User talk:Chrisguise

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome

Hello, Chrisguise, 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:

Carl Spitzweg 021-detail.jpg

You may be interested in participating in

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{Collaboration/MC}} to your page for current wikisource projects.

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

Have questions? Then please ask them at either


I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the 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! Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Using page headers but not page quality[edit]

Please note [1]. We don't insert page quality information directly into the page; the system handles that for us automatically. Also, page headers (including the chapter title and page numbers) should be placed in the header window when editing, not in the page itself. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Footnotes[edit]

Footnotes are formatted in this way: [2] --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

ligatures and hyphens[edit]

Templates like {{oe}} exist so that people can enter them quickly from a keyboard. Usages of that template get replaced later with the actual symbol "œ". We don't want the template in the text.

Templates like {{hws}} and {{hwe}} exist to join hyphenated words across page breaks, not within the body of a page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Typos: The Laureate's name is "Cibber", not "Gibber". [3] --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, when you need the actual text " ' in a page, don't type it directly. Use the template {{" '}}, or it's cognate {{' "}}. They add a w:thin space between the punctuation marks, so that they don't run together. (actually, it cheats and uses CSS, now that I look at it) Technically, in proper typography, there should be thinspaces or hairspaces many more places.... like "left — right", not "left—right", but people either don't know or don't bother. This is also why you should use {{...}}, or the ellipsis character …, instead of ". . ." or "...". Simlarly, people use hyphens instead of endashes constantly, but that mistake is almost impossible to notice in most fonts. Typewriter quotes are also wrong, but nobody cares. They look like crap, though. Jarnsax (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

And don't do this... {{block center|{{smaller block|<poem> "That sublimer inspiration given,<br>Which glows in Shakespeare's or in Milton's page,<br>The pomp and prodigality of Heaven."</poem>}}}}<nowiki>. Using smaller block inside of block center results in a centered block in which inter-line spacing is broken, and the whole purpose of <nowiki><poem> is to render text exactly as typed, including line breaks... it makes < br> redundant. Instead use one of the other methods described at Help:Poem. Jarnsax (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Collected Works of Ambrose Bierce[edit]

You are aware that, for all the pages you've created, none are included in the volume you're assembling, and all the links in the header are defective? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Where are you getting the date of 1891? The scan's title page says it was published in 1909. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Visual Editor[edit]

Hi. There is most likely an issue with Visual Editor (see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help#Wuthering_Heights discussion). Please stop using it as pages will need rework. Thanks.— Mpaa (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Quote marks[edit]

Just a friendly reminder that per the Style guide we would rather use straight quotes like "this" rather than curly ones like “this”. (The difference is more obvious when you're looking at the source editor.) This is specifically in reference to this edit, but just something you should keep in mind in general.

Best, Mukkakukaku (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

You're making a bit of a mess[edit]

I am not sure what you are doing and why. However, the works are transcluded, then you change the configuration, then retransclude pages, and away from the style that has been used for the whole journal. Have a look at special:prefixindex/Transactions of the Linnean Society of London/Volume 12 and now you are adding something starting with "Article". You had already transcribed them as chapters, which I had moved and commented in situ, and you should be able see informative aspects through Special:RecentChangesLinked/Index:Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Volume 12.djvubillinghurst sDrewth 22:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Prev/Next in The Yellow Book/Volume 7[edit]

Hi. These need fixing. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know - but I need to do the 2nd contents page first and then work out the order of entries because the prose and the art are interleaved.

Page titles not matching their transclusions[edit]

Can you please look again at these pages. Also is it "Loing"? — billinghurst sDrewth 03:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata connections for authors[edit]

We connect author pages over at Wikidata, as I have done at https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q763176&diff=prev&oldid=768822289. this will enable data there to be imported, be it years of life, image, etc. (follow the Search link) Just need to create the page here with the basics, then connect over there. Refresh the page here and VOILA! — billinghurst sDrewth 21:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

{{gap}}[edit]

Just a note to let you know that a standard {{gap}} is 2em in length. There is no need to write it out as gap|2em. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Micrographia[edit]

Do you have access to the OCR tool? You seem to be creating lots of blank pages where there should be text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I messed up because the first file had a page missing. I found another version that's complete but it has blank pages adjacent the figures so all the pages don't align. The pages without text are the ones that were originally marked as missing an image and problematic. I'll go back and fix them once I've got the index page sorted out.Chrisguise (talk)
I just found this book and wanted to congratulate you on adding it - it's fascinating.

keeps clicking

Peace.salam.shalom (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. It was a bit of a slog because of the poor OCR, variation in spelling and lots of italics, but I think it was worth the effort. Chrisguise (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

div and span[edit]

Hi. Please stop doing this, it generates a lint error: {{larger|{{rh|74|The Inner Ear | }}}}. Do this instead, if you want to keep the size: {{rh|{{larger|74}}|{{larger|The Inner Ear}}| }}. BTW, there is no much point in formatting headers/footer, they are not transcluded anyhow. Thanks— Mpaa (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Please see Author:James Hammond. Titles of works should not be external links; the purpose of Author pages is to list works hosted here on Wikisource, not to create a link farm. Where a good scan exists, a temporary {{ext scan link}} can be used after the listed to point to an external scan, but the main body of the listing should not consist of external scans. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Poetical Works of John Oldham[edit]

Hi, thanks for the validations. for indents i prefer gap template to colon, as the wikicode can be inconsistent is some place. see also Help:Templates#Indenting_and_Alignment. cheers - Slowking4SvG's revenge 12:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The Present State of Peru parts[edit]

I notice that you have partly changed the formatting here, and as such with the transclusion. Please standardise the page and the transclusion to that of this page and the transclusions following. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC).

