User talk:LlywelynII

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, and welcome to Wikisource! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy helping us expand the Wikisource library. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome! —Spangineerwp (háblame) 18:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

For work in portals[edit]

Very recently we have done some work for linking to portals, and embedded it within{{header}}. More detail at that template. Hope that is of assistance — billinghurst sDrewth 09:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Not terribly.
The Constitutions I translated or added were linked back to the Constitution page. Was there some other (specific) portal I should keep in mind?
Feel free to let me know or just add it to the header. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC{{}})

Annals of Wales[edit]

Hi, I wonder if it would be better to put the three(?) texts as primary pages rather than as subpages. So, the A text would be at Annals of Wales (A text). Having a dab with subpages feels odd.

Also, the work as it stands looks like it's a mash-up between a couple of different versions with some text (that between ‡ signs) from a later edition or version. Do you have access to pdf or djvu of a reasonable translation of any of the texts so that we can do a proper proofread? It's the middle of the night in my part of the world so I'll sort out the laWS links in the morning. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree (I think a short explanation with a clear TOC for Text A, B, &c. is superior to treating them as completely isolated, unrelated entries) but, if you already have a consensus policy in place for this situation, feel free to make the page compatible with it.
Until there is an English translation of at least the B Text, there's no need to remove the redirect to the A Text and create that dab. Still, I would not support returning the A Text to where it misleadingly was before.
I also wasn't sure whether the title should include the article "the" or be at Annals of Wales/A Text instead. The Style Guide doesn't address it.
I just added the link to the Latin and you can easily compare the text line by line, but I don't know where there's another already-published copyright-free English translation, no. It's really only the formatting of the dates that is bad and misleading: I'm just not sure whether it's kosher to correct them and still claim we're producing Ingram's translation.
The translation of the entries themselves seems fine and it's quite possible Ingram included those entries from the later texts. (They're included in other versions of this text at Medieval Sourcebook &c.) I don't have a problem with leaving them (it's more informative, after all) as long as they're clearly marked off and explained (which they are). LlywelynII (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
For multiple versions of a work we can use {{versions}} at the dab page. Subpages are usually for parts of a work (e.g. chapters).

I fully agree with you on not needing to change the redirect to the A text until we've got translations of other text(s).

With respect to "the" in the page title, there are two questions we ask: 1) How was it originally published? 2) What will be the way that people will look for the work? So there is no right or wrong answer. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently it was needed to keep people from returning the page to the wrong namespace. Live and learn. LlywelynII (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hywel Dda Text[edit]

Hi, I've uploaded the scanned text of the Hywel Dda work for you. You'll find it at Index:Welsh Medieval Law.djvu. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, nice. Thank you! LlywelynII (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
In answer to your questions on my talk page: Our preference is always to go with the page by page proofreading. This means that we can prove that what we have as the text is in fact exactly what the text says.

Yes, just do the pages with English on them. There is a Welsh Wikisource (at who should be the hosts of the Welsh text. I haven't had to do it yet, but there is a way of transcluding pages from both cyWS and enWS. The best person to ask about this is User:Doug. He works here and on the Latin Wikisource.

I see you've made a start already, but the best help pages for this area are Help:Beginner's guide to proofreading and Help:Beginner's guide to transclusion, along with the advanced version Help:Proofread.

With respect to the titles, we can set up redirects between the various versions of the title, so the question once again is, "what is the most likely search term that people will use?" Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


have a look at {{dropinitial}} it probably does more easily what you are after. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks.
Apparently, I need a second set of eyes to go through before the proofreading is 'confirmed': if you're already looking through and could click off whatever box, it'd be appreciated.LlywelynII (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


Hi, In case proofread text is available in the page namespace we transclude it to the main ns. See my changes to 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Kaffa in edit mode and Help:Transclusion for details. Solomon7968 (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't know if you're seeing what I'm seeing, but the mess at 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Kaffa is precisely why I didn't do that; think it's a bad idea in general; and am pleased to vote against the policy if you show me the venue. If we were doing the encyclopedia by page—rather than by article—I would understand, but it doesn't work in this instance. I'll revert the page pending its demessification. — LlywelynII 23:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
See also 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Abyssinia, where—beside transclusion being an enormous mess—it would cause issues with the sectional linking, helpful for linking directly to information on coffee varieties, historical figures without their own articles, historical actions without their own articles, etc. I'm not saying transclusion isn't a fine thing to do for editors who prefer to work that way, but it's hard to think of any good reason to impose it on everyone. At least in my case, it would cause me to stop including edits to the scanned pages altogether, to avoid over-enthusiastic changes such as your own. — LlywelynII 00:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I believe thanks to Prosody the page is now fixed. Indeed as you say it is painful if editors enforce their "policies" everywhere, mine was just a suggestion. Please feel free to contribute the way you prefer most. Solomon7968 (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Content comes before redirects; not vise versa[edit]


