User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2011

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 on 01 January 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.


Work to speedy complete[edit]

What Jarry1250 said! -- billinghurst (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Disambiguation pages for share Dictionary entries[edit]

Yes I think pages with links is the way to do it. Eclecticology had some experiment going where entries from several works about a person were welded into one page with separate headers for each entry. I found this was confusing, and I thought a better approach would be a page, like your disambiguation pages, with links to pages devoted to a single entry, not corresponding entries from several works welded into a single page. One wrinkle was there were entries from works without projects, like Encyclopaedia Americana. I think stub projects should be created for these, and for now everything can be listed on one index page since I don't think there are very many entries. Hopefully with links to facsimiles as well. Something like this was started for Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography. A search doesn't seem to turn up the pages with Enyclopedia Americana entries anymore. Seems a shame to lose that work.

Thanks for dealing with these. I extracted the Britannica component from all the ones I could find, and even DNB entries for a few of them. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The entries can be grabbed by links to their templates EAm06 so we can look to generate pages and deal with them, though it is a little about finding the time for all of those things. I could probably add them to a category. Probably start up a TO DO list rather than just wing it. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

My other thought, and this is another stab at dealing with the issues Eclecticology was going after, was to have a Subject name space in addition to the Author one. So a person, or other topics perhaps, could have a Subject page with links to Wikisource articles about them or mentioning them even if they never wrote anything, and perhaps even people with an Author page could also have a Subject page to handle the "Works about ..." sections of what are now put on Author pages. Thanks for the tip about using the template. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I had similar thoughts, at least in terms of handling this with some new namespace. There does seem to be a bigger issue, namely the handling of reference material generally. When it comes explicitly divided by topic, then the text as such (the volume, whatever) is seemingly not the unit, since it is unlikely that the reader treats the continuity by page order as very significant in most cases. The case for doing something about organisation by identical topic is very strong. The case for doing something about related topics is also there, but some application of the category system might be suited to that. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Not against the thought, it is partly the issue of delivery, and how it is to be scoped, and how usable it is for the punters. Beyond the standard namespaces (Template: Category:, Help:, Mediawiki:)
  • Main namespace is for Works, (and to disambiguate works); we also have newspapers in the same zone, though they are sometimes more than a specific edition/volume
  • Author: namespace for Authors
  • Index: namespace, Page: namespace, File: namespace for organising copies of works
  • Wikisource: namespace for WS material and to enable collections of data
  • Portal: namespace, pretty much unused.
The Wikisource: space does have some subject type material, eg. Wikisource:Biographies. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, some adaptation of the Portal namespace is a kind of interesting thought in this context. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
So how do I get from Wikisource:Works to EB1911 and NSRW? I couldn't find a route. The Wikisource namespace seems like the answer for the subject pages. This seems like the route to go for an individual who doesn't have an author page, but some number of articles on them. So for a topic or individual it would be a matter of creating the page and fitting it into the hierarchy rooted by Wikisource:Works. I guess there is a corresponding template to link to them from Wikipedia? I'll try this when I feel like I've overly cluttered some Wikipedia page. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I would have said that we can build a disambiguation page in the main namespace with a page called John Smith where it has articles Smith, John (WorkA) ... (WorkZ). We are disambiguating between similarly named articles, not showing what is available on the person.
So I installed Wikisource:Reference Works on Wikisource:Works. I notice the Special:Search seems to pick up on the disambiguation pages even if an author page is around, so it probably is a good idea to put a link to any author page on the disambiguation page. I found this happening with Frederick Douglass, so I put an author link on that page. It actually might be better to make it a redirect to the author page in those cases. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
We shouldn't be doing cross namespace redirects. If they are an author, we can and should disambig page Author pages from the main NS in the method you described (SEE ALSO). There is also a conversation at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Portals that followed on more generally from what we had here.-- billinghurst (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

SBDEL link[edit]

Hey, here are all the relevant templates which I can find (more than I first thought!):

Consensus roughly seems to be: article name, encyclopedia, publisher, date. Only Appletons' and Oxon put the Author at the beginning. If these seven templates all follow the same pattern any new templates are likely to also follow (making more formal presecription unnecessary in my opinion).

Personally I would prefer to see the first link to be to the actual article as this seems most intuitive. For example Author:Alcuin looks reasonably smart! I am less concerned with what comes after the first link.

Suicidalhamster (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oxon link is mine, and it is that way as I copied and amended SBDEL. That said, same author did all the entries, whereas some of the others had contributors. Feel free to go and update it, it is why I made it a template anyway. :-) -- billinghurst (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
and can I suggest that an apostrophe in Appleton's is an irritation waiting to happen. -- billinghurst (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I may have a go at getting them to all look the same; but make any changes you want to make. Not sure how to treat a contributor who wrote an individual article compared to someone who wrote the whole work - will have a think. The Appleton's situation was a bit messy as we had two identical templates which only differed in apostrophe position, so I redirected one to the other. We could now make a third without an apostrophe and redirect the other two! The joys of trying to organise a wiki! Suicidalhamster (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't fuss about individual contributors. In DNB we add them onto the sub-work example, and have been creating author pages for contributorss and listing them, and EB has taken that up too. Seems to work fine, and adds some nice spice to Author: pages. [Hmm, mind you it is only documented per project at this stage] FWIW I am hands off those templates at this time, other fish are frying. BTW look at what you got me into!!! I used to plod away quietly contributing! billinghurst (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Ha ha! I do apologise. But you are doing a great job so I don't feel too bad! Suicidalhamster (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I know from where my son got his "... and what does this button do?" <eyeroll> billinghurst (talk)

Table border and css[edit]

Test but you'll need the three first rules of my css. A few comment, the second rule is to avoid border-left in table inside a table with a class innerVertBorder, it's unused in this test because I removed the use of table inside table. The third rule is the trick, it apply a zero width border for td which are the first child of a tr (i.e. all the most left cells of table with a class innerVertBorder). This has a wrong side effect for the Sun Rise cell, see the code, I needed to add explicitly a border-left, because this cell is really the first one of this row, even if it look like the second cell of this row. Phe (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

DNB related Discussions.[edit]

Went back through my notes from this month, these situations need resolution for the long term. Did not see another location for this type of situation, am providing these details to generate a discussion leading to resolution.

"Extra Notes" volume 28 so far[edit]

Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 28.djvu/347 This page has typed reference note for inclusion, currently at the page bottom. The directions indicate we are to incorporate the text into the existing parenthetical note (would be a text revision). Initial reporting by Victuallers. How to proceed??

There is no exact ruling, so it becomes what works to represent the situation. If you are asking what I might do, hmm, probably insert the text, and add <ref>{{user annotation|Text was added by annotation to bottom margin.}}</ref> or something like that.
Comment: this added comment is not in the ODNB online version, and is not mentioned in the 1904 Errata volume. This suggests to me that it was a paste-in erratum supplied with some later revision. I think we can leave it out in good conscience. An alternative, naturally, would be to add it to the created article under "Extra Notes". We shall do something of the sort with the Errata, eventually, but it is not yet clear what. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
That being the case it should all be a footnote. Then to me it becomes a situation of whether we need to know where such footnotes exist, hence a category or a specific template, or not, thus just annotate and move on.

Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 28.djvu/66 Second page with this "Extra Note" I used a footnote at first pass. JamAKiska (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks reasonable. The errata/addendum has come from somewhere, and has an official-ish look, so I do prefer this methodology rather than just shutting our eyes. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Missing Persons - AKA Blind Links[edit]

Missing Persons: [qv] in text that I am unable to find in this version or on Wiki

author William Weston who published book in 1747 Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 28.djvu/320
architect Francis Sandys Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 28.djvu/309
Robert Walker (1709-1802) does not match the description found in Andrew Hunter article.
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 28.djvu/290
(Proofed Lord Edzell article) 16th c. John Lawson (educator). Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 33.djvu/303
reference wiki link to Hume street, Dublin, Irish surgeon. Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 28.djvu/241
We have addressed missing persons previously, I think that we have something on one of the talk pages, let me explore.
We started a discussion at Wikisource_talk:WikiProject_DNB#Blind_DNB_links and looks unresolved, though I remember doing something at the time. I would suggest that we reinvigorate that chat to progress it. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan, I will dig up specifics for those above. As for Robert Walker, there is a DNB article, but the character described does not match this article.

The following two currently have Wiki articles available.

Edward Howard, 9th Duke of Norfolk (Has WIKI) -- Edward Howard (1686-1777)
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 28.djvu/82
Sir Edward Ponynges no DNB article in this version
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 28.djvu/16

JamAKiska (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure of the intent of this part. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I visualize them as a subset of Missing Persons, that happen to have wiki articles. Thank-you ! JamAKiska (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
For the specific qv's, at this point I would much rather than see them as redlinks until we have definitive process, otherwise they are going to be lost. I think that there is some value in knowing where they initially planned to do a biography, and later changed their mind. Call me quirky! — billinghurst sDrewth 23:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Reformatted links and relocated them to bottom of previous discussion. Wikisource_talk:WikiProject_DNB#Blind_DNB_links Most of them are red linked as I recall, I will go back and verify all are red.JamAKiska (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph Indentations (link to previous discussion)[edit]

{{space|3}}After some time editing these DNB pages, it seemed odd that the text was not indented on the first line of each paragraph, based upon guidance from the Style manual. I am getting that feeling that I may have a unique point of view on this matter:-). Are we comfortable with the box paragraph? or Would it be reasonable to design the appropriate template that transforms this process into a simple cut and paste. The template would indent only the first line of each new paragraph from the other lines to 'preserve the feel' of the original? While both answers are personally acceptable, my preference for the DNB is to preserve, 'within reason,' the look of the original. A one liner template seems reasonable to me as it would allow us to spend more time proofreading and such. As you can see, I am still learning those tools, as needed. JamAKiska (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The project started without scans, and the prime aspect was (is?) the text, not the formatting of an indent. If you wish to have an indent, fair enough, I am not going to worry one way or the other. I doubt that I will go and put one in, as it is an archaic typesetting form that I generally don't look to maintain. I would really recommend against the use of {{space}} whichever way you progress, and you may see that I have recommended its deletion. My preference for an indent is a style using text-indent, with a second preference to be {{gap}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sidenote templates[edit]

A (somewhat belated) thank you for telling me about the sidenote templates. They are indeed a much simpler way of handling that sort of thing. I've also created {{Left sidenotes begin}}, which can replace {{Sidenotes begin}} in cases where all the sidenotes are on the left-hand side and you want to avoid extraneous space on the right. You can see it at work on Prince Edward Islands Act, 1948. - Htonl (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The further that I explore the issue in the main namespace, the more identified issues that I start to see.
  • fixed right margin — so many variations that we should be leaving this free to expand and contract as per user needs, if necessary to use max width
  • forced full justification — this isn't a book, and is this necessary compared with just having a jagged right
We are forcing book type constraints into the web world. So I may fiddle with your template, to see if we can get to a happy medium. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Mmh, I find it easier to read things in a narrower column than the full width of my browser window. But I absolutely agree that it would be optimal to allow the user to control how they see things. (I don't think that {{Left sidenotes begin}} is any worse than {{Sidenotes begin}} in that regard, though I'm open to correction.) - Htonl (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't disagree, though some may, and this is a discussion that needs a few technical solutions. I know that some part of the issue is when we can set the right margin too wide and people need to undertake horizontal scroll. We need to put in a max-width solution, as suggested in MediaWiki talk:Common.css. We need our css experts to give us a neater solution, let us see if Jack is watching. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm coming around to the idea that we should stop trying to control width altogether, and let users control it with custom CSS if they want to. Which means having some standard div class that they can set width: or max-width: on if they want to. I'm going to play around in a sandbox and see if I can figure something out. - Htonl (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I thing I have come up with a solution (for sidenotes, that is): check out User:Htonl/Sidenotes begin. It takes four parameters: "left" and "right" are the width (in ems) of the space for notes on the left and right respectively, each of them defaulting to 0; "maxwidth" is an (optional) maximum width (in ems) for the whole contents (including notes); "justify", if set, makes the text justified rather than ragged. It uses CSS "max-width", so if the browser window is narrower than the specified width it shrinks appropriately. You can see examples of it at work on User:Htonl/sandbox3. My worry is that it seems too easy, and there must be some problem that I haven't seen. Also, it works with the existing {{Left sidenote}}, {{Right sidenote}} and {{Sidenotes end}}. - Htonl (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it to {{Flexible sidenotes begin}} because I want to start using it in mainspace. - Htonl (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It was all a bit of an over-fiddly issue for me with the absolute positioning, so I have trialled a separate (cheating) solution. {{outside}} {{outside L}} {{{1}}}  as used in Copyright Act, 1956 (United Kingdom)/Part 1 and 1836 (34) Marriages. A bill for Marriages in England. Is it perfect? Nope, though it seems to meeting my needs on those two works. Is it permanent <shrug>, I have to reflect and look to document first. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


Since you seem to be on some kind of template cleanup rampage, I thought I'd mention that a few days ago I generated a list of templates sortable by transclusion count: User:Hesperian/Script. I don't know if its of any use to you. I don't even know if I'll get around to doing anything with it myself. Hesperian 04:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Rampage? Huh me? Just try to get the broom into the corners every so often and do some wikignome. Sometimes the template room, sometimes the floor, sometimes the cobwebs, sometimes the documentation. Thanks I had discovered the page a little while ago, and I had noticed it was updated. Definitely no rampage. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Mate, was only joking. :-) There's nothing rampagious about your edits.

Nah, you're thinking of something else. I only posted that lsit for the first time last week. The page existed before that, but I was using it for something completely different. Hesperian 04:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, must have been a dream. I had also had noticed it recently again from a DNB footer initials link, and had been thinking of asking whether we could just get a special DNB count. Good for project purposes. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, you lost me. If you want to clarify "special DNB count", I'll probably be happy to oblige. Hesperian 05:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Apologies, I didn't know that you were mind-reading impaired.718smiley.svg Meaning to run a count for the templates listed at Category:Dictionary of National Biography contributor templates. There are 721 of those templates in your list. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
From what I can see they all start with "DNB". The current count is in alphabetical order so it should just be a case of copying out the table header, footer, and a single contiguous block of rows. No need to generate a fresh count. Hesperian 05:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It is a dynamic and growing list, though we could do a copy and paste for snapshots. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I see your point. Happy to run one just for DNB any time you want. Hesperian 05:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

DNB vol. 47[edit]

You recently mentioned this volume on the "Progress" DNB project subpage as a suitable case for treatment. This is to let you know that I'm done working on it for the moment.

(PS: the Talkback messages about Template talk:DNB were a bit cryptic. I'm offline tomorrow as it is.)

Charles Matthews (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

DNB thoughts[edit]

One thing leads to another. Probably everything waits until I've had a summer break (i.e. September), but you can see on w:User talk:Arch dude some discussion about getting the WP end of the project into a more dynamic shape. Hence I'd like to think about topical lists on WP (in the Catholic Encyclopedia project I believe such lists have helped get articles created). To avoid duplicating effort, I now think DNB topical lists should be thought of in parallel with categories and/or portals here. So for example "East India Company" is a fine example of a topic that would be good to trace through the DNB: we could have a working list of WP redlinks on WP, plus a portal here of relevant DNB bluelinks (plus other stuff). We have two outcomes: articles created on WP, plus a reference list here?

All of which leads me to Wikisource:India. This presumably should become a portal, under current thinking? Some of those texts seem to be neglected, in terms of meta-data. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyleft "donation"[edit]

Hi, a while back we talked about part of a book that might be released under a free license, and what might be done with it. Well, the release has been completed, and with the help and guidance of a couple other folks I've been working on wikifying it here: Index:Full Disclosure Appendix, Eighteen Major Cases.djvu

I added it to the "Academic Papers" project you mentioned, but I haven't yet tried to start a discussion about what the best way to put this material to use might be. Thought I'd see what you think before getting that going -- any thoughts? -Pete Forsyth (WMF) (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

DNB article links[edit]

Here is a page that pretty much puts to rest the ambiguity of using the name for a DNB article link. [1]. Daytrivia (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


Have outlined first step to transclusion on DNB01 on John's talk page. Time permitting please review. I am well aware that the associated files and naming conventions must fit within existing DNB file organizational structure. Thanks in advance...JamAKiska (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

What I was talking about before ...[edit]

...might be clarified by what has been done to get the volume ToCs together quickly for the DNB01 supplement. The biographies were scraped off the Author pages and then sorted (ASCII order). This then gave User:JamAKiska something close enough so that checking it against the actual djvus wasn't so bad. Proof of concept, really: there were some bugs (but I knew there would be), and see my talk page for how J found it. What I really meant was this: scaling up to get the "master list" for DNB00 is not just a problem 20 times larger for scraping (which wouldn't be too bad). The real issue is that the result of the ASCII sort would be more than just buggy, it would have artefacts of the ordering that would need fixing by hand, and heavy dabbing still to do. So I have been trying to think of devices to remedy the problems that would arise. That's my new starting point: concept works, getting the real sorting and dabbing out of it needs more brainwork. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Let us get to tin-tacks, there are lots of lists around that contain the biographies or we can use to grab a list, those using {{DNB00}} or from Category:DNB biographies, or we can look to build bits, it all depends on what you want, or what is the problem with what we have, or how dynamic you want it to be, or whether the reactive nature of the list production is not what is wanted. Lots of things are possible, I haven't got my head around what you are trying to do/achieve. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A biographer[edit]

Biographia Hibernica might be of interest to you. I have just noticed it needs an author page, and we have Ryan, Richard (DNB00) about the author. Have to sleep now or I'd do it. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Done the author pages, and currently inhaling the two volumes into Commons. So by the time that you are back there will be some presence of the works. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


I am having difficulty working out what some of the code in Template:DNB01 is for, please see Template talk:DNB01. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Been and tampered. CHARLES please review as I have made some suggestions around how we should have one underlying header build, that has variations on top, rather than to have each being uniquely created and modified. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
No strong feelings as long as DNB01 is upgraded to the functionality of DNB00. I'm quite happy to allow others to worry about the underlying structure. PBS has been working on WP to make a standard scheme for various references. It doesn't follow that here on WS everything has to go the same way (though it would be a great help to have a Catholic Encyclopedia template that was in good order). The provision of maintenance categories for the DNB project is a big plus, simply because of the scale and the usefulness of having multiple ways to check up on possible defects. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


Could you please review how the errata have been incorporated into Crealock, Henry Hope using {{definition}}. An alternative option would be the use of side notes that contain the entire citation. I'm sure there are others...these were the first two options that came up in discussion. Thanks...JamAKiska (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What is our philosophy? Are we trying to present the work as it is in a volume, or as a finished product. I would think that we could look to do something like {{user annotation}} though maybe call it {{errata}}. Then there is what I did in this work utilising {{SIC}} at a point in time List of Carthusians, 1800–1879/B#21

Not having looked at the errata volume does it just give a correction or does it reproduce the correct article? If the latter, then we could just link to it. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The former...Page 1 of Errata, it is doubt ! "Preserve the look of the original..." which these three options do, if the reader is willing to accept some form of annotation nearby. JamAKiska (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about the mysterious Header toggle bar[edit]

Also, thanks adjusting the table at Page:Works_of_Sir_John_Suckling.djvu/11. I am mostly used to Wikipedia, & this was the first time I had worked with Wikisource, so trying to figure my around some unfamiliar formatting. Peaceray (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Very welcome, they can be a bit of a beast, though after a few ToCs, there has been some tricks learnt. At the same time, one tries not to overly change what people are working upon. We try to be helpful here, so don't be afraid to ask a question here, or at Scriptorium. We are good at help, just not particularly good at maintaining help pages.<shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 05:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


I see that you upgraded my user rights to Autopatroller. What does this exactly mean? - Tannertsf (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In short, you have a clue; in long Wikisource:Autopatrolled. Practically it means that from Special:RecentChanges your contributions will no longer be marked with red exclamations and less likely to be reviewed. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. thanks - Tannertsf (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And Phe did the Index for Index:Devonshire Characters and Strange Events.djvu[edit]

That is truly wonderful. I can’t image how that is done! Mattisse (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Request to use my previous user account[edit]

        USER: William Maury Morris 

billinghurst, I have forgotten my password to William Maury Morris, an account that I prefer to work under and am locked out. I greatly prefer to be able to work under that account with my real name. What do I need to do to accomplish this? I have placed several books and many articles on Wiki areas under both this nom de plume (Brother Officer) and my real name I prefer to use. When I started posting many years ago I thought I should use a pseudonym but after experience I prefer to work with my real name. Recently I have worked on the Confederate Military History volume and I hope that the Southern Historical Society volumes can be set up in the same manner so that I can transcribe them as it is a family thing in history for me. The Southern Historical Society was founded by General Dabney Herndon Maury as I have posted in an article, under author, and in posting his entire book, "Recollections of a Virginian in the Mexican, Indian, and Civil Wars." I also saw to it that all 52 volumes were placed on CDROM (with a Note from me at the beginning) several years ago and they have circulated in many areas including in universities as primary resource material, and battlegrounds where shops have resold them, &c., &c. Best regards, —Brother OfficerTalk 07:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a global issue, not Wikisource. Try a steward on a meta page, eg. m:user talk:Pathoschildbillinghurst sDrewth 07:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

While patroling[edit]

Hi, hope this finds you and yours well

I came across something "new" and not sure what the standard is, if there is one that is, concerning supplemental audio files of hosted texts. Never having bothered with one before, please see this latest addition ( Template:Spoken works entry‎ ) which apparently ties into File:Annabel Lee.ogg, related to the ns-0, Annabel Lee, and clue me in on what is going on there when you get a chance. TIA George Orwell III (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

File has been moved to Commons, where that template is located and works appropriately. Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 04:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Page:A short history of social life in England.djvu/12[edit]

Is there a way of making "continued" in lower case on this page of TOC? (Or am I being too nick picky?? (The rest are done.) Mattisse (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Not without coding every line on that and preceding pages rather than applying the style to the table. My laziness won for me, especially as the extra code was going to make the proofreading a little harder. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Done! Mattisse (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


Thank-you…tried this template on Gwilt, Joseph and it works quite well...thanks JamAKiska (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the stamp, I will need to start a petting zoo fairly soon…JamAKiska (talk) 11:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Replacing an index .djvu[edit]

Hi... A quick question on the possibility of replacing a less-than-optimal scan.

We currently have Index:Federalist, Dawson edition, 1863.djvu which has 2 problematic (fuzzy) pages and 2 pages completely missing (not even a placeholder for those 2 pages). I've created another .djvu that has all the pages (only one of them problematic to be honest) that matches the start of the main content at Page 1 (or page 145 of the djvu). All the additions and/or subtractions in the new djvu occur in the non-completed roman numeral sections.

What is the best way to replace the old with the new? TIA... George Orwell III (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I am presuming that we would consider the new version a replacement as it is a better copy, and in all other respects that it is a duplicate (see Commons:Template:duplicate). This being the case, then ideally we _should_ upload over the old version, either immediately, or in time. The problem that this causes is that it sounds like we are going to have to move pages, and moving multiple pages is problematic as I am unaware of any automated process. In other situations where I have just had to add/replace a page or two (think small number), I have cheated by means of just uploading the missing/problematic pages, and fixing the transclusion process to grab the inserted pages, and made the appropriate note on the Index: pages (old & new). The other problem that we can have is around alignment of pages where the starting pages are not aligned. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Well I would consider it a better replacement not only because it has all the pages where the existing is missing 2 pages completely ( cxviii and cxix ) & already has double replacements ( cii and ciii ) to overcome problems with the original but because it dropped the tan page shading thing of the old -- granted I didn't know how to get rid of the digitized by Google thing at the bottom of the new.
What about if I upload it to just WS under some other name just to see if I'm right about it matching up page-wise from 145 to the end (where the meat of the main content starts under page index designation 1 to 615)? I realize everything before that (Intro, Notes & other front matter) may need to be moved to regain the alignment; I'm more than happy to to do all those pages myself if need be. George Orwell III (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Presuming that the original file is at Commons, it would be okay to upload the File to WS under the same name, as that will show the alignment of image and text anyway (you will need to purge the image to ensure that it updates). If it fails then we can move it out or delete, if it passes, then we can either reload at Commons, or delete Commons and migrate the beast. With regard to moving, if you have that tolerance, great, and note that you need to start at the END of the work and move forward through the book (presuming that the work is longer). Having done it a few times, very worthwhile having two multiple browsers and hasten slowly, refresh and review regularly. I tried once to do it late at night, and that was not a choice time, and I tried to do it a chapter at a time so I didn't lose the updating of the transclusions. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Mixed results?? Doesn't seem to be a need to "move" a single page... but not all the thumbnails are coming up (some of them not even from the image tab) -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I am seeing similar for Commons images for other works, so that may be a more generic issue rather than this specific work. I can see images for a few of the redlink pages that I clicked. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
You may be right; I'm able to cycle through the pages from File:Federalist, Dawson edition, 1863.djvu and all the smaller thumbnails appear just fine from there. Oh well, I'll wait a day or two to give the other contributors, and the "system", a chance to catch up to these events before either moving forward or reverting to the old. Thanks again for the input. George Orwell III (talk) 03:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP: As you mentioned, the thumbnail "problem" was indeed not Index: specific and is now not an issue. The main contributors have OK'd the new scans and the project is down to its last 2 dozen or so pages so I was going to move to the new DJVU to commons -- then I remembered I've never done this before!! I thought you might clue me in on what to do exactly so I don't screw things up here at the end of a long process to date. TIA. George Orwell III (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I use and can do that for you if you do not wish to set up your own TUSC, that said having a TUSC allows one to also use — billinghurst sDrewth 00:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Whoa... I'm glad I asked - all this is a bit more complicated than I thought it would be. I'm sort of pressed for free time at the moment and rather not undertake something new. It would be great if you could move the file and put that much to bed for now -- I'll come back to you at some point on setting up this new TUSC account thing (if that is OK with you that is). George Orwell III (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Quite okay, I have my janitor's hat on already. Silly me forgot that I am going to need to delete the version at Commons anyway, so probably quicker if I do it. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done and then did 50 things on Commons by way of distraction. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No original year linking?[edit]

I see your bot has been doing some much needed clean up of categories and pages. But one thing caught my attention as potentially not ideal—eliminating year categories of subpages. In a collection of essays or speeches that were originally published in different years, you don't think they should be categorized with the original publication year? I see how it's simpler to just use the year that the scanned copy was published, but it doesn't make sense to me to say that Webster's Second Reply to Hayne is a 1879 work just because that's the year that The Great Speeches and Orations of Daniel Webster was published. Or that an essay (like 1894's The Absurd Effort to Make the World Over) should be categorized with works published nearly twenty years later (1911). —Spangineer (háblame) 15:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, collections should have different years on subpages. I don't think that I had changed those.

I have tried to separate out the subpages of works and (mindfully) do them according to the original publication date. Anything that is a periodical has not been done, and I thought that was a later compilation of earlier works I attempted to identify the dates from the work and retain those.

My process is (per batch) to sample ten year period
  • manually filter out all with a forward slash; drop out those that fit the "have own YYYY" criteria
    • from residue (subpages of single date work) remove the category/year (and some general fixes to relative links)
  • undertake the year move for top level and those subpages that are different
I will admit that as I have progressed through batches I have better refined my process for undertaking fixes, any maybe some improvement in the selection process, however, that is hopefully about efficiency and more fixes, rather than the observation, especially after the first few batches.

There is always the quandary of editions whether the initial date or the republishing date should be used, similarly with translations, which is the year we use. Though I have tried to keep the data that was there, and tried to code for where there was confusion or failure to skip the work and to fix manually. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The Sumner work above is an example of the work being marked in the year of first publication, not the year of the collection. If you are talking about the edit summary, that is due to those works fitting the criteria, and those that were unchanged on that run then being done by the second run (see edit summary for that at User:SDrewthbot/AWB modules) — billinghurst sDrewth 15:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The edit summary was what got me first, as well as Earth-Hunger and Other Essays/Equality, which may be one that just got past your filters (and it is unfortunate that there's not a better original date). I wasn't sure where you were in your process and was worried that others were going to have their categories removed soon. Anyway, thanks for the explanation; your approach sounds reasonable. —Spangineer (háblame) 15:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, that draws an important point too. Adding the year against a subpage where it differs from the top page puts the date display up against the title, which is misleading. For that work, it may be superior to leave the Category in place directly, which I have done for that work. Your opinion there would be useful, so I can look at what we can do in that space. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I have extracted the last 16k edits for the bot, extracted those that are in the main NS and have a forward slash in their title (sum total 350+/-), dumped the periodicals and reviewed the remaining edits, and it looks good for subpage categorisation. Found those edits that I had fixed myself and the one that you brought to my attention. So remind me never to challenge you to find a needle in a haystack. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I credit my 8000 page-strong watchlist and my preferences set to show all bot edits =). I think you're probably right that just putting the straight year category on that page is the best way to go. —Spangineer (háblame) 01:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Emoticon surprised.png, for a specific subset I agree. For periodicals it works well to have the date next to the title, for all other works it is of no value. It adds a level of complexity to leave them as Category alone, and I will either have to be quite watchful, as it can only be done by sight. If I miss any and move the cat, then please do just undo the edit. As I see it the error should be to retain the data than to remove it (earlier discussion), and one cannot botify a judgement call. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
added issues raised with proposed solution(s) to Wikisource:Bot requests#Years of worksbillinghurst sDrewth 12:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Edge case for SDrewthbot's year category replacement module[edit]

This may well be rare enough not to really be worth bothering with, but a few works which were published over a period spanning years are indexed by being put directly into the several categories, e.g. Scottish Gaelic Dialects. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any good way to handle it directly via the header (maybe a yearoverride would be in order?). As it is, SDrewthbot removes all the categories and puts the first match into the year parameter of the header. Not sure what the 'correct' behavior should be, but it might be worth making a special case for it. Prosody (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting conundrum, and multiple ways to look at it. It is an article that was published in parts, that we publish in parts as subpages of original work and then also transclude together (as you have done). Fortunately {{header}} takes multiples of the year parameter and I have added them all. When it has come to volumes of works, we can load each volume with the respective year. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Urk, no, that is your categories at the base readded. I would think that it is a case of adding the extra categories manually. I am considering this fix a one-off run rather than a repeated exercise, if there is a run to at a later time then we hopefully won't have so many and we can check anomalies manually. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
added issues raised with proposed solution(s) to Wikisource:Bot requests#Years of worksbillinghurst sDrewth 12:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Edition template on subpages[edit]

What is the reason for removing the Edition template from subpages? I add it in to provide an easy path to the edition information for the publication, so that a user does not have to navigate to the main title before going to the edition info. —Mike 21:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Documentation says it takes no variables and in my experience the common practice it has only been used at the top level of the work, where {{textinfo}} has been used. In further reviewing the template I see that you added a variable, though it isn't documented. Generally with the pages level ribbons at the top of each page, the edition information is only two clicks away, however, if you feel that it is necessary for the works that you add, then my apologies for removing it; it is not a common practice, and from my view only one that I see using it. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


is also due for confirmation this month. Hesperian 13:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

k. Done. <sigh> — billinghurst sDrewth 13:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


I'm not able to discern what his string of consonants is intended to denote. Is it an abbreviation? Is it used elsewhere? cygnis insignis 15:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It is one that Charles Matthews started for DNB and I have presumed it is an abbreviation of link people, as it follows on from "... link". While it isn't the most obvious, it is better than anything that I had thought of and it is short, which is why I continued it for the other biographical dictionaries. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The answer prompts me to air this thought. If you have used the cite forms at en.wp lately, you will have noticed that it is often possible to get it to autofill by supplying isbn, doi, or a url. Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems we have to manually copy each detail from IA to commons, from commons to the index form (by tabbing through each field), and from there to the header and everywhere else. If I cite a document at another sister, I have to repeat that all again! I don't see why should need to do any of these steps, barring any correction that is needed. that is surely the intended benefit of the index form; I'm only aware of the disadvantages. Getting the title from the index would solve the problem of creating the link in the page.ns, for example, templates like cite DNB at wp (or any site) could complete themselves with one identifier. I think it is worthwhile if someone (else) makes some noise in the right places, though perhaps I'm missing the joke: that the mindless and repetitive tasks that digital technology can do in the blink of an eye are also pointlessly inflicted on the user. cygnis insignis 19:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Not seen those site forms in action. :-/ So no specific comment. If we can get a more thorough system in place, that requires less effort and provides more accuracy, then I am for it. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a recent example. Go to this link at the other place, click the button "cite" then "book", add 0521391008 to the isbn field and click the green arrows button … voilà!. This is a modest example, I have used a url to autofill and got chapter and verse as well.