Index:A Dissertation on Reading the Classics and Forming a Just Style.djvu[edit]

The version at IA has apparently been patched. Perhaps you'd like to try re-uploading from a KNOWN clean version? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look, although I'm about 70% of the way through downloading a version (first edition I think) from Hathi Trust page by page.Chrisguise (talk)

Title length[edit]

A little note that mediawiki titles are limited to 255 characters, which can cause a little issue for some of our journal articles. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. The article in Volume 3 of the Philosphical Transactions has been transcribed. The Table of Contents is built using anchor points. How do I get this citation on the 'Timothy Clarke' author page to link in this case? Chrisguise (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Age of Innocence[edit]

It isn't necessary to list the contents on the Index page. The Index namespace is a working namespace, and not the product presented to readers. However, it is necessary to include the {{transcluded}} template to indicate when a work has been fully transcluded. Removing it requires someone to perform a task again that has already been completed once. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Long s[edit]

Hi, I read your comment on Index_talk:The_Discovery_of_a_World_in_the_Moone,_1638.djvu this talk page. As a proofreader, we aim to reproduce the page as it is printed. Where long s's are concerned, when complete, we can produce a second annotated copy with the long s's replaced by modern s's, converted by bot. This is how this book has been started and should continue. Also please sign your comments with quadruple tildes. Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

As it was me that had been adding {{long s}} in proofreading on this work, I went back and converted all the ones I'd added back to conventional s. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that there's a balance to be struck between reproduction and transcription. While I strive to replicate layout and type size, I err towards transcription since I can't see the point of doing this if we create things that are difficult to read - and making stuff available to read is surely one of the major points of Wikisource. At the end of the day, regardless of what it looks like, the long 's' is just that, an 's'. Chrisguise (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Link to Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography[edit]

Hello. After receiving notice of a new link to Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography, I found that it doesn't function perfectly yet. I published the 'Plotinius' article and most else under 'James Frederick Ferrier' where you can find this & basically all his authorship with working links. So why am I approaching you?

  • I have been preparing MUCH more of the text of IDUB with hope of publishing eventually.
  • Even when I published all the 'Ferrier' stuff I still did not acquire a working understanding of how to remedy links such as yours to function properly.
  • I hope that, if you have an interest in such remedy, I can find an ally, a resource in my quest to prepare the way better so that links like yours will work properly.
  • It seems to me that there needs to be created a way to distinguish and direct IDUB links explicitly to either Volume 1, 2, or 3 so that they arrive properly.
  • It may be that you have interest in some of the other 24000+ IDUB titles and that you would find my queries not too burdensome, etc. Perhaps someday I could even be an aid to you.
  • Otherwise, please pardon my intrusion. Klarm768 (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Hi there. I'm sorry but I can't help solve your problem directly. I have no coding experience and do not even know how to access the code behind 'templates'. I only used your IDUB link template as a result of guessing that it might be there, something that's occasionally worked before with other compendia. My suggestion, if you haven't already considered doing so, would be to copy the structure used for other multi-volume encylopedias (e.g.Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition), 23 vols. This should enable you to set up the hierarchy of pages and produce equivalent templates, since the 'EB9 article link' (and the EB1911 equivalent) achieve what you are trying to (i.e. link automatically to the correct volume). Good luck in your efforts. Regards, Chris Chrisguise (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
      • I received notification of a link made from Author:Algernon Charles Swinburne regarding Contributions to Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography. THANK YOU for solving a mystery. The text signature "A. C. S." occurs only in this single instance in Volume 1. The signature, "A. C. S." does not appear in any list of contributors. I had not been able to assign an Author-identity with confidence. My best guess had been Algernon Charles Swinburne. Can you confirm from what source you learned of Swinburne's contribution to IDUB? Klarm768 (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Hi there. I've been doing some transcriptions of Swinburne's work and modifying his 'author page'. While doing so I found a reference to the IDUB article on page 5 of The Bibliography of Swinburne: A bibliographical list arranged in chronological order of the published writings in verse and prose of Algernon Charles Swinburne (1857-1887) (1887), by George Redway. It is also mentioned several times in Volume 2 of the much more comprehensive two-volume bibliography by Thomas J. Wise (1920). The date given for the work is 1857 (the version of IDUB being transcribed is 1876). Both bibliographies are on 'Internet Archive'. Swinburne also wrote an article on Congreve for the 9th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica; both bibliographies are at pains to point out that the two articles are completely different. Regards, Chrisguise (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Blenheim, a Poem[edit]

Please remember to include the {{Authority control}} and a license template on all works hosted at Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Poems upon Several Occasions[edit]

If you are going to edit the work, please do so in accordance with the existing style of the work. I am to now go over your work and correct it to the existing style. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC).

I happen to think that the existing style of the work could be improved - in particular, the insistence on using archaic forms of 's' does nobody any favours in terms of trying to read the text. I also think you'll find that the poems render better. Your blanket undoing of my edits has also removed all of the transcription error corrections that I made, so thanks for that.Chrisguise (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

div and span (part 2)[edit]

Hi. If you want to use {{fine}} with <poem>, you need to use {{fine block}}, see this, or you will get Lint Errors.Mpaa (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal namespace for non-authors[edit]

Hi. If there is no extant evidence that a person wrote works, then it is preferable that people are created over in the Portal: namespace, and tagged with category:people in portal namespace. It is pretty easy to move them to Author: namespace at a later time, and update the template to be used if they are found to have published works. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Moving author pages, not converting to redirects[edit]

Hi. Please do not convert long-existing pages into redirects. If you think that a rename is appropriate then the old(er) pge should be moved, and this updates Wikidata, and maintains the history of the pages. Converting a page into a redirect that points to a new version of a page is not the right way to handle things. If you get caught back to front in creating a page, then please ping admins at WS:AN and ask for move of the page over the newly created page. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

block and span size templates[edit]

Hi. If you are using {{larger}} and similar <span> templates, they need to be kept to inline editing (up to a paragraph). If you are covering text that is more than a paragraph, then we need to use a block template {{larger block}}, or multiple uses of the span templates. If that is what you are doing, then not to worry, just missed some that I stumbled over. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Author variations are prime for redirects[edit]

Hi. Pleese do feel free to create redirects for known variations of authors. One of the problems we had in early years was the creation of multiple author pages, so why we moved to liberally creating redirects for married names, etc. If end up having to disambiguate a shorter version, or an abbreviated version, then it isn't a problem to do that later. Also why we ended up with fully expanded author names, it is a lot less disruptive when we disambiguate. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Index:The Poetical Works of Thomas Parnell (1833).djvu[edit]

Hi. Noticed that raw pages 119 to 126 of the Index belong in an un-ToC'd set of two appendices and have been untranscluded. Are you able to make those pages fit into the work somewhere? Thanks if you can. If you cannot, then please let me know and I will see what I can work out. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I have done this. Chrisguise (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Removing line-breaks in EB1911[edit]

