperian 03:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I am obviously on the outer, and don't understand a modern usage. With regard to oversight and taken down, we don't have it, so it would be a stewards thing. With the knowledge of the former, I obviously don't see the relevance for the latter. Do you think that a trademark (presuming that this is the issue) would feel impacted by this? In fact, they may prefer to see the account name shutdown globally. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking of the trademark; I was thinking of the giving away of a registration code. I was just wondering, if the owners of Cro-mag asked us to take it down, are we equipped to respond to this kind of thing. If some idiot vandal can easily create problems that can only be fixed at steward or dev level, then we have a vulnerability. Hesperian 04:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha, shows that I didn't pay that much attention to it. I'll catch a steward in IRC and seek an opinion. Let them chew on it and get back to us. Different question from whether we would want local oversight to deal with our own problems anyway. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

sDrewthBot's rogue edits[edit]

User:Quodvultdeus noted some misnamings in the headers of some of the pages of a work by Origen, so I investigated, knowing that bots usually don't make stray typographical errors like that.

It seems that between 13:55 and 15:17 on 19 Apr 2009 and 9:48 and 10:47 on 20 Apr 2009, sDrewthBot was involved in a series of runaway edits!

Since a hard-working admin like you could use a break, I made a list of all the pages that got blasted.

  • Anti-Nicene Fathers
    • Volume IX
      • Origen on Matthew
        • Origen's Commentary on Matthew
          • Book X (toc page; ch. 1-25)
          • Book XI (ch. 1-19)
          • Book XII (ch. 1-43)
          • Book XIII (toc page; ch. 1-31)
          • Book XIV (ch. 1-25)

that is, the preceding 5 bulleted books with their listed chapters.

Since the problem is basically the same, with only minor differences confined to the two table of contents pages, I can hope sDrewthBot can reform himself and undo the damage fairly easily. ResScholar (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done . Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Should I delete page?[edit]

I used googlebooks scanned image for text here [19] and now I am curious if I should go back and put what was here before which was unreadable but satisfies "Side-by-Side advantages" or should I figure out how to replace the scan with the one at googlebooks? Thanks.Daytrivia (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Put the text in place, though mark the page as problematic, and put a comment on the talk page of the source used would be ideal. As there will certainly be other failed pages that need replacing, and I believe that we would probably wish to do that process once. If we need to replace the whole image, then we can do so, though we need to trim them to match, and I have backed off that for the moment. Charles has a page of good and bad scans, so do feel welcome to discuss with him about that, and see the page that he has prepared. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks a million.Daytrivia (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Importing text from Microsoft Word![edit]

I found this on a YahooAnswer regarding copying from Word to Wikipedia: "One of the ones that is apparently more simple, if (and only if; iff) you have Firefox, is to enable the WikEd Wikipedia editing tool which is available through your Wikipedia preferences in the "Gadgets"section if you are a registered user. It apparently can convert tables and formatting from Word into MediaWiki syntax with a single click."

But I did not find the WikEd feature available here on Wikisource. Can we get this available or do you have other advice on importing from Word? Thank you. Nissimnanach (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Nissimnanach

If you wish to run WikEd at WS, then you should be able to enable it into your active javascript file (vector.js or monobook.js), depending on whichever look you are using), with the instructions at w:User:Cacycle/wikEd installation#On-wiki installation code. If you don't feel comfortable editing the file, then I can do so for you, I just need to know which skin you are using (look within your Special:Preferences gadgets). I cannot say that I have tried to do so, and generally look to do the tables from first principles. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Formula completed[edit]

Hi Billinghurst,

A contributor has added this on

{{#expr:(({{CURRENTHOUR}}/3 round 0)+ {{CURRENTDOW}}) mod 8}}

I don't understand how it works but probably you will: can this be useful here? Regards, --Zyephyrus (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

For every three hours, that is number(hour/3) {0 through 8}, it adds number(day of the week) {1 through 7}, so expression will be 1 < x < 15. There is a slight distribution effect as there are a number of ways to get the median numbers, though only one way to get 1 or 15. Sort of like rolling dice, 2 though 12, most likely number to roll is 7. Nice to see someone else has picked a way to rotate their PotM. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 11:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I appear to be the contributor mentioned above. But i disagree about the distribution effect : if you look closely at the code, you will see that during one day the value of {{CURRENTHOUR}}/3 round 0)+ {{CURRENTDOW}} is within a 8-wide interval (which is then translated to [0,7] by the mod operator). So each of the 8 chosen texts appears exactly once a day, and there is no privileged text. Zaran (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
How very true and I missed the the paranthesis before the mod (/me blames tired eyes). No criticism was intended; more stating that it was a means to rotate a PotM with a difference. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 23:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm rereading myself, and indeed, my tone looked a bit irritated. It was not intentional at all (just a result of not being a native speaker). Zaran (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
All forgiven, wink I didn't think that you were. See you in IRC. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Can I download[edit]

Hi Billinghurst, there was some sort of a problem with the various John Walters pages in DNB last Sept. [20] I am wondering if I can download the text from Archive now or not? Thanks. Daytrivia (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You cannot just click the link? There was a misalignment with volume 59, so rather than move (long and laborious process) the OCR text on the pages, we just deleted them (easy task); previously a bot had applied the text layer so there wasn't value to the text that we deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks much. Could I copy and paste text from googlebooks in order to proofread easier or is it hands off for a while? Daytrivia (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure. I am not aware of any "hands off" anywhere, as long at the text corresponds to the image, we are happy. I would have thought that the underlying text was the same as many of these are Google texts in the first place (well the crappier scans are, the nicer scans came from Uni Toronto). Previous commentary I believed was about reloading the images and that I was only looking to update repaired and complete scans when we had a complete inventory of which pages needed replacing. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Outstanding. Thanks for your prompt reply.Daytrivia (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Page Readability on DNB:[edit]

Hi, have been learning some about DNB volume 28 for some time now. Have had difficulty reading text from other volumes. Am attempting to convert all of volume 18 from google books pdf file into djvu format for upload to commons. I have asked for 400 dpi resolution to help improve the readability of these pages. Am attempting this "in good faith" to help provide better images to facilitate the editing process, but no experience with this specific process. It would help to have a guide for this effort in case of any hidden traps on the journey. My question becomes...what happens after upload to commons? Thanks in advance, I have enjoyed working with your team here. --JamAKiska (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

SDrewthbot and HTML comments[edit]

Hi! SDrewthbot seems to be replacing the hyphens HTML comment tags with dashes ("<!— ... —>"), making the comment visible on the page (eg. here). Would it be possible to add an exception for the comment tags? Jafeluv (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It was noted post the event and subsequently I did. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Help file edits[edit]

I think it can helpful for someone unfamiliar with a process to edit a help file, and so I've done so at Help:Side by side image view for proofreading. But in case I've made errors, or if a different organization is preferable, I'd much welcome your review of my changes - especially the "Beginning the proofreading project" section. Mike Serfas (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Saw that you were editing it and I have no specific issues with what you have typed. It is a watched file, and there are those who will edit it if they wish to contradict you. Thanks for the contributions. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the tip, and sorry if I messed anything up. It's my first day here... IncognitoErgoSum (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Anything else I need to know?[edit]

I've uploaded a couple djvus, and you've been somewhat cleaning up behind me which is of course nice. Is there anything I should know that would make contributing better/easier? Regards, NativeForeigner (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Umm (he says straightening his dishevelled maid uniform). Nothing pops to mind (though I have just been idling my brain in patrol mode), generally, if there was anything striking I would have left a note. I am presuming that you have seen Help:DjVu files. There are quirky tweaks that we can do to shift emphasis, or highlight components; we have very light rules, aka Wikisource:Style guide, a little more convention; we remain true to the printed word, and hopefully we can be an open and helpful community. You have been at WS:S which is the best place, though if you have particular questions, then do feel that they can be asked. Though as a general comment, the Wikisource:Proofread of the Month is always a great learning place as lots of people contribute and there is always something to learn from seeing others at work. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Certainly different than enwiki, but exceedingly useful. NativeForeigner (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Certainly different, and we aim to keep it that way. Civility and lack of pissing competitions (to excuse the phrase) are considered advantageous here. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for your work on Bluemansdyke! I honestly didn't expect to see anyone work (especially so feverishly!) on validating any of it, so it's very nice to see that most of it has been double checked.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal opinion: We all need to work on validating work, otherwise it doesn't get validated; so that is me living my values. That I know that it has had an excellent initial proofread, and is a good scan, and smaller pages, has absolutely nothing to do with the choice. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


I don't know whether I can upload this image to Commons because I don't know if it's public domain here in the U.K. So far I've uploaded all of the other images under {{PD-70}}, because they were all drawn and printed by the same people, but I'm not sure about this one. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I would think that it would be, it is Commons:Template:PD-Art, for a book published >> 80 years ago, and was painted 150++ years ago. I would thought that it would have fallen out of copyright years ago. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Myth of a Guilty Nation[edit]

Don't we want it to match the file name at Internet Archive? ResScholar (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying at this point, I can't just use the move button? ResScholar (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're trying to tell me the "page:"s show up with the name of the file name by default on pagelist. Okay let's make everything match if you have an account there. If all I have to do is move and rename the "djvu" file on the "index:"page I can take care of that myself. If I need to do this before you do, let me know. Otherwise I'll make the switch when it goes blank.

You can rename it "The_Myth_of_a_Guilty_Nation". Thanks for your help, this is my first go at this. ResScholar (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess underline marks aren't necessary so please skip those. ResScholar (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Did Commons really not have the Rename ability for admins until September 2009? What did people do before then? ResScholar (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Best shrug. Bash their head against the wall in utter frustration? Wasn't paying attention to Commons politics at the time, so don't fully know. Probably reload with new name and delete old name. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Yep. There was a {{badname}} speedy deletion system in place. Hesperian 10:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That was you who was giving me an edit conflict! I had two different copies up...I thought it was me! Why does it give you the two free tags /div /noinclude after the end of putting in a references/ tag on the first page? I didn't ask it to do that! And it kept giving me a free /noinclude at the beginning of the second page! What's up with that? ResScholar (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

My browser is handicapped for some reason. No matter what I do, even using the footer bar, I am not able to reproduce the arrangement of noinclude and div tags at this location and allow a quote that's spread across two file pages to appear as whole on the main page. The best I can do is that series with an extra set of noinclude /noinclude tags, which should do nothing, but somehow causes an extra line feed and carriage return to occur at that point. So if you see me skip that part, it's not because I want you to do my drudge work, it's because I can't do it. ResScholar (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I found out what the problem was. If you don't put a /div on the same line as the last line of the paragraph you are using it won't spread the quote. Simple, but easy to overlook. ResScholar (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Excellent news. Guess what? I didn't think that you left me with drudge work, plus even if you did that is what all the regex scripts are for in my monobook.js file are for in removing those carriage returns, gaps, and other icky things. A couple that Hesperian and I have concocted are very useful. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Author:John Hay Drummond Hay[edit]

Did I miss something ? [21]. I though first about a typo in the name on en:wp: but I'm unable to retrieve the article. Phe (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Big shrug. I have created the article now. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfair block[edit]

For you, this message is simply FYI (out of courtesy) - Formosa (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear ( ) – I have become fairly active on the Wikisource:Possible copyright violations ‎ discussion page in recent times. You are probably familiar with some of the issues I have raised there (including what is meant by an “Edict of Government”). On 2 May 2010 I made a number of edits. Most of these edits related to me “tagging, hiding and listing for discussion” works that were labeled as “Edicts of Government” (e.g. South African political speeches, a national anthem and other works). The same day Administrator Billinghurst blocked me. I cannot say precisely why – as he did not give precise reasons – but the general heading he gave was that “Okay, that is too rampant” (i.e. I was being too active in ““tagging, hiding and listing for discussion”).

