User talk:Levana Taylor

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Charles Baudelaire[edit]

Hello,

You need to specify who is the translator, and take care that the transaltions are in the public domain. Thanks, Yann 11:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the Night Mail[edit]

I noticed your publication history note about the first publication of this amusing short story. My proofreading is based on the McClure's version which appeared one month earlier! Perhaps you mean first UK publication? ;-) Keep up the good work. Eclecticology (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, corrected! --Levana Taylor (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: We and They[edit]

Hi, just to let you know, I've moved your question from the Scriptorium to possible copyright violations, as it should hopefully get the proper attention there. Jude (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Saw you do a lot of work on the PD-tags for works; I (and others) really appreciate the effort, thanks a lot! Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Romain Rolland. 04:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kipling poems[edit]

Hi there,

Just wanted to confirm that these were all the ones that had been transwiki'd and required deletion. Thanks! Jude (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also Azrael's Count, At His Execution, Hymn to Physical Pain, The Mother's Son, The Coiner. --Levana Taylor (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good! I actually just edit conflicted while listing those (found them in a query of pages tagged with {{copyvio}} but not linked to from WS:COPYVIO). I'll get right on them! Jude (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a final note, if you find any more of these that require deletion, drop a note on my talk page. They are all deleted now. Jude (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading images[edit]

Images should be uploaded to Commons, not locally on Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. Levana Taylor (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Return of the Firefly[edit]

The changes you made here have multiple issues. Please refer to the WS:MOS for some of these.

Because Wikisource content can be viewed on any size or width of screen, setting an image to "100%" means that the image will expand on larger screens, even if the text doesn't. Per the WP:MOS, we transcribe straight quotes, not curly ones. There is no reason to render a title into a mix of lowercase and capital letters, only to make the title all capitals with a temple: simply reproduce what was printed. If the quotes in the original are not floated into the margin, then they shouldn't be floated into the margin in our rendering. We don't transcribe Template:Ff or fl using templates anymore: the ligatures break searching and are not recommended by Unicode; instead simply type "ff" or "fl" as separate characters (the templates no longer produce ligatures, but separate characters, and are retained for legacy reasons only; they no longer do anything).

I could add many other problems, but the overriding principles is that Wikisource does not add content that was not in the original. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good to know. I'm new here (or, rather, haven't edited in a ling time) and I'm afraid I read through the list of templates and said "oh, pretty typographic goodness!" and used as many of them as possible. So, yeah, I can see the reason for taking the opposite approach: maximum simplicity rather than trying to look like print typography.
As for {{uc}}, though, the documentation says it is helpful to screen readers to have the titles be "title case" and only displayed uppercase—is that not true? And is {{" '}} frowned on? it really does help readability to have that little gap between the two sets of quotes.
Also, if the original text prints "æ," should I use "æ," "{{ae}}" or "ae"?
Suggestion: You could put a prominent note in the documentation of any template that is no longer desirable to use. --Levana Taylor (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The {{uc}} template was intended primarily for situations such as in tables of contents, where the ToC displays in capitals, but the link is to a standard title-case.
No {{" '}} is not frowned upon; it is useful and even encouraged, the issue is with using {{fqm}} when the quotes are not set past the margin.
Ligatures such as æ and œ are used, as these can mean different letters under certain historical situations and are recognized by internet searches. But ligatures of "ff", "fl", "fi", "ct" are merely typographical, and should not be reproduced as single characters.
As we are s smaller wiki, keeping track of all the obsolete templates is often difficult. The person who last edited the {{ff}} template seems not to have updated the documentation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should I use æ or {{ae}} then?

I will go through all my pages and simplify them. Levana Taylor (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We prefer entering æ directly if that is at all practical. The {{ae}} template is kept around primarily for ease of text entry, for editors with keyboard limitations, and should be subst'ed with the actual character. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author:Robert Barlow McCrea[edit]

Are you sure he was English? The name looks Scottish to me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

His parents were from Guernsey and he spent some time there but he spent most of his life (except for considerable time sent all around the world by the army) in England. I dunno, call him British if you like. Levana Taylor (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

...for your elegant fix of the transclusion issue at Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 20/Address Delivered by Joseph N. Teal. I'm not sure the way I originally set that up is the best approach, but your change is definitely an improvement, and it taught me a neat trick I was unaware of. -Pete (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

moved style page to Wikisource: namespace[edit]

Hi. Main namespace is exclusively for works. Style guides for project works have been set up as projects in the Wikisource: namespace. Accordingly I moved your style guide to Wikisource:Wikiproject Once a Week. I hope that this isn't overly convenient. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks! Is there some sort of handbook to the organization and use of all the namespaces and discussion areas? I feel like it’ll take years to learn what to do if I have to find things out haphazardly Levana Taylor (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edits in Once a Week[edit]

Hi,

I like the magazine Once a Week and so I really appreciate the work you have done there so far. I just want to say that I have returned back the link to the poet Waller you have removed from Page:ONCE A WEEK JUL TO DEC 1860.pdf/587, as it is in compliance with Wikisource:Style guide: "Links to other parts of works, other texts, and author pages at wikisource can be added to the text. ... "

I would also like to ask you to fill the summary box when doing some changes as it is very helpful for other contributors.

