User talk:Hesperian/Archive 6

The following text is preserved as an archive of discussions at User talk:Hesperian. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Hesperian. No further edits should be made to this page.

Hesperian has a blank look

err, had!  :-P

Hey, I cannot remember that formatting that you pulled where Cyg and I disputed whether how to boost an index with sections that appeared in a work. Anyway, I need that formatting for The Craftsmanship of Writing and for Index:The Craftsmanship of Writing.djvu for the /Index. I would think that we should be looking to make it easier, and to be looking to adding it to our guidance for a book and main page construction. billinghurst sDrewth 23:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If I understand what you're asking, that particular example was A Voice from the Nile, and Other Poems; and there's another example on Diary of ten years.

If you want to standardise it, step one would be to templatify it. Shh! Don't tell Jack!: I used a table because that class seemed to do nothing in a div.

Hesperian 03:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. For the moment I will use it, and think deeper another time. Have it pasted now. billinghurst sDrewth 07:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

PSM category changes

Hi. I noticed that you've been cleaning up the PSM categories. How can I track down the changes? I would like to feed the changes back to my database, so that they are no longer assigned. — Ineuw (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Easiest way to find the deletions is probably Special:Log/Hesperian. Hesperian 13:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In retrospect, I fault myself for not asking for a discussion before the changes, being under the impression that many categories will become subcategories, but didn't expect them to be eliminated. Now, I am facing a very big "existential" problem, meaning that it substantially reduces the purpose of my editing PSM. My commitment was in great part due to academic interest to consider select proofread articles as part of the history of relevant courses. The final plan was that the final correct categorization will be done by the academics themselves.— Ineuw (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow you. Hesperian 14:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I think I see what you're saying. I am sorry to have delivered you the unpleasant experience of having some of your work deleted against your will. As someone with many thousands of category creations and edits on various Wikimedia projects, I think I am qualified to state that (a) the categories you were creating were unworkable: either inherently so, or at least for the very long term; and (b) this is not so much my opinion as widespread consensus on how categories work and what they are for. Categories like Category:Indigenous economy, Category:History of tools, Category:Eurocentric world view, Category:Historical perspective, are simply never going to work. And it could be a decade, if ever, before your Category:Evolution is full enough to warrant splitting into Category:Evolutionary biology and Category:Evolutionary theory. Plus there was the procedural problem of so many of these categories being empty orphans. The category tree is supposed to grow with content; we don't create vast subtrees that will be unpopulated for years to come, and we don't create disconnected atoms in the hope that they might come together later.

I still don't understand what it is you say you were trying to achieve with these fine-grained categories, but whatever it is, I think you have a misunderstanding of how the category system works, and have attempted to make it do something it was not designed to do. In future, can I ask that you attempt to place articles in existing categories, and only create new categories when existing categories are becoming overcrowded or are a terrible fit? And if you think a category should be created, maybe get a second opinion, from Billinghurst or Matt or me or any other old hand. Hesperian 14:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

All of the above is correct. I believe that it's best to take some time off and clearly post my involvement in PSM at various levels of interest. I will also include proposals to deal with issues relating specifically to PSM and the above post. Goodnight, since I believe you're in the southern hemisphere. — Ineuw (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Continuing the category discussion

⁠In addition to my own eclectic interest in the range of subjects, the PSM project took on a more sinister purpose, and that is to provide select articles for inclusion in elective university courses. The final categorization would be recommended by academics who encourage my efforts. This led me to develop a strategy to achieve the most in the shortest possible time.

⁠Part of this strategy was that my "Categories" are assigned on first perusal, at a time when I "harvest" the project to build the Table of contents of all 92 volumes. I used the category feature to group these articles to be found according to my list, without realizing your concerns. But, it's also evident from the editing history that the work is constantly revisited, cleaned up and reorganized.

⁠The impatient desire to plunge in and learn how everything is done generates a lot of questions, which after awhile become understandably irritating. Increased knowledge improves confidence, so I try on my own, and wait for the reaction. Unfortunately, you broke your own rules and deleted the categories without warning, when all I wanted is to alert and discuss issues in greater depth and use the category grouping I created, to locate the articles to change. It's not my intent to add to anyone's work burden, and am wary of robbing others of their precious time. I am retired, and can devote more of it to my interests. However, this also generates more headaches.

