User talk:Londonjackbooks

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

" can't study men; you can only get to know them, which is quite a different thing."

C. S. Lewis in That Hideous Strength

Londonjackbooks talk

Page 19 illustration (greyscale) in The Game (London).jpg

"All I know is that you feel good
in the ring."The Game (1905) by Jack London

"All lies and jest
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest"

from "The Boxer" by Simon & Garfunkel

Seal of the United States Marine Corps.svg

This user is a
of 27 years.

Seal of the United States Marine Corps.svg

This user is a

September 11th, 2001

...It was as if an earthquake rent
The hearth-stones of a continent,
          And made forlorn
          The households born
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

And in despair I bowed my head;
"There is no peace on earth," I said:
          "For hate is strong,
          And mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!"

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
"God is not dead; nor doth he sleep!
          The Wrong shall fail,
          The Right prevail,
With peace on earth, good-will to men!"

—from Christmas Bells by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Wikimedia DC edit-a-thon
Arlington, VA (2018)
"Awards for participation"
Featured article star - check.svg
Proofread of the Month
November 2011

Special: Validation month
Featured article star - check.svg
Proofread of the Month
November 2012

Special: Validation month
Featured star 8.png
Proofread of the Month
January 2013

Short works (8 completed)
26 validated works
Proofread of the Month
November 2014

Special: Validation month
26 works



Hi, I've enjoyed and appreciated most of the Florence Earle Coates poems you've shared, even though poetry is not a major interest of mine, or something I often feel I understand. As you've noticed, I have a bit of an obsession with trying to unpack the career of Frances Fuller Victor. My principle interest is in her work as a historian, but I've been trying to expand my transcription efforts to also include her fiction and poetry, so we can offer a better-rounded sample of her work here.

Do you think you might enjoy working on a few of her poems with me? I thought it might be enjoyable to work on something together, and maybe I'll learn a little about poetry in the process. I haven't yet read enough of Victor's poetry to have a sense of whether I like it or not, so maybe we could learn a little something together.

Here are the scans I've uploaded:

-Pete (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, @Peteforsyth:! I believe I am now 8 hours ahead of you if you share California's time zone? I should have some time tomorrow to look over the scans. Looking forward to it, thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: May I ask if you are committed to using {{center block}} (as opposed to {{block center}}) combined with the poem tag? I only ask because I prefer to use block center formatting with breaks [using double line space between stanzas] instead of the poem tag (see example). I have adopted this method of formatting from Users Beeswaxcandle and Cygnis insignis. Not long ago, I inquired of Beeswaxcandle's rationale for using this method as opposed to the poem tag, and you can find their response here. Let me know your opinion :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Oops, I thought I had replied here...I'll just note for posterity that I think we got it all sorted in the page talk space. Thanks for the tips. -Pete (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Calling it a night in a minute. Left some comments in an edit summary just now with regard to placement of block center/s & /e (they should reside on same line otherwise extra line spacing occurs within text & it doesn't transclude correctly) &c. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, some good lessons today, thank you. I've tried to track your various comments, please forgive if I don't break all my bad habits immediately, I'm trying :) I have seen the weird spacing you mention in the past, and never knew (or took the time to figure out) what was causing it. Thanks for pointing that out. -Pete (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: I suspect it is late there. I have time again today to edit, so I can work on some poems. No issues on "bad habits". I still have mine :) You likely have a deeper understanding of how things (templates, etc.) work here, and so you will benefit from that understanding. I pretty much copy the methods of others I trust (my unwitting—if the correct word—mentors), so it takes me longer to digest learning new concepts—especially when technical. Later, Londonjackbooks (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
It is late (almost midnight), but I might have 30 minutes or so in me. Played basketball so I'm a little too wound up for bed. I've found I do indeed enjoy some of these poems, so along with the lessons that keeps it interesting. -Pete (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps predictably, I have lost steam, time for bed. Thanks for all your work on navigation, I find that tedious...was planning to come back to it after going through all the pages...but nice to see a big chunk taken out of that. One there a reason you prefer relative linking over absolute linking? Not sure if that's the right term, I mean [[The New Penelope/Story name]] vs. [[../Story name]]. I have tended to go for the former, mainly because it means if you copy and paste the link to another place, it will still work. But maybe there's a factor I'm not considering? Anyway, happy to do them either way going forward, but curious. Till next time! -Pete (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
RE: Relative links: This discussion might give some insight? Again, I am a copyist. Others usually have better insight into the whys. Londonjackbooks (talk) 08:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: In case you did not catch my reply with regard to relative linking, it is above. To add, since you've got the knack for the formatting, and you mentioned you like some of the poetry,—before I continue editing now & in the future, I wanted to be sure I wasn't stepping on your toes by proofreading. If you prefer I validate, that works too! Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I saw -- thanks. It makes sense to me, and in the future I'll try to use relative linking in headers, but absolute linking in the TOC (since copying the TOC in toto to an index page or a portal is sometimes useful). And no, it doesn't step on my toes at all -- any help in finishing the work is most welcome, I don't feel at all protective of "my" works. On the contrary, it's nice to somebody to work with.
One question, which I'm sure you've encountered in other work on poetry: I noticed that many of the poems in the later, self-published Poems are the same ones. It seems like a sort of pointless exercise to retype every poem (unless, of course, she edited them for later publication). How would you approach that? Just buckle down and do the whole thing? Focus on the unique poems first? Something else? -Pete (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
(Also, as an aside...I find it difficult to focus on the substance of a poem while proofreading it, so I find myself going back to read them after they're done anyway :) -Pete (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
My approach is to "buckle down". Often, there are slight differences in wording, punctuation, &c. in different versions. Mrs. Coates' Poems (1916) in 2 volumes was a "collected" set. It was a good way to re-read her poems, and it may be for you as well! Mrs. Coates has stated, "In all art it is the same. The most lasting is rarely first to captivate. Great symphonies require more than one hearing; great poems more than one reading." I have done several versions pages here, so I won't mind helping out with that as well! Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Thinking about it, one way that I am better able to read and absorb the content of a poem as I transcribe is to focus first on the text—reading line by line, correcting typos/OCR errors, etc. as I go. Then I go back and format; first by adding the breaks, then the gaps. That helps me. You may do similarly... But often, a subsequent reading can't hurt :) Sometimes you catch errors missed the first time around that way! Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah, there's a good thought. Thanks for sharing, I'll give that a try...but I may be done for at least a few hours. -Pete (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Here as well. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: Question: I am still not familiar with matching and splitting, so I will try to phrase my question correctly. Why was it necessary to "split" various pages of the volume after the Index was added to WS as opposed to leaving the OCR text layer as it was? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I would not say necessary, but helpful. The book has already been transcribed/proofread by human eyes at Project Gutenberg, so using that as a starting point can mean much less work. In some cases, as I'm sure you've noticed...the OCR layer is really bad -- wrong letters, poor handling of line breaks, etc. However, I know that errors sometimes creep through -- I've noticed in a couple instances you've restored em dashes that were missed in the Gutenberg version, and that I'd missed too when now I'm watching more closely for those. (It's weird to learn what kinds of inconsistencies stand out to me like flashing lights, and which ones escape my notice.)
I noticed that I had neglected to document sources on the talk page, so I just took care of that: Talk:The New Penelope
Since you bring it up, an interesting related anecdote. I found that the body text of The Oregon Trail had been pasted from Gutenberg, and then somebody had added the "preface to the fourth edition" after the fact. All this before I started editing the work. But after diving in, it turned out that the edition on Gutenberg was not the fourth. It gets even weirder, though. The fourth edition contains an author's note explaining that the edits are significant; but most of the later editions seem to republish the earlier editions, without (as far as I can tell) any acknowledgment that there were substantive edits made in the interim. I think the publishers screwed up and republished the "wrong" edition for many years...but I'm not sure how to prove it. If I'd noticed it earlier, I might have been tempted instead to match the Gutenberg text to an edition that better matched it came would have made for much easier proofreading. But, it does seem to me that if we're going to have just one edition, the fourth is probably the one to have. It might be worthwhile at some point for us to host both editions...but I'm not sure I'll have the patience to proofread it twice, myself. (Nice to have some assistance from a couple other editors on that one though!) -Pete (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: More mysteries on your plate now I see!
With regard to page splitting &c., I only ask because I am accustomed to filling in the header/footer parameters at a work's Index so I don't have to fully type in header/footer information for each Index:Page. But once a page has been saved, one has to type it in completely by hand. A pet-peeve of mine. I would much rather deal with somewhat poor OCR layers. I guess I am just used to a certain flow when editing. No issues. It will not dissuade me from assisting :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually, with regard to Talk:The New Penelope, as long as a work here has an Index, the Index is the source, and you do not need to list source information at the Talk page—in my opinion—even if text was initially drawn from elsewhere... It is the Index pages that we seek to match, not any other source. The Talk page info, as it currently stands, may confuse things for passers-by. ? Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: RE: [1]: I was afraid I didn't explain correctly. The New Penelope is backed here at WS by Index:The New Penelope.djvu. Every Mainspace page/subpage of the work currently links to that specific source. Index:The New Penelope.djvu is therefore the ultimate source—not Gutenberg. It matters not that a Gutenberg copy was used in the processThe New Penelope needs to match the Index it is backed by, and once that occurs, the Gutenberg factor becomes irrelevant. I hope that clarifies better? Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
P.S. So, the PG tag doesn't hurt anything while work on the transcription of the Index is being done, but in my mind, the presence of the Index negates the need for the tag in the first place. Not a biggie though :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with what you're saying here. I guess what drives me is a desire to give some credit to the work done by others, which is a subtly different concept than "source." I'm not really satisfied with any of the options so far...lemme ponder a bit?

