User talk:EncycloPetey

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

A belated Welcome:

Hello, EncycloPetey, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here. If you need help, see our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). You can discuss or ask questions from the community in general at the Scriptorium. The Community Portal lists tasks you can help with if you wish. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. --Benn Newman 03:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


Drama index pages[edit]

Hi, in case you missed it, Modern Drama:Authors and Early Modern Drama:Authors have been nominated for deletion. John Vandenberg 01:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC) --Thanks. I usually come here to use the texts rather than discuss policies, so I hadn't noticed this. --EncycloPetey 14:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Gutenberg texts[edit]

G'day Petey,

I don't think such a template exists, but I could be wrong. If your purpose is to point out that these texts have second-hand provenance, you might try {{second-hand}}—mind you I created that template, and as far as I know I'm the only person ever to use it ;-)

It usually comes as a big surprise to 'sourcerers with a 'pedian background, to learn that our version of the Village Pump, the Scriptorium, is a perfectly functional discussion board, well worth having on your watchlist, and an ideal place to post questions like your one.

Hesperian 11:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Current work from existing scanned texts?[edit]

Gday. The work that you are currently adding, is it from a scanned source? If it is at somewhere like, then we can look to get the scan and have it loaded at Commons, and be able to work off that as a .djvu, and have the advantage of being able to import the text layer from the file, and proofread it and transclude it. If it is, then please get back to me, and I will help set this up. billinghurst (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No, unfortunately I am not working from a scanned source but from Gutenberg (as indicated by the templates). Work is slow because I want to read the text thoroughly as I go and add explanatory notes while the information is fresh in my mind. I know of no scanned copy of the text. However, If someone were to scan a First Folio copy of certain Shakespeare plays, I have a strong inclination to work on Henry V, Richard II, Macbeth, or Romeo and Juliet as my next WS project. I own a facsimile copy of the First Folio, but don't know the legal implications of scanning such a facsimile, and so hesitate to do that myself. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I do see these are different? billinghurst sDrewth 05:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Which item? Different from what? You didn't provide enough context for me to know what you're talking about. I see an audio recording, an 1887 digitized copy (not the original 1749), and a number of other things on the page to which you linked. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
It is completely legal to copy a facsimile, so long as you exclude modern material, definitely including new notes, but probably not including purely mechanical things like line numbers.
Are you still working on "The History of Tom Jones"? If so, let me know if you would like to collaborate on this. --Gavin.collins (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am still working on that text, but I have started a new job that limits my Wiki-contribution time. I have been doing Tom Jones as an extended project, and hope to make another great push in a couple of weeks. Collaboration with another person would not be simple. I have tried collaboration before, and it resulted in slower progress than working alone. However, I can't speak firmly against collaboration without knowing what kind of collaboration you have in mind. If you have access to scanned pages of a 1749 copy of the novel, then I would be very much interested in collaborating. If you have some other idea in mind, you would need to express the nature of the proposed collaboration. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry to hear you believe collaboration would result in slower progress. I doubt that anyone has access to scanned pages of a 1749 copy, as the reproduction rights (with GNU Free Documentation License) would be valuable, and have to be bought from, say, the British Library, whilst the purchase of a first edition would probably cost in excess of $22,000. However, it might be possible to purchase a reprint of the 1st or 2nd edition, but identifing such a publication is not my area of expertise.
It is not clear from the Bibliographic Record as to which edition the Project Gutenberg version actually represents. Have you any idea yourself if it is a copy of the 1749 text or a later version? --Gavin.collins (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
No, unfortunately I do not know which editions was used, but there are enough clues in a careful reading of the text to make me believe it is an 18th or early 19th century version. I've been comparing against a modernized edition that I've been reading along with the text, and occasionally find archaic spellings and such that help to date the edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I have found an ordered what appears to be an old facsimile copy for rather cheap. It should arrive within a month or two according to the bookseller. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
[unindenting] My suggestion would be to tackle Fielding's 1751 novel Amelia, which has a Gutenberg text available, but (as you can see from the red link here and at Author:Henry Fielding) has not even been begun yet. It's on my list of "to-do" items after I finish Tom Jones, but if you tackle that one, then I won't have to worry about it.
Part of the problem of collaboration in uploading is the potential for inconsistency in style, coupled with the fact that everything has to be double-checked. If you upload large sections of text, I have no way of being certain they're from the same source or were copied correctly or formatted the same way without checking everything again. So, a dual project really doesn't speed things up unless there is a clear division of labor set up and collaborators who know each other's working methods. Since you don't seem to have done much on WikiSource yet, I can't form any opinion about your editing style to know how a collaboration would turn out.
I'd recommend starting with the same sort of approach I started with: pick a text that doesn't exist yet, and that you think you can handle, and go for it. I started with a missing Tennyson poem "Ode to Memory" before trying anything longer. There is just so many texts that haven't even been started that I'm constantly dismayed at what's missing. I want to see more plays, especially First Folio editions of Shakespeare, and some of those are "next" on my list. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I have trascribed the discussion to Talk:The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling, where I have a further question I need you to answer. --Gavin.collins (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

A Letter Concerning Enthusiasm[edit]

FWIW... a not-too-good scan on GoogleBooks - Orwell III (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Most of my requests come when I find a work that is referenced or alluded in in Fielding's Tom Jones, which I am currently working on. I may be able to atend to a (relatively) short item like the "Letter" once that is finished, assuming that I can figure out a way to extract the b.g.c text for OCR. Do we have the means of utilizing their scanned pages for djvu? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Tom Jones[edit]

I don't undersatnd the reason for move numerous pages that will only need to be moved back into the main namespace.

I don't see a problem, when it is finished you can move it back.

All but one of the pages that was up was itself complete, proofread, and so I don't see how they were "problematic".

The work appears to be half finished, not 'all but one page'. I found something problematic, if I recall correctly it was the mixed editions.

Only the latest book was not yet fully edited, and only the books not yet entered were truly incomplete.

If you were reading it, wouldn't you think that was a problem?

If we're start moving problematic texts out of the main namespace, then I suggest starting with all the Shakespeare plays, as none of them follow any source I've examined and appear to be unidentified modern editions from unspecified sources.

Indeed. The shabby transcription of one his texts was the subject of newspaper story. Some of those works are being repaired, using scans, the rest should be moved from main-space. It is better to have nothing than a text with dubious integrity.

By comparison, the "Tom Jones" text is identified as coming from Gutenberg and has been checked again another restored edition.

Mixed editions are problematic. A PG text is acceptable, so is typing in your 'restored edition', but they are different 'sources'.

Yes, it's incomplete, but it's only temporarily idle. I've been constently working on it for a very long time, and will continue again in about two weeks when I again have a block of time to do so.

I noticed, since 2007. You can continue to do so, how does the move affect that?

The work is rather intensive, so I can't usually get it done except when I have time off work.

If you follow the suggestion above to use a scan, you could accept the offer from the collaborator. The primary task is to make the complete and 'clean' text available, you might then think about making an annotated edition, if that is what you are doing. As it is, only you know what is going on and, as you explained above, collaboration is not possible.

It really would have been polite to post a query to me before dismantling the text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't 'dismantle' anything. You know how to read an edit summary, I know you know how to use a wiki. The edit history is intact, it's not like I deleted your edits and refuse to have see them restored, or impulsively made questionable changes without a word to you ;) I moved it, move it back when it is useful to a reader, when it is complete. If you had nominated an edition, found a scan, you could take all the time you like by using the Page:namespace. If you proposed it as candidate for 'Proofread of the Month', then it would probably be done by now. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 03:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  • While you are here: My SUL is not working at wiktionary: it was fine, then wasn't, then was again, but is now cactus. Is this a known issue there? Can please investigate why that is, and how it can be fixed. Thanks in advance. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 03:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Betelguese, a trip through hell[edit]

Hey EncycloPetey,

I created an article for Betelguese, a trip through hell. If you have time, would you mind reviewing it? Subsequently, I nominated it for DYK during Halloween; it would be neat to feature this during the Halloween week at Wikisource.

Thanks for your help. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The only issues that I see are in the "Publications" section: (1) possessive "its" should have no apostrophe, and (2) the sentence style of that section is somewhat repetitive, with several successive sentences that begin with a prepositional phrase instead of the subject. Varying the sentence structure a bit more would fix that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for helping with this one. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No need, we use Babel[edit]

We now use mw:Extension:Babel, so {{#Babel:en|s-2|gl-2|la-2|ang-1|ast-1|de-1|fr-1|grc-1|nl-1|pt-1}} — billinghurst sDrewth 02:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

A nice surprise this morning :) To mark it, we use {{?}} - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about that. It might be better brought to the Scriptorium, though I do recall something within the last year that mentioned would be adding scripts to our common.js or something that would add non-latin characters. Sorry I cannot be of help on this. - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, I think {{lang}} is the template you want. It has all the coding necessary to trigger the webfonts extension. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You had it right[edit]

It's Not You!!!

The reason djvu/42 isn't transcluding to the mainspace is that the max-template include size has been exceeded - you should see the auto-cat for such pages being applied at the bottom of the mainspace page in question in the category bar. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

But unfortunately, that doesn't get the stuff to transclude! I chose to go with a table, instead. Prescott's volumes have lengthy tables of contents (to put it mildly); he seems to describe the contents of every page at the outset. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
If you can live with it so can I - just as long as you understand it was the total amount of template usage between djvu/1 thru djvu/41 that maxed-out the post expand include limit that prevented djvu/42 from transcluding as it was layed-out at first in the Page: namespace. Your last edit managed to bring it under the limit (which will most likely be over the limit again when the images are added). See if you can make do by using less templates in that page range overall. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Since the images are currently marked with a {{missing image}} template, and this template will be removed when the images are inserted, won't that reduce the number of templates called? Otherwise, the best I could do would be to split the Volume I. Contents off as a separate page in the Main namespace. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Forgive the assumption - maybe you are one of the few who uses the internal formatting syntax rather than additional templates to float, center, caption and the like. It was unfair of me to assume otherwise. My mistake. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
p.s. - You have something like 20K to play with - I think a copyright banner should still fit (fingers crossed). I'd use straight HTML for simple stuff such as text weight, centering. etc instead of the templates where it makes sense to. Otherwise, I think you might be right about breaking out the TOC to its own subpage. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I usually prefer to use templates for centering, etc., but there isn't much of that used in those pages. Nearly all of the template calls are for the dotted lines in the table of contents. Hmm... Would replacing the call for {{gap}} in each of those dotted TOC page listings reduce the template load significantly? That is, it would reduce the number of times a template is called in the transcluded material, but would increase the quantity of hard-coded text. Would this be a net benefit?
You had plenty of the other "governed" memory spaces available so I don't see why not. That's pretty much what I've done in the past - some folks don't like this however; mostly because (in theory) editing the Gap template should trickle down to all the other templates that may incorporate it in their template coding. This benefit easily becomes moot when the number of calls incorporating something like gap overtakes the available resources like we have in this instance. At some point, things like Gap should have their own CSS class setup so the only thing the actual template has to handle handle are deviations from a set default width. Go figure. -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, although I got in under the limit for volume I., I'm worried that the contents listing for volume II. may break that limit, so I'm thinking ahead here to possible ways to get in under that, if necessary. Replacing the uses of {{gap}} would cut the number of individual template calls by nearly half. But, (as you point out) this would require future changes to format problems to be made by hand or by bot, rather than benefitting from a centralized template call where a single template can be corrected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
A copyright statement shouldn't be needed on the Volume One page, surely, if it's going to be placed at the bottom of the page for the overall work, yes? My intention is to set up a single master page for the work with a much-abbreviated table of contents and links to all three volumes. Can the copyright notice be placed there, or does it need to be on each volume? --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure - that works if all the volumes' publication dates fall into the same range used for copyright exclusion(s). -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
In this instance, all three volumes were published in 1846, the same year, so it shouldn't be a problem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I did some housekeeping on the Dotted template so you now have about 36K to spare. I'm not sure why you are adding gap manually though....

