User talk:Londonjackbooks

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"...You haven't any pride at all. The way you run when he whistles and wait on him! Why don't you shine his shoes?" "Because he hasn't told me to," she answered. ~from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

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 29 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)

alignment of "poems" within poem[edit]

@Peteforsyth: I'm never good at correct wording, so please bear with me here: The original work shows each "poem" within the poem (The Poet's Ministers) to have its own alignment. If all "poems" within the poem were wrapped within the same block center template, they would all be aligned similarly. So I have treated each "poem" within the poem as an individual poem. Also, I am thinking of adding more space between the end of one "poem" and the next (for that poem only). Two line spaces seems excessive, so I'll probably opt to use {{dhr}}, which I try to use sparingly. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Got it. And, more to the point...congrats to you, and to us! All the poems proofread. Happy day! -Pete (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: It did make a good day better. Progress is good :) Shall I move on to her next volume? I will need to resume work on The Muse in Arms again as well, which I have been neglecting. But first, Mainspace page & poem title redirect creation. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I would be delighted if you wanted to continue on the later volume (or, potentially, the much earlier one, which seems to have less overlap]. Or, work on the stories in this one, to complete the book. Any of it would be enjoyable, but I don't want to take you away from work that's more important to you, so whatever feels right to you is fine with me. I'll take a look at the Muse in Arms. -Pete (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Been working on The Muse in Arms with User:Carcharoth, who has requested to proofread the section IN MEMORIAM specifically, and other sections generally. I have proofread several WW1 poetry works here. The poems are close to my heart. My favorite work to have proofread, for several reasons, is A treasury of war poetry, British and American poems of the world war, 1914-1919. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Poems by Frances Fuller Victor[edit]

@Peteforsyth: Wondering if you are sold on titling the above work the way you have it, rather than, say, Poems (Victor) since I believe the actual title is merely Poems. Most of our titles here under the disambiguation page Poems are titled in this way. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

That's fine -- I should have looked around a bit to get a sense of how titles like this are handled. Do you want to move it or should I? -Pete (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: I'm back. Sorry for the delay. I can move it, thanks :) Is it the only volume by Victor out there you are aware of with the title Poems? Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the three volumes I've mentioned to you are the only ones I've seen mentioned anywhere -- I'm pretty sure that's it. So "Poems (Victor)" should be unique unless there's another poet named Victor out there. -Pete (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you sir :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Hanging it up for now, but as I proofread "The Old Man's Favorite"—I thought to ask if any of Victor's poems stood out among the rest to you yet? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for asking (and, it looks like there was a misprint in that poem -- two stanzas run together!) I feel that I'm mostly just beginning to absorb her poetry. He and She is poignant and compelling...I enjoyed several of the season-themed ones, and Polk County Hills. It's still a bit hard for me to bridge the distance between highly-technical Wikisource work, and the kind of receptive mind that seems necessary for reading poetry. But I'm enjoying the process. How about you -- has anything stood out? -Pete (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
p.s. Though it's not what you asked, I do have a new favorite non-poem piece by Mrs. Victor. She led such a spirited debate through multiple newspapers and journals over Marcus Whitman's legacy, and I've found that this, her final (as far as I can tell) word on the matter, to be an inspiring piece of prose...essentially, she stood up to the equivalent of a "cyberbully" of the 1890s, by offering a substantive and thorough defense of her methods and conclusions, while pointing out the lack of etiquette in her opponent's piece. I've enjoyed it very much (though I still have a few paragraphs of proofreading to get through). San Francisco Call/Volume 78/Mrs. Frances Fuller Victor vs. Dr. O. W. Nixon of Chicago -Pete (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I will have to give it a read then! I think I've mentioned before how I believe, with Mrs. Coates, that poems often require more than one reading. However, I don't always find a "receptive mind" necessarily required to 'snatch the breath' either. Funny you mention HE AND SHE—I like how it flows, and I remember reading through it mindlessly while validating when I was 'snatched' by the second stanza. I am not learned in poetry (although I wish I had more of a knack for literary criticism—it would come in handy), but thankfully, I don't think that's a requirement for enjoying it :) I keep rereading SOUVENIR; the last stanza reads well in my head, but the first two throw me off. I guess by rereading I am trying to force a like, but it's just not happening. Anyway, I'll probably get a better feel for her poems after a second run through. Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: P.S. Almost done transcluding all the "newer" poems by Victor... One long one to go. Proofreading OATHS ARE BUT WORDS, the lines

