User talk:Londonjackbooks

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Interpret, then; for we, it seems, are dull.

—from "Merope" by Matthew Arnold.

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

Userboxes
USMC logo.svg

This user is a
MARINE
Wife
of 26 years.

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
"Awards for participation"


TALK[edit]

Image files of missing toolbars[edit]

Hi. If you no longer need them, can I delete the image files left over from the missing toolbar affair listed here? Just cleaning up.— Ineuw talk 05:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure! All of these images can be deleted. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Hi London :) It seems I see your edits on almost every page history I visit, and that you updated my contributions page (knowing that I would be fine with that). For all this and more I am very grateful, cheers. Hope all is well with you, regards CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Doing well, thanks! Some of your uploaded/proofread texts were of interest to me, so I validated, and took the liberty to promote them on your page. Good to see you back editing again. Your contribution and wit have been missed. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Surfeit of Wilkinsons[edit]

Can it be the same person: E. F. Wilkinson and Eric Fitzwalter Wilkinson? Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC).

Yes—I believe it is the same person. Thanks for pointing that out. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I just happened to notice this in passing. This is not the victim of the famously "hushed-up" "mutiny" is he? Sort of ties up with this Commonwealth War Graves Commission entry. (Small world: I recently attended a history lecture where this matter was raised. According to some sources the records are sealed until 2017; according to others they were destroyed after ten years: in 1927.) AuFCL (talk) 04:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Probably the same. "Captain, West Yorkshires" in More Songs—aside from the mis-spelling of Fitzwalter on the casualty page. He was reportedly "killed in action [during the battle of Passchendaele], October 9, 1917" (More Songs...)—five days after Short was executed. more Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Looking into it—"Fitzwalter" might be incorrect... Billinghurst, can you verify whether it be Capt. "Eric Fitzwalter Wilkinson" or "Eric Fitzwater Wilkinson"? I am now leaning toward the latter... Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Is this of any use? If the picture caption is genuinely period then "Fitzwater" is a shoo-in but is your eye good enough to detect if it is a later addition? AuFCL (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't trust my eyes. But this adds to the evidence. Thanks to you and Capt Nemo for the prompting. I'll make the changes & SIC's.
I consider my submission utterly trumped. Yours is much better, and besides WorlCat seems to have made its choice as well. (On a personal note I also stumbled across another researcher looking for connections with the mutiny...casting around for a good word...target, threatenee?) AuFCL (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Do you know how to add a book from Hathi Trust to Archive.org? or directly to Commons as djvu? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that one of @Ineuw, @William Maury Morris II: was able to do this if it was needed. I am unsure of who else had the access. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I wish I knew how to import whole books from Hathi Trust rather than page by page, and being outside US also limits the number of books I can access. Captain Nemo (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
No problem, thanks... I still have much on my plate. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

FreeBMD
Births Mar 1891
Wilkinson Eric Fitzwater Rochdale 8e 29 Scan

billinghurst sDrewth 01:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
It would be useful to put this research and links onto the author's talk page. It is how I have been recording such information, and then transferring to WD as required, and becomes my reference point if there are any questions or contesting of ideas. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Some done, thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I really tried. Although I am registered with Hathi Trust, they gave me no access to this book and the book doesn't exist in a Canadian Library connected with Hathi Trust/Worldcat, and neither does Internet Archive. However, I am hoping that @William Maury Morris II: has better luck. — Ineuw talk 12:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for trying! Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
A few moments ago I was alerted about this conversation via my "Brother Officer" AOL account. I can download and am willing to get that book for you Londonjackbooks It is on Hathi Trust. It is about 90 pages long and will need some work done on it to remove all "Google" and "University of" watermarks which I have done on very large works. I did one for dear ole Hesperian in parts and another (plates) I sent to Ineuw page by page via private e-mail specially for good ole Beeswaxcandle re: illustrated color Flowers. Ineuw, "ping" I don't hear nor am I notified by it. Please let me know something via here or AOL. My brother officer email page shows on Wikisource. Kind regards to all, William Maury Morris II. —Maury (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Appreciated. At your leisure. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Londonjackbooks, I learned that Hathi Trust no longer allows .pdf downloads, whole books or individual pages in PDF format as they once did. Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
No problem; thanks for trying, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Londonjackbooks, I found that I can download every page in an image format (PNG). Then all watermarks will have to be cleaned to remove those markings & Adobe Photoshop can do that. They next can be combined into a .PDF file, and next that would need OCR'ed to get a text layer. I recall that you scanned your own hardcopy of a book and would have (I guess) OCR'ed that book. There is also an image of an army officer facing front vs side. So, do you want the book images? The book is, I think, a fiction book. Can a person just upload images and then transcribe them on Wikisource? Will that text "transclude"? In any case I can download each page image. —Maury (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I have created several books page-by-page as you said, and it is very tedious. My heart is not in this particular text as it was the others to be so ambitious as to work with individual pages again, but thank you for being willing to help! Perhaps it will pop up on Archive.org in the future. I'll keep watching... To answer your question, Yes—you can upload individual images to make up an Index. Transclusion is a little different, however. An example is Index:Earle, Does Price Fixing Destroy Liberty, 1920 ... It was a lot of work, but well worth it. Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Validating Images[edit]

