User talk:Captain Nemo

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Please consider putting a brief description of yourself on your user page. If you are already a contributor to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia, please mention this on your user page so we know how to contact you. Also, mention which languages you understand if English is not your first language.

In any case, I hope you enjoy donating your time to grow the Wikisource library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome! John Vandenberg (chat) 03:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

On Talk:The Mutineers of the Bounty I have requested more information about the edition that you have contributed. This in part so that we can check the copyright status of the translation right now, and also to assist people who later come to our text and inquire about its provenance. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

email notifications[edit]

Hi, after a proposal to enable email notification, Wikisource is now able to notify you of any changes to pages on your watchlist and/or changes to your talk page. In order to take advantage of these features, you need to enabled them in your preferences. --John Vandenberg (chat) 14:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the help on the Tolstoi texts, they're a pet project of mine and I'm glad to have you onboard helping! Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nostradamus‎. 14:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Tolstoy's short stories are too often overlooked, they're wonderful morality tales that don't require the time commitment of his lengthy novels. Even among the novels, Murat is probably my favourite - War and Peace just got lucky and is the one everybody can name (but few read). His essays are my favourite however, he presents such a unique face to Christianity and morality as to thoroughly delight me. If you need help finding any of the texts just ask -- I've spent over $100 on Author:Leo Tolstoy, having museums and libraries around the world send me copies of original unpublished manuscripts and the like - so I'm more than willing to invest some work in further improving the collection! Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nostradamus‎. 17:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


I noticed you contributing some texts, such as The Sealed Room, the source of each transcript is required. The edition would also be helpful, especially if the page is changed or rearranged. The current practice at this site is to use page scans for transcripts, are you aware of the options available for that? Cygnis insignis (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You may find a situation where two title pages link to one version of a text. You can make use of {{Versions}} and {{Disambiguation}} in this situation, subpaging to the book it is extracted from helps too. Cygnis insignis (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
A couple of things you may want to check when doing match and split. I don't know what your source of transcript is, but are you accounting for the variation in editions? Another problem you might encounter is that transcript may have been changed or imperfect, edit history here may show that, and these variations may also be difficult to detect. Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • nice, at lot neater, I'll roll that out to all of them. Cheers for checking my stuff. Cygnis insignis (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Lines are joined where there is a page break, so when the paragraph ends on one page we preserve the return:
 ... a new paragraph begins on the next page.

Cygnis insignis (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, cool. It may be have been my cleanup tool elsewhere, but I noted it here. Cygnis insignis (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
My favourite in the series, the FT Celtic Tales is also good; they are cross-referenced in the notes too. I'll try finish checking it before you validate any more. I rushed it out and applied the fixes I read them in mainspace, still a bit sloppy and unfinished. Cheers, Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Poking head in to say hello[edit]

Gday. You've been doing some really nice work. Congrats on picking up on some of our peculiarities so quickly. You have seen some of my muddy footprints through some of the work today, with some changes you are quite welcome to protest about if they don't suit, especially where I did a class="indented-page" rather than class=prose. One thing that I did note was your use of {{smallrefs}} in the Page: namespace, which should be unnecessary, as we have <references/> in the footers (though you can replace that with {{smallrefs}}). One just needs to remember to then put some reference collector onto the end of the main namespace page so it picks it up (eg.). Is Doyle a passion? — billinghurst sDrewth 10:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on the completion of the work. As a favour, when adding to {{new texts}}, we ask that a descriptive subject line referring to the title be used on the edit summary. Background: it displays on the main page, yet we like to keep it open for editing, hence we have light protection though consequently it is highly monitored page and having detail is most helpful. Again congrats. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

'Deccan tales'[edit]

One work you contributed to, Old Deccan Days, was added to new texts on the main page. I think I may have added Jacob's work already, or parts of it, but if you had a favourite you could add while it is newly validated. Regards, Cygnis insignis (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hänsel and Grethel[edit]