⁠In the end, the category system turns out to be unsatisfactory as an identifier of article content because of it's limited nature. One of the reasons is, as Ingram pointed out, the inclusion of the namespace as part of the title makes finding an article confusing, it looks unaesthetic and thus not "marketable". In the PSM context, the titles are completely misleading, the timeline of the articles is very important within a category, and providing this information is not possible.

⁠This PSM ARTICLES NY CATEGORY, is an idea to be developed of how this can be turned into a win win situation for all. If this meets with Wikisource's approval, then I will continue to develop pages for visitors to look at the titles and my categories. They will then let me know about proper categorization, interest, etc. and I will proofread the articles according to the requests. This would make the project manageable, generate a wider interest in proofreading, and permit expanding my contributions in other works on Wikisource.

⁠Regarding the unaccepted categories, I will change or remove them as required but, I need a list of existing category names. Some time ago I was pointed to pages listing all authors. How can I see such pages for categories? — Ineuw (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You can use Special:Categories to burrow down from the top, see also Special:SpecialPages for other means of interrogating the structure. Perhaps you are looking for something like this:

"The CategoryTree extension can be used to display such a tree on any page. (This is sometimes done on the category page itself, if the category is split over multiple screens, to make all subcategories available on every screen.) The basic syntax is

• <categorytree>Category name</categorytree>

to display just the subcategory tree, and

• <categorytree mode=pages>Category name</categorytree>

to display member pages as well."

Art

Art in periodicals

1911 Encyclopædia Britannica articles about art

EB9:Art

Art collectors

Art connoisseurs

Art critics

Art historians

Artists

Arts administrators

Christian art

Literature

Models

Performing arts

Periodicals, Art

Philosophers of art

Prehistoric art

Renaissance art

Video games

Visual arts

Works about film

—extracted from w:Help:Category#Displaying category trees and page counts (wikipedia). See mw:Help:Category (mediawiki) for general and deeper information. Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Cygnis insignis. This is part of what is needed. With my limited knowledge, I believe that extensions are on the server side. Is this extension CategoryTree extension, installed on the Wikisource servers? — Ineuw (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The extension is being used in the example above. It is theoretically possible to install a wiki on a PC and manipulate pages created elsewhere. If you want to get deeply into modelling cat structures this might be a viable option, you could mirror the content you are creating here fairly easily I imagine. Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have the wiki software with Apache 2.8, PHP5, and MySQL 5 installed and it works fine. I use it for composition and learning about the wiki software. However, I rather focus my efforts on proofreading. In time, I will catch up. — Ineuw (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Curious about categories

Hesperian and Cygnis insignis, thanks for the directions and spent some time in studying the categories by subject with increasing interest and curiosity. There is nothing like ignorance to spur assumptions. Two items would help greatly for deeper understanding and not creating future problems for you.

1. Is it possible to create pages of the complete category tree, which when copied and pasted, retains the tree structure indicators? I opened the relevant tree branches and pasted it into a text file, but the it looses the indentation of the subcategories. This will help because I believe that most categories exists and I just don't know where they are.
2. Is there information on how the Categories data is structured? My ignorant assumption is that it's similar to the data structure of genealogy databases.— Ineuw (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

formatting

I'm not sure whether you decided Page:Makers of British botany.djvu/50 was okay as is, which I think it is, but I tweaked a bit and you better check it is not fouling something you've done. Cygnis insignis (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Better your way, I think. There is plenty of room on the previous line for "(e.g. Geum," so clearly it is not a normal line wrap. But breaking it there will only look right if we're willing to implement the hanging indents, which, as you can see, I was not. Given that I've honoured the page layout more in the breach than in the observance, your edit is unobjectionable. Ta. Hesperian 11:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I had to look twice to figure it out, it all pulled together well. I've seen some nice results where you have recently dabbled with hanging indents, I should have noted them. Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Cant remember the trick with retaining a hyphen in hws/e, would you mind showing me again sometime? Cygnis insignis (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

120 was right; you just needed to do the same thing on 121. Hesperian 08:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you already know what I was reminded of today, that a decorative element on a page is called a fleuron. That also produced the exclamation 'well, of course!' :P Cygnis insignis (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I had no idea. What's the difference between a fleuron and a dingbat? Hesperian 11:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"I don't know. What is the difference between a fleuron and a dingbat?" Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried to adapt your /mbb, here, but don't know the next step [1] to test it. Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Eureka! It won't work inside poem tags. Hesperian 05:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