Now imagine someone wants to cite something here, they could copy/paste the title, the chapter, or the link at the page number and, in theory, get the same result. This very convenient, I would have spent more time dragging details into inline citations than it took to compose the sentence it supports. The frustrating thing is that this works for google, pubmed, and many other sources, but not wikisource - it could and almost certainly will. A user doesn't need to discover where the templates for individual works are, or remember how the name was styled, someone could click some buttons and add a unique identifier for any work here. The more information in the index, or header, the more complete the form is; developing suites of templates for individual works is going to be a waste of time. cygnis insignis 08:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the author of the RefToolbar script is w:user:Mr.Z-man. Probably worth having the chat over there. We may need to look to store more information somewhere/somehow, though first to know what information for which it is looking. I am not up-to-date on doi, etc. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I think the salient point here is that we already 'store the information', but we need to manually copy it. cygnis insignis
We may have it, but not in a readily callable/standard form. Having a universal and portable means would be a great step forward. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I know you are busy . . .[edit]

I have been having a terrible time with Index:A Thousand-Mile Walk To The Gulf.djvu aka A Thousand-Mile Walk To The Gulf. I can’t believe it is beyond me to grasp the simple formatting, but it is! Mattisse (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Took me a while to work out the problem to what you were referring. All I saw was another monster of an effort with a proofread, congrats! Tehn I saw the page numbering was the issue, well I presume that is what you were looking to be addressed. Just need to say some XXtoYY=roman for the pages where you want roman numerals. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that A Thousand-Mile Walk To The Gulf/CROSSING THE CUMBERLAND MOUNTAINS should be deleted as is seems there is something screwed up about it. The Chapt. 2 link on the top left is back and the page name is wrong for the content of the page.

In contrast A Thousand-Mile Walk To The Gulf/THROUGH THE RIVER COUNTRY OF GEORGIA the Chapt.2 link in the top left is blue. I can’t quite figure out what is wrong. I’m afraid to request deletion in case that causes more problems. Mattisse (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You have the page linking to itself, which is why the black link, not to the previous chapter. To the formatting and lack of top page number, it is due to recent changes that were undertaken that made <div class="indented-page"> redundant, as there are now the alternate display options in the left hand side tools. As another point, there was discussion about trying to be more generic with chapter naming, eg. Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3, rather than the name of the chapter. This was to help with referring to works, either current works or future works. Most reference works utilise either Title and Chapter, or Title and page, and it seemed tidier and easier to work that way. Now we haven't gone back and particularly changed existing works in the collection, however, it has been unofficial guidance more recently. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Cannot change Index:Proofread to Index:Validated on Index:An Address on the Haematozoa of Malaria.pdf[edit]

I cannot change the above from Index:Proofread to Index:Validated because every time I try to, it tries to download it as a PDF file. I am using Firefox. I had to go to the article page and change it from article quality 50% to article quality 100%. Could you please do something about this. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed it for you and it worked fine for me. I’m also using Firefox. --Xxagile (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
<shrug> Works for me too. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I've found the answer - an incorrect setting under Options -> Applications in Firefox. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 11:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Re:Year parameter in header[edit]

Yes, I'm aware of the year parameter in header, but I didn't know that it categorises the work. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Something djvu and unexpected[edit]

When I was editing Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 57.djvu/54 just now, the image to the right was not the same when I was editing, and when I saved. So the image while I was editing seemed like a good-quality substitution, while the image for the saved text (of the same p.48) was very bad. I see that there is a note at Index talk:Dictionary of National Biography volume 57.djvu from a year ago, but I don't recall seeing quite this effect before. I'm just starting in on the volume today. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

<shrug> looks okay to me in display and edit modes — billinghurst sDrewth 10:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


Thanks so much for formatting Page:Book of the Riviera.djvu/182. It is a defect in me that I cannot figure such things out. So I am beholden to you. Mattisse (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That was Eliyak (talkcontribs). I am too lazy to even try to bother to do it, and ironically I am a family historian. Truth be known I have enough software to do it, but still none of it becomes text readable.<shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 23:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Mrs Caudle's curtain lectures and Wikisource:Proofread of the Month/little works[edit]

Yes, Mrs Caudle's curtain lectures are an interesting work, and if you look at your Proofread of the Month/little works, you'll find I've been busy there as well. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Asking for help again![edit]

On Audubon and His Journals I seem to have figured it out except the last page, Audubon and His Journals/Mississippi River Journal. I can’t figure out what on earth is wrong.

I just don’t understand this putting the pages together stuff. Are there help pages that explain what the various codes mean and how to put the pages together? I try to copy what others have done but I really don’t understand how to do it and why some pages don’t work.

Thanks for any help/tips you can give. Mattisse (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I am also having trouble with The amateur emigrant : The Silverado squatters from Index:The Amateur Emigrant-The Silverado Squatters.djvu. This is enormously frustrating! Mattisse (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Will have a look, for the general guidance oldwikisource:Wikisource:ProofreadPage, though I would hazard a guess that we should be a little step-wise in our approach. Doing help pages is not my strength, I tend to get hung up in geeky words, though something is probably better than nothing. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I try to copy the methods of existing works, but sometimes for no apparent reason, links to pages don’t work. Is there a particular example you could point me to that I could copy the method? I’ve tried to copy many, but there is something fundamental that I don’t understand that tricks me up. I don’t really understand how the code works. I can copy three pages in a row successfully, for example, and then suddenly the fourth won’t work no matter what I do. When I get the error message "header missing" on the fourth page, when the same code has worked on the previous three, I don’t understand what I am don’t wrong. Mattisse (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure, no real time to answer at the moment. Did a quick play, and I am going to have a slight variance to normal due to there being two chaptered books in the omnibus. Will do so when have time tonight. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe that the work should be set out in the following fashion
In this situation setting it all to subpages was just going to lead to overly long page titles and some confusion.

With relation to page numbering, one sets it all on the Index page, and sure if the book starts renumbering its pages then we can replicate that. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have done an amount of moving and shuffling of pages, hence the redlinks above). I think that you get into some difficulty when you build your ToC as you lose the structure of the works. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

DNB number signs instead of "section begin" and "end"[edit]

I have been getting two number signs when I try to put section begin or end. This is happening with more and more frequency. Any ideas why? Daytrivia (talk) 06:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, ThomasV changed the coding for how sections display especially as newbies were not getting it right, so rather than start and end, it is just required to do ##"label name"## in the Page: namespace and it does internal conversions. I'll hunt up the discussion. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikisource:Scriptorium#Easy LSTbillinghurst sDrewth 09:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the explanation and the discussion. Daytrivia (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble but cannot get this page [2] to stay as I saved it. When trying to edit the next article it changes the one I did. If you have the time could you have a look? Thanks much. Daytrivia (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 17:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Huge thanks!! Daytrivia (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Me again. It is becoming very frustrating just when I think its working things fall apart with this group of pages. Can't do much when saved previous or next pages are unstable. Hope I get this soon. Daytrivia (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I clicked "Use the old syntax in the Page namespace" in my preferences/gadgets and haven't had a problem since ;-) cygnis insignis 03:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Great Scott! Things are working much better. Thanks Cygnis insignis and Billinghurst for your help. Daytrivia (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I have one query. Is it permissible to put up scholarly papers presented in conferences? I have permission from the author. If yes then how do I go about it? Thanks for your help.--Anishshah19 (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If it is peer-reviewed it is okay as it fits within WS:WWI. Best guidance and discussion at Wikisource:WikiProject Academic Papers. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.--Anishshah19 (talk) 10:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
In continuation to the query....Can I use this license: [3] ?--Anishshah19 (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I am led to believe that we do NOT, due to the fact that they have the NON-something statements so are not free. Have you had a look at Help:Copyright tags? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again. Yes You are right. Thanks I will use this license then CC-BY-SA-3.0. Now how do I prove that I have got permisssion to use this license from the author. Will a mail from the author that he understands the above license and gives permission be sufficient? If yes, then the mail is to be sent to whom? Incidentally, the paper is published here [4]. --Anishshah19 (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
For permissions, we duplicate the process as prescribed at Commons:OTRS though modifying to describe the work at English Wikisource, and the mail sent to . So upload the work, stick {{OTRS pending}} and put the links into the permissions as per Commons. The people who manage the mailbox will then convert to having an OTRS with a number. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --Anishshah19 (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've struck again at Wikisource:Proofread of the Month/little works ![edit]

Just a short note to say that I've struck again at the above page. I've finished the queued works except for Michelson 1881 and MichelsonMorley 1886 which have too much maths for me. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Umm, okay, at this stage they are now reasonably hard to find though Hesperian has bugzilla'd and there is now a solution in the pipes, though no idea when we can get it functioning. Want to play on this Index:Two Sussex archaeologists, William Durrant Cooper and Mark Antony Lower.djvu? — billinghurst sDrewth 08:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
As a thought, I will (temporarily) also add works with only a little bit to go. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and a question pls.[edit]

Thanks for the award, although I am not sure why I qualified for it. :-) Have you, or anyone else seen Matt? Thanks. - Ineuw (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You did some work on one of the PotM, so that qualifies; it is about inclusion and participation, not about measuring. :-) Re Matt — he has been around in IRC, so threaten him with some gelding shears on his talk page, and maybe send him an email reminding him that his worthlessness will come back to haunt him.winkbillinghurst sDrewth 01:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Index Page Moves[edit]

Yeah, I noticed the SQL hissy fit. I had moved the pages so that commons would no longer see the files in use and someone over there would be willing to move (rename) them. I see this is not a good idea, so I'll avoid moving Index pages it in the future. --Eliyak T·C 04:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip and the offer of help. Best, Eliyak T·C

Florian's Fables question[edit]

I am confused as to what you did here... I can not view the full page of text now when in edit mode... only the top portion shows up. ALSO, how do you break up the text for the purpose of transcribing Page text to Mainspace? It also seems to me that the final portion of "The Two Cats" on [actual] page 32 might not be correctly aligned when all is said and done...? Could you show me by overwriting below how the formatting should be rendered in the Mainspace (sorry if my terminology is incorrect)? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 | title      = [[../]]
 | author     = Jean Pierre Claris de Florian
 | translator = John Wolcott Phelps
 | section    = The Two Cats
 | previous   = [[../The Child and the Looking-Glass/]]
 | next       = [[../The Prince and the Nightingale/]]
 | notes      = 

<pages index="Florian - The Fables, 1888.djvu" from=36 to=38 />

I have transcluded the pages to here. You are correct about the coding on the page, we had an edit conflict when on it, and I had to resurrect, and I have made an edit to <noinclude the first formatting. To what is being done, it is dividing the page into sections to allow partial transclusion of one section. The programmer has made some recent modifications, and if that is the question then please see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2010-11#Easy LST. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I will stew over the link about sections, but I will not create/touch the remaining pages in Fables of Florian that involve sectioning for fear of messing things up! I have noted:
<pages index="Florian - The Fables, 1888.djvu" from=36 to=38 tosection="The Two Cats"/>
Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
They may look ugly, however, they are not. Under the new scheme
Labels in Page namespace
  • Section label where a section starts ## "Section name" ##
  • A section will finish where the next section starts (see above), at the end of a page (a default), or where you tell it to stop ####
Transclusion into main namespace
  • fromsection="Section name" where the text starts on a partial page
  • tosection="Section name" where the text finishes on a partial page
The official page is at mw:Extension:Labeled_Section_Transclusionbillinghurst sDrewth 02:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Looking now at the page history, I think I may have messed you up here when italicizing the header title... If so, I apologize. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for adding the TOC and anchors on the Coates poetry page... It helps navigation greatly! And also for the other responses to my help requests... Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • RE: Conceptually... Not being sure how notifications work, I'm just letting you know that I responded to your posting on my talk page. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    Your talk page is on my Watchlist, so we can just have a conversation there. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • RE: Participation award... Awesome... Thank you, and Merry Christmas! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Identifying George Robertson[edit]

"An Introduction to Greek Reading", by George Robertson
Cambridge University Press 1915

George Robertson, M.A.
(Edin. and Oxon.)
Headmaster of Eltham College, London, S.E.
Formerly Exhibitiones an Honorary Scholar of Balliol College, Oxford
and Professor of Classics at Grey University College, Bloemfontein 

for OrbiliusMagister (talkcontribs) -- billinghurst (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

DNB volume 39[edit]

This volume is a mess, with poor synchronisation between text and images, but that's by the by. I notice you began work on Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 39.djvu/300, but abandoned it. However, the text that you did add differs in some particulars from the text in the page image. I have sorted it, but mention it to let you know, in case this has occurred elsewhere. Jan1naD (talkcontrib) 21:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I am slowly working my way through the volumes fixing issues, and I started at the backend and think that I am up to vol.44 . It is boring work so I tend to do it in bits and bobs. I'll see if I can get to 39 today. billinghurst (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Billinghurst is heroically working upwards through the slough of despond we call Wikisource:WikiProject DNB/Progress. Vol. 39 happens to be about the scrappiest of the bot uploads. By the way, for particularly bad text and articles you have a particular interest in, I will "do requests" assuming that there is any sort of djvu one can read. (For cases where there is no readable scan at all online, we really have to call on people with the physical books, which can be done, but takes longer.) Charles Matthews (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
[Comment quoted from my talk page] As for Billinghurst, I have nothing but the highest admiration and regard for the work he is doing. Jan1naD (talkcontrib) 22:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Vol 25[edit]

I had a discussion at User talk:Charles Matthews#DNB Vol 25 with Charles and he suggested I ask you the technical question I have. Due to the incorrect page/scan syncronisation (mostly 5 pages off), is it possible to recreate a page that has already been scanned, so that one can copy the text produced and transfer it to the appropriate page? TIA Ww2censor (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Gday Ww... It is possible to get the underlying text layer for a page, even if other text is over top. It requires the existing page to be moved out of the way/deleted, the new page to be created which retrieves the layer. In the examples of DNB where the text is offset, it then has page shuffling all over the place as it creates a chain reaction. It is problematic and takes time to do a volume, and one where you need to shut out all other influences. We are hoping for a fix in the underlying problem with the files, and I keep hoping that will come first. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
If it is of interest I found a good looking copy of vol 25 on google as I also saw that several pages of the uploaded version are marked as problematic. I have some OCR software on another computer (that I don't often use} and should perhaps see what sort of a job it does on some of these pages as they look significantly better than the currently uploaded version. Ww2censor (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The last time that I checked the available google versions have been migrated to and were available in DjVu. Cannot say that I have checked more recently, however, Charles Matthews has done the most recent audit with his results at the /progress page at the project. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I would like to help with this Volume. Advice or assistance would be welcomed. Would creating a whole new DjVu and using it destroy work aalready done? Daytrivia (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


What you need is a namespace() function. I'm too busy to knock it up and get it runnnig this weekend, but the completely untested off-the-top-of-my-head code looks something like this:

function namespace()
   var chunk = location.href.match(/title=[^:]:/); // everything between title= and the first colon
   if (!chunk) {return "main";} // no colon so mainspace
      case "title=Talk:":
         return "Talk"
      case "title=User:":
         return "User"
      case "title=User_talk:":
         return "User talk"
      case "title=Wikisource:":
         return "Main"; //title has a colon but it is not a namespace separator

Hesperian 02:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

To check if duplicates[edit]

To do (following page numbering update)[edit]

Find and fix all main ns pages that transclude {{outside L}} & {{outside RL}} to have an inner DIV as Copyright Act, 1956 (United Kingdom)/Part 1 as page numbering is now relative to first div. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done


hi, I only updated two sub-pages to check first if the format is what you want. I changed my mind about the sorting, sub-page contents is sorted by the first letter of the title so /Other will contain most weird title (plus diacritic not correctly sorted ...) I can update them daily but I'll need to ask for a bot flag first. Any formatting change you want ? Phe (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

it is fine, sorting is less than relevant for a bald list, and the special links are convenient. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

DNB 35[edit]

DNB vol. 35 has images and OCR text out of sync. This is apparently because a bot extracted the OCR text and created Pages the day before you uploaded a new version of the Djvu file. If all the red (non-proofread) pages are deleted, the new creation should extract the OCR layer (if there is one) from the current Djvu file. --LA2 (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Depends whether the not proofread pages are bot laid or not. Some of them are possibly transcluded. So my response would be that we can certainly delete the non-transcluded pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Retouching images[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you retouched an image Page:Devonshire Characters and Strange Events.djvu/883 and I was wondering what the rules or conventions were regarding altering photos for a book. Also, do you have a template for "This is a retouched picture, which means that it has been digitally altered from its original version. Modifications: Extracted image from book, cleaned & cropped …" etc.? Did you replace the original version on the Commons, or is this a second version that is only on Wikisource. (I am confused about the relationship between pictures on the Commons and Wikisource pictures.

Aren’t the vignettes of life wonderful in ’Devonshire Characters and Strange Events’? In a while I might be able to write an article, if I had more sources, but not now. Best wishes, Another editor (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

My retouching is very gentle, that is not my skill set, so I do a little to try and get rid of the yellow. This is the first upload of each standalone image from the book, and the uploading, I use the tool and it allows most of the information management.
We try and put all images that are out of copyright there, as that allows them to be used for all Wikimedia projects, and that means for Wikisource, so it basically means that anything at Commons is a virtual library for Wikisource. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
A virtual archive for a virtual library may be a better analogy. I had been meaning to ask about this: "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:" Are you intentionally claiming something?

Secondly, a djvu is not a 'source', 'author', or other authority - it is simply a file type. And it is useless for illustrations. New users wont like it when they struggle to follow an example that turns out to be wrong. Please provide the actual address where the image should be extracted at source = cygnis insignis 17:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That is the tool doing its bit for derivative works, and the tool seems to be undertaking the accepted practice for Commons. If you wish to address the issue with Luxo, be my guest.— billinghurst sDrewth 00:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I don’t get that tool. It doesn’t seem to work for me. I give the source on the Commons as the Wikisource scanned page when I upload. Is that ok? Another editor (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The "source" is the same as the djvu file:

The djvu is for text, not illustrations, go to the source and get jpeg images instead. See Help:Adding images#Image quality. cygnis insignis 06:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, {{self|PD-1923}} really doesn't work, does it? "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: This work is in the public domain in the United States because...." What a hideous non-sequitur.

On reading the above discussion, I got the impression that you were giving a "very gentle" retouching to public domain images, and claiming copyright over the result. This you are arguably entitled to do, but I rather think it runs counter to our very raison detre, which is all about liberating works, not further encumbering them. Personally, a work is not improved by replacing a public domain image with a better looking encumbered image.

I'm glad I was mistaken. Kudos to you, Billinghurst, for not claiming copyright on these retouchings... but I agree that the use of {{self|...}} here is dodgy, and someone should talk to Luxo about it.

Hesperian 01:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a very welcoming talk page: "This user is inactive until further notice... I only make minimal maintenances to my toolserver tools & bots...." Hesperian 01:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
For image uploads, I want the path of least resistance to get the beasts uploaded. In that regard, I am following the path of least (political) resistance and others can have that battle of the term {{self}} or alternatives. The image is available, not in copyright, hopefully looks better than the available djvu version and to me that is what matters. I save my wikipolitics for here, and for the other sites, I am just a glorified gnome with delete powers. I would also doubt that any could claim that the work I undertake on images would be seen as artistic merit, and therefore suitable for further restrictions, though to me that becomes an argument over banality and I have better things over which to argue. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It has taken me a while, however, I have left a note at Commons for Luxo to see if there is broader scope than {{self}} in his drop down list. For Cartoon portraits ... I manually edited the files which was a bit of a PITA.<shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 03:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sdrewthbot "no contributor" question[edit]

Please take a look at Atkyns, Richard (DNB00). This was originally created by transclusion, but "controbutor=" was blank. However, there really was a valid author footer. The 'bot went ahead and converted to the "no contributor" syntax in the header. Was this what you intended? I went ahead and put in the actual contributor, but should we now go check the 'bot logs to see if other articles are affected? -Arch dude (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I did them all semi-automated, IOW, I viewed each as I went along, so that was a visual error. That said, it was an initial sweep as I am now working through vol. 6 conversions, and we needed a tidy out to spot the errors and such. My plan is to later to do a comparison of articles against Template:DNB footer initials (with and without) against the contributor field and we can weed out the errors. Also wanting to make sure that we have Category:DNB See in place. It is a pretty crude category, lacks accuracy, and it needs to be checked again, so IMO there is no need to do that check at this stage as we can bot it later, and there will be more anyway. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Off-kilter text[edit]

Following on from User_talk:John_Vandenberg/Archive/2009-2010#Blackwood.27s_text_out_of_alignment_with_images and bugzilla:21526, have all the problems been fixed and rolled into production? If so, we may have a new problem, as the text for Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology - Volume 1 (1850).djvu/192 is found in the edit box for scan 193. It isnt important in this case, because the text avail. at [5] is far superior to any OCR. I'll try to look into it more closely this eve. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

John, unfortunately the fix has yet to be implemented by the Tech people at WMF. I asked for an out of session upgrade on the Bugzilla, and that request has been ignored. In fact all fixes for Wikisource tend to go unresolved, eg. the break of patrolling since a previous upgrade. We are a backwater with no oomph, and there is no suitable process to get reasonable attention to bug fixes. It seems that being unreasonable and objectionable is the means to get something addressed. :-( — billinghurst sDrewth 00:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
What is the bug number for the patrolling bug? John Vandenberg (chat) 02:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • bugzilla:23132 - Patrolling pages is having issues (working though clicking states failure)
  • bugzilla:21526 - Bug in Djvu text layer extraction
billinghurst sDrewth 03:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

How is this handled?[edit]

Hi there,

I went through and validated Index:Stevenson - Treasure Island.djvu. It has a TOC on the Index page and I went through all the chapters to make sure everything was in order. But then I found Treasure Island which is not hooked up to the source. How is this reconciled? Also there is another version of the book beginning Treasure Island (1911)/Part One (without a source) that was is also hooked up to Treasure Island. Perhaps there were some POV concerns about it per Talk:Treasure Island.

The other version has its own set of links, e.g. Treasure Island (1911)/Part Two etc.

Also, I finished off all the images in Index:Elizabethan People.djvu so now it should be complete (if the last few images are validated.)

Yes check.svg Done except for page 461 which I had trouble with. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Best wishes, Mattisse (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I tried to fix it. I don’t know how to give a hearder to the whole group starting with Treasure Island (1911)/Part One etc. I searched and could not find the version that contains the colour photos of that version. Mattisse (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems we have a bit of an issue in that someone has done a match and split without matching various editions of the work. Ouch. I think that this is going to need some reflection. I don't have the time and opportunity to do so at the moment. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Understand. I know you are busy. Thanks for verifying my confusing! Mattisse (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Just discovered that N.C. Wyeth painted the lush pictures for the 1911 edition (according to Wikipedia) but I don’t think they should be added to the version based on the 1883 edition. Mattisse (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Correct, though they probably belong in a version of their own. As CI has his head wrapped around it, I will leave it in those capable hands. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I did some of the M&S on the 1883 edition. The extant text matched the djvu well and I've only noted a few anomalies such as semi-colons. I had not seen the /Part One, Two... pages. If the TOC is off the others, then maybe we need two TOC. There may be a few Page:s with images from the other edition that should be removed. The POV comment on the talk page seems to be about the blurb up-top off Wikipedia that was rather glowing prose; it's since been cut. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the welcome and the award! MichelleG (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

In the Roar of the Sea[edit]

Thanks for shepherding this through all the processes so that it is now complete! I think this is the first work I downloaded and proofed all by myself. Thanks! Mattisse (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. I hope you did a glorious and verbal "OH YES!, in conjunction with momentary WINNER! pose, followed by a momentary desk-bound shimmy. wink. All I have to say is that "You are a machine!" smiley. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps recheck "In The Roar of the Sea" for .pdf download. I was going to read it offline but the .pdf file was not working properly. I saw lots of code over many pages. I work a lot with .pdf files but still I may have made a mistake or perhaps my browser is kaput. —Brother OfficerTalk 21:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Another question to bother you with![edit]

Hi, I have been trying out the "section" instructions. Can you figure out why in Southern Life in Southern Literature/David Crockett shows part of the Audubon page on it? I tried to copy exactly the formatting of Southern Life in Southern Literature/John James Audubon which uses "section begin" and "section end" to chop off the rest of the page that isn't relevant.

Sorry for bothering you with so many requests for help! Please forgive.

Mattisse (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done sDrewth 23:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Note the | override_author = … where we play with the editing. Also the removal of the coding div which gives us the top page number. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much! I'm trying to absorb this - the "override" business. And the removal of the div. I truly appreciate all your help. Believe it or not, I am learning, and it is so helpful that you are willing to point these issues out to me. Mattisse (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The <div> removal is a recent change and one that we all still need to get our head around. The author field is wikilink'd by default (for ease of use, hence the override turns off the automatic aspect and allows for traditional linking, and same applies for the translator and override_translator — billinghurst sDrewth 07:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


Hey Billinghurst,

thanks, I'm used to WP formatting, but the gap tag certainly looks better. I am having a problem however, I want to make the entire text indented into a column along the center, but be left justified within that column (and am aiming to have the text line up roughly with the image size). Do you know of a way to do this? - Theornamentalist (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

sounds like use of a table. We have {{block center}} (based on a table) which could do the job. Then format the text to suit. We have {{larger}} … {{xxxx-larger}} that increment themselves through the ranges. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know I could do that. Thank you for your help :) - Theornamentalist (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey Billinghurst,

You were right to delete that, I must have missed it when tagging. Thank you for removing them all - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


Index:Florian - The Fables, 1888.djvu has been completed. I changed template to overflow at the moment. Wasn't sure if finishing Index:Our American Holidays - Christmas.djvu was still on the table or not. --Xxagile (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hell, being December and us all being busy, I picked a smaller work, and all finished with a week. Go figure! I am happy with whatever you choose to implement, as sharing the responsibility is good. If you are time poor, we can dig through whatever is in reserve. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I looked at Our American Holidays and it seems like something that we can get done this month. Some short poetry is included so it should be easy to finish. Except for exams next week, time is not an issue for me. Would you mind changing the templates? I'm not sure if anything extra is needed to put Florian as already completed this month at the bottom.--Xxagile (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
For a one off, we would be better to play with little works and just customise that with the one work and a comment after the text, and all inside the tags. If nothing happens for the moment, we are okay and I will look later. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Index:Our American Holidays - Christmas.djvu has now been Yes check.svg Done --kathleen wright5 (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


Actually, I only warned him; I've checked back a few times and nada. Should I ding him? I suppose I could use the activity ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It didn't show anything particular in the CU, I noted as if I run a check I need to say so. Looks like a hit and run, so at this stage, I think that we are fine. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Some kid, methinks. I'll block if such don't stop or are obviously on a spree. It's not an SUL account, but the name's been in use for years. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Humorous(?) tale: Some time before I began playing on here myself, one of my children (when aged 12 or so) decided to "play" with the "Dr. Pepper" page on Wikipedia, confessing only when surprised that the page was corrected by admins within seconds... Some time later, when researching Mrs. Coates (poet), I remembered that [hopefully] single act of vandalism and resumed to redeem our IP address! Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
There are the random "wee, poom, bum, …" events, mostly by IP, and they are fairly evident to what they are and usually are onesies (and the act of noticing and marking by addition of {{test}} seems to be sufficient deterrence). There are the occasional logged accounts, and when it has some similarities to other events, or has the look of someone clueful or growth potential, there is the benefit for doing a quick behind the scenes looks. That is as far as this went, I saw nothing that made me want to go further at this point. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I have a story. My real name is long-taken as a wp:user name by someone else; it's a common name. Years ago, my mom was visiting, and I was showing her what wp is. I made some edits to show her what it's like and then suggested she write something. I didn't want her edits on my account, so I just logged out and let her go as an IP. She made a few that were actually quite accurate, but were rather on the cynical side. I was siting next to her and she had my laptop. *reverted* by the fellow with my name. I had a hard time convincing her that it was not me messing with her. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Volume XLIV[edit]

Have most of volume completed in the transition to alternate djvu source number 1. Page quality seems much improved. Would like to have retained pages 210-214 (small holes in page), 239, 242-245 (folded images), and 290-291 (missing pages) from the previous source.