On the headers: I understand your frustration. Do you have the TemplateScript menu on the left, with the "running header" link? That's what I usually use. It only works when one of the immediately preceding 2 or 3 pages already a header, but it works nicely. Another option, I bet there is a way to make a bot fill them in...I could inquire at Scriptorium Help about that. -Pete (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: I will check out the "running header" link, if available. No need to worry about a bot. I am just lazy ;) If you would like to give credit to Gutenberg editors for their part in the process of matching to the Index (original source), you can make mention in the notes section of the edition template. But as for the ultimate source, it should be the Index, IMO. That is what the text is linked to. I will let you ponder :) Sorry if I seem to be making "much ado"... This is a new concept for me, and I am also pondering over it. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


@Peteforsyth: Here is an example of TOC style formatting that does not separate sections into different "tables" (for lack of a better word). As I mentioned in my edit summary at your New Penelope TOC, there are not many/any? editors currently active who know how/desire to maintain the TOC style template. I like it, but merely because it is fairly easy to use. Couldn't tell you how it works. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the example, I'll file it away for when I turn my attention to TOC formatting which may be weeks or years from now :) I think figuring out the poetry stuff is enough of a project for the moment. In the meantime I am happy with whatever you and @ShakespeareFan00: agree on, I trust your judgment(s). -Pete (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Good deal. Taking a break to make dinner. Back in a bit. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I can fiddle with the TOC in the morning, when I have brain power. In the meantime, I can work on some poetry. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


@Peteforsyth: Once linked, I would format thusly: [[The New Penelope/To Mrs. —|To Mrs. {{bar|2}}]] to render as To Mrs. ——. Your call :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

block center formatting[edit]

@Peteforsyth: Hello! Just a note that one only needs to use block center/s & /e when a poem spans more than one page. For poems that solely reside on a single page, you format as shown at this page. Also, I recommend placing the block center template on the line below the poem title, not above.