Londonjackbooks, if you will alert me to images you want validated I am willing. Collect a handful and then let me know the pages. I work with images and know how difficult it is sometimes to get works validated. Post them here. I'll check back to see if you have listed any. —Maury (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Morris. I added images for User:Akme for this text. I believe they will eventually want to resize the images (I have only left them as thumbnails), but the pages will at least be more easily identifiable as image pages if they are validated. Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Stevenson's poetry[edit]

Thanks again for your work on RLS' poetry. Just wanted to ask why do you want to add a poetry volume from (the second) Vailima's edition. As RLS collected works go, both Vailimas is not among the best available. Even Biographic edition is of more interest. Any poetry there which is not in collections already here? Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC).

@Captain Nemo: I am open to suggestions, but yes—if you take a look at Stevenson's Index of Poem Titles, many of the poems that aren't yet linked to (in black, other than the Ballads) are available in the Vailima edition. There are around 40 or so, and I haven't found them elsewhere online. If you are aware of any other source that is available/more desirable, that would be great! I'll suspend proofreading until I hear from you. Also, we do not yet have Ballads hosted. If you know of any good editions available online, could you point me to it/them? I am not well versed on Stevenson, but I have come thus far, and would like to see it through... Any input would be great! Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I am slowly digesting my humble pie:) The 2nd Vailima supposed to "suffer from Lloyd Osbourne's careless transcriptions". That may well be so (and Fanny's intro is lifted from biographical edition) but it seems that its poetry volume is extremely good in terms of hitherto unpublished pieces. So your choice was excellent after all! I cannot find the 1st edition of Ballads (by Chatto and Windus) anywhere, but Scribner's reprint (seem to be the same plates as C&W) has two good copies in internet archive: [1] and [2]. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC).
Great! Thanks much for looking into it! Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

2nd opinion[edit]

Hi. I replaced the text at The Happy Prince and Other Tales/The Happy Prince with pages you validated (cheers!), and the rest of that work. Your opinion on the display and my explanation on the talk-page would be welcome. Tak, CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday I noticed the double-hyphens in the Index pagelist which looks odd in the Main. I would reduce it to one. In the past, I have chosen not to transclude some matter (actual page 1, for example) if it is redundant in the Mainspace. In my opinion, it is more pleasing to the eye without it there, but that might go against "faithful rendering". Other than that, maybe more spacing between text/images at the MS title/toc page using [double space] {{nop}} at the end of the Index:Pages. I read the story first time in 2006, and gave it to one of my children to read. Liked it the second time around too. Thanks for uploading. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't think of that, I added double hyphens for my own convenience (a bigger target). I can remove them now, thanks for noting that. I have read some of it before, will do a smooth-read to catch any other errors. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Missed the Talk page bit... Will read now. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
To add, I generally don't like {{page break}}s, but if you keep the redundant titles, it is logical to keep them. With regard to the Talk page, I think it was acceptable to replace versions considering edition choices. Your wording on the talk page ("The text for this work currently consists of the following: Some front matter from Index:The_happy_prince_and_other_tales.djvu...") makes it sound (to me) like you have incorporated some of the 1920 version into the 1888 version (which you have not), but I might be reading it wrong. Your use of the words "currently consists" might have thrown me, but you update yourself when you state "I am going to replace the above with..." Maybe substitute the words "originally consisted"? or am I reading things wrong? Also, you want to correct your wording: "I would have done simply done that." That's all I noticed. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I notice you are uploading Chesterton's work on Blake... [Bought] read [sold] and enjoyed that one as well. If I remember correctly, there are no chapters, just one long piece to transclude into the Main. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I find hard to leave out redundant titles, front matter, ads and so on. In the pre-scan days contributors threw away everything, now we add too much of the original. However, I said, the advert I saw for the Crane ed. of Happy Prince worked on me. I fretted over that past and present tense for a few seconds, then found something else to worry about ...
I saw the quote here and have been busy ever since, I love bios on Blake, wanted to read Chesterton, and had forgotten about the index. Thanks for all the comments. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and I'll think about page breaks when I look again. I stopped using them at one stage. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Now wishing I hadn't sold (somewhat recently) my Chesterton copy. It had all the images which I could have scanned & contributed. A very small book in its proportions. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
You should take the credit for this Chesterson text, I wince when I see the things I missed. You caught on, it seems, that the double line and smallcaps are used for larger pauses in the text, but you say that needs two lines (return key x 3) between the full stop and the nop. I haven't been doing that, in this index and somewhere else recently. Have I forgotten how to do something else? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Won't take credit. That's what validation is for. I always hesitate to make note of corrections, not wanting it to be "in your face". Sometimes I make note, sometimes I don't. I wince too, when it is my work, but appreciate finding repeated mistakes so as not to be a repeat offender. But nobody's perfect. Sometime after I worked on the TWP, you had to start leaving two spaces (return key x 3) before an {{nop}} to arrive at the desired spacing in the Main. I went back through that entire text and converted nops to breaks. You can also check out {{Dhr}}, but I don't usually use that template between pages in my work. You haven't forgotten anything, things just change. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I will mark this down as another successful collaboration. This is the second time we've transcluded a completed and checked index, I'm willing to bet that has never happened before. I'm going to have to go over my earliest transclusions and check the spacing, a good opportunity to update the coding and reflect on how my own approach changed. I took break from Carlyle because of end of line hyphens, he is very playful with language and it is not always clear whether it should be retained. If a search of the index doesn't work (realising as I type this that I should have been noting them somewhere), I compare what other editors have done by googling it. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
It was a good re-read. I like Chesterton's humor/take on things. Looking around, I noted he wrote a piece on Carlyle as well, mentioning hero worship. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Marlborough and other poems TOC[edit]