Pages 104, 105, and 127 seem to retain their image pages from the previous source (read mode only - proper image appears for the edit portion), the latter of the three being the most offensive. Was hoping you might be able to remedy that.Yes check.svg Done

Pages 284-291 will require some additional maintenance. Pages 290 & 291 images are missing from this file, there were also duplicates of 282 and 283. Was able to use matching function to provide logical numerical sequence for these text pages…images may be confusing prior to the maintenance.

There are also several pages that I matched which may not have been necessary. Page Dictionary of National Biography volume 44.djvu/44 is one such example. If I can remove the matching statement and the remaining pages retain their current images, then the presentation would be much improved…Thanks…JamAKiska (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, been a busy week and where I have been otherwise distracted, and not able/wishing to apply the few unallocated brain cells. From the above text, I can see anindication of issues, though it isn't obvious what solution you are wishing to implement, so I will have to see if I can work it out. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
No worries, adjusted above links for offset of 12. Please focus your attention on djvu pages 296 to 303, which appear to me to be the weak link for this file. The text found on DJVU pages 296-301 is offset by two from their respective images [using a match to link text with image on those 6 pages] to create a gap for the text on the numerically sequenced DJVU pages 302-3, the latter two pages having no associated images on this file. Am looking for ways to "splice" those two missing images into this sequence, to help in the proofreading process. JamAKiska (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I understand now. I missed the vital bit of information that you had uploaded an alternate version of the file, and that we were going to look to align. Questions that I should ask, is 1) did you trim or pad the start of the file to align the early pages, 2) have you purged the file at Commons to push a new copy of images and text etc. to Wikisource? — billinghurst sDrewth 14:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Am unfamiliar with how to perform the first step, from file review looks like no adjustments were made, have verified all of the new images are in place, except as stated in last discussion. JamAKiska (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The Haunter of the Ring[edit]

Hi Billinghurst, I'm not sure if you are the right person to notify about this, but when I was validating The Haunter of the Ring, I noticed that pages 3 and 4 are swopped around. I'm not sure how to put them in the right order (or if that's even possible to do without altering the source file). Can you let me know what needs to be done? MichelleG (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC).

PS, it's ready to go after that's sorted out, the actual texts on the pages look correct to me. MichelleG (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC).
Thanks MG, you are quietly working away learning the skills very nicely.smiley With the scanned work, we would have to rejig the pages and upload the file again, however, we can change the order of the way that we transclude the pages to the main namespace to get that right. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I fiddled the text around and proofread the the two pages, they again need validation. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the nice comments. I've stuck to simple validation and proofreading so far, but soon I might branch into more challenging things. I especially enjoyed reading bits of the recent Christmas book with my son while I validated it. MichelleG (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC).
I do find that Wikisource:Proofread of the Month is a great place to start. We try to find something of interest, something different and the active transcription is a place to watch, look and pretty supportive and collaborative. Do feel welcome to come to the talk page and have input to future works. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

book question[edit]

I recently added [6] to be used instead of my premature attempt here [7] which should probably be removed? Or should I just leave it for now? Daytrivia (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

We try not to waste good efforts. I have done a mix and match on Chapter 1, so that is now applied. To note that we try to give chapters as 1, 2, 3, ... rather than I, II, III, ... so that we can better deep link books ahead of time. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks much. Daytrivia (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Man oh man! You really did a lot of work and nonchalantly taught me a few things. Thanks again. I have read this book and although somewhat bias it is well done and very interesting. Daytrivia (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Linking to an anthology[edit]

I am in the process of adding Life in the Open Air and other papers, a posthumous anthology of works by Theodore Winthrop. I have added the components of the anthology as separate entities, with a introductory note on each, stating that the component is part of the anthology. My question is: Is there a formal way of linking a story to its parent anthology, rather than just linking in the notes section at the top of the page? •••Life of Riley (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There is guidance rather than a hard and fast ruling, and excuse me if I take it back to explaining the principles first. Generally as much of what we are working on these days is from a copy of a work at Commons with the text in our Index:/Page: namespace, we try to have the meta work (collection/compendium/...) at the top level of the namespace, and all the parts of as subpages, with each individual component having a redirect at the top of main namespace (which is also very helpful with disambiguation). This way they are already part of the set, and easily link up in table of contents and next/prev, label each as a section, title top link, etc.

If the work has not been typeset in that form, and each component has been set at the top of the main namespace, then we would generally look to utilise the Notes field to provide a standard line for the information about a work. Obviously you can still utilise the prev/next to link works of the anthology. So no, there is no formal/designed means when all the works are set at the top of the main namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

please help[edit]

Is this right, i put it on commons : File:Kosovo_OSCE_Legal_System_Monitoring_Section_Monthly_Report_-_August_2008.djvu thanks Mdupont (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, and I have created the index page at Index:Kosovo OSCE Legal System Monitoring Section Monthly Report - August 2008.djvubillinghurst sDrewth 15:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! This is a great system, I see that there is alot of potential to improve on the bad quality texts provided from unmik, many of them are not even in text format. thanks! Mdupont (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Generally we prefer something in .djvu format, and if you upload a file to, they will convert it to that format over the course of a day or two. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

please undelete Robert Elise translation[edit]

we now have permission to use the translations from Robert Elise, can we please undelete the work? User_talk:Prosfilaes#Permissions thanks mike Mdupont (talk)

DNB number signs instead of "section begin" and "end"[edit]

I have been getting two number signs when I try to put section begin or end. This is happening with more and more frequency. Any ideas why? Daytrivia (talk) 06:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, ThomasV changed the coding for how sections display especially as newbies were not getting it right, so rather than start and end, it is just required to do ##"label name"## in the Page: namespace and it does internal conversions. I'll hunt up the discussion. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikisource:Scriptorium#Easy LSTbillinghurst sDrewth 09:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the explanation and the discussion. Daytrivia (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble but cannot get this page [8] to stay as I saved it. When trying to edit the next article it changes the one I did. If you have the time could you have a look? Thanks much. Daytrivia (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 17:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Huge thanks!! Daytrivia (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Me again. It is becoming very frustrating just when I think its working things fall apart with this group of pages. Can't do much when saved previous or next pages are unstable. Hope I get this soon. Daytrivia (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I clicked "Use the old syntax in the Page namespace" in my preferences/gadgets and haven't had a problem since ;-) cygnis insignis 03:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Great Scott! Things are working much better. Thanks Cygnis insignis and Billinghurst for your help. Daytrivia (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I have one query. Is it permissible to put up scholarly papers presented in conferences? I have permission from the author. If yes then how do I go about it? Thanks for your help.--Anishshah19 (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If it is peer-reviewed it is okay as it fits within WS:WWI. Best guidance and discussion at Wikisource:WikiProject Academic Papers. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.--Anishshah19 (talk) 10:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
In continuation to the query....Can I use this license: [9] ?--Anishshah19 (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I am led to believe that we do NOT, due to the fact that they have the NON-something statements so are not free. Have you had a look at Help:Copyright tags? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again. Yes You are right. Thanks I will use this license then CC-BY-SA-3.0. Now how do I prove that I have got permisssion to use this license from the author. Will a mail from the author that he understands the above license and gives permission be sufficient? If yes, then the mail is to be sent to whom? Incidentally, the paper is published here [10]. --Anishshah19 (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
For permissions, we duplicate the process as prescribed at Commons:OTRS though modifying to describe the work at English Wikisource, and the mail sent to . So upload the work, stick {{OTRS pending}} and put the links into the permissions as per Commons. The people who manage the mailbox will then convert to having an OTRS with a number. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --Anishshah19 (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've struck again at Wikisource:Proofread of the Month/little works ![edit]

Just a short note to say that I've struck again at the above page. I've finished the queued works except for Michelson 1881 and MichelsonMorley 1886 which have too much maths for me. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Umm, okay, at this stage they are now reasonably hard to find though Hesperian has bugzilla'd and there is now a solution in the pipes, though no idea when we can get it functioning. Want to play on this Index:Two Sussex archaeologists, William Durrant Cooper and Mark Antony Lower.djvu? — billinghurst sDrewth 08:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
As a thought, I will (temporarily) also add works with only a little bit to go. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and a question pls.[edit]

Thanks for the award, although I am not sure why I qualified for it. :-) Have you, or anyone else seen Matt? Thanks. - Ineuw (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You did some work on one of the PotM, so that qualifies; it is about inclusion and participation, not about measuring. :-) Re Matt — he has been around in IRC, so threaten him with some gelding shears on his talk page, and maybe send him an email reminding him that his worthlessness will come back to haunt him.winkbillinghurst sDrewth 01:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Index Page Moves[edit]

Yeah, I noticed the SQL hissy fit. I had moved the pages so that commons would no longer see the files in use and someone over there would be willing to move (rename) them. I see this is not a good idea, so I'll avoid moving Index pages it in the future. --Eliyak T·C 04:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip and the offer of help. Best, Eliyak T·C

Florian's Fables question[edit]

I am confused as to what you did here... I can not view the full page of text now when in edit mode... only the top portion shows up. ALSO, how do you break up the text for the purpose of transcribing Page text to Mainspace? It also seems to me that the final portion of "The Two Cats" on [actual] page 32 might not be correctly aligned when all is said and done...? Could you show me by overwriting below how the formatting should be rendered in the Mainspace (sorry if my terminology is incorrect)? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 | title      = [[../]]
 | author     = Jean Pierre Claris de Florian
 | translator = John Wolcott Phelps
 | section    = The Two Cats
 | previous   = [[../The Child and the Looking-Glass/]]
 | next       = [[../The Prince and the Nightingale/]]
 | notes      = 

<pages index="Florian - The Fables, 1888.djvu" from=36 to=38 />

I have transcluded the pages to here. You are correct about the coding on the page, we had an edit conflict when on it, and I had to resurrect, and I have made an edit to <noinclude the first formatting. To what is being done, it is dividing the page into sections to allow partial transclusion of one section. The programmer has made some recent modifications, and if that is the question then please see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2010-11#Easy LST. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I will stew over the link about sections, but I will not create/touch the remaining pages in Fables of Florian that involve sectioning for fear of messing things up! I have noted:
<pages index="Florian - The Fables, 1888.djvu" from=36 to=38 tosection="The Two Cats"/>
Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
They may look ugly, however, they are not. Under the new scheme
Labels in Page namespace
  • Section label where a section starts ## "Section name" ##
  • A section will finish where the next section starts (see above), at the end of a page (a default), or where you tell it to stop ####
Transclusion into main namespace
  • fromsection="Section name" where the text starts on a partial page
  • tosection="Section name" where the text finishes on a partial page
The official page is at mw:Extension:Labeled_Section_Transclusionbillinghurst sDrewth 02:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Looking now at the page history, I think I may have messed you up here when italicizing the header title... If so, I apologize. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for adding the TOC and anchors on the Coates poetry page... It helps navigation greatly! And also for the other responses to my help requests... Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • RE: Conceptually... Not being sure how notifications work, I'm just letting you know that I responded to your posting on my talk page. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    Your talk page is on my Watchlist, so we can just have a conversation there. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • RE: Participation award... Awesome... Thank you, and Merry Christmas! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreement of the people[edit]

Thanks for the info and thanks for the deletes -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

list fix[edit]

Where was that discussion on this fix, or what is the benefit? I see how it works, or nearly does, but not why. I have undone it a few times, especially after using the text, I found that copy paste strips the numbers amongst other things. Creating white (or empty) space needs a pretty good reason too, I think it should avoided; think I mentioned this point with regard to Similar above the header.

All in all, isn't expending this energy toward adding value at wikipedia a better idea, there is diminishing returns on making plain text transcripts more complex, perhaps less reusable, at this sister. There are hundreds of improvements that can be made to w:Francis Chenevix Trench, how the list is done is one these, just existing is useful as people use the info to improve other articles. I think the way the DNB is being to used to build and fix wikipedia is pretty exciting, and there is lots of little and large tasks that emerge for an active and large body of editors. I often find missing or incorrect facts at that place, and I find some problematic family names and disambuguation (like the Trench articles); I remember you are interested in these things, would you like me to let you know? cygnis insignis 08:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Charles_Matthews#not covered in directions and it was a way that Magnus had been doing bits, and I mentioned somewhere else at a point. Cannot find it at this time. Value? IMO it presents an easier list to read, and more in line with modern bibliographic means plus one that is more readily able to be pasted to author lists. White space isn't the issue compared to printed paper. Note that I did more on that set of edits, I validated the pages, added wikilinks and made the reference setting roll together better. I work on many biographical and geographical works beyond DNB. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


This user seems intent on causing drama, casting aspersions, and advertising a link we have previously suppressed. They are highly focused and pretty cunning about it too, I think a block is warranted. cygnis insignis 07:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I was in the process of blocking, then thought that I would make it a warning. I am not uncomfortable with a block. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
"…advertising a link we have previously suppressed"
I had no idea that the Register story had previously been suppressed.
"This user seems intent on causing drama, casting aspersions…"
My intention was solely to oppose the plainly unjustified block of Ottava Rima. Since then I have been bullied and censored at every turn. 08:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The block has expired. What do you intend to do now? cygnis insignis 08:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I suppose you squandered the chance to unblock him?
Here's a tip: if you want people to treat you with respect, treat them with respect in return. You talk of your high standards of civility, but in the short time I've spent here today, I confess I haven't the foggiest idea of what you're talking about. There is a whole wide world out there in which you do not have special powers to bully and silence people. Don't let this evidently completely unchecked power get to your head. 08:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
What do you intend to do now? cygnis insignis 08:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Unsure; let me think about it. Goodnight. 09:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The matter on whether the url had or had not been previously posted is not relevant. It was judged on its own merits, and that it is a matter about the person that is in breach of site policy. I didn't block you as I believed that a warning was sufficient, though it was close.

That you think that the block of Ottava Rima was unjustified is solely your opinion, and you are entitled to it, others thought it was and that is there opinion, they have standing in this community and for that I give them the respect due to their work here. It was one day, and the person had been warned and continued with the behaviour. So it clearly needs to be acknowledge that Ottava Rima was blocked for continuing the behaviour AND ignoring warnings and if the behaviour had been moderated I do not believe that would have occurred, and really it is only 24 hours. Can I suggest that rather than arrive from other wiki dramas that you lessen the umbrage, calmly state your case, and listen to opinions. We are a considerate lot, and in this situation, there is not a need for a NOW NOW NOW response. This is an important matter to discuss, it is not emergency management. Happy New Year. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Billinghurst, did you forget that I had standing in the community? That I was friends with John, with you, and even worked with Cygnis for quite a long time? I find it odd how I, the one who initially sent to the CUs what I found as really problematic emails and complained about Poetlister's use of Wikisource to try and get real life information of me and others to go ignored and to have that happen. Why are my concerns to be met with outright dismissal as quoted by Hesperian before any warnings? Why am I treated like someone who doesn't have the right to be protected and then, when I air a concern I am bullied? I was extremely polite in my wording and phrasing, yet I am kicked to the curb as a dog. The Blocking Policy makes it clear such blocks cause community harm yet so many all from the same circle of friends gave up any previous history with me just to act in that way. Shouldn't you be concerned about any of this that since Poetlister's harassment was one of the reasons why I stopped working on Wikisource? John knew it because I talked to him frequently on IRC about it when it was happening. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Our IRC conversation intervened, and the reply that I had in preparation was overtaken by that conversation. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I told Birgette that you have permission to share any portions of the IRC conversation with the other CUs or the Crats to discuss the matter of Poetlister. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Use Page Image broken[edit]

I've looked at {{use page image}} and I think one can't do what it's trying to do. It's trying to use the variables from pagespace in mainspace but when it transcludes into mainspace it simply takes the local value, which doesn't give meaningful output. I don't know much about these things so maybe it is possible to do this another way but I have put together a work around that requires coding in the index name and page number. I'm using it at The Complete Confectioner (1800) partly as a test but mostly because it does what I want for the time being. My template is at User:Doug/Sandbox3.--Doug.(talk contribs) 18:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Search links in disambiguation pages[edit]

I've added a box to Template:Disambiguation/info to replace the previous text (All pages with titles containing "{{PAGENAME}}" etc). Is this the sort of thing you wanted? The format is based on {{Wikipedia}} and it was put together in one of my sandboxes. If {{plain sister}} is called by the header, it displays above this box and they do not appear to conflict.

I thought about adding similar code to {{plain sister}} and calling it from {{disambiguation}} but this seemed a little more straight forward. I can always go back and implement that instead if necessary. Alternatively, this code could also be split off into its own template. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

AdamBMorgan. You do very nice work. Thanks. I have done some tweaks, wrap the search in quotes, and to indicate the Prefix component will be in that namespace.— billinghurst sDrewth 22:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
If I click on the "intitle" link it doesn't seem to work. See, The Compleat Confectioner. It did the same thing before the change, it was on my list of things to mention today on IRC, but I didn't get that far.--Doug.(talk contribs) 21:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Your issue with the search not working may have been as above or that your pages of interest are yet to be indexed. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, probably the latter, I wasn't aware there was a wait for that.--Doug.(talk contribs) 23:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


You've probably seen me on your watchlist, wandering across this work for the FTC. Enjoyed reading it, though it was a little too close to home.... ;-)

It seems odds that the lectures are all under /Lecture 2, /Lecture 3, /Lecture 4, et cetera, except Lecture 1, which is under title /The Curtain Lectures. I see why you've done that now: because the contents page lists "The Curtain Lectures" starting at the first page of Lecture 1. But the phrase refers to all of the lectures, not just the first one.

I have a suggestion:

  1. Display the contents on the root page exactly as its appears in the book, without the novel navigational stuff.
  2. Let the first title subdivision be exactly as shown on the contents page: /List of illustrations, /Bibliographical Note, /Author's preface, /Introduction, /The Curtain Lectures and /Bibliography. Thus we honour the structure of the book first and foremost, and only impose our own structure second.
  3. Since it is only the "The Curtain Lectures" section that we're splitting into multiple pages, put the novel navigational stuff at /The Curtain Lectures. The lectures themselves are components of the "The Curtain Lectures" section, so put them at /The Curtain Lectures/Lecture 1, /The Curtain Lectures/Lecture 2, etc.

Happy to do the work if you like the idea.

Irrespective of what you think of the above, we need consistency on sentence versus title case. At present we have Mrs. Caudle's curtain lectures, /List of illustrations, /Author's preface and /Lecture the last, all sentence case; but /Bibliographical Note and /The Curtain Lectures, both in title case.

Hesperian 12:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Not watchlisted pages, though I have seen you on RC. I am willing to give it a go, and have made the changes. To note that I later regularly found it referred to with the capitals in its name, and cursed. At Mrs. Caudle's curtain lectures/The curtain lectures I have done a paste of the image and the created ToC, and still left it in the class="headertemplate", though had to wrap it as it forces width=100%. Went to add the lecture titles, however, some were long, and would need more formatting, either a column of their own, or some indenting; or to let them go full width. Before I tromped off, I didn't want to overly risk undo undo undo ... — billinghurst sDrewth 13:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
You haven't quite done what I suggested in my last sentence, but I certainly call this an improvement. Ta. Hesperian 13:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Didn't even see the leading slash %-/ — billinghurst sDrewth 14:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


User:TeleComNasSprVen (contribs) has tagged a bunch of redirects to nonpages you created (mainly DNB) for speedy deletion. Are these useful, perhaps as redirects to planned pages, or should they be deleted? --Eliyak T·C 08:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverted them and left a note for user. They are coming bios, either as author pages or DNB bios, so they may as well continue to exist. It is the problem of whether to leave them as unusual redlinks, where redirects will be created later, or to create them at the time. Easier to create them at the time. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


Is there a way to indent only the second line and subsequent lines of a paragraph? E.g. in the following bill text, I would like the first line to remain aligned left, but line 2 & subsequent lines I would like indented:

Whereas serious differences of judicial and other opinion have arisen both as to the policy and proper interpretation of an act of Congress of July second, eighteen hundred and ninety (chapter six hundred and forty-seven), relating to restraints of trade; and so forth, resulting in grave uncertainty detrimental to the public welfare; and...

Thank you, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

a {{hanging indent}}?, this gives

Whereas serious differences of judicial and other opinion have arisen both as to the policy and proper interpretation of an act of Congress of July second, eighteen hundred and ninety (chapter six hundred and forty-seven), relating to restraints of trade; and so forth, resulting in grave uncertainty detrimental to the public welfare; and...

it will wrap to the page width - try it. cygnis insignis 20:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes yes YES! Thank you! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Also to note {{hanging indent inherit}} aka {{tl|hii}} which is useful if you have cascading indenting and/or the indenting travels across a page break (Page: ns), as it uses relative markers. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The former worked perfectly, and I will keep the latter in mind! Thanks again, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


I couldn’t find a better example to help Father Benet…JamAKiska (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Use page image[edit]

This is broken at every page I looked at. I think all these templates should be merged, they serve a single function don't they. cygnis insignis 05:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean that it doesn't insert the image in the main namespace? If so, yep, that is what I was looking to fix. And was in the process of updating before the time disappeared, so I reverted while I got things in order. My plan (if my coding works out) is to have a javascript gadget that we can click and it will add the template and the image, rather than have to type it, and hopefully even mark it problematic.

With relation to your "merge" statement, there has been IRC banter about it, with no firm proposal for the community. I suppose the big question is which is the preferred output? {{missing image}} or {{use page image}} or {{page contains image}}, or should we allow three outputs, and just different displays, thus allowing some choice? Happy to have anyone's thoughts on which and why?

Oh you meant that I didn't revert far enough. Sorry about that. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
"This page is incomplete, see help:adding images and the source of this scan". Nutshell: Someone needs to go to, get the better image, then use it to replace that maintenance tag. I think every other function just confuses the issue, answers to the wrong question, the compromises and workarounds are more complicated for the user than the task of adding the image properly. If someone doesn't want to add clean image content, they can add the tag and do something else. cygnis insignis 05:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Something has gone wrong with Template:Block on the image of Frederick Locker[edit]

Something has gone wrong with the above template, I tried to correct it in edit mode but it did'nt work. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done it had an extra pipe. :-/ — billinghurst sDrewth 13:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Have I said how much of a star you are? Thanks for all the validating all over the place. It's great! — billinghurst sDrewth 13:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

re:Wrapped it[edit]

Still seeing the errors this time? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It is all good now. Sorry, I realize I should have left a note at the talk page that I had reverted your edit. --Eliyak T·C 03:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
No issue from me, it was good of you to do it, and I can read watchlists fine I wasn't seeing the error from my parts of the testing, and then had to deal with a bit of an emergency. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Text size formatting[edit]

After an extended hiatus, I've resumed work on the Lincoln-Douglas Debates (Index:Lincolndouglas2184linc.djvu). Before I do too much more work on it, I wanted to ask your opinion on text sizing. Sections of the book use smaller (and smaller still) text to indicate lengthy quotes (and quotes within quotes) many of which span multiple pages. In some places this sizing is very clear (see, for example, original page 58, with three different sizes, with the normal size indicating text by Edwin Erle Sparks, the small text from the New York Herald, and the smallest text from The Times, quoted by the New York Herald (quotes begin on the prior page). But most of the text in this book comes from the speeches of Lincoln and Douglas, which means most of it is printed in a small size. Is that a problem, and is there a better way to deal with this? Thanks, cmadler (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back. Our principle is the text is the king, as it is the word and intent of the author. So while we can look at reproducing some of the typographical work of the editors and the printers, we need to manage the printer's artefacts in a web world. So my advice would be look to modify the size of the text as is appropriate to indicate the intent, however, where you see output that is "just stupid to do it that way on the web" then modify appropriately. At the same time, we try not to over-format works and let people who set controls in their browsers, to let them be applied, hence we use a lot of relative sizes, {{smaller}} is favoured for that reason. On occasion I have made a typeset decision to blockquote parts of works, or similar to enable the ease of reading. So that is general guidance, if you want specifics probably worth doing some of the work, transcluding to main namespace and to see how it looks. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

New work that may interest you[edit]

Doug and I have found a way to extract books from the abandoned UPenn website. The first book was uploaded as File:The Art of Distillation, 1651.djvu. The second book, which may interest you as a history bod, is Raphael Holinshed's The Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland, which runs to 2857 pages. It is being uploaded as I type as JPGs, since the 5GB+ isn't practically reducible to <100MB for Commons. You can find the pages at Index:The Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland, Holinshed, 1587.jpg. Just to let you know, Doug now considers you to be indentured pending the validation of this work. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 01:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


Also, what do you think of this implementation of spanning braces? It uses the LaTeX math markup, which I have worked out how to pass parameters into. It still doesn't scale when lines wrap, but at least it doesn't break up into bits (though the end points get kind of lost). Thoughts? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 01:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

They stretch nicely with expanding the width, very nice. Generally that would be the default, though the question is, do we want thicker? Also, it is unclear on the height issue with lines, though maybe I am reading more into it. I think that it is explainable, just need to think and understand it. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
You could make it a little thicker by removing "\scriptstyle{}", and possibly bold the the brace (not sure how you do that, but I must be possible. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 03:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

{{cat-soft redirects}}[edit]

Hi Billinghurst, thank you for creating the dated soft redirects categories these last few months. I'd like to advert to the template {{cat-soft redirects}}, which not only places the dated soft redirects categories into Category:Soft redirects but also displays an explanatory text whose content depends on the current time (i.e., whether the category under consideration is the current dated soft redirects category or one of the previous ones). This should make things more convenient for both creator and users.--GrafZahl (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

K. I have added a note to the parent category, as that will be a reasonable reminder for me. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for your support & help… As a heads up…am clearing up 1885 volume 3, having replaced djvu file with readable first alternate which included pages 127-8. Am still transferring edited text (two page offset) but will finish soon…Would like to post pages for deletion/recreation on the DNB discussion page which will be limited to those pages lacking clean djvu text from initial editing effort. Am marking edited pages with running headers starting with text pages 137 to 350. If a page is unmarked it can be deleted and recreated. Hope to finish last 100 pages by tomorrow…JamAKiska (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest that if you are looking to do bulk deletions, that you set up tool like Wikipedia:Twinkle to make it easier upon yourself, and I don't see the need to post a list if you think that you have done the right selection. We can always undelete anyway, if one or two are wrong. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for the autopatrol. I found some amusement in "who should be spending time in our books, not his". Some people at Wikiversity have tried to encourage me to contribute more heavily there too! But Wikisource and Wikibooks, as you note, both have books, so it's far easier to seamlessly transition back and forth between them. Adrignola (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Am I wrong? BTW we can do it nicely or we can use chains.winkbillinghurst sDrewth 00:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

{{NYT link}}[edit]

Per your suggestion I tossed in year and author as parameters, but note that the other templates you mentioned generate internal links whereas mine generates an external link.

Since you obviously work on templates here, do you have any idea what's going on with this? It seems odd that it would have gone unnoticed. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 04:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Alex brolloBot activity[edit]

As soon as I read your contribution into Scriptorium, I stopped the bot and I uploaded Page:Horse shoes and horse shoeing.djvu/429 only. I used that page into User:Alex brolloBot as an example of djvu text -> python extracted text example. I'm very interested into the content of the book I'm uploading, and I can't wait to proofread it; nevertheless, I'll try to refine my algorithms to obtain the best automated formatting I can from cordinates of segmented text (para, line, word), before editing it manually or uploading new pages. --Alex brollo (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex. I have no problem with the bot's activities (as I tried to say at Scriptorium). It was about wanting to give limited licence to upload text for books where there was work going to be undertaken. We have a history of books being uploaded and nobody working on them, leaving us with a sea of red, which is undesirable. So, that is related to a policy discussion, rather than a technical discussion. Also, I see that it is worthwhile documenting what a bot is doing. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Now I understand! No, when I begin to work about a book, be sure that I'm deeply interested in its content, and I always do any effort to push it to level 3. Simply I take any opportunity to try and learn while uploading-proofreading it. Horse shoes are one of my preferred topics! :-) --Alex brollo (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"Default" maximum line width for poems?[edit]

Is there a "default" maximum line width for poems using <poem> formatting? I have found two cases where a word is cut off from a line of verse and placed on a new line. Please see:

Page:Poems, Volume 1, Coates, 1916.djvu/140 and
Page:Poems, Volume 1, Coates, 1916.djvu/131 Thank you,Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Is there a "resident" WS poetry go-to person for poem-specific questions?