To me, your input of

{{Dotted TOC page listing|{{Gap|1em}}|Charges against them|243}}

should be more like...

{{Dotted TOC page listing|chapter-width=2.5em| |Charges against them|243}}

Looks the same to me in the final rendering - that might just be my particular setup. Your mileage may vary of course. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Huh, that looks like a nice, simple solution. I'm still a little new at what some of the templates do, and so I "borrow" what others have done in recent works. I probably picked up the code somewhere and just hadn't examined it thoroughly. Thanks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
That is the way most everyone around here managed to learn the "ins & outs" of Wikisourcee - don't sweat it.
In fact, 2.5em is already the column width's default value so you could try just the non-breaking space filler just to prevent the collapse or hiding of that first column...
{{Dotted TOC page listing| |Charges against them|243}}
George Orwell III (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

PSM categorization of articles[edit]

Thanks for the improvements, changes and additions. — Ineuw talk 23:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) As I have time, I intend to do even more in that respect for the subject areas that I know best (biology and paleontology). --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

PSM categories[edit]

Hi. You are welcome to the complete list (an .XLS file) of all exiting main namespace article titles and their assigned categories. User:Mpaa was kind to generate and sent me the list yesterday. — Ineuw talk 21:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

At a venture[edit]

Hi, no idea if you have the time (or desire), but I would like to nominate you for adminship here. As you're aware we're a fairly small community and the admin tasks are rarely onerous. But you are beginning to walk in areas where the tools would be of use to you. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I've seldom needed admin tools, but I wouldn't say no. I'm already an admin on Wiktionary and Wikispecies (and have been for a long time), so I do know the basics of the tools. If you do decide to nominate me, I'd accept, as this is a rather relaxed community. :) --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done at WS:ADMINS. Noting acceptance there is optional - as you say we're rather relaxed here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Index pages and dashes[edit]

You have new messages
Hello, EncycloPetey. You have new messages at MODCHK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I had wondered & now I know[edit]

Hello, E-Petey, thank you for validating behind me and making any corrections as needed. I had wondered about this sort of thing da+ i: + s daïs and others similar to it. I left it as is but personally I dislike them and use the two dots over the i under "Diereses" as shown under the "Select" option of our editor. So, I will consider these and others like it as wrong from now on. I thank you for answering my question to others (Beeswaxcandle) similar to this not so long ago but got no reply about it. Kindest regards, Maury ( —William Maury Morris IITalk 02:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I look at this as a way for people to quickly enter unusual characters, and which can then be later subst'ed by a bot as needed, however I know of no specific policy one way or the other. The templates do require special CSS code, so I personally prefer to avoid them. We found long ago on Wiktionary that we could work better without them, especially when it came to text searches. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, too I have seen many double -- dashes inside {{ }} to create a m-dash and I left those as they were thinking somebody knows better than I do about them. However, several months back, about 6-8 months ago. Billinghurst told someone not to use that format. It had something to do with problems when transcluding. Still, people continue to use these and my thinking is they should all be done away with. Validating requires extra time and work to remove these -- time and work that could be used elsewhere on other works. Kindest regards, Maury (—William Maury Morris IITalk 02:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
As I say, this sort of replacement could be easily done with a bot, if someone were equal to the task. Unfortunately, I am not. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Nor am I and it's easy enough for me to replace them. But you corrected two that I left "as is", if I recall correctly, so it must be better to replace these over asking someone to please run a bot. I can edit them out as I validate and not worry or forget about asking anyone to run a bot. They are not that frequent. However, if a bot will handle all books then I am all for that! So, who has a bot that can do this? If you know of someone please do ask them to run the bot. It's too bad that a bot is not automatically running to correct pages when they are saved. Kind regards, —William Maury Morris IITalk 03:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
You can probably leave them as is, and not have to worry about it. I rarely encounter them myself, but do change them when I notice them. I am not yet familiar enough with the community here to know who might be able to run such a bot, but I do know a number of long-time editors on the English Wiktionary who would be capable of such a feat, provided they had the time and inclination to assist. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I use them because I'm mostly on a windoze laptop with only a small screen, so scrolling up and down to get to the special characters box is a nuisance. If I was able to directly type them (i.e. was using my partner's iMac) then I would do so in preference. Billinghurst has his bot set up with a task to search for these templates and replace with the correct character, if there's a particular work you want done. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I encounter the various ways mentioned above when I am validating other's pages. I myself do not use them and perhaps because I don't use a laptop for posting on wikisource. I have one but I dislike it. Now when I encounter them I don't validate them. I have validated a lot but I often see works that are complete or only partially complete (proofread) that have been transcluded. Apparently, from what I have looked over, people proofread and then transclude the sections they prefer and that's it. Those works still sit unproofread. Perhaps some think it isn't necessary to go further than that. This may be one of the reasons we have to have validation month. BTW, there was recently shown a small but completely validated work when I was going to work on "validation for the month". Kindest regards, Maury (—William Maury Morris IITalk 06:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

New land mollusks from Madagascar and Mexico[edit]

Thank you for your interest. I got the file from, so I assumed it would be PD; I'll check the site you mentioned. I was going to mark the pages blank myself, but didn't get around to it. Thank you for doing it (and sorry).--Frglz (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but could you point out where I have to go to on the Field Museum's site? The DjVu is from --Frglz (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


Congrats Petey, you are now an administrator. Can I ask you to list any other languages and/or access at Wikisource:Administrators#Current administrators please? Cheers, Hesperian 11:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations EncycloPetey! All along I thought you had once been an administrator here or were still one here using an alias. You're good at what you do. I have been watching and wondering what former administrator you were or had been as you used a new alias! Have a great day! Kindest regards, Maury ( —William Maury Morris IITalk 15:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, no, I've never used an alias nor have I been an administrator here before. I just been pootling along quietly here. Now, I have been rather active on several sister projects, so I know a lot about templates, page formatting, and other similar issues from years of experience, and that experience has translated well to work on Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


This are all the original Paleontology articles. User:Ineuw/Sandbox8.— Ineuw talk 06:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

PSM and Zoology[edit]

I understand your anxiety and concern, but please bear with me until I complete my work. I see that you are following me and imagine that you are upset, but I am also sure that Wikisource and you can wait a couple of days, With Mpaa's robot help, the unnecessary Zoology categories will be removed. My work is more database related, and not category related. I am just too tired to explain after spending some 10 hours today on this. I will give you the results of my work and you can regroup and create categories as you wish. I will not create categories but will leave it in your capable hands. — Ineuw talk 07:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)



THIS PAGE is the 1st result of my work. It is intended as a demonstration for some proposals regarding Zoology/Animals related categories. To understand what was going on, I was left with no other choice but to create offline data tables to analyze what existed so that I can instantly demonstrate my point in the Scriptorium. I am a strong believer of "seeing is believing". In order to recognize animal related categories, I placed "Zoology" in every one of the pages, and then, using an offline MSAccess database and VB programming, I created spreadsheets to see what was done. You may find a couple of discrepancies due to the time lag between your corrections and the latest file from Mpaa.

In the past years, each time I attempted offline analysis spanning several days, when I returned to WS, changes took place as people added, and/or revised categories and my work was useless. Placing "Zoology" & all other categories temporarily on the pages was the only solution. In the first step 312 articles in the "Zoology" are reduced to 46. and making "Zoology" as the first level "Super" category (using Wikimedia Commons terminology).

At this point and time - it's 04:46am DST, I am tired and need some rest, but will continue later, most likely with a proposal in the Scriptorium. What I am asking of you is just please bear with me. As for the "Zoology" categories to be removed, I now know that User:Mpaa is otherwise occupied for the next few days, (I was going to ask him to use a bot), so I will remove the temporary categories manually.

Finally, I don't question your expertise, and in fact, I am glad that you are here to supervise category assignments. — Ineuw talk 09:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I say again what I said before: The proposed new categories are wrong. I could see that even at a quick look over just some portions of the proposal. Some oyster articles are labelled "Oysters", while others are not. Articles on Cnidarians are left in Zoology, instead of being moved to a more appropriate subcategory. An article about beavers is in both Beavers and the parent category of Rodents, which is bad categorizing. "Mental capacity of the Elephant" is in Elephants, but not in Animal cognition. "How fungi live in winter" is in Marine life, even though the fungi being discussed are all terrestrial or freshwater fungi. As I say, that's just at a quick look. If I looked at more categories, I would probably find more problems. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Epitome of famous American and British Clipper ships[edit]

EncycloPetey, would you be so kind as to place this scanned book on Wikisource so that I can edit it? If you prefer not to just say "no" on my talk page so that I will at least know one way or another and can beg someone else. Kindest regards, Maury ( —William Maury Morris IITalk 15:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The clipper ship era; an epitome of famous American and British clipper ships, their owners, builders, commanders, and crews, 1843-1869 (1910)

Digitizing sponsor: MSN

To be clear: Did you mean (1) upload the DjVu to Commons, and set up an Index file here on Wikisource, or (2) upload the DjVu file here on Wikisource because the copyright is still in effect in the country of publication? --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know. I saw that the copyright was 1910. I *thought* files are placed on Commons with an Index page created somehow on Wikisource. I don't think that files are supposed to be placed on Wikisource. I'll ask someone else to find out what I am supposed to do. Thank you all the same. Kind regards, Maury ( —William Maury Morris IITalk 04:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Commons follows the copyright status according to the country in which it was published in addition to that in the US. This means that sometimes Commons won't host a work even though it is in PD by US standards. It depends on the status in the country of original publication. As a result, The English Wikisource does sometimes host source files, such as for H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds, which is still under copyright in the UK, and so Commons won't host it. In this case, I've now looked at the work you asked about, and see that it's a US publication prior to 1923, so it would be fine on Commons. I guess that looking at that information first might have saved some confusion. I'll take care of it now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

White space[edit]