Thank you for your contributions of late to the EB1911 project. Unfortunately, some of your approach is not helpful and contrary to established WS practices. The creation of redirects to pages not yet created (or created other very soon afterwards) means the potential reader could get a search engine hit based on some existing title only to find themselves on page with absolutely no content (i.e. not created yet). See your growing list of such "dead ends" being tracked here Special:BrokenRedirects. Please complete the redirects asap or they will likely be deleted by the next refresh or two of that maintenance tracking list. Thank you in advance. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that heads up, but I personally completely disagree with that policy. It remains useful to know where the article (e.g.) for "Mahommedan" or the best treatment of "Mount Kioga" is, even (in fact particularly) if the page isn't created yet. (Let alone the inclusion of titles and middle names in most entries on the British upper class.) If people click through and are unhappy there's no page, that encourages them to transcribe at least some of it. I'm happy to vote against the existing policy wherever that forum is. In the future I can (/will, if the policy isn't going to change) simply save the unedited articles and put those in the mainspace, but frankly I don't see that as an improvement. — LlywelynII 10:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
On the other hand, it looks like some of those links were bad (I forgot to include the 1911 EB part of the address), so I can absolutely fix that if you see anything similar come down the pike. — LlywelynII 10:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
You can disagree with the policy all you like but it won't change the output of a-set-in-stone maintenance tracking list. Thanks for monitoring yourself nevertheless. :) George Orwell III (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
.shrug. It won't change the output. It changes whether we care, for the purpose of a project where all of these articles are eventually certain to get made anyway. If that list is programmed to automatically delete pages itself, yeah, that would be a pain, but it could still be turned off. In any case, I suppose it is more helpful to at least get the header set up and point people to the exact page where they can look for the info, even when I don't transcribe it myself. — LlywelynII 00:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I actually came around to your point of view—it is more helpful to point people to the exact location of the page scans once someone has found them—but now some admin named Billinghurst is going around deleting such pages. Can't please all of the people all of the time, but in a voluntary project you guys should stop deleting helpful content just because it's partial. — LlywelynII 00:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

internal links[edit]


I think you are putting in way too many internal links.

Encyclopedia Britannica already contains internal links. They are marked in the text (q.v.). Wherever the text says (q.v.), that's an internal link, and you should link it to the target article. Everywhere else, no internal link was intended in the paper text, so you shouldn't be linking in this online version either. For example, the article on France begins "a country of western Europe", not "a country (q.v.) of western Europe (q.v.)". EB has articles on "country" and "Europe" but choose not to internally link to them. So why are you overlinking where EB itself did not? Hesperian 06:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Why am I overlinking? I'm not. It may look bad at this phase of the project, but easier to do it now and let people see where the info is available and where it's missing. Then, if they're curious, they can go check out the scans or even transcribe some more articles.


Why am I linking? Because that is the entire point of text on the internet. Hyperlinks are, quite literally, why it exists.
I'm not going to start any campaigns to force anyone to my style because a) I know it involves more work, b) we're lucky to get what help we can, and c) the initial proofing is always going to require eyeballs over a huge amount of text. But kindly don't be an ass and remove functionality (especially from templates created by other editors) because you don't think it "looks good".* The initial EB was sparing on its citations because it had to be: if they had had the option of allowing readers to magically flip pages to whatever term they were curious about, of course they would have used it. We can. — LlywelynII 08:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
*You're more than welcome to go code your own template. You can even then go through behind me and edit war over which one to use. But surely, even as much as everyone's always Right on the internet, part of you realizes it's much more productive to just go start the Latitude and Longitude pages, even if only as barebones text. And another part of you realizes that it will be helpful to some users to be able to click through to those pages and see what those Ns and Es mean and where they came from and others will just be curious how they did it back before GPS. And, so, hopefully, some part of you already understands why I'm doing this and why it's helpful and why we should just work on turning those links blue instead of black.