(Other than that what you were doing was right. Hesperian 05:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC))

An interim fix, I planned to dispose of them. Thanks, Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Cyg, you need to subst: it then wrap it in poem, as a two step process. Unfortunately there are a whole lot of things that the poem tag stifles. :-/ — billinghurst sDrewth 05:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I could have wrestled with a regex script to get them in place, I finally discovered how my text editor uses a similar method. Help files on this stuff suck, the incredibly useful & in the replace string was buried in this one's help. Search: [0-9]+ Replace: {{subst:User:Cygnis insignis/wbpp|&}} if someone wants to translate that. Cygnis insignis (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In Javascript, wrapping part of your search regex in parentheses says "remember this". In the replace term you refer to those remembered bits using the variables $1, $2, etcetera. So something like

replace(/([0-9]+)/g, "{{subst:User:Cygnis insignis/wbpp|$1}}")

will do the trick. Hesperian 14:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't remember the solution to this, if there is one, though I realise the cause of the problem ... now. Cygnis insignis (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That was a real humdinger. I think I've got it sorted now. Hesperian 10:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Farthing balls? A child's toy I suppose, perhaps the Absurdity of Jupiter being the Cause of Earthquakes gives some context for what others have said was a jab at 'Newtonians'. Cygnis insignis (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ouch

[2]. I've finished there now, for the time being anyway. Why do you think class=prose is appropriate there? I'm indifferent. Moondyne (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the "ouch" for? I remember the day I discovered the joys of the ProofReadPage extension, and my entire Contributions page instantly went from something I was proud of to a long list of substandard works that eventually have to be brought up to snuff. Someone else having paged it out, I took the opportunity to unclaim the work.

I've come around to Moondyne's opinion of prose: "All that white space is just annoying".[3] Hesperian 02:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You're like an elephant. I can't remember what I had for breakfast. Moondyne (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish. Hesperian 03:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

My problem is that I think about too many things before [4] breakfast and not enough after SatuSuro (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

monobook

Lest I be again accused of not sharing: I just implemented a mighty fine idea: my rmflinks function now checks the URL, figures out which text I'm working on, and only puts into the sidebar functions relevant to that text. Hesperian 12:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

function author()

Can you get the cursor to return to the same place in the text, rather that the top of the page? Moondyne (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Hesperian 04:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is great stuff; thanks a ton. —Spangineer^wp (háblame) 05:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy to be of service. Hesperian 05:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

ditto. Moondyne (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Float left

You mind if we do something to {{Float left}} so that it behaves the same way it was before your latest edit? It's used on A Brief Enquiry into the Nature and Character of our Federal Government/I and before, it made numbers that matched Page:Nature_and_Character_of_our_Federal_Government.djvu/12. I'd edit it myself but other than a straight revert I'm not sure how to make it right. —Spangineer^wp (háblame) 13:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, sorry; I guessed that functionality wasn't being used anywhere. I'll revert for now, and try for a merge later. Hesperian 13:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Regex for line breaks...

Seems like you'd know the answer to this, so I hope you don't mind what is probably a silly question. Right now in The Federalist Papers most of the papers end with <div align="right">PUBLIUS.{{space|3}}</div>. Some, however, end with simply a line break followed by "PUBLIUS." (as in Page:Federalist, Dawson edition, 1863.djvu/675) I'd like to use AWB to search for the sequence "line break + PUBLIUS." and replace it with the code that is on most of the pages already, but I can't figure out how to get the regex to work... \r, \n, \r\n, \s... none of it seems to work for me. Any ideas? Thanks! —Spangineer^wp (háblame) 04:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Is AWB regex different from Javascript regex? I had no problem matching it to "\n\nPUBLIUS\." using Javascript.

When you figure it out, I humbly suggest you replace it with "\n\n{{right|PUBLIUS.|offset=3em}}". Hesperian 05:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

\n works in AWB for me in my stuff. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Try replacing (\n+)(PUBLIUS.?)\<no with $1{{right|$2|offset=3em}}<no and do make sure that the REGEX box is checked. I only checked on the one page, however, it should replace hard returns followed by PUBLIUS with or without the period, and replace as is with the code. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, and yes I'm switching everything to \n\n{{right|PUBLIUS.|offset=3em}}. —Spangineer^wp (háblame) 11:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A dialogue concerning the gentle art of deep-linking; with many observations of the territories discover'd, insufferable puns, etc.