Far sweeter language speaks the eye,
And truer than the pliant tongue

are reminiscent of lines from a poem I wrote after reading Flatland. Universal themes... part of what I like about editing Wikisource is how such things connect and inspire. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts with the newspaper piece, I appreciate your giving that a look. I wonder if my excitement with it seems might derive pretty strongly from how closely I've followed all the related pieces. It's inspiring to me to see how she built a legacy for herself by making a mistake, then correcting it, and then staunchly defending her carefully-researched position from all sides over a period of more than a decade. She was up against some pretty dedicated "good ol' boys."
@Peteforsyth: It took her own bit of dedication... There's much to be said for admitting one's own mistakes, owning up to them and carrying on in pursuit of truth. The words "Integrity" and "Character" come to mind. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Nice work with the newer Poems! I'll get back to it shortly, been trying to keep on top of a couple other projects in the meantime. And thanks for sharing the "Oaths" quote. I didn't realize you were a poet as well, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Oh...and I know what you mean about "trying to force a like" -- I guess I've done a bit of that myself on some of these. Funny, with poetry I tend to assume that if I don't like something, I must not "get" it -- a very different standard from how I consider work in more familiar genres. -Pete (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I'll call myself a poet if I am ever published ;) The poem is posted at Twitter—couple posts down. I like it—all that matters :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: If you wish, you can bring over the book of poems by Victor & her sister from IA to WS. That way I can get her complete poems transcribed here. No rush... I have also continued working on The Muse in Arms again, but I can multitask. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Done, thank you -- I'm very impressed with what you've done with the work so far (especially the alphabetical index page that draws all the poems together -- something I had not previously noticed for other poets, but very useful). Looks like you've got the Victor bug! I didn't get as far as I meant to with Coates yesterday...the Columbia gorge was stunning, I couldn't take my eyes off the scenery. It may be one trip that's better by bus, high up above the other vehicles... -Pete (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Thanks to you for uploading! I have created poetry index subpages for several poets whose poetry I have transcribed here... Byron (biggest challenge), Coates (of course), Matthew Arnold, Richard Watson Gilder, Emily Brontë, Emerson, Alice Meynell, &c.—for some I have also created indexes of first lines. I have an organization bug I think. Glad you had a safe trip & all went well! Coates' poems aren't going anywhere :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Poems of Sentiment and Imagination[edit]

