User talk:EncycloPetey/Archives/2016

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2016, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Page titling

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:

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

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.

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

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?68.100.116.118 21:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

There are Two other versions

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? 68.100.116.118 21:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The translators are still living though

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? 68.100.116.118 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?68.100.116.118 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? 68.100.116.118 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. 68.100.116.118 22:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I see

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. 68.100.116.118 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. 68.100.116.118 22:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I just created an account

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)

Dracula

At https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Dracula&action=history 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)

Done — billinghurst sDrewth 22:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The Call of the Wild - two copies

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

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 https://archive.org/details/princessofmars00burriala Under 'Download Options' click on 'Show All' which takes you to https://archive.org/download/princessofmars00burriala 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)

Aeneid

Given your interest in classical literature I wonder if you will be able to help locate an Internet Archive version of The Aeneid of Virgil (1885, according to Wikipedia) prose translation by Author:John William Mackail. Its w:LibriVox recording and Project Gutenberg version is all I could find. It surely would be an worthy addition to Wikisource here. Solomon7968 (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I could look for one and upload it, if found. Sadly, some very important translations of the classics have yet to make it into IA. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

No copies on IA, but one exists in google.books. IA has many copies of the Aeneid, just not one translated by Mackail. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Solomon7968: I've uploaded a copy to the Archive here. It may be a while before all the bits have been processed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much. But I don’t get the second part of your comment. Precisely can it be imported to Commons with the metadata via toollabs:ia-upload? Solomon7968 (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Once the processing at IA is complete, then yes, it can be uploaded to Commons. But it will have to be as a PDF (IA doesn't create DjVu files anymore), and you'll need someone to correct the file before proceeding. For some reason the odd numbered pages are appearing on the left. I suspect that there ought to be a blank page as either page 3 or 4. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Packer1028

Do you know how to send Packer one of those nifty Welcome-to-Wikisource messages on his user page? I got one on my talk page back in October. Pretty cool. I don't know how to send it, but it seems like a nice idea. Outlier59 (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Just add {{subst:welcome}} to the page. This transcludes the contents of {{welcome}} but the "subst:" makes it more of a copy-paste than just transcription. --EncycloPetey (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

AuFCL suggested I add the gadget User/Messages in my Preferences. It gives me a "Notify" tab for Welcome and AnonWelcome. Does that do the same thing as {{subst:welcome}}? Outlier59 (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies all for misleading you. It appears the gadget is currently broken and judging by some of the commentary therein has been on its last legs for rather too long already. Unless somebody is feeling sufficiently brave or foolhardy as to rework it I am inclined to propose this gadget be quietly retired? AuFCL (talk) 04:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You can do similar with some javascript that leverages Pathoschild's toy. I use it in User:Billinghurst/common.js and can add it for your file if you are not comfortable doing it for yourself. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

How very clever! <innocent>Shouldn't {{welcome}} and {{test}} (different lines) be each subst:ituted as well; similar to the way {{welcomeip}} and …HeaderToggle already are?</innocent> AuFCL (talk) 07:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I purposefully do not substitute. If they are this way, they dynamically update for the current version, rather ye olde static version, which was problematic. I find the substituting methodology interesting, though not convincing. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Not wishing to further wear out EncycloPetey's patience, may I propose this subtopic be continued (if you wish to do so) here? AuFCL (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

LOL (literally) --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help

Hi Encyclopetey, Perhaps you can help me on the Dutch wikisource. In the Recent changes page I saw that there was a new article on Wikisource with a strange language. I clicked on it, put a bit of the text in google translate and i saw it was nothing for wikisource. But all the tools, the edit buttons, the column on the left side on the page, everything is missing. In now way i can get those tools back. So I'll ask you to have a look and perhaps you can solve this problem. Or perhaps you know somebody who can. I don't know if it has anything to do with that Russian article. Regards, WeeJeeVee (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@WeeJeeVee: That's outside my ability to help. I suggest posting in the Scriptorium, which is our community discussion page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Validation

You just validated my proofread pages at the POTM: 8 in 6 minutes. I don't understand how you can properly check them so fast? BethNaught (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Five reasons: (1) I read very quickly; (2) I've been doing this a long time; (3) There isn't much text per page; (4) The pages are plain text, with almost no formatting to worry about; (5) You did a very good job of proofreading. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, what can I say? I'm impressed. BethNaught (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Rest assured that for some other works that I've been doing, where there is complex formatting to deal with, it can take me 10-15 minutes to do a single page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