Incipit versus full quote.

One consideration was that How sweet I roamed from field to field links editions with orthographic changes, and I thought to demonstrate this succinctly by redlinking How sweet I roam'd from field to field ... Rats! Anyway, the versions (two) in "Gilchrist's Life" (a la Rossetti) will be significantly different; I would have them as authors were it not for the fact they were channelling Blake for his corrections. Regarding a more serious issue, I don't know what to do with the long-existing versions the site served; they are frequently unsourced, though not 'wrong'. Replacing them with a dab or redirect seems impolite, but moving them presents problems too. The responses from uploaders range from 'I don't remember' to 'how-dare-you', so I've been working around the problem or studiously ignoring it. Cygnis insignis (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hard to believe anyone would be so silly as to response with "how dare you" in such as case. Either one is redundant to the other, in which case the one with better provenance should be kept; or they are both worth keeping, in which case the provenance must be known is order to make disambiguation possible. I would go as far as to say we should have a rule: works of unknown provenance shall be deleted if a substantially identical work of known provenance exists.

"... roam'd ..." looks like a good disambiguation page to me. I think "... roamed ..." should redirect there instead of where it redirects. I say so on the assumption that the average person who searches for "... roamed ..." is unlikely to have made a distinction between that and "... roam'd ...". Re: authorship, I guess you have to give authorship as attributed (in the source or in subsequent scholarship) but it is good to make liberal use of notes= in cases such as this. Hesperian 11:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I had been noting unsourced variants for attribution and moving them elsewhere, but I think I will just leave them in the edit history of the versions page. It wasn't my idea to add it, just to improve with scans and so on.

Sorry, I didn't mean to indicate the current arrangement was right, it should redirect there. The point was going to be two-fold, a slight change creates a redlink or fouls an exact search (I know!) and in some cases the change is great. Using a title or incipit link sidesteps some issues that may arise, like how narrowly to link text that doesn't match the target. This is no small matter with Blake, early criticism was dependent on dubious variants and later commentators made frequent reference to these sources and their variants. Another example, I was linking the King James version of Psalms and found the some text wasn't matching, I made those links where the work mentions ch. and verse instead. Now I don't have to discover why the 1750 text doesn't match, though I suspect it is because our edition was published in 1770 and has been 'updated' since its arrival. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, these are interesting problems. You are getting into areas that are well beyond my experience, which is, as you know, largely restricted to preprints, offprints and reprints of Brown's papers. I reckon there has to be a single all-encompassing gateway page for each work. All plausible search terms should redirect to that one page, and that one page should disambiguate the various versions. But you have a better appreciation of the problem in all this than I do; so maybe you can see implications that I am missing. Hesperian 13:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've finally grasped one (the main?) facet of what you are saying. Yeah, I see your point on linking the incipit. If you can identify the precise version quoted, you can link to that; but if you can't, you need to link to that "all-encompassing gateway page", which seems improper if that page covers versions that do not match the linked text. On balance, I guess I still favour linking the whole thing, but it's your baby and you've made a strong case for linking only the incipit, so I'll expect to be reverted. Thanks for the enlightenment. Hesperian 13:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You said it better than I did. I also forgot to add I don't see much problem in the fuller link to versions, only to the mismatched deeplink - I 'read' that as suggesting an authentic quote. Your form link wasn't the problem here, it is the versioning stuff I haven't got right. Thanks, as always, Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Defaultsort

If you don't mind my asking, what exactly would that do to the indexes that don't have a value? I'm no good with that aspect of things. --Xxagile (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

But, does that name take into account the "I" in Index or does it start after the "Index:" value? Presently unsorted indexes go directly under the letter "I" which is not what we want and what I was trying to fix. --Xxagile (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --Xxagile (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sub categories are required

Hi Hesperian. I found several articles in Medicine which need to be sub-categorized as Ophtalmology.— Ineuw (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Ophthalmology restored. Hesperian 00:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks — Ineuw (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

A few more subcategories please

Hi Hesperian, Could you please create three additional categories:

Category:Textile, as a subcategory of Industry
Category:Prehistoric art, as a subcategory of Art
Category:Comfort and leisure, as a subcategory of Society

Thanks, — Ineuw (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Will they be populated with proofread content? Cygnis insignis (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Re Category:Textile, I'm comfortable with "Textiles" (not "Textile") as a coherent category, but a textile is a material, not an industry. If you want a category for the industry then it ought to be "Textiles industry". The issue is how many articles you have to put in there. If you only have one or two, then it would be better to put them in a more general category until such time as the more general category is populated enough to warrant splitting.