@Peteforsyth: I agree with using the contributor parameter. Do you think we ought to use override_contributor however, and in keeping with the text, use [[Author:Frances Fuller Victor|Frances A. Fuller]]? Perhaps even go all out and still apply author(s) info to the Mainspace pages (see example). Too much? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Either of those options is fine by me! Sorry for the sloppy proofreading of some of these pages, I was working on a small screen and cutting corners! -Pete (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
No apologies. And I will get to adjusting parameters in the AM. Calling it a night. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: I will need to disambiguate several of Victor's poem titles from this work. Do you have any thoughts as to whether they should be disambiguated as The Volunteer (Fuller) or The Volunteer (Victor) eg.? I am thinking the latter (for consistency), and is what I had done with this work's titles, but I hadn't really thought through my reasoning at the time. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Good question, and I don't know the precedents. My inclination is to try to anticipate what will be the most useful to readers. She was published as "Fuller," "Barritt," and "Victor" at different points of her career (disregarding noms-de-plume). She was famous as a poet and author of fiction in the east in the early (Fuller) days, and as an historian in the west (Victor) later in her career. My sense is that her earlier fame was a bit more ephemeral. So I think it's more likely that somebody knowing her as "Victor" would look up her poetry to round out their understanding of her (like my path to this poetry) than the other way around. So I also think using "Victor" to disambiguate is better...but I agree that there's no easy/perfect answer. -Pete (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: RE: TOC: Thanks. They are my least favorite thing to format. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I'm getting better with them,and hadn't been familiar with doing them as a simple table, so it was good practice. Do you know anything about regular expressions? It's a very sophisticated version of search-and-replace, super useful for things like this. If not, and if you're up for learning a little coding,I'd be happy to show you what I know. Or, if you prefer not to get into it, you'd be perfectly justified avoiding things like TOCs...they're pure torture if you can't at least partially automate the process :) -Pete (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Well, now at least I know what regex stands for! That's progress. I have performed simple search and replace before, but I probably won't get into anything beyond what I already understand. Rather than avoid TOCs, I just need to be in the right frame of mind to construct them, and then keep things as simple as possible :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Just know that I'm always open to a request to build a TOC, especially now that I'm getting familiar with multiple formats for them. The more I'm able to speed up a process like that with code, the less tedious. Building out dozens of headers and transclusions and relative links, though...not so much! -Pete (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Noted. Thank you. I like getting things out into the Main and tying things together (transclusion & the like). It's rewarding. But I usually save such work for the morning hours or I make too many mistakes! Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: This page, third stanza, first line. Are you able to access any other version to confirm how the line should be rendered? Otherwise, we need to reproduce it as it shows in the book. Perhaps use {{illegible}}? and mark it as problematic, I think. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

hmm, good question! Good news and bad... Hathi Trust lists five scans, but they all contain what I assume must have been a printing error in the original plate. I checked them all, they all look the same. I'd think going with our best guess (I imagine it's either a comma or a semicolon) and putting a note in the header would be the way to go. -Pete (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: hmm back at you... In that case, I think we should render it exactly as it shows, with no need for a note. And mark as proofread. My guess, due to the length of space between words, is an em dash... but guessing is pointless here, I guess. Thanks for checking, and if you think a note would be useful, we can place one, but I think it is a minor issue, and what would we really make note about it other than that there are characters missing...? Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: My favorite lines by Mrs. Victor so far:

Let it pass!
Or I shall make a lecture, which I meant not,
For I began by talking of the moon.
Ay, let it pass—it is a lesson more;
And daily we learn something of the world
Which it is well to know, though learning it
We tread on thorns where we saw only roses,
And find an ignis fatuus in a star.

Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That's marvelous -- just spotted it. Thanks for calling that one out! I just found move Victor poetry, by the never ends! perhaps all redundant, I haven't checked closely :) I did find one we hadn't transcribed though, Ashes of Roses (which I added to the index). -Pete (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Good find! I have slowly been finishing up Victor's last 2-3 pieces in this present volume. Were there 30 more poems left of shorter length, I would be happier to transcribe than 2-3 poems of longer length... but that is all psychological :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello @Peteforsyth:! I think I have completed Victor's poems, unless you know of more out there that can be brought here? I may continue on occasion, here and there, to proofread her sister's section. I don't like leaving things incomplete :) Power went out yesterday due to a heat wave we're having, and I expect it may again later this afternoon or evening, so I have not yet had that current events discussion due to the disruption, but will keep you posted! Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Wow, congratulations and thank you! Sorry my own efforts with the poetry have fallen off lately...I will continue validating your work. I'm very pleased to have this all on Wikisource, and thinking about the best ways to highlight Victor's work to Oregon teachers as the school year approaches. -Pete (talk) 17:48, 5 August 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)

