User talk:Londonjackbooks/Archive 2013

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 2013


Just to correct you on your erroneous misapprehension.

Tenet - a principle or belief - ORIGIN C16 (superseding earlier tenent) from Latin lit. 'no holds' OED . Probably best to delete your derogatory remark in order to stop proclaiming your rabid statement and ignorance of the English language Jack. Norwikian (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 17:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

[EC]:Always afraid to put my foot in my mouth or be misunderstood. Tenent? [?] Tenant [?] Tenet? Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Can't think of a thing to say! Must be due to my ignorance of the Mother Tongue. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Sure you have the correct Century (scroll down for tenet), Jackpot? Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have a 1658 edition of P.E. in front of me and the OED both of which reproduce the word as the archaic TENENT. okay ??!! Norwikian (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2013


Your remark which accompanies the Alphabeticall Table of Pseudodoxia Epidemica reveals just how much Americans suffer from the delusion that the English language originated in America. 18:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


prime example of misunderstanding[edit]

Okay... I thought you were joking (initially), referring to my comment in the previous section about "hesitation." [i.e., 'hesitation' / 'misapprehension'] Then I looked at your recent posting (it's on my Watchpage), and figured out you were speaking of something else entirely. With regard to the latter, you probably misunderstood the history of the dialogue. I did not 'compose' the whole bit above your bit there. I merely suggested the other User sign their comment, and referred them to a source. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Your Simon & Garfunkel remark: "The Boxer" has always been reminiscent of a Jack London novel (none in particular, just the "feel" of them in general). Both have great insight into human nature. But that is my opinion, and you are entitled to yours :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


A little background. If you have a peek at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering you will see that there is a list of css (style) and js (javascript) files specific to each skin, and then at the end of the list is a shared/common file that applies to all. Changing skins means that you have the common files and the particular files for the skin. Much code in these sorts of files is transferrable xwiki or can be utilised from others user space (if you are game). — billinghurst sDrewth 03:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Billinghurst, I follow you (looking at the pref page) up to the "Much code" part—but without understanding what any of it means. I don't necessarily want or need to know the technical details, I just want to edit/proofread. Sometimes I'm game for trying to understand all the technical stuff—but only insofar as it helps me to understand the bigger picture. For the time being, I'm just looking to get my proofreading tools back on the edit bar. Any assistance you can give in that respect would be great! :) Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Update: Problem solved. BWC realized that the Enhanced editing toolbar was the culprit, and I have unchecked it. Thanks for the info on the skins, anyway,—even though it's all cryptic to me ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Un-{{overfloat image}}[edit]

You have new messages
Hello, Londonjackbooks. You have new messages at MODCHK's talk page.
Message added 02:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Index talk:The Pathway of Roses, Larson, 1913[edit]

I am immensely amused the despite your final invitation: "Up to you whether you wish to continue remarks related to the above here or there", you have formatted the copied conversation thus:

"The following text is copied from User talk:MODCHK. No further edits should be made to this section."

which rather suggests absolutely no further correspondence will be entered into.

In fact I am beginning to think the last few days have been a minor test, which I neither know if I have passed satisfactorily; nor even if I should be concerned if I failed. In any case I at least have had some little fun and learned some new things.

Here endeth the tease. MODCHK (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You are reading into things—something I am normally guilty of. If you think I am playing some sort of game, I'm not. I dislike most sorts of games—especially the psychological variety, and I wouldn't do that. In my definition, a "section" is not the whole page... To illustrate... Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
P.S. So I don't have a heart attack in the future, please never assume with me—ask for clarification. And if I'm ever mad about something, you'll know it; but I don't usually get mad, because even then I'm too worried about offending even the offender. Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Also guilty―precisely as charged. Did I not make it abundantly clear I was teasing?
Thank you for leaving the chink open so that I could so indulge myself! And yes, I did choose to misinterpret "section" in this instance. MODCHK (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
In this case, too many lines to read between [scale it back] for one (me) who appreciates humor, but doesn't get jokes. Shut up and edit (is that offensive?). Carrying on... Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the validations, by the way. Because I like to go back and see where/how I have made any errors, I noted your additional note on spelling. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
In (temporary) lieu of "shutting up and editing" (terminology which of course I find deeply hurtful and offensive―but I shall―sigh!―attempt to carry on regardless. DaDa: ¡drama tag!); I note you've been carefully reversing out extra blank lines above Chapter headings (e.g. Page:The Pathway of Roses, Larson (1913) image of page 37.jpg.) I have always considered these start "below" the page text area top margin, and have habitually added blank leading lines nearly everywhere I have seen it. I shall stop doing this for this work only, accidents notwithstanding. MODCHK (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
All is well... It snowed last night :) Re: blank lines: not "carefully reversing out"—I copy/paste the chapter headings for subsequent chapters, and when I did so for the last one or two chapters, I caught the blank line difference(s) and went back and put it as I thought I remembered doing so; then I caught line space discrepancies (which could have been mine), and so went back and adjusted those. Careful & methodical only in hindsight—if that's even possible! Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't be so hard on yourself. "Careful & methodical" in hindsight is a sign of intelligence; in foresight is merely instinctual. Shutting up now! MODCHK (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
"Hindsight is 20/20" as they say; but human intelligence/vision only applies if/when we learn from history. If the cart ever comes before the horse, it is either incidental (perhaps accidental) or the result of Intelligence as opposed to intelligence. My turn to shut up :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding snow: I am envious. Bush-fires to the south, and flooding to the north. What a country! Our forebears (after a few false attempts!) learned to choose their penal colonies rather well. Stuck here as my house is, half-way up an escarpment above a patch of forested hillside the former concerns me most; the latter rather less so. MODCHK (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Sounds a little like parts of southern California. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Penal colonies brings to mind an unfinished book I have by Gregory David Roberts... I always thought Wikisource would be an excellent place for prisoners to spend some of their free time. I'm not being flippant... Totally serious. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Rendering in Firefox[edit]