Re Category:Prehistoric art, I guess I have no objection to this, so long as you are going to populate it. Art is sufficiently broad and nebulous that one could argue that it should be thoroughly diffused to subcategories. Created, with some misgivings.

Re: Category:Comfort and leisure, I don't see this as coherent, and this is borne out by the articles you've already put in there: I cannot see any useful relationship between "House-Ventilation" and "Reading as an Intellectual Process".

Hesperian 11:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

icky year placement

Looking at Pantagruel the year placement is icky. Do we just put it on the top line next to the header, or place if first in the notes field? — billinghurst sDrewth 04:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Top line would be better, I reckon. I'll have a go. Hesperian 04:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Better now? Hesperian 04:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks better there. I plugged in some further examples at Template:Header/doc‎‎ and looks like we need a little space after before author. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Award for participation

	Proofread of the Month bonus award February 2010 Mars

Apology

Sorry, I thought the behaviour of {{Hanging indent}} had changed a while back. After struggling with it again I checked the history, then didn't report what I saw. Cygnis insignis (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Played with common.css

Dear Passionate haters of class=lefttext (aka Hesp/Cyg/Moon). I have been and played in common.css, created class=leftoutdent for works like this. Its basis is lefttext, though not justified. Note that I have also played with lefttext so that it no longer has a margin:5em (effectively top and left) and it now just has a margin-left (less ugly top blankness). The reason for not class=indented-page is that some of these mini bios are too short for page width. Any suggestions for improvement welcome. Also does anyone know the basis for .lefttext being as it is? — billinghurst sDrewth 10:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's broken. Hesperian 11:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The link? Yeah, I moved it when I was fluffing with creating a link template when I realised potential for other editions. You are too quick, I was just coming back to fix it. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what I mean. I fixed the link easily enough. But the page is broken. The text overwrites the [page] link. Hesperian 12:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Weird, it looks perfectly fine for me. Which browser? <sigh> I'll have a look at it tomorrow (today) in Chrome and IE from work.

Sorry, I needed to purge my cache to see the changes. Hesperian 23:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to respond, given the way this discussion is framed, but you said your preference was that very short pages should use indented-page. On that subject, what do you suppose is the advantage to the user of splitting works like this into fragments for each entry? Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It is mostly the existing style for biographical and dictionary works; it allows for biographical works to have their own listing, presentation, and WP links; more readily allows for these drier works to be slowly built, and cherry-picked for transcription. (initial thoughts) — billinghurst sDrewth 23:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

disambiguation guides

After chasing through the links to poetry I decided to refer to that discussion for a naming convention, my guess at a shortcut landed me at Ws:style. This says something that is causing a lot of problems:

"Standalone works published as part of a collection, such as most poems, have their own pages (for example, They instead of "The Old Huntsman and Other Poems/They"). The collection page (ie, The Old Huntsman and Other Poems) can be created to link to them if the poems were originally published in that collection."

The consequences of adopting this position means that a volume's ToC is just a shell for existing pomes, the titles lit blue are probably different versions (and unsourced!), if they are in fact poems. Another consequence is that disambiguation is forced, as with the other place this is fast becoming a 'rule' and titles are being pushed to include every disambiguating guideline; these "Short Title (author, year)" stylings are no match for the bibliographic material contained in a title page yet they seem to be adopted as a preference. I can only think of one reason to do this, and its not a good one. We need a convention that avoids making this any worse, because the ad hoc and convoluted solutions are almost always a result of this 'poems have their own pages'. I've mostly finished my edition of Tamerlane and other poems Tamerlane and other poems (1884), but I reckon I spent more time chasing the provenance of the existing pages that ToC cum Nav-box is linking. Do I move the lot to Title (various editions) or possibly accurate versions to (unsourced), or bury the work of dozens of users who were not encouraged to provide a source? The same can be said for this unfortunate precedent for fragmenting reference works into stand alone pages, they become buried, or widowed, and involve a lot more hunting, clicking, and guessing for the user.