I made some changes and put an outline in place, shall we go with that for the time being? We have different sources, two translations, of the tales, so I started to separate these - rather than replace one with the other. Most of these are incorrectly linked as meta-titles, we have pages that give bibliographic details for pages that are not from that source. There is no 'book' Hansel and Grethel here yet, it is sections of texts in works with other titles. Ignoring this fact has greatly complicated this site, I hope you agree that the solution I applied goes some way to unravelling this mess. cygnis insignis 09:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent work!!! Should we have volumes in the titles, though? Say, why Grimm's Household Tales, Volume 1/The Frog-King, or Iron Henry and not Grimm's Household Tales/The Frog-King, or Iron Henry??? I'd much prefer the later. Also, do we need to have refrence to german page in header, there is already a German interwiki, no? What do you think? Captain Nemo (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The other option would be Grimm's Household Tales/Volume 1/The Frog-King, or Iron Henry, which will be useful if it if moved, but I see no reason to omit that detail. Jacob's, for example, cites the volume it appears in, the page numbering accords with that arrangement too, volume 2 starts 87. "The Poor Man and the Rich Man " page 1. There is no need to make a decision, so we shouldn't. A subpage doesn't need to repeat the meta details of the whole work, I added the german version because it is given as the source. All that other 'interwiki' link does is bury it amongst the general links in the sidebar, it ought to be that all published versions in other languages should be linked, it is directly related to the text and more relevant than other wikimedia sites, not less?! cygnis insignis 12:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
A subpage doesn't need to repeat the meta details of the whole work - completely agree! And the same, I believe, is true for pages as well. A person looking for a particular tale will type in the search box either the name of the work or name of the tale but never Grimm's Household Tales, Volume 1/Yet Another Tale. As for hyperlinking the citations it has absolutely nothing to do with the page names, no? It's just what's before and after pipe! But as I said before, if you're very keen on having comma volume number, no worries; for me only quality of the content is really important.Captain Nemo (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The names and titles have everything to do with actual publication, a reference might be general to precise. The same author may give, "like one of Grimm's tales", "Grimms tale of the Frog King", or "Source: 'The Frog-King, or Iron Henry' (Hunt, vol 2. 1884)'. A reader wants the same, they get what we have via meta-title. I think you have seen how this provides some advantages, how this resolves emergent problems becomes more evident. I'm not 'really keen' on a comma, the subpage will be convenient when someone adds a 20C translation, but providing the volume number can only be useful - it explains the pagination is one thing. We used to exclude stuff here, then 'wiki up' new content to substitute that. The evidence of scans has shown that the stuff we were copy/pasting was largely … inadequate. No matter how 'obvious' it may seem, the fact is the 'copies were created in two volumes; any decision to edit or republish is a can of worms, and diametrically opposed to the scope of a library, so I avoid it like the plague.

I should grab the other incomplete translation, or created the versions page with a redlink, it would have been simpler than what I did. As it is, the ref to "K. M. 14" I just made links to a book that was not even written - the passive solution would be to show it is not one thing, and put the full citation next to the link. Thanks for tweaking the notes, I changed my mind several times on Jacob's volumes, it is getting muchcloser to something we can roll out over the two volumes. cygnis insignis 11:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. On question of German originals - you're right, it's very important. In fact, maybe it's a good idea to have a special field, say original , in the header template, so that links can be provided in the uniform way for all translated works, what do you think?Captain Nemo (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I made a related comment when I thanked you for the new index. I think that is a good idea, a template could produce the same result in the notes. Or were you thinking of adding it to the display of title, author, translator, year and section? We also have {{Translations}} around, yet another approach. I envisage something is essentially a citation of the source, maybe with some prev/next navigation. We should, for example, be able to click a completed w:Template:Cite book for use at that place, copy pasting into forms for a single fact is a pain. cygnis insignis 15:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for this: I was very clumsily trying to merge everything to the top-level / entry point / disambig for Cinderella and see where things stand. I had been thinking about this example for ages, because of problems with title and author; this is not due to some insignificant factor, it is because it is so popular and will be frequently searched name. I had thought as I glanced at your edit that you were separating out Grimm from Perrault, and I had planned to discuss that somewhere, though I now see that you showing the 'actual source'. Splitting to two versions would be problematic, we would have to make an arbitrary decision, what I was thinking is 'versions' links iw:ws 'versions', the fr: link is similar, and specific to specific - I will go along with what you did! BTW, how do we know which Grimm version (year) Hunt's was derived from? cygnis insignis 11:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
No worries. Hunt translation: I thought it was 1857, for some reason, but you've made me doubt. The only hard evidence I have is the tales list, it's definitely from 1857, see [1]. Oh, and the notes section is for sure from 1857.Captain Nemo (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I had the same idea, perhaps its says 'final edition' somewhere. cygnis insignis 09:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sleeping Beauty[edit]

Lang's version is also very close, it was my guess is that Welsh plagiarised it for the 1901 publctn. I ran them through a text comparison, the results were minor changes or none at all, the first lines are usually different. I suppose it was possible that Lang used Welsh's transl., but I see no evidence of that. Like this volume, I suppose I should get the Blue book so people can build on what we have done. cygnis insignis 11:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

John Stuart Mill in PSM[edit]

Hi. Thanks for the correction about the multiple article list. I understood what’s wrong. Now, must clean up my mess elsewhere because this error was propagated in other entries in Wikisource. :-)

BTW, let me know if you are interested in the subject, I can proofread the whole article in the coming weeks and let you know when complete, so that it can be validated. - Ineuw (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


Hey. I finished validating the Welsh volume, but someone else needs to do this. cygnis insignis 10:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Captain Nemo, ONLY ONE E in running header = not MASQUEÉ I tell you this only so that you do not keep using two of them as seen when I was validating. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Pagelist and orphans[edit]


I don't know where you picked up the idea its ok to exclude a position or a range of positions from being assigned a page label, symbol or number in the pagelist tag command-line, but I wish you'd refrain from doing so from now on.

Every time you do, you create an orphaned page (or pages) that needs to be addressed since orphaned pages are automatically tracked. Its even worse when positions/pages are left out of the accounting and the Page: never gets "created" as well.

Every position that exists in a source file should have some sort of assignment associated with it in the pagelist tag. You can include, exclude, skip, etc. from the finished Pages in the final transclusion to the mainspace to achieve the same results (or you can physically delete unwanted pages from the source file before you upload it) - but omitting or skipping source file poistions is no longer an acceptable practice if it ever was.