Another idea, if you've got time and are interested in improving things, would be to figure out some font or CSS skin that would automatically produce EB-style distinct numerals without requiring < small > formatting.
Another idea, if you wanted to improve the templates, would be to look at {{11co}} and {{coord}} and give the EB11 template the ability to produce automatic links to Wikipedia's mapping programs. I just created a separate template since it's such a pain: a lot of the time EB gives its coordinates as a range (which {{coord}} can't do), a line (which afaik it can't do), and as numbers without the N or E displayed (which afaik it doesn't bother to do: inputting two numbers just changes its format to decimal and it reads it as north and east values instead of degrees and seconds). But having automatically generated links to Google Maps, Bing, etc. would be more useful, if it could be formatted correctly. — LlywelynII 08:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Your internal linking style would make sense if we were somehow trying to duplicate Wikipedia in these transcriptions, but we are not. The idea is just to enable electronically, what the text indicates in print, usually via "see" or "q.v." The only other internal links are to authors, either when an author's initials are given for an article or when a biographical article pertains to a Wikisource author. Library Guy (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
As discussed above, it's increased functionality that makes sense and is helpful regardless of what we're "trying to" do and is something EB themselves now do at their own articles now that they themselves are online. The only conceivable reason not to do it is laziness.
Which is fine: you're right that it's not something to demand or expect until after the pages are transcluded. That is more important first.
But it's not something to stop, let alone revert. If you don't like the blue links, adjust your browser or the page's CSS to not show them. — LlywelynII 22:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I've just seen your speedy delete requests for a couple of categories that I think are reasonable that we have. On investigation, I see that you're creating an entirely separate category tree for EB9. I'm not convinced that this is a good idea. Would it not be more useful, for example, to have all articles for EB9, Popular Science Monthly and Pears Cyclopedia on Pastimes together in one category? If there are a large number of articles from the various reference works for a particular category, then we could look to diffuse the category.

By causing me to ask this question, you're helping me to think about how I've been dealing with categorisation of the articles in the Grove Dictionary of Music. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's helpful to have all of the EB 9 articles in the same categories with the EB 11 articles, let alone mixing them together with completely separate publications, genres, works, &c. There are many, many categories I've recently created that only have a few members but for the most part they will fill in as more EB 9 articles are transcluded.
That said, what I do think is perfectly reasonable (although I at the moment wouldn't be anxious to maintain them) would be to keep the mainspace categories as metacategories. Then you'd see things like [[Category:EB9:Widgetæ]] and [[Category:1911:Widgetae]] and [[Category:PSM:Widgets]] all linked as categories at the mainspace [[Category:Widgets]]. The articles themselves, however, should be clustered with other examples within their respective works, at least in the case of reference works like we're talking about. Of course, if (e.g.) your GDM has only a single article "Widgets", you could link that single article to the main metacategory if you preferred. Similarly, if you were working on transcribing a series of novels set in Widgetland or the essay "On Widgets" by Francis Bacon.
That's my 2d., anyhow. Don't see any reason to keep the categories I made by accident: you can always recreate them quickly enough if you find something to put there. — LlywelynII 12:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Unknown character in a piece of Welsh text[edit]

Hi, I've just remembered your previous work with the Annals and wondered if you could help with the question at WS:H#New unknown character. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Replied over there. Lemme know if it helps. — LlywelynII 10:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Britannica 9th edition: article index for volume one[edit]