Hi. I noticed that you add an extra blank at the end of a page in Page ns. I think it is not needed, as automatically added when the page is transcluded. Bye--Mpaa (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The way the software works now, that is true. But there is no guarantee that the software will continue to work that way in future. We already have a known problem that occurs between transcluded pages in certain circumstances (and I've noticed another), and so it is possible that the behavior of the software will be modified. As a result, and since it does not harm transclusion, I include a final space when the paragraph flows onto the next page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Then it might be good to raise this concern and the other issues to the Scriptorium so everyone is aware. So far I have never seen this precaution against future compatibility to be mentioned or adopted.--Mpaa (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The precaution has not been adopted as far as I know either, but the original concern has already been in the Scriptorium—I just don't remember the details at the moment except that it involves unwanted space/lines appearing between transcluded pages in a work, and that the problem was a known issue. The related problem I've noticed occurs when I use {{hws}} and {{hwe}}, and there is a punctuation mark immediately prior to the hyphenated word on the first page of the pair (such as an open parenthesis or bracket). The software then inserts an unwanted space after the punctuation mark because of the page separation. It would be possible to cobble a work-around by including the punctuation in the hyphenated-word template, but that's an ugly solution. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


From my talk page: —William Maury Morris IITalk 02:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

One more thing: You've added </references> as a footer to every page, but I didn't see footnotes anywhere in the work when I was setting it up. You do know that the "references" footer is only required to display footnotes on a page, yes? [ No, I did not know. It has never been mentioned by anyone] Having it in there adds just a little bit of unnecessary size to every created page. A small amount when you're doing a single page, but it adds up over hundreds or thousands of pages to needless storage space used for something that isn't needed. [Place this information on the proper help page for other editors to be aware] --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I only added </references> after the system prompted me to add </references>. Yes, there is a page with footnotes. There is more than one page with footnotes. They should be easy to find since it would be colored yellow as proofread. At this point, the beginning, I don't know if there are more pages with </references> or not since I just started. Too, I have never seen opposition or complaint by anyone to adding </references>. This has been the situation for many years now. When I have asked others to set up a book for me to edit, </references> was usually added. I only very recently learned to add to add </references> becausen the system prompted me to do so upon adding one and not having </references>. Many times I have validated Billinghurst's works. On one occasion recently, about a month or two, I asked him on his talk page about the fact that he had no </references> because I was used to seeing them. He only wrote, <"Shrug...> and gave no explanation as you have given here. I have no desire to add </references> if it is not needed -- if the system does not prompt me to do so upon saving a page. It benefits me in no way to do so, it is in fact, quite the opposite, -- it is more to be done that isn't editing book pages which is what I like to do. Perhaps </references> can be added to just the pages that require and prompt me to do so while leaving the other pages without </references>? —William Maury Morris IITalk 00:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • UPDATE for EncycloPetey re: </references> I have only started on this book but regardless here are two of the references you never saw:

William Maury Morris IITalk 02:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

    • BTW, I thanked you for setting the book up but I also thank you for all that you have taught me in between. They are the kind of things other administrators should have both employed in setting up books and mentioned to all editors long ago. They chat enough on Scriptorium that these things could have been mentioned but perhaps some did not know themselves. Kind regards, —William Maury Morris IITalk 03:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Please do the Contents and Illustrations pages for The Clipper Ship Era but do not validate the pages presently marked yellow. —William Maury Morris IITalk 09:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Finishing off Nov PotM[edit]

Hi, I anticipate being sideswiped by RL 28 Nov through 3 Dec. Could you please look after finishing off the November PotM and swapping over to the December?

Usually from this point in November onwards as works are finished instead of replacing them in Wikisource:Proofread of the Month/Coding we double up the references for those that are left. This means that works will appear twice in each day.

To swap to December the two templates {{PotM}} and ((tl|Collaboration}} need updating. The doc pages for both are reasonably good, but if you get stuck Billinghurst knows these templates far better than I do. I can do the awards when I'm able to return. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to give it a shot. However, that would mean that if Vanity Fair should fall through as a nomination, because we can't get the problematic Source file corrected, then I'd be left with just the two works I nominated myself, and I'd feel more than a little awkward about that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
That's OK, we'll make the call on which work before I disappear. Ineuw will let us know if it's a go well before then. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
And in addition to that, the latest MW software update seems to have stymied all the OCR text layers for newly imported DjVu files. If that issue can't be corrected in time, then we'll have to work on something uploaded prior to the update. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

/*The Moonstone*/ EncycloPetey, is this the correct url? I wish to know because I have started editing there. I also see that every page has <references/> which I think it was you who taught me not to use them unless nedded on a page. Kind regards, Maury (—William Maury Morris IITalk 17:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's the correct location. And yes, there is an unnecessary "references" on every page. It looks as though someone back in 2008 ran a bot to automatically create all the pages, but didn't correct the Index page contents first. As a result, we now have all those extra "references". --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Beeswaxcandle has now stated that "The Moonstone" I have asked about above is no longer an option because we already have a full version. But I wonder, what about the images? There are very good illustrations in "The Moonstone" book. I have already edited several pages of that book today. I decided I needed to be more flexible with the overall situation and went to work today. Question: When someone does as you have stated then can't we just remove "references" from the Index page and add "references" to each page where we might need references while we proofread? Would that create a problem in some way? Perhaps with transclusion? Kindest regards, Maury ( —William Maury Morris IITalk 19:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Indexes: Setting up footer field -- overuse of unneeded "references" = bandwidth overuse?[edit]

EncycloPetey, if it is very important as you've suggested to me, and as I stated, references in the footer field of an Index "seems to be a standard procedure." I always see it when I validate another's pages. However, if it is not supposed to be then it should be announced to all who upload and create such Indexes. With you having more authority and knowledge about this, including as an administrator, I would hope that you make such an announcement so that it does not continue. If it is not very important, as though we have and always will have unlimited bandwidth, then I would think "silence is golden". The following is yet another where references in the Index footer field is not needed. Kindest regards, Maury ( —William Maury Morris IITalk 08:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That's one reason that I suggested we have a guide to working on Index pages. Beeswaxcandle was started a draft in one of his sandoxes, and this information will be included within that. Once we've ironed out the draft, it will be rolled out as a Help page on the subject. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the information on what Beeswaxcandle is working on. I have been seeing what you first told me about on "references" just about everywhere I wander. The unneeded use of it must be massive! My guess is that people who have added unneeded "references" as footers will continue to do the same without looking at any help pages. It's new to me so because of you I know to watch out for this. Thank you for all you've taught me. —Maury (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The software used to add the references tag in the footer (in fact, it was quite annoying in that it sometimes replaced the tag even after it had been deleted in previous edits). Since TPT's recent update, this has stopped. It might be a habit now ,with some users, to add the tag manually but, if they did not bother to remove it before the update, they might not bother to add it now.
FYI Help:Index pages has been around for a few months now. It is intended as a guide to working on them, even if it isn't finished yet. It could use improvement, of course. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Heidelberg Catechism[edit]

Hi, would you mind looking at my proofreading of the Heidelberg Catechism to see if I'm on the right track as far as formatting goes? Thanks. --Jfhutson (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, at first I was using headers for "Question #" and "Answer," but that makes each question and answer a new section instead of being in the same section as the question. How can I have the same font size for "Answer" and the "Question #" without making answers separate sections? --Jfhutson (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I've made modifications to page 3. If you use {{right}} for the chapter and verse, then you won't need to use a line break. Now, whether this will work for the entire document depends on how much of it will be transcluded into a single page. Too many templates transcluded on a single page can cause problems, so if that happens, we might need to use more CSS and fewer templates. It just depends on the size of the chunks that are transcluded in the final page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, it looks great! I'm still not sure how to make it so that when it is transcluded there can be a menu from which each question can be accessed. --Jfhutson (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Normally, we work to replicate published works, not to create original forms. You can always create a separate table of contents, linked to the correct page, if some sort of option is needed. But, as I say, creating original sorts of works is not normally done here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Confirmation vs Nomination[edit]

Hi, the discussion for Kathleen is a Confirmation discussion. See the italicised paragraphs at WS:ADMINS#Confirmation discussions. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I didn't catch that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

includeonly causes ref text to not transclude...[edit] this case. See transclusion here. There are at least two other instances where I have copied your formatting, so I await your solution with bated breath :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That's in the User namespace. Have you tried it in the Main namespace yet? The includeonly tag usually limits text to appearing only when it is transcluded into the Main namespace. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Yup. I first superceded the same transclusion (<pages index="The varieties of religious experience, a study in human nature.djvu" from=405 to=407 />) over one of the text chapter pages in the Main (as a show-preview) to see how it transcluded. Same results. I'll try again though... Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Same again. Keeping in mind that this reference spans 3 pages... Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
By the way... no hurry. The 'bated breath' comment was in jest, but I am not funny! Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
There was some talk that the most recent update affected the function of noinclude; includeonly may have been similarly affected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah... so should I use the 'method' I used originally, or is there another option? Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I'l take a look tomorrow afternoon or evening, and see what I can do. This process is still working elsewhere, so it may be a ref-tag limitation rather than a bug. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what's happening, but my guess is that it has something to do with the fact that it's inside a ref tag. We might have to do this the way you set it up before, with comments to explain to future proofreaders why it looks that way. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I found an instance of a 3-page reference done (before this work was a PotM) which worked, so I copied the formatting to the case in the 'Mysticism' chapter. There is a paragraph-rendering issue, however, in the 'Mysticism' chapter ref, and I laid the problem out on the Talk page for the work if you want to take a look. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Tom Jones scans[edit]

Hi, I've just been reading through Talk:The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling in an attempt to work out where we're at with this work (mainly because it's come up on a list of 100 classic novels everyone ought to read). I've found a Vol VI 1749 scan on IA here and Vol V here. Unfortunately, they're google scans, but they might suit your purposes. Do you want me to see if I can find the other vols? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

If we can find all parts of the 1749 edition, I'd be ecstatic. My previous attempts to locate an original edition all failed, but of course, new things are being uploaded all the time. This wouldn't replace the work I've been doing, because I'm purposely adding lots of explanatory links and images that were not present in any edition; the partial version I've worked on should be kept (and finished), thoiugh it might perhaps need to be moved to a different page name if we can get a full original edition. I'm hoping to make more Tom Jones progress over my Christmas vacation, but things like that have fallen through for me before. It will be finished; it's just a question of when. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, here's Vol I, Vol II, & Vol IV. I can't get at Vol III, but that's probably because I'm trying from NZ rather than the US. You may have better luck. My gsearch criteria are: "Tom Jones" 1749 "University of Michigan". Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
With your criteria, Vol III popped right up. Looks like we've got PDFs for the whole work now. I suppose the next step is getting them into the IA for DjVu conversion and a text layer, right? I've not yet tried to work with anything that wasn't already in DjVu format. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Excellent! Yes, the best thing is to put those four into IA for DjVu. There's a help page at Help:Internet Archive where Ineuw's just updated the notes on Deriving if you need help with that process. My data limit's going to be a bit tight this month otherwise I'd do it for you. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles belonging to Zoology & Ornithology and Botany[edit]

Hi. I placed several articles in Category:PSM uncategorized articles that belong to the above mentioned topics. When you have the chance, could you please categorize them? Thanks.— Ineuw talk 01:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:PSM uncategorized articles[edit]