(Please pardon a minor piece of advertisement.) In case you are interested I made a trial reformatting of the troublesome Contents table "main-space equivalent here. To see the "Page:"-space equivalents scroll upwards from that point. Any thoughts/criticisms welcome. AuFCL (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Some thoughts (I may not be the right person to offer criticism): I can really only speak to output, which looks good to me (with one comment regarding width below). I went to the {{TOCstyle}} template to try to get my head around the input aspect. I would need to play around with variables (right word use?) to get a grasp on how all the parameters (right word again?) behave as they are changed. I have an inkling that I would still be requiring help with construction (much as I do now), and some of the terminology (in the descriptions) also escapes me. I would love to not keep asking for help, and I realize this would require some serious schooling on my part, and time in a sandbox. We all have different gifts in this "body" of Users. I certainly desire the "greater gifts" (if I can misuse the phrase) and don't ever want to take for granted the help/gifts of others... but... Am I being selfish/lazy by remaining in my comfort zone and not delving into the matter more seriously? Probably.
Formatting thought: It would be desirable (for me) to have a width: auto option, if I understand its nature correctly. I don't like to set width, but 100% width is often too wide for me visually. If {{TOCstyle}} is the way of the future, I just might create a sandbox to give it some study. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Please do not feel I have "put you on the spot." The whole thing was at heart an idea of George Orwell III's and {{TOCstyle}} is simply the result of my guessing what he had in mind (before he got too busy on other matters for me to annoy him too frequently for guidance.) I just thought you might be interested in what I was rabbiting on about earlier and yes the emphasis was on output as I know the input format is a bit esoteric at present. My intention had been that the various "model" parameters select styles to apply to various groups of fields—an approach that is only simple when the entire table of contents is so bland that a table would probably work better anyway… Bit of a Catch-22 there?

As to whether this is the "way of the future," the reality is probably not; but I would like to think it might be on the way to "the way of the future?"

P.S. You are quite right about the "width" option. I keep thinking I should put it in but ironically because it is relatively easy to do I always seem to get bogged down in something harder which somehow seems more important! Oh well, next task in line then. AuFCL (talk) 12:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I do appreciate the effort at making tables more user-friendly. If harder = greater, then press on!—but always keep an eye toward us simple folk! Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Two-three points:
  1. Added and tested class/style/width parameters. Sorry it took so long.
  2. If I don't solicit/get feedback then this exercise is going to remain only of use to a tiny circle of people.
  3. "Simple folk" don't unerringly uncover such interesting cases as regularly turn up under your hands. Don't put yourself down!
AuFCL (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  1. It is always at your leisure. Questions: So for "width", would you write "auto"? And, in the assembled TOC in your sandbox, what parameters did you use to make the subtitles render italic? Interestingly, when I change the class parameter to "center", the italic goes away...
  2. I'll always give feedback an honest shot.
  3. Not trying to be self-deprecating. No uncovering or discovering involved, really... The cases merely exist. What is uncovered is my lack of understanding how to solve them, and so I ask for help. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I don't understand auto width. I assumed it would "set" the width to the longest line. Is that correct, or not quite? Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Tweaking in your sandbox, I noted the following:
|width=
|style="margin:auto;"
|class=floatright
renders "correctly" (with my understanding of auto width—which may be incorrect), but with italic subtitles
|width=
|style="margin:auto;"
|class=center
renders 100% width with no italic subtitles
|width=
|style="margin:auto;"
|class=floatleft
renders "correctly", but with italic subtitles

Going to eat dinner, and will probably not be available until tomorrow (if then, but will likely be able to check in); then I will wikibreak until some time next week. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me I stepped away for a while (also a meal.) So here are some late answers:
  • "width" HOWTO: I envisage mostly you'd do things like specify |width=250px or |width=50%. Whilst |width=auto is perfectly acceptable you really would not see much of a (indeed any) difference due to the fact that each "row" still strives to be as wide as possible within the "auto" constraint... which in turn feeds back and expands that "auto" into an effective "100%" which is probably not what was intended.