Thanks for going to the trouble to list all the articles for volume one of EB9. The style is a little odd given our usual procedure, but I can see some additional context may be helpful for some people. I suggest using the article itself for your context info, for example if the article calls it a "city", call it that in your summary instead of "town." I am impressed, assuming your list is complete, that all the articles for volume one fit reasonably on a single page. It would probably be good to balance the columns at some point. Library Guy (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The style and wording is precisely that of the Index volume (XXV). I'm not planning on changing other people's work at 1911 but, since I'm essentially the only guy over at EB9, I can set the house style. I'll write up the guide some day to address questions such as yours: right now I'm just setting up the category system and getting through the pages I've already got up on my computer.
Balancing the columns precisely has to be balanced by the ease and accessibility of their headings. Doesn't do anyone any good to have lovely columns if they're from Xyzd—Xyfl. It's too hard to grok the differences and you just end up ignoring them. Vol. I is probably the best balance possible among those letters without making the columns themselves entirely unhelpful.
As far as impressed (it is complete), again, it doesn't do anyone any good to have a list of entries if we split it over a half dozen pages and make it effectively inaccessible except for the search bar... but not planning on changing 1911 now that it's started except by better example. So, thanks for the kind words. — LlywelynII 22:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for decoding your index style for me. That is a very sensible approach. Look at EB11 for column labels. It has balanced columns, with not a Xyzd—Xyfl in the bunch. My sparse labeling I think was suitable to the limited number of entries, but with your complete index, it should probably move to the style used in EB11. The index volume is also interesting because it provides authors for a lot of the "anonymous" articles. For disambiguating multiple articles with the same name, the usual style is to put a well chosen word (or rarely two) in parentheses after the name rather than (1) (2) etc. Library Guy (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, thanks, but no. Absolutely not. I'll write out a style guide for you if you'd like to help, but you guys can keep your own house style over there and we'll stick with the EB’s style over here.
Generally speaking, they just don't bother to dab at all but that's not an option we can use. You can see an example of where that numbering came from on the page scans for the Abdara articles in Volume I. That's a vast improvement over the existing 1911 format, where it's an utter crapshoot what the dab for any particular topic will be. The damage would be minimized if people would create dab pages and redirects from the keywords when they do that, but most don't bother. Here, it's obvious that the (1.), (2.) isn't enough and that leads to better redirects. See, e.g., the "what links here" for Augustine (1.), which—for my money and time—is better than simply someone choosing something like "Augustine (Hippo)", "Augustine of Hippo", or "Augustine (bishop of Hippo)" at random and with disregard to the EB’s own naming. In any case, this is the EB’s own house style and makes it much easier to find articles you're looking for. — LlywelynII 15:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Just saw that you have recently helped with the EB9 earlier this month, so sorry for the overly sharp tone. It's a mostly abandoned project and I imagined you were just one of the EB1911 guys being overly ownery about something you weren't even helping with. Given that you are working on it, yeah, absolutely we should talk this stuff over some time. The changes from the 1911 formatting are very conscious and considered and closer to the EB’s own style, but obviously I'm not going to get through ~20k pages on my own. — LlywelynII 16:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
As for the column headings, I was being hyperbolic but, yes, I do find the two-letter columns more helpful than the three-letter ones. (You wrote some of them but I added more to the volumes you missed.) That holds true even where it makes one column run a bit longer than the others. Now, that said, yup, it was EB practice to use three-letter headers... so... hoist on my own petard, it seems. — LlywelynII 16:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Using the three letter style of EB9 for the column headings would certainly look better. I guess we could divide the columns evenly, and if the same three letters appear in two columns, that's OK from my perspective. Looking over your list for volume one, I see there are gaps, for example Aleuts is missing and a lot of Alexanders. In later volumes you are good about indicating gaps, and I think that would be a good idea in one as well. The index does hand you disambiguation phrases on a platter, so I see no reason to use (1.), (2.) etc. as opposed to words. I have made such a change to the two entries for Abydos. Library Guy (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I went through page by page but, if I missed some, let me know. Pretty sure you're wrong about the Alexanders: there are many many terms included in the Index volume that aren't actual article titles. I was torn about that, but feel we should omit them. Two reasons: first, people browsing there are going to be looking for and expecting those pages to be lists of articles and, second, many of those index notices involve multiple cites across multiple volumes. We should leave them for whenever we get around to transcluding Volume XXV itself.
There's no problem using redirects, so I'll go ahead and revert the other edits. I do agree, though, that if we end up using dabs, we should default to the terms used by the index volume. — LlywelynII 17:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Having reviewed, I can't recreate your problem. The Aleutian Islands article is listed, as is every Alexander who has an entry in Volume I. Were you just mixing them up with all the other references in the Index volume? or were there any I actually missed? — LlywelynII 17:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Generally, we don't indent paragraphs[edit]

It seems that our information is not suitably specific with regard to indents, or not to indent. We don't replicate paragraph indents, except in special circumstances, where it is seen as intrinsic to the presentation of the work that the formatting needs to take place (generally poetry falls into this space). Our long-standing consensus has been to ignore indents, and to add a double line break. It is easier, and it doesn't have the formatting issues that you rightly highlighted. We get some whitespace, and as we are operating on screens, rather than in paper books, the cost of paper is irrelevant. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