On a related matter, when I look at the surprising dab Poems I see the disambiguating solutions that are probably given in the title. The same applies to many biographies. Is it silly to suggest that "Poems by Jane Surname" is a better title than Poems (Surname), or William Blake by Jane Surname than William Blake (Surname), to recognise the author as part of the title? Cygnis insignis (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't find that text anywhere on that page.

To me, the parentheses are important because the divide our page title into two parts: the bit that reflects the title chosen by the author, and the bit that reflect our need to disambiguate because of the technical impossibility of giving the same title to more than one work. Yes, "by" also serves that function, but I think the parentheses do it better. Hesperian 00:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

While not fully following the nuances of the argument of Cygnis insignis. I agree that we have an issue, especially as Poems are so full of variations. I think that we need a better means of tackling them. As we have moved to scans since the original style was created, I would almost prefer that we look to have Poems from collections as subpages as the rule, have a redirect at the top of the main namespace, then as variations occur, we disambiguate and then can leave the components in place, and then have no need for (Author, date) configurations.

This so reinforces my dislike of poetry, and if we didn't have so many pages validated and not transcluded, I could happily ignore them all. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

table problem

Something is causing this table's columns to collapse. Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. I see billinghurst has been there. He fixed it, right? Hesperian 11:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Still slightly problematic in the main ns. I did poke in a gull brace image to see if that was preferred. I have used that a bit in Notes on the churches in the counties of Kent, Sussex, and Surrey to some success, though no perfection due to quirkiness of the original typeset and my lack of CSS. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ready for monobook.js bits ready for live time?

Gday. Are you ready with me taking these component for subsidiary regex gadgets? Thought that I would start simple, put in cleanup(), advertise it, watch it, and work from there. I also thought that to allow you to be the testbed, that I would data it according to the edit, so we can determine changes from time to time. Thoughts? — billinghurst sDrewth 10:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ready? I suppose. As long as I am allowed to keep fiddling and tweaking my own personal code, you can gadgetify whatever you want. I don't understand "data it according to the edit".

My only concern is that this whole edifice is built on a non-public interface to Pathoschild's regex code. At any moment Pathoschild could tweak his code and break everything we've done here. Secondary to that is the fact that at present this only works if Custom regex is installed. We ought to show Pathoschild what we've been doing, and ask him to give us a stable interface that we can import so that this works regardless of Custom regex. I'm heading over there now. Hesperian 11:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Data it = Hard reference the page edit here where it was stolen, so we know which version we took, in case you tweak local components, we can update as relevant and know our version control. Wrt to custom regex, yes, and it was my hope to indent it within gadgets to make more obvious, failing that to separate it out at the gadgets. All considered in development. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me. Any approach is fine by me, so long as all and sundry feel free to improve it. I think some of these gadgets are bit "owned". Hesperian 11:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And I am never sure whether that is the eye of the beholder. We probably should make some good notes on the talk pages and ensure that we express our openness for changes (following suitable testing). — billinghurst sDrewth 12:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It would need a bit of documentation, if widely deployed, some guidance on what to do and when. For example, it doesn't detect when a hyphen should be retained at the end of a line. There seems to me to be a better time to apply cleanup, I do it before adding line-break&nop and tables, etc. instead of tweaking for those exceptions (or putting that suggestion where it can be added, which I could do, on the talk page of the proposed documentation, if it existed :) Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, ideally it would be done first. I added tweaks for exceptions not because I like to do stuff before I cleanup(), but because sometimes the urge to cleanup() other people's work during validation is irresistable.

Er, yes. On that subject, that fact that I didn't proofread your current validation job is no excuse for not adding the rh as I went through it. Pretty lazy of me, given how easy that now is, but I was busy wrangling the other version/s. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

IIRC you never asked me to stalk you, so you're under no obligation to be a model stalkee. Hesperian 13:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Just one user?