Hi Chrisguise, thanks for edits in EB1911 e.g. Page:EB1911 - Volume 13.djvu/58 but removing line-breaks make proofing harder. I've been converting from Gutenberg which maintains the line-breaks and having them removed makes comparison more difficult. Are you able to keep the line-breaks in future edits? Thanks DivermanAU (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, as part of proofing any page, the first thing I do is run the 'clean up OCR' tool, which takes the line breaks out automatically. Could you explain a bit more about what you are doing? Are you comparing with Gutenberg to move the page on from proof-read to validated or are you checking my proof-reading? In my experience the transcriptions on Gutenberg are not without errors - as surely are my own efforts - even though I understand that they use multiple keying. Regards. Chrisguise (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi again, I forgot to check back earlier on this discussion. By leaving the line-breaks in-place it make it easier to compare to text from Gutenberg. I usually paste in converted text from Gutenberg and then use the "Show changes" button to do a comparison. That way, occasional errors from Gutenberg can be found and corrected (e.g. Gutenberg sometimes has typos and italics missing). Removing line-breaks makes makes manual proofing more difficult (as the lines don't match up) and it's very difficult to see what changes have been made when using "Compare selected revisions" in Revision history. Also, running your 'clean up OCR' tool has replaced agreed EB1911 standards for curly quotes and apostrophes (“” ’) with straight double and single quotes (" '). An example is your recent edits to [Page:EB1911 - Volume 07.djvu/791]. You also removed spacing in the Page Header which centers the text. Regards, DivermanAU (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Following on from your initial communication on this topic, I have tried to confine myself to either only editing pages already at 'proof-read' status, wherein I assumed it would be OK to remove all the page breaks before changing the status to 'validated', or if I edit 'not proof read' pages I actually read them, rather than compare them to something else that might not be correct. Having done so, I figured removing the page breaks wouldn't matter.
I also change the sometimes various forms used in the page header (or add them if missing) with the EB1911 page header template. If things don't line up then presumably the template needs to be amended.
Regarding the curly quotes, I'd been following the generic guidance in the Help, which says to use straight quotes. I don't know if you've come across it but there is a useful tool to change all straight quotes to curly ones. Details are associated with the 'Once a Week' transcription project (which also insists on using the curly quotes). It seems to work pretty well. The style guide is at Wikisource:Wikiproject Once a Week and the person who maintains it sent me the details (see User_talk:Chrisguise#curly_quotes_in_%22once_a_week%22_&_other_matters.). Regard, Chrisguise (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Curly quotes are the EB1911 standard, see EB1911 Style Manual. Curly apostrophes ’ should also be used in EB1911 to distinguish them from the reversed comma ʽ (sometimes called rough breathing diacritic) in Arabic words in EB1911. Myself and other EB1911 editors prefer leaving the line-breaks in-place (that’s how they were originally scanned) because it makes manually proofing faster and it’s easier to see what changes have been made in an edit (as stated before). Regards, DivermanAU (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I found a problem with the 'clean up OCR' tool you've been using, it converts curly quotes if they are literal “ ” to straight " " but not if html code e.g. (& ldquo;) is been used. This produces inconsistent results where the page has some curly and some straight quotes. e.g. [4]. Please do not use the 'clean up OCR' tool on EB1911 pages. If you are going to mark an EB1911 page as Validated, please read the EB1911 Style manual first (particularly "Quoted text" & "Ranges" sections). As well as converting the quotes back to curly ones, I used ndash (–) for year ranges (and removed a spurious quote mark after 'on the'). DivermanAU (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, please do not add excessive internal links in articles like you have done here Page:EB1911 - Volume 01.djvu/493. Please read the EB1911 Style Manual § Internal Wikisource links (and see the Style Manual Discussion) and remove the excess links from the above page (and any others you have done) thanks. DivermanAU (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Author:William of Newburgh[edit]

Hi. Authors with no surname simply have the whole description in the first name field, we don't push the descriptive component into the lastname field. Also to note that where we have sort issues due to surname components like "de", we have a "defaultsort" parameter within [[tl|author}} that we can utilise to set the sorting. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The Love of Books: the Philobiblon of Richard de Bury[edit]

I have moved the subpages of this work under the title of the root page, and I have add the table of contents. It is just confusing to readers to start in one title and end up somewhere else with no clarity of reason. Also to generate digital versions of the first and subpages, we need to have the ToC so that the tool knows that the pages below it, and their links. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, can you explain that a bit more - I'm not clear on exactly what I did incorrectly, and wish to avoid doing it again. Regards Chrisguise (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Aeschylus[edit]

The primary place to list editions of the Greek plays is the versions page for each play. I've retained a list of transations (for now) on the Author page, but only for the translations that we actually have. But eventually, that too may go, since there seems to be a trend now towards not listing the editions on the Authors pages at all.

Note, Medwin's Prometheus Bound was already listed, and I just added the Agamemnon. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Index pages[edit]

Best practice for Index pages: When the value is not a code such as "roman", or a numeric value for a page number, but instead is non-numeric text to be displayed in place of the usual number, then the value ought to be enclosed in quotes. Some character values will still work if the quotes are omitted, but best practice is to use the quotes for any text, including "Adv", "-", or such.

The size of dash for blank pages, images, and the like is purely an aesthetic choice on the part of the initial proofreader. Some editors prefer "-" for blank pages as it minimizes the space taken up in display on the Index. Other editors will use the emdash to keep display size of all pages to roughly the same width, which can help with getting page numbers to line up in neat columns. But there's no reason to replace emdashes with hyphens if the initial editor made the choice to use emdashes. The value is there only on the index page is that page is not transcluded, and serves no real function except in the margin as a page number for transcluded pages (and which can then be linked to with a hashtag). There can be a reason to go the other way: to expand hyphens into emdashes, if there is content on that page, because a hyphen is small and harder to click on; but otherwise, it's purely up to the initial proofreader. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Memoirs[edit]

If you upload Volume II or III, let me know and I’ll stop by to proofread a bit. Lemuritus (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I am currently working (intermittently) on Volume 2, which is most easily accessed from the index page of Volume 1.Chrisguise (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Footnotes - The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 5[edit]

{{helpme}} I have transcribed some pages of the above, mostly the prefaces to the longer poems. The prefaces are peppered with lengthy footnotes, which are generally manageable as I am familiar with the standard footnote method, for which I use <ref> </ref> and {{smallrefs}}, the footnote continued on one of more of the following pages <ref name=xx>, <ref follow=xx>, and a footnote within a footnote where the nested footnote is on the same page, for which I use {{#tag:ref|TOP LEVEL REFERENCE<ref group="I">NESTED REFERENCE.</ref> TOP LEVEL REFERENCE|group="O"}}{{smallrefs|group="O"}}{{smallrefs|group="I"}}. I may even have done examples (in another book) where the nested footnote is all on one page but the main footnote carries on over more than one. However, I am stuck at present because in the preface to Werner on pages 338 and 339 there is a footnote containing a footnote where both the footnote and the nested footnote continue onto the following page. How do I deal with this and still maintain footnote integrity during transclusion? Regards,Chrisguise (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you'll probably have better luck asking complicated questions like this at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. This kind of stuff gives most people a headache trying to unravel, and there are a limited number of contributors patrolling the {{helpme}} requests.
However, that being said, I've had a stab at this and you can see the results in my sandbox. Did that do roughly what you were trying to accomplish?
I'm not familiar with this work or its notes conventions, so I don't know the significance of the two footnote groups, but you may also wish to consider simplifying when faced with overly complicated schemes: we're already changing things significantly when we move from footnotes in a paged medium to endnotes in a non-paged medium, as well as changing the sigils used as footnote markers, so complicated footnote schemes that are primarily formatting rather than significant meaning may be better to not try to replicate. --Xover (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll give it a go. I've also posted the query on Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help in case there's an alternative.Chrisguise (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for Rootabaga Pigeons[edit]