I am also not really convinced that an edit removing a link having been added intentionally by somebody else is a minor edit. Generally, edits that other people may disagree with are not minor edits. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, that was careless of me to mark that as a minor edit. Too many clicks too fast … As for putting back the link, thanks for letting me know the policy! I thought it counted as an "annotation," but now I know it’s acceptable, I will put back the other links that were in that article too. There are lots and lots of author links that could be added to OAW (I was already crossreferencing other parts of the magazine). Levana Taylor (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Levana Taylor,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikisource and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

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

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Levana Taylor,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

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

Author:Alfred William Cooper[edit]

Data available for WD. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, he’s the son of Abraham Cooper? How’d you find that out? Levana Taylor (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The experience of many years of person research in the UK and good access to 19thC records and tools. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata gadget[edit]

You may be interested in our WEF gadget that we have that enables form-based entry to WD. It is not perfect and doesn't have every field that one could think through, it does a pretty good job, and has a memory of your recent entries, so I find that I can do heaps of additions with the one edit, be it the person link, or the FRBR edition link. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That looks great, but I’m not finding how to add it. Found, it’s excellent. Levana Taylor (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Biographies of ..." categories[edit]

It has definitely been a gap that we have had in how we present these, and separate them from the typical author categorisation. I like it, just need to think how well we expand it. I am guessing main namespace use only, though maybe portal pages utilising category:people in portal namespace could be labelled that way. I notice that you had upper case for engineers, and lower case for another. If this is the path that we are going to use, I would think that we should be looking to give some guidance in a few places. Definitely will put something at Wikisource:WikiProject Biographical dictionaries. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, if you are creating a category that is going to end up in Wikidata and have wikilinks, then feel welcome to manually add {{plain sister}} and it will do the linking that you see in the typical header-type templates. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reason so many occupation categories exist is that User:AdamBMorgan, who hasn’t been around in several years, was going through the DNB and categorizing everybody. He got through part of the A’s. It’s definitely a very useful classification! I estimate we might end up with about 30-40 professions at the most practical level of splitting? Any more would be unwieldy. (As for the Engineer thing, that was just a typo and I've tagged the capitalized version for deletion -- better to be consistently lowercase like essentially all categories.) Levana Taylor (talk) 06:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know for how many years I have not even see these beasts?!? Sheesh. Just thinking of the 000s-0000s of biographical works that I have done in that time, and just slithered away from doing the categorisation. No excuses now as I work/plod through TIWW. — billinghurst sDrewth
Yow, that’s a lot … sympathies. BTW, I was just pondering what to do about people who get biographied because of a single notable thing they did which has nothing to do with their occupation if any. Would it be ridiculous to have a category of "Biographies of heroes" (to be filed in the general biographies category, not the occupations subcategory)? It’s the place for this and two others I can think of just off the top of my head. Levana Taylor (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, missed this. <shrug> From TIWW, I have people who I cannot determine their notability, I have just left them uncategorised.Though my plan is to potentially develop a list of uncat'd pages below the head page, either through PetScan or some other means. Undetermined! How do we think people will find them, or want to find them or follow the link? — billinghurst sDrewth 07:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Levana Taylor,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

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

Rosa Major aged 15?[edit]