Curious: How does this render in your browser?: The section beginning "Of all his train..." I am wondering if the text above the strikeout material matches up (e.g., "peasant" with "dark eyed", etc.) or not. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I was not sure how much render area you wanted, so simply captured a screen-full from the point you specified forward. (Let me know if you need more.) This seemed to be the most honest and simplest way of showing how it appears: Media:Londonjackbooks-Braces-etc.png. MODCHK (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
That's close enough, I guess. Never a perfect science. Appreciate the screen capture. Re: fires and floods (rock and a hard place): stay wet and dry as necessary. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Just a thought, but is this more like the result you were looking for? (I was not too clear how you wanted the lines starting at "From Mandevilles' and scribes of similar mold" aligned; messed it up and restored your layout.)

Of all his train there was a henchman page,
A peasant
dark eyed
boy, who served
his master well;

And often would his pranksome prate engage
Childe Harold's
ear, when his proud heart did swell

With sable thoughts that he disdained to tell.
Then would he smile on him, as Alwin

When aught that from his young lips archly fell
The gloomy film from Harold's
eye beguiled;

And pleased the Childe appeared nor ere the boy reviled.
And pleased for a glimpse appeared the woeful Childe.

Him and one yeoman only did he take
To travel Eastward to a far countree;
And though the boy was grieved to leave the lake
On whose firm banks he grew from Infancy,
Eftsoons his little heart beat merrily
With hope of foreign nations to behold,
And many things right marvellous to see,
Of which our vaunting
voyagers oft have told,

From Mandevilles' and scribes of similar mold.
or, In tomes pricked out with prints to monied ... sold

In many a tome as true as Mandeville's of old.

Obviously in a "real" application most of the <span> ugliness could be hidden in a template (in fact I stole the layouts from {{transl}} and {{sup}}!) MODCHK (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Merely as rendered in the original image. Yours does look good, though. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the pointer. Reveals your layout was spot-on all along. In all honesty I don't see there is enough improvement to be worth the rather horrible span directives; but the approach might be worth coming back to if a lot of this crops up somewhere. Any thoughts what the template might be called, if it ever gets created? I am really poor at coming up with names for things like this! MODCHK (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I sug-jest you ask Billinghurst or George Orwell III. I think they like templates. ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Maybe something that is a combination of "superscript" and "strikeout"... Like "supstrike" or "superstrike" or something. If you were being serious. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Serious … yes; vastly premature ― also yes. I think the issue can happily lie fallow until its day arrives; if ever. And funnily enough, the strikeout was the one aspect I had consciously thought should not be "templatised"; on the basis sometimes the upper word should be struck; and sometimes the lower. And possibly neither, on occasion? Templates are, after all, only a tool; and simply because one uses a tool does not prove one is not a corvid? MODCHK (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Can you rephrase your last sentence (with fewer "not"s)? and I didn't get the crow/jay, etc. reference... Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay... I got it. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Milady, the game belies the price of the candle. Even a blackbird of superior intelligence can use a tool. Clear as mud now; and not a single three-letter-negation expressed. MODCHK (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I think any exasperation with templates would have to do primarily with redundancy (more than one doing essentially the same thing) or looking for a template solution (like I did) that could have just as easily been addressed using simple HTML (or whatever). I have no dog in the fight... Whatever renders with the least amount of conflict works for me. Speaking of dogs, the mannerisms of crows always remind me of my dog... and a Dan Fogelberg song (or two). Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The good thing about templates is that they can tidy away a lot of ugliness. However the danger of templates, I fear, is that a lot of ugliness is not noticed because of the nice sugar-coating…
Which reminds me; in the absence of further comment/complaint it must be about time to update {{overfloat image}}. AdamBMorgan agreed there was a minor (and irrelevant to your use) flaw in the existing version; but I am not sure he realised the extent of the additions I wanted to make! MODCHK (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll rely on you to let me know when a best-case solution is reached as far as what template, etc. to apply to the affected pages is concerned. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
So no responsibility, eh? I propose I re-proofread each of the "Rose" framed images again; and if you like the result you might consider validating them. Does that sound acceptable to you?
(I just copied my changes into the "official" template, so if nobody starts baying for my blood shortly I think I shall consider that part successful. Everything I have checked so far seems unchanged (i.e. I am reasonably confident nothing is broken), which is how I had intended it to be at this stage. Why does this seem so furtive?) MODCHK (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Not furtive. Careful. I accept responsibility for everything I do; I just don't always want to do everything ;) I'll await the purple-turned-yellow pages and turn them to green (if the system lets me, and [big] if I like the result). Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

formatting questions[edit]

| item1 = {{italic block|{{fine block|{{justify|{{line-height|1.5|{{hii|1|-1}}<div>''Text text text''</div>
<div>''Text text text''</div>
<div>''Text text text''</div>{{div end}}}}}}}}}}