Hi. There are numerous articles related to Zoology and Botany in Category:PSM uncategorized articles waiting for your categorization. Could you kindly look them over and add the proper categories. Thanks. — Ineuw talk 04:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"Red skies in the morning....."[edit]

EncycloPetey, this isn't highly important but I do think the letters in the color red should be duplicated here [1] —Maury (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not possible unless we fail to link the author. I think it's less inportant, as the other only red text is the "Contents" headers and the page number on page vi. As a result, I didn't make the text red. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I understand and understood what you have stated. It wouldn't look good. I have seen a book done by (I think) AdamBMorgan where red was used and it looked very good but there was no blue link in his area of text.—Maury (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I have likewise seen colored text done successfully. It works best when the book itself was printed as a work of art as much as a book. In this instance, that's not so, as only the title page has anything resembling an "arty" look. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

April PotM[edit]

Hi, the missing text layer on the PDF is a problem for a PotM. I've found a couple of versions on IA with DjVu files as noted in the Wikisource talk:Proofread of the Month#April 2013. Would you have time to bring one of them over? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I might, later today, but I need to know which one we want. Someone needs to see which possibility in of suitable quality, and whether it is complete, without scanning problems. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I looked through both editions on IA; (1) 1st edition has at least two instances where there are two identical sets of images back-to-back (see images between pages 26 & 27 for example. Some images are B&W. I believe all numbered pages to be present and in the correct order otherwise. (2) 2nd edition: Better images to work with, no double-images or B & W images, all pages present & in order. One page (230) is a blur, however—almost non-existent. Just a quick run-through... Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks LJB. I've asked George for advice as to the best way forward. There's still some pages left for validation in the March work so we can let it run an extra day or two, while we sort the file out. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


I was basing on Help:Index pages: "The subtitle should not be part of the link." But if disambiguation is needed (although I could not see it), then thats fine. Moondyne (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Freehand formatting[edit]

When doing works, especially PotM, we have generally tried to not have a 'freehand' size formatting [2], generally we have applied a more standard {{smaller}} (or similar) approach. Or if we are looking to have something like the approach taken, then it is worthwhile having that discussion/noting such on the corresponding 'Index_talk:' page. Not to say that I am disagreeing with the choice of size, just more about how we get a consistent approach. Guess that we are going to have to run a bot through the work anyway. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Certain kinds of templates interact well, and others don't, and in this case there was a way to format the text without calling another template, which is the approach I prefer. The page I was formatting had used a multi-page formatting template, which was clearly wrong, so I checked the work's Talk page, but there was no stated preference for formatting. If people don't state the standard set for the work, then I can't follow it. I found also that there was quite a lot of missed punctuation in proofread and verified pages, which doesn't bolster my confidence in the final product. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


EncycloPetey, will you please fix the title properly? so that it shows:

M F Maury address - Philodemic Society - 1846

This is inside of the Index worked on today where we add the title. For some reason mine is not a hotlink

Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand where you want me to edit. Can you provide a link to the location? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC) V
Sorry, I myself am having great difficulty on this borrowed and confusing laptop until my new computer arrives.

The url is here

Fixing any portion of that area will help.—Maury (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Riders of the Purple Sage[edit]


I see this Index marked for structural issues yet I cannot find any at first (or 2nd) glance - can you clue me in on the exact issue(s) so I can go about resolving it/them? Thx. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I posted in the Scriptorium. It's just the Google notice at the front that needs to be removed, so that the Index file will align correctly. Otherwise, the file is fine. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh. OK. I'm on it. Look for an updated File: in about 20 minutes or so. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Done & FYI - I happen to notice scan page nos. 67 & 91 have portions clipped or blurred. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'd noticed the damage to the original book as well, but this is by far the best copy for images, and is also the first edition and not a later one. The damage seems minimal, and Adam thought it would not be a problem, so I followed his advice. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I actually missed page 91. However I found another scan of the same edition and patched it up. It should be OK now. Sorry for a delay on assisting with this, I've been really overwhelmed in meatspace recently. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
No worries. I always try to have lots of projects going at once, so that I'll have plenty to work on when unexpected events intervene. In any event, I hadn't gotten around to working with Riders until a little while ago today, so it's not as if I've been waiting around. Thanks for the fix! --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


Hi. Edits by spam-only accounts like DollieAve (talkcontribs) and KatherinC (talkcontribs) should be deleted and the users globally locked. The next time you see one of these, just nominate it for speedy deletion. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm an admin; I don't have to nominate anything. I have no means of taking global action, however, nor the means to verify that an edit was made by a spambot. I'm not going to block what could be a legitimate account merely because I assume it was done by a bot. I will sometimes block for spam-only accounts, but not out of a guess. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
See this and this, and m:NTSAMR. Best regards, --LlamaAl (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Index:Gems of Chinese literature (1922).djvu[edit]

Hello. Thank you for fixing up both Page:Gems of Chinese literature (1922).djvu/15 and Gems of Chinese Literature/K'ung Fu-Tzŭ'' (Confucius)/Miscellaneous Extracts. What a dopey mistake! Obviously, I didn't even realise it until after you'd corrected things again. MODCHK (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. That's why I browse Recent Changes: I find interesting stuff or sometimes find little errors I can help with, and I know that other folks out there are doing the same for me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Index:Laws of Hammurabi, King of Babylonia.djvu[edit]

Index:Laws of Hammurabi, King of Babylonia.djvu has now been validated. YesY --kathleen wright5 (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


You have new messages
Hello, EncycloPetey. You have new messages at PinkAmpersand's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Second Freedmen's Bureau Bill[edit]

Hi EncycloPetey, thanks for your help so far with the Second Freedmen's Bureau Bill. Here is the upload at Commons. What next? Does Wikisource have its own OCR system? We are trying to build sources for wikipedia:40 acres and a mule. Thank you & aloha! Groupuscule (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource User Group[edit]

Wikisource, the free digital library is moving towards better implementation of book management, proofreading and uploading. All language communities are very important in Wikisource. We would like to propose a Wikisource User Group, which would be a loose, volunteer organization to facilitate outreach and foster technical development, join if you feel like helping out. This would also give a better way to share and improve the tools used in the local Wikisources. You are invited to join the mailing list 'wikisource-l' (English), the IRC channel #wikisource, the facebook page or the Wikisource twitter. As a part of the Google Summer of Code 2013, there are four projects related to Wikisource. To get the best results out of these projects, we would like your comments about them. The projects are listed at Wikisource across projects. You can find the midpoint report for developmental work done during the IEG on Wikisource here.

Global message delivery, 23:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


Hi EncycloPetey, I have sent you a Wikisource email.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I have had internet difficulties for a couple of days, and I start working again this week. Please be patient, as I have less time this week than I did during the summer. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Poem formatting[edit]

So, I'm working on the Diary collaboration and keep running into poems. Some of them, in existing (and validated) pages use br tags rather than poem tags; is this an exception to the general rule of preferring poem tags, or should I endeavour to use poem tags in newly-created or proofread pages? Ironholds (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Association Football book[edit]

Hi, on WT:PotM you said that you've already brought this book down. I can't find it. Can you give me a pointer so that I can update the PotM templates? Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks as though Adam has already uploaded the file at commons:File:Association Football and How to Play It (1908) by John Cameron.djvu. He's also set up an index page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Book Mexico of the Mexicans.[edit]

Need some help in setting up the transclusion of pages, I am doing something wrong with the chapters. Thank you--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've been away from Wikisource lately and just saw your query. I assume the issue has been attended to, since the work appears to be completed now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

January featured text[edit]

EncycloPetey, could you please protect The Corsair (Byron, 1814) and its subpages, and edit Template:Featured text/January with the following? You can change the wording if needed. Thanks in advance, Erasmo Barresi (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll change the wording on the 1st, but we don't normally do anything special with protection. The past several featured works were not protected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Done. Although someone should check the "Grab a Download" to see whether it works. I don't use them, and so don't know whether it's correctly set up. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The Corsair is an 1814 tale in verse by George Gordon Byron.

It is about a corsair named Conrad, who is rejected by society due to his actions when young and later fights against humanity (excluding women). The tale is divided into cantos, like The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri.

January 2014 is the bicentennial of the publication of this work.

Byron 1813 by Phillips.jpg

"O'er the glad waters of the dark blue sea,
"Our thoughts as boundless, and our souls as free,
"Far as the breeze can bear, the billows foam,
"Survey our empire and behold our home!
"These are our realms, no limits to their sway—
"Our flag the sceptre all who meet obey.
"Ours the wild life in tumult still to range
"From toil to rest, and joy in every change.
"Oh, who can tell? not thou, luxurious slave!
"Whose soul would sicken o'er the heaving wave;
"Not thou, vain lord of wantonness and ease!
"Whom slumber soothes not—pleasure cannot please—
"Oh, who can tell, save he whose heart hath tried,
"And danc’d in triumph o'er the waters wide,
"The exulting sense—the pulse's maddening play,
"That thrills the wanderer of that trackless way?

(Read on...)


"I agree with EncycloPetey's request/suggestion above.." —Maury (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Image width[edit]

Thanks, will remember in future.--Keith Edkins (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikisource meetup at Wikimania 2014[edit]

Wikimania 2014 will be held in London this August and it will be a great opportunity to discuss how to use the recently created Wikisource Community User Group to coordinate and to better promote Wikisource. We would like to invite the participants of each Wikisource language community to showcase the projects has been working in the past year and, of course, learn from each other experiences. See you there? Sign up in the meeting page.
The preceding MassMessage was sent by Micru to the members of the Wikisource Community User Group according to this delivery list (sorry the duplication if you already received the message through the ws mailing list).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for help with first upload[edit]

Hey, thanks for following behind me and cleaning up the mess. What should I stop and do right now to take the best next steps? Kjtobo (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Spellcheck on Firefox[edit]

I don't know if it's the same on your Firefox, but on Firefox 29.0.1 for Mac you go to Preferences then Advanced then click on General tab and uncheck 'Check my spelling as I type'. Images are OK on the above Firefox for Mac using Mavericks 10.9.3 --kathleen wright5 (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC) P.S. Images are fine on Safari 7.0.4 for Mac using Mavericks 10.9.3--kathleen wright5 (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I haven't had any images problems on FireFox, just irritation from the edit window. I can't even get a full line of regular text to display and don't know yet how to adjust the font size for editing (or if that's possible). --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to your guidance, I found out how to adjust the font size, but it unfortunately is all-or-nothing. The display text AND the edit window text are both controlled from the same location. So I have to either read everything smaller, or continually adjust as I work. :P --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The Russian School of Painting[edit]

Pics are a beauty!!! Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC).

Thanks. I'm so glad that you're doing this book. We need more art books, and one on pre-Soviet Russian painting is a great choice. I've just added the last image, and will format the Table of Contents tomorrow or Saturday. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! The book turned out to be even better than I expected. Benois (at least in translation) seem to have some caustic wit, some of his characterizations are quite funny:

"All four would be unthinkable without their great master, but no one of them reached his height; the first three because of lack of talent, the fourth, because of purely external circumstances. . ."