Looking at 1861 census, I can see Rosa Major, b. 1847. Mother widowed, older bro. 24, GP. Back-tracking to 1851 census, father is Henry/Harry Hopkins Pearce Major, surgeon. Both censuses loving in Hungerford, Berkshire. Seem like the poetry of a 15 y/o? — billinghurst sDrewth 07:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly died 1862 too [1] — billinghurst sDrewth 08:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks for prodding me to look further. The Curran index tells us that the identification of the author is from an 1863 letter of George Du Maurier’s, which I quote: "Madame Coronio is also a very nice woman. Her sisters, the Miss Majors, are charming very pretty, about 28 and 30, and most accomplished girls. Rosa Major writes very prettily poems in Once a Week." And there’s another reference in Du Maurier's letters to one of the Miss Majors having become Mrs. Wylie. That’s Rosa's sister Charlotte. So, this is the Major family:
  • 1861 (Rose Mary born Islington c. 1836)
  • 1841 (Rosa born Islington c. 1832)
The ages of the various family members are not consistent between the two censuses. Strangely, I can't find a christening record for Rosa even though she was supposedly born in Islington. The ages of Charlotte and William in the censuses are consistent with their christening dates (respectively 1828 and 1830) but Rosa was recorded wrongly on one of the two occasions (most likely the later one, since there’s a less obvious difference between ages of 25 and 28 than there is between 6 and 9.) And Du Maurier’s estimate of the sisters being "about 28 and 30" in 1863 doesn’t help because we know for sure Charlotte was 34, so he could’ve been 5 years off in his guess about Rosa too. (BTW Madame Coronio was not their sister, but rather indirectly related by way of her husband.) And I can’t find any mention of her later than this; there are marriage records for Charlotte and William, but I don't see one for Rosa, nor a death record under her maiden name. At this point I’m stumped -- you’re better at searching the records, so could you check my work? Do you have any other bright ideas? -- Levana Taylor (talk) 09:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got her. That all helped marvellously, and you have pay dirt AGAIN, she is the mother of Sir w:Walter Leaf. I will leave the metadata to WD, and any tidy up to you. I have moved so I can get rid of the redirect talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Walter Leaf was the son of her husband’s brother. I’ve got all the relevant family members into WD now. Levana Taylor (talk) 11:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When ...?[edit]

When are you able to read Wikisource:Adminship and feel ready to put your hand up in the air? I think that you are ready, and willing to do the paperwork to the community. this is perfect contribution for the role, and you have a supremely level head, even when we are in disagreement. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 00:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly will consider it! Levana Taylor (talk) 11:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudonyms, fyi[edit]

Tripped over a work that has published pseudonyms in the 1880s, and it makes a reasonable resource. I have uploaded it, put wikisource-bot to apply the text layers, and stuck a search box on it … Index:Pseudonyms of authors.djvu. No particular desire to proofread it, more just sticking there as a ready resource. If you come upon others that are available, then let me know and we can stick them in place. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Halkett & Laing’s Dictionary of anonymous and pseudonymous literature of Great Britain (in 4 volumes!) Levana Taylor (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see that it documents the works and notes the authors. You'd almost guess that someone did a finding aid! I see that there re a number of editions up to 1926 at IA (in 9 volumes), though some you need to borrow. :-/ I will see what I can pull together. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, I don't think anyone attempted anything remotely similar for the United States during public domain times … Levana Taylor (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) the 8th and 9th in the 1926 edition were published in 1950! And I see that the 1926 edition was actually 1926 to 1932 in 6 volumes, per [2] with an index published in 1934 v.7. Hmm, not certain which way to go, uploaded to Commons will be deletion targets. The cheat list in vol. 7 is the neat. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a wonderful work. Posthumous thank-yous to all the editors who went cross-eyed crossreferencing index cards to make this thing--what could they have accomplished with a computerized database? Levana Taylor (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

categories for biographies of playwrights <-> dramatists[edit]

This isn't my area of speciality. Your thoughts on whether we have both, or one or the other. If both, because we have enough or turly want to separate, is dramatist a subset of playwright? If one, which? @EncycloPetey: for 20c PoV. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: A playwright is a subset of the dramatist. Drama is the general term that covers plays, screenplays, operas, pageants, etc. So playwrights and librettists are a subset of dramatists. Playwrights, librettists, and composers of operas are useful subsets to have. However, "Theater" and "Drama" are synonymous. I would merge the "Theater" items into "Drama", since "Theater" is ambiguous, and can mean either drama or the building where drama is performed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas from my naïvety}} I see it the other way around. I see that playwrights are larger than dramatists, as plays are larger than dramas; plus a dramatist will write the thing, whereas the playwright writes and also creates the event. I think that we should just roll them together, so is that one label or the other, or a shared this and that label. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, no point in trying to distinguish them. To my mind the two terms are nearly synonymous! I think personally "playwrights" ought to redirect to dramatists, having "this and that" would be weird. Levana Taylor (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done so. Though we now have Category:Playwrights and Category:Ancient playwrights, do I bot move those to equivalent cats, and place "cat redirects" in place? — billinghurst sDrewth 14:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AF hit[edit]

Sorry about that glitch in my filter writing. Had tested it for a day before implementing, without issue, though obviously not long enough. Refactored so that sort of editing should now be clear, and have added an extra safety measures. The things we need to do to combat threatening LTAs. :-( — billinghurst sDrewth 11:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author talk:Frederick Richard Wilson[edit]

There wasn't a lot of choice, and the expertise seems to align with subject matter. I'll let you confirm it as you please. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Curran Index agrees with you. Thanks for looking up all that info! I'm putting it into WD now. Levana Taylor (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

override_year[edit]