Above is as rendered (essentially) on p. 5. Questions:

  1. Is my original italic [''] notation even necessary given {{italic block}}?
  2. Why are the <div>s necessary? The page seems to render fine without them as long as you leave a line between paragraphs.
  3. Why is {{div end}} necessary? Does it go along with all the <div>s? or is it for some other purpose?
  4. How is it that paragraphs are rendered indented?

That's it for now... Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw your questions on p.105 and then noticed these. Answers (I hope) follow:
  1. No. You might have noticed I did a double-take and went back to remove the extra ''s. Although it seems to work, I think having a nightmare mixture of '', <i></i> and {{italic block}}s seems to be skirting with catastrophe; and will almost certainly confuse the next editor?
  2. The <div>s surrounding sentences and paragraphs is probably excessive and certainly not clever. In many respects they are playing the part of <p>s, but seem to avoid the leading problems that were concerning Beeswaxcandle.
  3. The {{div end}}s are actually the "other end" of the various {{hii|x|y}}s. Where you have removed them the result seems to work here, but I would not bet some browser will get upset that the blocks don't end properly. (Oops, I used a "not!")
  4. That is what the {{hii|x|y}}s are doing. I thought the multi-paragraph items looked better, the singles probably don't want it at all. Your project; your call.
I like the paragraph indentation; wish it was still universally used. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Does this perhaps explain things a little bit better? MODCHK (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
More to the point, have I answered everything that you wanted so answered (and of course that I am able to answer?) MODCHK (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
So far so good. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the </div> on page 51? Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Umm. To prove that I am an idiot; got distracted and did not clean up the prior version properly. Mea culpa; mea maxima culpa. MODCHK (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Es okay. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Can't say as I agree with the interpretation/translation of the latter Latin. A fault (or blame)—even taken to the max—does not necessarily a failure make. "Culp-a-bility" also contains the able-ness to eventually get it right! Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Scan Question[edit]

My turn to throw a question your way. This is not a criticism; merely intended to satisfy my curiosity. Do you know why the page scans have turned out with such a variety of background tints? Some of them are nearly orange, whilst others vary through blue, grey and even nearly blue-green. I assume they were originally photographs, but taken under different lighting perhaps? MODCHK (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

They are original[.] photographs. I take about a chapter's worth a day usu. sometime in the morning when lighting is best. I can't use a digital camera worth beans, so lighting deficiencies are due to a number of factors (sun behind clouds, shadows off of trees, too much sun, etc.), but the main factor is my lack of knowledge where lighting compensation is concerned; i.e., I don't change any camera settings. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I am impressed. I usually find my attempts to photograph printed pages are defeated by various combinations of:
  1. Shiny clay paper, which reflects flash or natural light.
  2. Tight bindings which curl paper and make sure 1. above shows somewhere on the image.
  3. Lack of enough hands to hold book, camera etc. Three seems to be requisite minimum.
So well done! MODCHK (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Nice validation technique by the way. I charted your pattern two ways (I was bored but not in the mood to edit), and placed together they look either like a double cheeseburger w/ nothing in the center... or upper/lower teeth impressions. I'd take a photo and place it on WS, but it would be way off topic. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
It was entirely accidental. My I.S.P. dropped the connection a couple of times today and I was perverse enough to leave the tabs of the pages I wanted to complete open until the connection came back. So I really don't have any idea in which order I validated the last block, 'though I am not surprised it was rather strange! MODCHK (talk)
Best I can describe it is spiral. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I seem to have set a precedent[edit]

For here and here, and here and here, here and here, and indeed here. here, here, here and here. Oh and here and finally(?) here too.