I have disagreed with Billinghurst on a number of copyright points of late – basically, I would like the same standard to be applied to all works. The same high standard that is – even if that means that a lot of works need to be listed for discussion etc - but his approach is different. I think Billinghurst views me as ‘trouble’. In contrast, I think I have made a worthwhile contribution, prompting interesting discussions, greater clarity and the removal of some works. Indeed, the works I “tagged, hid and listed for discussion” on 2 May 2010 have led to interesting copyright discussions on the copyright violations discussion page. I would like Billinghurst to apologise for blocking me and somehow “expunge” my record.

I would appreciate any contribution you would like to make on my talk page where my block is being discussed. I am sending this message to all persons who have participated on the same copyright violation discussions as me. I do not know how else to generate further participation in the discussion concerning my block save direct messages – as I cannot list this matter (a personal one) on the copyright violations page. The discussion is at User talk:Formosa. Given my treatment, I admit to feeling a bit disheartened about my continuing involvement in the copyright violations project. Thanks. Formosa (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your courtesy. To let you know that the things that I did were brought to the attention of the collective of Wikisource administrators, and they were fully informed, and able to reverse anything that I did, or to dispute with me any of my actions;
For the/your record, I have no personal opinion about you, I don't do blame, I do manage systems, which is different from that I don't necessarily agree with the actions that you take and where they are outside the accepted norm here I may undertake a range of actions. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Bot flags[edit]

I am contacting everyone who operates an active bot on en.WS. When granting bot-flags I am heavily reliant on the consensus of people like you to ensure that prospective bots approriate and should be flagged. I am not at all competant to evaluate bots independantly and this leads to people waiting a rather long time to find out if their bots will be santioned. Could you please help me out and take the time to examine one of the two current requests at the Scriptorium?[22] [23] Thank you.--BirgitteSB 20:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not logging in[edit]

Thanks for keeping an eye out for vandalism, but in this case it really was me. That bullshit on WP with the rogue admin deleting all my uploads from the past five years was the last straw, I had never heard of him before this week, and now he's not just attacking me, he's deleting images that belong to the WMF community - including many images that have never been put in the public sphere before I worked my ass off to get them, years ago, going through legal and bureaucratic loops for some of them. Combined with Jimbo's draconian announcement he is giving all prudish administrators free rein to delete without debate any 200-year old paintings they consider "obscene"...I think I've had it with WMF. And I'm not the only one. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Charlotte Mason. 16:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sherurcij, there were three different admins involved there, so don't pin it to just the one. To me it looks like there was the opportunity to update the fair use criteria, and those that I updated have remained. It is reasonable that files of 5 years ago are reviewed for Fair Use, and updated to modern criteria if they are able to be done. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Are we—I mean they—allowed to delete books we—I mean they—consider obscene? ResScholar (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I think we could do with an approach to this matter (w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-05-10/In the news) that doesn't simply play along with the wishes of Sanger and Fox News to have Wikimedians at each others' throats. It seems clear to me that Murdoch media, including the Wall Street Journal, are going to take every opportunity to undermine the principle of free content. This particular effort is succeeding more than the bogus statistics of November 2009, which saw me on BBC tv, because it is aimed at a faultline in communities. So I would recommend not taking up divisive positions. Charles Matthews (talk)
Our community has a consultative approach, and a streak of independence, lashings of both reasonableness and practicality. We work on the basis that we host things that have survived peer review. Knowing the way that we allow thorough community discussion on matters with variation of opinion, we would have a decision some year into the future. :-) Our subject matter so usually dissuades (bores?) the hot heads. Let us ignore the fanatical furoré and do some more additions, whatever it is that meets the criteria. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Page splice for Humberston, Francis Mackenzie (DNB00)[edit]

Hi, Hope all is well with you. Am unable to use hws /\ hwe splice over the qv link on the boundary between pp. 204 and 205 of this there another option to remove that space? Thanks in advance! JamAKiska (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The hws/hwe template pair work by adding <noinclude>...</noinclude> and <includeonly>...</includeonly> segments. This will grow confused when there is wikimarkup of any kind spanning the page break, so in such a case you cannot use the templates. Instead, you must add the appropriate include/noinclude segments yourself. I will try to do this for your page break. Wish me luck! -Arch dude (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, that did it. Take a look. I think that we have decided that this situation is sufficiently rare that we will not attempt to create "fancy" templates, but will instead use this brute-force approach. -Arch dude (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

SDrewthbot - hidden note[edit]

FYI - This edit undid the hidden note. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we found that out afterward and we updated our script. Thought that I had hunted them all down. Fixed. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia (as if we didn't have enough troubles)[edit]

I was wondering about the prospects getting the Catholic Encyclopedia set up as a PageReader project in 2010. The background, briefly, is that I worked quite a lot putting CE text on enWP, and now take an interest in sending references to CE on enWP over here, rather than to the (at least four) other online sources. When I do that, it would be nice to know that our text was the best possible online source. At present, that cannot be said: there are several hundred articles simply missing, but also there are clear improvements needed in proofing, format, restoring missing reference sections, and putting Greek and Hebrew text back in. Those latter things are typical of matters best done with text facing a djvu. (There seem actually to be more enWP references to CE than DNB, which is why this seemed worth bringing up as one aspect of "Reference Commons", if I can call it that, the face of WS that is most adjacent to WP's needs.) Charles Matthews (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Cannot see why not. We would do well to pick the best versions of scan in the first instance, and we can step through the beasties. Learning from existing lessons would be good. billinghurst (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
As you will have noticed, I have been addressing other aspects (author pages, links to WP). That much has made clear to me that a better header is much needed (the DNB one is far superior). Changing the header is pointless though until a transition to PageReader is gone through properly as an option. There are a dozen volumes or so, and another nasty feature of the current state is that the order of articles is often not that of the original book (which can be seen at the site, by the way). Having a single volume posted as a testbed would be good. None of this is going to get done in a hurry, obviously, but I see incoming traffic/wikify/link to author pages as a good way to lift the prominence of the site generally. (As it stands the CE is almost certainly treated by Google as mirroring other sites such as Newadvent, and penalised in pagerank.) Charles Matthews (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Pick a volume, any volume, and we can see where to. Creating a specific CE header is easy. We should also look to how we would establish the volume pages and listings. Creating them as subpages should be easier than what we are currently doing, the question becomes do we want subpages of a volume, or just subpages of CE. billinghurst (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
There is already a per-volume listing, see Catholic Encyclopedia (1913). The thing is that it is unreliable (at some point someone alphabetised the articles in a way not corresponding to the actual order, and told the bot these lies). Therefore articles turn up in the wrong volume. But editing the listing to be in the right order is one of the processes that is aided by the presence of the djvus. So it could be done in passing really. As for titles, I think the current convention is not particularly problematic (I'm not a fan of subpages, but the non-inversion of the names appeals to me). The titling is still somewhat chaotic, in that there are scanning errors, typos, inconsistent conventions, articles split over several pages, and generally plenty of random stuff that anyone looking at this again would notice. But fixing the titles is a discrete issue, and the chaos can be reduced by listing on author pages and checking against the handbook there is for the CE.
In sum, getting volume 1 posted in PageReader would be a big plus. I'm not actually too worried about the text layer, more about readable djvus, because I imagine pasting in the existing article text, checking the format (which is subject to all sorts of arbitrary headings etc. in what we have), and transcluding with an improved header. This can be done piecemeal over time, one volume at a time. (A category Category:CE no WP would definitely help with the CE effort on WP.) Charles Matthews (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Vol 1 is 57MB, and my connection with Commons timed out trying to upload it. I will try an alternative method, however, it may be problematic. billinghurst (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem with djvu image[edit]

Hi, I'm having problems with Page:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians vol 4.djvu/536. I can see the image when I'm on the page normally. But, when I try to edit the image doesn't load and I get the broken image icon. I've managed to proof most of the first column from having the page open a second time, but I just can't read the second column without being able to "blow it up" in the edit view. Any suggestions? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, tried a few things totally unsuccessful. For an in-house we are going to need to ask Thomas. Alternative that I can propose is and magnify. billinghurst sDrewth 09:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
It isn't Thomas's bug. The url he requests the image from, is broken. Change the page number to anything else and the url works just fine. Change the resolution to 2047 or 2049, and the url works just fine. At a guess MediaWiki has thrown an error the first time it tried to build the thumb, and has now cached the error page. How to force MediaWiki to purge the error page and rebuild the thumb? I don't know. The guidance at w:Wikipedia:Purge#For images doesn't help. Hesperian 11:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
You can satisfy yourself that this isn't Thomas's bug by previewing
[[Image:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians vol 4.djvu|page=536|2048px]]
It displays as a link rather than as an image. Change the size and the image will display just fine. Hesperian 11:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Hesperian. I've managed to proofread it now. I've also put a note on the talkpage about the workaround. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Resolved in discussion. We needed to purge the page of the file to get it to rebuild its thumbnails, so in this case I tried so many different things, and obviously missed this.
This is different from how we usually purge File: ns, as we usually do it without selecting a page.billinghurst sDrewth 08:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

dab-type things[edit]

Another consideration on the topic of Versions, do we stretch them to include related items. I added the two songs to Alice in Wonderland, reasoning that this was a cited alternate to the title of the original. Then I tentatively included the sequel; it might seem to be an obvious link, but WS's ad hoc arrangements mean that the coherent listing in the Author:namespace also becomes distributed and collated by title throughout main. Accessing the titles is the goal, and these navigational pages do that reasonably well. I'm also thinking that user generated indexation, like our search results (but working), will eventually become more powerful than the pages we create. Thanks for raising the issue again, its all very interesting. Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC) P.S. I just noticed I posted this on another's talk, I must clicked the link above or below it on recent changes. That RC is my surefire way of finding a link this page is a testament to your efforts here. :-) Cygnis insignis (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Completely unrelated thread, but what was the problem with this? Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Missing the top part of the image file, and we already have it aligned with a jpg; which I also was the original source for the jpg. It is now a matter of creating an Index: jpg page, and the struggle between my headache and limited patience allocation was at an end. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Hope you are feeling better now. Cygnis insignis (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Second look[edit]

Can you check this edit the IP might have made the correct edit. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was right or wrong, I just said it was undone as it was uncommented and unreferenced. We have many random edits made, without source and comment, and I believe that basis of all of our discussions is that we are true to the source. Unless it is an obvious mistake that is being corrected, then the status quo should be maintained, or the evidence should be presented to the reason for the change. If it was a logged in user, the information that I would have requested would have specifically stated such. In my experience with such requests to IPs they go unanswered, and we have a modified documentation with dubious history and no documentation. If you can correct against a source, then please do so. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Transcluding back author subpages for the DNB[edit]