A Parable Against Persecution

Could you explain why you reverted my edit? You didn't leave an edit summary.--Auric (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Neither did you, so it's odd that you should complain about no edit summary. Please read the documentation for the {{PD-old}}. The template takes no parameters, so inserting one is pointless. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I see. I had it confused with {{Pd/1923}}. Thanks.--Auric (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Excerpt from Emerson's "Boston"

Emerson's poem "Boston" uses "the" instead of "or" (see), which made me believe it was a typo in the Coates pamphlet. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That 1904 printing of the poem seems to contain an error then. If you do a google books search with "or", you get older results. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

A closer look at the Google results shows instances of the use of "or" are from "suppressed stanzas," but I will concede that Coates may have used lines from that particular stanza. The same "older results" also use "the" in the "finished" version. (P.S. Being that the "finished" version uses "the", it may not be an error here.) Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

"wikisource does not link to copyright violation materials"

Since when?[1] -- Kendrick7 (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Since always. We don't violate copyright, nor do we condone those who do. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I would like to see the underlying policy, thanks. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

That would be Wikisource:Copyright policy, to which you have been directed before on more than one occasion. Continued copyright policy violations will result in a block. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you understand what you did?

Do you understand the effect of this change on people who use screen readers and other accessibility devices? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Do you understand the effect your edit had for all users? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes: It displayed an extra bullet point on what is, after all, marked in the HTML as being a nested list item.

Do you think that it's desirable for the HTML to be written as, and to be announced to people who use screen readers as, five separate lists (i.e., as five lists of one item, rather than one list of five items)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The wiki-syntax is structured as a single list of five bullets. If a screen reader cannot cope with bulleted lists like this, then its user will not be using the information contained on the page, because they will be unable to proofread. They will need to choose another screen reader. If the wiki-syntax is at fault, then you can submit a bug report to phabricator.

Your edits inserted visually random bullets that altered the logical structure of the text, altering the hierarchy of the text, and making it unusable by anyone. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The wiki-syntax is not structured as a single list of five bullets. It is, to be precise, structured as five completely separate bullet items, each of which is followed by five bullet items that contain the definition half of an HTML association list (that's what the *: thing means in wiki-syntax), and interspersed with one element of preformatted text (the 'bad example' text) and one double-definition-list formatted paragraph (::).

And the wikitext parser (despite my objections, by the way) turns that into HTML that says there are five separate lists, each containing one item and one definition sub-item, plus two other list items. And the w:en:screen reader is reading the HTML that the WMF's servers send every reader (including you), not the wiktext, so it's not the fault of the screen reading software. (Wikitext does not have an indent symbol, no matter how many people have been told "use colons to indent your replies" over the years. And, yes, I personally filed the bug requesting one.)

If the only thing you care about is removing the visible bullets, then that can be done trivially, if you don't mind giving up the visual indentation. If you are strongly attached to the visual indentation, it's harder (=will be a bit harder to read the wikitext), but at least mostly feasible. Let's see if we can make this less broken. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

If your objections regarding the wikitext parser have been disregarded, then that is not our project's decision, but one made higher up. But, in any event, to be "less broken", it would have to be broken to begin with. It is not. You also seem to have missed the other information in my previous reply, or have chosen to ignore it. The information contained in these paragraphs are for the benefit of proofreaders, who must be able to work with broken text in the edit window. If a person is using a reader that cannot cope with bullets and indentation, they will certainly not be able to cope with the mess generated by typical OCR. It is therefore not worth the time it would take to make this text universally friendly, particuarly as the document is atill a guideline, and still apt to be edited many more times in future. Thank you for your concern, but my time and yours can be spent much more productively elsewhere. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 11.djvu/165

Thoughts about the amount of linking on the page? I would have less concern if they were qv'd links, however, it has become a WP-type page, though links to a meaning of the word at the time. I have removed much of the interlanguage linking to non-existent pages at our sister wikis. I will continue to create the author pages where I can. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

For all practical purposes, I find it unreadable. This sort of thing seems to be fairly common in the EB 9th edition work, which is one reason I stay away from it. The bibliographic links alone are an enormous pain to deal with because, quite often, authors of that time did not cite the exact titles of works, and even if we do research every title and link to the exact title, there is not guarantee that the page eventually created for the work will actually use that title as its location. [sigh] --EncycloPetey (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