    On the other hand, scrapping |width altogether and substituting something like |style=margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;min-width:300px;max-width:400px results in a display which never gets too wide and equally cannot be squeezed down—e.g. in a small window—such that more lines wrap around than would (more or less) appear in the scanned page.

  • the italics issue: It took a bit of digging, but insane as it seems there is a bit of CSS code hidden away in the so-called "skin" code common to all of the wikis (WP etc.) the relevant portion of which I shall reproduce below (the best link I could find was this one but despite that the actual filename ought to be something like .../core/skins/common/commonContent.css):
    div.floatright p { font-style: italic; }
    
    So in short you are quite correct: it is an accidental consequence of using class=floatright.
Hope these help. AuFCL (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Whoops! I just realised I owe you a huge apology. I just re-read your earlier comments and realised I had blithely gone off and implemented what I had assumed you meant rather than what you had actually asked for. Unfortunately buried quite deeply inside {{TOCstyle}} are some assumptions which more or less rule out |width:auto as you requested: the primary one being the "table of contents" as constructed is in fact a "list" of tables (one per line)—and as a consequence the choices of having lines wrap around automatically (with justification etc.); and being able to determine the "narrowest overall width capable of accommodating all lines" are currently totally mutually exclusive choices. I shall have to think on this some more... AuFCL (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
O.K. The above apology still stands...but (you knew that was coming of course!)

After going around in circles quite a lot I realised that I actually had bumbled into an answer of sorts for your issue. Now please bear with me because there is a complicated technical solution and that is to apply |style=display:table;margin:0 auto 0 auto. Neat, works but pretty inscrutable.

However do not despair: simply surrounding {{TOCstyle}} with a simple {{center block/s}}{{center block/e}} pairing works just as well and also results in a self-sizing TOC, with very little extra baggage: an extra internal <div> layer, a bit more complicated CSS and that is about all.

The choice is now yours. AuFCL (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

There would appear no "official" means of propagating thanks, but I believe this (User:George_Orwell_III thanked you for your edit on MediaWiki_talk:Coltest.css.) is every bit as much yours as mine. AuFCL (talk) 07:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for finding solutions for self-sizing a TOC. I have made note in a sandbox. I'll give {{TOCstyle}} a shot next text I transcribe. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

TOCstyle experiments[edit]

Hello. I hope you don't mind my interference. I noticed your experiment at Page:Sandbox.djvu/3. I am actually quite shocked that leaving |completing=yes in a standalone block like that even worked. (In fact the parse very neatly sheared away everything that did not "fit" and produced HTML quite different to what I would have expected. I may have mentioned previously the output was normally intended to be a list of short(ish) tables. In fact this removed all of the list directives resulting in a (language fails me!) list of tables... Umm. let me start again: instead of:

<div...>
<ol...>
<li...>
<table...>
...
</table>
</li>
<li...>
<table...>
...
</table>
</li>
...
</ol>
</div>

you actually got:

<table...>
...
</table>
</li>
<li...>
<table...>
...
</table>
...

which just happens to work in this instance.

For future reference the trio |starting=yes, |continuing=yes and |completing=yes were intended to mark TOC segments which crossed from page to page to page; analogous to combinations of {{block center/s}} and {{block center/e}}. In particular |completing=yes assumes there is some kind of initilising code going on in the Page: header area (typically something like {{TOCstyle|header=yes}}).

Anyway nice you are trying things out. I am sure extra bits will be needed from time to time so if you get too stuck please just ask. Probably as you did at template talk:TOCstyle is as good a place as any. AuFCL (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I have permission to use the TOC for this work as a guinea pig. I thought I understood the use of starting, continuing, completing—but evidently not. I am sure I will have questions along the way. Just because what I produce may "work", it doesn't mean it is correct, so I'll likely be asking you to look things over when done. Thanks for looking into/creating the new models. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I have just discovered a bug I introduced (accidentally, obviously) into {{TOCstyle}} a mere about four hours or so after you wrote the above. I only just realised (and eventually fixed—I hope!) it earlier today. The root cause is simple (comparison in dictionary- rather than numeric- order: so that e.g. "10" < "4") but it affected all of the rowN-Mmodel and rowN-Mpageribbon stuff rather erratically and strangely. So if you had any "problem" cases please have a quick recheck (maybe purge the page?) and I trust all will be good again.