What I had in mind was this: alter Template:DNBauthorsubpage temporarily by including {{:PAGENAME/DNB}}, with {{:PAGENAME/Dictionary of National Biography}} I suppose if we want to make the transition to that form of subpage title. Firstly, will this actually work (I haven't had much luck with PAGENAME here)? Secondly, is this the right kind of solution? My idea is just to have the template in two states, so that ahead of a serious maintenance run with the Magnus tool it can be switched on to give the transclusion back of subpages, which does allow the tool to register correctly that articles have been listed on author pages. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

When the subpage is transcluded, Magnus's tool doesn't see the links on the files (which means that it doesn't work), so we would need for Magnus to modify the query somehow. If we were going to do that, I would think that that it would just be easier to get the query to check the parent Author page, and a page name /Dictionary of National Biography. This way it makes it independent of whether we transclude or not, and that would be the preference, especially as we are not going to have them listed by some other subpage. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
BTW, for your test use, for your formulation it is probably one of these {{:{{PAGENAME}}/DNB}} or {{{{:PAGENAME}}/DNB}}, HOWEVER, the easier means is using the relative path of {{/DNB}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sidenote templates[edit]

Hi! You left a moment before I could tell you I had a crack at that {{RL sidenote}}. I also have a bot script set up (it is super simple) to replace to {{RL sidenote}} or {{left sidenote}} as appropriate. See the results at:

Is that what you had in mind? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that is it. Thanks for doing that, it has sat in my pending forever.
And that leads me to think about how we utilise {{sidenotes begin}}, with its full justification, and whether we should consider for left sidenote display whether we want full justification and a right margin, or we want to just let the text run. I'll have to ponder that. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
So do you want me to replace all instances of {{force sidenote}}? If so I can set the bot going, and it can be done in 10 minutes. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 05:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
NYep. No need to wait for further notification with me on such things — principle discussed, we agreed example worked, happy for it to be done, that is all detail winkbillinghurst sDrewth 10:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, all used in pages have been replaced. There are still some references to the template in various places, so I didn't delete the template. I'll leave that to you! Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 08:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks. I have converted it to a redirect, and at some stage, we can kill it. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

TO DO reminder[edit]

Look at Bot policy and review against ad hoc edits. We currently deal with requests, however, we should be at least noting which bot is doing a task and when. Having the ability to have a gentle look at each others botting is a good thing. — billinghurst sDrewth

Finding the piped (DNB00)s[edit]

I sketched an ambition at the DNB project talk, to have an automated way to create alphabetical segments of DNB articles from the author page listings. A precondition for that seems to be to have the listing format standard. I can easily get all the unpiped suffix (DNB00) entries: this is nearly done. For the piped old-fashioned "(DNB00)|" entries, can AWB find these in the wikitext of the author page namespace? Would save going through. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In the main ns, the short answer is yes, in a sense. AWB cannot find the links per se whereas we would provide a list of pages, and then it will trawl through and do text replacements that meet the search terms. Aside: For many works it would be easiest as they are subpages of a work, while that is not possible with DNB, we have a specialised header (offshoot) and that is sufficient. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The replacement is not particularly onerous by hand - it's more a question of finding where the beggars are lurking. I think most will be in the "prolific, incomplete" category of authors, which is now under 90 and becoming manageable. I'll be visiting all those author pages gradually, anyway. There will be others scattered around. In a hypothetical sorting system of DNB lists scraped from author pages, the piped links would show up as gaps that could be found by hand checking that would anayway be necessary. It would all come out in the wash, in other words. My question was aimed at understanding whether there is a swift way of finding/tracking this aspect of cleanup. One way and another, it looks like time to get the 680-odd DNB author pages into good shape. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Perfectly functional way of doing it, though just has some pages being called up and ignored, so just server cycle time. There may be a way through the API, "eye juz iggorant off weighs 2 no". We will need to do an occasional sweep as I just forget and others will just link, however, that is not a major issue at this time, and by then there may be a means to select/deselect easily based on date of last edit (aka last sweep). I must admit to not delving the depths of AWB, just look at it for in your face fixes, or quick handling, rather than as a strategic tool. Note that Hesperian has been writing scripts based on edit dates, so we could suck up to him once we have worked out our requirements, and then just base it on a query. Re: Author pages they have other identifying templates that we can use to identify so selecting those page is not an issue, and we are often revisiting those, and can run a quick regex through those as needed. I can prepare that code easily enough. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I've done a pass through the "long" lists and I think I found the last big patch of the piped links (on author pages - plenty in the volume ToCs but that doesn't matter at present). Anything left should be small stuff or new additions. I do feel a "style manual" for the author page listings coming on, even though the prescriptive attitude is not really in character for the DNB project. I think we shall want them to be easily machine-readable. I suppose one approach is to have all the listings on subpages, trancluded in or not as we wish; or do that for all but the singletons, which should get {{DNB link}}. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
If you have your regex tool on, we would want to do something like
then replace with
{{DNB lkpl$1}}. Just did that to vol. 62. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Re: style. Yes, and that is preferred style to make it less imposing. Usually people don't follow styles b/c they cannot work out what they are doing, so our legwork with a simplicity outcome will allow this. Anyway we just run a tidy every so often across the pages. Once we have worked out what the hell we want on those pages with text replacement, it is fairly simple to save the AWB criteria and just run them through again.

The music of Bohemia.djvu sheet music[edit]

I would love to add the sheet music for the transcription project, but it isn't in the public domain in the UK. How would the sheet music be uploaded then? I am currently proofreading/validating the rest of the text.--Angelprincess72 (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think that it is in copyright in the UK? From my quick look, it states it is of music of an earlier time, so it would only look to be 20thC music that would be an issue, and probably of a known provenance (given the date of publication). I can look to do some research on the author, but cannot right at this time. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


I saw you changed Page:Lectures on Modern History.djvu/331 to include the chapter's title information in the actual page. I typically don't do this because I figure the same information is in the {{header}} template. Do you think it's worth repeating it here? —Spangineerwp (háblame) 14:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I tend to, though that could be b/c I have worked on lots of my earlier pieces e.g. had the heading and then subheadings. I usually work on the concept that the text that is on the main part of the page, however, that is how I approach it though I have seen amounts of both on-site. In this case, I had been doing it through the rest of the work, and here I was aligning with others. If someone had done a complete work that way, I wouldn't change it when I was validating. So call it a preference or a habit, though not something that I will go to war over. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'm generally of the opposite opinion but with similar lack of passion. The main difference I see here between this and the Omnibuses and Cabs example is that, as far as I know, these works were not originally meant to be published together... it's more of an anthology of Acton's essays on related topics. So to me drawing attention to chapter numbers (and the anthology in general) makes less sense here—for this reason I also didn't set up the linking structure as Lectures on Modern History/The American Revolution and instead followed my SOP for other anthologies like this (Sumner's stuff, Elliot's Debates, and another of Acton's anthologies). —Spangineerwp (háblame) 19:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Now the second part is a discussion that I have had, and one in which I am happy to converse. While they were individual works, they were also published as a collection, and they have value as such, especially leading from one to the other, and then to incorporate the appendices to the works which often give context to the whole, or at least the parts. Some of us have also found that we are starting to disambiguate things with simpler titles, and the easiest means to do this is to have them as subpages, especially for works by same authors, most obviously with poetry, however, there are also odds and sods that fit within the general purview. There we have been putting redirect links at main ns, so they have both individual characteristics, and as a collection. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Probably reviewing what has been done, would it be more your preference that the names of the work are placed in title field, thus giving that prominence to the work at that level, and the collection component be back in the notes. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes it would be—I usually put the collection in the "section" line of {{header}} for these types of works. Like "The Conquest of the United States by Spain". —Spangineerwp (háblame) 14:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair call. I have always played chicken with that field and left it alone unless I can say it is a section. :-/ billinghurst sDrewth 14:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I figure it's as good a place as any, and even though the content doesn't match the template parameter, the output on the page looks reasonable (at least to me). —Spangineerwp (háblame) 14:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Re subpages, would your view be then that Sumner's works and even Elliot's Debates should eventually be moved to subpages? In the case of Sumner, the collections were built one at a time, with no view toward future collections—so there's no real "organization" to any of the collections, and nearly all the essays were published individually elsewhere. And Elliot's Debates is one of the standard reference texts for many historical documents written by many different authors. Do you think it still makes sense to move these to subpages? —Spangineerwp (háblame) 14:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Umm, no firm opinion, as I generally only give the treatment to works in progress. We could <shrug>. My first level of evaluation is the value question, in does it give substantial value to what we are doing. So, if we were going to build from more base Index: files we could migrate them at that stage, however, if they function as they are, is there a need. If you think that it has value, then different start point. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'm leaving it as is for now; we can look at it again later if need be. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 03:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"Macedonian" texts[edit]

Hello and thank you for the welcoming. I just saw your reply. I'm still flabbergasted at this man's claims regarding the validity of these forged texts. Supposedly, they are translations of works created before 1923. The works have to be verifiable. They aren't. People even contacted the Russian archives and they found no evidence (all in the discussion pages). St0k0s (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

We have a number of works that are purported to be "of a time" that may indeed be forgeries, or at least dubious, that said these documents are in the public domain, and as such they can be hosted. What then should happen is that they need to have suitable context around them that the credibility of the original source needs to be specified, and openly. So in this case, they are no longer works created before 1923, they become works created more recently, and have been published.— billinghurst sDrewth 01:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Convert to Djvu[edit]

Hi, I have created the djvu for Index:An account of the action off Cape Lookout. Do you know the proper deletion method for this process? Thanks for your input. --Xxagile (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I would delete it as Redundant, and speedy it, it is hardly controversial. Suggest that you put in the link to the new file in the reason. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sketch of Ten Broeck[edit]

Thank you for your help with this! I'm trying to understand your edits to the page.