Thanks for your attention in this matter. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, would you mind giving an example of me doing above. I dont quite get what you are about. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC).
When you start a pagelist by leaving out the positions before the ones with content that actually should be transcribed ( like in pagelist from=5 to=... found in this Index: Nothing assigned to position 1 thru position 4 ? in other words). Later on you leave out positions that exist but also don't get any sort of designation assigned to them by the pagelist as well. These are all now Orphaned pages.
Folks care more about being able to account for and or convert positions-to-pages & vise versa on the fly (or with Bots/templates/etc.) than care about how many the little boxes are being displayed on the bottom on any given Index: page - that is why its a little odd to see somebody doing it nowadays. The Index: & Page: namespaces are facilitators for transcription & proofreading puposes; not for "presentation" purposes (the mainspace is for WS visitors). -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Will avoid doing so. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC).

Moving works with subpages[edit]

Hi. When a whole work (root and subpages) needs to be moved I would like to suggest that you request an administrator to do it. As admins we can simultaneously move subpages as well, which just makes it all neater with the relative links that we use in chapters. I fixed up Cook's book, and will scan through for any link errors. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep, will do a request next time. Thank you! Captain Nemo (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC).

The Russian Review Volume 1[edit]

Here is the Index:The Russian Review Volume 1.djvu of your project. If this Index:Andreyev - The Giant (The Russian Review, 1916).djvu is part of the new version, then please insert a {{delete}} notice for the admins. The images were already uploaded to the commons and their location is noted in the Index talk page. Happy proofreading. — Ineuw talk 23:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you a lot!!! Andreyev's story is from the different volume. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC).

Bryusov's originals and namespace "Translation:"[edit]

Оригиналы Брюсова я сделал. Modern Russian Poetry/"Radiant Ranks of Seraphim" я связал с ru:Чьих-то ликов вереницы (Брюсов) (из сборника "Στεφανος" 1906 года), хотя переводчик переводил с варианта этого стихотворения из сборника "Пути и перепутья" 1908 года.

Ещё у меня будет вопрос: какие правила английской Викитеки действуют в пространстве имён "Translation:"? Оно явно создано не давно, т.к. я раньше не замечал его здесь... -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Local errors[edit]

Hi Captain, I fixed the local errors in the authority control (revision history: "GND fix"). You put them back. --Kolja21 (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Same in Author:Edwin Muir, Author:José P. Rizal etc. --Kolja21 (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry, I dont quite understand the issue. In all three cases mentioned you have just added //authority control// template which I edited to add correct(!) VIAF. The correct VIAF then populates GND. It might be that in some cases there are multiple VIAF corresponding to the same author, thus providing different GND. In such cases I try to identify the main VIAF cluster and use it. If this is the case thenone way to resolve it is to report it at Wikipedia, it will be reported to VIAF and they will merge the clusters. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk).

Thanks for the fast feedback. "GND fix" meant the GND was wrong. The w:Integrated Authority File (GND), like the LCCN, is the original authority file. VIAF is just (a helpful but incomplete and sometimes outdated) collection of this data.
wrong: Author:José P. Rizal, GND 177174145 (just a placeholder, not connected with this individual person)
correct: Author:José P. Rizal, GND 118601407
The numbers are stored at Wikidata and added automatically. The advantage: If they change (duplicates, errors etc.) we only need to correct them once. BTW: I came to Wikisource because the names have shown up at the maintenance list d:Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P227. Cheers --Kolja21 (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
If you have a problem with a bad GND, kindly delete ONLY the GND and not everything leaving us with with no params and a clean {{authority control}} template to deal with (breaks functionality of certain gadgets; screws up dynamic page list generation). The only params that can honestly be tracked by us are the ones in "English" (VIAF, LCCN & ISNI basically) and honestly that is all we'd like to retain locally. Hopefully one or more of those will match what Wikidata has -- if not today then some day in the near future. All the other non-English based sources, including GND, are not of primary concern. If one of those is outdated or wrong - just delete that single source and we'll inherit what Wikidata has instead. In short, when you "blank" what we've added manually - you screw up our internal tracking at the expense of our additional efforts to reconcile all the authorities at the same time. Kindly stop the practice. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Well first I think I'm not the only users who has problems with errors and secord (see above) why using Wikidata and store local duplicates? There are about 50 Wikipedias and a couple of more projects like Wikisource using authority data. Do you think it is wise to make 50+ changes instead of 1? But of cause I'm not a regular user at Wikisource so if you want I only correct the basic errors and leave the maintenance of the 475944 VIAF and 281617 GND inditifiers (d:Wikidata:Database reports/Popular properties) to you. --Kolja21 (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd rather you concern yourself with the authority you are fluent in (German - GND) and delete any local entries that do not meet your investigations concerning that GND entry. If the VIAF, LCCN or ISNI local entries are "wrong" however, we ask that you respect the current practice & please add/replace/fix those local entries locally - not delete any of them.