Semi-related: more or less through observation of other people using this thing I realised there was a good case to be made for applying styles to ranges of entries (some were getting around this limitation by having tables of contents inside other tables of contents.)

Accordingly I have added the trio of control parameters rowNstyle, rowN-Mstyle (a.k.a. rowNtoMstyle), and rowX,Y,Z,…style which I hope might be useful. Each one accepts any additional CSS (say margin-left:2em) to be applied to each row in the designated range. AuFCL (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I was keeping an eye on the changes being made to Ledwidge's TOC, et al., and thought it best to let you two work things out while I observed and took notes. Why is the addition of a dash necessary on each row prior to the page number (ref link above)? Is it a workaround? Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Whew! I had to go back and check to what you were referring. I would not have made this choice if left to myself (probably because as writer I considered it a semi-failed experiment) but Zoeannl seems to be partial to |model=D?P and that one happens to demand the basic leader "pattern" to be repeated as the content of the field between the descriptive text and the page number. (My personal choice would have been |model=D.P|leadersym=- but the results are near to identical.)

For example:

{{TOCstyle|width=50%|model=D?P|leaderspacing=2em|To My Best Friend|-|27}}
{{TOCstyle|width=50%|model=D.P|leadersym=-|leaderspacing=2em|To My Best Friend|27}}

produces:

  1. To My Best Friend
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    27
  1. To My Best Friend
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    27
—to all intents and purposes identical (even down to the final HTML level.) I trust this makes sense? 124.176.69.2 11:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Pardon. The above was me. I do so love it when the system just logs you out without a by-your-leave. Happens about once a week here—just uncommonly enough to catch me out every time. AuFCL (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Gerard Manley Hopkins[edit]

Hi, I see you've done a lot of work on the book of his poetry. A bit of a challenge to format! I'd been doing poetry elsewhere and wondering how to wrap long lines of verse with a nice hanging indent, without leaving ugly gaps between the lines. After much template-searching I came across a pretty easy way to do it (which it turns out you were involved in developing), decided to practice on a poet with very very long lines, and wound up at your project. Hope you don't mind too much. The {{divify}} template seems really handy in cases like this, but it's hardly been used. Is there some reason not to use it? Anyway, could you look at The Leaden Echo and the Golden Echo and tell me what you think? Mudbringer (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mudbringer. Just to give you a heads up, that particular Index is problematic in that it is missing pages (noted on the Index talk page). I have searched high and low to find another first edition online/for sale in order to fill in the blanks, but to no avail. First editions are in the thousands of dollars, and any library leads I have followed left me empty-handed. For now, at least, I would suggest not transcluding any poems into the Main. This index is on my backburner list of things to do, and were the missing pages to be "found", I would happily complete proofreading (welcoming your input as well!). I prefer using the {{block center}} template with breaks when formatting poetry, and shy away from the poem tag; but it does seem prudent to address possible line-wrapping issues that long lines present. @AuFCL: might be more familiar with the {{divify}} template, and @Beeswaxcandle: might offer a better opinion on its use—or some other method. Apologies for my lack of opinion-offering on your work, but it is due to the technical nature of the formatting that I defer. I will watch this thread with interest, however. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi folks. I was involved in {{divify}} and yes it was an experiment in semi-automating poetry formatting long since abandoned as a bit of a developmental blind alley. (If I recall it was something like coping with drop-capitals was the final straw when it was realised the possible design bloat would rapidly become unmanageable?) At heart this thing worked in the (slightly crazy) observation that saturating every line with its very own <div>…</div> enclosure (thus the "divify" moniker) sufficiently confused the mediawiki parser into not fooling around further with lines you the editor had already crafted. It was really <poem> by other means and as such not really much of an improvement!
Credit to the ever-modest Londonjackbooks for eventually developing the {{block center}}+<br/> method which I am sure she will further endorse (In short there are numerous ways of solving this problem and the biggest issue boils down to deciding which of them is least ugly and most easily remembered.) There appear to be eternal developer promises to address the basic problems of the poem tag but last I checked they were still bogged down in a three+-year argument as to whether to call it <lines> or perhaps something else. In short, breathe-holding is not going to be real good for your health. Hope any of this helps. AuFCL (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
[Speaking realistically and not modestly, I don't believe I have had any hand in method-development here. If my "name" is in any template history, it is for correcting a typo or something :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)]
Thanks for the feedback. I can't see where there's a serious problem in the djvu file. The pagenumbering is a little out of whack, but the section of poetic fragments ends on p. 90 exactly where it does in my copy of the 4th ed. on p. 199, then there's the two manuscript images (not in the 4th ed.) and then the Editor's Notes. ... On second thoughts, I can see where the use of divify is confusing. What it does is replace invisible newline characters with visible <div></div> tags (which ironically no one ever sees unless they look at the source of the resulting page) and it's sometimes impossible to see in the editing space whether there's a newline character or if the line is just wrapping itself. That bit me and on the first try I wound up with the word "death" isolated on a single line before I fixed it. The same problem occurs when using the <poem> tags. So maybe it is better to make things more explicit, albeit more cluttered. Mudbringer (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Some history on the missing pages: I've looked at the book and pagelist in detail. There appears to be a facsimile image missing between 70 and 71 (or the second blank page shouldn't be there). This is because pages have to be in pairs. I'm not sure that poem #72 does end on page 90. This is because of the asterism at the bottom of that page. Bridges seems to be using asterism to indicate a break in the text, and hasn't put it at the end of any other fragments. Also, the footnote at the bottom of p86 says that the facsimile is "after p. 92." So, yes, pp 91 and 92 are missing from this scan. I don't know what to suggest at this point. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Also, take a look at the last page of the Notes at the end of the book. It references poems 73 & 74, which do not appear in the Index. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