  1. If I understand correctly, {{nop}} forces correct paragraph spacing, and I see you only used it once here, at the top of the page. Does it usually only need to be used once per page (at the top, I'm guessing), or is it sometimes needed more than once?
    Wikis like to eat empty space, and in this situation it takes the initial spaces and then interprets === as being literal equal signs rather than a header marker. The nop basically stops the eating of empty space allows the wiki interpretation to begin. So it is a technical solution. Often we just format these lines with something like {{larger}}however as you had used the headings lower in the page, I just went with what you had and adapted to fix
  2. I'm trying to understand the two "noinclude" sections at the bottom, was this just a mistake and only one is needed, or is there a reason to have two back-to-back like that?
    My goof, at the bottom it is now an INCLUDEONLY, which means that it will only show WHEN transcluded. We only try to show the real text on the page. Usually we would add the reference call on the main ns page at the end of the work so they are only called one, yet display per page in the Page: ns. [I hope that makes sense]
    So part of why this looks strange is because it is a single-page work. If it were multipage, we'd want a NOINCLUDE reference section on each page (page ns), and then put a non-transcluded reference call at the end in the main ns, do I have that right? Is there a preference as to using INCLUDEONLY v. a non-transcluded ref call right in the main ns? Cmadler (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
    I wouldn't have called it strange, just a one page work. Being a one page work, we can achieve the same thing with two different implementations. So if it was multipage, yes, generally we would just add a <references/> or {{reflist}} in the main ns after the transclusion. You will note that at the bottom of each PAGE:blahblah.djvu/xx there is the references call to display the relevant refs per page. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  3. What is the purpose of marking the whole thing as class "pagetext"? Is that something that I could have done earlier in the process, or is it normally done only when a page is validated?
    That would have been there when the page was created, and you will have deleted it when you created the pages, I didn't check when, didn't matter, not a biggie. They are just a default style that helps in case there other formatting errors on page somewhere. Simply a default, and by practice we leave it alone.
  4. Is {{SIC}} preferred over {{sic}}, since it creates a display?
    No rule, my general preference rather than someone reading it and thinking that we cannot type. Put the other if you prefer, and it is your work, so your preference is the dominant. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Cmadler (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Trying something bigger[edit]

I decided to try to tackle something bigger, and seeing that the Lincoln-Douglas Debates weren't on here, I thought I'd try that. In the course of working on it, I've got a few more questions:

  1. How do you deal with a page like Page:Lincolndouglas2184linc.djvu/37, which consists of a image and caption?
  2. How do you align a page like Page:Lincolndouglas2184linc.djvu/10 that partially consists of 2-column text? For that matter, how do you do a page that entirely consists of 2-column text, like the index (e.g., Page:Lincolndouglas2184linc.djvu/707)?
  3. Is there a way to use non-standard fonts, as perhaps with the title on Page:Lincolndouglas2184linc.djvu/9?
  4. What's the best way to deal with a table of contents page like Page:Lincolndouglas2184linc.djvu/29?
  5. So far I've been using {{rh}} for the header on each page, but as I look at the work as a whole, I'm wondering if this should be omitted (or "noinclude"d so it doesn't show in the transclusion)?
  6. What's the best way to force a line break without adding a full blank line? Do you use <br/> or something else?
  7. How do you deal with a page like Page:Lincolndouglas2184linc.djvu/7 which is full-justified, centered, with a drop initial?

Thanks for your help! cmadler (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Some unsolicited answers, might help to get you started until billinghurst answers

  1. Go to the source of the djvu, use the online viewer instead. Navigate to the page and maximise to 100%. Save the rich jp2 file, crop the caption and blank page and convert it to greyscale and PNG. Adjust the black and white points to enhance the content and make the back-ground disappear. Type and center the caption and add the image with <code>[[File:'detailed image name'png|frameless|center]]</code>.
  2. Use a table. Other solutions exist.
  3. {{Blackletter}}
  4. Use a table. I can give you an example.
  5. Click [+] for the noinclude headers and footer for each page in Page: namespace, running headers usually go in there.
  6. Yep, <br/> does the trick when its needed, which is not very often.
  7. I applied a solution here

Cygnis insignis (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers, I'll play around with those some. I've come across one more issue: Page:Lincolndouglas2184linc.djvu/55 has an image that was printed sideways (rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise) to fit in the book. I'm guessing it's should be rotated back when included here, since we don't have the constraints of a physical page? cmadler (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, about 91° right :P Shall I do it as a demo, as best I can? Cygnis insignis (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
No need, I think I can do it...when I get around to it. I'm probably going to do the bulk of the text first, then come back for things like images, tables, etc. cmadler (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Cyg, your answers are equal to any of mine.
Cmadler, I saw you start it as I escaped. As a little commentary for both Commons and WS, we have been trying to look to having more contextual file names, we find it helpful when it flows through to our Index:/Page: namespaces. Very nice to see it there and if you can please stay engrossed with the work while we get the shackle and chain to fit comfortably it would be very appreciated. winkbillinghurst sDrewth 00:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that occurred to me about the file names after I was well into it. I'm too accustomed to WP, where the image file name is fairly irrelevant. cmadler (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Misspelled page[edit]

Greetings Billinghurst. The page you created on Danish statistician Harald Westergaard is misspelled. His full name was "Harald Ludvig Westergaard", but the page you created incorrectly gives his middle name as "Lugvig". No such name exists in Danish. Please move the page to the correct spelling and delete the misspelled link. If you're interested, you can find his biograpy at the Salmonsens Konversationsleksikon here Best. Valentinian (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, a typo only. Thanks for the correction on the page, I have moved the page. Feel free to add detail to the page. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

the problematic " ! "[edit]

hi ! thanks for answering me, and I'm sorry that I seemed to critic the quality of you work. Now I receive 2 messages, one at Hope with the ! and the second at the unregistered Hope without the ! the same bizarre phenomenon occurs with WV (so far only these two), have a good day, Hope&Act3! (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikisource:Scriptorium#Bot flag request for SKbot[edit]

Could you review this discussion and clarify if you support or oppose a bot flag?--BirgitteSB 13:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done thanks for the prompt. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Upload book.[edit]

I would like to upload this book onto Commons and then Wikisource. I found it on Google Books. It's the first edition (I think, having seen the cover of the first edition on Wikipedia:Pictures from Italy: they look the same, except for the paper colour) of Charles Dickens Pictures from Italy (1846). I'm sure its public domain in the U.K. Would that be OK? Unfortunately I don't know the process of downloading books from Google into djvu, and uploading them onto Commons and Wikisource. Thanks. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty at from which to choose, and it looks like Google versions too. If you do want to convert, then I would suggest get Mattwj2002 (talkcontribs) to give you a hand, as that is his favourite play area. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of downloading this one (1846) since its from the European Library on, and I know its public domain here; having been from the University of Oxford. I'll probably download it in Djvu format, and then upload it to Commons. Would that edition/link be OK to upload; and would you recommend downloading it in that format? Thanks. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
All straight Dickens books would be out of copyright, so choose whichever looks best for our processes. Plus most definitely using DjVu. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

D'oh, Palestine clean-up[edit]

snafu on my summary for clean-up of change to category:Palestine apologies. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Responsa to an old post of yours.[edit]

You have new messages
Hello, Billinghurst. You have new messages at [[User talk: ineuw #User_talk:Ineuw#The_problem_with_justified_text |Ineuw's talk page]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

There is no Frigate like a Book[edit]

Something went wrong with this. It transcludes the poem A Book, which currently is a redirect to There is no Frigate like a Book. A Book is contained within the 1890 volume: Poems, Part One: Life, A Book XXI (21). There is no Frigate like a Book is surely from 1924 Emily Dickinson's Complete Poems, Part One: Life, There is no Frigate like a Book XCIX (99) and, probably, it is contained in the 1896 volume: Poems: Third Series, Part One: Life, XVI (16). Please, take a look at it when you have time. The following are the correct lines of There is no Frigate like a Book. –pjoef (talkcontribs) 09:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no Frigate like a Book
To take us Lands away
Nor any Coursers like a Page
Of prancing Poetry—
This Traverse may the poorest take
Without opress of Toll—
How frugal is the Chariot
That bears the Human soul

Yes check.svg Done ; recovered the original verse and put the right text against 'A Book'. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. From the pages, if you click on the numbers (left hand side) they will take you to the page in the work, whereas the SOURCE tab at the top will take you to the complete work. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I put the title back in. @Pjoef, do you happen to know if the navigational template {{Emily Dickinson Index}} is based on recognised numbering for her works, or is it new content? Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
@Cyg. Where they are a collection, I actually wonder the specific work should take the title, rather than the name of the collection, and instead note the collection in the Notes field. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I've come to the conclusion that the source of the text is the title, the section = [subtitle]. The text "A Book" is a poem by Dickinson, the only referent here is page 35 of a book with the full title given at Poems (Dickinson)/Front matter. We used a half-title (or bastard-title) and that is, so far, unproblematic. The name of that subpage, 'front matter' is arbitrary, but a suitable title for that section, as are given titles like /A Book and /Preface.

The section's title is however we divide the work, though we would defer to the titles in the Toc before creating them. Whether that text is an article, entry, memoir, obit, reprint, facsimile or a poem, it is single thing, though there are attempts at a meta-text here. I suspect this is a legacy of the other place (of which we were an appendix and unsourced text dump), which quite rightly has one article on works, with a subject title, we have multiple objects ('Books') that contain versions of these texts.

  • Poe's 'Raven', one of which is a book with that title. The article at wikipedia, a work, has one page on that poem, in one way that page is a section of the document 'wikipedia'.
  • How sweet I roamed from field to field, some versions are separate sections of works, or quoted in full, others link to page numbers where made one page for Blake's Poetical Sketches (eg. a long title, but hopefully a short path). The title refers to the first line of very similar texts that appear in different contexts.
  • I didn't try to decide who was right about the first line of In Flanders Fields, I linked the texts when you brought to my attention. The discussion will probably continue at Talk:In Flanders Fields ... we are provide both versions as they occur and without comment.

The decision, judicious, selective, or for convenience, to ignore the publication details and present a new version leads to all sorts of knock-on effects. The text we previously ignored, prefaces, titles, indices, 'toc's, illustrations are part of the work, of the context, and probably needed for a proper citation. This makes a bit of work as we improve the texts here, but this conceptual and stringently objective approach adds integrity and will save everybody a lot of bother and typing. Avoiding decisions and subjective interpretations of the catalogue is what keeps libraries quiet and useful Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks for fixing it! We are here to help and contribute to build a library of free content, which is a really great thing to do. –pjoef (talkcontribs) 08:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Speeding up the monobook.js[edit]

Hi. I read your comment about the slowness of the monobook.js components, on ThomasV talk page. I came across some useful hints to improve Firefox 3.6+ versions, if that's what you're using. Here is my post on the same talk page. Take care. - Ineuw (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

DNB and Persondata[edit]

There's an ongoing discussion about which metadata format to implement in MediaWiki on wikitech-l, if you'd like to chip in. —Pathoschild 14:28:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Author namespace[edit]

Hi, I just saw your query on the mailing list and some of the responses to it.

Another place to gather information for coordination between WS languages is of course at oldwikisource:.

At he.wikisource the author namespace is "מחבר". I agree that making this a standard alias to "author" in all languages would be useful. Perhaps it can somehow be done automatically for the future. Dovi (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thomas did point me towards oldwikisource:Wikisource:Subdomain coordination, and I haven't done much other thinking in the space the last week or so. Part of the issue is that we don't have a designated place to talk about all the WS projects. Which is why I turned to the mailing list. — billinghurst sDrewth

A job well done[edit]

...if I may allowed to toot my own horn. I found license, author and source for the "Muslim Library" text you asked for help on.

BEEP BEEP. Truly a champion effort. Thanks.

Now I have a favor to ask you. I misnamed a figure I added to Commons. It's called "File:Duhem ch 2 fig 3.JPG". It was supposed to be "File:Duhem Statique ch 2 fig 3.jpg". I recall that this is one of your specialties, so I thought of asking you right before I picked up your message. ResScholar (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done a pleasure — billinghurst sDrewth 09:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

re How is In Recognition of Dr. James Meier of the San Mateo Medical Center not copyvio?[edit]

It is not a work of a California legislature member. It is a work of a member of the United States Congress, published in the Congressional Record. -- Cirt (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • You either posted on the wrong talk or need to give me another clue. Cygnis insignis (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    • This was a reply to Billinghurst's post, to my user talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Update, your suggestion has been implemented[edit]

Billinghurst, just wanted to say that I really liked your suggestion regarding {{New texts}}, and did some work to implement it. Please see Template_talk:New_texts#Coding_changes.2C_history_of_works_added.