With templates like {{gap}} it's not much harder to indent, but I'll keep that in mind with general works. — LlywelynII 07:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
If you are looking for an indented look for your viewing, then we can edit your Special:MyPage/common.css to add the css required. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm good with standard formatting, just hacked at the unsupported claims being made on that particular template which got my ownership hackles raised. As noted in my comments there. — LlywelynII 12:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories and redirects are a design flaw[edit]

Hi. Categories cannot be redirected, it is a limitation on Mediawiki. Typically the contents are moved and the category deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing, but—if you were watching—you saw that I did move all of the members of those categories.
I had previously followed such moves with {{speedy}} tags but there were actually other users who wanted me to maintain them (see here) and the last time I tried to address the problem on my own (here) you apparently misunderstood, moved it to the wrong forum, and gave it an off-topic title. I figured I'd just let them sit around, but I can go back to using the delete tags if it's not too much trouble and helps your workflow. — LlywelynII 04:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

transclusion before there's anything to transclude (e.g. Speke, John Hanning on EB1911)[edit]

I think the appropriate time to create a transclusion entry for an encyclopaedia article is after there is something to transclude. The transclusion before the fact for “Speke, John Hanning”, in Encyclopædia Britannica, (11th ed.), 1911, makes no sense to me. It just wastes the time of users and editors who click on it. Library Guy (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying and not planning on making a habit out of it (which is your primary concern in writing) but, no, however bad it looks, it's not actually a waste of time for either the readers or (particularly) the editors. It creates a link directly to the page in the encyclopaedia with the material in question, making its creation much faster. In fact, you could have created the page more easily than coming here to talk to me about it. — LlywelynII 02:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for not making a habit out of it. Certainly I could have quickly created the page, but my custom is to proofread the pages I create, and that takes some time. The main editorial labor in my work is proofreading, and that is the core value I see in an article - proofread text. The custom of creating articles of unproofread content I find kind of useless, although I would make an exception if high-enough quality OCR is used as the raw material. I sometimes find such around Google, but not usually in the standard OCR which seems to be the standard for encyclopedias around Wikisource. It is improving though, and for some articles even Google OCR is not very worthwhile, and even Google OCR I proofread first before releasing, unless the library is closing and I need to leave some for the next day. Library Guy (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

EB9 authors[edit]

Please don't delete information on EB9 authors. Sometimes these authors are only listed in Volume 25 and there are no author initials listed in the article itself. I restored the author information for the state of Delaware. Library Guy (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Text integrity categories[edit]

Hi, just noticed that you've used {{TextQuality}} on a couple of EB articles recently. The TextQuality scheme was created for use on pages that aren't scan-backed and is now deprecated. The intention is that as we replace pages with scan-backed versions we will gradually diminish the use of the scheme and it will (eventually) be able to be deleted. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems useful for keeping track of progress, but kindly point me to the agreement to depreciate it and I'll stop including it. I'm not sure it makes much difference. It's already on hundreds or thousands of pages, so surely if you're nixing it altogether someone's going to script a bot for cleanup. — LlywelynII 00:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikisource:Text quality has the deprecation. The first paragraph of the documentation at {{TextQuality}} states "you should not add this template to pages that are transcluded from the Page namespace." You're right about needing to bot some of the clean-up. 22K pages in the 75% category is not something I want to deal with manually! Fortunately, the others are considerably smaller. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, it seems like a better thing to use it so we know who needs people to go back and verify the proofing but thanks for the link. Will do. — LlywelynII 04:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I would disagree with the deprecation message since {{TextQuality}} is still useful for providing correct information when someone is including a portion of a page which in itself is completely proofread, but since it is being transcluded from a page that is not completely proofread, the transclusion color will give a false reading. TQ is a good temporary scaffolding for indicating the status of the portion transcluded, and can be removed once the whole page has been proofread and the transclusion color gives a correct reading for the portion displayed. Library Guy (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Bible references[edit]

Hi, sorry to be bugging you twice in one day. If you wish to use it, there's a way of linking directly to a single Bible verse. The King James version is the only complete English translation that we have, so a link in the form of Bible (King James)/Psalms#23:2 will go directly to Psalm 23:2. There isn't a reasonable way of doing a range of verses, so I usually just link to the first verse and assume the reader will have the nous to read forward. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No, thank you, that is helpful, if a little restricted and cumbersome. I suppose the proper thing to do for EB9 verses would be to link to the version being used by the Church of England at the time, if there was a single one. Not sure if it was still the KJV, though. — LlywelynII 10:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The Church of England only stopped using the KJV with the liturgical reforms of the 1960s/1970s. Some congregations went to the RSV, while others to the NIV, neither of which are in the Public Domain. So, I think the KJV remains the safe option. When I look more closely, I see that we do have the American Standard Version, but that doesn't have the Inter-testamental books from the Vulgate. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