No expert but I took a peek anyway and it seems Block center has not-to-easy-to-find width= parameter that needs to be used (in em or px only - no %'s). I added it to the first link and it seems to have stopped the wrap. This template is less than perfect when poem tags are involved from what I've seen. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that worked great! I reduced it to a 320 width min. for the first link so the poem title lines up better with the poem in the Main... and a width of 275 was all I needed for the second link... Thank you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
width is documented, and yes, it is a nuisance to use it, however, it is the nature of the beast with tables, and forcing a width does work.. To note as pointed out above, we need to have a fixed width, not a relative width. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
RE: "fixed width"... Are you refering to a fixed length applied to the block-center template or to the notation when transcribing a poem? Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I added a null value for width so it stops adding the parameter automatically even when no value is added in the Block-Center/s template, but that table style doesn't match the plain old Block-center one (which adds text-align with no value by default when the user doesn't add one as well). I know the wheels would fall off around here if poem was to blame for anything but you can't expect much from anything let alone poem when handcuffed by such slips in syntax/testing. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
This occurs when using drop initial, a workaround is to use a trailing gap on a line to normalise the behavior. Using width will stop it wrapping as it should. I haven't widely tested this with the poem tag, its only virtue was simplicity for new users and it shouldn't be recommended for use in Page. cygnis insignis 10:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
What is a "trailing gap"? I tried to find reference to it in Help but couldn't... Thanks all for the continued help! Happy to be a cog in the WS machine :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, a {{gap}} at the end of the longest line, which basically makes the line (invisibly) longer; hence for every trailing 2em gap, it moves it 1em to the left. Basically a sneaky fine tuning. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I tried using a {{gap}} here, but as some templates like to do, an unwanted empty line followed the corrected line... So I used width. Also, Billinghurst, I noticed you changed the width size from 320 to 370 here...Do you recommend there be a set min/max width to use for this purpose, or just whatever fits best? Lastly, is it the drop-initial then that is the culprit and not poem?? It does seem that only the second line of the beginning stanzas are affected...? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I changed the width as the line wrapped for me. In this situation, there is no need to pinch the width too small, be a little generous without being exorbitant. The purpose is to get it roughly into the centre of the page. Nobody is going to get the ruler out, so 20-30px over is not an issue. I will let Cygnis insignis address the answer to his question. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
It used to work, and was widely tested, it no longer does and I can only suspect the reason. cygnis insignis 10:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I addressed some possible solutions to the drop-initial issues here (scroll down further on the page to see about text-wrapping issues), and have applied them to the poems I have completed so far in Poems Vol. I. If anyone has better ideas, please let me know! Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the sign...[edit]

Could not find as template or category…thanks…should finish volume 22 later today. JamAKiska (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

k, probably easier to remember {{in use}} which is the same, but I just never remember that. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That 215->207 was so much easier…thank-you.JamAKiska (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Urantia book series[edit]

I'd like to upload one djvu file, but commons has a 100mb limit. I thought about resizing the images so they wouldnt have to be split, but I dont have the expertise yet. I have the original TIFF scans (2.5gb) and could potential make a new djvu, but I havent found the program to do that yet. If you've got some suggestions, I'm wide open. Xaxafrad (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Getting dirty with djvu files is not something that I have needed to do, there is information at Help:DjVu files, and some of its subpages. Others are more proficient, so we will spread some burley and let them reply with their hard-earned knowledge. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I can do it for you, and I can do it easily if all I have to do is split the work up into two or three parts. If, however, you want it all in one volume, I will have to reconvert it, and we will end up with lesser quality. I'm not certain about keeping the bookmarks, but to be honest, once we have it matched to the text, we wouldn't really need it. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

broken redirects[edit]

I saw this at a new users page,

I have reverted some of the speedy deletes that you created for redirects to DNB entries. These articles will be appearing as we step through the project so may as well continue to exist.

I can't see this a reason to create these, or to decline the speedy. I would object if someone removed a redlink at a page with a similar rationale, but this makes them appear blue. cygnis insignis 09:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The Harvard Classics Vol. 51[edit]

Questions in red below... Based on your (or someone else's) recommendations, I'll fix the pages... Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)




By Professor Ralph Barton Perry

Should an extra line be added here or keep a single line?

SINCE Milton wrote thus gallantly in its behalf, philosophy has fairly succeeded in living down its reputation for being "harsh and crabbed." No one who has made the acquaintance of Scholastic Philosophy, the philosophy of the Middle Ages, and still the established philosophy in Milton's day, can escape a secret sympathy with the view of these "dull fools."...

Should an extra line be added here or keep a single line?


I sincerely wish that I could recommend philosophy on grounds of efficiency and common sense...

It is a typographic decision, and more based on (1) the amount of benefit for the amount of input (ie. spend the time here or on a new work); (2) consistency across a work. If you can personally justify (1) and (2) then make a decision for one or the other. If the work is not complete, then wait until it is as the inconsistency will continue. Note that as the has been a communal work, the principle of follow the formatting style of the major contributor does not apply. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Lesson of the week :-)[edit]

Hi. Thanks for the opportunity in getting me to look at some other type of text when asked to place a graphic rule on this page. The lesson learned was that what I do is kindergarten stuff compared to some of the other text on WS. I now finally tackled and validated that page, since I was too tired to trust myself at the time. Also, the graphic rule led me to finally comprehend the difference between bitmap and vector graphics, so now I got interested in creating (by plagiarizing Inductiveload’s work) some additional graphic rule elements (as soon as I become more adept at using Inkscape). Have a nice day. — Ineuw talk 18:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Index volume 28.[edit]

They serve as an aid…and are not required when using mice…do as you think best…thanks! JamAKiska (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

YYYY and disambig[edit]

Hi, hope this finds you & your's well...

A quick question since I haven't seen this before - while patrolling I came across a YYYY bang for Critique of Pure Reason (1781) but it is using the {{translations}} header instead of the normal one and it doesn't seem to accept the year= parameter. What to do? — George Orwell III (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind - it accepts the parameter but just doesn't display it in the header. — George Orwell III (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Do we want to display it in the header? Come to think of it, is a year relevant for a disambiguation page? It would seem more likely that the years are likely to vary for respective translations. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Index:The Harvard Classics Vol. 51; Lectures.djvu has been finished[edit]

Just a short note to say that the above has been finished off. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Put PotM into overflow. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixing a faulty djvi file: en.source policy[edit]

I posted in the Scriptorium, but I ask you too, after a suggestion of Matisse. In brief: you were absolutely right warning me against the use of upload text layers by bot. Luckily I listened to you and I stopped my bot when "only" 350 of over 700 pages of Index:Horse shoes and horse shoeing.djvu have been uploaded from text layer... and now I find that djvu file is faulty, there's page 17 missing, and to a closer look other scanning mistakes too here and there. So I looked for a better djvu of the same book, I found it.... but at a closer look I found two missing pages too into it.

My question is: how can I fix the whole thing? I'll upload the new djvu file for sure and I'll move texts into the right pages to align them; but how can I manage the two missing pages? Can I merge two different djvu files into one, adding the missing djvu pages (obviously documenting what I do into the talk page of Index)? What is en.source policy about such kinds of (pretty frequent) scanning mistakes? --Alex brollo (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Too rigid to have a policy, our principle is to produce a work that represents what the author was producing, so hopefully we are pragmatic. We would try to be as pure as possible in that we be looking to merge versions of the same edition. If they are not the same version, looking at the text and seeing if we can justify our repair job. If not, then it is a thoughtful and practical exercise of being open with what one is doing, whether the pages should be omitted or not. I presume you have the tools to pull apart and rebuild a djvu file. You are going to need to get an admin to delete either pages or redirect, so I would suggest that you either have some clear instruction, eg. delete page XX to YY, or if it is not that simple, then please build a page with all the relevant pages linked.— billinghurst sDrewth 11:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Perfect. Yes I have some djvu tool running, I think that I'll fix text into a reasonable number of proofread pages (that are few), then I'll ask for a bot/a sysop help for mass moving, if needed. But I'll try to avoid any unnecessary wasting of time for any of you. I did the mistake, I'll fix it .... Thanks. --Alex brollo (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
If the text pages are just bot applied with no special edits, we should consider just deleting them as moving lots of pages can be a bit of a PITA, and it is easier to mass delete than it is to mass move. Often such pages are easily reapplied, even from another bot run. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
OK. This is very interesting, I'll import your suggestion into it.source (here I am mainly to learn tricks, templates and good guidelines to import there ;-) ). So, I'll work on djvu file and on proofread/validated pages only. --Alex brollo (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
To do bulk deletions I have been using a cut-down version of w:Wikipedia:Twinkle. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


trust you and yours got home safely - I am trying to compute the impact of the following two days at the moment (Australian War Memorial and ANU and my host were as challenging to me as the conference if you can imagine) - many things to follow up on - will keep you in the loop on some of them! SatuSuro 23:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Volume 58 upload[edit]

Am working my way through volume 58, but not getting many of the updated images from this morning’s upload. Have worked with commons, and have exhausted options from their end. Only item I can think of is to upload the file a second time, which was required with all of my previous uploads…any helpful thoughts? So far the images appear aligned correctly with existing text (found some duplicate text pages and otherwise some rough images from previous upload). Will stop after this upload with 3 volumes to go pending a change. JamAKiska (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Not much I can do with non-specific information when I don't know what has been done to the file. If you are talking about the two redlink page, the text that is pulled in is correct, the image in the general page, though is incorrect as the (very large) thumbnail that is slow to regenerate and we will probably just need to wait out the caching issue, just like when they generate as black images <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 23:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Prior to uploading trimmed off extra pages in front and back of AI file to align text images with existing proofed pages, as with all of the other uploads. The upload this morning seemed too smooth as I normally get a technical error from WS requiring a 2nd upload. During the afternoon upload got that error message, but apparently they received the file okay as both showed up in the expected location. I currently have the index page left as Needs OCR text layer. Verified all problematic pages have new text images, for now in the read mode…thanks…JamAKiska (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


Would you mind clarifying your position on my bot's flag per Birgitte, here: Wikisource:Scriptorium#Bot request - DougBot? Thanks.--Doug.(talk contribs) 06:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC) - disregard, issue is resolved. --Doug.(talk contribs) 20:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Aquinas work in PD?[edit]

Wondering if this work is in the public domain, or if as a translation (orig. by G. B. Phelan in 1935 as On the Governance of Rulers), it is still protected? Thank you, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Aquinas is long dead, so his works would be PD, though for that translation it would be seem to be this bloke, and that would indicate his translations would not be in the public domain unless they have been released by himself or his estate. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Name: Gerald Bernard Phelan
Birth - Death: 1892-1965
Source Citation:

  • Biography Index. A cumulative index to biographical material in books and magazines. Volume 1: January, 1946-July, 1949. New York: H.W. Wilson Co., 1949. (BioIn 1)
  • Biography Index. A cumulative index to biographical material in books and magazines. Volume 7: September, 1964-August, 1967. New York: H.W. Wilson Co., 1968. (BioIn 7)
  • The Macmillan Dictionary of Canadian Biography. Fourth edition. Edited by W. Stewart Wallace. Revised, enlarged, and updated by W.A. McKay. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1978. (MacDCB)
Thank you for looking into this for me...[Update: Found an 1881 version in Latin, and will stew over it] As an aside,

POTM question[edit]

I noticed on a POTM page that you removed the set-width I had applied... I think it looks better block-centered that way in the main (see here), and I have already applied the centering/width all the way to the Barred Owl entry. But if you feel that it is not a best-use practice, I'll go and change the formatting for those entries... Your call... Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

As we have discussed before, if there is no agreement to a formatting, there is the possibility that it will be changed when it hasn't aligned with what is on the page, especially when it is not what has been done by that contributor previously, which is why we discussed sometimes putting in very specific formatting in after the proofread stage. The formatting in that place is paragraph start indentation only, not a centred format. With regard to having a set width, that is always a big call on any page unless it is necessary. Similarly the placing of the images at the top right of each can be an issue, and the cropping of images would be somewhat contrary to Eliyak's proposal for the work. Anyway, not specifically under my stewardship this month. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
RE:images: I just found where Eliyak stated on 27 Jan with regard to images: "On looking at the images at commons, I see that most of them need to be cropped (some of them already have been)." He posted the first image for the project on this page(The Wild Turkey), which is where I thought I would give it a shot at cropping and touching up the images as derivatives; and with regard to the placing of the images (top right in the main), I merely followed suit with Eliyak's placement. I suppose I could pose the image question to Eliyak?
RE: formatting: I do remember posing a formatting question to you previously, and understand that it can be changed (esp. before the proofread stage)... I guess to be more specific: Is it more important that the formatting follow the "paragraph start indentation only" (as in the original text)?- or given the page-width difference between the original text and the WS Main pagespace, can the original formatting be tweaked somewhat for a better visual? I am not trying to re-hash an old question, but am asking your opinion about this text rendering specifically. Should I pose these questions on the Discussion page of the project in the future? Thanks again, Londonjackbooks (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Link help[edit]

Hi again, I wanted to link to the page Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/533 as an inline citation reference in the en article James Fitzmaurice but I made a rather messy link that I am sure could be better. Can you look at it for me here and perhaps make it better? TIA Ww2censor (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

We should really be working to have the relevant page(s) transcluded into the main namespace, and refer to there. Let us get George Orwell III (talkcontribs) involved here as he does more in the US legislation area and its presentation. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneGeorge Orwell III (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Author links to non-existent Wikipedia artticles[edit]

Hi. In regard to the list of authors HERE, should I begin to remove the links as we discussed some time ago, or should I be patient and wait until they are done by a bot? Realize that everyone is busy and don’t wish to impose, just not sure where this stands. Thanks. — Ineuw talk 01:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

My failure & I will try to get to them tonight. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a failure. Just concerned about the housekeeping I must do/look after to clean up initial errors. . . Now, it’s on to the image sources which need to be replaced. :-) Thanks again.— Ineuw talk 06:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Toggle button missing[edit]

Watch it reappear after I post this, but as of this morning, the toggle button (to open header/footer) is missing on any page I try to edit. Any ideas? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

lead suspect- Wikisource:Scriptorium#PLANNED_Mediawiki_upgrade_Wednesday_February_16_from_06:00_UTCGeorge Orwell III (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahh--Thank you... I will do some other task then... Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
If you go to your preferences, on the editing tab near the bottom you will find item called "Enable enhanced editing toolbar." Uncheck that box and save, then go back to the edit window and refresh, and the old toolbar, with header toggle button, should come back. —Spangineer (háblame) 13:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Fwiw... This seems to be a browser specific bug - I can get the enhanced toolbar to work even in IE6.unsigned comment by George Orwell III (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2011.
And the enhanced toolbar you see has a header toggle button? —Spangineer (háblame) 14:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
It was a fix of another problem that was run just prior to the upgrade, they knew it was going to happen. It would possibly be more prevalent in monobook users. <shrug> Should just need to be fixed the once. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes - the one with 'Show/hide this page's header and footer' [+] -- works too -- both monobook & vector. — George Orwell III (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Apparently not using the Google Chrome browser... I tried it twice. It works with IE, but my issue with IE is that it takes one minute or more to open up a page in edit mode; with Chrome, it opens up almost instantaneously. Until my son suggested using Google Chrome, I was wasting lots of time waiting for pages to open in edit mode. Perhaps I'll just wait until maintenance is complete...? Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
And you believe I would wait a minute or more while using IE for any task let alone editing? You may have some other factor/browser setting contributing to an IE slow-down but I'm only guessing at that. The "easiest" thing to do would be just to wait this out - I agree. 15:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 :) I am sure you all have much more common sense than I do--not to mention computer know-how... Believe it or not, I was willing to wait those 60-seconds for the past couple years. Ignorance is bliss! Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
(ec)How I am approaching it. 1) Fix your edit toolbar. 2) Wait for fixes on <pages> and <pagelist>. Magnus Manske did some measurement of browsers and the older browsers didn't cope with big and multiple js/css files. Chrome and FF4 were doing well in his testing. (wikitech-l archives in January). FF3.6.13 works for me and I usually have multiple windows going anyway, so if one takes a moment, it isn't an issue. IE, no how, no way! — billinghurst sDrewth 15:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Giving Firefox a try... Nothing looks good in Chrome; one of my kids likened the experience to driving through some streets in Palm Springs as opposed to perhaps this one in Georgetown. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC) [Nope, still doesn't look as good as in IE... but edit mode page opening speed is good (still have to wait out the WS maintenance though)]

p.s. {{Page}} works fine - you just forgot how to apply it - see your /2 page. — George Orwell III (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks <deskthunk> — billinghurst sDrewth 15:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Not using enhanced[edit]

I am not using the enhanced edit toolbar and the only problem I have is when moving the scan to see more text the edit window moves as well?? This minor problem is very recent, frustrating and time consuming when trying to find where I left off. Maybe all will be better tomorrow. Daytrivia (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Just noticing all of my "Bruce" pages are screwed up but don't know why and haven't the time tonight to repair whatever is wrong. They were good yesterday; what a difference a day makes. Daytrivia (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


Hi. I finished the story Lazarus (Best Russian Short Stories, pages 235-254). What should I do? Replace this text or should I make new translation like here?? Tommy Jantarek (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

We host them all where they meet WS:WWI, so we disambiguate. The base name is used for the disambiguation page, so I have moved the work that was there, and you can add a link to the new work there. Will also need to track down and update the links in. I have done some. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Tommy Jantarek (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for the welcome. I was researching for wikipedia and could help myself I started proofing. Blackash (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

and long may you stay to research and transcribe (while I quietly get the new chains fitted and comfortable for you). To note that we are always open to get more bait works available and so if you find books at or google books that need liberating, then we are here to help. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Well at least get padding, wine and cheese. Blackash (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, like d'uh! No slumming it here. Also working on a roster of visiting microbreweries, but that is having some issues, my research is getting bogged down. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
No only the best wine! .................Oh well I guess I can live with a $5.00 bottle. Blackash (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:Dear Sadie[edit]

Sadie I presume as in Sadie the Cleaning Lady. I'd like to suggest my own selection Index:The Methodist Hymn-Book Illustrated.djvu, as these hymns also appear in The Song Book of The Salvation Army — General William Booth having originally been a Methodist preacher. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

<g> Go and add your suggestion to the page. If it has musical notation, then we are probably still waiting for mw:Extension:LilyPond. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

patrol script.[edit]

So basically your issues with patrol are issues with mediawiki:Gadget-LinkPatroller.js, not mediawiki itself. The proper fix would be to make it use the api. (This will become easier next time there is a general code update, as edit tokens will be embedded directly in the normal link [this will also break the current script even further though] - rev:70278). However, A quick hacky fix might be to change the line:

       if ('The selected revision has been marked as patrolled.')!=-1) { 


       if ('The selected revision of')!=-1 &&'has been marked as patrolled.')!=-1) { 

So that it matches mediawiki:markedaspatrolledtext. (As a side note, this script probably breaks for non-en language prefs. Changing to using the api will fix that, and make it so it won't even break again, as the api's output is stable). Bawolff (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Match and split Selections from the writings of Kierkegaard[edit]

Found in wanderings, and it is messy

billinghurst sDrewth 03:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

General Redirect articles (DNB)[edit]

Please take a look at this page Balliol. Thought I’d try something different with these "general" redirects. The other page is Ballanden. Wanted to use the available space rather than create another DAB page. JamAKiska (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay with that, though that is a "conditional" okay.
  1. if others complain sufficiently, then I wouldn't want to cause ripples
  2. that if we have other Balliol works through the remainder of WS, then we may wish to review our position and look to a fuller disambiguation page
  3. as the referring text is user created, and not part of the actual work, we should differentiate it as such, so here I have wrapped it in a table and added class=headertemplate or we may think that it is better to do that within the notes field of the header. No firm opinion of which, though the latter clarifies what is the work, and what is not.
billinghurst sDrewth 02:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Well maybe that is the better way to go. Originally it made sense to redirect the reader to the entire volume index page. With some thoughtful editing, can help refine the search process for the reader. Use the "general" redirect as a link to the DAB page with all the details available in that location which maintains the proper boundaries (your point 3 above) for the reader, without muddying the water for the purist. Fortunately, have not seen too many of these so far…JamAKiska (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
As a future thought, we could even look to add section links to ToC page for the volume, and then just transclude them into the header notes field. Might be a little bit of work, however, adds some robustness for any future additions or modifications that are made to the ToC in that it will then replicate through without further work. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Added DABs and migrated links…thanks JamAKiska (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

File:TNE-Issue 03.pdf[edit]

When I look at the page -- -- I read in "description," "Creative Commons license: Attribution 3.0 United States", and in "Licenseurl" "". This makes me think that we are free to use this file here as long as we attribute it to the authors i.e. F.J. Mahoulahan, Carson Cistulli, Eamon Ffitch, Sean Casey, Jason Doctor, Justin Jamail -- the at times called "Shuttlecoque Sporting Club". -- 03:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The application of the licence at that site is not authoritative. For instance, I could uploaded that work with that tag. Where the licence is not part of the work, or clearly attributable to the author, then there is a different requirement for that work. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

How can we identify which works don't have a source?[edit]

Hi, just picking up on what Prosody was talking about a couple of weeks ago. Do we currently have an easy way to identify the works that are "bad"? I've found Hesperian's excellent list of works by Proofread status. But I can't find a list of works that don't have a loaded source. I've finally had the courage to have a go at Match & Split. Have done The Story of the Treasure Seekers and am working on my very first contribution The Church of England, Its Catholicity and Continuity. I currently don't have the brain power to keep going with the Grove Dictionary, but can manage these simpler kinds of tasks. However, I can't find a logical way to locate them. Any thoughts, other than "random book"? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Umm, err, umm that is a very good question I am not sure if there is an exact method to do that easily, meaning "Show me works that do not use ProofreadPage". That said there are a few indicators
It is something that we should know, and readily be able to check. I will do some asking and probing, so part of it will be a question on notice if that is okay. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Serendipity. As part of the code update next week, one of ThomasV's plans to identify these pages looks to be set to be implemented, so next week we may have Special:PagesWithoutScans though Special:LongPages will pretty much replicate that result in reality for quite a while.

billinghurst sDrewth 09:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've looked at Special:LongPages and am dismayed to find that many of our Shakespeare works are unsourced and poorly laid out. I'll see what I can do with a couple of them. I'm aware, of course, that there is extensive scholarship as to which version (Quarto/Folio) is the best for each play. However, I don't see a problem with WS hosting several versions of each. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Shakespeare is that old bloke, right? He killed Scottish Kings and played around with witches. That is my level of edumahkation. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

'Show me works that do not use ProofreadPage"'
equivalent to
'Show me mainspace pages with no Page: namespace transclusions'
? Or perhaps, to be picky,
'Show me the mainspace root pages for which all subpages have no Page: namespace transclusions'
. On that definition, it would be easy enough to write a script against the API to pull out a list. Hesperian 00:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, on reflection, at this stage it probably becomes an academic exercise when there are sooo many works on Special:LongPages, so reckon that we can park it for a little while. Also note that Profilaes has access to Distributed Proofreading backend, so we may be able to get edition data for any of those appropriated works. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Out of curiosity: By way of the Commons, I was directed to the toolserver and requested a report using JIRA. Is this what you have to do to fix my Author errors?. — Ineuw talk 19:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Overkill for what what we are trying to do. Variety of tools around beyond those hosted on toolserver. Yes check.svg Done btw. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Gracias— Ineuw talk 05:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

split link across pages 25 and 26 in Men of the Time/Allibone, Samuel Austin[edit]

I think I found a solution that displays correctly on all pages:

Perhaps it could be made into a pair of templates, similar to {{Hyphenated word start}} and {{Hyphenated word end}} ? -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Google Books sources for Men of the Time[edit]

There is a 10th edition (1879) at , and at the bottom of that page there is a gallery of other scanned versions of the 1879, 1884 and 1887 editions. Unlike the edition I mentioned earlier, at , many of these appear to be complete (not just the first of two volumes).

Curiously, many of these don't turn up in Google searches: perhaps Google filters out all but one version of the book even if they have scanned multiple copies. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

moving "Men of the Time" to "1884 Men of the Time"?[edit]

On similar grounds as "1922 Encyclopædia Britannica" and "1911 Encyclopædia Britannica", the "Men of the Time" book should probably be renamed "1884 Men of the Time".

It seems their policy was to remove a person's entry upon death, so the listed entries did change a fair amount over the years (with new editions roughly every four years or so, eg, 1875 and 1879 versions).

There are only a relatively small number of {{Men of the Time lkpl}} templates so far, so the change could be made with relatively minimal disruption (the Wikipedia template you created would also need to be changed). -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep(ish), I would think that it may need to be something like "Men of the Time, eleventh edition" especially as I have seen bits like DNB refer to it. I (we?) need to take a step back and to do a number of reviews of that and the underlying template which I have tried to set up to make refs to collective works more convenient and standard, and that also calls in another template that we use for fuller references. Shifting/renaming the djvu file is not impossible, though an amount of work, and I think that is just left where it is and we work around its name being not fully reflective of the reality. All that said, I am not able to get my brain into that quality thinking space this evening. Long days, long week. :-( — billinghurst sDrewth 10:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
We have serveral naming choices
  1. YYYY Men of the Time
  2. Men of the Time (YYYY)
  3. Men of the Time, nnnth edition
  4. Men of the Time (nnnth edition)
  5. Men of the Time/YYY
Personally I favour the third, as that is pretty much how DNB cites it. I would think that I would update {{authority/base}} to add both edition and year parameters, so that we have the requisite parts into {{Men of the Time lkpl}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Did some textcases, see Template:Men of the Time lkpl/testcases. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, Men of the Time, nnnth edition sounds fine. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. All moved. Local template updated, and moved pages linked properly through the default setting. Updated the template at WP, though it is not designed to link through except for 11th ed. If you see any issues, please get back to me. I will get to replacing with {{dated soft redirect}}s at a point. — billinghurst sDrewth
Thanks for carrying out the moves. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

moving "eleventh edition" to "11th edition" ?[edit]

The DjVu file at Index:Men of the Time.djvu has multiple missing page and fairly bad borderline unusable OCR text, due to a low-res scan (from a University of Michigan copy of the book).

I found another copy at (the Harvard University copy) which is higher-res, and uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons under the name commons:File:Men of the Time, eleventh edition.djvu , but it turns out that it also has four pages missing. Also, it seems to have a missing OCR text layer (no text loads when clicking on a redlink page number at Index:Men of the Time, eleventh edition.djvu ).

Finally, I found a third copy at (the University of Virginia copy), and uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons under the name commons:File:Men of the Time, 11th edition.djvu . This seems to have no missing pages (the numerical difference between the book's page number and the DjVu page number remains constant from start to finish). I can move the already proofread pages to new locations, and other adjustments. The index file is at Index:Men of the Time, 11th edition.djvu

The only drawback, perhaps is that it uses "11th edition" rather than "eleventh edition" (because the latter was already used up at Wikimedia Commons by the dud Harvard copy, and Wikimedia Commons does not seem to allow page moves).

Would it be OK to use "11th" instead of "eleventh"? (I can do the necessary page moves and adjustments and cleanup). Or is there some other way to handle it? -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, never mind, I will just ask a Commons administrator to do the move... -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The name of the File: only affects the name of the Index: and the Page:, not the transclusion to the main namespace. To also note that I am an administrator at Commons, initially for the reason of making such moves convenient for ourselves. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Moved 11th over eleventh, fixed up bits here and at Commons as necessary. In process of moving the pages from Men of the Time, aligning with the new location. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
OK. There were one or two pages corresponding to the "Doyle" entries, perhaps around Page:Men of the Time.djvu/358 or 356 or 360 or thereabouts, which you had already proofread and could be undeleted. The corresponding page in the new edition would be Page:Men of the Time, eleventh edition.djvu/369 -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems the new DjVu file has a few problems of its own: in the range of DOUGLASS or DOYLE entries and possibly elsewhere, the left and right margins are chopped. And book page 347 (DOMMETT--DONALDSON) is not missing, but it is blank. I visually inspected few dozen of the 1200 or so pages, but obviously could not check them all. Mostly I relied on the page-numbering difference remaining constant, which indicated no missing pages.

This is despite the fact that the original Google Books scan that the DjVu file is based on does not have any of these problems. I'm not sure how the DjVu files were created over at, but it seems to have been an error-prone non-automated process.

This doesn't affect the creation of Wikisource text, since I am simply fetching the OCR text directly from the Google Books site (from their "Plain text" link) and also using their scan for proofreading. But it's inconvenient for anyone who wants to verify the result without leaving Wikisource.