@Carcharoth: Hello! I have finished proofreading all but the "In Memoriam" section of The Muse in Arms. Feel free to proofread at your leisure. I have much to do with Author pages, version & disambiguation pages, title redirects &c., so there is no hurry. And the work is not going anywhere! You'll notice I have placed "in progress" templates on the "In Memoriam" section pages to let other potential editors know someone is working on those particular pages. As close as we get to "owning" anything here ;) Hope all is well! Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Will return to this when I have enough time, hopefully soon. Carcharoth (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. I didn't get back to this as I had hoped, but may (possibly!) have time again now. Unsurprisingly the recent and upcoming commemorations have drawn me back to this. Hopefully to get a bit more done this time. Peeking at your contribs, I am (as always) fascinated by the obscure and unknown (to me) WWI content you are working on! Such, as Mr. Punch's History of the Great War! Carcharoth (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Hello back :) Punch was a recommendation (among others) by User:Beeswaxcandle for a Proofread-of-the-Month option. I just set it up for proofreading, but it does look interesting. I am interested in reading through a work which was completed recently: "The War and the Future" by John Masefield. I recently attended a commemoration of the Armistice in Lisbon. I took some photos, but perhaps not good enough quality to upload to Commons. I will have to see what may have already been added there. Be well! Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Greetings! I hope all is well with you. I am pinging you because I have been asked by another contributor if they might be able to complete the section of The Muse in Arms that you had expressed a desire to edit yourself. I wanted to give you first dibbs, however, to see if it was something you may still have time for in the near future. Thanks :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2019 (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)
I realise this was probably a waste of my time, but I saw this and was inspired. You may want to try User:BethNaught/retrievePagenum.js: basically it scrapes the HTML of the page listing on the index page to find the page number. You can see an example of its use here: note how the script is imported on line 4, and this makes available the retrievePagenum() function, used in the last widget on the page. (I don't really know JS or jQuery and as this is a webpage scraper it's inherently brittle, but you may find it useful.) BethNaught (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I copied (hopefully correctly) a portion of your script to my common.js file. I opened up an Index:page in edit mode, applied the retrievePagenum script, and received the following message: " says 119 [ok]". That is the correct page number. How can this be applied? Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I take it this is still what you are trying to accomplish? In that case I would suggest replacing the relevant block with
			// RunningHeader
			{ name: 'RunningHeader', position: 'cursor',
				script: function(editor) {
					var pagenumstr = retrievePagenum();
						.append('{{rh|' + pagenumstr + '||' + pagenumstr + '}}{{block center/s}}');
				} },
HTH, although I haven't tested that myself... BethNaught (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@BethNaught: Yes. It worked :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Lippincott's Monthly Magazine[edit]

I've got a contributing author, Eleanor Root, who also contributed to Lippincott's magazine. here in a google-ugly book and I was poking around Lippincott's to maybe put the article in and I was very disorientated without the Index. So, my question is two-fold: Is there a problem with me just putting the article in the right place there, in general and with you in particular?

Also, there is another set of journals, The Youth's Companion (later, The Companion, etc). Not quite 1000's of volumes but after a hundred.... I was happily ignoring it until I read on English wikipedia that it is where the original Pledge of Allegiance was written and published. That should be here, shouldn't it?

I am newish to source and here to pick your brain...--RaboKarbakian (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello @RaboKarbakian:! I wish I could view the Google-ugly book, but where I currently reside, I am not able to view any of that particular text. Ideally, we back texts by scans, but if none are available, you should be able to add the work "in the right place there" under Volume 94.

As long as a work meets the qualifications for being added to Wikisource, you are free to add. For works where no good scan is readily available, you are also free to add—as long as you record source information/licensing. Hope this helps! Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