And thanks a lot for your work on ToC. Captain Nemo (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC).
Yes, I'm loving the book. Too many art books in English are as dry as winter leaves. Give me some caustic opinion, and my interest goes way up. I think this is a really good shot at an upcoming Featured Text. We need more selections that aren't fiction anyway, but this would be a great choice for its visual and academic content as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Inspired by your idea, I've added color pictures to this one.
Thanks for the help with Great Russia - it's an interesting propaganda piece overall, but I working on it mainly because of its Chapter XV. Captain Nemo (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC).

Restored Template:Author/doc[edit]

Seems that you deleted the documentation[3], rather than reverted the edit. I have restored the file. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


Thank both of you, EncycloPetey and Hesperian! Wikisource has actually saved my sanity. I was laid off from my job after 23 years, and found only part-time jobs that I enjoyed doing. I was quite bored with video games, and one can only search the Internet for so long. Fortunately, I was searching on Wikipedia one day, and found the sister sites -- something I did not know existed. I was intrigued by the Random Transcription site, and when I clicked, I found Swift -- first try! My favorite professor in college was a Swift expert, so I believe it was a sign. But don't worry that I'll leave when I'm done with the Swift work -- I've already found a Twain book to transcribe, and will search for more of my favorites when that's done. Susanarb (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Index:The Tragic Drama of the Greeks (1896).djvu[edit]

I can't help you with Ancient Greek but according to the Administrator list at Wikisource:Administrators, User:Zyephyrus might be able to help you. Not all the pages have Greek footnotes and I've done one already, it just needs to be Validated. (Page 9) --kathleen wright5 (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed that and am validating it now. I also have an Ancient Greek specialist friend on Wiktionary, who might be persuaded to assist. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Is there a {{ancient greek-to-fix}} template on en.wikisource? On fr.wikisource we use a template {{grec}} to put the page into a category indicating that there is some ancient greek to fix in the page. Do we have the same on --Zyephyrus (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there's {{greek missing}}. I keep a semi-regular eye on the linked category. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The difference here is that I'm putting in the Greek as I go, so it's not actually missing. It just needs to be proofread on every single page. This will prevent some people from proofreading/validating, because they're intimidated by the Greek. --EncycloPetey (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Antarctic Flora[edit]

Hello EncycloPetey,

I have thanked you here (and asked a question). --Zyephyrus (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Automated import of openly licensed scholarly articles[edit]

Hello EncycloPetey,

We are putting together a proposal about the automated import of openly licensed scholarly articles, and since you are an active Wikisourceror, we'd appreciate yourcomments on the Scriptorium. For convenience, I'm copying our proposal here:

The idea of systematically importing openly licensed scholarly articles into Wikisource has popped up from time to time. For instance, it formed the core of WikiProject Academic Papers and is mentioned in the Wikisource vision. However, the Wikiproject relied on human power, never reached its full potential, and eventually became inactive. The vision has yet to materialise.
We plan to bridge the gap through automation. We are a subset of WikiProject Open Access (user:Daniel Mietchen, user:Maximilanklein, user:MattSenate), and we have funding from the Open Society Foundations via Wikimedia Deutschland to demo suitable workflows at Wikimania (see project page).
Specifically, we plan to import Open Access journal articles into Wikisource when they are cited on Wikipedia. The import would be performed by a group of bots intended to make reference handling more interoperable across Wikimedia sites. Their main tasks are:
  • (on Wikipedia) signalling which references are openly licensed, and link them to the full text on Wikisource, the media on Commons and the metadata on Wikidata;
  • (on Commons) importing images and other media associated with the source article;
  • (on Wikisource) importing the full text of the source article and embedding the media in there;
  • (on Wikidata) handling the metadata associated with the source article, and signalling that the full text is on Wikisource and the media on Commons.
These Open Access imports on Wikisource will be linked to and from other Wikimedia sister sites. Our first priority though will be linking from English Wikipedia, focusing on the most cited Open Access papers, and the top-100 medical articles.
In order to move forward with this, we need
  • General community approval
  • Community feedback on workflows and scrutiny on our test imports in specific.
  • Bot permission. For more technical information read our bot spec on Github.

Maximilianklein (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

As you might notice from the name of this page and my signature, I am not Billinghurst. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I fixed that. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Featured text update[edit]

Thanks for your helpful participation at Wikisource:Featured_text_candidates#Wikipedia_is_pushing_the_boundaries_of_scholarly_practice_but_the_gender_gap_must_be_addressed.

I believe your concerns have been addressed -- Clockery (talkcontribs) helped out and went through and proofread the text.

Perhaps you could reevaluate your position on the text as a candidate for Featured text?

Thank you for your time,

-- Cirt (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Cirt: Please read the FT requirements again. One proofread is not sufficient for a text to qualify; a candidate must be "completely proofread by multiple editors". The text still doesn't not meet the requirements for featured candidacy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thank you, will keep that in mind, hopefully we'll get some other proofreaders soon. -- Cirt (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I know the feeling all too well. There are two really nice works I've worked on recently, but each must have another editor proofread before they're eligible for consideration. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh? Which ones? Perhaps I could help out? -- Cirt (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The one I'd most like to see go up is Benois' The Russian School of Painting, which Captain Nemo and I worked to proofread. We don't have nearly enough good books on painting here, and Russian painting is often overlooked anyway. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


Can you give a brief rational with your two oppose votes at Wikisource:Scriptorium#WS:Annotations & Wikisource:Scriptorium#WS:Wikilinks? Jeepday (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Brief? No. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Brief or lengthy, as you please, or as necessary.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
That page is a potential policy page, written as a draft, without even a thorough discussion of the proposed direction and implications of its consequences. Some of the statements that would be policy are very badly written, with unintended consequences, and other points are ridiculously extreme. A full discussion is needed, and one that I expect would take weeks, if not months, to work through. If such a discussion begins, I'll participate, but right now it's a vote that's happening, and I've voted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I opened a Request for comment about this and, of course, I would appreciate your input. You're a great fellow and you're able to notice what others overlook.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The request is poorly structured. You've assumed that all we need to do is revise each individual current section. That assumes that the overall approach and structure of the page is acceptable. It is not. The initial review and commentary should look for and address the big picture issues, regardless of page section. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Got it. It has to be written from scratch. Changed the page accordingly.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

A Short History of Astronomy (1898) has too many templates to transclude[edit]

Gday. Would you please look to simplify the template load in A Short History of Astronomy (1898), it exceeds the limit for transclusions and therefore numbers of pages are not showing. It is usually that way with the abundance of cascading templates used in tables of contents. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

and History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella the Catholic (10th ed.)/Volume 1
The Ferdinand and Isabella page USED TO transclude; that it doesn't do so now is a result of more MW changes. I'll make the necessary changes when I next work on that very lengthy work.
The History of Astronomy is not one of my works; you'll need to contact the person (Mike s) who has been working on it. I've just been helping with the images, mostly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I have hacked at the problem template Template:Dotted TOC page listing/1 and removed the &#160; and just using a normal space. So we now have
Post‐expand include size: 1174652/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 89764/2048000 bytes

It is not a mw hack, it is the template. Would you please check that it still looks okay. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be working, but that's not a template that I know very well or that I use very often any more. You might ask for a community look-see so that the template experts have verify that it is indeed working as it should. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked User:Recitation-bot[edit]

Hi @EncycloPetey,

Posting this while at Wikimania 2014 in London at the moment, cheers! We from Wikisource:WikiProject Open Access are slowly, manually running our prospective bot on Wikisource, User:Recitation-bot editing only under the User: namespace to run trials for demonstration purposes and to ensure we improve and meet the standards of quality and performance of the EN:Wikisource community in order to potentially enter the Main: namespace. We received notice that User:Recitation-bot has been blocked. We'd like to address any concerns you or others may have about the functioning of this bot, in accordance with the bot policy at Wikisource:Bot. We are happy to follow-up with any on-going discussion on Scriptorium as well. Looking forward to hearing from you!

Thanks, Mattsenate (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

That bot was not authorized to run here, and was blocked. You clearly are aware of the page stating bot requirements, but have not met those requirements. You must meet the requirements for running a bot and then receive authorisation in order to run a bot on Wikisource, regardless of what namespace the bot edits under. I'm not sure where you're having trouble with that, but you do not have authorisation and have not met the minimum requirements. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
My understanding of the thread on Scriptorium is that concerns were raised, but given further discussion, responses to such concerns from yourself and User:George Orwell III were not then rebutted by anyone raising concerns. The final comment on this thread opens up the opportunity for voicing explicit opposition, for which none are stated:
So, there is consensus or there's gonna be a vote (I'm not even sure I can vote here on en.source :-) Aubrey (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
If there are un-addressed concerns, I am now respectfully requesting they be re-stated so we can address them directly.
Please see this message is sent in good faith, sent from Wikimedians who are genuinely interested in working within the vision and opportunities of Wikisource. The data we are discussing and believe could be valuable to import slowly and appropriately to wikisource clearly meets the guidelines for inclusion. Please help us determine how to improve this process and improve Wikisource.
Mattsenate (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Responding to concerns is not the same as receiving authorisation. You must meet the requirements for running a bot and then receive authorisation in order to run that bot on Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: I understand what you are saying, except that the exact policy language indeed does make a direct link between responding to concerns and receiving authorisation:
If there is no opposition after at least three to four days, the bot may be run slowly without a bot flag to demonstrate the bot. The bot should stop immediately if there are complaints until those are resolved.
Seeing no sustained opposition given the responses (rebuttals) on the Scriptorium thread, as I mentioned above, four days passed before we ran the bot slowly in User: space (as User:Maximilianklein details below). Exact dates were (last rebuttal on thread) 12:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC), then (first edit by bot) 00:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC).
Seeing that you have blocked this user, we expect that you have some complaint that we would like to resolve. Is there some other policy that you are citing here that can help me understand this situation?
Thanks! - Mattsenate (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey, @Mattsenate:I'm not familiar with the cultural protocol on Wikisource, but on English Wikipedia, what normally happens is that, part of the approval process is that admins authorise a certain amout of test edits- normally about 100, to evaluate the bot's work and peformance. So far I see that recitationbot has made 58 page creations. Can you unblock and authorise 75 pages, and then we will voluntarily stop, so we can go back to the Scriptorium discussion with more concrete work to chat over? The reason for the ask of the extra 17 page creations, is that I've just implemented an improvement to our algorithm and want to test it out (that's why we're using Project space, so its clear this is testing). Maximilianklein (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Mattsenate, (1) Look up wikt:resolve and wikt:rebut. Notice that these two words have different meanings. So, your rebutting of objections, does not mean that the issues are resolved. Any further wiki-lawyering on your part will be ignored. Wiki-lawyering is not indulged on the smaller MW projects the way it is on Wikpedia. (2) You MUST HAVE AUTHORISATION TO RUN A BOT ON WIKISOURCE. You do not have that authorisation, nor can you give yourself that authorisation. Authorisation is something the community must give you, and it has not done so. I do not understand why this is so hard for you to grasp. If a simple thing like this is such a problem for you, then I can't see allowing you to run a bot here. Ever. Begging me to allow your bot will not resolve the basic issue that you do NOT have community authorisation for the bot.
At this point you either "get it" or you don't. I won't be wasting any more of my time on this discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I didn't mean to offend, since the beginning of this thread I was hoping to understand the state of affairs and what courses of action are available. I will re-open the discussion about this bot on Scriptorium and hope we can engage in a good-faith process in pursuit of clear community authorisation. Mattsenate (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have spoken with DM and his team about some of the next steps to progress, and have unblocked the bot. @Mattsenate, @Maximilianklein, @Daniel Mietchen: I will be working with the guys to make some of the improvements, and working through the required documentation. — billinghurst sDrewth 18:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