Either way the point is not to delete all the manual added entries here. ONE DAY, when Wikidata has some time under its belt and has been thouroughly vetted, it will be OK to remove all the local entries here too - that day is just not today. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Forget about the GND - it has nothing to do with language. You can read "Montesquieu (1689-1755)"? Brilliant. So you can read English, French, German, Spanish, Italian and a lot of more languages. (I work for WP since 2004 and done edits on 262 project sites. And of cause I also correct VIAFs and LCCNs.) The point is, if you making errors at Wikisource they will reflect on Wikidata and Wikidata will spread them to dozens of Wikipedias. So it is not enough to correct authority errors at Wikidata. We have to go back to the source. Otherwise the error will be back a few weeks later. --Kolja21 (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I tried to explain - nobody here cares about anything other than what we've input manually because that is what what we were doing years before adding wikisource to wikidata was even an idea never mind implemented. Readers care even less when authorities are non-English. So while your credentials are impressive, they hold absolutely no sway here nor upon current established practices. And I just checked - everything you've touched in the past 2 months or so has been (re)adjusted by someone else afterwards so it seems you aren't helping matters much if at all.

At this point I don't know what else to say on this - either fix the 2 or 3 authorities that we've already mined & added locally to match what wikidata has or delete those authorities that still conflict with wikidata; just don't delete all of them. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Captain Nemo/The Borzoi 1920/Bibliography[edit]

The above page was placed into the main ns, and there is no evident parent page, nor source. So rather than delete it, I have moved it until it can be worked out what should happen with this work. If it is going to be in the main ns, it needs the parent work and organisation. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Global account[edit]

Hi Captain Nemo! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, DerHexer (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Biographical articles[edit]

@Captain Nemo: Be that as it may, your changing the category "mathematicians" to "mathematics" in George Boole's biography is wrong. The article is not about mathematics. If you feel it helps, then add that category as well, but don't remove other correct categories. Ineuw (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Authority control[edit]

Hey Captain Nemo, Just curious as to why you chose to use add local copies of the authority control data for Author:John Morgan (Physician). Thanks, The Haz talk 20:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

DMM Project[edit]

Welcome to the WikiProject DMM. It's nice to have someone else paying it some attention. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia link in header[edit]

I see that you removed the WP link from the header at Author:Frank Barbour Wynn. I understand and agree with this completely. However, the reason I left the WP link was because it was auto-populated when I created the page (I didn't enter it) and assumed that I probably shouldn't be deleting it. Is this going to be changed soon? I'm just thinking about the recent conversation re: authority control and people still wanting local data for some reason. Thanks, The Haz talk 14:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrong page moving[edit]

Приветствую, Captain Nemo!

Пишу на русском, т.к. судя по вашим правкам в русской Викитеке, русский язык вы знаете (и даже похоже на то, что он для вас родной).

Вы провели переименование страницы Author:H. R. James в страницу Author:Henry Rosher James неправильным способом: вы создали новую страницу, скопировав в неё содержимое исходной, а исходную заменили на редирект. В итоге, у страницы с новым именем потерялась история правок, которые были сделаны в исходной версии страницы, что является нарушением лицензии CC-BY-SA по которой функционируют проекты Wikimedia. Правильным способом было бы: переименовать страницу Author:H. R. James в Author:Henry Rosher James (пункт More->Move в меню справа сверху), в итоге правки версии страницы со старым именем автоматически перешли бы на страницу с новым именем, а вместо страницы со старым именем автоматически создался бы редирект (без предыдущей истории правок). В данном случае эта потеря правок, конечно, не сильно критична, т.к. вклад участника User:Aphillipsmusique, создавшего страницу, не очень велик, но в каком-то другом случае (допустим если бы в исходной странице было бы штук 50 правок и они потерялись бы) это уже было бы серьёзным нарушением. Так что, пожалуйста, учтите это на будущее. --Nigmont (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The same (briefly) in English (for common users of the en-wikisource who do not know Russian but would want to understand this discussion):

You moved the page Author:H. R. James to Author:Henry Rosher James in a wrong way: you merely created a new page with content copy-pasted from the old page, then you replaced the content of the old page with redirection to the new page. After this renaming, the edit history of the old page became lost, because it's unnattached to the new page. It is not allowed to do in this way, because it's a violation of CC-BY-SA license which is used as a base principle in all the Wikimedia projects (including the en-wikisource). You should use the standard technique - to apply More->Move (at the upper right corner) to the page being renamed, this would keep all the history re-attached to the page having the new name. Please take this in account for your future work. --Nigmont (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Did my best to preserve history.--Mpaa (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Mpaa, thank you for your help! --Nigmont (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Ancient authors[edit]

You don't need to add Category:Ancient authors if the author is already in a subcategory such as Category:Ancient playwrights. Such categories are nested within the larger category, and so will be taken care of that way. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Author cleanup[edit]

Hi Captain,

as I understand you are cleaning up the Author-pages, ie removing (empty) links to commons, quote etc.. But I see you also remove links that are filled, like for instance with Author:Joseph_Dalton_Hooker. I think it may be relevant to keep these links, if there is information in it. So I undid your edit. Greetings, Dick Bos (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Emily Dickinson[edit]

Any idea why Author:Emily Dickinson is in Category:Early modern poetry? Author pages shouldn't be in that category, but I can't spot the reason for the miscategorization. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Via Template:Emily Dickinson Index. Hope that helps. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC).