Thank you for Rootabaga Pigeons. I've done (validated) just about everything, but one last page stumps me. The original doesn't have a closing double quote in one place, and your text had added one, but in a very strange place. I moved it to a more logical placement, but again, there just isn't a closing double quote in the source. So what to do? Shenme (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation. The text was straightforward but it takes a bit of time to sort the illustrations.
I agree with your comment that the added quote was in the wrong place. I suggest there are two options: either transcribe what is actually printed or mark it as an error (which I think it is) using the SIC template (which I've done). Feel free to disagree when you validate. Regards Chrisguise (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Letter spacing for emphasis[edit]

Hi!

In reference to this edit, the {{sp}} template was used to duplicate the letter spacing in the original used for emphasis. As an alternative to italics, spacing was sometimes increased for emphasis (perhaps because it didn't require using italic type matrices sorts, you just spaced out the normal ones). See w:Emphasis_(typography)#Letter-spacing. In my opinion, this is as much a part of the work as italics would have been. Cheers, Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 20:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I accept your point in general but I would make two specific ones in return. The document was originally transcluded as one complete piece. Scrolling through it in that form highlighted variations in the way pages had been transcribed (e.g. poetry quotations, footnotes, etc.), so I went through page by page to try and straighten things out. One area of inconsistency related to the type of spacing you refer to, so I needed to decide one way or another whether to format them all, and I decided against. The main reason for doing this was that in most instances, if not all, it didn't seem to me to be for the purposes of emphasis, more as if text had been removed and the rest of the line spread out to make it the appropriate width. Regards, ChrisChrisguise (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
As the person who put in more effort than I did, I defer to your choice. I would still disagree that the spacing was inserted like that for any reason of than emphasis. To me, it seems it appears only where emphasis would fit, not randomly throughout the text. I just though I'd mention it in case you hadn't realised letter-spacing was a typographical method used for emphasis, as well as purely stylistic (e.g. as used on title pages). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

New texts[edit]

Texts should not be listed as "new texts" until they are complete. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I got a bit ahead of myself. Regards, Chrisguise (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Chris
Plus per the instructions on that page, please use a document summary of what is happening with the edit. That summary is pushed out in a few places as information. That page is our open gateway to the main page so documentation through the edit summary is considered important. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Help with images?[edit]

Hi, I noticed this. Would you like me to get the hi-res images that are missing and place them on the pages? I know they're just "filler images," but it seems they're standing in the way of getting this work listed under new texts...happy to help if you're not already on it, just let me know. -Pete (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Pete, Thanks for the offer. I got a bit ahead of myself putting 'Paradise Regain'd' on the new works list but have now done the images (mostly fleurons). However, I've never mastered the technique for making images properly black-and-white. If you can, then I'd appreciate it if you could replace the images. I used the fleuron from the 'Persons' page at the beginning of 'Samson Agonistes' (which is in the same volume) on account of it being the sharpest and least curved version in the book. I left the covers as raw images. Regards, ChrisChrisguise (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm a little puzzled. The original scans are not great, I made a greyscale version but I'm not happy with it. How did you get the somewhat higher-resolution versions you uploaded? Was it from the book view on Internet Archive, perhaps? I'm used to using their JP2 files, which are usually the higest-resolution versions they offer; but in this case, it's a slightly smaller resolution than the one you uploaded. -Pete (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Apologies, Pete, I never got back to you. The only places I get images for books are either the file on Wikisource (via right click and 'save image as'), Internet Archive (ditto) or Hathi Trust (using either a PDF download of the page or the right click and 'save image as' option. I hadn't realised that higher res images are among the file options on IA.
To manipulate the files I use three different bits of software: 'Image analyser' to do rotation and cropping, plus image manipulation depending on circumstances; 'Irfanview', because it has some useful tools such as a 'find and replace' option - good for getting rid of background colours; and 'Paint3D' for pixel level editing. I eventually managed to get the recommended 'ImageMagic' software to work but Image Analyser has the same functionality with a passable user interface. Command line - who'd have thought it - I don't do enough image manipulation to warrant batch processing, where it might be useful but ...... really?
Having said all that I still can't get to proper black and white in most cases. Regards, Chrisguise (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

curly quotes in "once a week" & other matters[edit]

Hi --

Currently the entirety of Once a Week (4 volumes completed, so far) uses curly (smart) quotes, so please stick with that!

Chapter headings use text size "fine".

Further remark: I prefer to use <br /> rather than <poem> when embedding poems in paragraphs because <poem> changes paragraph margins. Not such a big deal, though.

Thanks for working on it, though! I’m particularly glad you’re doing Lord Oakburn’s Daughters because someone just published an academic study of it last year & I was thinking, maybe people who read that will want a digital version of the text, which there isn’t elsewhere. (Pretty nauseating stuff though isn’t it, especially the part with "Pompey")

In case you didn’t notice it, the style guide is at Wikisource:Wikiproject Once a Week (I’ve tried to make it clear, but would appreciate you telling me parts that need further explanation) Levana Taylor (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