display check[edit]

I noticed something odd, I'm hoping it is something wrong with my browser. A page you proofread showed a new paragraph, but I only found a single return when I went to validate. I played around and found that one new paragraph is inserted when the line breaks have not been removed.

Can you tell me what you see at this page, CYGNIS INSIGNIS 10:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Just alighting on the page, the last line shows a new paragraph. I proofread a page yesterday where I missed a line break, and I noticed the overlook after I hit proofread because it showed a new paragraph where there should not be one. It used to often show up in the Main, but not in the Page namespace. Is that what you were referring to? Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that is just what I mean. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Is it problematic? I have transcluded three of the non-proofread pages to a sandbox (leaving line breaks), and it renders with no undesired new paragraphs... Am I missing a technical aspect? Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: I reverted myself here, and left the overlooked line break... but it has no similar effect in the Main (p. 215). Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for testing what happens after transclusion in main. I don't want to sing at you about technical and social aspects of changes like this. I am enjoying Yeats on Blake very much, did it cast some light and shadow onto your reading about theopoetics? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Funny you ask; it did bring it to mind, broadly, although I am still trying to grasp the concept. My comprehension being dim for a spell, I am in the process of working my way through it by slowly re-reading Wilder's Theopoetic as mental exercise, and trying not to be too overwhelmed by what I don't understand. "Before the message there must be the vision, before the sermon the hymn, before the prose the poem." Clear and true enough; but I might add, "before the Wilder, the intellect." Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
...Meaning (if it was unclear), before [reading] the Wilder [requires] the intellect. Reviewing a letter Coates wrote to Wilder, she appeals to him: "While remembering that poetry should be sensuous [as opposed to intellectual, I suppose] and impassioned, 'gnomic and divinely wise', do not forget that it should also be simple, and deny yourself the privilege of too many rare and aristocratic words." I am of the same mind with regard to his prose. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The meaning was not unclear, but thanks for the elaboration. I would be interested to see how these poets responded to her criticism and suggestions ... if they did. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
There was at least one example where her words impacted Wilder's thinking, and that was in a letter (1924) where she quotes, "We judge of a man's wisdom by his hope" (from Emerson, I believe). He later addresses this in an article in 1952 stating how he had puzzled over the aphorism, but then goes on to work it out... He also wrote a poem in 1923 ("The Vision of Purgatory")—dedicated to Coates—describing

...I learned how hope could conquer circumstance
And vault the phantom barriers of time,
I learned to mock the incidence of chance

And wait each true conjunction at its prime...

...And through the somber western copses driven
The fires of sunset pierced that nether grove
Where loitering spirits, chastened and new shriven,

Won absolution by a lake of love...

...And after purgatorial pains and trial
Took convalescence in that dim asyle.

The place of composition was Birch Island, Upper St. Regis Lake... near the Coates' summer home, "Camp Elsinore". Mrs. Coates resided at her summer camp that same year, so I will assume they had visited one another—perhaps initiating their conversation on hope, among other things... Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
"I learned to mock the incidence of chance/And wait each true conjunction at its prime" is reminiscent of Jung's Synchronicity... Just proofread Yeat's "Magic", and what comes to mind comparatively is the distinction between waiting [for the "true conjunction"] and that of conjuring; the one is inspiring, whereas the other is just plain unsettling. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Shelley edits[edit]

Hi!