The harder part would be going back through and grabbing older entries for historical purposes. However, from now on going forward, the process will be more automatic to keep a historical record of pages. Hope this is to your liking? :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Billinghurst, I am confused, did you mean to revert all of my work on the coding changes implementing your suggestion to this template? -- Cirt (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Umm, no. I was just taking the back to the status quo (and was commenting on the talk page). If I undid something else, apologies. — billinghurst sDrewth 18:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see my first message to you, in this subsection. Did you read it, before you reverted all of my work on the template? -- Cirt (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"Maintaining a better history of works added" -- this was actually your suggestion, only a matter of two weeks ago. :) I'd appreciate your comment on my work to implement your recommendation. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand; we were having cross-purpose conversations as I was trying to close down for the night with a slowing brain. I will get to have a look at what you were implementing when I have some time a lot later today. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Elizabethan People[edit]

You have new messages
Hello, Billinghurst. You have new messages at Index talk:Elizabethan People.djvu.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
And if it wasn't? Cygnis insignis (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure that I understand the question ... if it wasn't what? Your question at that talk page has been struck through, and I responded there that my request was made in error. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
What if the work had been published in England, by an englishman, not just in English. Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
If this work was first published in England, and not published within a month in the United States, then this work would not have been able to be hosted at Commons (they have dual requirements, of US and home country to qualify to be hosted) and we would have had to bring it here where we only apply the US requirement. Not a major issue, just avoiding what has been an occasional recurring issue, and one where we don't necessarily know in advance of the nomination for deletion, and just know of there being an issue when the file is deleted. see section: Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroadbillinghurst sDrewth 05:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Why would wikisource retain that difference? Cygnis insignis (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I am unaware of the history of how either enWS or Commons worked out to have their copyright processes, and how they differ as they do. I can only assume that it is due to the fact that Commons is the central repository and sees the need for a stricter perspective. As ours seems to have a greater flexibility, it is not one that I am willing to test. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Not my strong suit, but I think you mean 'assume'. I presume that you have not considered the consequences, you can assume that I have. As I said, I'll do a bit of pondering on how to dispose of my time in the future. Cygnis insignis (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, probably, I was typing with a daughter-like encumbrance. It basically has little effect on us here, just where we upload our files, and they are not all to Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Trying to respond to your suggestion at Template:New texts[edit]

Billinghurst, I tried to respond to your suggestion regarding how to update {{New texts}} to have an easy way to have a historical record. Unfortunately, this change is facing some opposition, so I will not go against that at this point in time. :)

However, it does need to be stressed that this would be a very easy and simple process - the main template, {{New texts}}, could be fully-protected, and never needs to be edited again. The monthly templates would then be edited instead, and there would only be one month-subpage at-a-time that would need to be watched, whether via watchlists or IRC. I will defer to you if you wish to examine this and pursue it further. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It was an idea, and as an idea that still holds. The issue is our implementation which needs a better plan and there had been a discussion about a bot to do it. Personally, at this moment, it isn't and cannot be my number one priority, hence, why I hadn't implemented more so at this stage. I have questions that I wanted to resolve first. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
A bot? That sounds like a good idea! I had not heard about that proposal. Anyways, thanks for your receptiveness, I suppose it can't hurt to proceed a bit slower regarding all this. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you check my work?[edit]

I started on a few of the Compendium of Irish Biography pages Page:A Compendium of Irish Biography.djvu/56 and Page:A Compendium of Irish Biography.djvu/57. Can you review them and see if I have done everything correctly? Thanks Ww2censor (talk)

Very nice, not only for quickly picking it up and being right, also for having someone else to plod through the work with me. I have made a few changes, and they are stylistic on the SECTION MARKERS due to how I have found it easier to transclude them into the main namespace. Subsequently I have added notes to both Index talk:A Compendium of Irish Biography.djvu and Talk:A Compendium of Irish Biography

The one thing that is a little peculiar is some of the refs refer to specific volumes, and you will see something like 116(45) which becomes {{IrishBio ref|page=617|ref=116}}<sup>(45)</sup>. I have also found some wrong (non-existing) authorities in places and have usually made a note of it with a {{user annotation}}. Not documented on (Index talk) yet. I also tend to wikilink authors and books, even for the sake of having redlinks. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you happen to recall where an example of a 'wrong' authority appears? Cygnis insignis (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Umm, grabbing a pair Main Pagebillinghurst sDrewth 03:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm almost incapable of bigotry, but I do appreciate the simplicity of such a world-view when one could just put this down to its being 'Irish' :-) At the head of the Authorities section, the author notes: "The arrangement of this list, put together as the work proceeded, is in many respects imperfect; but once made it was not possible to alter." I was taught that an asterisk might denote a footnote, then a dagger † for a second, then a ‡ for the third on a page. Lots of variants exist, but the intent is usually self evident - at least in the print medium. This '1st, 2nd, 3rd' scheme seems to have been used by the author - eg. 197, 197*, 197†, - but with lots of exceptions (the imperfections?). How and why this was used is a mystery to me, but a question emerges:
  • How do we know whether the "196†", appended to Tighe's entry, actually refers to 196* in the authority, and not some other form of "imperfection", such as an omitted authority? Cygnis insignis (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Call it intuition, no actually call it research [24] as I went and looked. Call me old-fashioned and evidence-based ;-) — billinghurst sDrewth 05:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
@Cyg, call me stupid, which question? — billinghurst sDrewth 03:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Much less interesting, but one I feel I must ask before deciding how to dispose of my time in the future :( I struck the question at the talk, but posited a hypothetical one at #The Elizabethan People. Cygnis insignis (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


Hello, any chance you would add a Babel template to your user page? I would appreciate it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done though note that all admins have languages added at Wikisource:Administrators. FWIW my French would be probably be <1, I can read a bit, though wouldn't trust my ability to construct sentences any more — billinghurst sDrewth 13:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you check out....[edit]

... the licensenote here... is it right? unsigned comment by V0nNemizez (talk) .

Yep, it is good. I did take the opportunity to rename the file before we did work on it. That is probably my Commons (pedant) hat as we are trying to get descriptive file names. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The convention was signed in Washington by participating members, and issued by the US government, but it is an instrument, if that is the word, of the IWC. That is why I questioned whether the label "edict of US federal gov" is accurate; they have no [legal] authority over other governments. What am I missing? Cygnis insignis (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC) add: discussion is at Talk:International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling 15:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Call it a pragmatic response. They don't have PD-GovEdict over there, and I would be damned if we should be adding the convention text of all countries or all signing countries. It doesn't fit under a UN banner, so which banner will it fall under? Closest guidance that I can find is . As it is an inter-country agreement 64 years ago, involved the work of a US Government employee, it will fall under that banner (as closest) until someone more authoritative says better (IMNSHO). <shrug> PDF and DJVU files of treaties isn't in their thinking. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It falls under the banner of "this work was unquestionably intended to be made available to anyone who wants it", the accuracy is my primary concern, stopping it being deep-sixed by some deletionist wonk would also be a concern. Stuff under a similar 'banner' is deleted here and there with similar rationales. Cygnis insignis (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I have been bold and exported {{PD-EdictGov}} to Commons:, added it to Commons:Copyright tags, and to the work we will see if that creates any ruckus. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 08:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Cheers, and good luck. Cygnis insignis (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for helpin me out... This is important docs :) cheers! --V0nNemizez (talk) 08:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


Your input is welcome. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


You need to run your bot again, a little oops at this page, et al. BTW: I still strongly believe that no one can, or should, validate their own work. Isn't it good enough to produce proofread indexes, or put another way, why do otherwise? I'm comforted by the fact that other eyes can check mine, though I don't think I'm a particularly bad proofer. Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Been fixing that one manually as I flick through the work; fortunately it is only a Page: ns issue (it doesn't transclude) and fortunately one that self resolves whenever an edit starts. I don't believe that I am actually validating my own work, I am validating a proofread work from another place, though I do understand your viewpoint. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Norwegian Minke Whaling 2008 Copyright concearn[edit]

This is a response to your comment on my talkpage. Talk:Norwegian Minke Whaling 2008 ----> response and another question xD

Re: Some bits[edit]

{{hyphenated word start}} and {{hyphenated word end}} - that is exactly what I needed yesterday :). Thank you. --Tommy Jantarek (talk) 06:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

user page[edit]

I've been meaning to put up a new user page; I'm not in Bali anymore. Seen w:User:Jack Merridew page? It's dynamic in many ways. The image layout changes every day; the quote every hour. Prolly the most complex user page on any wiki. I'll be back; hope the stuff the other day was helpful. I'm behind a new w:WP:CENT RfC; it will have an awful lot of comments. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

EB1911 templates[edit]

Could you see if it is correct? Category:EB1911 contributor templates. On Page:EB1911 - Volume 03.djvu/63 these templates are working. unsigned comment by Tommy Jantarek (talk) .

Look good. Job well done smileybillinghurst sDrewth 05:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
It appears that the convention in the EB1911 is that the initials are enclosed in parentheses, at least on the page you used as an example. IF this is generally true, then your master template should have parentheses. -Arch dude (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. I improve this tonight. --Tommy Jantarek (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Yet, I'm not sure, are all initials enclosed in parentheses? It seems to me that is better to use the parentheses on pages. (sorry for my poor English) --Tommy Jantarek (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Since the template does the right-justification, the parentheses cannot be outside of the template. IF EB1911, uses both forms (with and without parentheses) then you will need a parameter in the template. However, don't do this unless you are sure that the EB1911 uses both forms. i reccommed that you add the parentheses to the template, and then create the alternative form only when you discover that you need it. -Arch dude (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, thank your for your help --Tommy Jantarek (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Gull brace.[edit]

In Anne Bradstreet and her Time, I'm confused as to how to centre the gull brace sections on this page and the next.--Angelprincess72 (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What you are wanting to do is float it in the center. So you can utilise {{float center}}, which is glorified centred table, and as you already had the table, I added align=center (old style) or you can code it with css style="margin: 0 auto 0 auto" [25]billinghurst sDrewth 01:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Author fixes[edit]

I had intended to do a separate pass for volume fixes. I have suspended my effort on author fixes until we can get an updated run of Mangus's tool. the current version fo the tool (apparently) fails to recognize the "contributors =" syntax in some circumstances.

For the "volume = xx", I think we can safely use a bot. I don't knwo how to do this , but someone surely does. I am not happy with using a bot for the "contributors =" syntax, because there are too many variations on what must be done to repairthe old syntax. By contrast, the "volume=" is a trivial addition, suitable for a bot. -Arch dude (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. The issue is that these three pieces of alteration need to be done to the same works (due to evolutionary stage of their construction), and there is no ready and easy means to identify the required changes, so rather than undertake three separate actions at different points, if we are manually going through the works it makes far more sense to just fix them in passing, not to think that a bot is superior in either its ability or its accuracy, and that the other changes can wait. IMNSHO the page numbering on the left is the most important of the changes as it readily allows someone to get into the work and progress the transcription process for the articles and for the project as a whole. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand your position, I think. However,the "volume=" change is trivially automatable, the "comtributor=" change is fairly mindless but requires human attention, and the link to page space (and appropriate pagination) is much more complex. This is especially true where the article space does not transclude from page space, but is instead a separate transcription: this was the case for the bulk of the articles where I fixed the author link. I think we need a new tool that identifies articles that do not transcluce from page space. -Arch dude (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I have a different opinion, though will politely agree to disagree. With regard to the texted pages, they are no problem at all, as we will come across them as we transcribe the underlying pages or simply look at the oldest of the pages of the project. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Footer line in table[edit]

Is there an easy way to add a sum line or footer line (I'm making up terms here), such as the one that appears to be called for on this Table IV? Thanks! -- Thekohser (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done . Probably need to go back and do some table alignment, but not by me tonight. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it looks great, and the touch with the "½" fractions was very nice. Thank you. -- Thekohser (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the pointer. Will work out, which documents can be released under the terms, and arrange for permission to be given subsequently. Thanks once again — Adewemimo Oloyede 5:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


Thanks, what started as a little diversion is now an obsession...i'm going wp link crazy :) Battlecatz (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: The annexes[edit]

I apologize for delay, thank you very much for your kindness Chipmunkes (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And you are very welcome. Thank you for your interesting and different contributions. I am seeing if one our fellow WS denizens will download and convert the original document for us. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

wikisource or wikibooks[edit]


I'm Binguwa from Sinhala Wikibooks. I have a question about usage of wikisource or wikibooks. I had a discussion with Adrignola few days back. But Still my problem is not solved.