As long as you don't mind me messing around there. Also, I am very sorry that I posted something that you are unable to view! I have the same problem with much of hathitrust and it truly annoys me.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@RaboKarbakian: I did not even remember that I had created the page! I'm sure I must have copied the format from some other periodical here... Mess around all you like! We are here to improve! Let me know if you have any questions. If I've not good answers, I can always refer you to others who would :)
@RaboKarbakian: Ah good! You've got an Index :) And there is a Florence Earle Coates poem in there as well—preceding one of your Eleanor Root articles by a page! Page:Lippincott s Monthly Magazine.pdf/365 Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I am going to just keep uploading these things. That upload has an unfortunate name; maybe it should be changed before going too far with it. PD documents should be free and accessible. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@RaboKarbakian: It would be good to have all the volumes similarly titled, to include Volume number in the title... There are those here who could move the Index title for you... And also, there are those who think it best to strip the Google page from the original file as well before uploading. I am not sure how that all works exactly, but you could ask at Scriptorium:Help. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
My morning enthusiasm is always greater than my morning abilities. Volume 6 is file number 02! I will just download them then. I understand not wanting the google pages all over the place but remaking the pdfs is going to be a pita, unless they have a thingie that will do most of it. I am going to look to renaming at commons first. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: is there going to be a problem for you to use lippincott that was not first uploaded to ia? I did this for you, actually for me since I can only understand my own frustration but for you because I had access and you didn't.--13:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello @RaboKarbakian:. As long as files are made available here according to guidelines & policy, my main concern is with regard to readability and quality of OCR-generated text. I would advise that if an uploaded text is missing pages, you should not proofread (or mark) any of the pages until missing pages have been tapped in/added. There are contributors here who know how to add missing pages (I don't)—as long as there are other online versions of the pages freely available to be copied.

My main interest in having Lippincott's here would be the volumes which contain poems by Florence Earle Coates vols. 35 thru 95—so while I would happily contribute those, I would not be making much of a dent in transcription of the issues in the big picture—but I appreciate the gesture! Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I only looked at the first pages, but they all matched the location of the image page and the OCR was better than some, worse than others. I wanted to do one plant or bird species at a time. Filling in the works of a particular author is the same in many ways and I only looked at the lippincort because of one author. So, I wasn't dropping a huge unplanned project on you so much as providing the writings of authors.
I can take responsibility for the <pages /> and if you have a volume you care particularly for, let me know and I will do that one.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@RaboKarbakian: Thanks! And please, feel free to begin where you will! Odds are it's a volume which contains one or more of Coates' poems :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I just ran into @Londonjackbooks: circa 2012. Maybe you would like to merge your previous work with the Index? Lippincott's Monthly Magazine/Volume 86 --RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@RaboKarbakian: An interesting time, ca. 2012. I will look to transferring Coates' currently unindexed works to their corresponding indexes. Just a matter of time. Thanks :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

L. E. L.[edit]

Esme Shepherd (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC) Thank you for the L. E. L. poem, I sure you are right although the 'clang of armor' is a bit fanciful! Cape Coast Castle was merely a trading station by the time of her death. The opening quote is from 'Claribel' by Tennyson, who was clearly (although this is rarely acknowledged) influenced by L. E. L..

Text area height adjustment code snippets[edit]

@Londonjackbooks: This is the code snippet to be placed in the common.css for the text editing window. I set it to an arbitrary height of 500px which you can edit to suit.

 /* This is where the user can set textbox preferences of font-size, line-height, font-color background-color and window height */
 textarea#wpTextbox1 { 
    height: 500px !important;

This is the code snippet to adjust the right side window hight.

/* This is the the height of the djvu/pdf original window */
.prp-page-image {
   height: 500px !important;

— — Ineuw talk 07:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Ineuw:... Would you mind applying the first code to my common.css? It was giving me error readings (x's) when I tried. So then I eliminated the comma in the code thinking that might be the culprit, and then only got warning notices... I played with height, but it seemed to be acting funny (long story)... Anyway, it's all in the history. If you wouldn't mind applying the code? Also, what is default height so I have a reference point for sizing the thing. Thank you :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
My oversight. The word preceding the opening brace contained a comma. I removed it from the above code, and installed it as well. — Ineuw talk 19:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ineuw: Great, thank you! I think I have it just right now. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Glad it worked. — Ineuw talk 22:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

When back on deck with time ...[edit]

Hi. Hope that life in a new country is sorting itself out. Would you mind if I park into your task list to review at some point in time