EB9 indexes[edit]

The extended labels for EB9 pages in the scan indexes are certainly more informative when the index itself is consulted, but I think they need to be succinct so that they come through gracefully when transcluded. I have gone to labels like "map" and "table", but beyond more than a few characters I think will just look like a mess when displayed as a page "number" for a transcluded page. I don't think the index array is supposed to serve as a table of contents. There is a separate facility for a table of contents on the scan index page which is currently not being used in EB9 and may serve your purposes without cluttering up the transclusion. Library Guy (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why ...[edit]

You are creating redirects that do not exist in the work, and I am not sure why.

N 03:53 Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/Brucker, Johan Jakob‎ (diff | hist) . . (+67)‎ . . LlywelynII (talk | contribs | block) (redirect)
N 03:53 Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/Brucker, Johan Jacob‎ (diff | hist) . . (+67)‎ . . LlywelynII (talk | contribs | block) (redirect)
N 03:53 Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/Brucker, John Jacob‎ (diff | hist) . . (+67)‎ . . LlywelynII (talk | contribs | block) (redirect)
N 03:53 Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/Brucker, John James‎ (diff | hist) . . (+67)‎ . . LlywelynII (talk | contribs | block) (redirect)
N 03:53 Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/Brucker, J. James‎ (diff | hist) . . (+67)‎ . . LlywelynII (talk | contribs | block) (redirect)
N 03:52 Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/Brucker, J. Jacob‎ (diff | hist) . . (+67)‎ . . LlywelynII (talk | contribs | block) (redirect)
N 03:52 Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/Brucker, J. Jakob‎ (diff | hist) . . (+67)‎ . . LlywelynII (talk | contribs | block) (redirect)
N 03:52 Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/Brucker, Jakob‎ (diff | hist) . . (+67)‎ . . LlywelynII (talk | contribs | block) (redirect)
N 03:52 Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/Brucker, Jacob‎ (diff | hist) . . (+67)‎ . . LlywelynII (talk | contribs | block) (redirect)
N 03:51 Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/Brucker‎ (diff | hist) . . (+67)‎ . . LlywelynII (talk | contribs | block) (redirect)
N 03:51 Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/J. Brucker‎ (diff | hist) . . (+67)‎ . . LlywelynII (talk | contribs | block) (redirect)
N 03:51 Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/Jakob Brucker‎ (diff | hist) . . (+67)‎ . . LlywelynII (talk | contribs | block) (redirect)
N 03:51 Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/Johan Jakob Brucker‎ (diff | hist) . . (+67)‎ . . LlywelynII (talk | contribs | block) (redirect)
N 03:51 Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/Johann Jakob Brucker‎ (diff | hist) . . (+67)‎ . . LlywelynII (talk | contribs | block) (redirect)
N 03:51 Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/Johann Jacob Brucker‎ (diff | hist) . . (+67)‎ . . LlywelynII (talk | contribs | block) (redirect)
N 03:50 Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/Johan Jacob Brucker‎ (diff | hist) . . (+67)‎ . . LlywelynII (talk | contribs | block) (redirect)
N 03:50 Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/J. J. Brucker‎ (diff | hist) . . (+67)‎ . . LlywelynII (talk | contribs | block) (redirect)
N 03:50 Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/John James Brucker‎ (diff | hist) . . (+67)‎ . . LlywelynII (talk | contribs | block) (redirect)
N 03:50 Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/J. James Brucker‎ (diff | hist) . . (+67)‎ . . LlywelynII (talk | contribs | block) (redirect)
N 03:50 Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/J. Jakob Brucker‎ (diff | hist) . . (+67)‎ . . LlywelynII (talk | contribs | block) (redirect)
N 03:49 Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/J. Jacob Brucker‎ (diff | hist) . . (+67)‎ . . LlywelynII (talk | contribs | block) (redirect)
N 03:49 Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/John Jacob Brucker‎ (diff | hist) . . (+67)‎ . . LlywelynII (talk | contribs | block) (redirect)
N 03:49 Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/Jacob Brucker‎ (diff | hist) . . (+67)‎ . . LlywelynII (talk | contribs | block) (redirect)