Although we should stick with the new DjVu file (what alternative is there?), I wonder if in the long term Wikisource ought to abandon the use of DjVu files from, since they seem to be very often corrupt and unreliable, and somehow use tools that interface with a Google Books book instead. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have contacted, explained the issue and ask them to rederive the work. We will see what occurs there and if that is successful we can utilise to stick it to Commons, and then move it over the top. If it is still fouled, then we can look to reconstruct a working djvu from the various versions around (not preferred means). I have undeleted and moved those pages, thanks for that. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
They started the job, however, it looks to have fallen flat on its face. Will watch for their actions before I hassle them about the matter. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The file has been rederived, and I have uploaded Commons:File:Men of the Time, 11th edition.djvu prior to moving it over the top of the other file. Issue! It has different pages that are side cropped, though looks to be less of them AND it is two pages shorter in the blank pages. Before I go about addressing these two issues, would you be so kind to undertake an audit of the file to make sure that it is worthwhile to undertake such an act. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, I will try to take a look at it soon. Thanks for the {{hii}} tip by the way, it worked. I have one additional minor question about Table of Contents (on my talk page). -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, I took a look. The reason it's two pages shorter is simply because it has two fewer blank pages prior to the title page, so there is nothing missing in that sense. Some places where the original had problems are now ameliorated, however at least a few pages are worse (eg, 407, 464, 520 in the book's numbering, add +17 offset for the current DjVu file and +15 offset for the new DjVu file). A large number of pages in the 400s range have right and left margins cut off in both old and new DjVu files; this problem is not present in the Google Books book, where they seem to have done a second set of scans of certain pages (noticeable because the magnification differs).
In summary, the new DjVu file probably has fewer flawed pages than the old one, but still has many problems, so I'm not sure it's enough to warrant a switch; and the existence of a few pages that are actually worse in the new version gives one pause. Maybe we should just leave well enough alone, as it doesn't hinder production of the Wikisource text (which I'm doing via Google Books in any case), and the off-by-2 page numbering would require a bot run to adjust pages everywhere.
PS, images from Google Books load so fast that it's possible to rapidly scroll through the entire book in about 15 minutes or so by repeatedly hitting the "Pg Dn" key and verify that there aren't any pages with left or right margins chopped off or blank spots. By contrast, the page images from a Mediawiki Commons DjVu file take a few seconds to load apiece, making it hard to do a thorough evaluation. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I would therefore recommend that the work that is in place is kept in place, though we note the pages that are left or right margin-croppsed. We leave the alternate file in place, and at some point in time I will do a fix/merge of the djvu files to create a better djvu. Maybe even noting on the alternate file which are good. <shrug>
Out of curiosity, how are DjVu files merged? Is that simply something you do manually on your home computer? Or is there support within Wikisource itself for doing this? If there is some utility program that reads a configuration file to automatically sort out which pages to grab from where, I could try to create the configuration file. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Extended references[edit]

I catched your statement about ref follow statement for splitted annotations, but I can't find any doc into Cite extension documentation. I'm too confused by ref name="name" syntax when used into Page: namespace. Can you please give me a link to study a little more this stuff? Thanks! --Alex brollo (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Presumably not documented (yet) User:Billinghurst/2 4th test. It was one of ThomasV's code developments, and I did see it in Code Review on MW the other week. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
By the way, if you want evidence of the good use of <ref name=...> then I did a whole lot of that, iirc in The Life of Captain Matthew Flinders, R.N.. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! --Alex brollo (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 :-( I browsed here and there the book you linked, but I couldn't find any ref name= tag, I only found usual ref tags. Have I been unlucky or lazy? Or… have been ref name= references fixed into usual ref? --Alex brollo (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I understood. The problem is, that I was searching to proofread use of <ref name="name" /> coupled to the tag pair <references>. . . . .</references>, to put note text "in place" ant to enjoy the better readibility of text when editing it, dealing with texts with lots of many long references into a brief text, as happens into classics translations; so your example is IMHO only an half of the solution. --Alex brollo (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Lisbon College[edit]

Interesting. It appears to have closed down circa 1972 only, which is quite some continuity. There is an alumnus magazine The Lisbonian, a Lisbonian Society and so on. I'd quite like to add it to our stock of similar "recusant" articles on WP but can't really get started until the endpoint gets a bit more into focus. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

To answer my own question: it closed in 1973: . Charles Matthews (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Stumbled upon when doing some author research, and the list of bios and its size made it relevant and achievable, and that there was nothing at all on WP … SOLD! And I have no personal interest in it at all. Now working through the (crap) images and it should be finished within the week. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Complete — billinghurst sDrewth 12:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

what to do with The Paraopeba River[edit]

Hi, I've been working gradually through Special:Orphaned Pages and tidying what I can work out through the fog. However, I have no idea what to do with this this ?article. I'm not sure if it should be transwikied or CSD/G5. Any thoughts? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It was a Dutch translation of an old revision of the existing en.WP article about that river - deleted since it is redundant to the Dutch site, not to mention no longer current. — George Orwell III (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


I lost patience with waiting for the API to return DjVu page count, so I went ahead and coded up an index stats script without it. Had to scrape the page count off the image html page. Wikimedia doesn't like its html being scraped so I had to spoof my user agent lol. Anyhow, there is now a list of indices at User:Hesperian/Indices, sortable by size and how close they are to being finished, by various measures of the latter. Hope you find it of some use. BTW, negative numbers are due to weirdness like this, rather than a bug. I'm going to write a script to track down said weirdnesses. Hesperian 06:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the dodgy pages and am running it again. This time I'll also strip out the completed indices. Hesperian 07:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Portals and Years[edit]

Can I ask for some advice about date-based portals? I need to create a new portal/subclass under Class X for Wikisource:Ancient and Classical texts, Wikisource:Medieval texts and Wikisource:Modern texts. Otherwise, I'm stuck; the Library of Congress does not categorise works by year unless it's under existing subject areas, which doesn't match Wikisource. Before I start, I'm trying to work out the best way to do this.

How did you envision Portal:Years (or similar) working? Were you thinking of, for example, Portal:1930, Portal:1931, etc? These could go under Portal:Modern texts or alongside it under Portal:Modern era. Would you want it to match the Category space, which would mean, in this case, Portal:20th century and Portal:1930s as well? If not portals for individual years, would decade- or century-portals be better? Do you think the eras should be separate from the years (as with categories)? (Should I raise this on Scriptorium instead?) There are several ways to approach this and I'm not sure which way would be best. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I will put my brain to it when it is more alert (bumble thoughts follow). There was a recent query about classifying works/writers by period on one of the categories. I know nothing! For years, no, not by year, and maybe not even by year, it more being focusing on the other component, and the year just sorts. For me portals are for how people want to go and look for works (mostly) and none of those seem that likely, those seem more how we sort. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Getting Wikisource on DYK and holding hands[edit]

Hi Billinghurst, uncharacteristically I made a reply to your enquiry on my talk page ... hope it helps Victuallers (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:Why with (disambiguation)[edit]

Up until know all our disambiguation pages have been the base/root and not suffixed with a (disambiguation). I am wondering why we are starting a new style. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. There are only a few pages like that, two of which were created recently by Theornamentalist. They should probably be moved to the main titles. --Eliyak T·C 14:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't notice that bit. Thanks for the clarification. Someone used to WP, we will need to whip that out of them.winkbillinghurst sDrewth 14:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


Well, finished the proofing at least. I can't remember how to populate the {{Pages}} transclusions with the page numbers in the individual chapters. There's some quicker way than manually putting them all in isn't there? And yes, should that 1st page be made up of the books toc pages?Misarxist (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I can help with <pages>, and will have a go later today. We generally do try to incorporate the leading relevant pages of a work onto the front page. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Section links on Errata pages.[edit]

1904 Errata p. 141 displays one link with no subsequent distortion once saved. On 1904 Errata p. 51 after insertion of section links get table distortion in preview mode and when finally saved. JamAKiska (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Works for me at Campbell, John (1678-1743) (DNB00). I have been adding the <section begin="" /> after the row break, and the <section end="" /> before the next row break. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Just got it to work on 1904 Errata p. 51. I added a line break on subsequent line after the <section begin="" /> entry…which works on both pages previously described. JamAKiska (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep line breaks won't break the translcusion, though you just have to watch how they play in your table alignment. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Now why did the "31" dropped down on the formatting of Campbell, John (1678-1743) ? JamAKiska (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What I am seeing on 1904 Errata p. 50 is the same presentation. Suspect it is related to the auto formatting of the table and is treating the <section end="" /> as an extra line which it balances in the previous three columns. JamAKiska (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The formattting must be adding an extra hard return. To the table in the template I have added class="valign" which pulls it up. I will do a further exploration of the output to see if it is doing anything ugly behind the scenes. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that adjustment helped. JamAKiska (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Dictionary of National Biography, Errata (1904), p.5051
N.B.— f.e. stands for from end and l.l. for last line

Page Col. Line  
357 ii 15f.e. Campbell, Frederick W.:for Sir Edward Warrington read Sir Edward Winnington, bart.
14f.e. after daughter insert He had been twice married previously

Almost…Added line break at end of entry to first page, and get the same side-by-side presentation above. JamAKiska (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Added a row marker between transclusions. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Campbell, Frederick William—Great save… JamAKiska (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Did some micro formatting of the style. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Micro formatting looks good. Errata p. 141 has good examples for the section links…after it collapses…this is what it looks like after the edit.
|- <section begin="" />
<section end="" />
|- <section begin="" />

Something just happened with that edit…volume 23 pages are only displaying the key and no adjustment data. Grimald, Nicholas vs Brand, Henry Bouverie WilliamJamAKiska (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Just read your edit to me… JamAKiska (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The pages are displaying a literal |- valign=top ## "Grenville, John" ## <br /> . For a section it needs to be ## "Grenville, John" ## on a line of its own. To be neat about this, I am finding it easier to code these pages with the old style, and that is a change as I have been happily using new style for a while. There is just less ability to fine tune (aka cheat). — billinghurst sDrewth 02:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

After last format volume 23 errata details disappeared [See Grimald, Nicholas]. Did you intend to go to volume 13 with the xxiii link? JamAKiska (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done…thank-you…JamAKiska (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

We have an exception…Howard, Theophilus does not wish to display the errata. I’ll finish volume 28. Volume 23 is done, as are Vols I & II of Supplement. JamAKiska (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

George found the 1 character holding it up. :^) JamAKiska (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Did not want to get too far ahead of ourselves. George continues testing of the template. The errata template is working well in all applicable articles in Volumes 23, 28 and Volumes I & II of 1901 Supplement to include proper page labeling throughout the errata volume. Just finished prepping all the errata transclusions for volume 1. Also discovered the Errata index is missing 6 pages between djvu 181 and 202; 2 in volume 30, 3 in 36, and 1 in 37. When the djvu file is replaced, will also need to adjust the offsets in this template, preferably with one fixed number. JamAKiska (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
George has finished testing. Volumes I & II errata pages are all prepped to be transcluded. I should finish VI and LV tommorow and get deeper into III. JamAKiska (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Duplication of sections above[edit]

Hi Billinghurst, I came here to ask a question (next section) but noticed that in the middle of the page sections 29 to 34 are repeated in 40 to 45, 46 to 51, 52 to 57 & 58 to 63. I've scanned through History, but can't immediately see when it happened. Really only mentioning it so you don't archive the threads five times. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure that I am following. If we are talking about the Errata, then every five pages or so it iterates due to it getting to the next volume where it starts over with the same process and restarts page numbers. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I mean this talk page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Urk. Fixed. I would hazard a guess at incompetence of this resident wikizen at some point, probably archiving. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

1904 Errata[edit]

Would like to replace the djvu file for 1904 Errata with this complete version, ready for upload. Am planning on updating this scan early tomorrow. JamAKiska (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Errata djvu file replaced; G. O. (thanks) got {{DNB errata}} working late last month; 14 volumes are completed (all articles within these volumes DNB Errata entries …including volume 18, but not supplements), and another 4 volumes will be finished later this month. Have updated the DNB Style Manual, Part B - 2.9 to reflect current practices to include use of this template with examples. JamAKiska (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


I'm not sure what you intended with point three, perhaps there is a missing word? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 18:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It is making sense to me, though that is no confidence vote. I am trying to get across the fact that you can do deep links where the work may refer to p.30, then #30. Alternatively you can put an anchor into the work, and then reference from another work. Obviously it is not clear, so do feel free to clarify into useful language.

Res Gestae[edit]

Dear Billinghurst,

Thanks for the heads-up on Res Gestae. As I am finally feeling well enough to administrate, I wrote Thomas Bushnell this morning. I am not sure which English rendering he will choose, that is, if he still wants to be hosted here. Some user offered a proofread version of his text without being very conspicuous about it, which no one saw with the motive of helping the user's contribution to conform to Thomas's prospective licensing agreement. I placed a note on the work page to help with that this morning.

There may be some incompatibility with our 75% "nearing completion" rating and a license to conserve the text without alteration, which is what he had originally asked for. I told him what I believed, that an individual with Latin skills from the era in which the work was written could help bring the work to 100% complete (because they would know if the English was well-rendered) under the 75% hosting terms, but that the user who actually did proofread Thomas's translation may not fall under that category of editor. So I asked Thomas to decide for himself and contact permissions if he was still interested in being hosted here, for the sake of finalizing the process. Good talking with you again. ResScholar (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Absolute poo that you have been unwell, I didn't know, hadn't realised, etc. I find it hard to keep track in this laissez faire environment. Glad that you back up to some better state, and long may it continue. To the work, I will leave it with you, and I don't fuss overly with regard to alignment to the %s, and I sort of align it more with once and twice proofread.
Thank you for your kind words of encouragement. ResScholar (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


Thanks, wanted to get that LoW completed…it looks great…

Not sure which is better path, leave those three intact and follow with the navigation pages or realign at this juncture…having first renamed the navigation pages to the following… Volume I (Abbott - Childers) (DNB01), Volume II (Chippendale - Hoste) (DNB01), & Volume III (How - Woodward) (DNB01)

Once renamed, pages would flow with vol I LoW, Vol I Navigation pg.; Vol II LoW, Vol II Navigation pg.; Vol III LoW, Vol III Navigation pg. The third volume would link only to volume II and the Supplement pageJamAKiska (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

<shrug>I was more on "once started the shuffling, need to get to a stable place". The name should just be consistent. Note that the {{page break}} has an inbuilt anchor, so we will need to align names, if not already done. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree, consistent naming is key, intent here is to choose names that lend themselves to smooth navigation for this sub-project…AND "lock in" final organizational structure for long-term stability. The current LoW needs to remain intact as it adds perspective for the reader…so how to best insert or link to the three navigation pages? JamAKiska (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

1927 in or out of copyright?[edit]

Billinghurst (or others) I would like to transcribe another book to place on wikisource and I need to know if this [ ] is out of copyright? I thank some kind worker for a reply —Brother OfficerTalk 21:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Says that copyright is help by a branch of US Government, so that would make it public domain (as I understand it). Are you right to upload the file to Commons and create the Index page? [Apologies for not remembering whether you are doing that bit or whether it was done for you previously.] — billinghurst sDrewth 23:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Fyi, the United States Naval Institute does not appear to be a part of the US federal government. It seems we would need to verify that no copyright renewal exists (since it's post 1923 and pre 1964). —Spangineer (háblame) 22:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Ouch. That means that you will need to check the US copyright databases, and that is not my area of expertise. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Wish I had seen this sooner - I wouldn't get my hopes up; the copyright of all their material is mandated by their by-laws and any "access" to it is at the discretion of the Chairman only. I don't recall any example of this being waived to place works into PD, only specific grants for re-use via explicit permission. I could be wrong about something as old as 1927 though so definately check the copyright registries or just email them. — George Orwell III (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, though it is at, so it may be out of copyright, otherwise is in error. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
You may be right about no renewal but I still fear this may be the exception to the rule under a not-fully-interpreted-by-case-law-to-date concerning a narrow set of works created pre-National Archive/Records Act. I've found the Original Registration attributed to Charles Lee Lewis in 1927 but there have been subsequent re-prints and (re?)releases using the same title, etc. since - making renewal (or the lack of any formal renewal) more than I can handle it seems.

Of note & leaning in favor of the NIP aggressively retaining their copyrights no matter the material, are the hearings on the National Publications Act circa 1979 (linked here) which was why I remebered this in the first place. In short, any argument that military officers that helped gather, organize, research, contribute, etc. information or publications of the Federal government automatically considered public domain at the time that also found their way into USNI publications remains public domain but does not a.) equate to a work authored by a Federal employee in spite of being on active military duty at the time nor b.) put the entire USNI publication in PD; only the gov't supplied portions or data may be "excerpts" freely used in the public domain. — George Orwell III (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


Sorry, just seen your note about potential DYKs. I'm afraid I'm very busy with this. If you have any interest and live close then maybe we will meet. Anyway ... I hope to get back to wikisource more regularly. Victuallers (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

About as far away as one can get, though I did have ancestors from Chapel-en-la-Frith. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 11:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

straight quotes or curly quotes[edit]

At my talk page there is some discussion with User:Cygnis insignis about whether to use straight quote-marks or curly (left and right) quote-marks.

He prefers straight quotes and has edited the style guide accordingly, but I'm not really convinced. His edit cites the style guide for Wikipedia, which is however a different project with different criteria (in particular, creation of original text rather than reproduction of existing text).

In practice it seems to vary. In Men of the Time I've been keeping in the straight quotes from the OCR text, mostly because it's less effort (it could be changed easily enough in a batch run by an interactive bot that prompts for approval of each edit), but I think DNB pages mostly use curly quotes. Has there been any discussion or consensus within Wikisource itself on this issue? -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no hard and fast rule, and it has been the basis for more than one discussion, so we have erred to a conservative and wholistic approach. We also know that the types of quotes can be typographic artefacts or style of the time (like paragraph indents), rather than author's intent. After the principle of being true to the text, for a work the next important thing is consistency through the work. So (within reason) the primary contributor to a work sets the pattern to a work and we ask that they give instruction on the Index talk: page for little quirks. To note that many do not know how to do curly quotes, and they are not on (most) keyboards. Plus, anecdotal evidence that where a primary contributor makes the text complex to proofread, this can prove a disincentive to others to validate. (Swings and roundabouts.)
Personally I use simple quotes (" or &quot;) as my default approach in works, and I have been in DNB, though there are works where there is certain complexity and curly quotes add clarity. Whereas on author pages, we often use curly quotes in templates, eg. {{DNB link}}, as that forces some clarity, plus it is isn't repetitive. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this was more or less my impression, that it isn't a hard and fast rule one way or the other. However, he has edited the Wikisource:Style guide to flatly state "Use typewriter quotation marks, straight not curly", which really ought to be nuanced. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC) I modified the wording in the Style Guide... -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
From the notes section it says "This Manual of Style outlines Wikisource's formatting conventions and guidelines (see Wikipedia's article on style guides). These are not hard rules, and can be ignored where necessary. However, users should follow these guidelines where possible to ensure that Wikisource is consistent and maintains a high standard of quality." We would be looking for reasoned and argued setting aside the guidance. We want to prevent things like the addition of {{gap}} at the start of paragraphs and especially with the commentary of "... because I like it."— billinghurst sDrewth 15:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:The Great Salvation[edit]

Sorry, Billinghurst but I don't think I'm qualifed to comment on this—I think you need someone who's a qualifed editor. Also you need someone who's familar with the doctrines of the Christadelphians, which by the way is not a mainstream Christian denomination. Some of their doctrines are different from the orthodox doctrines of the Christian Church See - Wikipedia:Christadelphians#Beliefs section Rejection of some traditional doctrines. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, though I was after sense-making of the pages, rather than an analysis of the content. I would be even less qualified on that subject matter. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that I have got it worked out and fixed. I was speaking in shorthand as in fixing one problem I encountered another and didn't have time to think that through and didn't want to drop the ball for fixes. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"inherited" version of {{smaller block}} ?[edit]

The {{smaller block}} template (as used in DNB and elsewhere) seems to have the same issue as {{outdent}}, in that it doesn't work when split across two pages and then transcluded.

For {{outdent}}, your suggestion of substituting {{hii}} worked. Is there a general solution for {{smaller block}} ?

I looked within DNB itself, but only found, eg, at Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 01.djvu/34, a kludgy use of {{hws}}, with {{hwe}} on the following page. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh that was a butt ugly implementation, so I have updated that page. It is not templated, though I should. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
{{smaller block/s}} with {{smaller block/e}} — billinghurst sDrewth 23:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I feel a bit foolish... it was in plain sight all along. In the documentation for {{smaller block}}, it mentions the two templates {{smaller block/s}} and {{smaller block/e}} for precisely this purpose. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
No, if you look at the edit history, that is all this morning's work. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation templates[edit]

I have changed the box I added to the disambiguation template. Instead of the box in the header, I have added similar text to plain sister and added a call for a special parameter in all of the disambiguation templates (well, the three that I know). I think it looks better and it keeps everything in the same place. It also, as you requested, puts the disambiguation text above the sister links. For example, Benedict Canfield. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Let us see how it works. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


My popup nav is stuffed, are your changes stable/workin' ? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, good luck. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
It working again, should i now see extra functions or something? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The request has been that for these gadgets that are pretty much universal that they are called from a central location, that way they can be cached, and it is using the new resource loader system. I cannot even tell you if there is new functionality, I have been testing just getting the beast into place. I have called it some rather rude names, especially as it seems dog slow, so I have now gone for the cheat option of having it complete. We can then test, and if working roll it into replace the other, and go back to test their new system. I am also working on some of the others as programmers are available, so will do a report to WS:S hopefully later tonight. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Poetry formatting[edit]

Hello. Just taking up more space with another nit-picky question: RE your formatting change here... Do you recommend then that I eliminate the line breaks from here on out whenever I come across them with poems? I realize that the breaks were due to page space limitations, and are not so much an issue here... If you say so, I'll do it! Thanks again, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Can I change the perspective of the question … author's intent or the typographers? I don't feel that we should be held to a typography limitation. Am I rabid about it? No. Will I change something as I validate, yes. So if you are comfortable with the thought adopt it as a practice, not hunt and seek. Billinghurst (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I think our perspectives are similar, but I have a difficult time explaining/asking things in writing the way I purpose to in my head... Not sure what "hunt and seek" refers to, but if I might guess, it may be related to the fact that I "watch" every Florence Earle Coates page and poem (I'm notified of changes via email, so no hunting or seeking is involved)... but not for the purpose of hounding potential validators... I don't look for fights, but opinions. My questions will never be challenges, but I might "chew" on something for a bit, and I can understand how that might be annoying. Sorry if you misunderstand my intentions or methods (I do hate "online translations"). I will presume that the line break use was the typographer's intent, and will make the same adjustment as you throughout the rest of the poem's pages... It happens that this has been a question that I have been pondering over for a while, but have not yet addressed it. If you only knew the myriad of other formatting/style, etc. questions I have been storing up over the last year-and-a-half you would kick me off Wikisource right now! :) Thank you for putting up with me...and for validating the page! Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
My 'hunt and seek' comment was more about specifically going to look for similar formatting and fixing it. (My opinion only) Fix them if you are going past, no need to go and edit them because they exist that way. There are so many pages that need real editing. Billinghurst (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Ahh, see--I said I was bad with "online translation"! Understood. I might help out with those "pages that need real editing" some future day, but I want to finish up with Coates' works first--my main (selfish) purpose/agenda here; and being as OC about it as I am, it may take me a while!... But I am happy to say that ALL of her published works are now on WS! :) Night! Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Philip Norman[edit]

Added preview AI links to available works. While I could add them all, thought it best to await guidance on this one. Thanks…JamAKiska (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That was a bit how I used to do them when I started, then someone indicated that it just pushes people off-site (and they won't know it unless paying attention). So I have made them smaller links. Stylistically from {{author}} we use level 2 headings for Works and Works about ... then level 3 if we drop down a level like for DNB. Listed items are bulleted. How that was derived? <shrug> It predates me. Billinghurst (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Index:The Art of Bookbinding - you forgot a page[edit]

The above is not quite finished, there's one page that needs an image - Page:The Art of Bookbinding, Zaehnsdorf, 1890.djvu/173 --kathleen wright5 (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your help![edit]

Noticed you've been tweaking some of what I uploaded. Do let me know if I've got anything wrong... The Land (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If I have any specific concerns, then I will surely raise them with you; similarly, if we have found easier ways to do things I will let you know. Otherwise, I will browse through some of the pages, help to validate, and try to lead by example. So if I have validated, have a look at what I have done and if you like some of those ideas, then great. Billinghurst (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Monthly rotation notation[edit]

[I mistakenly placed this question on Cygnis Insignis' talk page originally...] How would you change the formatting from rotating daily (see below)--as in your quotation header--to monthly? (I'm sure it's an easy answer, but it's me you're dealing with...) Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

|width=95%|<div style="font-size:larger; font-style:italic;"><center>{{#switch: {{#expr:{{CURRENTDAY}}/31 * 28 round 0}}
It is just an equation with with one variable, and it is set up for 28 results needed, so it depends on what you are trying to do. If you have twelve months, and twelve results then a simpe
{{#switch: {{CURRENTMONTH}}
is enough. If you want iteration over a different number of results then, different answer.Billinghurst (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Poetlister / Longfellow[edit]

You did a lot of documenting at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Implement_a_perpetual_ban but it is not clear if you are starting a vote or what the next move should be. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I could respond that nobody said 'No', and there were similar calls plus there was no disputing of the evidence. In my asking of the processes at other wikis throughout WMF there response is that "once an admin applied a ban, it became a ban. No other community takes a vote on the application of a ban upholding a ban. If you think that this is something that the community formally needs to undertake, then I comfortable to take it the next step. Billinghurst (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
It reads like a decision (I agree with), but starts with "To request that the community consider..." which reads like a request for action, so kind of a cross message. I would be fine with changing the leading sentence to a "document a community consensus", and then being done with the whole thing. As best as I can tell, I was the users last informed supporter. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Two lines to consider
  • Purpose — To request that the community consider the actions of Poetlister / Longfellow and his sock accounts, and support the administrator's ban from English Wikisource.
    To me this was a call for view and review, and in support of an action. Purpose only, so are we wanting to vary the purpose. If so, I would think make your suggested change, and I and others could agree or disagree to it.
  • Action — That the community supports this proposal to ban Poetlister/Longfellow from editing and participating at Wikisource.
    To me this was given them the opportunity to have a different opinion, though maybe it was not specific enough in that request. If you think that we require a different action from them, then I think the same process as above would suffice.
Personally, I am comfortable that what has been done that when it gets archived it becomes the confirmed view of the community. Poetlister/Longfellow has had opportunity to broach the matter and has chosen not to address any of the specifics, nor to explain their actions. I understand that others may see that we need to do more, or less. Billinghurst (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Made a minor change, that I think will give it closure. Jeepday (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Billinghurst, were you aware of this fairly old account of some of Poetlister's conduct? I ask this because I was surprised to see people helping him back into an adminstrator's chair. ResScholar (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

International Cricket Match[edit]

Hey Billinghurst,

Thank you for validating; I was wondering though, how come you moved the lines into a single line? I used to do this myself (like this one) but I stopped because I felt that it was easier to proofread. This was primarily because I find it easier to match line length to doublecheck, (for missing words, different characters from OCR, etc.) yet it still results in a continuous line in our pages. - Theornamentalist (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

General cleanup. There is formatting that fouls across line breaks, and removal of hyphens. Billinghurst (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hyphens aside, what kind of formatting issues can come up? I don't doubt your reasoning, but I've been proofreading like this for the past month or two, and I am curious what kind of formatting problems I may have missed. - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Most wiki formatting — including Authors' and works' links, italics, bold — and the occasional template spring to mind. Billinghurst (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Gotcha, thank you - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

When you've got time ...[edit]

Hi, when you've a moment could you please run your bot over the pages in Index:The Czar, A Tale of the Time of the First Napleon.djvu and swap the diacritic templates into real diacritics? There were far too many for me to scroll down and select for every one. Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Running, it will be complete tonight or tomorrow, depending when I pack up. Billinghurst (talk) 12:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

the {{!}} template and a subtle flaw in the Wikipedia "cite Men of the Time" template[edit]

I fixed it.

As originally written, if the |edition=eleventh parameter was explicitly specified, the article name would not get wikilinked.

See {{!}} on Wikipedia, which is needed for cases where a parameter is automatically wikilinked and a pipe is used to specify different link text from the target page name. Just wanted to let you know for future reference if writing other templates. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 08:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

sry[edit] file to The Romance of Isabel, Lady Burton so I can start proofing? Kathleenwright said u were the one to ask TheSkullOfRFBurton (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
It has been put at Index:The Romance of Isabel, Lady Burton.djvu Billinghurst (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Mucho thanks! Is there any way a robot can run over it and just "save" each page with its current OCR text, and then I can fix it up slowly as I go along?
Someone had one, though I am not sure whether the bot is active, and maybe that is reflected in that as a practice each page should pull the text as you open it, and save as you go. We would not usually transclude pages until they had been proofread. Billinghurst (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how that bot accomplished this, since with the PyWikipediabot, if you try to retrieve a non-existent page it will simply throw a NoPage exception. It would be interesting, in principle, to know if it could retrieve the OCR text, and how. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

thx for ur help, it is an overwhelming work and i worry if i can do it all myself.


Hi. When you get a chance, can you please review the recent Australian-related contributions made by User:Ozhistory for copyright compliance and such. I'm reluctant to engage since I'm unfamilar with AU copyright law per U.S. copyright law. — George Orwell III (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done FYI in Oz the copyright term until the end of 2004 was fifty years (do 1954 deaths), and no reinstatement; and aligned on 70 years from 1 Jan 2005. There are no general exclusions. Billinghurst (talk)
I was gathering as much from various sources but you beat me to the punch before I finalized my searching for a guidepost. Sorry & Thanks. — George Orwell III (talk) 09:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC) "The introduction to" covers the bits we need for enWS. Billinghurst (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[edit]

Kindly restore all edits concerning works appearing on They fall under works of the Federal Government and are not copyrightable unless specifically attributed to 3rd parties.

Works of the "First Family" appearing there are allowed for reproduction by assignment. — George Orwell III (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Would you kindly get them appropriately licensed. {{PD-USGov}} is patently incorrect for Michelle Obama's work. Billinghurst (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I tried to set a license properly to CC 3.0 WhiteHouse MONTHS ago and was summarily jack-booted down and deleted then. What has changed your mind now? — George Orwell III (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Huh? No memory of the issue, let alone that I was supposedly in disagreement with it. To note that most of these so far are not sourced, and it would be worthwhile sourcing them to pull them back. Billinghurst (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Well I tried to incorporate the new wave of CC 3.0 licensing started under the Obama administration that supplements the standard Title 17 exemptions wherever applicable and was shot-down (not by you specifically) fairly quick by the "community-at-large" (assumed it was because I was a "newbie" or too annoying or something just as trivial).