A Lady's Cruise[edit]

Sorry about that. Actually I think all mine were Arabic but this didn't match the ones you had already created. All romanised now.--Keith Edkins (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


Why do you change it to Asanaginica. It's wrong term, Hasanaginica means a wife of Hasan-aga, where Hasan is Muslim name, and aga is title. Name Asan doesn't exist at all in any religion or culture. Please revert your changes. --Munjanes (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

If you have evidence that the original English translation was published under that name, please provide the source for verification. We follow the original published sources, not personal or even cultural opinions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Is this evidence fine? [4] --Munjanes (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
No, that's from a different and later publication. We don't retro-actively change published titles. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is pro-christianic site, that's why you put Croatian as language of this ballad. --Munjanes (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
This is not Wikipedia; this is Wikisource. We follow the published sources and reproduce them exactly as published. If a Muslim book is added to our collection, we reproduce it as published. If a Buddhist or Taoist book is added, we reproduce it as published. We do not change spellings from the ones that were published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

A compromise?[edit]

Hey, I've been thinking about our discussion about linking in archived scientific works and I think I've reached a compromise that will please both of us. Check out that example page again. If it looks the same as it did before bypass your cache (ctrl+F5 in Firefox or Chrome). Does this satisfy us both? Abyssal (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It fails to address some key points that I raised. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Meh. I was hoping that darkening the links would increase readability enough to remove the detrimental effects on readability from the extra links. A philosophical question in response to your distaste for my use of links: what is the drawback of a link if it's not drawing attention to itself by being the default bright blue color? Abyssal (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not so much that. I still think there are far too many links, and some of the links are either unnecessary for someone reading the article, or else are so obscure in the method of linkage. It is not necessary for a single work to link to every possible article / entry in the Wikiverse. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Please revisit featured text candidate by Adrianne Wadewitz[edit]

You helpfully pointed out that Wikipedia is pushing the boundaries of scholarly practice but the gender gap must be addressed needed multiple proofreaders.

It now has that, as some other editors were quite kind as to help out with proofreading.

Could you please revisit your position at Wikisource:Featured_text_candidates#Wikipedia_is_pushing_the_boundaries_of_scholarly_practice_but_the_gender_gap_must_be_addressed ?

Thank you for your time,

-- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Template:Indent/doc[edit]


I saw your update to the "See also" section of the above and thought I'd follow the link. Whilst I agree with the overall connection I felt it dropped the reader (presumably inexperienced) in a bit of a morass of unrelated discussion. Accordingly I have amended the link to more closely follow the theme. Of course if this is counter your intent please revert; it is merely a suggestion.

Regards, AuFCL (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I quite agree. The more specific link is an improvement. Thanks! --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

What is metadata?[edit]

I owe you payback for the quinine stamps anyway, but in response to your query, well…: [5]. Enjoy!

As regards your main-stream line of questioning, I am beginning to suspect the gadget either still does not work; or works in a fashion other than people hope for/expect it to. AuFCL (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ellipses in MOS[edit]

Hi, I was wanting to avoid the situation proposed in the third point in Index talk:The Confessions of a Well-Meaning Woman.djvu. The spacing in the statement, before and after my change, is solely about the spaces on either side of the … character. Please feel free to reword my version, but we need to be explicit about which form of the ellipsis we expect to see. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

What we may need is a full style guide subpage exclusively for ellipses and things that look like (yet are not) ellipses. There are situations where we do want spaces in between the periods because the string of dots is not actually an ellipsis, but rather a narrative pause in dialogue. In such situations, compressing the dots into an ellipsis character changes the tempo, and thus the meaning, of the dialogue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

New Proposal Notification - Replacement of common main-space header template[edit]

Announcing the listing of a new formal proposal recently added to the Scriptorium community-discussion page, Proposals section, titled:

Switch header template foundation from table-based to division-based

The proposal entails the replacement of the current Header template familiar to most with a structurally redesigned new Header template. Replacement is a needed first step in series of steps needed to properly address the long time deficiencies behind several issues as well as enhance our mobile device presence.

There should be no significant operational or visual differences between the existing and proposed Header templates under normal usage (i.e. Desktop view). The change is entirely structural -- moving away from the existing HTML all Table make-up to an all Div[ision] based one.

Please examine the testcases where the current template is compared to the proposed replacement. Don't forget to also check Mobile Mode from the testcases page -- which is where the differences between current header template & proposed header template will be hard to miss.

For those who are concerned over the possible impact replacement might have on specific works, you can test the replacement on your own by entering edit mode, substituting the header tag {{header with {{header/sandbox and then previewing the work with the change in place. Saving the page with the change in place should not be needed but if you opt to save the page instead of just previewing it, please remember to revert the change soon after your done inspecting the results.

Your questions or comments are welcomed. At the same time I personally urge participants to support this proposed change. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Troubleshooting your issue[edit]


I've been looking to your OCR button generation issue with a co-worker more familiar with FireFox than I am with little to show for it. Since you have no User: specific common.js or vector.js customizations in place to somehow "be in conflict with" vs. the normal/default settings, the only way "we" manage to reproduce the loss of (or more exactly 'prevent the generation of') the OCR button is to overload Gadget selection along with enabling a near asinine combination of personal settings (which I doubt you have in place to be clear).

Nevertheless, until some other avenue of investigation presents itself, the only additional help that I can offer is to go through your settings with you to make sure somehow something there is not causing a conflict or something.

Preliminary Questions:

  • What skin do you currently have in place?.-- The "default" is vector but you've been around long enough to know switching from one skin to another does not necessarily guarantee all the old settings seamlessly switch over to the new state so I have to ask.
  • Which editing toolbar do you use by default; Classic or WikiEditor?.--
  1. Show edit toolbar <-- only this one of the three listed here should be selected for Classic
  2. Enable enhanced editing toolbar <-- only this one of the three listed here should be selected for WikiEditor
  3. Enable wizards for inserting links, tables as well as the search and replace function <-- never select this; for now, these features are not ready for "prime time"

George Orwell III (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

My skin is Vector. I was unaware there was more than one editing toolbar available, and had to hunt around for the listed options. I have all three checked as I type this, but do not know why. I do not recall ever messing with these options. I will uncheck the latter two for now and see what happens. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The editing toolbar seems to have been the issue. When I have only the first or second selected, the OCR button appears where it should. For now everything seems to be working properly, thanks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Phew! That was relatively easy compared to what I thought we'd have to go through. Still, this should make you aware of the possibility that user preference settings are not necessarily static nor without fault - reviewing them every so often seems like a good idea (especially when new issues present themselves).

And would you be so kind as to amend your last in Scriptorium briefly noting what resolved your issue -- it might make all difference for someone else searching to resolve the same/similar issue(s). Thanks. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

John Cale[edit]

Hi Petey. You've deleted the page "Oh, give thanks unto the Lord" (thank you, it was nonsense). It was falsely credited to John Cale. This page is empty now, I think it should be deleted. He was born in 1942 (still living) and his works will not be freely licensed in the near future. --Marek Koudelka (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You mean Author:John Cale, yes? While we have no works in the public domain, and his published works are mostly going to be under copyright for the forseeable future, I'm hesitant to delete the page all the same. We do index speeches, published articles, and other items that might very well be suitable for Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the reply. --Marek Koudelka (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Tom Brown's School Days - Earlier 3rd edition[edit]

I noticed Index:Tom Brown's School Days (6th ed).djvu has no source document. I've just found an earlier 3rd edition from 1857 at Internet Archive - [John Brown's School Days 3rd edition 1857]. The only thing wrong with it is the front Google page. It's available in PDF and Djvu. Would you be interested in having this at Wikisource? --kathleen wright5 (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "has no source document"? It is fully supported by scans at Commons File:Tom Brown's School Days (6th ed).djvu.
It's not linked to where it says 'djvu', which is why I thought there was no source document. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Earlier editions can be added, but will not help with the later (revised) sixth edition; the particular edition chosen included superb illustrations based on the localities mentioned in the text. But I am not interested in working on any additional editions myself. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Sort of thank-you: I am confused[edit]

With regards to your recent edit of page 37, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, obviously, thank you for correcting my oversight of not picking up the missing spaces (an omission which I have checked that I at least did not introduce!)

However, I am rather concerned that at the same time you demoted the proofread status from "Validated" back to "Proofread." Why? Is there something you have observed (and I clearly have not) which is still outstanding needs to be addressed? If so there is no point in my proceeding without further clarification.

In case you were concerned as to the edit one minute earlier by, that was me. I do not know why WS peremptorily logged me out right on the point of saving my edit but on this occasion I had logged straight back in again and re-saved the page as "Validated" (Which from my perspective it most certainly was, as my attention was entirely fixated at that moment upon the <math> output generation.) The foolish things one does when one is in a rush to meet an appointment and later regrets as in this instance.

And would you credit it? In the time I spent composing this very note (fortunately I checked before committing it!) wikisource has—logged me back out. Wonder if I've forgotten to pay some kind of bill? AuFCL (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't change the proofread status. That must have been a software glitch. I've seen proofread statuses change inexplicably before and am guessing that's what happened. I have gone back to the page, and the software will not let me validate the page. I'm not given that option at all. You may have to see if someone else can do that. If not, then the problem is with the way the page was saved and someone more knowledgeable may have to fix the problem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for checking. I've validated the page again and it accepted the change without issue (I had not attempted to before, in case you had spotted yet another error which I was simply goggling at without seeing...paranoid, moi?) However, why the page "jumped status" has still got me, well foxed! AuFCL (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
As I say, I've seen this oddity happen from time to time, and (unfortunately) when one editor has changed the proofread status of the page, that editor cannot upgrade the status of the same page further. So the glitch prevents an editor from fixing the problem himself. Glad we got it sorted though. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Somewhat unrelated note:[edit]

Please cast your mind back to those spaces you added to page 37 above. Somewhat belatedly I realise why I had not picked up the issue myself. As I've studied enough (I claim no deeper expertise) of Bertrand Russell's notation I realise this was in fact his shorthand mathematical notation for "substitute X for every occurrence of Y in formula F" (symbolically F\frac{X}{Y}) and in fact Part I of Principia Mathematica further defines 'Id.' as a standard function. The upshot of all this is that there really should not be a space following the period whenever the previous word is "Prop" or "Id" (or in fact any of the keywords noted in Page:Russell, Whitehead - Principia Mathematica, vol. I, 1910.djvu/14 on these pages, as such expressions are technically mathematical formula and not prose at all. However at this stage I certainly shall not quibble and change them back unless the final article transclusion turns out to look alarmingly wrong!