our purpose is to recreate the book, not replicate some format at wikipedia, nor all variations of names that someone can of that were not in the book. Happy to hear another opinion and have that discussion. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Our purpose is to provide access to the work. That includes redirects from names and formats of the name that are not in the book, as the Polish names of cities that in a 19th-century work are only given in German or the modern forms of Russian names which the EB9 gives as, e.g., the "Sea of Azoff". I know others may not bother doing as many variant names, but it is beneficial, harms no one, and is, frankly, none of your business. [You chose a particularly bad example if you were complaining, since the EB9 version of his name is completely different from that used in modern sources and the links are quite needful. No modern editor is going to think that "James Brucker" refers to a "Jakob Brucker"; we anglicize that name completely differently these days.] I agree that the 1911 shouldn't be making up new and arbitrary dabs for its entries instead of just numbering the encyclopedia's, but as long as it's accessible and there are sensible redirects, it similarly doesn't harm anyone and is none of my business. — LlywelynII 07:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
If you're asking why because you're an admin and getting cluttered with these notices somewhere, apologies for the mess as I work but just give me autopatrolled or whatever the equivalent is here and I'll be out of your hair. I've got a fairly long history by this point of no vandalism and am the principal (sole current?) editor on the EB9 project. — LlywelynII 07:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
In a related note, don't move the articles to the wrong names. Yes, it's the standard policy at EB11 and I'm not going to change that; that said, every biographical article at EB9 is located at the proper form of the name (a) so that the names of nobles with multiple layers of commas read correctly and (b) because that was the EB9's own policy when articles had their own titles. Abraham Lincoln and Alexander the Great are titled with the standard forms of their name; since every entry of this online version has its own page and title, we should follow that policy and redirect from the dictionary form. Yes, I've thought this through and, yes, this is actually closer to the EB's own policy and, no, you're not being helpful. Kindly knock it off. — LlywelynII 15:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
hey there. [1] of course you realize that there are templates in wikipedia that link to wikisource articles? such as w:Template:EB1911 and w:Template:EB9. is there a reason to custom add endnote links and redirects? are you making a lot of work for yourself that does not add anything? Slowking4RAN's revenge 11:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Author:Fredrika Bremer[edit]

Hi. You removed the blue links to works translated into English with this edit. I also notice that you made links to sv.wikisource, but stopped short of including any that actually exist at that site. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I see the local links now. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The Laws of Howel the Good[edit]

You did a lot of work on this project a few years ago, so I want to let you know I've linked the index file pages at Index:Welsh Medieval Law.djvu to the Mainspace work The Laws of Howel the Good. Since the title of the English work is "WELSH MEDIEVAL LAW BEING A TEXT OF THE LAWS OF HOWEL THE GOOD", I've entitled it "Welsh Medieval Law: The Laws of Howel the Good" in Mainspace. It seemed a reasonable compromise title between the Index file name and the Mainspace file name.

Four sections of Index:Welsh Medieval Law.djvu / The Laws of Howel the Good have red links because the pages have not been transcribed. If you or anyone you know can work on these pages, it would be very helpful. This book is a mixture of Welsh and English text, so it might need help from Welsh Wikipedia or Welsh Wikisource to transcribe the Welsh section of the text. Just something to think about.

I don't speak Welsh, so I can't help much more with The Laws of Howel the Good for now. But if you think I can help in future, please ask. :) Outlier59 (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages[edit]

Hi. At enWS we disambiguate at the root page, not in the style of enWP by use of descriptors. If it means we need to move whichever page is at the root page, then that is what is done. See Help:Disambiguation and Wikisource:Naming conventions. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a disservice given how very much more famous Henry James Jr is than the others but thanks for the heads up. I'll do it that way in the future.
That said, if you're going to be editing disambiguation pages, don't remove authors. I'm not sure why that doesn't go without saying, but there you have it. "Beyond scope" is entirely inapplicable. Of course other authors of the same name are within Wikisource's scope. — LlywelynII 10:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The fame or not was problematic with the issues and battles faced at Wikipedia being evident that here it was not useful. We had to design a system for all authors famous or not, for people named after their fathers and grandfathers, It also needs to align with the other disambiguations that we have needed to do through the system. The whole conversation is about for your reading.