Thanks for working on and standardising The Complete Works of Shelley. The reason I'd done some work there a few years back now, was really just to get the "Fragment of a Ghost Story" (here, with another work at The Prose Works of Shelley) transcribed, as it is one (albeit the least) of the infamous ghost stories of the Villa Diodati, along with Frankenstein, The Vampyre etc., of which this year is the bicentenary of their creation.

As such I wanted to be able to transclude it, and so had sectioned it (along with the others as I wanted the entire page proofread), and (I think) given it its own main space page, both of which (sectioning and page) are now deleted.

You've got me wondering what your thoughts and plans for this work are, and if you had any advice on the best way to keep the poem in main space? Thanks. --YodinT 13:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Yodin. I have decided to create Mainspace pages for this work based on sections of the text as portioned out in the TOC. So "Early Poems", "Poems written in 1816", etc. will include all the poems contained therein. Therefore, the titling convention that was originally created for two or three proofread poems is no longer being used. As it was, the original transcluded pages had no content, if memory serves. "Fragment of a Ghost Story" is transcluded (you have to scroll down a bit; I may consider using anchors here)—it just appears along with the other poems within the same section, with titles being redirects to their corresponding pages. Hope this explains things sufficiently? Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I understand completely, again thanks for looking at the work as a whole, and I'm sure your decision is the right one. One of the things I love about Wikisource is its live & let live approach, so I hope you wouldn't mind if I resectioned just Fragment, and transcluded it as its own main space page as well (as Fragment of a Ghost Story), if I get around to making some kind of mini-sub-portal in time for the June anniversary? Otherwise, a specific anchor (rather than the current page anchor) wouldn't be the end of the world (though, in my opinion, not as good as having the work as itself transcluded, which would also allow for categorisation of the poem, rather than the entire section). --YodinT 13:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Not necessarily the right decision, but an alternate one anyway. I see no problem with giving "Fragment of a Ghost Story" its own page, although others might see it as redundant. But we would need to convert Fragment of a Ghost Story into a versions page pointing to the two transcluded "versions" (even though they are in actuality the same version), and your version would have to have a disambiguated title. These are just my thoughts. Others might have a better solution. Perhaps you could go this route and transcribe the poem without transcluding it and titling it "Fragment of a Ghost Story (unindexed)" or some such title? Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Cheers :) --YodinT 16:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
To add that if you go the unindexed version route that you also include edition information on the Talk page. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

admin[edit]

Good morning,

I've closed your admin nomination as successful and granted you the bit. Good luck!

Hesperian 03:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S. If you have any other access or language skills can you please update the table at Wikisource:Administrators#Current administrators? Thanks, Hesperian 03:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Congrats! Pages will look a little different, with some new options in drop downs, or the appearance of check boxes, or listings at Special:SpecialPages. Expectations on use, are where your comfort levels are. It is near impossible to break things, and there is WS:AN and each fellow admins talk page available for questions. There are usually no new questions, just answers in need of a home. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you :) Feel free to nudge me if any task ever presents itself that you think I could handle. I'll take a look around! Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Happy to have you as admin.— Mpaa (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Mpaa :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Index:Canadian poems of the great war.djvu[edit]

Hi. Stumbled on this work while doing maintenance. Not sure whether you knew that was here in its form. So waving it, nothing else. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I have stumbled across it a time or two myself. I'll put it on my backburner list, and maybe set to work on the TOC and a page or two. From the Talk page, it looks as though quite a few authors could stand to have their names added here along with their works... Which reminds me to familiarize myself with adding {{authority control}} to author pages as well. I am unfamiliar with the template and with how wikidata works, etc. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hint for moving pages[edit]

Hi, when you're moving pages and don't want to keep the redirect you now have an extra button on the "Move" page. If you un-tick "Leave a redirect behind", the redirect will be suppressed at the same time as the move. It's a small thing, but does save you an extra step. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I was trying to figure that out (a small thing, but I tend to overthink): So, if I move Title/Chapter I to Title/Chapter 1 without leaving a redirect, in what state will Title/Chapter I then exist? It will still need to be deleted (if desired), correct? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The deletion happens quietly in the background. It shows up in the deletion log against your name, but you did it all in the action. The original title will now not exist (redlinked). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. A further hypothetical (sorry!): If A Poem redirects to Title/A Poem, which I move to Title/Poem, A without leaving a redirect, I still need to update A Poem to point to the new title, yes? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, all links to the old title need to be changed to point to the new title. Unfortunately, there's no automatic way of doing that. I use the "what links here" tool to get the list before moving a page and then use that list after doing the move. I put the list in a separate browser tab. However, if you've got a long list of links from pages outside the book, then the old title should probably be left as a redirect. That said, we do try to avoid "double redirects". So, coming back to your question, the redirect at A Poem needs to be updated either way. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
You have not confused... I was just musing over how succinct your responses are, and I am appreciative. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Footnotes within page-spanning footnotes[edit]

Thank you so much for collecting thoughts and solutions to the sticky problem of footnotes within page-spanning footnotes. You have saved my time, my morning, and my sanity.