I am quite sure by now there is simply no way you will ever believe me; but I really never intended to mess your editing life up so! MODCHK (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

One page to go on Kernel and Husk before I have to cook dinner, and you compel me to answer you at this critical juncture? Shame! By the way, I found no pattern whatsoever in your validation technique this time—other than the span of pages that actually went in numerical order. Hoping the subject matter is compelling enough for you (I have mixed feelings with certain matters of content), and thanks for validating & for the formatting help you've given so far. Be well, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Shame is acknowledged―contingent upon the sole condition that you convince me that a comment can always be considered an imperative. I currently fail to see the association. Hope you enjoyed dinner. Untease.
I was deliberately trying to validate in reverse page order this time. Looks like I cannot even get the simple arrangements right! (In fairness, WS did throw up a "our servers are dyyiiinnnnggggg" plea through the middle, so that possibly randomises things a bit as well.) MODCHK (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Completely overlooked your above comments yesterday. Umm... a comment can sometimes be considered an imperative when it is written (and read) as such. Right? Dinner was actually pretty good; thanks for hoping it wasn't. Thanks for validating—whatever order it ends up in is fine with me; thanks for being thorough. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. At no point do I believe I implied I wished dyspepsia upon you. And I certainly did not intend for you to take it so. Consistent failure to take the benevolent alternative may be considered hostile, and may result in lessened cooperation in future dealings. Not appreciated at all. MODCHK (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The sentiment came before the "Untease". Thought that's how it 'worked'? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh,—and thanks for catching the spelling discrepancies... some of which is probably differences between 1st edition & this one. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I did spot a pattern in "marvelous" c.f. "marvellous"; also quietly amused that "centred" appeared. Perhaps British spelling is catching on after all? MODCHK (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
British edition calls for British spelling, I guess. I wonder if the same is true of "The Jacket" vs. "The Star Rover" (London, Jack)? I haven't yet compared the two. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"All is well"[edit]


MotM edit conflict of sorts

I moved the commentary portion of the Creating a YouTube Video to the corresponding Talk page if that is okay. In the process, a post you made was left out of my move, and I don't know where you would prefer to place the comment as things currently stand, so I will leave that up to you... It's okay by me if you wish for everything to be back as it was. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC) </Quote>

Londonjackbooks, whatever you do is fine with me because I know that you are not destructive. —Maury (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Excerpt from Scriptorium Maintenance of the Month section, etc.[edit]

The following was copied/pasted by me from Central discussion and is intended as a personal reference/mental note. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The following was copied/pasted by me from Wikisource talk:Maintenance of the Month/Creating a YouTube video about Wikisource and is intended as a personal reference/mental note. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


Hi, just found this page in Special:LonelyPages. I suspect it's in the wrong namespace, but do you still want it? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Not needed. Thank you, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Just looked at the history; a reminder of an 'episode'. I'd clue you in to the rationale behind the history/creation, but there only exists [a] reason without any accompanying logic. ;) Blah :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Image parameter "upright"[edit]


In the coloured-rule example you recently posed at Scriptorium/Help, I notice from the earliest edit there is specified "upright=.2" (later amended to "upright=.3" specified on the File:/Image: element. Even after reading w:Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial#Upright_images I confess I have no idea what this really does.

Would you please be so kind as to (try to) enlighten me? MODCHK (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You might want to ask Theornamentalist, because I have no idea... I just tweaked it. If you take it out, the image is way too big. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I know I can set the size like I normally do for images, but it 'worked', so I kept it. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I have taken your suggestion and initiated a Theornamentalist botheration. In case you too are interested in the answer (if indeed there is one!), here is the reference. MODCHK (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll take a look at it in a bit. And thanks for formatting some ads for Pathway. To be honest, I was gonna leave the pages as-was (unproofread), but you have inspired me (made me feel guilty)—none of which is your fault. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Regarding adverts.: I must admit (1) You went to the bother of scanning the pages, so why not? (2) I always feel I am being a bit subversive in doing ads & catalogues; and cannot resist rocking the boat a little. And (3) the pages contained formatting which was a bit of a minor technical challenge, which made them fun to do (at least for me.)
No guilt or offence intended whatsoever (I wouldn't dare after the accusation of wishing to poison... Enough said.) MODCHK (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I scanned the ad pages so I could get a good OCR reading from them ( I figured if I wasn't going to proofread them, I should at least make the text reasonably searchable (do search engines like Google pick up Index pages?). Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

"Pathway of Roses" Chapter Headings[edit]

Please pardon the edit clash we had earlier.

In validating "normal" pages of this work, I encountered this situation:

{{center|{{larger|CHAPTER XXII}}


The Infinite is changeless, therefore there is no ...

Bearing in mind you are the very person who convinced me empty leading lines above the chapter title are probably a bad idea; how would you like this situation handled? If you consider the leading empty lines are significant, then the insertion of a leading {{nop}} is appropriate. Otherwise should the blank spacers be removed, so that the first body line becomes the {{center}} directive? MODCHK (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a 'bad' idea (that I am aware of), but not problematic either (to paraphrase from memory a previous comment made by you on another page). It would be my first impulse to remove the leading empty lines; I only didn't because I took you at your word ;) I have no issue with their removal. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of an edit clash. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
O.K. I shall remove the leading blank lines and proceed.
Re. clash: I was pretty certain I wiped out your edit to Page:The Pathway of Roses, Larson (1913) image of page 372.jpg entirely. Please double-check the result is acceptable to you. MODCHK (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't notified of any edit conflict... I saved it as "not proofread", and it saved okay. See? There are only a couple font size differences between my edit and yours (and some weird template spelling) but nothing objectionable. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I think I have restored the font-sizings you made. Surprising you received no notification, as I added the book image and reformatted a lot of stuff into a table for layout. I was surprised considering the changes in parallel how little difference in overall length the results were. This is the change entry I meant (also curious the timestamps imply my edit was 19 minutes after yours!) I presume the "weird template spelling" you refer to is my habit of spelling center centre (it is of course the style around here. Hint: I am being cheeky and disrespectful.)
The main thing, of course, is whether we are both happy with the result. MODCHK (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not picky. The main thing is whether the finished product is true to the original. If that makes one happy, well then, I think we're on the right track! Cheeky is good when amusing. You and Billinghurst made me laugh today. Thanks for all your help. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Bending the topic a little (but probably better than carrying it on in HTML comments): Scanning? Surely you wouldn't want to be ripping pages out of your beautiful book and entrusting them to a mere document feeder? Sacrilege! MODCHK (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
No feeding required; merely placement on a scanner bed. The binding is already in a bad way. There was enough "give" toward the end of the book that I could scan without making things worse. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Seeking for opinion[edit]