Re scope, pages with disambiguation prepended are out of scope and will not exist in our scheme, so there is no point or value in creating one there in that format. Create your new author page with Firstname Lastname (nnnn-nnnn), then we will move the other out of the way, and then convert the redirect to the disambiguation page, and fix the links. If you need a hand to do that then please ask. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

{{11co}} and small numbers[edit]

Hi LlywelynII, firstly thanks for the {{11co}} — it's a good way of having co-ordinates show the correct prime characters etc. One minor issue I've noticed is that the resultant co-ordinates produce small numbers, (12° N., rather than 12° N.), smaller than the default size of other numbers on the page. Would you consider removing the "small" tags from the {{11co}} template to standarize the number size?

I see in the printed EB1911 that "6" is bigger than "t" (e.g. in "26th" in [EB1911 Vol.6 p.161]). In the rendered page "26th" (in default sizes) has "6" and "t" as the same size. So I could argue that the numbers should be bigger if anything, rather than smaller as in the {{11co}}; but I'd be happy if the size was left as default in the template (i.e. no "small" tag). There's nothing in Wikisource:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Style Manual about changing the size of numbers. DivermanAU (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, in the font of the EB11, the 6 and 8 are large and others small. I could add that to the code if people like.
It seems more likely people prefer to just ignore that aspect of the appearance or leave it up to the readers' browser fonts. I might be huffy and insistent on aspects of the EB9 formatting given my work there but obviously the EB11 is a bunch of people and you're welcome to edit the template to suit the needs of the project.
It would be really nice to have the EB11 font or some equivalent available to download if we're going that way, though. — LlywelynII 02:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, my take on the general consensus for EB1911 is that it should be faithful to the original text, but with a modern printing layout. e.g. a line-break is added between paragraphs; and a numeral “1” is used where appropriate where the printed EB1911 has a “I” but means a number one. I was adding thin spaces between quote marks so the text was more like the printed version, but that wasn't deemed worth the extra effort. I hear what you're saying about a EB1911 font, but an exact reproduction of the printed book doesn't seem to be the consensus view. Actually, it looks like EB1911 has small zeroes, ones and twos; the rest are larger, with 3, 4, 5, 7 & 9 descending (is that right term?) partly below the bottom line but about the same overall size as 6 and 8 (so a bit of a strange font). e.g. look at the printed numbers in Table II here [2] DivermanAU (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikisource:WikiProject Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition[edit]

I noticed that you had contributed to Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, FYI I created a project page "Wikisource:WikiProject Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition", it is a copy with modification of WS:EB1911. -- PBS (talk) 09:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


Hi, please see the local guidance on disambiguation. To note that we disambiguate at the root page, and all works and authors are moved away, so there is no need to have the word disambiguation in a title. Author pages are disambiguated by years of life. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


According to Help:Beginner's guide to typography#Paragraphs and sentences, you should not be using {{indent}}. You have done this at Page:Koran - Rodwell - 2nd ed.djvu/153 and doubtlessly many more pages.

A. Kindly sign your comments.
B. I respectfully disagree both with the general policy and with its application here. Indentation is far more attractive and clearer to read. While it's fine if they are not used generally, there's no problem at all with using them as the house style of particular books, such as all of my work on the EB9 project. If a project has a separate style, as at EB11, I obviously shouldn't insert it but almost no work has been done on that edition of the Koran and the text flows far better with indentation than text blocks for every line.
C. That said, I don't really plan on formatting that whole volume of the Koran, so I'm not making any kind of binding project policy. If other editors—such as yourself—prefer the indentless style, it's a wiki and they're welcome to reformat the pages. The important thing is not to whinge over minutiae like that and, if you're interested in that particular volume, to start adding more pages yourself. Thanks!
 — LlywelynII 03:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


Disambiguation pages are for works sharing a common title, regardless of content. If you would like Wikisource policy on this matter to change, you are welcome to put forward a proposal in the Scriptorium. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest in good form, but given Wikisource's formatting "the odes of Pindar" do in fact share that title. The change is not only within policy but extremely important to users (such as myself) who assume "See also" links are irrelevant to the main topic of the page. In fact, every single one of our translations of the odes of Pindar are at the portal, not either one of the two currently linked translations on that page. — LlywelynII 23:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I am well aware of the content of the Portal, as I created it. I am also well aware of our policies on disambiguation and your general dissatisfaction regarding them. If you would like policy to chnage, then please make a proposal to the community. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Since you would rather edit war than discuss, you have been blocked. Continued behavior of this sort that willfully disrupts the community by violating consensus on policy will result in a longer block next time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)