We have a great history you might know about Load Buddha & Buddhism. Also there are lots of books (they are really not books) written in palm leaves, related to Buddhism & our nation. Those books can be found in most of the temples. Those books contain the real History. But they have never ever published as a book. So now we want to upload these contents to wiki projects. this is the real issue we had. pls guide us. Since they are written by some one it is not match with Wikibooks project. Could you please tell me which is the better project (my idea is wikisource is the correct place) for this?

pls reply in local talk page. බිඟුවා (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Replying at siWB — billinghurst sDrewth 07:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi again!, First of all I have thank you a lot. Then I have discussed with my friends & though it is the time to start our own Wikisource project. Now please guide us. What is the first step? බිඟුවා (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Replying at siWB — billinghurst sDrewth 14:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Is that a just a request on Wikisource:Scriptorium? I've got just confused about wwwSW thing. could you please explain how i should do the request? I didn't got it correctly :( බිඟුවා (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for talking in shorthand. Yes, ask at that page for assistance in starting up Sinhalese pages at multilingual WS. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
OK. I got it now. I'm not very good in English since that is not my mother tongue . I'll make a request now. බිඟුවා (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
For not being your mother tongue, you are doing great. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Request has made at here -- බිඟුවා talk 07:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for "muddy footprints":) "Passion" is too strong a word:) but I do like Doyle and that's a way to re-read his lesser works! Captain Nemo (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


I'm confused on how to add a sidenote as displayed on this page. I tried "Right sidenote" but it doesn't work. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

{{float right}} however something to consider. You are going to have pages with alternate right aligned and left aligned boxes as you bring it to the main namespace. Butt ugly. Two options.
  1. just set them to the one side where you want them to appear in the main namespace, and overlook the output of the Page: namespace
  2. apply a little trick coding, firstly work out whether you want them to the left or the right in the main namespace. For the sake of this example I will say that we are going to set to the LHS.
    <includeonly>{{float left|</includeonly><noinclude>{{float right|</noinclude>text text text}}
billinghurst sDrewth 12:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I still don't seem to understand it. However, I managed to add the first sidenote on the right using "float right". It looks OK, but it's too close to the main body of text. Is there anyway to fix that so that there is space? --Angelprincess72 (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)--Angelprincess72 (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
It gets more padding when it is transcluded. If you think that it is not enough, then maybe we have to look to padding parameter. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Can "float right" not have the same padding as "float left" (as seen on this page: [[26]]) in both the page and mainspace since it looks better. I've tried adding the same paramenters to float right as I have done to left but it doesn't seem to work. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 08:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure it can. I have poked a note on the template's talk page and we will see whether there is some discussion, or it is done. If nothing happens, then we can probably go and do. In the interim you can just add the values as parameters, eg. x=XX|y=YY where XX and YY are the measures that you want. As they are undefined at this time they will be ignored, and if/when we put them into play, they will be seen and interpreted. If nothing has happened in a week or two, please give me a prod. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
There's been no change to the template, and it's almost three weeks. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I have made the changes, added a note to the talk page, and run a test here. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I just added positional parameters, so if you used x & y as parameters, get back to me, and I will add them to the mix. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The passing of Korea[edit]

Thank you for your attention on this book. I've done some works on your advice. Would you please give one more eye on my question? The_passing_of_Korea/Introductory, this part include some pages in Page name space. I found a page that I want to append is not included. The page is Page:The_passing_of_Korea.djvu/29, it's really weird. Do you have experience ralated this issue? --Ryuch (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. You had a tosection in the <pages> tag. You would only need that if you had a section to be transcluded on the last page which was wrapped in <section begin=Introductory />text text<section end=Introductory />
A couple of other things, have a look at {{RunningHeader}} it will a lot easier in the header field, and I don't recommend the use of {{hw}} as I believe that it has no benefit in our works. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Addendum: I would encourage you to advance the progress markers to PROOFREAD (amber) as that will allow the casual reader to further advance pages to VALIDATED (green). Also means that when we have our Proofread clean up month (November), the work will be able to added to the list. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand I'd better delete the hypen and connect the word separated, right? --Ryuch (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Where you have done it, I wouldn't change it unless you were back editing the pages. If necessary, I can run a bot across the pages to remove, if that is needed. They are not wrong, I just find that they take time for little or no value. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

joining lines bot[edit]

I'm developing a bot to join lines considering hypens to reduce manual labours. After some tries, I got into "hookaborted error". I suppose my bot is blocked by one of administrators. I requested a bot flag. Would you please review this situation? --Ryuch (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a (better?) suggestion. There is a custom regex gadget, and if you have a look at in my monobook.js, you will see code that does most of the common text replacements, and it does a hit of them at a time. The regex tool is very useful anyway, good for building tables and the like. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
It's great. But the automation includes a feature to recognise new paragraph, it is out of the scope of regular expression. I'm still expecting a bot flag. --Ryuch (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

hbty, hbty, ...[edit]

Why 'speedy-kept' ? Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Stoopidniddity. For some reason I thought we were on WS:CV. <shrug> BTW I was bold and did WS:FTC. Do you want to set the page for August, or did you want me to work on it? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't sure where to put it, I suppose the talk at WP is ultimately the best place, but it was just getting interesting. I got what I needed for this sister, but I'm not done yet.<

The last time I closed an FT I struggled to wrangle the changes, you had to fix it anyway so if you don't mind dotting 'i's, crossing 't's, and filling it out in triplicate. Cheers, Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Shiva Sutras of Vasugupta[edit]

Hello. I created this page a few years ago and discovered recently that it had been slapped with a copyright violation. I would like to know what would constitute approval for placing the material in pubic domain. In Wikisource terms how would this be manifest? I take it an email from the author himself woud not suffice, that this would involve establishing authenticity in some legal way. I am new to this aspect of wikisource. Please refer me to the appropriate documentation describing the process. Thanks Yogidude (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

An email from the author would suffice, though note the following detail. The work would need to have a copyright tag applied as associated with the permission allocated by the author. For the author to grant that permission, we pretty much follow the permission practice as established at Commons:OTRS. The local customisation would be to point to the work here at English Wikisource (our url) and to send the email to mailto:permissions-en@wikisource.orgbillinghurst sDrewth 13:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

On the Sublime[edit]

Hey billinghurst, mind taking a look at the formatting of this page: [27]? Thanks, Blurpeace 01:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Are you thinking of something like this billinghurst? I'm not sure I new that margin template existed, or when to preserve hanging indents; but it seems to work. Unoriginal conceptual thought: Maybe a template could accept a hierarchical parameter, instead of repeating a width, automatically using increments of 2em. Cygnis insignis (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I am fiddling with having that can preserve (inherit) the formatting from the previous, though looking to make sure that it doesn't make the coding laborious, and then we would we want to work it into the existing {{hi}}. Thinking and fiddling. Also wondering why we have {{left margin}} and {{hanging indent}} which are minor variations of each other.— billinghurst sDrewth 10:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I have a product {{hanging indent inherit}} / {{hii}} which is an open template. I think that it fits the bill, though it may need tweaking, and fresh eyes on the destructions. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Addendum, we may think that it is better to have it called {{hanging indent inherit top}} / {{hiit}} and still close it with the generic </div> template. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


Were you aware I undid your contribution to a text? Cygnis insignis (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, irrespective of anything at all, the first of those Bedloes is meant for w:William Bedwell. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Import request[edit]

Hi, could you please import the article versions of fr:Sur la dynamique de l’électron (juin). The imported article should be named On the Dynamics of the Electron (June). (I'm working on a Wikisource translation). Best wishes, --D.H (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no import facility from sister languages. There is the capacity to utilise the Wikisource:DoubleWiki Extension. I have created the page, and included the xwiki link. From that page if you click on the <=> next to the wikilink, you get the split view. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


Not good, the uncorrected ocr is more accurate and much easier to proof. Shall I sort it out, billinghurst? Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm, err, yes, if I knew what M&S was I could be authoritative, though in these cases, if you say it is, I will go with your judgment.
Match and split, I thought that was your abbreviation. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Which work? The current work that I am paddling through, or another? — billinghurst sDrewth 12:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The one I am currently deleting, a particularly bad candidate for match and split. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
ok — billinghurst sDrewth 12:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Please produce of list of these match and split attempts, I'll continue sorting them out. Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe that there is a list, beyond Special:Contributions/ThomasBot, or this may be more concise That particular work was done at the request of another. Those that I have undertaken for my work, I will have subsequently checked.

Category:Navajo removal[edit]

There will be other letters from the book Navajo Roundup including others by James Henry Carleton and Kit Carson. I don't think treating this one letter as a single document is appropriate. Is there a way these materials could be collected here, as indeed they are in the book? Or does each document have to have a separate page? Fred Bauder (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

For these we are talking historical records, rather than the published work, which would seem to be under copyright, accordingly each piece of correspondence is a separate work in the nature of this presentation as each was and has its distinct entity. You can still link to them as a series using prev/next. You can also utilise the Author: namespace page to display and link to them as the conglomeration. If there is a series of works on Navajo roundup, either by the one author, or by a number of authors, then you could look to utilise the Portal: namespace where we allow plenty of latitude to display and to discuss works, and the research that surrounds them, eg. Portal:British Museumbillinghurst sDrewth 13:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What about duplicate pages?[edit]

Hi, I was wondering about this situation. I proofread this page: but then a few pages later was the exact same page

How is this handled?

Thanks, Another editor (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I added a note with a link to the duplicate, and marked it as 'without text'. Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Cygnis insignis! Another editor (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What about different formatting styles?[edit]

Hi, I have a question about different formatting styles used by editors. For example, I validated a page Page:Elizabethan_People.djvu/262 that uses a different style for poems and references than I have been using. I decided that I wasn't the one to make the choice between styles, so I validated the page. However, should the style within a particular work be uniform? If so, who decides what style to use?