P.S. In order to make the two parts of the poem line up with each other when inserting an image in the middle, as with The Bride of an Hour, it’s necessary to specify a width (the same one for each) for the "block center". For some reason the use of the colon (:) for indents overrides the width. For that reason I’ve gone back to using "gap" though it has its drawbacks … Levana Taylor (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
P.P.S. Currently, the way to put a typographic (but not actual) 0.15em space between two adjoining quotes is like so: {{sp|“}}‘ (or, of course, {{sp|“}}’ or {{sp|’}}”). There is a useful script for converting quotes to curly at User:Samwilson/CurlyQuotes.js Levana Taylor (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Discussion about quote templates moved to User talk:Xover Levana Taylor (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, sorry for causing disruption - I should have read the style guide. I came to this transcription through doing an update to an author page and testing some of the links - I tend to flit from one thing to another! My first point of call when starting a new page, especially if the OCR isn't great, is to run the 'Clean up OCR' tool; one of the things this does is to convert double and single quotes to straight ones.
I'll take a look at your guide.
I've spent a bit of time since your messages trying to work out how to install the CurlyQuotes.js tool. I've copied the whole of the code into my 'global.js' page but nothing has happened. Clearly I'm doing something wrong - can you help me, please?Chrisguise (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Try mw.loader.load('//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Samwilson/CurlyQuotes.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
and then refresh your browser --Levana Taylor (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I have added the suggested code but nothing appears to have happened, despite refreshing and restarting my browser. I was expecting something to appear on the LHS of the screen (under the Wikisource logo) in the same way as the 'Typopgraphy' and 'Page' toolsets that I added to my 'global.js' page do. Does the 'CurlyQuotes' tool reside somewhere else (e.g. in one of the other menus) - I checked a few places but without success.Chrisguise (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
It is in the set of tools above the editing box, the quotes right next to "bold" and "italic"! (Took me a while to find it too when I installed it!) Levana Taylor (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks, I shall give it a whirl.Chrisguise (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I have been using the 'CurlyQuotes' tool, and while it isn't infallible, it's a big help, since I can continue to use the 'Clean up OCR' tool and then re-apply the 'curly quotes'. Chrisguise (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

(unindented) I also looked over the guidance you produced, which I have been trying to follow. It's the most thorough and comprehensive that I've come across. My only observation is that there seem to be a number of instances where line spacing is introduced that is wider than that in the text. Regards, Chris Chrisguise (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

By "line spacing wider than in the text," do you mean differing from the way it is printed in the old magazine? That magazine was cramped, filling its pages almost edge-to-edge with small type, and with only a rule as separation between items. Paper was a major part of periodical expenses in those days—wood-pulp paper wasn’t yet in use. There is absolutely no requirement that the digital version of the texts has to be bound by the same restraints. To paraphrase something Billinghurst said, Wikisource is digitizing the words of the authors, not the typesetters’ peculiarities.
Most of the stylistic choices in the style guide were made by me, with some input from Encylopetey; I was revising a basis that was created some years ago by I’m not sure who, Mudbringer for one. I tried to imitate the magazine as much as possible while complying with standard Wikisource formatting and loosening up the tight spacing, and a few other changes to make things look better on the web: for instance, I inset margins for block-quotes whereas the original didn’t, only distinguishing them by smaller type.
Do you have any specific suggestions for improvements? It would probably be possible to do global changes with a bot. Levana Taylor (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Image standards added to style guide[edit]

I’ve added to the style guide the way that images are being handled -- the three cases I listed cover 95% of the images in the magazine. Anything else, well, here is an example of an image used as a drop-initial and here is an irregular-shaped image. For even more complicated cases, if you can’t figure out a way, ask me because something like it may have been done already. Levana Taylor (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Prefatory note of Fumifugium is not public domain[edit]

Hi. That is a very interesting publication you have added! However, it seems that the prefatory note is not public domain, as it was written in 1976. I suggest to replace it with the original 1772 publication. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for drawing this to my attention. However, as I have no wish to do this text again (too many italicisations, unusual spellings and unusual punctuation, some or all of which will have changed in a different edition), I took the liberty of reading up on the University of Exeter's copyright position, as they are the declared copyright holder. I believe that it is OK to duplicate the introduction based on the information at https://www.exeter.ac.uk/research/openresearch/oa/copyright/ I presume that there will be an appropriate copyright template that could be applied? Regards, ChrisChrisguise (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Ah, that is really interesting! I must say I like the university’s attitude. I have asked whether it is sufficient for us at Wikisource:Copyright discussions#Fumifugium: or, the Inconveniencie of the Aer and Smoake of London/Note. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

As a general note, works should ALWAYS have a license tag on them before being listed as "New", as a suitable license is one of the basic requirements of hosting a work here. Several of your recent additions to the New Texts list had no license tag on them at all. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The Works of Virgil (Dryden)/Georgics (Dryden)[edit]

Two things: (1) You don't need to put "Dryden" in there twice. (2) If you set this up the way you have, people will not be able to download a copy as an EPUB. You need to make use of {{AuxTOC}}. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I've arranged the page naming to fit in with what is already established. On the author page for Virgil are three entries, one each for the Eclogues (or Pastorals), the Georgics, and the Aeneis. Each one then links to a sub-page which lists various translations. The Aeneis has a Dryden transcription (1697 edition) but this has no index page or images (hence needs migration), the Georgics page lists the Dryden, (I added it in June 2019 - not expecting to be doing the transcription a year later!) but there wasn't anything behind it, and the Dryden was not listed on the Eclogues page until I added it recently.
I have structured the contents to enable the relevant sections to be linked to the E, G and A pages. Likewise, I used the existing Aeneis (Dryden) page as a template, and used the same page referencing so that I could simply replace that content with <pages index= ...... from=X to=Y /> references, rather than creating new pages. I have used this as the template for the Pastorals and am in the process of doing the same for the Georgics.
I did the table of contents in the way I have because I've seen it done on other multi-volume works (and it looks nicer). However, I didn't know about the issue with converting to an ebook (how would I?). If you bear with me while I get everything set up, I'll convert it to the AuxTOC form.
I pinched the contents listing from Early English Books online but it needs rationalising; theirs is from the first edition and some elements of that edition are not in the 3rd (e.g. the errata).Chrisguise (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

caution creating redirects where a wikidata item exists[edit]

There was a wikidata item on Ode Upon Liberty history so converting that page to a redirect is problematic—WD items need to be direct and specific. It is not a subject matter that we have managed well as it has so many intricacies and variances. Anyway, recovered the old edition, and moved it its own page, and created a versions page to disambiguate the works. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

After moving pages ...[edit]

Hi. After moving pages, please check the WHAT LINKS HERE for the old location, and update the links there to the new location, especially if you are going to overwrite the redirect. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Reminder about subpage titles[edit]