This is what I get for a misspent youth studying symbolic logic. Yes, I am truly a sad case (so you don't need to say it!) AuFCL (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether this was an error in the typesetting I cannot say, since I have come across all sorts of odd publication errors. Be that as it may, I was following the spacing selected by the typesetter, and trying to match the publication pages as they display in the scans, and not simply inserting spaces after periods. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
If the truth be stated the typesetting of this particular extract is so convoluted that strictly it is beyond the capabilities of <math> (at least at either of my or GrafZahl's 2006-as-was level of ability) and the formulae should really best be re-expressed throughout as images. Worse, either of these approaches—math or image—is unlikely to produce eventual output which would be usable on any but a high-end eBook reader (my cheap one would definitely fail!)

In any case may I re-state I have no qualms about your changes, and appreciate your taking the effort to look over this minefield. AuFCL (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Queen Mab protection: unintended side-effects?[edit]

When you applied the above protection did you intend it to affect templates such as {{Table style/parse}}? I am happy to wait for the rule to expire on 4th September if this is easiest but would have liked to add a new shortcut to {{ts}}. If new procedures are in place regarding template changes perhaps you'd be so kind as to direct me to where they are advertised as I seem to have missed the announcement.

Even more strangely @Billinghurst: appears to have made an attempt to explicitly exempt this template from coverage but the two protections appear to be taking effect in a different order than appears intended?

Please don't take this too harshly as I am truly on the cusp between completely understanding the desire to preserve a feature text (i.e. lock it down!) and the rather unfriendly aspect of effectively suspending all other developmental activity pending showing off a single work (i.e. why didn't we take an independent copy—including all of its dependencies—and lock and disport that instead, leaving the original open to legitimate update should some unforeseen blemish be noticed during the featured display duration? Somebody almost always notices a late punctuation or similar error.) AuFCL (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Billinghurst did not try to exempt anything, he saw that the template was unprotected when adding something and decided to take it from zero protection to light protection. Re protection I generally find that we only need to do main ns, as the vandalism in non-main namespace is insignificant, and with our patrolling it is quickly remedied if it is. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
O.K. calm down B. I did realise your change was dated two days before EPs and wondered about that. In fact I thought one protection attempt might end up "hiding" another, and presumably this is wrong too. The point remains autopatrolled users like myself may not currently change {{Table style/parse}} the blocking message reading, quote:

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

This page has been protected from editing, because it is included in the following page, which is protected with the ‘cascading’ option turned on:

—and what I would appreciate knowing is, (1) was this intentional; and (2) is the disruption factor justified; and perhaps (3) why not notify people of the "suspension of good faith" for the intervening period.
Billinghurst's response seems to imply to me the answers appear to be, respectively NO, HUH? and BECAUSE. Is this right? Now can well all be polite to one another once more? I was trying to make a point, yet not be provocative. AuFCL (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I followed the instructions as given in FT, to apply cascading protection. If those instructions are incorrect or misleading, then please correct them. Since the above conversation does not appear to involve me, could you please hold it somewhere more appropriate? --14:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you please point me to the requirement for cascading protection? I have reread WS:FT and WS:FTC and to my reading both seem to indicate protection in the main namespace. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Literally the shortest paths I have been able to discover between WS:FT and first mention of cascading protection has been a toss-up between:

WS:FTWS:FTC#Closing_a_nomination_.28administrators_only.29→(talk page)Wikisource_talk:Featured_text_candidates#Do_we_protect_the_Page_namespace.3F, and:

WS:FTWS:PP#Preservation_of_integrity_and_featured_texts→(talk page)→Wikisource_talk:Protection_policy#Cascading_protection.3F

Now if the inclusion of talk pages in the path renders such advice non-canonical then neither alternative is legitimate. Unless one can find a less direct alternative I think you may draw your own conclusion. AuFCL (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
At this point I'm not sure whether I mis-remembered an old version of the instructions (since I haven't done FT here in a while), or mistakenly used the directions from Wikipedia's "Newest Articles" (in which I used to participate). Either way, explicit clarification about using (or not using) cascading protection wouldn't hurt.--EncycloPetey (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Banjo Paterson poetry[edit]

Thanks for the note re the author category. The reason I started it was that I considered his works should fit under Australian poetry category and figured that his entries would swamp the higher level category and make it rather unreadable. However, if the policy is not to have author categories then I'll start to move them.Perry Middlemiss (talk) 05:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent restorations[edit]

Please see Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2010-02#The_Aristophanes_Scandal for context. In short, the contributor him-/her- self admitted those where added without the knowledge of our requirements and were "taken" nearly word for word from another site's grab of the content found in a 1938 composite work (not 1912). -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@George Orwell III: If I correctly understand the discussion: The 1912 Athenian Society text would be PD, however the submitted text was not the 1912 text, but rather a 1938 text claiming to be the 1912 text, and with added notes that are still under copyright. Correct?
Correct (unfortunately)....
My ultimate intention is to go about adding sourced copies of the 1912 Athenian Society translations (among other PD translations). So, would stripping out the non-PD notes qualify the result for a stop-gap measure, or would re-deletion (with notation for future reference) be the correct course?
The complication I'm currently facing is that I've found no copies of the 1912 Athenian Society translations in IA. And only the second volume (of two) exists at Hathi Trust. On my next holiday break from work, I plan to pursue this issue with IA. I want to find out why there is no copy at IA, and (unless there are other issues I don't yet know about) work with them to provide a scan of both volumes (I own a copy of the 1912 publication).
So, anything more that you can provide in the way of help, thoughts, advice, IA contacts, etc. would be appreciated. Equipping en:wikisource with a full array of Greek drama is a priority of mine. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, Ok, I see where you were going now. Since you were planning to replace the un-hostable content with a scanned backed ones, we can leave the restorations for the time being.

As for locating an existing copy or copies to convert to .djvu, you said Hathi only had vol. 2 of 2 so take a look at ....

... to make sure you did not mean vol. 1 of 2. Then take look at IA here...
... to see if the original pointer suggested in 2009 is of any use. There is no clear year of publication given (as far as I can tell) and the front matter is peppered with out-of-order and duplicate pages of the Forward yet there is mention that the content itself is the 1912 content. Without further investigation to nail down the actual Pub. date / edition, I get the feeling this IA hosted copy won't be hostable here either in spite of this IA copy...
... claiming a pub. year of 1920 to support the first link.

Finally, I think a closer search on IA for keywords like "11 comedies" or "Aristophanes" is in order (the latter had 785 results for example!). If we can't get anywhere through possible IA copies, the next step would be a closer look at Google Books for a version to upload and convert on IA for our purposes. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I may have misremembered about Hathi, yes. The search was done about a week ago, when I was looking for what was available of several translations in English at several sites.
Most IA copies are not in English, or are duplicates of the same edition, or are works that merely mention / cite The Eleven Comedies. I've been researching the identities of well-known translators, like Frere and Hickie, to help narrow my searches.
Most of the copies of The Eleven Comedies are a later publication that was "based on" the Athenian Society translation. This undated later edition was published at some point in the 1920s (that's all the date I can get from the several sites I've been searching), and there is no guarantee that it faithfully follows the one by the Athenian Society. My best guess at this point is that The Eleven Comedies is the same as the one from 1938 that included new annotations and which has had its copyright renewed. Because of the uncertainty about the date and content, and the possibility it is not in PD, I'm reluctant to pursue that avenue, and would rather go with the 1912 Athenian Society version if we can make that happen. As I say, I own a copy of the 1912 translation, and I live close enough to San Francisco that (if need be) I would make arrangements to visit the IA offices and scan it in myself.
Thanks for the additional suggestions; I'll be investigating some of those later this evening and/or tomorrow. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The pub date for "Most of the copies" seems to be 1928 by H. Liveright [6], you're right about not being able to host it.

Plus I can't find any useable online 1912 edition though I did manage to establish the proper OCLC for it; sorry. Sounds like scanning it yourself is the only option all things being equal. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, can you give a quick assessment of how extensive the alterations and additions are in our currently hosted text vs the physical 1912 edition you have? If it is substantial, throughout, I'd prefer the current text is deleted until we've got a suitable edition to work with. If it is only minor alterations, we do a service to everyone by identifying the differences by completing it with the full (copyright violating) text commonly distributed online, and then removing whatever alterations were made from the current text in order to restore the integrity of the original. Uni of Adelaide states "Some modification has since been applied, with the addition of stage directions and some updating of the language." If it is all the stage directions, then IMO it is substantial and we should delete the current text and its history. We could use a bit of computation to remove the stage directions from the text (looks relatively easy) and put it back as a new page without the old history publicly accessible. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I am quite confident that we can use or . While it does appear to be a 1928 edition, I can't find any US copyright renewal for any alterations made to it from the 1912 original. If nothing else, using that edition is many more times defensible than the one we currently have, as it appears to be the same as was used for the the Gutenberg etext. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


You seem to have deleted the parent Index: ns page, though not touched the Page: ns pages. Would you be able to work out where they belong and if it wasn't a copyright deletion, then maybe they belong in the user subpages. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know where they belong (if anywhere). The work was deleted for not being PD, so I don't think we can keep any of the subpages. The subpages were not deleted at the time because the original Index file was broken and didn't display a page list, so I was unaware of them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted.— Mpaa (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: AkBot[edit]

OK. But I was told by @User:Billinghurst at #wikisource that for interwiki it is not necessary. The whole set is ~100 interwikis for Dickens's works.

Or, maybe, I should add them manually? (it will be even faster, byt higher chance of mistakes) Ankry (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The links you are adding should not be added, for two reasons: (1) We do not add interwiki links for individual chapters. (2) If we later add another edition of Oliver Twist, it will not be possible to interwiki link both sets of chapters across wikis. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually EncycloPetey the existing practice has allowed the addition of interlanguage links on chapters, and has been that way for years. It is done for the use of mw:Extension:DoubleWiki ... click the <=> symbol in the interlanguage. I believe that this is why the adding of interlanguage links for bots is excluded from requiring permissions, and was done to allow for this to happen, and was decided at about the time of the language split from oldWS (before my time, but my recollection of my reading a long time ago).