I guess they never got around to deleting the intial template though. — George Orwell III (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, we (the community) do sometimes leave big piles of poo onto which to step, and this should give us some impetus to fix at least this issue. There were only three sourced works to recover. So I will pause there, make a comment on the author page, and continue with the other components. We can get back to it with some thoroughness. Billinghurst (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


What is User:JVbot/patrol whitelist being used for? I knew this thing existed, and that I was listed there at one stage, but I thought it was made redundant by the patrolling palaver. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 10:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

John resurrected it. It allows patrolling to be done on a limited scope. Example is where a contributor is doing okay on a particular work, though due to the limited scope of their activities, we wouldn't wish to give them a wholesale patrol bit. Also it will work recursively, which is also quite useful. Billinghurst (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. My dictionary gives a pretty poor definition for "recursively", as it relates to 'computing', but I think I follow what you mean. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
For clarity Special:ListGroupRightsWikisource:Autopatrolled patrols at the time of the edit; JVbot must act as member of one of the confirmed users groups and patrols past edits, not as they occur. Last time I spoke with John about it, he said that it wakes every ten minutes, reloads its settings and patrols the unpatrolled edits. I don't know all of its nitty gritty. Billinghurst (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The Times/1917/Obituary/Thomas Edward Kebbel[edit]

You're the original transcriber for this article. I spotted three seeming typos and couldn't resist "fixing" them, but don't have access to archived Times articles. Assuming you still do, can you check this? If not, it can simply be rolled back. PS, the "keenly attached" sentence also reads a bit oddly. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Correct fixes, and I had dropped down a line while typing. Billinghurst (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


... appreciated on what exactly to do with File:BuddhismSymbol.PNG? Not familar with image file management on WS but I'm certain things can't stay like that!! — George Orwell III (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The image is at Commons, so we just have a page of data. So in my opinion we can either delete the data or move it to the portal namespace. I am equivocating which is better as I don't know enough about the subject, and if I had found it first I would be suggesting to the contributor to move it to the portal namespace it needs some more substance and relevance, otherwise it provides little value. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneGeorge Orwell III (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

... appreciated on the best way to make the move being discussed here, and if its not too much trouble; — George Orwell III (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

... appreciated by weighing in on file size limits at Commons as it relates to this discussion re: 1938. TIA — George Orwell III (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done hopefully what you wanted, and I will try to remember to pop back. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

... appreciated on how best to proceede (in your view). I've finally been lent a hand in securing the scans that not only contain a large swath of the Executive Orders already in the main namespace but a just as large chunk of the existing Proclamations as well. These uploads cover from the early 1930's to the end of 1989. My problem originally was the lack of any OCR text layer which I'm slowly rectifying but that raised the question of naming uniformity. The current uploads (that also have newly added OCR layers) at commons in question are named

When they should be named more like ones that were readily available from the Government Printing Office when I added them a few months ago

I am trying not to create indexes on WS until I've insured an OCR text layer exists, but I've created 3 or 4 just to see where I stood in general by sampling. Now that I have "fixed" the 1989 & 1987 ones, I stopped myself from going any further to see if there was some way to rename these on Commons to...

so I can (re)name their Indexes on WS to match the "standard" naming convention that already exist for these types of supplements/compilations. I don't see anyway to "move" these on Commons to the uniform names and loathe to re-upload them just to orphan the duplicates. What do you recomend I do next? TIA. — George Orwell III (talk) 07:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Need permissions to move files at Commons, mainly due to the fact that as they link all over the WMF shop that we have a bot to do the task, and the move wars would be oh so ugly. On Commons use {{rename|File:what you want it to be.djvu|reason=aligning file names through series}}. Then get back to me here or there and I will undertake the task, if someone doesn't beat me to it. Up to you whether you move the Index pages here before or after. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 09:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Indexes moved; created. Thanks again. — George Orwell III (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

bulk deletes[edit]


I've been doing some housekeeping w/ some re-freshes or corrections being done to existing .djvu Indexes/Pages and I'm stuck on stupid again.

Long story short, one djvu Index: had around 100 duplicate pages near it's end (a page; it's double --> next page; followed by it's double --> etc.). I fixed all that and re-uploaed a new version over on Commons already but now I'm wondering how exactly to do mass deletes of a little over 100 redundant pages in the Page: namespace.

That so-called 'mass delete' special-page ain't so special after all and I'm not looking forward to doing them manualy either. What's the way to go about this? A Bot request?

The pages are all not-proofread & that was from a Bot run or two from over a year ago. The page range in question is from 1070 to the end (1289!!!).

4 digit pages only of course

Keeping the existing OCR by exponentially locating the correct content and movng it versus delete & recreate is a crap shoot too. Sometimes the old is "better"... sometimes the new re-create looks "better". If it wasn't for the hisories I'd nuke the whole section if I could anyway. No rush really but I'd hate to leave it open ended/orphaned like this either. TIA. — George Orwell III (talk) 05:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have a look at User:Billinghurst/monobook.js you will see some of the individual lines of Wikipedia:Twinkle code. One of them enables you to delete a batch of files, which you can do selectively off an Index: file, or from a separately prepared list. Happy to do it if you so wish. Billinghurst (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, but no - I need to start learning this crap sooner or later. I'll be in & out of meatspace most of today so I'll take a crack at it tommorrow when I'm fresh (it's not like its hub of editors over there anyway). I'll touchback when I get stuck though. Thanks for the pointer. — George Orwell III (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm lost - copied the "bits" but nothing changed. You better handle deleting those. — George Orwell III (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Separate issue[edit]

I hope you can clarify something odd happening with my account on Wikisource. If I access Wikisource through the link in my email notification, taking me to this specific talk page, everything is fine. If I access Wikisource by just going to, it looks like I'm logged in, because the only option is "Log out". Yet, my user name and "My Talk" are red links - if I click on them, it says those pages don't exist. My preference, watchlist and contributions are blank. This seems odd to me. Can anyone help? Maile66 (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not always stay logged in? and are actually separate websites; the first is the "old, ancient site" that we used to use, before we split down into language subdomains - nowadays it is mostly an unused relic, occasionally we'll find weird works (like say something in Anglo-Saxon or Klingon) that have no proper "language" subdomain and we'll stash them there ("until we create a language subdomain for those works", in theory)...but you'll always want to go to, not, and then you won't see the redlinks because you'll be on this project. :) TheSkullOfRFBurton (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! FYI - the wikisource,org is the link in the infobox at en.wikipedia Wikisource Maile66 (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

images not loading in Page[edit]

I tried everything I could think of, but upload of scans is wonky for me. Is there a trick to getting images to load in the Page name-space? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

From my maintenance bits on Commons tonight, I have found the thumbnail generator wonky, so would guess that this is the problem. All I can suggest is look to purge the thumbnail to see if it will regenerate the image in Page. Otherwise no specific solution.<shrug>
Thanks, CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

New texts link on the Main Page linked to wrong place[edit]

The new texts link on the Main Page now links to Special:NewPages, could you fix it ASAP. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC). P.S This is not an April fools joke.

If I recall correctly that link has been pointing there for quite a while. What link were you wanting there? If you mean to {{new texts}} to add, then that is via the ADD link. Billinghurst (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to the link to the left of (add), which when clicked on before went to a list of new texts. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is through {{new texts}}, and I have no idea how long it has been that way, you could find out through the history of the file. Billinghurst (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't find anything through the history and the template is where it should be (I looked at the Main Page in edit mode). There must be something wrong with the MediaWiki software—which I know nothing about. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
It was this edit by Cirt in 2009. I am not sure that the link is broken or that there is any MW issue. The contents of the page (template) are visible on the main page; that link gives you all new works; and the (add) gives you access to edit the template. What do you think that we are missing and/or we should be looking to do as an improvement? Billinghurst (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Since the edit can't be undone—I tried but it said, this edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits—how about removing the link to the template. There's no need for improvement, but if the link can't connect to the template it should be removed. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe that the link on the left isn't meant to link to the template, it is meant to link to Special:NewPages; the contents can be seen as it is transcluded. The link on the right is to edit the template for those who have something to present on the front page. I believe that they are meant to be showing different things. Billinghurst (talk) 09:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

With thanks for the generosity of words[edit]

There were some very kind words expressed during my confirmation. My thanks for taking that time and your generosity. Billinghurst (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


Thank you for wellcoming. I would like to upload this copy of phisophiae naturalis principia mathematica. This is the license. Can I upload it or there is a license problem? unsigned comment by Περίεργος (talk) .

The work is in Latin, so it would belong at Latin Wikisource. It needs to have been published prior to 1923 to be able to be in the public domain, and loaded to respective language Wikisources. All of Newton's original works are out of copyright. Billinghurst (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
So I can do it. Thank you. --Περίεργος (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"space before <noinclude>" in Template:Hyphenated word start[edit]

In the documentation for {{hws}}, an admonition was added in 2008 by User:Jack Merridew not to remove a space character before the "<noinclude>". In a May 2010 edit, howevever, you removed it (with no ill effects? Perhaps modern browsers handle the problem differently than those of 2008?)

I suppose either the documentation should be brought into sync with reality, or vice versa. I am cc'ing this message to Jack's talk page in case he has some old test cases to retry, however he seems to be only intermittently active. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

<shrug> I don't remember the circumstance at all, though presumably it was causing an issue as otherwise I doubt that I would have been looking at the guts of the template. Jack has retired from Wikimedia after issues at that other place. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I think I've figured it out: he is referring to the fact that if you enclose the empty string within HTML tag pairs like <b></b> and <i></i>, it just displays the empty string, as expected; however, if you use wiki markup using '' or ''', then it doesn't work cleanly.
Ie, if you enclose the empty string within italics, you get '''', but this does not display the empty string; rather, it displays a single apostrophe. Similarly for boldface, where 6 apostrophes in a row result in the display of a single apostrophe.
This is an issue if you enclose a template within italics, and the template outputs an empty string under some circumstances (eg, the {{hws}} template when invoked in the main namespace). He was actually doing precisely that, here and here, to try to handle an italicized hyphenated word (I found this via a comment of his on the Template talk:Hyphenated word start page).
However the solution is, instead of using ''{{hyphenated word start|Frank|Franklandia}}'', to use {{hyphenated word start|''Frank''|''Franklandia''}}. I edited those pages accordingly. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


Maybe it's a good idea to modify a little the instructions of "New texts" from the main page, to be clear for everybody, even noobs or non-native english speakers like me, that the section is reserved for texts already completed :) —Atelierele Albe (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Not a major issue. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Missing pages in Female Prose Writers of America?[edit]

Hi. I might be wrong as I am a newby. I noticed something strange in the Index page. Pages 312-315 are not connected to the right page in the book. As a result some pages are missing and some repeated, e.g. djvu/332 is page 311, while djvu/333 is page 314 and pages 312-313 are missing. After page 316 they go back to normal but then some pages start instead to be repeated, e.g. 316-317 are present twice at djvu/335-338. Mpaa (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You are not wrong - the PDF has the same missing pages/duplicates as well. Unfortunately vetting scan integrity prior to uploading & the subsequent assigning of ready for proofreading status is not a requirement around here. There are fairly easy ways trim the duplicates and insert "place-holders" for any missing pages to mirror the original before any editing is done but once there are pages created it, becomes a real process to manually move the exiting pages around to accomodate the new (and correct) scanned page progression within the bundled djvu's file progression. — George Orwell III (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
)-: I am mostly unavailable for the next few days, and when available it is with limited equipment. I will see if there are alternate editions in which we can source the pages. <mumble grumble> Many thanks for noting that and bringing it here. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I took the liberty of removing the 2 duplicate pages, shifting the 2 pages in between back 2 pages and inserting 2 place holders for missing scan pages 312 & 313. This keeps all the existing pages in alignment. There are other missing/skipped pages earlier on but, as usual, folks have already found creative ways of ignoring the obvious problem(s) and just kept going. — George Orwell III (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I've now copied and pasted the missing content to the newly inserted blank place-holder page scans from scan pages 354-355 (djvu files 374 and 375 there). — George Orwell III (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
You are aware that if you continue that behaviour, that I will be force issue with a gold star or an elephant stamp? wink Thx — billinghurst sDrewth 11:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Do what you have to do :-)

... but its time to fish or cut bait irregardless. I'd much rather see scan integrity / verification made a higher priority all round at en.WS. Most of the problems with .djvu scans that I've researched lately are rather easily "fixed" by such removals of duplicates and, at the very least, place-holder insertions for skipped pages. Of course, picking the best set of scans from the liter at the outset & before upload is always preferable. This one had 4 or 5 versions on alone. — George Orwell III (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a pre-existing version that was chosen and had been started, rather than uploaded specifically for the task; as part of our PotM, we do like to look to undertaking pre-existing works to progress is something that is good to do. That said, I didn't check it specifically; and having a better checklist of what to check and confirm would be useful. Not all works are easy to check for missing pages due to the practice of image pages not being numbered. Some of us may not have your bandwidth speed (up and down) so it can be problematic to download a work, and then upload into Commons, especially the bigger higher quality works. I know that it is very easy to do a direct upload from to Commons, and maybe we can miss of the impure aspects of a djvu file when operating that way. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
A bit taken aback by how lame that comes across. A "checklist" is fairly simple. Determine the offset to scan page 1 by subtracting the usual front matter then jump ahead by 100, 50, 20, 0 -- whatever makes sense - to see if the scan page number coincides with the increment. If djvu file 13 is scan page 1, then djvu file 63 should be scan page 51, djvu 113 should be scan 101 and so on. If at some point the increment no longer matches, you work backwards using a smaller increment to isolate the problem. Takes ten minutes more than you'd usually spend for an avg. 400 page work & you can use the built in viewer or even the Commons thumbnail gallery thingy. Not really that big a deal. What folks choose to do or not is their business.

"we" are what "we" upload.... not just what "we" proofread (or worse - eventually abandon)

oh.... one can always open the sister PDF more likely to be available than not on that is usually stored along with the djvu file like I did at the beginning of this section to "verify" the problem initially using the same premise too. — George Orwell III (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Portal idea[edit]

How about Portal:King James Bible? It's topical enough - 400th anniversary of 1611. w:Category:Translators of the Authorized King James Version is close to complete on the translators, and many of those will have DNB pages. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I would think that if there is enough content for anything then we create it. The purpose of the portal is not just the collection of links (to and from), but to enable us build something that is more than just encyclopaedic … a reference point, a research point, etc. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

A question[edit]

Hi. Maybe a silly question but I need to understand, to avoid to repeat this mistake. I saw that you removed the section tag from the last page of the chapter here Page:Female Prose Writers of America.djvu/253‎. I thought that when closing a section, tagged several pages before, I had to include again name of the section on top and #### at the end of the last page. How does it understand where the section, tagged several pages before, ends otherwise? I hope I explained myself :-) Mpaa (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope this explanation answers your question: if you go to this transclusion, you will see I added "fromsection=s2". I only needed the second part of Page:The Folk-Lore Journal Volume 1 1883.djvu/300, so I divided that Page into sections "s1" and "s2" [11]. We only need to use sections in this situation, otherwise I could have used "from=300 to=302". In the example you show, we don't need to request or make a section, it is just "to=253" [12] CYGNIS INSIGNIS 18:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. (I think) I got it. So, hypothetically, if "s2" ended instead in the middle of page 302, to get "s2" you would have placed a #### mark at the end of what you needed in page 302 and inserted something like "tosection=s2" in the header I guess. Mpaa (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested text: Mathematical problems[edit]

Hi. I started to work on this in my sandbox. Cannot promise when I will be done, anyhow I am proceeding. Shall I start creating the mainpage even if incomplete so everybody knows this is ongoing and I do not risk to do double work? I also need some feedback. Is look&feel of formulas OK? I am not LaTex expert but I anyhow tried. (see for example User:Mpaa/Sandbox for formulas prepared for text and User:Mpaa/Sandbox2 for some text). The article is quite long. Shall I do subpages for this? If so, shall I do them in my User space and move them, or? Can you suggest the way forward? Thanks Mpaa (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The maths bits are not among my specialties, though I know one or two who we should consult, and I will point them to this conversation. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I've proofread them. --D.H (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I have done the article. It is in the Namspace now. Do I need to strike out something on Requested text page? I think the aricle shoud be proofread as a whole. --Mpaa (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Stupid question[edit]

After following your lead on page status help, etc., etc., I found myself reading mediawiki:Manual:How to use DjVu with MediaWiki. I was surprised to learn our little house of mayhem is basically built upon DJVULibre.

My question, should you find a way to follow up on it, is Are we running the latest build(s) of the DJVULibre package (March 6, 2011)? It sure doesn't "feel" like it when compared to my local install (but I'm no expert!) — George Orwell III (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm, errrr. Dunno. Looking at Special:Version is no help. Nothing that I can see in talks about djv. No-one available in IRC can tell me, so I will ask on Wikitech-L mailing list. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Wow. Lots n' lots of interesting stuff there but nowhere do I see anything related to the text-layer itself or its extraction from .djvu to the Page: namespace. Granted most of what I skimmed through is way over my head but it seems as if an inordinate amount of time is being spent on reproducing and then "tracking" the 4 proofreading status', color code & all, in the various namespaces. — George Orwell III (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
DjVu extraction comes from (I dug and remembered). How when where and how related to djvulibre? <huge shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I see some of the DJVUlibre stuff in there alright but not all of what I thought would be in there (again - I'm not an expert by any measure). Seems as if the DjvuToXml part is watered-down (most likely to avoid an old problem of every page in the doc getting it's hidden text layer pulled every time it is put to use instead of just the single page being specified - all you had to do back then was put the --page=pagenum parameter last rather than the 'documented' way as it having to be the first. This should no longer be a problem in the latest builds either way from what I've been reading). It still makes me wonder if we are using an older build irregardless.

Sure, we get OK text outputs now if the DJVU file itself follows the DJVU specification to some degree but there doesn't seem to be any coordinate mapping/metadata thingy going on that could solve some of that sidenote weirdness by, at the minimum, regionalizing the left, main and right columns for such works if not actually recognizing the sidenotes not as run-in text within a main-body paragraph or line, but as a separate and unique paragraph or span anchored to the coordinates of it's target phrase or word -- no matter how or where the target wraps within the main body or under whatever user dynamic layout imposed.

Anyway, I can at least point to something the next time I corner somebody who actually knows what they're doing with this frackin' stuff. Thanks again. — George Orwell III (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

catrope@fenari:/home/wikipedia/common/php$ djvuextract --version

DJVUEXTRACT --- DjVuLibre-3.5.20

Pretty sad unless that file is the exception over each build somehow -- Orwell III (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Looks like something that would be individually upgraded, and from it seems relatively stable. I have asked the general question about should it be upgraded as it is three years old, and would they like for me to do a bugzilla request. As the system doesn't use the bulk of the applications functions, my gut feel is that we aren't missing anything of power. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Don't bother. I see the mentality does not change much from one organization to the next when it comes to this - whether commercial or not doesn't seem to matter. "if it ain't broke - don't fix it", "over my dead body", "not on my watch" and other territorial road signs that tell you change from the outside is not welcome.

and "Power" is a function of input and resources - if you save .5% in resources per individual use, you have maintained the same "power" while improving efficiency. <snarckasm on>Why do they hate mother Earth? <snarckasm off />George Orwell III (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

They will log it to their back end system to watch and upgrade (my words not theirs). I would more categorise as squeaky wheels get greased, and I am more of the belief system business > laziness > incompetence > malevolence

Index:Page hijacking[edit]

You have hijacked my Index:page with this one! But that's okay, as I am sure it is for a good cause, and I am working/navigating around it! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I needed some bulk content. I am not sure how it is problematic or how it affects your Index page, though if it becomes problematic, we can look to thieve some bulk content from elsewhere. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem! It's interesting figuring out how everything is connected... If you are on the Main page for the text and click on the Source tab, it brings you to your Index:Sandbox.djvu page instead of the text's Index:Page... Same thing if you're trying to navigate through the Index:Pages for the work... I don't mind working around it; I learn as I go! Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
That is problematic enough for me to fix and I have done so. Seems that there is a general buglet with creating artificial pagelist, and made worse by someone stealing it. I also have renumbered your pages as the formatting inside a label in that manner was also causing general issues. You could probably have wrapped the whole wikilink inside something like {{sc}} and it wouldn't have carried the style through, however, we also do just recommend page numbers within the list as they affect the labels and the anchors. You will have seen my (uglier) compromise. If you see any further irregularities, please let us know. We are obviously doing weird things with our testing that the programmer didn't envisage. Weird eh? wink
Thanks! I noticed all your fixes, and will keep them in mind for future (and past) Index:Pages... Only issue I come across is (to beat a dead horse again) using the <pages index> notation—as opposed to ye olde {{Page:etc.jpg}}—in the Main for transcription causes the user to be unable to view/print the text in PDF. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Note to GOIII the reported formatting and bits is probably the consequence of the page numbering. To note that I have converted all the image refs to png from jpg, so that it should be all faked, and done a general tidy to Index:Sandbox.djvu.— billinghurst sDrewth 03:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I noted the same issues in PDF view/print of page with <pages index> and was about to post a question. In rendering to PDF the content of the transcluded pages is lost. It prints the page in the namespace as it is, showing e.g. <pages index="A Study of Mexico.djvu" from=23 to=47 />. I tried this on several books. unsigned comment by Mpaa (talk) .
Separate issue though known and in Wikimedia's bugzilla. The book tool put out by the press people is a known bug with how it renders text. The promose was that it be resolved earlier, however, we are still waiting. :-( — billinghurst sDrewth 12:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please to not move[edit]

(Move log); 12:56 . . Billinghurst (Talk | contribs) On the Conversion of the Sinner moved to Blaise Pascal/On the Conversion of the Sinner (move to subpage of work)

Pascal did not write a work called "Blaise Pascal", he wrote a work called "On the Conversion of the Sinner"; it seems silly to be moving it to "Works of Blaise Pascal/On the Conversion of the Sinner" (or in this case, to Blaise Pascal/On the Conversion of the Sinner, even sillier). Movedcolor (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We are also reproducing the English language publication of the work, not the work in isolation, and here the overarching work would seem to be titled "Blaise Pascal". This conversation has been had through Wikisource previously community, and the preference is for scanned works this is the preferred means to assist in the ability to disambiguate works, cross reference works, etc., it has become our practice to republish works per the publication. This is very relevant for translated works where there is the need to differentiate between translations of the same work. To note that while it is a subpage, we liberally encourage the use of redirects from the root level as continue to exist for the works that were added. The work itself is unchanged, it is the hierarchy of the page within a title, and that differs not from how many sites categorise or file their works.— billinghurst sDrewth 02:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

And in Category:Christianity it is now found under "Blaise Pascal", not under its actual title, for one example. Do you have a link to the community discussion that resulted in this consensus? I think reading it would help me understand the context of the decision in more. I assume from your explanation that the problem is because the work is originally in French, and you are saying that English works would not be moved to this name (on the English Wiki at least?), it is translations because there are more than one translation? Movedcolor (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It is about a general process and a general approach, lessons learnt as we have looked to curate a growing collection. Each book that is a creation in its entity too, has a flow to it, has copyright, etc. and that should be preserved as part of its entity, not just as a component of the alone. There are many works that need to co-exist with the same or similar, or changing names and we need to have the scope to host them on-site, be they works of the same name, various editions of the same work, or various translations of the same work by the same or different translators. All of these things need to configured so as we have tried to implement a simpler disambiguation process (none of the complexity of WP) where the root name is kept for generic name of works, and specific works will be moved to make way for the generic, accordingly we need to have a process that allows naming. One of these methods that is very effective is to keep the construct of a book/work, and to have all the components as subparts/subpages.

With regard to a listing, I would suggest that we have found that listing the work at a page like Portal:Christianity and the relevant author pages as more effective, than categorisation schemes. That said, when the proposed development of wiki technology to list by subpage name is enacted, I would suggest that the site would be looking to utilise that capability. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

250 words and not a single answer to either of my questions, but all the buzzwords of "general process", "lessons learned", "haw a flow", "implementing similar", "methods that are very effective" and "proposed development of technology"...have you considered a career in politics? I'm sure I would vote for you.
1. Do you have a link to this consensus discussion to decide this?
2. So from what you say, it is because of translations, and therefore fi I add works by English authors will not happen, yes?
I might be able to help out with this: the extension of the work is reflective of a publication it is in. It is primarily organizational, and not meant to be a representative of the individual work, just the publication. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
No I haven't got a single link to a single conversation, as I tried to explain this is style and practice that has developed over iterations of work and maintenance. The basis of many conversations are most likely to be in the archives of Wikisource:Scriptorium though I would think that there are conversations around the traps, and in places like Wikisource talk:Naming conventions. No it is not solely about translations, I tried to indicate, obviously unsuccessfully, that there are a number of facets, including the integrity of published works, and about disambiguation (translations, versions, similarly named works. +++) that have led to this style being adopted, with redirects, etc. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Dr. C. W. Saleeby, obituary, 1940.png[edit]

Hey Billinghurst,

I came across this and it is listed as being PD, but it was published in 1940. Is this right? I see the otherauthor listed as unattributed. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes published in 1940, so it is PD, having gone out of copyright in the UK on 1 Jan 1991. What makes you think that would be incorrect? Which other? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I apologize; I saw The Times and, well, being close to NYC, assumed it was the New York Times, and thus not eligible for PD-US. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Question about seeing spacing[edit]

Hi, I am wondering what is wrong with my browser or my display. It doesn't show spaces correctly when in the edit mode. e.g. You corrected spacing in Page:The fairy tales of science.djvu/59 and Page:The fairy tales of science.djvu/60 which weren't apparent to me.

How can I fix this so that I can see the unneeded spaces? Is there something I can correct somehow? (in my browser or in my preferences, ... ? Is it something I can add to my css file? (I notice people put stuff in their files, but I am not that sophisticated to know what to put there.)

Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Having a wider screen or through a little variation of width can show up the the quirks of the odd line break. At the same time you are correct that I do have a script that manages some of the grunt work of line and page cleaning. Such a script can be put into your personal common.js file (access through your Special:Preferences). My script is a little old, and I would think that currently User:Hesperian probably has the most up-to-date (and sophisticated) edition. These scripts run off Pathoschild's gadget (again in your preferences) which he is now old and pending retirement and he is working on a shiny new tool, which I am waiting upon before I fiddle further.
Thanks. I looked at Hesperian.js and it is very long. Does it all go into my js? Also, I use monobook and not vector. Does that make a difference? I could not find "Pathoschild's gadget" in my preferences. Is it possibly called something else? Thanks again. Mattisse (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Best to chat to Hesperian, and he can even put it in place. With regard to placement, with the recent upgrade to Mediawiki application, the answer is neither, it would go in your common.js file, which makes it skin independent. P/child's gadget is the Regex gadget. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Queen Móo[edit]

When you validated the Page 21 of Le Plongeons Book that I'm working on, you did something to the formating, and now, when I want to edit the page I only get the left column. It seems to be impossible to edit the right one. Is there a trick, a special setting or a gadget/script to see and edit the right side? or am I missing something completely -- Kurst 15:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I had <noinclude>'d the column break. You must be using an older browser; IE6 by chance? I have removed that completely this time. Generally column formatting is not something that we get too concerned about replicating. As we are now into a web presentation style, keep a stylistic column break inserted by the typesetter seems unnecessary, so we are often more likely to just remove them and continue to scroll down the page. Nothing worse than page up, page down, page up, page down just to retain a typesetting artefact.

In the long term, if you are using an old browser is going to inhibit some of your ability to use some of the tools available at wikis. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm using I.E.8 allright, but thanks for the hint about the two-column thing -- Kurst (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Didn't know that IE8 was also a problem with this. :-((( I may see what I can replicate. The issue is along the lines of IE browser can manage 2 <noinclude> sections (our normal Page: environment), it gets confused with three. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 08:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Addendum. Would you please try editing this link, and see if you can see the second column of data. I have basically done a copy, and this will tell us whether it is just the text, or whether it is something with the Page: namespace. If you can do that it would be grand, thanks very much. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Index:Seventeen lectures on the study of medieval and modern history and kindred subjects.djvu[edit]

Do you want to partner up on this project? I'm planning on proofreading the main text of it, and you could validate and transclude? It would be a quick work too, I think - Tannertsf (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help you transclude and do give bits of help. While that sort of work is of interest, I cannot overly commit to assisting while I am still running other maintenance work, and I tend to more roam around the site as part of watching for problematic edits. No promises. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, that doesn't read well. That is all about the context of now, I have a fair bit on, and cannot dedicate time to the work. I will flit in and out, and can do bits if you need them done, otherwise, it is on my list of interested to get done, can present in terms of individual speeches, rather than to wait for it to be a complete work. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I will "sweep" through it (proofreading) and then let you handle it ... so no rush at all. - Tannertsf (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikisource gl[edit]

[13] : Alyssalover not present for some years.
To leave a message to the community GLWikisource (Galifontes) (see : A Taberna) is here : A Taberna
Sorry I do not speak English --Elvire (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Spam trouble at wiki where I'm an Admin - Anon IP's[edit]

I'm having trouble at a wiki where I'm an Admin - Envirowiki - Recent changes the latest instance would seem to indicate that it may be Contourbeltabcontour as referred to on the Administrators Noticeboard—The image on the page is from the Philippines. I've tried to contact the other admin at this site, but no luck. I'd like to know how to stop Anon IP's from editing. This has been going on since last December. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 02:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Completely blocking IPs from editing is equivalent to making it a requirement to login, and that is a sysadmin function, so you would need to speak with the people who host the wiki to make the change. If you know the IP address of the user, you can block a range of IP addresses, if your wiki is configured that way you can do a range block, eg. block (info at Help:Range blocks and [14]). Generally a CheckUser or equivalent is what you need for logged in accounts to run a check on the account to determine the IP address, and from there see what else is coming from the space, and some analytics. If it is just IP address editing, start small and work your way up. It helps to use a site like DomainTools to get a reverse IP address to see from where they are editing. I am not sure how that is setup at that site. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


Your page monobook.js is showing up in . Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 00:23 15 May 2011 (GMT).

Yep,<shrug> an artefact from having an empty contributor field in the script to apply the DNBset template. All my considered solutions are problematic, and as Pathoschild is rewriting his script framework, I will look at again when that is released to the world. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Partial solution: add {{DEFAULTSORT|Υ}} using the standard value from en: Wikipedia Template:Namespace Greek so that it least end-sorts
Alternative solutions wrap your .js in nowikis (probably a good idea anyway)

// <nowiki>

js here...

// <\nowiki>

Alternative solution

editbox.value = editbox.value.replace(/\{\{header[^\}]+\}\}\n/, '{{subst:XDNBset\n |article= \n |previous= \n |next= \n |volume = \n |contributor = \n |wikipedia = \n |extra_notes= \n |from= \n |to= \n |section= \n}}'); editbox.value = editbox.value.replace(/XDNBset/, 'DNBset');

all the best, Rich Farmbrough, 13:37 17 May 2011 (GMT)
Thanks. Needed to comment the lines first, but that worked fine. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


Orville Wright diary/1902 wanted to verify last line of 15 October entry for authenticity…as I am unable to locate in published sources. JamAKiska (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing about the work, or the source that Sherurcij utilised. It isn't listed at the top level talk page. <shrug> Sherurcij hasn't been online for a while, so you may wish to try to email him from his user page to see if you can get a response. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

PTPS Tool[edit]

... means 'Page Transclusion & Proofreading Status Tool'.

Just going back over old notes and was wondering if the current placement, icon, etc. is agreeable enough the way its been now for a couple of weeks or not so I can scratch this off my list here. I think it's getting the job done without further impacting the original template layout as far as the expansion/contraction abilty of <pagelist> goes.