Interwiki links[edit]

Hey there,

Thanks for doing all the cleanup and removing the redundant interwiki links. I noticed, however, that you've been leaving the Wikipedia links intact. Wikisource currently pulls that data as well so it's also not needed as far as I can tell. Thanks, The Haz talk 14:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

adding author to "On Moral Contagion"[edit]

Hello, you recently added the author to Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1/September 1872/On Moral Contagion via this edit. However, @Ineuw: had earlier removed the author with this edit. Though I'm inclined towards your edit, I'm sure Ineuw had his/her reasons. --Siddhant (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Re-done it according to PSM format. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC).

Validating Euripides[edit]

Could I get your help validating the last 4 pages of "Ads" for Index:Euripides and his age.djvu? It's a small thing, but I like works to be completed (even the optional bits) whenever possible. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing. I know that feeling:) Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC).
Thanks! --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Just another[edit]

Just another thanks for your contributions and help with the The Popular Science Monthly Project.— Ineuw talk 20:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hat nom[edit]

Hi Captain Nemo. You have been here for ages, you know our ways, and contribute widely and well. From my viewing your recent maintenance, I think that you could do with some admin tools to allow you to tidy up in a broader sense. I would like to nominate your adminship, and would ask that consider this request. The things that we look for admins to do is explained at Wikisource:Adminship. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for nomination! Some of the maintenance tool would come very handy. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC).
I have put a nomination onto wikisource:administrators; typically a nomination would be accepted. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi and congratulations. The community has endorsed you and you now have the admin bit. Hesperian 01:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

If you have any other access or languages, could you please update Wikisource:Administrators#Current administrators. Cheers, Hesperian 01:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
smileybillinghurst sDrewth 11:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


Hi! Wherefrom did you get the idea that this is not a person? He is a person alright, but later deified and considered a divine incarnation. Hrishikes (talk) 08:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

about Bogdan Bronnitsyn[edit]

Hi Captain Nemo, thanks for your help with the author pages! Would it be ok to replace the {{PD-1923}} template for Bronnitsyn with {{PD-old}}? His date of death is apparently unknown, but given that his published work was 177 years ago, it's hard to imagine he was still alive 100 years ago. (And for aesthetic reasons I prefer to keep the US flag out of it.) Also, could you give me any pointer what I should be doing, or should be careful about, in adding the {{authority control}} template to author pages? I just made a new page, Author:Josef Košín z Radostova, looked up the VIAF number and tried inserting that. It seems to have worked ok, but I'd appreciate it if you could check it for me. Mudbringer (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Mudbringer: IMHO, it's OK to change copyright tag for Bronnitsyn, maybe add a note about pub date of his work in the header. The way you treated {{authority control}} template is fine, and I don't thing there are any pitfalls in general. In fact, the template populates itself with the data from Wikidata (if it's there), there is no strict rules about what parameters (like viaf) to keep locally (You can see that template displays National Library of the Czech Republic identifier, in addition to viaf, from wikidata for Author:Josef Košín z Radostova after the page was linked to wikidata). You can have a look at Wikisource:Wikidata for info on how to add wikisource link to wikidata (section "Interwiki links"). Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC).
Thanks! The page you linked to seems to have all the information I need at this point. When I put in {{authority control}} without parameters, only the English Wikisource showed up at first ... I guess it takes a while for the data to percolate. Mudbringer (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The data flow is instantaneous, you need to "purge your cache"; use either "hard purge" or "null edit" in the drop-down menu "More". Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC).

Index:James - Ghost Stories of an Antiquary .djvu[edit]

From the scans - Text complete:) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The Sweet-Scented Name[edit]

Hi Captain Nemo, thank you very much for doing the table of contents. That part always seems like the most work, and I haven't yet learned how to make a nice-looking one. This will be a good model for me. One thing I'd like to change is in the header to the stories. Instead of making the title for all the stories The Sweet-Scented Name, I'd prefer to put the individual story title there, and then leave the section field blank. AFAICT the collection is pretty much a container for a lot of pieces that the translator happened to translate, rather than anything Sologub intended as a unified work, and this collection just happens to bear the name of one of the individual stories. Is that ok with you? Thanks! Mudbringer (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Mudbringer:. Well, the overall position here (on wikisource) is that a book is a book and what we transcribing is a book, so the book's structure must be preserved. I don't know how "hard" this convention is, you'd better ask this question in Scriptorium. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC).
@Mudbringer: We try to be true to the published work and its components. So we typeset and display within the work. You can create redirects from the root name to the actual works. [One advantage that we have seen with this approach is that it has cut down on our requirements to move works to disambiguate titles.] To also note that from Wikidata that you each independent (sub)part of a work would have its own item, and description and then link directly to the subpage, rather than the overarching work. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


For our major templates, it is usually better to try any changes in the sandbox for the template. This is most especially the case for {{author}} and {{header}} that are the crux of our display and one wrong move can render the site unusable. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I realized it. There was not much damage, I think, only extra categories. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC).