With regard to extra versions of the works, that is not an issue from our end as the interlanguage links will still work fine as they are at the work level and relative links. If we move the pages then there is an issue at the other language wiki as their targets need to be updated if there are no existing redirects, and traditionally we have notified the other wiki, or just updated the other wiki. It is also possible to put in multiple interlanguage links when there are multiple versions at another wiki circumvents that issue on the rare occasions that it occurs. It is a little ugly when it happens, but from memory I saw it on some Chekov works,

It is definitely an old means with old technology however, nothing better has occurred, and the direct interlanguage link through WD is problematic due to versions. So at the moment it is all that exists and effectively works. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

scriptorium vandalism[edit]

hi, noticed the page blanking by a series of new accounts. is it possible to lock, or filter editing of scriptorium ? Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 22:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Spambot, block evasion[edit]

Hello, Just a suggestion, when you see a user account like this "Ajsghdhjgs" or "fooahhzqh" please block the user's immediately without hesitation. More info.--Grind24 (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Page:The chemical history of a candle.djvu/18[edit]

The footnotes are at the end of the work in a seperate section, I hadn't inlined them yet because I wasn't sure there was a consensus. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't sure either, which is why I marked it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Subsequently, I've inlined them all so that it's consistent.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Page titling[edit]

Noticing your titling changes—I have used both sentence form and caps in the titling of works... The style guide states that the preferred method is sentence form, unless I am reading it wrong. Seems like more work than is necessary to make the changes... Someone has recently changed my (sentence form) titling of a work as well, so I was just wondering... Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It says that, yes, unless an original capitalisation is consistently used, and the title page of this particular volume makes use of this capitalization. I made the change because someone has recently taken up the reigns of this derelict work, and made the same change to the title on its Index page. As long as someone it willing to proceed with the work, I felt I would oblige him by adjusting the existing titles to also match the source's title page. Under other circumstances, or for a work much further progressed, I probably would not have bothered. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I read that too, but was thrown by the wording. Perhaps it should read, "unless capitalization is consistently used within the original text" (if that is the intended meaning); but it seems to me that most works make use of such capitalization (or use all caps), which is why I wondered why sentence form would be "preferred" instead of vice versa. Thanks for explaining, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Pardon my thought process... So, sentence form is for works which 'consistently' use all caps, and capitalization when capitalization is 'consistently' used (or, at least appearing on the title page if nowhere else in the text). Since most works (correcting myself above) use all caps, sentence form becomes the "preferred" method as a result, correct? Unless I'm off track, you don't need to answer... Just finishing a thought. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Many points in the style guide are summaries of good practice, and are not written as firm strictures designed to cover all situations. Personally, I prefer modern standards of capitalization, but have no problem with titles like "The history of Tom Jones, a foundling" occurring in sentence form. However, the works I most often edit these days are classical plays, and I will always choose "The Birds" and "The Children of Heracles" over "The birds" and "The children of Heracles". For short play titles, sentence form usually just looks wrong and would probably not be the form expected by a user. Besides which, the article "the" does not always appear in nineteenth-century forms of the titles. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
A "derelict work"...? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 03:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The bits I came across had been created in 2011—five years ago—and the work is still far from complete. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
"bits"? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The completed stories were done with care,—the work itself not suffering from the span of years (which can seem as a day here)... I would never assume abandonment (I just completed a text which took me three years to get around to finishing); if an editor is active, I would ask if they mind one taking up the reins as common courtesy. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Then the irony is lost on you. There is a personal history here that you are not aware of. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, then... hoping it's all good! <bowing out> Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

printer marks clarification:[edit]

Just to make sure since you're the first person to correct me on this, you're positive that printer marks are not to be transcribed over? The style guide says to match the formatting of the source as closely as possible, I always insert printer marks under the bottom "Noinclude" header, so they won't be included in the main transcription, only for each individual page. Legofan94 (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

More than 95% of the time, there is zero reason to include them. They are not part of the work. However, there are exceptions. For example, the Ancient Classics for English Readers series places the series volume number down among the printer marks, giving them actual informational value. But otherwise, no, don't include them. They were printed to help the binder sort and sew the sections of the book together. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


Hi. I'm new to Wikisource, but not so new to the wikiverse. I'm sorry if my edits do not conform with the "normal" format styles, I'm still learning. If you could give me some pointers where I've "screwed up" or where I could improve, that would be highly appriciated. Thanks,Josve05a (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It always takes a little time to learn the templates, formatting, and norms of any new wiki-project. We're always glad to see new volunteers eager to learn and help. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Ellipses of varying size.[edit]

I noted your query on Billinghurst's page. Although only one of these is a "named" HTML entity, from their Unicode glyph descriptions I deduce they were intended for this very purpose. In proportional fonts they fit together in any combination (fairly[1]) seamlessly: ․․․‥․…․‥‥…

  • &#8228; "one-dot leader" (․)
  • &#8229; "two-dot leader" (‥)
  • &#8230; "three-dot leader" (a.k.a. &hellip;) (…)

In answer to your direct question I suppose a four-dot ellipse might be represented as pairs of 1+3 (․…) or 2+2 (‥‥) variants in combination?

  1. At least on my display the two-dot variant's individual dots are marginally more widely spaced than multiple consecutive 1-dot's or &hellips. However the latter pair up quite compatibly here.

AuFCL (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

So, it is at least possible. Thank you. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I know that[edit]

Responding to your message on my talk page, I know that. But do you think we should have a more faithful translation of Mysterious Island? We can retain the Kingston version, but should we have one faithful to the original French? 21:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

There are Two other versions[edit]

There are two faithful versions by Jordan Stump and Sidney Kravitz, published by Modern Library and New England Press respectively. Could we add either or both of them? 21:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The translators are still living though[edit]

They then have to be in the public domain? The ones I mentioned were published this century. If you did a search, you might find information on these two. Could they still be added if the translators are alive? 22:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I am new to this kind of wiki, so I would not understand copyright polices well. Do only past translations may be added to Wikisource? 22:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

All right. I own a copy of the Stump version. I think it was published in 2001. Should I research on the web and find some sites which might give info on the two versions? 22:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Upon reading your message carefully, it seems that these two do not qualify as, I believe, they are under copyright of Random House and New England Press respectively. 22:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I see[edit]

So, Wikisource only publishes translations that are no longer under copyright? It this is the case, then the two I mentioned do not qualify. I was not sure if Wikisource was able to publish copyright translations by making a legal agreement with the original translator. However, your message makes it clear that only a translation whose copyright has expired may be added. I apologize. 22:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I should join in this project by creating an account. In that way, I might learn about this project. 22:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I just created an account[edit]

Hi. I wanted to let you know that I have created an account. I do not have anything useful to do here at present, but when I find something, I will be glad to help. If you have a message for me, post it on my personal talk-page now. Abel Lawrence (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


At it seems that you have transcluded the first few pages over the text, and the rest of the proofed pages are sitting in abeyance. I am wondering whether we may be better off reverting that transclusion, and then moving the whole work out to its own version, converting the page to {{versions}} and then transcluding the new work separately. Thoughts? Happy to do it. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I started the transclusion in part because of the comments associated with the work. The non-transcluded copy is a Gutenberg copy without any real details about which publisher, edition, etc. it is. Consensus seemed to indicate it was an American edition, but that's all we know. If you can determine more about that edition, then I'd agree with having two separate editions with a disambiguation page. But lacking such information, I initiated transclusion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer to the talk page. The negative commentary there is probably sufficient to overwrite, though someone may wish to pipe up and request a WS:PD conversation, in which case we can, otherwise after a few days I think that we can just do. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 22:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The Call of the Wild - two copies[edit]

It looks like there are two identical projects on The Call of the Wild. See Index:London - The Call of the Wild, 1903.djvu and Index:The Call of the Wild.djvu. I noticed this when you suggested this might be a good Featured Text nomination. I validated and cropped some images for Index:London - The Call of the Wild, 1903.djvu back in February. Index:The Call of the Wild.djvu looks like the same book. Not sure how that happened. Outlier59 (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Outlier59: It's not too unusual. The same thing happened with A Princess of Mars, though in that case neither copy had progressed very far. It happens either because the first copy is poorly indexed (or was never transcluded) or when the next person to come along doesn't check first to see whether we already have a source file present. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Another double listing -- The Jungle Book (Century edition) and The Jungle Book (unsourced). The first one has good illustrations but needs clean up in mainspace. "The Jungle Book" should be a versions page, I think, but the unsourced version would have to be moved aside first. Do you know how to move a book aside? I don't. Outlier59 (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
It's a simple matter to move a book when the chapter links are relative, and on a quick check it looks as though they are (at least in the headers) for The Jungle Book. You might still have to check the Contents page though.
Simply move each Mainspace page (primary work page and each chapter) to the new name, such as The Jungle Book/Kaa's Hunting -> The Jungle Book (text)/Kaa's Hunting. If you choose to perform a move, then my suggestion is to add "(text)" to distinguish the unsourced edition, since we know only that it is an unillustrated text, and nothing of the edition. However, it is also possible in cases such as this, to simply replace the existing text via transclusion, precisely because we know nothing of the original copy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll see what I can do. You might get more questions.... Outlier59 (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Sure. Today is a good day to ask, as I'm kind-of here today, but without trying to accomplish anything major. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I moved the main page and chapters from "The Jungle Book" to The Jungle Book (text), listed the two books on The Jungle Book versions page, and put other-versions tags on the two books in mainspace. All the chapters under "The Jungle Book" (now a versions page) are re-directing to the (text) version. I'm wary of deleting the redirects right now, because I don't really understand what sort of links I might've messed up. I think all the Wikidata and language links went away. Please look at it and see how it looks. I'll try to get back to this tomorrow morning, I'm getting tired tonight. Outlier59 (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
As far as links, you just need to check "what links here" after the move. Any links to specific chapters will have to be altered (somehow), but links to the original main page for the work should probably be left as is. The only possible other changes include (a) correcting the links on the Author page, and (b) correcting the Wikidata item. When you move a page that's linked at Wikidata, a bot there automatically changes their link to match the move, which isn't desirable when the data item is for the "novel" but the page here is now an "edition". I've already fixed the Wikidata entry. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! I patched the author page and found a third edition index page to add to the versions. Will break down The Jungle Book (Century edition) into sections for the stories and poems. Found a better cover image. :) Outlier59 (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Index:A_princess_of_Mars.djvu duplicate pages[edit]

There are duplicate pages at 294 and 295 of the index. Could you please adjust the Table of Contents and delete the pages.--kathleen wright5 (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the problem is in the scan. At least two pages are missing because they were not scanned originally. I've given specifics on the Index talk page so that future editors will also be aware of the problem. There is no problem in the Table of Contents, just with the scan. I will see if I can locate the missing text, but we will probably not be able to repair the scan file. The Internet Archive no longer creates DjVu files for us. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I've found the DJVU file at Internet Archive. Go to this page Under 'Download Options' click on 'Show All' which takes you to and click on first file--kathleen wright5 (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but that's the file we're already using, and which contains the error. Look at the file, and it's missing the same two pages because it's the same file. What I'm saying is that we can't get this file corrected for our purposes because we'd need to have the DjVu fixed, and the IA no longer generates new DjVu files. The old ones are still there; they just don't fix them or create new ones.
As a work-around, I've added the correct text for pages 290 and 291, but it won't match the source file because of the file error.--EncycloPetey (talk)
@Kathleen.wright5: Addendum: It seems a couple of helpful editors were able to make the corrections to the source file. Everything should match now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)