Thanks, Another editor (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The style should look consistent across a work, and preferably via the same means. Sometimes with a PotM, we do end doing a bit of a tidy up at the end when we are piecing it together. To who decides a style, for a work that a contributor brings, then they pretty much do; for a PotM, it will depend, and I will admit that often it is one of the more confident(?) contributors, usually someone who has a good knowledge of the more successful styles that we use, or maybe that should be more robust and we have a little more confidence less likely to break. The text is king, and a consistency is second, and facsimile is third (sort of). — billinghurst sDrewth 12:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! (How you piece it together is a mystery to me.) Another editor (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Masking tape and spit! OR you can have a look at oldwikisource:Wikisource:ProofreadPage and it is a little quirky, though once you get the hang of it, it is okay. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Article infobox for Wikipedia[edit]

Hi Billinghurst, Could you help me by cobbling together a PSM infobox, to be used on Wikipedia which has the Wikisource logo and the 3 fields from the {{PSM link}} pointing to the PSM article here. I found numerous articles which I would like to directly link, rather than as a general reference, which the existing [[w:Template:Wikisource}} box on Wikipedia does. Thanks. - Ineuw (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You should be looking to utilise w:Template:Sister as I have done for w:Template:IrishBioWS. The latter could possibly be nicer, however, it does for my grade of work. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Gracias. The IrishBioWS is definitely what I am looking for—in the PSM link format, where I can specify the volume, year, and article name. The question is, would and could you do this? It's really not urgent. - Ineuw (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This was another of my thoughtless writing before thinking - on making demands on others' preciosu time. I apologize. Time has come for me to try this. I will only ask if I run into problems. Thanks for the guidance. - Ineuw (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


Is this a one-off typo or a scripting error? Hesperian 06:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Fingers did the walking. :-/

New templates=[edit]

Hi, Just thought I'd inform you of some interesting templates I made today.

  • {{img float}} - allows to float an image to the left, right or center with a caption, but no frame. Saves messing with tables in the Page: namespace when you don't need to.
  • {{TOC begin}} and family. A set of template for building tables of contents. I already used some of them at How to See the Vatican and Backblock Ballads and Later Verses. What do you think? I've tried to name them sensibly. Perhaps a bit of sanity with classes might be an idea one day?

Feel free to have a poke and criticise. Got to go now. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 16:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Author:Florida Legislature[edit]

I am going to re-create this article because it is a legitimate author. - Presidentman (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

billinghurst acted in accord with the community's standard practice, afaik. The Author namespace is currently used for individuals; I see how the page could be used attribution, but the usual practice to is create a page in Portal: namespace. You might also consider opening a discussion on providing 'authorities' of this type before recreating the page. cygnis insignis 20:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Then why is there Portal:United States Congress? If there is that page, shouldn't the FL Legislature be included? - Presidentman (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Open a discussion on the subject, I'll give my opinion there. Do not respond by creating similar pages and proposing others for deletion, that is an unproductive and unwelcome practice. 21:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Discussion started … Wikisource:Scriptorium#More about Author: namespace vs Portal: namespacebillinghurst sDrewth 01:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Feedback to Presidentman. This is not WP, boldly restarting a page after it has been moved, is not the way we do things here. We are very happy to have the discussion, and generally would expect that to take place to reach an understanding about the way forward, rather than enforcing your point of view. I am also not sure that the Florida legislature (if that is indeed the correct name) has rights as an author, and I would think that the rights would either remain with the authors or be assigned to the State of Florida. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


I'm having trouble creating the table found on this page. It looks really complex compared to other tables I have created in the past. I'm confused with what markup and html to write.--Angelprincess72 (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I have put the framework in place. It looks like it needs better male and female symbols, and you may wish to check commons for images. Still needs widths, solid lines, centres, etc. which if are a problem get back to me and I will look tomorrow night. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I've managed to complete the table, however the only problem is, is that I'm unable to align the table in the centre. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I centred the table, though the columns are forced left due to how I created the class. I will have to see how I can remedy that template, but not tonight. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I have another query regarding a table. On this page, I've completed and formatted the table, but I'm confused on how to add the gull braces connecting to different rows. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I have had a hack, and it is not quite perfect, and there may be some little fiddling that could perfect it. I moved the table to not split the paragraph. While it doesn't replicate, I feel comfortable that it better presents the text. You may feel differently and wish to move it back. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
On this page, I'm finding it hard to tweak gull braces as it starts from a row/column, and finishes halfway on the next. And because of that reason I've left the gull braces out altogether.--Angelprincess72 (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I came across a book in need of doing in one of the "to do" lists: Index:Mehalah 1920.djvu and proceeded to proof read the pages. However, I just discovered that there is another version of the book that differs slightly from this version and is already put together as a book but not matched to scanned pages at Mehalah Is it correct to have a version that is not matched to scanned pages? Should I try to put a book together from the version I am proofreading? Thanks, Another editor (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, one of our conundrums, and one with no perfect answer, and maybe even one where there is more than one opinion. So I will answer in principles and open the discussion
  • We comfortable with more than one version of a work, though most of these have been small works, usually poems.
  • We prefer works backed by images rather than words alone, though that is not to discredit existing versions as they can come from other editions.
Some contributors of previous works are comfortable replacing their contributions with images, whereas others can be less amenable. If the changes in text is minor, then it is probably okay, if it is significant changes, then we should declare the editions different. If differences are minor, we could look to do a match and split and do a thorough over-read to pick the differences.
So which tickles your fancy? If there is uncertainty, then we can ask the community for their thoughts via Scriptorium. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I don’t know. The "completed version" appears to be from the 1880 edition perhaps, and the scanned version is the 1920 edition. There are at least minor differences and the "completed version" is not proofed and needs cleaning up. I have trouble reading the long versions of books and prefer to read the versions with the scanned pages. Easier to follow and to proof.
Along the same lines, I worked on Index:The Cambridge History of American Literature 3.djvu for a while, but have discovered that there is The Cambridge History of American Literature ("excerpted from Wikipedia", it says) and other versions such as The Cambridge History of American Literature/Book I/Chapter I and who knows how many others, that are not accompanied by scanned pages. In fact, the version I was working on doesn’t show up in the search, even though I got it from a "to do" list at the Community Portal. I would think these would not met the standards of Wikisource. What is a method of finding items that don’t have duplicates so that I feel my effort is wasted? Another editor (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OCLC Template[edit]

Please see Template talk:OCLC about adding an 'all editions' link. Flatterworld (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 14:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. :-) Flatterworld (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

George Lyttelton (1709-1773)[edit]

Hi Billinghurst How do I get the text to show up here [28] maybe just copy/paste from google so as not to disturb previous page?Daytrivia (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure of the issue to which you are referring. It looks like it would be a standard section transclusion. I do see an issue to the previous page and have fixed that, silly me and not having the same open and close section labels. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. Daytrivia (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


Archiving the previous month's WS:COPYVIO entries under the name of the current month (done at the beginning of the current month) was a precedent you yourself started in May. Why the switch? You could have called it the "September" archive if you were wanting to get it over with a little early. ResScholar (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be correct, if that was the approach that I had undertaken. I was doing an ad hoc archiving due to length of the page, and the guidance for archiving is do not archive the moment that it has been closed and do it in the now month. If my actions has seen to correspond with other schema, it is coincidental, not an attempt to create a precedent. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the animal stamp. ResScholar (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Mehalah: a story of the salt marshes (1920)[edit]

Hey, thanks for doing that! I will study what you did in the hopes of learning how to do that myself. Another editor (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. That bit is all a process, and just continuing up the remainder from the move of the other version. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


After some discussion 'we' disposed of the wikipedia_link = style and simply put wikipedia = ... but this edit seems to restore that label. cygnis insignis 14:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

As I found out, everywhere except in Author template. It's there. I started with Wikipedia for the field for a nada and had to investigate for the fix. Now we can have it as Wikipedia in this template, and have it differ from the parent template if you think that the discontinuity is acceptable. At the same time, I am still umm'ing and ah'ing over whether I should even have it in a disambig template. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
What ever you are describing as the parent should have the same thing, if you mean the Author template then it should accept either label. Unless I misunderstand something, please change it back.

I used it a couple of time at a disambig, a versions page would nearly always have an article, possibly a commonscat - linking that place is especially useful for explaining what is going on with texts here. cygnis insignis 11:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I used wikipedia_link in {{disambiguation}} as that is what is in use in the parent tenplate {{author}} and has been for a while. So we have a choice, use _link as it is in the parent; or look to use without the suffix, and have the deviation. It would have no effect on the underlying template due to how it is called, it just becomes a point of difference. I am presuming that you are saying that it should also be used in {{versions}}; and probably {{translations}} is similar. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


Hello sir! I would really love to participate to your projects, yesterday I tried to improve a bit a page. I have a question: the faults are in fact computer-read pages, am I wrong? I tried yesterday, and it seems to be like a drug: it nerves me, I feel nervous correcting pages, and it's not easy for the foreign names (these are in plenty because it was the biography of Livingstone I tried to improve), but I cannot stop, always saying: let me correct one more sentence! Don't you find the same thing? I'll try to do a bit of improvement, but quiet now it's the end of my holidays, and I'm busy trying to place under computer form the Scots translation of the Rubaiyat. Kindest regards,

--El Translatore (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Laughing and nodding→ → → — billinghurst sDrewth

Early history of the colony of Victoria[edit]

Hey stranger, I can't download and no preview version either. However, I did find a free version of the text that looks identical. It can be found here. I am going to upload that instead. Long time no talk don't make yourself a stranger. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually someone has it on too, I grab it from there. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, I decided to redo the file, I wasn't happy with the quality. I'll let you know when it is done. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 10:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi, you gave me a link to {{page label}} for side numbering - but that link seems to be incorrect. Which template do you mean?--D.H (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Apologies. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A page to be validated.[edit]

Hi. I am checking my early proofreading efforts for omissions, and this page was proofread by User:Ingram. Now, after re-checking, I cannot mark it validated. Is it because of the InductiveBot? Could you please advise? - Ineuw (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse my interference, but according to the history of that page, you were the one who clicked the "Proofread" button (see the edit summary). Ingram made an edit later, but did not mark it as either "Proofread" or "Validated". Thus you were the last to have proofed the page and you can't validate it. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 23:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I will be more attentive to the edit comments in the future. In the past, I very rarely looked at the page history but now, I am re-checking my early proofreading, that's how I noticed. - Ineuw (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your speedy deleting the Conversion templates[edit]

You commented "Beyond scope: conversion templates not required at Wikisource as we replicate the original work, not conversion of distances to measurement systems)". Well, they are required to get Korean Air Lines Flight 007 transcripts to display correctly. As far as displaying stuff in there original format, then most of that article would be in Russian or Korean. Not saying they didn't deserve deleting ..but a small discussion beforehand would have been nice since I was actively working on them. --MarsRover (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


I wonder if you have given any thought to the maintenance side of this business. I add {{incomplete}} to stuff I'm using that has a source, the scan, and reckon that could be detected. The page source shows var prp_source = "Source";, I'm reckoning that is the trick to generating the tab link to the Index. We might show that in the display text automatically, but it could relieve the category that asserts it is "without a source". Maybe we need different templates, one for 'pre-scan' stuff. cygnis insignis 11:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the Golden Elephand award[edit]

That was really nice of you. Thanks! It inspires me to do more work. Best wishes, Another editor (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

label name[edit]

Are you able to shed any light on why the DNB section transclusion failed, it was looking for Ashley,_John and grabbing Ashley,_John_James as well … diff cygnis insignis 16:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It found the match at <section begin=Ashley, John James/>, whereas if we had the label inside quotes as per <section begin="Ashley, John James"/> it would not been a match as it is would look for the full tag. So it is slight laziness on our incomplete tagging. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin Haydon[edit]