Hi, just a reminder that our policy here is to use Arabic numerals in Chapter names and not Roman. So, the first chapter of What Katy Did Next should be What Katy Did Next/Chapter 1 Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I would normally do as you suggest but on this occasion I'm migrating an existing version of 'What Katy Did Next', which is not attached to an Index page, and the chapters of that use roman numerals. Should I move the existing chapters (e.g.from 'I.' to 'Chapter 1') first or carry on as I am? Chrisguise (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't realised that. Finish off, then let me know and I'll move them for you as I can do it with suppression of redirects. Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
OK - will do. Chrisguise (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle: This seems as good a place as any to ask about something that's perplexed me for a while. It seems to me on Wikisource there is a strong preference for suppressing redirects. But redirects can be incredibly useful, often in cases where we can't know what external or even offline links exist. In this case, What Katy Did Next/I. has existed for a dozen years. There's no way to know who may have linked directly to that chapter. It seems very useful to keep a redirect; and if there is a downside, I don't know what it is. Why would we want to suppress? Chris -- hope you don't mind me butting in on your talk page. -Pete (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: There are three possibilities for these scenarios: a) leave a hard redirect; b) use a soft redirect; c) supress the redirect. The decision as to which option to use depends on the likelihood of incoming links. If it's a well-known alternate title, or "what links here" gives links from multiple other works, then the full redirect gets left. If it's a likely target on a work that's been here a while, then we'll use a soft direct, which will be deleted in a few months' time. If it's an unlikely target, or is wrong, or is recent, then we'll supress the redirect. In this particular case, I believe What Katy Did Next/I. to be an unlikely target for an external link, but I'm quite prepared to hear argument in the opposite direction. [Thanks Chris for hosting the discussion.] Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I've finished the migration. Chrisguise (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Integrity of published work[edit]

I have moved London (Johnson) to be a subpage of the work in which it was published to maintain its edition content and the integrity of the published work. In cases like this we would have created a redirect from the root level to the subpage, similar to what we do with poetry. So if Johnson's work is here from another source, we would convert the redirect to a {{versions}} page.

Also, for a published work, we only require the copyright tag at the root level of the work. It is considered to apply to the whole work. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Oh, you split the work. In a case like this we have typically put them as subpages of the publication from whence they came. No different to our other curate compiled works. Again redirects are our friends here. EP hs addressed one of the reasons why below, also due to our maintaining our components on editions. Noting some of the guidance at d:Wikidata:WikiProject Books. Yes, it does get complex, and sooooo many edge cases. :-/ — billinghurst sDrewth 15:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest moving them to be subpages, and happy to give a hand as required. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Are you doing the fix, or am I? — billinghurst sDrewth 01:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Trivia, or the Art of Walking the Streets of London to which is added Dr. Johnson's London[edit]

You do realize that anyone wishing to read this as a download will get the title pages, the contents page, and nothing else? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Why? I was rebuked by someone for using a non-standard table of contents (for Dryden's Virgil translation) and was told to use a AuxTOC. I've done that here but apparently that's wrong. What should I be doing? Chrisguise (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
The contents are not displayed on the primary page. Only pages linked from the first page will be included in the download. You've placed the contents on secondary pages, and the EPUB will therefore not pull them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Making this change has corrected the problem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Index pages[edit]

The dash ( - ) is for marking pages that fall outside of the page numbering system: e.g. end papers or the backs of plates. It is not for marking "this page has no content", that is what the page status of "Without text" is for. Pages that are part of the numbering system should be numbered. Failing to do so makes it harder for people to determine the page number of those pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Trying to understand this page hierarchy[edit]

Hi. Why would we transclude pages in this naming hierarchy?

Where is that sort of hierarchy used, and how predominantly? I would think that we would be better to align with what we have been using, and am here asking what I am missing. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The publication is an essentially an extended pamphlet (Wikipedia calls it an 'essay'), the title page of which describes itself as being in two books. It is laid out as two 'books', and visually there is a transition from Book 1 to Book 2. However, the start of book 2 has no heading (I have called it 'Introduction' since it's the first part, but it could equally have been 'preface', or anything else). There is a conclusion (called 'Conclusion'), which is a conclusion for the whole thing but which is part of Book 2. Half way through, Milton goes off-topic, and then comes back to the subject matter at hand. I don't know what he had in mind but, given the way it is written and subdivided, I chose to treat it as essentially one long article but retained the book and chapter number information in each of the sections (per your list), rather than just starting at '1' and finishing at '22' (or however many there would be). I could have done it just as Book 1 and Book 2, but that would have generated two very long sections, which the Help section advises against. That's why I've done it the way I have. Chrisguise (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
What would you have done? And more to the point, what do you want me to do?Chrisguise (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sybilline Leaves (Coleridge)[edit]

Hi. With this work, I would not have created a numbering system for them, I think that they can and should be published under their names. In terms of search, the name is more effective in returning results in full search, or type ahead.

We generally only use a numbered approach where it is how the work is defined, and it makes sense to present that way, eg. chapters in novels, especially as they are not named, and there is less value in the name. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Horace[edit]

Thank you so much for completing a set of scan-backed translations of Horace's works. The incompleteness of his works has been a significant hole in classical literature here for far too long here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Let me second that! --Xover (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you both for taking the time to acknowledge the work I've done on The Satires, Epistles & Art of Poetry of Horace. I uploaded it after looking for a version of Ars Poetica and I came across some comments about John Conington. It's just a pity I didn't pick a volume with a complete set of the Satires, such as the Thomas Creech version of 1715.
Although I didn't upload it, I've been doing some work on The Odes and Carmen Sæculare of Horace, by the same translator. Any help woud be appreciated ..... Chrisguise (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Byron's Works[edit]

Good morning! Formatting should be consistent throughout the text for The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero)/Poetry/Volume 3. The poem tag has not been used throughout the rest of the work, but if you seek to substitute it for established formatting with breaks, may I suggest making the change to every other page in the work as well? I welcome any thoughts as to how to make this project better, albeit consistent with regard to formatting. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

To add: I have admittedly not worked on these volumes for quite some time, so maybe I don't have much skin in the game, if that's even the correct way to use the phrase... But there was a standard established, and I simply wanted to bring attention to it. It may take years, but I do hope to have enough brain and staying power to do more work on that volume of works by Byron. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, My apologies if I have irritated you with my contribution. In my defence I would say the following. Firstly, in my experience, whether you use the <br/> option, the <poem> </poem> option or a mixture of the two makes no difference to how the pages appear when transcluded; it's more important that the {{center block/s}} and {{center block/e}} are used consistently, and text sizes, footnotes, etc follow a consistent pattern. Secondly, the <br/> method makes it more difficult to spot transcription errors in the punctuation at the end of lines. I find that in most poetry the OCR does a good job with the text but frequently gets the punctuation wrong (e.g. . or ,. ; or :, and with poor scans ? and !). Finally, I suppose I just try to make best use of the tools that are available to help, and find the <poem> </poem> method much quicker, in the absence of something to automatically put the line breaks it on every line.
I previously did some work on Volume 5, but only on the introductory pieces to some of the poems. I gave up in despair over the complexities of the footnotes! I might go back now that I've more experience and have the example of using two groups of footnotes in 'The Giaour' Regards, Chrisguise (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh gee, I'm not irritated... But if I were to go through and validate at any time, please understand if I adapt some things along the way. I still think formatting consistency is best, even if output is not significantly affected... but that is me. Happy editing, and thanks for your response. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Monody on the Death of Chatterton (1796)[edit]