This is an available choice within {{header}}. Without using the year bits this way they get chewed up as the existing module is not that resilient. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, thanks for the correction. I already have an awful lot of "1859-1860," "1860-1861" etc. in the "year" field of Once a Week subpages -- could you fix them with a bot please? 1. change "year" to "override_year" 2. add the category [[Category:YEAR works]] using the second year of the span. Levana Taylor (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just spotted this in my watchlist, as I've been wondering about this capability. Is this the proper way to use it? The Fourth Estate/1917/July 7/Liquor Ad Law Territory -Pete (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not having a go at you[edit]

I hope that you were not thinking that I was having a go at you. My mind is on East Gippsland today, and their bushfires: the people, the town the bush, the animals, climate change and uncaring RWNJs. I think that I may have been somewhat direct, and task-focused and not so much people-orientated. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t think you were impatient with me personally, no. Besides, as far as biting heads off, that was barely even a nip. And I do know how the constant awfulness of the reigning order of things makes it hard to take anything lightly, even if I’m on the opposite side of the world from you -- I hadn’t heard about that particular disaster, sigh Levana Taylor (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

div and span[edit]

Hi. Please pay attention to properly nest <div>-based and <span>-based templates, see [3]. Otherwise a lint error will be flagged, see misc-tidy-replacement-issues. I am tying to lean the backlog. Thanks. Mpaa (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC

Thanks for pointing that out! Unfortunately I already committed about 3,000 of those errors :-( Levana Taylor (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I have probably already fixed a lot of them, I am leaving messages only if I see recent ones. Mpaa (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

style[edit]

Hi. FYI, {{c}} takes a style param, so you could do this directly "{{c|style=margin-top:5px|{{fs90|caption}}}}" and avoid the extra div in these cases [4]. Mpaa (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the tip! Levana Taylor (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lawless and Once a Week (magazine)/Series 1/Volume 3/Oysters and pearls[edit]

For the illustrator, is that meant to be the one person "John Matthew James Lawless" or is it two names? Quite a long set of names for the 1860s and next to nothing showing up in FreeBMD, nor Ancestry. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, that was a typo, should be just Matthew James. Fixed now. Thanks for spotting it! Levana Taylor (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A School History of England[edit]

You may (or may not, in which case I apologise for the disturbance) be interested in A School History of England (1911), which I just finished proofreading; as an effort to scan-back "The Secret of the Machines" that got a little bit out of hand. :) --Xover (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, thanks for letting me know. My Kipling project was a long, long time ago, though! Levana Taylor (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested at WS:PD[edit]

Hi Levana Taylor,

Your input is requested at WS:PD#Poems by the Way. --Xover (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We sent you an e-mail[edit]

Hello Levana Taylor,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caverphone codes[edit]

Hi Levana,

Do you still need User:Levana Taylor/Multilanguage names without Caverphone codes/M? Because it hits the hard limit for script (i.e. template) execution, it is showing up in maintenance categories. Can it be deleted or blanked without undue inconvenience? Xover (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Cooper[edit]

Hi Levana

I am interested in your attribution of William Cooper, barrister, as author of three short stories in Once a Week. William was my uncle many generations removed and I am writing a book about WIlliam's family. Grateful if you could tell me the source for William's authorship. I don't doubt it for a moment as he wrote plays and poems as well. It would be good to add a source footnote in my book. Many thanks Gary Kent Gary Kent (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Curran Index is the current best source for information on attribution of anonymously-published Victorian periodical literature. Unfortunately, the entries in the Curran index are very concise and often don't say exactly how they identified the author. But in the case of Once a Week, it depends heavily on a ledger of payments to authors which by good luck has been preserved. The three stories you asked about are signed "W.C." in the magazine, but the ledger reveals that those initials stand for William Cooper. It's not a rare name, so I wonder how they can feel certain that the contributor was in fact your family member.
One thing's for sure, the three stories are clearly all the product of the same pen. They all revolve around the narration of some "colorful" Irish character, one of them being the sort of "funny-Irishman" piece that has aged so badly, the others being sensational stories with a bit of funny-Irishman mixed in. Do you have any other writings of your ancestor that are of that style? His plays are quite otherwise. Levana Taylor (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: While searching online for any sort of information whatsoever about these stories, I found that "The Valley of the Innocents" was read aloud at the Ipswich Mechanics' Institute in 1861, by one "Mr. H. L. Power" (see here). Are you aware of any such person being connected to your family? Your family's ties to Ipswich are a bit too small of a link to put much importance on, I fear. Levana Taylor (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested regarding Once a Week[edit]

Hi Levana,

Your input would be appreciated in the discussion at WS:BR#Remove use of override_year in Once a Week (magazine) (permalink). Xover (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Levana_Taylor&oldid=14084071"