A vocabulary that might be useful for Wiktionary

Hi, I've just proofread The London Guide and Stranger's Safeguard/Vocabulary. It's got several definitions for words that I didn't know, so I thought it might be useful as a source for Wiktionary. Published 1819 and covers words used among the "criminal class" in the London of that time. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Electra

I noticed that you just removed from wikidata the correct interwiki between Electra and pl:Elektra. How do you think it should be hanlded? In "old style"? Ankry (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I have a discussion thread at Wikidata about it: [2] There is a fundamental problem here in how interwikis are handled for disambiguation pages, and it has to be settled at Wikidata, or else some misguided bot will later remove interwikis placed directly in the individual projects. --EncycloPetey (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks as though the discussion has now ended and been filed away without actually solving the problem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The Secret Adversary

The header here says Category:Index_-_Ready_for_Match_and_Split

It says to add the tag if "

• the text is available on Wikisource, and needs to be moved to the Page namespace
• the djvu or PDF file has a text layer"

Are you claiming these are different editions? If not then I will consider the information on that Category page inaccurate, and migrate ALL the entries in that category to "Needs Proofreading" or "Needs OCR" status as appopriate. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I said nothing about match and split. The tag that was added requested a migration, and says specifically "This template indicates that the text needs to be migrated to DjVu." Such a move is not possible for the kind of Main namespace file that was tagged. If this tag is intended for match-and-split situations in which Mainspace text is to be split into Page namespace files paired with an existing Index, then the template needs a LOT of work and documentation that makes that clear. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you take this to the Scirptorium, as it would be NICE to have very clear guidelines, given the amibiguity you've raised :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

AWK Language Programming

Why did you put a no licence template on the AWK Language Programming when the licence is available here (per talk page of the page)? --Wesalius (talk) 06:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wesalius: Because there no is statement of license on the work as hosted here. The appropriate license must be displayed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

See, for example, the main page of The Vocabulary of Menander, on which I am currently working. At the bottom of the page is a template that provides the license information. All works hosted here should have such a display of their copyright status. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Old English Texts

Hello, are you interested in Old English texts? ÞunoresWrǣþþe (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@ÞunoresWrǣþþe: I'm excited to see OE texts going up here, and to have someone working on them, and am willing to help in small ways. However, I don't have enough interest or time to be working on them myself. I spend most of my time filling the hole of Greek drama. When I started, had only three sourced plays, and even now we don't yet have all the plays by Euripides. So, I'm willing to help if there is advice or some small task I can assist you with, but I already have a full plate of work to do. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! I really need to read some Greek texts myself, I've only ever read a translated Antigone by Sophocles. Can you recommend any good plays or poetry? And would you be interested in surviving fragments of what the Telegony contained? I believe I can obtain them. ÞunoresWrǣþþe (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Translated fragments of the Telegony, or the Greek text? I tend to work here on the English Wikisource, where I'm familiar with the templates and community conventions. The Greek Wikisource is a bit behind us in terms of making literature available.

Some of the best Greek plays include Aeschylus' Oresteia trilogy, Sophocles' Antigone and Electra, Euripides' Alcestis, and Aristophanes' Birds. However, everyone has their own favorites, and I'm fond of Sophocles' Ajax even though it's not as good a play as the other two I named. Everything we currently have here is listed at Portal:Ancient Greek drama, and that includes books about the dramatists and their plays. I recommend Euripides and His Age by G. Murray as one of the most readable surveys I've come across; the author dwells less on the plot and criticism of his plays and more upon the world of Euripides and the circumstances in which the plays were likely written.

As for poetry, I don't read much Greek poetry, nor do we have much yet. I did add Bion's A Lament for Adonis (transl. E. Browning) because of it's importance, but if I were going to work here on Classical poetry, I'd be adding various translations of Ovid's Metamorphoses before anything else. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no fragments survive. That'd be translations of the greek authors who mention it, since the contents are somewhat relevant. Thanks for the suggestions! ÞunoresWrǣþþe (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Anchor

Many thanks EncycloPetey, I knew there'd be something. Just couldn't for the life of me find it. Thanks again, Stinglehammer (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Footnote without a Reference

Since you are watching :-) I'm now adding links to the index in the Swift volumes, and found a footnote problem that I'm unsure how to fix. This page in the second volume has a note at the bottom of the first page of a dedication. Leaving it in the main body of the text resulted in this odd appearance in the full dedication. It could go to the beginning of the footnotes by attaching it to the title like a footnote. Or it could stay where it is (in the middle of a word in the first paragraph) by treating it like a block quote and moving it more to the center of the page. I lean toward the first option, and could make it a footnote. What do you think? Thanks for your help, as always! Susan Susanarb (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Susanarb: Another option would be to create a section for it, and transclude the section (with the note) wherever it seems most appropriate. That is, divde the page up as sections and transclude them separately, instead of the entire page as a unit. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

What won't work and why not?