Hi LJB. I would like to hear your opinion in cases like this: [1]. The indentation here is due to limitation in paper size. I was thinking what will happen to someone with a small screen, which will require a line wrap. With std methods, the indentation will be lost and text will be a bit cluttered for the reader. I tried three possibilities here, try to resize the browser to force line wrap and see the difference. How do you approach this? What you think is the best? Comments welcome.--Mpaa (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Many Kipling poems I have been working on have the same length issues. I have been handling it like your example #1 (i.e., not handling it). I do like your example #2, however; but that requires a lot of work. Problem is, even a poem that looks like it would fit within a small screen still might be viewed in different (larger) font sizes set by the user (I assume that is an option?), and wrapping would still occur. It's hit-and-miss. Your #2 approach would be preferable. If (dare I say) a template could be drawn to incorporate your markup, it could be used universally for all poetry 'like' a poem tag of sorts (but not, 'cause it would have to work with a poem tag if a user wishes to go that route). Universal use of the markup within a single text would be preferable (for uniformity's sake) so one doesn't have to eyeball each poem and guess if it would fit in a small screen or no... My answer to you is a naive one, and not very technical, sorry :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Please pardon my involving myself; but I have taken the (further) liberty of adding a fourth suggestion. This is the approach LJB/Beeswaxcandle suggested to me for handling the text blocks inside the overlay images (e.g. Page:The Pathway of Roses, Larson (1913) image of page 15.jpg) and degrades somewhere between Methods 2 and 3 as the page narrows (or font size increases)). The wiki coding is somewhat intermediate as well. MODCHK (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Nice. I see two possibilities (with my level of knowledge at least ...). 1) a new template, based oh {{hi}} + the part from {{hii}} used to compute margin {{#expr:{{{1|0}}}+{{{2|2}}}}}em}}}, so that it can be used also to take care of indentation instead of {{gap}}. 2) Or use the fourth option as is, which also allow to avoid {{gap}}. 1) Pro: simpler from the user perspective, Cons: tens of template transclusions per page. 2) Pro: no new templates, only a few transclusion per page, Cons: a bit trickier mark-up to handle indentation, see some indentation based on fourth suggestion.--Mpaa (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
If I might add a couple more cons to method 4: the <div>s are ugly for the editor to have to add and maintain, and semantically are performing the even more distasteful role of telling mediawiki not to further mess around with the line/paragraph formatting. I find it somewhat unwieldy that you apparently have to add code to stop normally clever things (like line leading) happening; and would rather hope somebody steps forward to point out a cleaner way to do this! MODCHK (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, looks like the only option is a new template, to be applied per line, or some smart guys :-)--Mpaa (talk) 08:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I am truly going to regret my poor choice of template name (i.e. {{divify}}); and feel free to laugh (as if you needed my permission!) at my truly sad first foray into Lua-land (Module:Poetry), but here is my attempt at a div-line-wrapping template, and how it might be used. You are both welcome to tear it to pieces (and please-please improve the documentation!); however I might not be able to satisfactorily stitch the pieces back together! MODCHK (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Can you apply the template to In Springtime (the poem spans two pages) for me so I can see how it works? I have placed a stanza break within the poem just to see how you'd handle that as well. The poem will transclude here. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Done. Three additional points:
  1. I added a width restriction to the existing block center to better demonstrate the wrapping effect;
  2. I have also added an alias for the template ({{constant leading}} is probably a far better name from the point of view of what it does, as opposed to how it does it.
  3. Regarding the 'stanza break', somewhat to my surprise the template quietly swallows it! I have left this unmodified so that you can see the result (there are several obvious ways of "fixing" this.) In some respects I think this behaviour is fine in any case; unless a more accurate duplication of <poem>..</poem> blocks is really desired, in which case...? MODCHK (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
(EC) I removed the set-width (I just make my browser screen smaller) and justify... I also think the indent notation (hii) needs to be kept within the body, and not in the footer/header, for the way it was originally (I have moved it since), the second page was not showing indentation (from hii) in the Main (whereas now it is). What would the best (and simplest) way to handle stanza breaks be? for the template doesn't recognize manually spaced (2 carriage return—if that's the right terminology) breaks... Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Quite rightly so (removing set width and justify.) My mistake for complicating matters with my own experimentation!
For genuine stanza breaks I would simply end {{constant leading}} and restart it after the break, on the reasoning that leading is no longer constant over the break.
I am concerned regarding the need to move hii out of the header on the second page for Main to look right. That definitely sounds like a problem. I know that the new template tends to "take over" any wrapped hiis and can destroy indentation of the left margin. I am afraid this new toy still has some "sharp edges" and may need a bit more taming for civilised use. MODCHK (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Still, it's a good start. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Please have a look now. I've put the hii back into the headers, and unprotected the stanza break. The transcluded page at Departmental Ditties and Ballads and Barrack-Room Ballads/In Springtime looks correct (and seems to behave correctly) to me. What do you think? MODCHK (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks good. Don't know why it didn't work the first time. I think instead of recreating the 'constant leading' template for every stanza (lots of work for some poems with many stanzas and few lines per stanza), using something like <br /><br /> or two {{Dhr}}'s would do the trick better. Too bad there's not a Dhr or other template that renders 200% line height (that I know of). Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Meant to add that I like that you don't have to add breaks after each line. Why is that (in layman's terms)? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, the whole idea of the template was as a bit of a cheat instead of typing all those <div>s! As they are still there in the HTML, their effect is twofold. It is as if each line is its own paragraph; but with the normal vertical spacing of a normal line instead. (Hope this is reasonably clear!)
I also had a quick look at {{dhr}}, and internally it works by specifying line-height:100%. It would be trivial to modify it to accept an optional parameter (which it currently does not do) to multiply the height (e.g. {{dhr|2}} might give vertical spacing equivalent to the following:)