I am not certain what is going where? It seems that we have a facade for one work, and then pages around, and redirects on works, whether we need version pages at least at the top level for the collection, and for some of the poetry itself. Thanks if you can do anything as time permits. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I will have a look in a few days. I knew I'd be back at some point to sort things out. Re: new country: Not much to sort out, absolutely love it here. Exploring Portuguese poetry. Have discovered pt:w:Eugénio de Andrade and pt:w:Teixeira de Pascoaes; I find many similarities between some of De Pascoaes' themes and sentiments and that of Mrs. Coates. Coates was not Portuguese, nor have I come across any mention of Portugal in her works, but she may have had a Portuguese heart. Just goes to show that "all are not strangers..." Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I may be able to look at this in more detail this week. Other than the fact that the one collection (with the Memoir) is incomplete (and in essence a facade), could you point me to what else you feel may be problematic with the other works? I believe appropriate versions pages exist for the poems within the two completed works. Poems linked to within the incomplete work (with memoir) do not appear in the completed works. Could you possibly point me to something specific? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Did I say I might have some time? Rain check, I'm afraid... I posted the reply above last week in case you missed it. Be well, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thought you might appreciate this....[edit]

...I have finally got both of the serious biographies of F. F. Victor from the library...three solid weeks to pore through 'em! Let me know if any mysteries or curiosities poked up in your work, I'd be happy to dig through them in search of clues. -Pete (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: That's great! You must be thrilled. But only three weeks? I will review some of her works again soon to see if I can recollect any questions I may have had while proofreading. Anything offered relating to her poetry (views on poetry, motivation to write, thematic choices, etc.) would of course be interesting! Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Your common.js is going to break (and how you can fix it)[edit]

Legacy Javascript globals, such as wgAction, are going to be removed. I noticed that this will break the contrast reduction code in your common.js. You can fix it by editing it like this.

Also you can remove the block

		{ category: 'Test',
		  name: 'retrievePagenum',
		  script: function(editor) {

if you want, and your RunningHeader script will still work; I'm sorry if I confused you before. BethNaught (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@BethNaught: Thank you. I hope I have made the correct changes... I also adjusted my settings at Meta. There are some redundancies I need to reconcile between the two .js pages, but that's for another day. You have not confused me... I just don't know what I am doing when it comes to scripts. I rely on people like you to keep the machine running smoothly, so—Appreciated! Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)



Any news concerning Koroway-Metelicki? If no, do you see any chance to receive the scans as a paid option?

BTW, this book is missing few pages at the beginning: the front page, the copyright page and all but one pages of the preface. Do you see any chance to receive scans from another copy? (The one from GB/HT/University of Michigan seems to be missing them.) The front page can be found elsewhere, but not the preface... Ankry (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ankry:. Hello. I had been hopeful with regard to the Koroway-Metelicki scans, but was unable to make any further progress with the holding library before we up and moved to a different country. My search results are somewhat limited, but I was unable to find an alternate scan of the Lioness anywhere online as well. Apologies that I couldn't help. You might be able to point to this conversation at the Scriptorium and ask the greater community for assistance? Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Riverside song book[edit]

I have a book, with poems set to music. Index:The Riverside song book.djvu There is a lot of cross-over in the works, I think, with the Poems every child should know.

Also, I wandered into a "that" problem at wikidata, in the title of that book. Poems every child should know and Poems that every child should know. Perhaps I introduced it, but I tried always to paste. I am not sure I can fix it.