Poetry formatting: stanza breaks between pages[edit]

I was wondering how you would handle the stanza break between pages... I used to use the poem tag for poetry, but it wasn't flexible enough for me, so I began using block center with breaks (and gaps for indentation) instead. I noticed, when transcluded into the Mainspace, there is just a tad bit more space between the last two stanzas of "Foreign Lands" due to the use of {{dhr|2}}. I'm not sure if there is a better solution; I gave up on the poem tag altogether and never looked back. I realize my inquiry is not necessarily a helpful one, just noticing the space discrepancy... Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the bloody extra space! I need to think (or ask around:) about a better solution. This is not going to be a major issue for the book in question, though. I'm too lazy to use using block center, to many breaks to add. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC).
I am sympathetic; using breaks can be tedious. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Took two bites to get it right but how is that? AuFCL (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Good solution! Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC).
Let me apologise in advance if this is all already known stuff to you but no factor of {{dhr|?}} will ever quite align (in the most general sense) with the result generated by an empty line buried within <poem> tags as it is a simple case of not comparing apples with apples. The former construct generates <div style="visibility:hidden; line-height:?;">&nbsp;</div> (mad as that is I shall let that pass) and the latter generates <br><br/><br><br/> (in fact every line within <poem> tags ends up ending with <br><br/> so the apparent duplication is at least locally logical), worse yet enclosed within <div class="poem"><p>…</p></div> tags.

You can go quite insane trying to match the "?" factor in the first construct to the effective line-height of the latter; let alone the fact any compromise which is attainable is utterly fragile, failing to survive the simplest CSS or even browser change. AuFCL (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

If I copy your formatting, would you mind if I did some work on Stevenson's Garden of Verses or would you prefer proofreading yourself? Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course, please, go ahead. I can only do poetry in moderation:) so for a moment I moved to Essays in the Art of Writing. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC).
Thank ye! I can only do Scottish verse in moderation... Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: and if you'd like something for the different age group there is this collection :) Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC).

redirects from disambiguation page[edit]

Hi, can I ask you to reflect for a moment on this? The way I see it:

  1. The disambiguation page To My Mother lists all of the distinct works with that title. Each entry refers unambiguously to a distinct work, but not any particular version of that work. So, for example, we refer to the work To My Mother (Stevenson) rather than the specific edition A Child's Garden of Verses/To My Mother.
  2. To My Mother (Stevenson) is a redirect for now, only because we are hosting only one version of the work. Once we are hosting two or more versions, we will change that from a redirect into a {{versions}} landing page. By leaving the disambiguation page to point at the work itself, we won't have to re-edit the disambiguation page when we convert the work landing page from a redirect to a versions page.

Hesperian 02:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hesperian: I understand and follow the approach you describe. It is useful and makes sense but only when there are indeed multiple editions hosted; to use it for every work would be foolish. To follow your logic, one should create a page called "X (author name)" for every work hosted; this would be "a version landing page" and all editions would be listed there. I don't think we should go this way and create zillions of un-neeeded redirects, just in case some other version is hosted in future. It is much more reasonable and efficient to create versions page only when there are indeed versions present.
In re "To My Mother", it is extremely unlikely that any other version will ever make appearance on wikisource, this is not a widely-anthologized poem, neither does it make an appearance in any other original Stevenson's collection of poetry. So, the cost is here and definite (double redirect) the benefit (saving an unlikely future edit) is not realized and ephemeral. Notice also, that To My Mother (Stevenson) wasn't deleted but redirected, so the placeholder is actually in place for snowball-in-hell chance of different version. Please let me know what you think. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC).
I create redirects as a rule for poetry—"X"—but I also create disambiguation redirects—"X (author name)"—only if there are two or more titles with the same name by different authors. I believe the redirects are useful in searches, and I also use them in Indexes of Titles that I create for authors (I am building one for Stevenson currently). But that is a personal preference for me. If I have created any actual double redirects while editing, I apologize. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
20c opinion. If the redirect exists, then I would have left it for the reasons that Hesperian states. CN's reasoning may apply to whether you might create it in the first place, but once it is created, it is a different issue. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Spooky. I needed to create Rip Van Winkle (Irving) today for {{versions}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Parenting categories[edit]

Hi, all categories (except the top one) need to have at least one parent. Otherwise they're not in the tree and therefore can't be navigated to or from. Can you please give Category:Biblical figures an appropriate parent? (I can't think of one, so haven't.) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle: how about Category:Bible? Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC).
But that puts Author: pages under a Mainspace category. Categories should remain within a single namespace. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle: You are right. Then the only place seem to be the main cat itself, category:authors, no? Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 07:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC).
Hmm, I don't like it much, but we can't put them, as a group, under either Jewish or Christian authors. Some of them are pseudonymous as authors, but others did write the works attributed to them. I guess the top level will have to do, until someone's got the time to separate them out. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm also not happy about it. And the question of authorship is indeed very moot. May be separation into "New testament people", "Old testament people", "Judaism prophets" and "Christianity prophets" (this is along the lines of wikipedia) could help. And, of course, quite a few of those "authors" should probably be "portals" (for example, Caiaphas or Lamech). Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC).
Pardon my interference but what about Category:Early Christian authors or is that too much of a stretch? AuFCL (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@AuFCL: Yep, too much of a stretch. Category is mostly of Hebrew prophets and Old Testament characters/people who are not "authors" in wikisource meaning of the word. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC).
I take your general point but the same criticism could be fairly levelled against a few of the members of Category:Biblical figures. Good luck with your (continuing) search. AuFCL (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
What about Category:Ancient authors? Whether legendary or historical, Jewish or Christian, whether they actually wrote anything or works are merely attributed to them, they are all ancient, are they not? Hrishikes (talk) 06:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Hrishikes:. That would work! @Beeswaxcandle: what do you think? Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC).