I wonder if anybody might object? MODCHK (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I do not think so. Just post the proposal on the template talk page and if it goes unnoticed for a while, at Scriptorium.--Mpaa (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't object, but I am not always reasonable so I wouldn't count my vote. I agree with Mpaa below (if I understand correctly) that it would be nice if the template incorporated the hii settings; not sure what was meant about {{Gap}}, however... It would also be unreasonably selfish of me to suggest that you name the template {{Poem}} ... not very 'accommodating', however ;) Bottom line: Would the template be used? I would use it for poetry if the hii notation was incorporated into the template, and if the template had a one-word name. But I can only speak for my lazy self :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
O.K. I note in passing {{poem}} apparently was in use in the past and has subsequently been deleted. Would this be enough reason in itself to choose another name? What about {{stanza|left|indent|content}}? I have also added variable spacing as an option to {{Dhr}}.
I have applied the formatting to Page:Departmental Ditties and Ballads and Barrack-Room Ballads, Kipling, 1899.djvu/169 and Page:Departmental Ditties and Ballads and Barrack-Room Ballads, Kipling, 1899.djvu/170, and Departmental Ditties and Ballads and Barrack-Room Ballads/In Springtime still looks O.K. to me. For more serious applications should some thought be made towards creating a /s, /e variant, as frankly I think I got away with this particular case? MODCHK (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Just remembered I hadn't included a {{Dhr|2}} example between stanzas, but when I went back I see you have anticipated my failure! MODCHK (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
My suggestion is to include into the new template also what is taken care by {{hii}} and {{gap}}, so one single template fits all. More user friendly for the editor.--Mpaa (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree in the long run. I did in fact originally consider this, but for the moment see this as more a generic building block. By explicitly not including provision for hii and gap parameters a wider variety of layouts may be accommodated. It is always a toss-up between simplicity and rigidity, and I am happy to take any advice as to any "standard layouts" anyone may wish to promote. MODCHK (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
LJB, forget about the {{gap}} inn my comment. I was assuming the need of one template per line, so I wanted to handle also indentation at the same time. But I saw it can digest multiple lines instead, which is good, so we still need gap for indentation. My view is the same as LJB a few lines above.--Mpaa (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that latitude Mpaa. I was quietly shunting the {{gap}} issue into the background as I couldn't figure out how to accommodate it. (I should be more ashamed!) Good to see we all seem broadly in agreement. MODCHK (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
(EC) Got it, Mpaa. MODCHK, I tweaked the first page to include the Dhr|2 and eliminated the template's use on the second stanza (one per page seems reasonable: I proofread a Kipling poem with multiple stanzas of only two lines each... That would have been a pain to apply the template each time). All said, there are fewer steps than if I had to add all those breaks at the end of each line. That's a plus (for me). My next poetry project, I will consider using the new method (if it is finalized, etc.)... I have been getting poetry editing-weary recently (editing in general, but that might be a lack of inspiration), so I'll keep this section handy for future reference... Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
{{block center|{{stanza|0|3|{{drop initial|W}}HEN beeches bud and lilacs blow,<br />
{{gap}}And Earth puts on her magic green;<br />
When dogwoods bear their vernal snow<br />
{{gap}}And skies grow deep the stars between,—<br />
Then, O ye birds! awake and sing<br />
The gladness at the heart of Spring!