Please do not start making decisions on the source of a work. We allow editions, so unless you know that our specific edition came from a specific work, then they should be left as they are, not forced into a work just because they were published there at one point. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

If you have an edition in a work that you are transcribing, then do its version from index, and transclude it, add {{other versions}} to the top of the page. Then create Monody on the Death of Chatterton as a {{versions}} page and link both versions from that page. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I am transcribing the source 'Poems on Various Ocassions' which this version is from (as it says on the versions page), and if you'd give someone five minutes to do the job they're in the middle of then you wouldn't have to keep pinging me.
Anyway, what's the obsession with keeping unsourced work? You reinstated an unsourced version of the 'Rime of the Ancient Mariner' despite my having replaced it with an indexed version (Sibylline Leaves (1817), the same version.
I though the major point about this site, apart from making stuff available, is that it was a side by side transcription?Chrisguise (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Long s[edit]

Hi, may I ask what is the problem with {{ls}}? This template enables long s to be displayed as "ſ" in the page ns and as "s" in the main ns. Current practice is to display it just as "s" in the main ns, but if the practice got changed in future, the template would enable to display the character in its original form. What is more, people can adjust their common.js to have the long s displayed in the main namespace too. However, removing the template makes it impossible. Can it be returned? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. My view is that the use of the long 's' is just an annoyance. They make reading the text far harder on the screen (surely the point of making stuff available in the first place is that people read it); secondly, they make proofreading more difficult and mean that spell checking add-on I use in my browser becomes more of a hindrance than a help; finally the point is to do a transcription not create a reproduction. It's an 's'.
Whilst it might be possible to change settings as you describe, how many casual readers would have the first idea what their 'common.js' is? I'd describe myself as a committed transcriber and it took me a good while to stumble across it.Chrisguise (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
To note that the practice is to ensure that the main namespace produces a normal "s". We allow the transcriber to determine whether they wish to use "s" or "{{long s}}. There are a few examples of where we have retained the long s as it was a decision made as part of the publication to create the work specifically with long s, so in that case we retained them, similarly if we are reproducing orthography in a work. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Tom Brown's School Days (1868, 6th ed)[edit]

ALL works hosted on Wikisource should display appropriate licensing information. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Your input is requested at WS:PD[edit]

Hi Chrisguise,

Your input is requested at WS:PD#Template:Chart. --Xover (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Category for removal[edit]

Hi Chrisguise, I stumbled across this category: "Category:EB1911:People:Cities:Europe:Portugal" that you created (a copy and paste error I assume — I've made a few of those!), how do we delete a category? regards, DivermanAU (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 14:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced works are not part of works[edit]

Please do not move unsourced works to be a part of other works. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm getting fed up of this pointless conversation. All I'm trying to do is to reduce the mountainous pile of unattributed *#"% by linking it to actual texts in line with the stated aims of the site. You've no idea of what the source is for the version I moved, so editing it to match an actual source makes b###er all difference to anything.Chrisguise (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Peleus and Thetis[edit]

In the future, please be careful when moving pages. You have caused several broken Wiki-links, which will need to be fixed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC).

Eugene Aram[edit]

This has been on my to-do list to deal with for several years, but I've never quite gotten there. Thanks for working on it. I'll try and find time to do some validation. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Nearly finished volume 2. Chrisguise (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

License templates[edit]

I added a license template to The Doctrine of Discipline and Divorce, which you recently listed on New Texts.

Per the Copyright policy, works should have a license template, and "it is the responsibility of the contributor to assert compatibility with Wikisource's license". This is the now the fourth time you've been asked to use them, would you please start doing it? BethNaught (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Dramatick Poets[edit]

Hi. I have created template:Dramatick Poets link that should make it a little easier to create author page links. It also allows us to more easily identify the works that are or are not linked. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. Chrisguise (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Prometheus Unbound[edit]

Hello. Can the template "Incomplete" be removed from Prometheus Unbound; a lyrical drama in four acts with other poems now? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Done it. Chrisguise (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Links to missing images[edit]

Hi Chris,

Regarding this edit. Is the page's current state (linking an image that doesn't exist) deliberate, or just a glitch while editing? And if it's deliberate, what's the reasoning behind it? --Xover (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I've fixed the missing file (and the Title link in the footnote). The file link was based on the naming convention I adopted when I uploaded all the other images for vol 1 of this work, but for some reason I failed to upload this one. I was going to fix it when I did the images for volume 3 . . . . Chrisguise (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I was guessing it was roughly that that was the case, but didn't want to go wading in there in case there was some specific reason you wanted it that way. --Xover (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

djvu links?[edit]

You have much more experience here than me, so in the spirit of curiousity and with the need of more information I ask this:

What is the problem with {{djvu page link}}?

I realize that it is only useful at the proofing and even then, only when the toc is on the index page, but it is useful there and then.

I read or had it explained to me that it was too complicated. Since then, I try to figure out a way for it to work in the Main. Shifting the numbers and then the process gets broken at the chapter part.... It is an unfixable problem in the world that doesn't depress me to think about! In this way, it is beautiful and rare and I have grown very fond of it.

So, it is no wonder that I cannot determine a reason not to use it, and ask respectfully what is your reasoning to remove it?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with {{djvu page link}} but it seems to me that it doesn't achieve anything when used in a table of contents (ToC). From a ToC the link needs to take you to the chapter content, not just to an individual page. Also, the links work on the page containing the ToC and on the Index page (if the ToC is shown there), but when the page containing the ToC is transcluded, the links are suppressed. The one place where I think {{djvu page link}} is useful is when a book contains a list of illustrations, where a link to an individual page is appropriate.Chrisguise (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes[edit]

I noticed your edit Special:Diff/10990680/10991003. Why would you remove 24,000 bytes all at once and change the header? It appears to be correct and removing that information requires a rationale, or editors may assume the edit was disruptive. -- AnotherEditor144 t - c 17:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I edited it because what was in there was copy and pasted text, not transcluded page transcriptions. I'm simply applying the appropriate guidance per https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Help:Beginner%27s_guide_to_transclusion. Chrisguise (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I suppose it would transcluyde after a few hours anyway. AnotherEditor144 t - c 21:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Red links for copyrighted works[edit]

Please do not add active red links for works that are under copyright. Red links are an implicit invitation to add the work, which cannot be legally done for works still under copyright. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I take your point but I'm not sure where I've done such a thing, and so don't know what needs fixing.Chrisguise (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I've fixed it. You added red links on Venus and Adonis (Shakespeare) as well as Rape of Lucrece (Shakespeare) for the Yale Shakespeare volume that is still under copyright. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

template:page break[edit]

Hi. Modern usage of this template would typically be {{page break}} which suppresses the word "page" and allows for the marginal page number. This is an old template that pre-exists the Index: namespace and transcluded works, and was designed for when we need to force page numbering harder/differently, and later adapted for the transcluded form. It would be great when you are transcluding pages that you could utilise this simpler form. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Please stop removing line-breaks, {smallrefs} sizing and header spaces[edit]

Can you please not remove line-breaks in EB1911, like you did here Page:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu/17, removing them makes proofing and validating more difficult; it also makes it very difficult to see what changes were made.