Hi, Curiously this person Page:Devonshire Characters and Strange Events.djvu/547 who is treated as a joke by Sabine Baring-Gould, has a serious article on his artistic merits on Wikipedia. (His legs are too short!) I linked to the Wikipedia article in the text, Benjamin Haydon. Is that a good thing to do? Another editor (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Work on the philosophy of link locally wherever makes sense, and that is ideally main namespace, author namespace, and portal namespace (see Help:Namespaces). To wikipedia, if whole article then use wikipedia = Benjamin Haydon in the {{header}}, otherwise judicious linking within articles. Judicious = where the linking adds value or relevance, and specific people often do, though we need to make sure that it is the right person, etc. etc. Very nice btw. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Worth pointing out that Haydon is in the DNB, and Haydon, Benjamin Robert (DNB00) will in due course provide a fuller article. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


A matter of opinion, surely. What is the next POTM. cygnis insignis 15:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Opinion? Which comment of mine? For next, as in now? I have poked in the little works overflow until my brain can get to it. Wasn't sure whether we could poke in some of the texts requiring validation, or leave them all for November. If for October, I haven't got that far. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

small template[edit]

Just curious Billinghurst, Should I begin to use p style="font-size:smaller" instead of small and /small for ref notes in DNB? Thanks. Daytrivia (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I prefer it as it sizes better, especially with para wrapping, noting that I have the style set as shortcut code it being versatile and convenient, though there is no compulsion to use it, and hardly think that people will notice one way or the other. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the insight.Daytrivia (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Index:Devonshire Characters and Strange Events.djvu‎[edit]

Hi, would you look at Index:Devonshire Characters and Strange Events.djvu‎? I may have done something wrong that needs reverting. I was trying to copy the file for another djvu. {I don’t know how to do an Index.) 23:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. I reverted it. I was trying to make an Index for File:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu. Does that happen automatically, or do I make it happen? For the other books I have uploaded I have never been clear how I got it to the Index status! Another editor (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
One needs to create the Index page, and the name of the Index page needs to correspond with the name of the File, so for your example, that would be Index:A book of the Cevennes (-1907-).djvu, so getting the name of the image file is important, as fixing it later when we have done lots of Page: namespace work is rather problematic. If you ever need a File renamed at Commons, brand it with Commons:Template:Rename and give me a prod, and I will get over and rename it there. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. The one djvu file I named incorrectly on the Commons, I uploaded again under a better name and asked to have the first one deleted, which it was. (I couldn’t figure out another way to rename there!) What about A Book of the Cevennes? I am very mixed up. Another editor (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The nomenclature is a little quirky, so let me explain it this way. The INDEX and the FILE have to be same name after respective colons. The name of the work in the main namespace is not dependent on the transclusion. I believe that we cover it at H:SIDE they maybe we don't. At Commons file renaming (where it is media) is not as easy as moving standard pages, hence it is a restricted process. If you do need help at Commons, then do talk to Hesperian or myself, we have admin rights at Commons which means we can deal promptly with local issues. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
What does this mean: "The name of the work in the main namespace is not dependent on the transclusion." Also, what does "ns-0" mean and when is it used? I take that Wikisource depends on a complete arrangement of transclusions. It has taken me a long time just to learn how to navigate around and find the page/index (or whatever) I want. I’m still not very good at it. {I only understand the general concept of transclusion, not how it is actually done, except in the most minimal of cases. Another editor (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, what are "texts without transclusions"? Another editor (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Transclusion is the act of having some text in one place, and using it in another place by including it as a part of the whole, and mostly seen with templates. So the comment just means that to transclude the text we have some flexibility about the name of the originating Index/Page name.
— "ns-0" is just another name for the main namespace, each namespace main/Talk/Author/Author talk/Page/Page talk/... all have a different ns-X and it is just organisational, and means that different languages can name their namespace in their own language.
— Re navigation, I would like to see if you can harness your learnings to see if we can better describe these matters in a practical language. Sometimes those who pick up the concepts quickly forget.
— Works without transclusions, are plain texts where we don't have images to sit with them to proofread, also known as naked texts. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


What is an easy way of figuring out the numbers of a given section? It seems like neither the page numbers nor the djvu numbers are relevant and the only way to get the right numbers is to scroll through pages, which is arduous and confusing, to determine the limits of a given section.

As far as navigation, it is very hard to figure out. For example, only recently did I realize that there is only one way to get from the "section" back to the index, and that is by going to a page and then going to the index. For a long time I felt "marooned" once I got into a section, and had to go to "Contributions" or "Recent changes" to get back. Then today I think I saw "source" as one of the tabs and discovered that leads back to the index. I think the routes to the index should be more obvious, as the index is key. And I wish the TOC had links for the page numbers. It would be better if there were more ways to get around. My two cents. Another editor (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you put sections together?[edit]

>>What is an easy way of figuring out the numbers of a given section? It seems like neither the page numbers nor the djvu numbers are relevant and the only way to get the right numbers is to scroll through pages, which is arduous and confusing, to determine the limits of a given section. (from above)

Hi, In Devonshire Characters and Strange Events I wanted to put Edward Capern together, djvu 391 to 399. Edward Capern starts at page 325 and goes to page 331. How do I find Edward Capern in the Index without searching page by page through the whole thing? What is the secret of finding these? (I am wearing out!) Thanks, Another editor (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind on this specific question, as I see you put it together. But the general question remains the same. I spent a great deal of time earlier trying to figure out which djvu pages to use for Edward Capern and gave up in frustration and fatigue. Please explain how to figure this out, as I am getting worn out and the pleasure is seeping away. Thanks, Another editor (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The index has skips in the page numbering, I've done some and billinghurst more. Your choices are to do the correctly numbered sections, or take an educated guess at the djvu page - the djvu file has numbers for blank page, so it is always wrong, subtract the unnumbered pages to home in. Change the number in the url at the top of your browser to skip back or forth by 5, 10, or a 100 pages. Or continue doing the useful stuff and learn the technical stuff later. cygnis insignis 16:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I think Wikisource’s main problem is that it is not accessible to most users, but is only for the very technically proficient. Further, it does not welcome input from new users including me (though it claims the opposite). It claims to welcome input and then ignores it. Practical explanations are not give. All the instructions are incredibly simplistic. The real "how to" sections are missing in action. I am bored proofreading forever. I have proofread 4000 pages and gotten no where in understanding. Another editor (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
"Your choices are to do the correctly numbered sections" - what does that mean? Another editor (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(OUTDENT) The pages number to use to get the text for transclusion are the numbers from the Page: namespace. ie. <pages index="Devonshire Characters and Strange Events.djvu" from=391 to=399 /> So from Page:Devonshire Characters and Strange Events.djvu/391 to Page:Devonshire Characters and Strange Events.djvu/399.

The masking of the page numbers to correlate with the actual work is the work that we do on the Index: page from <pagelist />, basically the labels to apply.

//IF// there you only wanted some of the text from the page, we then utilise <section begin="" /> & <section end="" /> on the partial text pages. An example being Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 01.djvu/46 which feeds to À Beckett, William (DNB00).


<pages index="workname.djvu"
    from="starting page no. of djvu" to="closing page no. of djvu"
(both next are optional) fromsection="section name 1" tosection="section name 2" />

billinghurst sDrewth 13:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There is this page Wikisource:WikiProject_DNB/Transclusion that might also be of use.


I recreated a page and opened a discussion at CV, forgot to mention it here. cygnis insignis 00:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Question about italics[edit]

hi, most of the time I have no trouble with using italics, or by fooling around I can solve the problem, but on this page Page:Devonshire Characters and Strange Events.djvu/199 the italics come out wrong no matter how I try to fix them. Do you know the reason? Thanks, Another editor (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Wiki syntax for italics doesn't work across line breaks. Hesperian 23:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you so much for fixing it, Hesperian! (And the explanation.) Another editor (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A strange thing has happened[edit]

Hi, I have worked on many pages of Index:A Short History of England (Synge) 1906.djvu, and you have worked on them too. But the index, suddenly only shows one page edited. (This happened after I got a "database error" after trying to edit a page. What has happened to all the pages you and I edited?

Do you know what’s up? Thanks! Mattisse (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You've worked on one page in the above linked index but many pages in the apparently duplicate index -- Index:A short history of social life in England.djvu. I think you've got them mixed up is all. George Orwell III (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Humm! There are two indexes? (I see the names are slightly different.) Thanks for answering! Should the unused index be deleted? Best wishes,, Mattisse (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Well the duplicate index should be deleted but without verifying this with Billinghurst first that the reason for the index he started (and you both contributed to) is due to it being of a superior quality to the one you started, I hesitate to do so at this time. Unfortunately, according to the red banner above, he might not check in for a day or more so we'll just have to wait until then. I removed the pagelist and provided a link to the other version in progress for now. Billinghurst is rather thourough in his housekeeping so he'll see this on his own most likely but if for some reason he does not, I'll draw his attention to it next time we both happen to be around and delete it at that point. George Orwell III (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
ok, it was probably my fault as I named the one with the Synge name on it, and he probably set up the other. I wasn’t sure if the author’s name should be on the index name. Probably it should not. Thanks! Mattisse (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Not sure how we both uploaded the same work at similar , must just be a case of GMTA. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 10:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm intrigued, though I wish otherwise, when I looked at this earlier I assumed this happened as a result of miscommunication between two users. Now it is supposed to be simply coincidence, which seems implausible, please clarify what happened here: two files uploaded, two indexes created, who did what in that short period of time, minutes if I remember correctly? At least two other users have attended to this, and I wasted my time validating the text, I hope we can recognise how this situation can be avoided. cygnis insignis
I uploaded Index:A Short History of England (Synge) 1906.djvu and set it up. Billinghurst must have done Index:A short history of social life in England.djvu at the same time. In any case, your time in validating the text was NOT wasted and was much appreciated by me. The version that was kept is the one you spent validating. In thankfulness for your efforts, I validated a bunch of your Popular tales from the Norse (1912)! (I think it was a coincidence that Billinghurst and I uploaded the same djvu, as I did so right after he made the author page for her, which is probably when he did it also.) Thanks cygnis insignis! Mattisse (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Self published works[edit]

Hi Billinghurst, I would like to bring to your notice a self published work by Author:Munindra_(Munnan)_Misra; ( has material from blogspot etc.,) Not sure which is the right noticeboard to report and so I am intimating a admin, Kindly do the needful. Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, we are aware and have something at Wikisource:Proposed deletions around this. Feel welcome to contribute to that discussion as your evidence would be useful. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Tech question[edit]

Today in attempting to proofread I am seeing a totally black image when trying to edit instead of book scan. Just curious if you have heard of this problem before? Daytrivia (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I was seeing this too. There were problems with the image scaling servers yesterday... which eventually spread and took down all the Wikimedia projects for while. Should be okay now. Hesperian 23:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks much. Works fine now. Daytrivia (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi! Thanks for deleting the Muhammad page. Could you also delete User:Sayedahmed, which has the same content and was meant to be included in the deletion request? Jafeluv (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't particularly want to be seen deleting a user's page, though do feel that the content is not appropriate, so I have blanked the page and gazzumped the three edits. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)