Thanks, that makes sense. I'm aware that the "/s" and "/e" versions are not needed unless spanning a page break, but I forget occasionally. Do you know if there's any harm? Sometimes it just flows more easily if I can use the same template for (essentially) the same purpose, but if necessary I can adjust.
Sorry I've been absent from the poetry today. I've finally unlocked a major mystery I've been chasing, regarding Victor's role in setting the historic record straight on Oregon's origin as an American territory. Very satisfying! So I've been hammering away at transcribing the essential components of that. (I suppose I'm partially driven by guilt...I've done a lot of transcribing of the "wrong" version, and feel compelled to make sure that the "correct" version is adequately represented here on Wikisource...such is my compulsive nature.) -Pete (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: RE: "harm"... there is no harm (that I am aware of), other than setting an example for newer editors who may alight on the page in edit mode and assume that is how the formatting is done. Of course, then you'll also have me come along and validate and make the correction anyway ;)
Good to hear you are unlocking a mystery! The rabbit holes that presents can be fun and educational! Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


@Peteforsyth: One thing I do (that you do not have to do) is, for poems with only one level of indentation, I merely use a single {{gap}}. For poems with multiple levels of indentation, I more closely resemble the image text I am matching, usually beginning at {{gap|1em}}. How would you prefer to format poems with only one level of indentation? I will go back and make changes if need be. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, my instincts were about the same, but I had not thought it through quite so carefully, and I mis-perceived what you were doing. Glad you clarified that, I'll do it that way. -Pete (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok. There are a couple pages I need to fix that I goofed up on anyway :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


I have been neglecting our work on The Muse in Arms - I will try and return to it soon! Carcharoth (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem! I should be back to editing the work again soon as well. Just recently moved. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


It is running in user:billinghurst/common.js and includes RunningHeader, and an assortment of other bits. The other option is you can add it to your "user" section of your drop down menu. You will see in that same js file a few of the templates that I have. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I will explore! But first, forgive me for being dim, but which drop down menu is that? Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: What does the following do, in layman's terms, please:
// RunningHeader
                        { name: 'RunningHeader', position: 'cursor',
                                script: function(editor) {

...and can it be modified/tweaked? Londonjackbooks (talk) 06:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

positionally position: 'cursor' in the header wpHeaderTextbox put append the text {{RunningHeader||}}. For an empty header that is at the beginning. The "name" bit is the label it will use. Scroll down to common fields and you will see that it is grouped to only show in Page: ns: pp. The order of your scripts is their order of appearance.

It is all modifiable, it will be in your common.js. Plus asking nicely is the only requirement for assistance.

Gadget "charinset", top of the gadget list. All those lovely code options. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I like to think I ask nicely, but I usually seek first to understand what it is I am asking about before asking about it :) I will try to copy/paste and play around with my common.js, and perhaps then I can figure out what it is I don't now know enough to ask about :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
What I was seeking. It wouldn't let me add italic wikimarkup within the running header template, but that is relatively insignificant. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Remember that you are within code, so in the script that see apostrophes as code which it uses to group the script, so you adding them raw seems them as script bits, not wiki italics. You need to escape numbers of types of control characters, so add them as \'\'
A question: Is there code that can be used within the running header template portion of the script that would automatically fill in page numbers when the tool is applied? I tried {{rh|{{{pagenum}}}||{{{pagenum}}}}}, but it didn't work. Londonjackbooks (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes but no. That is better put into the header field of each Index. Trying to get it know the page number of some page that your visiting depends on many factors, so nothing reliable. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: When working on an Index, one of my first priorities is to fill in header/footer info at the Index. These tools I have requested from you and Pete are only desired with pages that have already been saved as "not proofread" without header/footer info having been saved. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Generally when you are at a Page: it knows its .../nnn, it knows nothing about Page numbers as drawn from the index page. We can always force some maths using parser functions though that would you to amend it for each work, and hoping that it has consecutive pages, etc. Bleh! Willing to teach you if it is of value to you. Not something that I bother doing. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it would generally be unnecessary. I concur with bleh. Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
You know that I love to empower, I also know that scripting is painful, and an area where one can lose too much time being belligerent. So think that this is ask early, ask often area. Never be afraid to ask Pathoschild as he is very comfortable and seemingly willing to assist. Recommend identify it is you want to do. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)