When flowers blossom for the poor,<br />
{{gap}}And Nature heals the hurt of years,<br />
When wondering Love resists the cure,<br />
{{gap}}Yet hopes again, and smiles through tears,—<br />
Then, O ye birds! awake and sing<br />
The gladness at the heart of Spring!}}}}

Doesn't seem to work with drop initial(?) unless I formatted incorrectly... Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the added headache... Signing off for now. I get to eat someone else's cooking for dinner :) Better than that, I don't have to cook! Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe your formatting is quite correct, so you have exposed a significant fault. Curiously this:
{{block center|{{stanza|0|3|{{drop initial|W|3em|0|1em|0|-1.2em}}HEN beeches bud and lilacs blow,<br />
{{gap}}And Earth puts on her magic green;<br />
When dogwoods bear their vernal snow<br />
{{gap}}And skies grow deep the stars between,—<br />
Then, O ye birds! awake and sing<br />
The gladness at the heart of Spring!


When flowers blossom for the poor,<br />
{{gap}}And Nature heals the hurt of years,<br />
When wondering Love resists the cure,<br />
{{gap}}Yet hopes again, and smiles through tears,—<br />
Then, O ye birds! awake and sing<br />
The gladness at the heart of Spring!}}}}
Which is practically right (and no, regrettably those values are not all the defaults.) At least this reveals the problem is not insoluble; but I for one am pretty stumped right now. Perhaps stanza destroys/blocks/changes some default upon which drop initial relies? MODCHK (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Of course it does! We have effectively asked for the drop initial to be offset 3em right, using the font size of the base text. However, in the context of drop initial itself, the internal offsets are expressed in terms of the enlarged font size; so the simplest method of cancelling would be: {{block center|{{stanza|0|3|{{drop initial|W|||1em||-1em}} (only works because default drop initial font is 3x base font.) So much for the problem, still not at all sure as to a solution. MODCHK (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
What about embedding Drop Initial as well, so you can feed its size using the input from stanza without the user to be bothered?--Mpaa (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Not 100% understanding what you are saying, Mpaa, but would the user still be able to set drop initial size? because technically, the drop initial size for the above poem should be 1.5em. I merely left that out to make things simpler & illustrate better. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
If I may, what exactly do the 0 and the 3 represent here: {{stanza|0|3| Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
They are exactly the same parameters that {{hii}} takes (in fact internally are passed to that template.) Accordingly they are both numbers (always expressed in em-units) which respectively, add to the current left margin; and the (relative) hanging inset depth to establish. So {{stanza|0|3| leaves the margin unchanged; but sets up a 3em hanging indent on all affected lines.
Ah,—Thanks for the explanation. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
As for Mpaa's suggestion to embed drop initial processing, I am not sure how to do it nicely:
  1. {{dropinitial}} takes so many possible parameters.
  2. how often will it be required; i.e. would it make more sense to set up another template for these cases?
  3. because of the dependency on relative font sizes, I suspect the calculation to convert factors might be in itself rather messy and complicated.
In short, please give it a go if either of you want, but right at present I have no real idea how to go about it "properly" (just whatever that means!) myself. MODCHK (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd say don't worry about it right now. Only when/if it becomes a niceessity. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


Stanza containing Large Drop Initial (a.k.a. Just how difficult can a niceessity become?)[edit]

Just to find out how difficult it would be, I have attempted (more like: made a rough stab at) a template for stanza-with-drop-capital support, and the result may be seen here (template here). To try to simplify things (and {{drop capital}} a.k.a. {{dropinitial}} is a right can-of-worms which I can only pretend to partially understand) I have limited control over the large capital to only the letter name and size. Even the "em" size factor creates problems with calculations, so I dropped that as well. I really hope somebody good at this stuff (and I am certainly not!) comes along and either fixes this mess up or sows me how it ought to be done.

At this stage the template is fairly robust regarding changing font size. However there is a niggling tendency for the margin above the initial capital to be wrong. At font-size 1 (i.e. template parameter: cap-size=1) the calculated value has to be 0.2; reducing to 0 at font-size 3. My current guess at a formula is just that, a complete guess; and as such is probably quite useless.

Please pardon my frustration. It was a really good call of yours, LJB, uncovering this case; and I do want to make it very clear I am not harbouring any ill-feeling for pointing it out. I am just not smart enough to see a good way of addressing it. MODCHK (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