I was really wishing for some illustrated versions of this book like I found with the child's shakespeare.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: I often need to have things spelled out for me, and linked to. Can you be more specific about the WD issue? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I am juggling a few things. Q56561564 is the book. It should have a first edition and also, perhaps a serialization if it were originally published in a magazine or journal. The date should be the oldest known publication. There should be a separate version for each different source. Q19038869 is your version. Each version should have a source. The gutenberg version, which I gave a position to has the differently spelled name Q56560841. And, I gotta figure out how to link them....
I would like to put a few songs from here into the poetry collection there.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Items at WD can be merged, if duplication is the problem. I just toyed with tools until I stopped being reverted, reading the statement's own page also helps with adding data. — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 03:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Cygnis insignis: I was focused on other things. @RaboKarbakian: You can find help with merging at WD here if you don't already know/haven't already found it. I suspect there is the added issue of the word That in the title? There was some discussion here a couple years ago about titling for the work. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I am unclear what needs to be merged.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@RaboKarbakian: I'll look at it closer when I get a few minutes. Sorry for the delay. Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

question about Childe Harold's Pilgrimage/Canto IV[edit]

Thanks for your work on,_Prothero)/Poetry/Volume_2/Childe_Harold%27s_Pilgrimage/Canto_IV I wasn't able to find the source. Is there a scanned copy? Do you have a copy? My main question is whether you could check whether the capitalization of "Music" in this passage is in the original:

There is a pleasure in the pathless woods,

⁠There is a rapture on the lonely shore,

⁠There is society, where none intrudes,

⁠By the deep Sea, and Music in its roar:

⁠I love not Man the less, but Nature more

It's not capitalized and there's no comma after "society" here: Thanks! --Espoo (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Espoo:. Here is the source used to transcribe the version here at Wikisource. Hope this helps! Let me know if you have any more questions. Happy Holidays! Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
P.S. Whether it is different in the original original, I'm not sure. I can do some looking around... Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
From an 1818 version at Internet Archive, it looks like "music" is not capitalized, and there is a comma after society. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your answer. I'm very glad i asked even though i felt like a fool when i later saw the source tab on the page whose link i had posted here. I'd been looking at that page in mobile mode and at the main page,_Prothero) in desktop mode, and the source tab is hidden for strange reasons on both of those.
But that tab (,_Prothero)_-_Volume_2.djvu) only got me to (and only after a lot of jumping back and forth to guess where stanza CLXXVIII is), which only has the scan and is therefore much less helpful than your link, which shows both the scan and the current Wikisource version. Is your link accessible from the index page?
Do you know why Wikisource uses the 1899 edition instead of the 1818 edition? I would assume a later edition is more precise because there's been time to find and remove errors. F.ex. it would seem silly to not capitalize "music", arguably one of the most important concepts for poetry, in a poem that capitalizes other important nouns for emphasis. So the uppercase Music in the 1899 edition is perhaps a correction based on that observation or perhaps based on a handwritten manuscript? --Espoo (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
@Espoo: Addressing your questions randomly, Wikisource just happens to currently host the 1899 edition, but should someone come along wishing to upload and proofread the first edition (or some other version), that would be completely fine. There are numerous cases where different versions of the same work are hosted here. As far as capitalization (or not) is concerned, that is beyond my ken I'm afraid. To link to the specific page of the lines in question from the Index page, you would click on the tab for page 457. Is that what you were asking? ... Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
P.S. There is no joy navigating/editing Wikisource texts on mobile :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
P.S.S. I wanted to make sure you are aware (I'm almost certain you are) that when we transcribe here, we are faithful to the original text being transcribed... so whatever the case or punctuation is in the source/version being transcribed is how we render things when transcribing. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Question about "The Muse in Arms"[edit]


I was trying to edit & add the section "In Memoriam" in The Muse in Arms; when I went to proofread the first poem listed, I saw that you were, in 2018, in the process of editing & formatting it, and had therefore put up a notice for nobody to interfere without your prior permission. (I did not check the other missing poems, under the assumption that perhaps they were all like that!)