Please do not removing spacing from the header template, it is there for a reason to center the article names, also on Page:EB1911 - Volume 15.djvu/529.

Please do not remove sizing from {smallrefs} template, in EB1911 we standardize on 90% i.e. {smallrefs|90%} like on Page:EB1911 - Volume 15.djvu/529. When editing a transcluded EB1911 article and adding {smallrefs|90%}, use {clear} beforehand if there are author initials on the last text line (this prevents the initials dropping down into the refs.); also add {rule} after {clear} if the last paragraph is fine print, thanks.

Please take more care when editing, on Page:EB1911 - Volume 22.djvu/768 you broke the section tag from working properly which resulting in blank text for 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Quilon - I have since fixed this. A check of the Preview would have showed the problem. I really have enough proofing to do without having to fix these issues. regards, DivermanAU (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I just fixed another of your careless edits [5] which you marked as "Proofread" but has a blatant error where the text "{{EB1911 Fine Print|" is visible on the page because you did not terminate the template properly. If you are going to make edits in Wikisource, please take more care, some may see your many bad edits as vandalism. DivermanAU (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

King John[edit]

If you're planning to replace the existing text with the First Folio text, then there's little point in moving the unsourced copy prior to replacement. I did check, and the unsourced copy of this play does not match the text of the First Folio. It is a later editorialized edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Re: King Richard: We don't remove words from the title. The title of the play very clearly has the word "King" in it on its first page. The table of contents for the First Folio contains many errors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy delete of Index:Chandos, Ouida.djvu[edit]

Hello. It seems that the page Index:Chandos, Ouida volume 3.djvu that you refer to in the speedy delete request at Index:Chandos, Ouida.djvu does not exist. Can you check it and correct the link, please? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Having received no answer I have searched for the redundant index myself and found Index:Chandos, a novel (IA chandosnovel03ouid).pdf. While you wrote "A complete version of the same volume (and from the same 3 volume copy as volumes 1 and 2) has been added to the existing transcription project on Wikisource - see Index:Chandos, Ouida volume 3.djvu", this index has different name and was made from a different copy. However, it contains the pages missing in the file suggested for deletion, so I deleted the file. Thanks very much for noticing this issue. I would just like to ask you to pay more attention when writing the reasons for deletion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi there. Apologies for any confusion caused, I'll try and do better next time. Regards, ChrisChrisguise (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Paradise Lost[edit]

Not sure if you're planning on proofreading Paradise Lost (1674), but I added an index for copy of the actual 1674 text at Index:Paradise_Lost_1674.djvu. Sorry, the pages are not split, but this was the best copy that I could find. If you know of another, let me know and I'll try and get it. Languageseeker (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Addendum, copy B is slightly easier to read, but I couldn't get the IA tool to ingest it. Internet Archive identifier : ParadiseLost1674CopyB Languageseeker (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi there. I wasn't but I started to have a look at doing so. However, the scan on Commons has a problem in that half of the image of pages numbered 28 and 29 is missing. I looked at sourcing a replacement but the alternative scan you provided a link to appears to have been removed from IA. Chrisguise (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, sorry, it was a slight error in the IA id. The correct id is Internet Archive identifier : ParadiseLost1674CopyB . I also created an index for the second copy Index:ParadiseLost1674CopyB.pdf Languageseeker (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Also, UMich has the complete text of the 1674 edition online with page numbers, so you can copy and paste the text prior to proofreading. [6]. Should make things a bit easier. Languageseeker (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I notice that the text of a number of the double pages have started appearing. I'm about 60% of the way through splitting the file into single page scans, so if you could hold off for a while .... ahould have said something earlier. Chrisguise (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Having spent quite a bit of time on this it turns out that there are a number of pages missing - not completely sure as the page numbering is a little awry in some places, but it could be as many as eight. Chrisguise (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The logo image[edit]

While those two images may look similar, they are not the same. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to be a party pooper though, congrats on producing so many texts as you have so quickly! I was just letting you know, I would replace the image myself but Internet Archive appears to be down for maintenance. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Fixed PseudoSkull (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Although I have done quite a lot of things over the years, I don't necessarily do them that quickly - for instance I've been working on a History of the Royal Society (single volume, c.500 pages) off and on for about two years now. I flit between a number of transcriptions at any one time, so tend to have several works come to completion close together, and then nothing for a while. I also try and clear up some of the stuff that seems to have been left behind, such as texts that get close to completion of proofreading but just need dragging over the finishing line (e.g. Jane Eyre (1st edition)), or works that have been proofread but have not been transcluded (e.g. The Boy Who Knew What The Birds Said). I generally add these to the new works list once done. Chrisguise (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Moving the Alchemist[edit]

Please don't make moves like you did with the Alchemist. It is your presumption that it came from that source, yet it says that it was a Gutenberg source, and we wouldn't be making such a decision without a community conversation. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Can I ask what is the problem with the people who run this site (past as well as present)? It appears to me that they have failed, and continue to fail, to uphold its stated aims, since it contains predominantly unsourced text and seems to continue to add more; it is frequently just copied from Gutenberg, which, for the large part, doesn't unequivocally identify its sources and therefore has no 'auditable trail' (irony intentional) to an original; and when someone is prepared to invest the time and effort to migrate the unsourced text of a major work (or indeed any work) to a source, even if it involves some minor editing, there is resistance and a desire to retain unsourced material in preference. Regards. Chrisguise (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Index:The practice of typography; correct composition; a treatise on spelling, abbreviations, the compounding and division of words, the proper use of figures and nummerals by De Vinne, Theodore Low, 1828-1914.djvu[edit]

Do you want me to back off, we seem to be running into sutff we are both editing pages at a time? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I've moved on to a chapter later in the book. Chrisguise (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)