I am trying to get good thinking time here and it hasn't eventuated, there was also a quirk (url generation with funny characters) that I noticed that needed resolution, though that isn't about placement. I would think that we can just say that placement is suitable, and as it hasn't brought complaints, it is probably good enough until we hear that there is a problem or that we find a new need to manage.
That sounds fine. I have made it a point to click on it whenever the opportunity presents itself and have not observed anything odd or unexpected over the last few weeks, fwiw. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

On an unrelated note elsewhere - hope you didn't think I was accusing you of being a closet terrorist/helpful-admin rolled into one or anything. I was only trying to bring your attention to the individual in question and a busy-body got in the way before you had chance to see it first. I am sorry if you somehow read that the same way as it was inferred by others. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I had wondered and had to check whether it was a third party edit from an anonymous watcher. I was wary and replying to the accusation about censorship and the use as of the word as a weapon, similarly the use of the word discrimination. We all legitimately censor and discriminate all day every day, though we need to be aware of unlawful or biased Censorship and Discrimination. As I said, I wasn't aware of the subject and thought that it had been a new posting by the consulting psychologist or someone intimating that they were, and concerned of the appearance of such a personal document. If I had wanted to try to sneak it through, I was hardly going to ask for an admin review on the noticeboard; better to be cautiously bold and revert. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I still extend and hope you accept my apology. What was considered over the line in my case was honestly just a poor attempt to squeeze the matter of noteworthiness & his all to recent relevancy into to just a few lines (with my failed wit and all) to help move things along to the quick resolution/reversal that seemed more likely than not at the end of the day. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I obviously wasn't clear. Of course it is accepted, though I took no offence, a moment of confusion while I worked out who said what, no offence from your statement, and I am the last to criticise attempts at humour or its failure, there is my life story! Another statement rubbed the wrong way, but what the heck.

Hockey formatting[edit]

Could you take a look at Page:Hockey, Canada's Royal Winter Game.djvu/2 and Page:Hockey, Canada's Royal Winter Game.djvu/3 in terms of formatting? I think I've abused non-breaking spaces, especially for 3. Thanks so much, Maxim (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 02:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

About the Wedding-Ring[edit]

About the Wedding-Ring, did I do something wrong with the formatting; why is it including the Oyster story at the bottom? >:( StateOfAvon (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thought I'd try to give it a shot, but I have no idea... I tried to take a look at other similar pages to compare formatting, but I must be missing something too... Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Never mind! Got it! :) from=81 to=86... not 87 in Main

The Life of Michael Angelo[edit]

Hi. These two pages have very poor quality (Page:The Life of Michael Angelo.djvu/220 is impossible to read, and Page:The Life of Michael Angelo.djvu/221 partly). I tried to look around for another scan of this book, or at least text, but could not find any. --Mpaa (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I should have looked further last night when I found that the frontispiece was almost blank. I've had this problem with IA's Google scanned texts before - to the point where I avoid them if I can. I went looking also, and only found German texts with bad images also. I think we'd better forget it and move on to something else. The images are going to be missing as well as those two pages. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I found this scan [15] on IA. Looks like a better scan of the same edition, just from another copy of the same book (see stamp from library). The 2 pages are there. Maybe also the text layer is a bit better? I leave up to you experts how to move forward. Swap to this djvu? Just use text and or images? Drop it? --Mpaa (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
That copy should be good to excellent, do you know how to upload a file and create an index? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 09:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm working on it now. This text is almost identical to the previous - except it has a few extra blank pages at the beginning. Well spotted! Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
All fixed now. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Edward Gera?d Butler[edit]

DNB has an article about Sir Edward Gerard Butler, who, however, seems to be called Edward GeraLd Butler in other sources, eg [16] and London Gazette (2nd col, 9th line) and The Wikipedia article w:Edward Gerard Butler was created based on the DNB title, but perhaps should be moved to the "Gerald" version, however this would need the action of an administrator as the target already exists as a redirect with history (due to a botched initial creation by myself).

Link fix for your LG ref
another link for London Gazette

I think you're an administrator on en.wikipedia. If the other sources seem persuasive to you, could you do the move there? -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Most definitely is Gerald. Look at this result I have created a redirect for the DNB00 entry for Gerald, and moved the enWP page. I would think that it would be worthwhile adding some short notes to the DNB entry, and adding links to the Talk page of the evidence base. To note that I have access to family trees about this bloke, and they all say Edward Gerald Butler, son of Gerald Butler, though I haven't drilled down to look at the quality of the research and the cited records. Billinghurst (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
And I was remiss for not saying that was a great catch, it is. I have a similar for James Hingston Tuckey which I am slowly in the process of writing up. Billinghurst (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, I have created a Talk page at Talk:Butler, Edward Gerard (DNB00) and added a short sentence to the "extra_notes" line of the page itself.
It is not false modesty to say that it was pure luck. When I created the transcluded Butler, Edward Gerard (DNB00) page, I Googled and found a Spanish Wikipedia page but not an English one, and made a note of it with an HTML comment. Shortly after, my watchlist showed it had been updated to point to a newly-created English Wikipedia article. I went there to add a cross-language link to the Spanish Wikipedia version, and to my surprise the link I added was broken, because the Spanish version had the "Gerald" spelling. So I investigated further and the rest is history... but here's the lucky part: in order to even find the Spanish-Wikipedia version which started the whole chain of cause-and-effect in motion, I must have typed the "wrong" spelling "Gerald" into Google to begin with. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 07:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Purge the beast[edit]

TO DO $#%@$##$ uncooperative servers. Need to purge Commons:File:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 16.djvu, text out of alignment.

A Compendium of Irish Biography[edit]

I dropped a post at User talk:Cygnis insignis#A Compendium of Irish Biography and he suggests letting you know I have been working on this. Can you review some of my work and see if there are any issues? Thanks. Ww2censor (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Will have a look at it in the next 24 hours. I have some bits to clear out first that are priorities. In short, I haven't done much different for formatting, pretty much follow what I have done for DNB. There is the template for the authorities that at this stage needs to be manually managed. Biggest issue has been the text that is embolded is also used for the section names, though the ToC of names does not exactly coincide so one has to go back and manage (by redirects or text edit the link). — billinghurst sDrewth 12:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
No hurry, whenever you have time. Ww2censor (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
No major problems. To note that I have just created {{IrishBio lkpl}} to allow for internal linking to the and within the work. Section tags are best wrapped inside double quotes (") otherwise you just get a section name from the equals sign to the first space, which would be an issue if the names are ... begin=Butler, ..., so the preferred means is ... begin="Butler, ...". And the often problematic l (ell) vs 1 (one) issue in dates, where we get l0 instead of 10. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Is this Page:A Compendium of Irish Biography.djvu/87 what you mean? You will have to explain the template use by an example, as I am not sure what you mean. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Used on Page:A Compendium of Irish Biography.djvu/80 as one example. Also examples at the template page. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Making transcluded texts possible to download as books?[edit]

Hi Billinghurst, thanks for the welcome on my talk page. I'm making progress on my first contribution—uploading The Rough Riders by Theodore Roosevelt. I'm new to the process and mechanism of transcluding texts; how recent is that? It seems straightforward enough in any case and a good idea, so I'll let you know if I encounter any obstacles along the way.

I do have a question though. I have in the past occasionally downloaded non-transcluded works as PDFs using the "Create a book" tool. Personally, I did this so I could read offline, and especially when I'm dealing with Russian literature over at the Russian Wikisource project, I like to be able to read it in a PDF so I can annotate unfamiliar words as I go along. I also think it's a little easier to read works as a PDF, but that's just me. In any case, I've noticed that because of the way transcluded texts work, you can't use the "create a book tool" since the text isn't actually stored on the page you read from. I was wondering if there was anything in the works to try to make transcluded texts downloadable or if this is even a feasible idea. I don't own an e-reader, but I know if I had one, I'd love to be able to download free, high-quality e-books from Wikisource to read on it, especially since Amazon is often charging $2 for its poor quality public domain scans that don't even indicate what edition they're based on or their editors, translators, etc. Of course, the highest quality e-books are the ones that have been transcluded. I would think that exporting them as PDFs would make the most sense, since I know that at least the Kindle 3 is supposed to have excellent PDF support. The .mobi and .amz formats serve their purposes, but they would definitely ruin the formatting of anything that a user tried to export from Wikisource.

Let me know what you think. I doubt I know enough programming to make something like this happen myself (though I'm willing to learn), but it struck me as something worth mentioning. Polyglottalstop (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the PDF generation is broken and it has been reported to be fixed. Similarly we also have in Bugzilla a request to have our works available in EPUB format. Time table? Don't know. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Good to know. Thanks. Polyglottalstop (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Earle as a Reformer (1948) copyright status[edit]

Hello! If you are willing and/or able, I would like to get a second opinion (at the suggestion of Geo. Orwell III—for my benefit) as to the copyright status of Thomas Earle as a Reformer (1948). More details are located on my Talk Page. Thanks for your time! Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't profess any expertise with the US copyright databases, in fact I like to profess that I remain blissfully ignorant of the search process, despite GO3's words. Carl is one of the good choices, and you may get him here or Commons. I would have also said Jeepday (talkcontribs) or ResidentScholar (talkcontribs) are good at that stuff, not me. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

A small formatting issue[edit]

I'm unsure of the formatting of the poem quoted for Cailte MacBionain on Page:A Compendium of Irish Biography.djvu/91. Perhaps you can have a look and fix or tell me if there is a better way of doing this type of quote. TIA Ww2censor (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I have had a hack, there are other variations that would have done similar, and we can format to the left if that is preferred. I usually just block center. As we have centred, we can play with the font as its retention with the different formatting is not required, and can be called preference.<shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 15:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
That looks very good indeed. I just hope I can remember how to do it when it is needed next, or which page I can refer back to. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
{{block center|<poem>

and feel free to copy it and stick it somewhere. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete page[edit]

Hi. Can you please delete this page: John Masefield/Rule Britannia? I made a spelling mistake and created John Masefield/Rule Brittania, which correctly spelled instead. Links to old page are already replaced with new one. Thanks --Mpaa (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done one can also use {{sdelete|reason}} and an admin will get to it. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


I am having trouble extracting this image. I have tried various methods of extracting the picture like how it is shown on the page, including extracting the vertical and horizontal parts of the image separately and stitching the two images together to produce one image, but nothings working. Thank you. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Londonjackbooks (talkcontribs) has done something similar for next month's Featured texts, let us ask her to see if she can do her magic here. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice to have solution to this kind of questions documented. In Help pages on images, maybe? The discussions in the talk pages are difficult to track after some time. --Mpaa (talk) 08:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Probably right, though I am not a graphics expert. Maybe something that we need the graphics competent to assist or build it at Commons and link to it, as the experts are probably at Commons and we need to find them. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
How about this image (on my Dropbox Public folder as extracted from the original archived pdf? Ww2censor (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

A DNB listing problem[edit]

I have been using the new CatScan for various category and template searches (mostly on WP). One thing it doesn't do is the following (as far as I can see): allow a sorting of Category:DNB No WP by size of article. The point being is that it will sort by the actual page size, not by the size of the transcluded biography text - which would be useful for finding large articles not yet matching a WP article. Crudely the size of the page range from which transclusion is done would be enough of an indication. I wondered if you saw a way to do this; I could ask Magnus if you don't. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

To my understanding of the process, the main namespace page is basically just a holder and doesn't know what it contains, nor care, until it is called. I presume that you have looked at the tool that MZMcBride modified for WS, and especially so we could test transclusions of volumes. That is the linkee from the Index pages. Other means that we have for checking is the number of transclusions per page, though we would have to get a modification to a tool. Our other checking factors are that every page from the index pages will be linked, and I am currently getting back to another MZM tool mod that checks for redlinks, specifically . For your reference MZM started up a page at meta for my annoying whine about required tools … m:Tech. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Asked Phe what he does and he says that from a data dump, he generates fr:Utilisateur:Phe/Pages_et_livres/Pages_transcluses_inexistantes. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Notes on things that cross pages[edit]

Hi, I've started a page at User:Beeswaxcandle/End of page notes where I'm collecting the various methods of dealing with page breaks in the page namespace. Eventually when various key people are happy with it (and it's formatted appropriately) I'd like to move it into Help namespace as a subpage of Side-by-side proofreading. I'm adding to it as I come across pages that are causing me problems. I think its at the point where I need other eyes. Feel free to tinker. As it takes further shape I'll invite others to have a play as well. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Index:A sketch of the physical structure of Australia.djvu[edit]

Could you please validate the last page of the above—I proofread it earlier in the year—then it can be validated. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 08:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Kathleen - I was bored, so I went ahead and took care of validating the page and changing the status of the book to T (Done). - Tannertsf (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

smileybillinghurst sDrewth 14:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

gull brace[edit]

Hi Billinghurst just wondering if you have time to experiment with inserting a small gull brace needed here [17]. I went ahead and validated the page but couldn't get the brace correctly inserted and ran out of time. Thanks. Daytrivia (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been and fiddled and have something. If you don't like it then I reckon that you can just remove the brace and have the text on one line with the line break. We are not on the printed page. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I am impressed. Thanks. Daytrivia (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

BOT question[edit]

Not sure if you are aware or if its intentional but your BOT is not only whacking Wikisource:Supreme Court of the United States when appropriate but is deleting anything starting with Wikisource: on the same page as the infraction is first found on rather than converting them to Portal: as needed or leaving it as is when Wikiource:Wikiprojct was being linked.

George Orwell III (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I missed pulling out the namespace links from the list (it was a long list). Only a few to tidy and I think that I have got them all, though I will do an outside system check of were the bot has been editing to confirm. The main namespace edits should all be okay, I had left these to the end so it could be a simpler set of replacements, and it is the last space to tidy up for the Wikisource: to Portal:. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok then. I think I've managed to correct all the outdated Supreme Court pointers in all the namespaces except the main which the BOT should continue editing save for...
George Orwell III (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Corrected the Page: above and removed the <noinclude. section. From the TO DO list I had removed all pages with a forward slash in their title, as my plan was to remove the backlink to the portal from subpages, and to look to putting relative links in the other pages, but all that in days ahead, another 2808 pages to go in this batch. Category: were already eradicated and put aside for a separate batch run.
FWIW do look at bugzilla:26881 and see if you have anything to add to that issue. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Index:Resignation letter (Roosevelt)[edit]

Hey Billinghurst,

I saw that you added this to the short validations and I wanted to get your opinion on something. I think that it would be neat to include the notes and corrections Roosevelt made, for both accuracy of the scan and transclusion, and because I find it could be interesting to the reader. However, I think we should have both a "clean" version (the one he intended to send out) and an original with the strikeouts and all. Do you have any suggestions on how to organize this?

Also, as far templates/markup to recreate it, I can think of using {{redact}} for fully illegible text, <s> for legible text, and am unsure about the carets with handwritten notes, maybe {{left sidenote}} and {{right sidenote}}? - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I just transferred it from straight text page to an Index: backed page. I hold no firm opinion on the work, nor hold a particular stewardship. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Ha okay. Do my template ideas seem appropriate; can you think of any better ones? - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure what it achieves beyond demonstrating that there were no word processors, and he didn't wish to (have it) retype(d). I also see no value with sidenotes with the work, though I have general issues with those templates and their use in the main namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikisource image collection[edit]

Hi. Typical of yours truly, I just discovered the comprehensive gallery of images on Wikisource on the Special pages. Would it be OK if I occasionally transfer some of the images to the Commons? I am referring to the ones which meet the Commons requirements i.e: public domain, 19th & early 20th century as related to my interests.— Ineuw talk 17:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I would think that we would be most grateful if any image that meets the requirements of Commons was transferred there, and its data checked for integrity. Our aim is to only have those that cannot be hosted at Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do so intermittently as I am also interested to store images in one place (wherever this is possible).— Ineuw talk 04:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

KAL801 transcripts[edit]

Hi Billinghurst! Some of the KAL pages are transcripts of meetings. Do those stay in the portal namespace? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a little quirky to the get into place as we haven't been considering ourselves as a website archive. Our position is that our works belong in the main namespace, the information that supports it all and where other information may be added over time gets added to the portal namespace. So the transcripts do belong in the main ns, we need to look at whether they are separate publications or they are part of a series. I am still reflecting on some of it. I was just starting adding some explanatory text on your talk page, and instead now here. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 21:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Ugh. Brain is not fully up to speed yet. Need to fully wake and rethink. As noted, web pages is generally not what we had been reproducing text-wise. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about the categorization stuff!
The info in the public docket related to this accident was presented as a webpage series on the NTSB website (including transcripts, biographies of employees, meeting agendas, information on PDF and movie files, etc), so I am uploading them to match the webpage flow that was on the older site.
Once I'm done with Korean Air, there are a few other accident series in the same format (Egyptair 990, American 1420, TWA 800, Alaska 261)
The Korean Wikisource has the Korean language translations of the KAL801 material made by a NTSB employee and posted on the NTSB website.
WhisperToMe (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Generally as we have been working with public domain data, we are working with older works, traditionally books, and when it has been modern public domain, it has been particularly documents, rather than a complete, though limited, subject matter. Your contributions demonstrate that the framework we have is not a snug fit with parcels of data that are prepared for the web. I have started a general conversation at WS:S to seek opinions. So do upload the works, and more to note that we may play with how we string it together. If you take the principal that a published work that is a document in its own right and should therefore be at the root level, we will be okay, and can play a little with the rest as we wrestle with our mental models.smileybillinghurst sDrewth 02:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for starting the conversation! Your responses have been very helpful :) WhisperToMe (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Annotation consensus process[edit]

Is there existing policy that disallows linking to Scriptorium from source documents? If not, don't you think we should have such a policy? And the best way to establish that policy is by creating consensus through a vote on annotation types? Green Cardamom (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

There exists plenty of discussion about about linking and especially in around the subject matter of moving data from Wikisource to Portal. Public view content sits in main, author and portal namespace, and annotations (this discussion) sit within a simple subset of main namespace; the other spaces are either workspace, or organisational in practice, and there is no general requirement to link to these from works, in fact the practice has been actively removed such links. Why make it more complex than it has to be? Why have the discussion? In practice about the only common practice that I know that exists to link into the Wikisource: namespace is where there exists an underlying project and that practice is done from the notes section.

Do I think that it needs an explicit policy sitting within annotations guidance? Absolutely not. What value do you see in turning it into blackletter law? Look here for why not necessary.

Wikisource has kept its policies simple, and to a lesser number. We step into what is the principle of what we are doing and look to an outcome focus, and we have plenty of process and evidence for what we are doing as working well. Starting to get into blackletter law of what is in and what is out is just a recipe for disaster, and brings into play binary in or out. So our practice has been to give guidance and good examples of positive practice. Can you demonstrate that there is a general case that there is a need for the discussion, let alone a general example of the need. If someone could come to me (or others) with a demonstratable need for that link from a work, then it is probably going to be okay but it is going to be a one off or close too. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

To butt in, I think there is value in using this list for several reasons. One, I hope that an annotation on/off switch comes about, and with this, we can decide what to include in a non-annotated work (if anything). Two, to move it to an annotation help page to let new editors know just what we do to the text. Finally, if there are any annotation types we want to eventually remove from the site or anything of the sort. Regarding a link to WS:S in the discussion, I don't think it hurts to include it, though I've never seen it and as Billinghurst showed there's not much that links to it. As far as a vote, to Billinghursts dismay I like these things ;) but I only think we need one if we are working to include/exclude some in "print" - Theornamentalist (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Huh? I have nothing against the compilation of the list, it is a great idea, and I truly wish to have it be a credible list. You just have to put the annotation into its context and scope, hence a definition Annotation = a modification from plain text when working in the main namespace anywhere else on site it isn't an annotation as we are not bound to text. There is simply no general scope to link from a work to WS:, and it is next to pointless to discuss it and wish to codify. I have a solution, call it Wikisource: ns and you have no argument from me, just don't pick the page. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Ha now that I reread what I wrote I did make us seem polarized, but didn't intend to. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Common.css#css transitions[edit]

Hi. I just restored the request, not having seen that you'd implemented it. Thank you. I guess you should do the "tl|" thing. Re George's discussion, mebbe just cut all the squawking, or at least collapse it? I never intended to mess up his reconfirmation. p.s. have a talk with JohnV about our last email thread; say I said he may speak freely with you, and may give you my main email; the Jack one is toast. Jack 09:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you removed it? I will get to look at the context of that removal and bits, though maybe tomorrow. I am just back from NZ and chronologically working through my watchlist; and we only have one contributor in that IP space, so I was fairly sure who it was, and a quick double check of the code showed it safe. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I removed it after getting trod upon. It was supposed to be a nice little parting css gift and I think the mess has really cemented my being finished with wikis. Not really this incident, but all the endless stupid wiki-shite, mostly over *there*. email JohnV; point him at this comment and tell him that as far as I'm concerned, he can fill you in on anything I've said. He may-well not tell all, for good reasons, but that's his call. I've also told him that if a RTV is doable (and I don't believe it is) to go for it. You're and admin on Commons, right? Delete: Commons:User:The Inheritance of Loss, ok? but have a think about what I was trying to say. I'm now a person of no account, so please delete anything that may be per policy. Blocking this IP and Special:Contributions/ for two weeks would stop me venting my anger at en:wp here; I know it's not helpful here, but it does help me a bit to say some of it. fyi, there are lots of new css techniques now available; see: Bradspeak too (use a real browser;). Jack 14:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Re CSS new bits. I will have a look, though you know that I am self-declared CSS bare basics (at best). I have redirected the Commons account to the prime scuttled account, in line with previous actions. Re blocking IP address, I am not about to, though others may. Go and enjoy sunshine, a temple, feed a monkey, or sit on your hands, not fuss over the WP-effect. Life is too short. Drop me an email and tell me how you are doing. I would so like for the next holiday away with the family to be to your present locale, especially after chilly NZ. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I deleted 20,000 emails and 2,000 contacts, so I can't email you; *talk*to*John* get my main email or have him send me yours. Bali's trashed, now; too may tourists. It used to be mellow, casual, yoga babes; now there's a Fucking Starbucks in town. Julia Robers and Eat Pray Love, and all the prices tripled. Glad you didn't suggest a beach ;)
Above was written last night but wiki went into maintenance mode. There are still are some nice places in Bali, but you might like w:Borobudur, w:Sulawesi, or the w:Bird's Head Peninsula, better. w:Biak, too... The list of places we've not destroyed is getting pretty short. <joke>Hear about the new w:wp:EatPreyLove system on en:wp? Bite anons, prey on the regulars, drop tons of LoveBombs, Pass RfA</joke> Jack 03:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Roger, wilco. I am awaiting JV's IRC (re)appearance, I am guessing he is away doing 'good son duties.' Ouch to the ruination. I want the quiet and gentle exploration of another culture, not more ftourism. Also want it somewhat easy to get to, not multi-multi-plane hops and cxns. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

cheers, …[edit]

for various things :-) 17:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

To quote the immortal words of Kylie Mole "I wasn't! … I never! … Dolly did it!" 23:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Author notability[edit]

To quote you: "I do like to bring to life and to make available old sources that support the notability of those who were notable in their time, but who do not get noticed now."

Yes! Exactly why I came here to WS! It was FEC's "notability" that was originally in question when I began writing her WP article a couple years ago... I set out to change that :)

[Sorry, I got carried away in agreement...] Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

We should never have to apologise for passion. And I did have to delete and to stop my disparaging comments about BLP and celebrity culture, compared to people who actually did something real. <quince eating face pulled> winkbillinghurst sDrewth 02:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
You got me with BLP... I'm not familiar. Tried to figure it out over on WP, but instead I came across something else altogether over there... What's with all the Wiki-Love!? (I had to laugh!) Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
"Biographies of Living Persons?" Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Yep. w:WP:BLP and w:Wikipedia:WikiLove. <wistful sigh> The reasons why we do sourceylove. <g> — billinghurst sDrewth 03:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
RE: Acceptance and Wiki-Love: Just came across the following while proofreading: "Civilization is but a curtailment of competition, a substitution of cooperation for universal strife and enmity... [H]owever far civilization has advanced, it has not yet eliminated a barbarous degree of selfishness..." Made me think that no matter how we attempt to promote—or even try to institute—civility, human nature will always remain the stronger force to be contended with! I guess I shouldn't knock the attempt, though... "Feel the Wiki-Love!" ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Charles Darwin disambiguation page[edit]

Hi. I was just looking over the Darwin disambiguation page you created and a lot of these links look like they should go under the author page, like the obituaries. Would you mind if I went ahead and moved them there? Thanks. - Illy (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

They should be on the author page for completeness, though the question will always occur whether they should also be on the disambiguation page. I think that they should, though happy to have that conversation. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a single work on that page entitled "Charles Darwin". I would move them all to the author page, and redirect there. Hesperian 00:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
We don't do cross namespace redirects. Darwin, Charles probably (should) redirects there, as it would for multiple enyclcopaedic articles that have subpages — EB1911, DNB, +++ — so it became a choice to put as Charles Darwin' as is the more global style across WMF, than the other — billinghurst sDrewth 03:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I would tend to move most of the items to the author page while leaving the encyclopedia links there, if only because this seems to be our current style (which I get from looking at lots of disambiguation pages from the orphaned pages in the last few days). Whether this is how we want to do it is, I think, a separate question. - Illy (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Fair call. These are some of the earlier pages in that space around encyclopaedic articles, author pages & disambig. See how it goes. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Seeing that nobody has done anything yet, I'll comment fwiw: I wouldn't move any of these to the Author page, none of the works appear to be by Charles Darwin, they are about Charles Darwin, and have his name in the titles; they could easily be confused. This is exactly what a dab is intended for. That certainly doesn't mean that I wouldn't link to them from the Author:Charles Darwin page and from the appropriate article author pages, I would, but they very much belong in a dab. On the redirects issue, I see why we don't want hard redirects, but soft redirects are really just a form of dab, they disambiguate the mainspace from the authorspace for a name for which there are no works.--Doug.(talk contribs) 14:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
    • No. Disambiguation pages are for works with similar titles. Author pages are for works by the same author. Portal pages are for works about the same subject. There is consensus that it would be a bad idea to have both Author:Charles Darwin and Portal:Charles Darwin, so portal material is always included in the author page. But I say again, disambiguation pages are for disambiguating similar titles. Hesperian 01:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

side note[edit]

Very much on a side note, and without prejudice to the other discussion, I too am of the view that templates should, whenever possible, perform a single, simple, well-defined task: they should do one thing and one thing only. I too disagree with this. Hesperian 23:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've changed templates or code before in validated works, mainly from <center> to {{c}}. Use of <center>,{{c}}, {{center}}, even {{RunningHeader||FABLES}} should be no concern of the validation process; that's what is odd. Cygnis could have changed the centering, to whichever he preferred without undoing the required two person process of validation. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Very much on a side note, and without prejudice to the other discussion, I too am of the view that templates should, whenever possible, perform a single, simple, well-defined task: they should do one thing and one thing only. I too disagree with the replacement of "{{center|{{larger block|" with "{{x-larger block|align=center|". Hesperian 23:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Misunderstanding. I thought you meant you disagreed with him validating it, by any means of making the page "work," (as in he shouldn't have validated it if using some users preferred template) I apologize for confusion. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Happy to have discussions about templates: single formatting vs. multiple formatting. While there may be disagreement, it isn't wrong. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Cool. In short I am very much aware of the high barriers to entry we present to newbs. I think most newbs learn to code by reading and editing code, not by reading documentation. Therefore I want our code to be simple and intuitive. I want code that any reasonably clueful newb can look at and pretty much instantly figure out what it does. There is a trend here towards more and more esoteric shorthand code, and I don't approve. Specific issues:
  1. Template redirects like "c" and "sc" should be routinely replaced with their full-name equivalents "center" and "small-caps". I support keeping, and continuing to use, these redirects because they save experienced users time and effort. But once the experienced user has hit the save button, they no longer serve a purpose, and they obscure the meaning of the code to any newb who might attempt to read it. I'd like to see all these template redirects put into Category:Bypassable template redirects, with the understanding that any bot operator may go to work replacing them.
  2. Shortcut templates that save keystrokes but are utterly obscure to anyone unfamiliar with them should be substituted. The best example here is the table style templates such as {{table style}}: meaningless to anyone who hasn't actually read the documentation; and harmless to substitute. Against, I'd like to see all these templates put into Category:Substitutable templates, with the understanding that any bot operator may go to work substituting them.
  3. There should be a canonical set of building-block templates for doing all the basic things we commonly need to do, such as centring a block of text, changing font size, etc. Where possible we should use those building-blocks in a consistent manner, rather than introducing more and more bells and whistles to our templates, so that there are always a gazillion different ways to do the same thing. {{center}} shouldn't be able to change font-size; {{larger block}} shouldn't be able to change alignment. If you want to change alignment and font-size at the same time, use {{center|{{larger block|foo}}}}, thus it is explicitly clear that you are using two building block template to do two unrelated things to the same block of text. Simple, intuitive.
Hesperian 05:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not opposed to that though do want think it through some more, especially about difficulties or where certain works or projects that do have indepth formatting (usually needed) and how we would look to allow and support that. We are also going to have those who like to build complex templates that sing and dance and fart and how we encourage a similar philosophy. I do note though that faced with having to remember {{hyphenated word start||}} to be used repeateadly is a right PITA, and {{hws}} is easier, and probably why I buttonify so many of those longer components. If we really want to make it easier for newbies then we would be looking to buttonify more things into the toolbar now that there is more scope to do so, and we can use full codes in the implementation.

Re something like {{ts}} when building big tables and then proofreading others, let me say that it is imperative that the presentation can be simplified as much as possible, and I generally try to use {{table style}} when starting a table, and then use {{ts}} through the cells/rows. I feel that simplifying table coding does more for the newbies than filling with much lots of raw code.