Editor Jan1nad specifically patrols and undoes edits, and has clearly identified that they do not wish to be an editor. Which Jeepday and myself have quietly presumed that we shouldn't be forcing them to have a greater interest at this moment. There are others who come and go with recent changes patrolling. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Missed one

Are you able to do some magic here? Moondyne (talk) 08:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry 'bout that. I'll sort it out as soon as possible, but that might be as late as Friday. :-( Hesperian 09:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll check tomorrow, but if memory serves, I've cleaned up. I you still have it, can you email me the scan of that page please? TIF if you can be bothered, JPG otherwise. Hesperian 10:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

typesetting around poem tag

Looking outside of the square in trying to align a poem's title with a poem, eg. Page:In Flanders Fields and Other Poems.djvu/34,

• With {{drop initial}}, one cannot just use poem tag and leading spaces as it sets the initial relative to the margin, not the spaces, so need to add a margin-left to Poem

(note that I have had to modify the Indexof line of monobook.js to handle this for cleanup() )

Now how to centre the title, yet maintain some semblance of formatting between the title and the poetry.

• can set within a table, (there can set a number of parameters here to handle it all
• can set within a surrounding div, more flexibility though more opportunity for things to go wrong
• other? Thoughts here?

— billinghurst sDrewth 03:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're asking. How does what I just did there fail to meet your purpose? Hesperian 04:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That does. Mental block here, and I was thinking back to front. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The poem tag creates a break in main-space, is there a better way to do it than this? I noticed something curious about 'what links here' with The Song of the Derelict, it shows the title page but the work is subpaged; is it something to do with the namespace linking in the ToC?. Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think what you have done there is best practice. It is what I would do if I were building the page, but I probably wouldn't bother changing it if I were passing through validating.

Apparently the <pages> doesn't populate the links table properly. We've been talking about this at User talk:Hesperian/V, though this is a different manifestation again. Hesperian 22:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

<poem> is definitely problematic with transclusion and it totally misbehaves with <noinclude> stuff. I cannot find enough layman's documentation on poem to even come close to understand its behaviour. I try not to grossly change pages when validating, especially when I am in janitorial mode finishing Index: works, transcluding missing bits, or link fixing and come across other issues. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Read its definition in the global javascript and be afraid... very afraid. Hesperian 00:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Little request

Notice modeled after [5]

As Template:New texts is monitored in IRC, and many users have it in their Watchlists, I was wondering whether you would consider adding the name of the text being added to the edit summary, rather than solely +1,-1. Even if it is just have +Name of work, -1 that would be most helpful. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll try to remember. Hesperian 05:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

typo in djvu

A couple of corrections you may have missed here. I had previously corrected "p. 439" to 430 and now look suspiciously at the djvu's rendering of the "155" in that diff. Have you got the pdf around, to check whether there is any funny business with character substitution. Cygnis insignis (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Google Books scan (which isn't DjVu so can be assumed not to suffer from our character substitution problem) looks very much like 155.[6] Hesperian 02:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot that it was possible to flip through those files online. Ta, Cygnis insignis (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

My watchlist was getting hard to read. I've just wiped 6500 pages off it, most of them in Page: namespace. So don't rely on me seeing edits to pages I've edited, okay? Hesperian 04:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

'kay, this page is not rendering correctly in either name-spaces. Cygnis insignis (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the matter with it? I know it isn't perfect—I gave up seeking a perfect representation of that idiotic layout—so just tell me what isn't good enough, and I'll see what I can do. Hesperian 12:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

| align="right" | ii. overlaps with | Fungi. to appear as something like 'Füngi'. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in works fine in FF. Maybe it is not worth worrying about. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why that's happening. I've made a more-or-less random change to the only thing I can see that might be a bit confusing to the poor renderer. Other than that I am stumped. Hesperian 12:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Bug in Template:RunningHeader?

If I leave the left= parm blank or missing, IE8 shows the right parm in the left hand position. See [7]. Its fine with FF. Any ideas? Moondyne (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I reverted the template to a stable version. Hesperian 04:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was going mad as it was last changed months ago. Moondyne (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

ocr align

the text from p. 101 et seq., is out of whack, from this point on Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ta. Cross that bridge when we come to it I guess.... Hesperian 13:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Watch them bridges, often inhabited by trolls! —unsigned comment by [[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]] ([[User talk:Anonymous|talk]]) .

javascript test for main namespace

I can see that we can positively test for other namespaces, though not sure how to test to identify that I am in the main. Ideas? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