Please stop making changes that won’t work unless you are absolutely positive. It is messing up what has been done and what need to be done. —Maury (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

No, your change wouldn't work, which is why I repaired it. You eliminated the template call from the header, which is necessary to make the header work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

m’gosh, okay, I see what you mean. That is a first for me. Thank you, —Maury (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Index page layouts

Please keep your nose out of my index layouts, especially when they were already done, the pages were identified as I need them. I don't work your way, and I also don't tamper with others' efforts while it's in progress. If you wish to change it, wait until the book is finished, then I don't give a s**t what you do with it. — Ineuw talk 04:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

They are not your Index pages; this is a community. When you give multiple pages the same page number when those pages will be transcluded together to the same location, it causes problems. I corrected that problem, as well as the issue with non-code values lacking quotes, and introduced no new problems. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You are right that marking pages uniquely is important, (for me as well) so I came up with naming the Table of Contents with "c1" . . "c2" etc. This satisfies my needs to identify them, and hope that this meets your and WS requirements, because roman numerals are also not a solution. I never thought that this or any others were my Index Pages, but as long as I work on it, I ask others that my unique way of identification remain so until completed. By that, I don't mean proofreading, validating or correcting, and what happens afterwards is none of my business. — Ineuw talk 23:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Main page

I was wondering. You had said some time ago something along the lines of the main page seemingly being locked into a monthly rotation. I can't know this, but I have to assume that if someone were to drop a note at wikipedia:User talk:Jimmy Wales about that problem, it might be possible to get it changed. John Carter (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

No, the issue isn't technical. The problem is that we have a hard time getting editors to participate in the Featured Text process. When participation is low, we end up repeating previous selections instead of featuring new works. The issue is that community participation is lower now than it used to be. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

One way to maybe get around that might be to do "block" selections for a period. I'm thinking here something like "May will feature a different (longish) article from Encyclopedia Britannica every day," or "November will be Edgar Rice Burroughs month, with different articles, stories, or books by or about him every day," or something like that. Doing something like that with Charles Matthews' extraordinary work on the DNB might be maybe one of the better such options. Maybe. I can understand the problem though. Some years ago, when I was more active in portals over at wikipedia, I tried to arrange article rotations for some of them, and even if all I did was choose the most highly assessed articles relevant to the topic without quality tags, it was a huge timekiller.

Indeed. I ran the Word of the Day on the from page of the English Wiktionary for a number of years. I eventually had to step away because it just took too much of my time, and I was just about the only person actively working on it. I had the assistance of community nominations, but WotD works very differently there, and usually requires cleanup of the selected entry prior to appearing on the Main Page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

EB1911

<div class=indented-page>{{page break|591|left}} - {{page break|600|left}}</div> I am well aware of that, but in the short term it is useful for two reasons:

1. For anyone who reads the page, particularly for editors adding page numbers to the Wikipedia link. In this case that is what I am doing and as I have to look the pages up anyway, I may as well add them to the existing text.
2. It will speed up the location of translucent pages when an editor decides to make such a conversion.

The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Templars article is full of OCR errors. Perhaps you would like to edit the copies of the scan pages and replace the 9 pages with proofread copies to replace the text with the OCR errors that are currently displayed.

-- PBS (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@PBS: Yes, there are OCR errors, but if the text currently in the Main namespace is correct, then it can be pasted over the OCR text with little effort. The articles I am working on do not exist yet at all. I have been working through the EB1911 articles on Greek drama and associated materials. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It is the text in main space that is full of OCR errors! Which is why I am suggesting that you might like to copy edit the scanned index pages and replace the current poor OCR copies in main space. -- PBS (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@PBS: If it's full of OCR errors, then why even bother formatting it? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

To add page numbers takes little effort, and I think brings benefits (as described) over and above the effort. Incremental improvements is the usual way in these wiki-projects. But don't misunderstand me, I am in favour of transclusion development (It was I who added the introduction to the EB1911 project and the sub-page /Transclusion. -- PBS (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)