You can see the implementation on Dramas of Aeschylus (Swanwick)/Persians in footnote #9. I have also applied a {{bar}} because (a) the notes would have been visually lost, and (b) the source used something like that anyway. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Glad the notes were useful. It is all very confusing to me, and I referenced them constantly when proofreading Byron's works. I will add your implementation to the notes as an example. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

A meta-thanks (would that be thanks²?)[edit]

—for Page:Appeal to the Christian women of the South (Grimké, 1836).djvu/6. No doubt you have already seen my note to WMMII? As you have probably figured out I have been indulging in a glacially-slow rework of pages containing misplaced {{hws}}'s—by no means completed but the end is coming delightfully in sight on the horizon.

So it should not be a surprise that I should eventually encounter Maury's plea to yourself, and subsequently to be thanked for what turns out to in fact be upon reflection to be an utter no-brainer. AuFCL (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@AuFCL: spurious --> nefarious. What was I thinking? Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
D'oh! I missed that completely. Let's just share the blame? AuFCL (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
It's all good! Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@AuFCL: If it's any consolation, I have been rightly humbled into being more cognizant of my obvious inclination to err in matters {{hwe}}. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh please don't be. Just because I have been indulging a monomania for this single issue should not be taken personally! At my last count only 13 more pages to go, and not one of those looks likely to have been "one of yours." (Take heart from the fact I was a bit nervous dabbling with the Stedman pages for fear of incurring your ire…) AuFCL (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes. My ire. Hmm... Reserved only for special offenders (even then, not worth fussing about)—not those genuinely trying to be helpful. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Proofread of the Month[edit]

Your including mentioning me above was no doubt very sweet but up until that instant I was unaware I had contributed to PotM at all. Presumably this? Purely accidental I assure you: believe it or not I only spotted that whilst on a hunt for errant {{***}}'s, since abandoned. AuFCL (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

That's the one! I pinged every User who has participated (great or small) thus far in the update. Didn't want to be excluding. Don't be surprised if you are given an award at month's end too for your efforts :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh no! I doubt I could bear the shameful besmirchment of þe old family escutcheon! AuFCL (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
You can take it like a man (this came to mind, but it is probably against policy) or refuse the honor :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@AuFCL: In hindsight, if you took offense to my comment above, I apologize; at the time I was under the influence of Agnes Repplier's writing and had watched a motivating (not motivational) video... Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The Fables of Florian (tr. Phelps)[edit]

I made a couple of changes related to this book. The first is a translation page at Fables of Florian. I'm not certain it's formatted correctly. The French title doesn't use "the".

The second is a change to the title appearance and page number spacing on this one poem. The first page number was overlapping the header block, so I shifted it down. I also simplified the title. If this looks like an improvement, I can buzz through changing the other poem pages some morning. If not, I'll undo it. Outlier59 (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. This sort of edit can be confusing, because you "signed" it before you did the edit to the additional pages. Outlier59 (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I was not seeing what you spoke of with regard to page number overlapping. I removed a single line space, and all looks ok to me?I see no problems with "cleaning up" titling if you wish to do so. Apologies if my edit was a source of confusion. I am going through the text little by little, and instead of adding a new line to the thread each time, I merely overwrote. I will update my signature in future edits as well. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The overlapping might be a browser quirk. I see it in this month's Featured Text also. I won't worry about it. Outlier59 (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Poems (Coates 1916)/Volume II/Index of First Lines[edit]

In this work we have a local generated version of two volumes rather than the transcluded version for the second volume. If we are not going to transclude those pages (nos. /285 to /294), then I will mark them all as "not transcluded", though wanted to check that was the purposeful intention prior to so marking. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Now transcluded. I did not realize it was not so already. Must have been my way of prepping for the 'complete version' of the Index, and I failed to follow through with transclusion. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Magic. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Wikisource Barnstar Gold Hires.png

Thank you for your work, on WikiSource and elsewhere. Not just from me, but also on behalf of all the other people who have enjoyed reading your contributions, and those who will in the future. I especially like the quote: "no good, once given, can be lost". The Quixotic Potato (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Sharing Mrs. Coates' poetry, which has meant so much to me through the years, remains my primary goal here. Her messages are timeless and universal. Someone recently thought to nominate an image of the poet as a candidate for featured picture. Little by little :) Have a great day! Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

nice blog post[edit]

"Why I proofread poetry at Wikisource".Lingzhi (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Index:The Recluse, Wordsworth, 1888.djvu[edit]

I finished validating it. I updated the index page; is there anything else I'm meant to do at this point? Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the validation, and for correcting my oversights! I believe all is in order :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)