Re: Conquest of mexico Index: layout[edit]

I reverted the "Not" on the Index page because it is from this information I build the necessary anchors and links. You can see the beginning of the process for the previous volume HERE and the result HERE.— Ineuw talk 01:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ineuw: sorry I completely at loss about what you referring to. My edits have been only to add link to the publisher, I believe I have not touched anything else. If anything was screwed up, I apologize. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC).
Hi, my sincerest apologies. I made changes in the page number layout and left the page without saving the changes. I should have compared the diff between my work prior to your editing, rather than just look at the history and assume. I hope you can forgive. — Ineuw talk 03:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ineuw: No worries, nothing to forgive. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC).

Portal:Chatto & Windus[edit]

Whoops! We seem to have had the same idea. I'm finished now so all yours. AuFCL (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@AuFCL: I have searched the index namespace and linked all found (ie, all those that had publisher name filled in). It's more difficult to locate the rest. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC).
Yes. I said we seemed to have had the same idea at the same time. That is how I had made up my list too. AuFCL (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@AuFCL: What I meant is that I added links from indexes. Now going through mainspace. The first find is Open book nae 02.svg Poems of the Great War. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC).

Content hierarchy of the American Journal of Sociology[edit]

Hello, you responded to a request for help, but seemed to have misunderstood the question. I didn't mean where should I link them from, I meant how should their actual names, the slugs, the URLs be organized (EG Name/Issue Number/Article Name). I've been pretty inactive on the wikis for some time so I missed the chance to respond before the discussion got archived. Thought I should bring it up in the off chance you might know a good answer to the intended question. Thanks in either case, djr13 (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Djr13:, ../Journal Name/Volume Number/Article Name looks good to me. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC).
Right, the question in this case being, which of these sections constitute standalone article and which don't and don't warrant their own page. I guess this is a much better way to ask it in hindsight... djr13 (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Songs of Travel[edit]

Would you mind if I worked on Stevenson's Songs of Travel? I format poetry a little differently than you, so would you mind if I changed formatting for the pages you have already completed? No worries if you'd like to keep working on the project... Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

But of course, I have enough of RLS's prose to work on:) And please do change formatting if needed. Btw, this collection is in a serious need of good formatting if you have time. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 06:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC).
Thanks. I have placed Hundred Best Poems on my back-burner list of things to do. The existing formatting is quite mix-matched and would take some time to standardize, but I would not be against taking it on in the future. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


Assuming we hosted the whole Vailima set of Stevenson's works here, how would you title them in the Main? The Works of Robert Louis Stevenson (Vailima ed.)/Volume 8/etc/etc? or some other way? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The way you suggest would be my first guess as well. There already couple of volumes of "Biographical edition": The Biographical Edition of the Works of Robert Louis Stevenson and I was thinking about adding some volumes of Edinburgh edition. So, disambiguation is definitely needed. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Authors_that_are_more_than_individual[edit]

Responding here so as not to mess up the Scriptorium flow. Apologies that I misunderstood your question there. I suspect there is a practice but outside of Beeswaxcandle and Billinghurst's heads there isn't a whole lot of written procedure. It will be interesting to see what turns up.

(Doesn't this go some way towards codifying recommended practice anyway?)

I suspect the real rationale (which may no longer be the case) was that the {{author}} header template was too rigid at the time to cope with a death-date for a pseudonym or group-entity. AuFCL (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@AuFCL: I want the light exactly in the grey area between "organization" and "individual". I understand easily that NATO is a portal and Miss A.U.Thor is an author. But what about Miss A.U.Thor-and-her-husband team who wrote a lot? Even more confusing to me are the syndicated pseudonyms with a changing group of people behind them. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC).
I do understand what you are looking for and like yourself want to know. It is interesting that the more closely pressed the invested parties are the less clearly their vision revealed appears to become. This is getting just a little bit fractal. Chaos theory, anybody? AuFCL (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

author template and defsort[edit]

with the {{author}} template it works on LASTNAME FIRSTNAME, and where lastname is empty it then becomes FIRSTNAME. So there is no need to use a defsort parameter if instead you do something like firstname = Dimitry of Rostov and leave the lastname parameter empty. Keeps the code simpler, and there is no necessity to make a lastname if there isn't one in reality. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:. That is a special case. This chap has a proper first name (Dmitry) which is reasonably common and (of Rostov) is just a "disambiguation" added to it by later authors. So, I thought it is worthwhile to have firstname = Dimitry and the rest as lastname just in case we might want at some point to compare first names with wikidata. But as I am writing this I realize that I have created pages for some ancient guys with empty firstname and lastname = Firstname of FOO. It is not easy to be consistent! That is why I was asking for standardization of how to deal with "Foo of Boo" people. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC).
Prepends (titles / honorifics) and appends (titles & denominators) do make for a less than perfect situation. In the end, they are names of which there will always be variations, even through a life time. Guidance is best, hard rules don't work. Ensure it looks right, ensure it sorts right, and not over-complicate if at all possible. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Long-standing pages[edit]