We probably also want to look at including Category:Redirected templates that can also can be tidied in pa(r|s)sing.
At the same time I do want for us to at least cover the idea of code bloat. I have seen examples when a page is expanded where it was div div div div span span span span span for some simple formatting where it could have all been wrapped in the one div, and trying to work out a problem was a bit of a nightmare. As it isn't wrong to concatenate the code into one div, we do need to have some allowance/acceptance/ability to be able to combine codes and not have it undone just because someone has a preference.

This possibly needs to be wrapped up back into some of our previously discussed first coded principles that if it is preference and isn't harm, accept it and move on. That said, where we have those coders who are more tightly aligned to a form of style, in combination with a work that is their focus, then such should be identified on the talk page of the Index: of the work, and we need a pointer flag that works like {{edition}} for the index page. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty ignorant on the how, but I wonder if in the same way that when entering sections into Page space, (##Section 1##) results in an automatic <div> or something, if that can be applied here, so that something like the use of {{c}} would save as {{center}}. - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea how ThomasV applied that trick beyond guessing that it is part of a javascript manipulation. We could look to substitute the templates but that is a little tricky at times, and may even be confusing to some users. It would become complex to start to do that sort of thing, and IMO far easier to get a bot to run through once a month to do a tidy up. If we did things properly with something like W:WP:AWB it could be part of a general cleanup locally. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

{{center|{{larger block|foo}}}}

Pardon, but I don't see how this result underneath can be considered desirable never mind optimal....
<div class="tiInherit" style="text-align: center; text-indent: 0;">
<div style="font-size:120%;">
compared to all that was really needed (and in line with the basics of HTML) by using...
<p style="text-align:center; font-size:120%; text-indent:0em;">foo</p>
IMHO, the "bigger" problem, from the perspective of a newbie at one point in time to having a year or two under my belt here on en.WS today, is (for the lack of a better term) the abuse of the Wiki-code where hardly anything is just a series of plain old paragraphs unless its wrapped and unwrapped in a series of pointless divs just like rarely do I see a table row or a list-item treated as such instead of some bastardized set of spans &/or paragraphs wrapped again in a bunch of divs that aren't really needed to produce the "same" effect but with twice the coding involved.

This is "bloat" is compounded when it comes to template application/creation where there is no longer any differentiation being made between a simple line of text which happens to be a title or chapter name and a block of text that consists of one line rather than many lines as the term block implies which also happens to be a title or chapter name, etc. Unless one is trying mirror prose as published or trying to work content smoothly around an image as published, the use of block-this or block-that (divs) is overkill -- at least that's the way I see it. — George Orwell III (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

George, have you ever actually compared the output of {{xxx-larger|{{lorem ipsum}}}} and {{xxx-larger block|{{lorem ipsum}}}}? The former marks up the text as xxx-larger, but does so inline, in the current paragraph context, including normal line height. The result is hideously squashed up text. The latter avoids the problem by treating the text as a block in its own right... but one cannot mark up text inline this way. Both are needed. But don't take my word for it; look for yourself:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.


Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Hesperian 05:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

OK? Either way the paragraph tag is present. You're either subverting it by using a span tag immediately after the paragraph tag open to wrap what should be paragraph text or overriding the paragraph tags by wrapping it a div. In all my years of editing HTML would I normally do either to get a whole paragraph to reflect a larger font size than the rest of the paragraphs. This is all that is needed.....

<p style="font-size:207%;">{{lorem ipsum}}</p>

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

To make the line spacing one work, I'd do something like this....

<p style="line-height:2.5em;"><span style="font-size:207%;">{{lorem ipsum}}</span></p>

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

to invalidate using span to wrap paragraph text at paragraph tag open just try to use it adjust that line height at the same time

<p><span style="font-size:207%; line-height:2.5em;">{{lorem ipsum}}</span></p>

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Anyway you slice it - from what I can tell, the general practice has been to ignore the paragraph tag altogether as if the wiki-code had somehow made it truly non-existent and run right to using a myriad of divs and/or spans instead for templates and their application. This is what was hardest to reconcile mentally as a newbie coming from a basic HTML world understanding to dealing with WikiSource, wiki-code, and the nuances needed to avoid what was normal usage of that paragraph tag all those years. — George Orwell III (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

@Hesperian. We have had a myriad of recent templates created and more to the old school of useful specifically for the work at hand. I have dropped a note on the user's talk page asking for fuller naming and some of the background to previous discussions. To me it may be a case of subst: the templates at the completion of the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

How to do a Table of Contents[edit]

I have searched and searched and cannot find an explanation. I have tried to copy the TOC's of other articles, but with little but accidental success. For example, I am currently working on but it is very frustrating. I don't edit here much anymore because it seems like it is becoming so complicated that a willing editor like me just can't keep up. Respectfully, Mattisse (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I refreshed the page to original text, and then stepped through steps that I would take to get a ToC in place, and have added the commentary to summary, even with my d'oh moments. I would say that most ToCs have a particular quirk that adds a variation to an approach. I would usually wikilink the Chapter numbers, however, that wasn't going to work for the introduction and the index, so I took a consistent approach on wikilinking text. To note that we have been looking to use chapter arabic numbers rather than chapter names as they are a little easier, and actually mean that our approach more aligns with how a chapter may be referenced, so we can future redlink, and arabic as it just is easier for all than roman numerals. We can try and pull that together into a help page if that seems useful. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my Table of Contents. I have worked so hard on this site that I am unused to any form of appreciation, so I have gratified that you nominated a work I have completed for Featured text. Most of what happens on this site is over my head. Since I still have not a clue how to do a Table of Contents or Illustrations page, I doubt I will be contributing seriously to this site any more, except for the Proof read of the month. I started out with confidence but I have lost it. Respectfully, Mattisse (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
You are a transcription machine, so very sorry to hear that bits of WS are troublesome. I do understand the difficulty with ToC, as it did take me a while to get used to wikitables. I am not the best at writing help pages, though I am wondering whether w:simple:Help:Tables and w:simple:Help:Images may cover some of the information of interest. It is definitely one of those times that face to face works so much better for me, rather than talk pages. With regard to appreciation, some of us who are task-orientated can forget the individual reward and recognition, which is why I try to stop and take the time to recognise PotM participants each month. As some feedback, I have pointed out some of the Devonshire-related texts that you initiated to the genealogical crowd interested in Devon, and I believe that they have been linked to from the GENUKI Devon pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


Didn't realize you'd uploaded Index:The Life and Adventures of William Buckley.djvu, I've been working on Index:Life and Adventures of William Buckley.djvu (note missing 'The'). But that scan is patchy, have found another at [18] which I can't get [19] to ocr properly, any idea how else to do that?Misarxist (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that was a little unfortunate. Of the two currently available, which is better? We may wish to amalgamate what we have, then go from there. I will take a peek. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I will delete the copy and pages that I did. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, those two are the same, from and patchy in parts. While the Vic. library one ([20]) is better, but I can't get anydjvu to ocr it.Misarxist (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Have you tried to upload it to When you do that in whatever form it is in, they will derive the other formats. If you do not have an account there, then let me know and I will do it. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Something wrong with Wikisource interface[edit]

This is Kathleen.Wright5, I can't log-in because something has gone wrong with the Wikisource interface. I keep trying to get the Wikisource mainpage but it goes to the Wikipedia mainpage--but it has the Wikisource page in my browser bar-- also proofreading pages look wrong and there are no subpages. This has happened since you tried to import template pages from Wikipedia at approx 12:28 UTC today. This is also happening with IE8.

Whole site and wider WMF is up the Casbah at the moment. You can try the secure login, as that is still working for me, BUT, things are broken more widely and we have local configurations "NADA". :-( — billinghurst sDrewth 13:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Should be back, at least for a while. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
It's back except for original text on proofreading pages and link to Index page --kathleen wright5 (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand, have you a url as a pointer? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
See Page:The letters of Martin Luther.djvu/52 using standard login --kathleen wright5 (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I've been able to view original text/link to Index page since logging in securely...Not so before, but certainly now... Maybe try again? Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
That said, even with secure login, I can't see the Source tab on the Mainspace pages I've been working on, but I can in other works... Cache issue? Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Kathleen, that page works fine for me, and I verified. The links for that worked fine to take me to the index and other pages. To note that I utilise the secure login facility, so don't know whether that may be an issue or whether you may do well to force a browser cache push (ctrl-F5) — billinghurst sDrewth 14:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

When do you "apply" ctrl-F5? In edit mode or normal? Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Got it, and it solved the problem I was having with the absent Source tab. I made an "innocuous" edit on the Index:Page (mere overwriting by copying/pasting the title from the Main over the title on the Index:page), then went to the Mainspace page and pressed ctrl-F5, and there was the Source tab. Can't remember what order I did everything in, or what steps were necessary/unnecessary, but it worked at any rate... Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Excellent news. There is a black-magic mystery connection there somewhere. I think that a null edit would have worked as it seems to have work on some sort of backlink having been established. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what any of that means :) but anything having to do with "black magic" doesn't sound like "excellent news" to me! ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I logged out of secure and back into normal, and followed Kathleen's url. I have the same problem as she does in normal login; and as I said above, while logged in securely, I have (at least) one issue... Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
With Google Chrome (a different installation) I have no issues, either not logged in, or logged in, or logged in with secure. At first blush it sounds like a cache issue where a file is not present and needs to be forced to load/reload. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I use Google Chrome, and still have the same issues as I noted above. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Can't log in[edit]

Londonjackbooks here... I attempted to log in, and did so "successfully," yet when I try to navigate away from the login page, I am no longer logged in. Also, every WS page I navigate to is under the "banner" of Wikipedia. When I go to the Scriptorium, it is "blanked" and shows a redirect to wikisource:Scriptorium. Am I the only one having this issue? Thanks, Londonjackbooks 13:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, noted above...

I'm also having this issue ... which needs to be resolved soon. - Tannertsf (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

See section above. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Southern Historical Society's Papers[edit]

Billinghurst, I would like to work on the Southern Historical Society's "Papers" located here
How do I get these onto an area for Wikisource so I can transcribe articles as I have been doing with the Confederate Military History volumes already on Wikisource? They are in .pdf format. If someone who knows how to do this I am certainly willing to transcribe those articles in the volumes. I thank you, —Brother OfficerTalk 16:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I was doing something similar anyway and this talk page is on my watchlist. Some of the files from the archive should start appearing in Commons:Category:Southern Historical Society Papers soon. I've used the URL2Commons tool, which uses a bot to upload files automatically but it may take a little time to get around to them. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Adam. You are not "butting" in. You are working as we all like to do on projects we like. I remember reading your user page and whereas with you fiction takes precedence, non-fiction takes precedence with me except in films where anything goes. I applaud your extensive and varied work as noted on your user page and I appreciate your statements regarding the Southern Historical Society Papers. I look forward to editing them. I like those volumes more than I do the Confederate Military History volumes and I own all of them in hardcopy volumes. I have looked at what you state and the images there are not yet like those of Confederate Military History, so I assume I cannot yet edit them into ascii for Wikisource. I will check every day until I see what is taking place and I hope that you do not mind my editing those volumes with you. I will try to stay out of your area of work. At this point, I know nothing about the URL2Commons tool. I have neither heard nor read about it but I intend to read about it now that you have mentioned it. Thank you so much for adding what you have. We all build together and oh, what grand projects we encounter! Best regards, —Brother OfficerTalk 01:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Created the Index file … Index:Southern Historical Society Papers volume 02.djvubillinghurst sDrewth 02:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I thank you both. Billinghurst, would you be so kind as to add an index for vol.3 ?
Done, Index:Southern Historical Society Papers volume 03.djvu CYGNIS INSIGNIS 21:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Adam, the seal you have with the Southern Historical Volumes 2,3 is not the proper seal. It is the CSA seal. I have uploaded the correct seal, the SHSP seal with motto which was created after the American Civil War but I don't know where that and an image of Reverend Joseph William Jones, an exhaustive editor of the SHSP, ended up on Commons. The Southern Historical Society could not use the Confederate States SEAL and Motto. However, the images look very similar, The wording around the circumference is different. You have uploaded vols. 2 and 3. Please upload volume 1. I will transcribe the articles that I like the most first with hopes that others will transcribe the battles and personal arguments in those volumes. Again, Best Regards, —Brother OfficerTalk 21:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I set the tool for about a dozen volumes; I'm not sure what went wrong. I shall go and give it a push. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
For a work like this, can I suggest that you set up the page Portal:Southern Historical Society, use {{portal header}}, list the works under a Papers subsection header, and add do feel welcome to add pertinent history to the notes, and feel welcome to use the Portal talk page for the conversational items.
Whatever you think is best is fine with me. However, I simply transcribe and do not know the many things others can do. All suggestions to better any project like this are welcome as far as I am concerned but I do not know how to do what you have suggested. Something I would like to suggest is to use a full name when first encountered at least once. For example, R.M.T. Hunter carries three family surnames. Those are important and somewhat like links they will match up to others in other volumes that perhaps show a kinship. This makes the 52 volumes important for family researh. When I started on the SHSP-CDROM years ago, I did not know a Confederate from a Federal. The SHSP-CD was completed years ago by a company that does not now exist. In reference to a "portal", it seems to me that since these 52 volumes are about the American Civil War, as are the Confederate Military History volumes, they all should be in the American Civil War Portal that I have seen a few years ago. I'll do whatever I can and I enjoy doing it. You and others must decide what to do and where to place or move any works. Alas!, I haven't that knowledge. Best Regards & Thank You all, —Brother OfficerTalk 05:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Do not sell yourself short, it is a collaboration, you bring your knowledge of the subject matter; we have other knowledge about how we have organised things on site; we will merge that knowledge for a product. Fifty works on a page sounds like a suitable listing, and we will crosslink it, and do other magic within the system. An example of another such a listing is Portal:Notes and Queries. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't selling myself short. I can learn anything I put my mind to. I have two university degrees and know four trades, and am a veteran, aged 64. We all know that nobody knows everything in life and that we all learn more things as we continue to live. It's all a form of trade. I have that in my ancestry where former aristocrats didn't know how to grow food, gave up being aristocrats (Huguenots), and learned trades. At one point they really would have starved if not for farmers. Being educated people those few former aristocrats educated the children of the farmers in trade for the farmers teaching them how to garden. Thus, everyone benefited. I prefer to edit because I get to read as I edit and by editing I am giving to a system that provides for others. What I do not want to do is spend slow time learning something that I am not interested in such as creating a portal because in that same amount of time I could be editing. Editing is a "must" and it is there that I contribute freely and happily. I enjoy what I do. If others like us felt that way we would have more workers doing whatever they like the best. Too, I cannot spend but so much time on the computer. So, I do what I prefer to do and I do sincerely thank all who do whatever they do. You have been here for a very long time now and constantly. I myself do not wish to learn everything here that one possibly can. It's not my cup of tea. I admire what you do and view you as a professional here -- and I have gotten all kinds of help from you for many years now. I must rest for awhile and then I will be back editing. It is an enjoyment and relaxation for me. I feel very good about "giving back to the system". Most respectfully, —Brother OfficerTalk 09:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

a thought[edit]

When I see something wrong on a page I created, I spend time hunting around to see if it was something I did. I will leave it to you spend time pondering why I spent time mentioning here, now. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Help:Index tools[edit]

I see a problem and think this is the solution. Create the page above, move the links to the 'transclusion checker' and 'bookscroll' tools there, add descriptions of what they do and mention that they lead offsite. A link to the page could appear next to the one you added for Help:Page status at the MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index template, then these and other links could be added and improved by anyone. If you remove these from the Indexes, I'll go ahead and create the page. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that I see the problem that is evident to you, let alone what you propose as a solution. The tool provides an interactive and context sensitive link to allow for a maintenance task, and it appears in our workspace, not in the main namespace. If you think that the links are confusing, in that it is not clear that they run tools on Toolserver, then maybe the solution is to wrap them in a box that says that they are WMF-aligned tools that are not at Wikisource. For your info links for one of these tools is at Wikisource:Tools and scripts. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a need for these to be at every index, those who want to do maintenance can add the name of the index. If you prefer using these, or others agree it should appear everywhere, just in case they want to use it, then it should offer the local documentation, perhaps under "External tools:" or the title above and the names of each after that. All that could appear after the page status link, with a few bits of text; icons and boxification are unnecessary, the formatting of the Index template is already cluttered enough. Putting it next to page status seems appropriate, it is a link most would use once, if at all. It is not confusing to me, just annoying that it overlaps the TOC that seems agreeable and used by most, yet are still confusing except to the initiated. Paths away from the site need labelling as such, icons, even with hover text, create more problems, eg. interfering with those who want or need text-only access. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 18:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. GOIII and I did originally try to minimise the impact of the siting, and its location has moved once or twice. We can have another go, and see if there is someone more expert in the minutiæ to give us a hand. We do seem to lack people willing/able to stand up and give of that skill. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I have refreshed the index sandbox with the current template components. So the existing outputs are at Wikisource:Sandbox/Index. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
As a trial, I have (roughly) put the links in a new row to the table, and turned the borders on for some guidance. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


Billinghurst, or others, I need a bit of help with something. I am editing the Southern Historical Sociey Papers. The top of every page, left and right, has the topic name and a page number. This is redundant. I need to make sure that I edit both every left page and every right side page correctly. Would someone please be so kind as to look at the last even and odd pages and if need be correct the code for the name of the topic and page number for proper fotmatting? That way as I continue, I would not be making any same mistake through the volumes. I can see how it was corrected and do the volumes properly. At this point I do not know if I have been coding them properly or not. i.e. Southern Historical Society p.13 -- centered properly and with page number placed as it is supposed to be. Page numbers centered at this point do not look like the original volumes. I thank whomever assists. Kind regards, —Brother OfficerTalk 19:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Brother Officer - I have edited the first proofread pages on Vol. 1 of the Papers to show you what it generally done for headings like these. Template:RunningHeader is a guide on how to do them if you need further information.

Also, I noticed you used the (i) format for italics. On Wikisource, we do something a tad easier, ( the double apostrophe). I'm not sure if that style is mandatory, but I know it is standard use for a lot of editors on this site.

If you need any more help, or have a question, just ask - I'm pretty available. - Tannertsf (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Tannertsf, I saw what you did and it looks excellent. However, when I tried to see how you did it by clicking on "edit" I saw nothing! So, where is the code placed? The (i) is an old habit from when HTML first came out decades ago and sometimes I use the wikisource edit bar that shows the letter I because I do not know which is preferred and I see no difference in the result. (i) is a lot faster for me. I don't know what is "mandatory" either but if there is a difference in anything I prefer to know what to do at the beginning. Too, it saves others time who "validate" if work is done properly. Thank you for your help, time, and kindness. —Brother OfficerTalk 20:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The code is placed in the header (which you can see by, in your preferences, going to gadgets and selecting "view Header" or something like that). - Tannertsf (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I just nailed one of the little annoyances. It is similar to placing an image in a work, placing it left, right, or center, and it's size. I am familiar with that. This can save others work when it comes to validating. Thank You! —Brother OfficerTalk 20:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • AS described, the redundant parts of the text are placed in the header and footer fields, you can show these by clicking the button [+]. To set them to always open, go to Special:Preferences#preftab-8 and tick the box next to "Show header and footer fields when editing in the Page namespace". Wikis use two apostrophes before and after text to code italic, three will create bold. HTML works too, using what is familiar and quickest is okay (it is easy to replace). CYGNIS INSIGNIS 20:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Old unused images[edit]

I think every thing needed to delete remaining images and close at Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Old_unused_images is there. I did not close out of courtesy to give you a response window. It may be a while before I signed on as an admin again, feel free to finish it up if you concur. Jeepday (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Missing Yellow Highlight[edit]

Why is it that the yellow highlight does not show on some proof-read pages? How does one correct the situation? The purpose is, I believe, to show which pages have been proofread. Best regards, —Brother OfficerTalk 06:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I am seeing those pages marked as being proofread. I would guess that you are seeing a cached page, and would suggest that you purge the page sDrewth 06:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Totem and Taboo[edit]

Hi. I wanted to bring Index:Totem and Taboo (1919).djvu to your attention. This book is basically proofread, even if doesn't show in page status. Practically only headers to be added to pages. Can you bring it up to the Proofread Community? WIth a joint effort, this could be proofread and validated very quickly. --Mpaa (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


Hey! Since you created the author page for Alexander Kielland I thought you might be interested in this: I have created indeces for the books Tales of two Countries and Garman and Worsë (as W. Archer writes it). Especially for the short stories in the 'Tales of two Countries', it should be easy to coordinate proofreading, so we can have mutual interwiki-links to/from Norwegian Wikisource. V85 (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

One legal doubt ...[edit]

Hi. Maybe a stupid question... As I am located in Europe, is it OK if I upload on WS/Commons works that are in PD in US but not in Europe? And if it is already uploaded b someone else, can i work on them freely? --Mpaa (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting legal question and one to which I do not know the answer. Some might say "ignorance is bliss" — billinghurst sDrewth 09:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Unable to add new text[edit]

I did more research on how to add and edit content, but I seem to be unable to add new pages. The Help contents say that there should be an edit button on the top of the search page, but I don't see one. Joe Chill (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh. An option to add a new page exists now. Joe Chill (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Great. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Now I ran into a different problem. I added The Life, and Dying Speech of Arthur, a Negro Man; Who Was Executed at Worcester, October 20, 1768. For a Rape Committed on the Body of One Deborah Metcalfe because it is a slave narrative from the 1700s. So I figured that since the author died over 2 centuries ago and it was published in the 1700s that it was acceptable. The problem is that the source says that it can't be used for commercial use which I find odd since they only digitized it and don't own the copyright. If I can't add it because the digitizers say that they own what is essentially public domain content, I don't understand this copyright issue. Joe Chill (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
They cannot own the copyright. About the licence for use of the work, then comes down to the labour of the brow, and is not a legal restriction. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Correct, they cannot own that copyright. However, when some scans (or books) are reproduced someone will create statements & or an image preceeding the actual public domain work. They then declare, "copyright" (to scare people away) but only on what they add, not the original text can be under copyright. —Brother OfficerTalk 22:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

New text criteria[edit]

Your most recent New Text listing reminded me that I have a text that I have completed, but have not yet added as a New Text due to a problematic page where a small portion of the text is missing (see here). Despite the missing text, is the book eligible to be added to New Texts or no? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought so. Do note that we also have {{illegible}} that can be used to highlight the text in need of repair. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Or you can use {{lacuna}} to do a similar thing. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! I used both :) but noincluded the {{lacuna}} for transcription (eyesore in the Main). But I did place a note in the notes section. Hopefully someone will come along and have the means to fill in the blanks! Thanks to both! Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

SHSP (searchable volumes?)[edit]

Billinghurst, or others who might know; when a volume of the Southern Historical Society papers is completed, will that volume be searchable without having to look at every page? Too, will the 52 volumes be searchable *as a collection* of 52 volumes or would one have to search each volume? I thank anyone who knows and helps answer these questions, --William Maury Morris II 03:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes/no. The indexing part of the "search" functionality is still underdeveloped, especially with regard to where we transclude pages into the main namespace, that is to say that with transcluded work that Wikisource's search engine cannot yet specifically drill down to subpages of content by isolating part of the tree. There is a request within bugzilla for that feature. Once that is available, then the language to run such a query does exist, and is utilised currently at a view places. There should be means to develop a Google query, not that I have experimented to do so. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I think 'foo "Page:Southern Historical Society papers"' would work just fine.--Doug.(talk contribs) 12:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but that doesn't work in the main namespace (our presentation space) which was the scope of the question. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Ironically, Google has no problem reading proofread pages in the mainspace; it's just our own search engine that can't do it. For example, this search, related to August's featured text, brings back positive results: "Conan site:". Although there's not much mainspace text yet, I'd expect this search to work when everything has been transcluded: "Gettysburg". - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Which was my _implicit_ point without trying to be technical about the problem, and was my suggested solution. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


I'm not allowed to put links to "" into Author:Max Abraham. Could you please whitelist it, thanks. --D.H (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 21:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Editing links?[edit]

Just curious why the editing mark-up links no longer show in my editing windows. These are the blue links where one would just click and it would be inserted, e.g., section start & section end. Thanks. Daytrivia (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It has been gadgetified (from reading Inductiveload's post overnight). — billinghurst sDrewth 22:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sir Samuel Bentham[edit]

I came across this and the author link was then a redlink: I created Author:John Weale, which is probably needed (see w:John Weale which I converted from DNB today). But it turns out that Weale was the publisher of the Bentham piece, which is attributed to Bentham's widow. He probably did edit it also. So it's an older posting anyway, and looks like it needs some attention. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Not obvious which bits were published or how. I have cheated, and just stuck {{split}} onto the work, and updated the author. We would possibly be better off digging out her published work The life of Brigadier-General Sir Samuel Bentham though not a priority here. I also created the Weale author link from the DNB piece back to the author page. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Help on section transclusion[edit]

Hi. How can the broken line, due to new section, at page 60 here Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_25/May_1884/The_Milk_in_the_Cocoa-Nut could be avoided? Thanks --Mpaa (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

removed extra blank lines at the end of page 59 [21] then on page 60 removed line break at section E68 start plus added missing end tag to correctly close section E68 [22]. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks done. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. One question on the solution. Regarding then on page 60 removed line break at section E68 start , I tried to do that but with no success. Does it depend on the fact that I see sections as ## ##? Do you need to have the gadget "Use the old syntax in the Page namespace" to see and do that? Sorry if I bother, but so I can learn. --Mpaa (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Without removing the dead space (extra blank lines) on page 59 first - it really did not matter what you tried on page 60; so using the new or the old section tags should not have been an issue in this case.

Using little things like "E68" (section Ends on djvu page 68) or "B68" (section Began on djvu page 68) just helps me keep track of things & their proper ranges when it comes to transclusion to the mainspace is all. I guess you can't teach an old dog new tricks (I had to learn sections the old way in other words - there was no other choice back then). -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


Thnx, and for the formatting. Do you mean an absolute table width? (I set it to 400px) Misarxist (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting Notes to proofread![edit]

Looks gorgeous. It's been a long time coming. Going to be a bit odd not seeing it on RC—though there's still validation to be done! I'll try a few pages when I have spare time. Prosody (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The more boring bits are always hard to get through, while at the end it feels good to get a completion.smileybillinghurst sDrewth 14:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

New page (previous) question[edit]

Creating the page Secretary of War to Harrison Setting forth regulations in regard to the Indian policy I cannot squeeze the previous page title in for proper link. Is there an abbreviation I could use for previous in order to get the page to link? Thanks. Daytrivia (talk) 03:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Generally in a work like this we would be making each part a subpage to the overarching work (with redirects from base to subparts), this allows us to respect the publication in its entirety, it also aids navigation in that the previous/next titles can then be piped name labels that can be abbreviated rather than fully extend the name. I also note that the title of the page and the previous are the same, so it looks to be an error to correct too. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch. I'll try and find some examples. The scenario you present would work much better. I guess I am so used to doing DNB articles and I really need to practice on individual works more. Thanks again. Daytrivia (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Plenty of poetry has gone that way, and some days I really wish that DNB was that way too. An example of a similar work that I am currently munging into shape is Index:Seventeen lectures on the study of medieval and modern history and kindred subjects.djvubillinghurst sDrewth 13:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


Could you tell me, using this page as an example, what formatting to use to get the ## upper ## and ## lower ## results that I see on the page... and where the formatting should be placed? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

(If I interpreted your question properly) As I use the old-fashioned <section begin="upper"> ... rather than the ##upper## gadget, that is what I see. Looking at the pages they look suitably tagged, and in the right places. If you are looking to put more space between the two sections as displays on that page, then you can terminate a section with 4#, ie. ####
I'm just wanting to replicate what was done on that page on the other pages in the text, since I think transclusion of sections into the Main is all that's left for the doing for that text now... I suspected that to get the 'upper' and 'lower' results that you see when in edit mode, one must not merely type in "## upper ##"—or must one? Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Yep, new style section tags is that simple, ##"section name"## (opens new section; and closes previous section, if one exists.). To note that I normally wrap names in " ". We don't explain that somewhere on the help pages or at oldwikisource:Wikisource:ProofreadPage? Oh dear. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I'll give it a shot and try to not make a mess! Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Make a mess? Pretty hard to do so, a fouled section marker just means that the transclusion fails, and nothing bad at all. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
This page has two sections to deal with. Can you do that one for me to show how that would be handled? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done though I wonder why we are breaking the transclusion down to that level, rather than just to a chapter level. We van have chapters with multiple sections IMNSHO. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 22:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Noo... I got it wrong... I wasn't paying attention to Roman numerals and assumed any incident of a RN was a "chapter"... It probably needs to be changed, since looking at the Chapters in the Main, it is now skewed. My fault, sorry... Let me see if I can fix it myself...Otherwise, I'll give you a shout... Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed—or so it appears to me to be—which doesn't mean it is! ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me too. I hope that isn't a disappointment winkbillinghurst sDrewth 02:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah...if only I got humor! I'll probably "get it" tomorrow... Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Ironic humour; which I forget that Americans often don't get. C'est la vie. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Ha! There's some truth to that! I grew up with that degenerate brand of humor (even your spelling is cooler than ours!) called dry humor (or at least as we understand the meaning of 'dry'). Very humiliating! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan & Bangladesh regional categories[edit]

Hi, what are your thoughts on the large number of categories being created for regions and subregions of Pakistan & Bangladesh? I can't see that we are likely to have enough works to make these categories useful or necessary in the medium term, let alone right now. One of the places I inhabit at the other place is CFD, so I'm sensitised to over-categorisation. I'm inclined to take the lot to WS:DEL, but the job of tagging them all is daunting. So I thought I'd check with someone else first. Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Our principle has been to create and populate categories that are required at that time and where the population of articles will or can warrant such creation, not seemed like a good idea at the time. My personal opinion doesn't seem different beyond a national level category, especially as there isn't any evidence that we will have much to populate the categories. I wouldn't tag them all, just a couple, and then just list them at WS:DEL. If they are new and empty, I personally may have deleted them and noted why to the contributor about how we do things around here. For the number of expected works Portal:Pakistan and Portal:Bangladesh would seem a better option to promote and present works. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I acted (unilaterally) in that space when I saw more being done after you had asked for a cessation. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)