How close would testing for absence of a colon get us?

var isMainspace = (-1 == location.href.search(/:/))

If not close enough, then something like

var isMainspace = (-1 == location.href.search(/title=(Talk|User|User_talk|Wikisource|Wikisource_talk|File|File_talk|Mediawiki|Mediawiki_talk|Template|Template_talk|Help|Help_talk|Category|Category_talk|Portal|Portal_talk|Author|Author_talk|Page|Page_talk|Index):/))

ought to do it. (I haven't tested this.) Hesperian 12:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation

One has always suspected, and this just demonstrates that they knew about your make-up in 1805. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, jolly good. :-) In case you're wondering, it means "western", or perhaps more literally "from the land of the setting sun". Hesperian 10:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I was sure that it was occidental. — billinghurst sDrewth

Clearly you're better at this than I am.... :-) Hesperian 12:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

nice work

I like your recent work/uploads. Have you done anything with hesperian.org? Sj (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Nah, they're nothing to do with me. Hesperian 13:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Transactions of the Linnean Society of London

Hi Heperian,

you build this Index:Transactions of the Linnean Society of London/Volume 10 from two different djvu, since InductiveLoad created Index:Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Volume 10.djvu in one djvu with a text layer. Can I start to move pages to deprecate the first one?

1. move page
2. fix link and transclusion to the old page
3. fix link to the old index
4. create a list of page to check if they are no longer linked (Page:* redirect/old Index:)
5. ask an admin to delete them.

at least a few hours of work so I prefer to ask you first if it can cause trouble or if I'm missing a step and if you'll have time to do the delete step to finish the cleanup. And what about the two old djvu, must be we delete them? Is there other volume built the same way you did? Phe (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, go for it! This was something that has been on my mental list of things to do, but I have never gotten around to it. Yes, I'll be happy to delete the redirects and the djvu when you are done.

I built it that way because there used to be a 20Mb upload limit. I think it is the only one.

Hesperian 22:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. A few notes: I needed to use two pages of one of the old djvu to insert them in the new one, there was missing. The new index is numbered the same way the old ("t. number" for plate etc.) but I needed to add name for the empty page and used "-". I switched form {{Page}} to <pages index= >, it's not as best as I hoped since not all page contents is transcluded (see Transactions of the Linnean Society of London/Volume 10/On the Proteaceae of Jussieu code, transclusion is not done in one call but two page by two page because fromsection and tosection apply only to first and last page). There is only one visible difference, like in Transactions of the Linnean Society of London/Volume 10/Characters of a new Liliaceous Genus called Brodiaea, the footnote took page 2f. number, now it's page 2. If it's really a problem you can replace transclusion for this footnote page by a {{page|Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Volume 10.djvu/22|section=footnote|num=2f.}}. All link you need to finish the work are in User:Phe/Test2, I already checked than it exists no link to the redirect page except from the old djvu. Link to the first page is not a redirect because this page was already proofread in the new index. There is also [] to delete, I accidentally created it as empty. Phe (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I've done the cleanup you wanted. Thanks again for doing all that. And my apologies for my tardiness; real life has been brutally demanding the last few weeks. Hesperian 01:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back for what its worth. Amazingly your little quips and interludes have been missed, though that may have been just by me. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks mate. :-) I'm still not really here much though. :-( Hesperian 12:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup! Phe (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply to your comment at WS:AN

• Hush now. This is a library. Hesperian 00:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• That's why I'm writing notes and not speaking. Too bad, actually, the tone of voice is lost and is then sometimes incorrectly supplied by the reader. I'd have taken JV's comment as friendly if I saw him making the same representations to the outsider who started the whole flap, and if he hadn't just deleted a comment of mine on a Talk page here. It was long. On Wikipedia, if I saw something like that on a Talk page, I'd collapse it or maybe archive it, as long as it was relevant to the topic, which it was. I've copied it to an essay in my user space. Anyway, mum's the word.... --Abd (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

intent

Thanks for this interpretation. Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

okay. :-) Hesperian 23:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Missing text

The text layer at Page:History of West Australia.djvu/322 seems to have come from /324, and /322's text is missing. Is this something I did when creating the page, and is it easily recoverable? Moondyne (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The above text is preserved as an archive of discussions at User talk:Hesperian. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Hesperian. No further edits should be made to this page.