The deletion policy is indicative that if we are moving a page that we should create either a redirect or a dated soft redirect. We may wish to be more specific about this at Help:Redirects where the guidance is pitched at general users, though we should consider it as the policy for those with admin tools. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Thanks for restoring Isidorus of Gaza (you've been indirectly referring to it, I presume?) It should not be a redirect, it is a different Isidorus. I guess it should be converted to portal as no works by Isidorus of Gaza are in existence. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC).
I know not the person. If it is a complete error, then you were right to delete it (I wasn't sure). Maybe for nuff-nuffs like me an explicit comment in the move would be worthwhile. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Will you be restoring those pages you have incorrectly deleted as M2? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 07:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis:, of course I am keen to restore any incorrectly deleted pages if any. Please let me know what pages you referring to. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk)
You moved the page Author:J. Redwood Anderson to the full name, though it is cited that way here and elsewhere. Five minutes later you deleted the redirect as "M2 Unneeded redirects: content was: "#REDIRECT Author:John Redwood Anderson" (and the only contributor was "Captain Nemo"), breaking the link here and at wikipedia. You then removed the link in the only text here and placed the 'full' or 'real' name in the header[2], a change that was noted as problematic by another user on the talk; you were pinged into that discussion, but made no response. You only have a little experience at wikipedia, making you first edit there earlier this year, so you could not be expected to have seen w:WP:NOTBROKEN. I hope this helps to understand where you may have erred elsewhere and fix it. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 02:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: 1) You are asking "Will you be restoring..." and give an example of redirect that is already restored??? 2) Your inference about the amount of my experience on wp is based on the incomplete data and is wrong. 3) links are not broken by movement of pages here (wikidata is updated after the moves); if wp template "Wikisource author" doesn't use wikidata information it is probably a good idea to fix it. 4) I hope this helps to understand where you might have erred elsewhere and fix it. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC).
1) An example of one error I fixed already, do you acknowledge that it was? 2) Not an inference, a statement of what your contribs show. If I am to assume good faith, I must presume you didn't realise you were making an error. I won't enquire any more deeply on that … 3) Maybe I'm not seeing something, I will have a look at that, however, wikidata can't find something that is not there, the direct link en.wp -> was broken. 4) I don't enjoy pointing out others mistakes, and appreciate when others take the time to point out how I can improve. Your snarky reiteration of my last comments suggests you are not seeing it that way. You are avoiding any reference to the key points above, and is similarly unhelpful. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 03:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: I seeing you comments very clearly. You (a person who doesn't enjoy pointing out others mistakes) jump in a discussion about a specific issue with snarky, completely irrelevant comment without any specific context. When asked to provide specific examples you refer to a resolved issue. I am very sorry for the time you spent, but you are not pointing out how to improve, you are just being abusive. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC).

Author:Œnopides of Chios[edit]

This is one of those "authors" for whom no known works exist. Everything about his writings comes to us second- or third- or tenth-hand. Lots of ideas are attributed to him, but I'm not even sure that there are any quotations of his know to be recorded. Certainly no works though. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: yes, I know. And, specifically, there are many such in category:ancient mathematicians. I was thinking about making a list of "authors with no works" and put up for discussion. Probably none should be deleted (even though some are just names) but quite a few should be converted to portals, in my opinion. What do you think? Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC).
If they have no known published works in existence, then there shouldn't be an author page for them. If we currently have no content about them, then it's hard to add anything to a portal page either. We went through a similar discussion concerning this for biblical persons with no works either known nor attributed. I think the same reasoning applies in this situation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I fully agree with such approach. For many of them there will be articles in EB or CE (for Biblical persons), so there will be something to put on portal page, not for all of them though. But it seems that there is a sentiment on wikisource to keep something that is already here, see discussion here. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 07:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC).

Biblical authors[edit]

Further to our discussion on my talk page regarding Author:Shem: I see you've also moved Japeth, Abraham, and Isaac (and others that I was not watching) to Portal space. I guarantee you that I will be able to find pseudepigraphal texts attributed to each of these with minimal searching, and I think it is not wise to move them to Portal space without first ascertaining that there are no works at all attributed to their authorship. When I get around to finding these, I will move them back to Author space. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

A Dictionary of Music and Musicians/Royal Academy of Music (1720–1728)[edit]

Hello, I just proofread the pages for A Dictionary of Music and Musicians/Royal Academy of Music (1720–1728). Could you have a short look at it. In particular I have two questions:

  • 1) How is the rule to proceed with the spaces in titles of operas between the apostrophe and the name of the opera? Is it kept (as I did) or do you put that together? I.e. is it ' Radamisto ' or 'Radamisto'?
  • 2) Could you check the way the page numbers are given?

Thank you.--Haendelfan (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)