As that was now a year ago, would you mind terribly if I edited the section in question? Orlando the Cat (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello back :) It was another User I was collaborating with who wished to complete that section. If you are able to hang on for a time, I will try to contact them to see if they desire/are able to resume. Of course, the work is technically free to be edited, but if I may please ask the other contributor what their status is first :) Many thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Orlando the Cat: Hello again! So, it has been a little over a week since I tried to contact Carcharoth about the editing. I have not heard anything back, so I think it would be fine for you to work on the pages. I can follow you up by validating. Please let me know if you have any questions about formatting for the work. I'm a bit of a control freak, and like formatting to match the rest of the work. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Hello back! Thanks for letting me know! :) It's okay if I use the </br> so it matches with the other works in the book, isn't it? Just in case, I will wait until your reply! Orlando the Cat (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately I really couldn't wait (I am quite impartial to WWI poetry), and so I've gone and proofread the whole lot. Greatest apologies if I have neglected an important part of the formatting! Orlando the Cat (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@Orlando the Cat: Ha! No problem... I thought I had already replied, until I just saw that I had not. Thanks for proofing... I'll work on getting the text finalized :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again! Orlando the Cat (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
<thumbs up> Londonjackbooks (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Orlando the Cat: Thank you both for working on this, and apologies both for leaving it and not replying to the earlier messages . It is great to see that the Wikisource work on this book is nearly finished now. I see there is still some validation to do, is that something I could still work on here? Carcharoth (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Good to hear from you! Of course you may help with validation :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
What is the right link/template to put on the en-Wikipedia article at en:w:The Muse in Arms? Carcharoth (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. I am out and about and can't respond at the moment. Will try to later. Thanks :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: RE: link/template at enWP... It should already be linked, via Wikidata and in the left-hand column at the WP article to WS. I might not understand what you are referring to(?) Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I keep forgetting that there is a link to wikisource in the left-hand sidebar if a wikisource link exists. I am too used to looking for that link in the external links. Was there a decision at some point to deprecate those? I think en:w:Wikipedia:Wikimedia_sister_projects#Where_to_place_links is what I was thinking of, and I have made this edit in case people manage to miss the link in the sidebar. Carcharoth (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Carcharoth: Yeah... I liked a link being placed in the external links section, because when one uses a mobile device, the links in the left panel are not visible in mobile view. To me, that is a big deal. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


...anniversary! (something told me this might be timely....) -Pete (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hehe... Thanks Pete :) It was on the 4th. But our "knowing you" anniversary just hit the 32nd mark a couple days ago. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Prodigal son daughter[edit]

wb! — billinghurst sDrewth 10:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, you are over my head as usual, @Billinghurst: Some explanation required :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Just too weird. Return of the ... — billinghurst sDrewth 10:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, it is only natural for things to return, to be renewed. If not the same, at least similar... But now I am probably not making much sense. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Ok, so "wb" is either "warner brothers" or "welcome back"? Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back. <sheesh> Making sense is for lusers! … completely boring, and too expected. Perish that. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, not everyone understands that. And some sense is required to function in this world. As long as I have just enough sense to keep doing good things. :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


Hi, and greetings,

I noticed your post on Beeswaxcandle's talk page about the position of the charinsert and I can help you. Here are two options you can select.

  • 1. Please add this line in your common.js:

This will connect you to my charinsert program code which places the bar on top of the edit window.


  • 2. You can have your own copy of the charinsert.js by creating User:LondonJackbooks/Charinsert.js page and copying the contents of my User:Ineuw/Charinsert.js.

Then adding the following line in your common.js:


Finally, disable these two lines in your common.js - by adding to forward slashes before these codes lines.

// window.charinsertMoveTop = true;<br />
// window.editToolsRecall = true

I hope this helps and if you need more help, please leave me a message. Unfortunately no one but you can edit your common.js page, otherwise I would have done it. — Ineuw (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Ineuw:! I currently have many moving parts in RL, so I won't get to this for a bit. Thank you... It will be helpful in the not-so-distant future :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello @Ineuw:... I have a question about the correct placement of
in my common.js after I create my own Charinsert.js... Do I need any forward slashes/asterisks, etc. before placement? I do not speak the language :) Thanks for any help, if you are available. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. Just received your notice.
No slashes preceding the code. The double forward slashes in the code itself, are required.
FYI: // The double forward slash at the start of a row is only used to disable (neutralize) a single (row) of code or comment. — Ineuw (talk) 06:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)