As per usual, I only stumbled upon the case accidentally,—but knowing you like a challenge... ;) I can't address anything technical above (to my eyes it looks like it worked, but I don't know the end you had/have in mind), but I can say thanks for the attempt. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
"Like a challenge...": that was cruel. I have since bitten the bullet and incorporated all of the other (seven? I lost count) parameters of dropinitial in my temporary template. Also added the logic to make it accept "em" in quantities. This doesn't really solve the issue; but just throws ultimate responsibility for making it all work back on the end writer (i.e. you!) I cannot help thinking this is the exact opposite of what Mpaa was pushing for. I reiterate, dropinitial is an absolute balancing act, and I simply do not understand how (lots of) it works. MODCHK (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Take the following in a positive and sincere way: I hope your earnest experimentation will not be in vain, and that I may be able to employ it in an inspiring future project. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I expect I shall come across as completely mad here, but I have refitted all the drop-capital stuff back into {{stanza}}. For convenience here is a direct link to my attempt at documentation (yes, there are parameters supported I do not fully know the purpose of―z-index I am looking at you!―so feel free to correct/improve as you see fit): Template:Stanza/doc. As this last includes a couple of sample invocations, I shall not duplicate them here. I just hope this is useful to somebody, and not just a learning experience for me...
Oh, and please note: obviously {{block centre|width=150px|{{stanza|0|0|{{di|M}}ary had a...}}}} does not (and never will) work (i.e.
However the new equivalent form {{block centre|width=150px|{{stanza|0|0|di=M|ary had a...}}}} ought to:
Oh bother: I can't tell the difference between them now... MODCHK (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Might help? z-index. Do not ask me for an example ... :-) I can't imagine an application here. Keep up the good job. I am going to use this template when stable. And I am sure you are learning a lot.--Mpaa (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the z-index link. It is not the function of the style parameter that is bothering me, rather it is the fact that whoever added the code (actually User:Oxguy3 on 19 Nov 2011, and subsequently used it here. The page works without the parameter anyway...) to the {{dropinitial}} template saw fit to include it as a special parameter; and I simply cannot comprehend how an enlarged drop capital rendered on top of the same coloured text, is supposed to be materially different from rendering the text on top of the capital. Unless this is to do with coloured images being used as the capital letter...?
I just hate trying to document a parameter which I frankly cannot see a purpose for at the current moment; yet obviously better minds than my own must have seen was necessary. All may become clear one day? MODCHK (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Is something broken? I can't see the indent effect when resizing the window. Am I wrong?--Mpaa (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Please elaborate. Which example is not working and how? As far as I am aware I haven't broken anything (yet!) If something is not working to your expectations, please let me know what you think ought to be happening and I will try to fix it if I can. MODCHK (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Nevermind, sometimes I see ghosts ... must have been late last night, sorry about that.--Mpaa (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

[EC. Note: Don't overlook Mpaa's comment above due to my mess below.] Not intending to ignore any technicalities, ideally, simply,

{{block center|{{Stanza|{{drop initial|G}}ive me back the leafless woodlands where the winds of Springtime range—
{{gap|1em}}Give me back one day in England, for it's Spring in England now!
Through the pines the gusts are booming, o'er the brown fields blowing chill,
{{gap|1em}}From the furrow of the plough-share streams the fragrance of the loam,}}}}

would render as:

Give me back the leafless woodlands where the winds of Springtime range—
Give me back one day in England, for it's Spring in England now!

Through the pines the gusts are booming, o'er the brown fields blowing chill,
From the furrow of the plough-share streams the fragrance of the loam,

I realize that there are limitations that get in the way of not adding extra necessary markup to the template. I am also remembering that the main issue and purpose of {{Stanza}} is dealing with possible browser size issues. I also noted on the template page that the second example had the drop initial "floating" left and not in line. All in all, I don't know what I am trying to convey exactly; or I do, but I am trying not to do it in a pesky manner (an issue of how)... However markup can be done in the simplest manner for a user like me (so I don't have to continue to go back to a "cheat sheet" to remember how to format) would be ideal. <up shield> Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Please pardon my being stupid. Is the issue how the template handles when the initial indent parameters are missing? I could simply change them into named parameters (e.g. margin (lm?) and indent (hi?)) and then the result of leaving them off is manageable, at the cost of mucking up any older style use.
Not sure if this is what you are getting at, but if it is: easily changed. It seems to be my day for being dumb. Please treat me as such. MODCHK (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Not dumb. I find no issues with your work, only with my grasp of things technical (my issue, not yours). I'll try to elaborate (or summarize) what I meant in a bit. Brain-dead & busy right now. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


At {{Stanza}}:

  1. What is the purpose of manually setting width (280px)? Is it necessary?
  2. Why can't {{stanza|0|4|...}} be 'consolidated' into {{stanza|...}}? [that's primarily what I meant by "simply" and "simplify" above... Simple for me to say, more difficult for you to accomplish] That is, why can't the 0, 4 markup be incorporated into the template? [You may have already addressed this somewhere above]
  3. In Example 2, the "W" is shifted left. Can it not be inline with the rest of the text?
  4. Is|cap-size=2em|cap-margin-top=-0.1em|cap-text-indent=-1em... a substitute for {{drop initial}} when using {{stanza}}? Is it because drop-initial is not [yet] compatible with {{stanza}}?

Hoping I am being more clear. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC) (aka "Dummer")

As you will see below my internet connection misbehaved for about three hours, so I'm not sure how long it will last this time... I shall do my best to answer your questions:
  1. I only set a width to force the default presentation to have some of the lines already "wrapped." There was no other reason for doing this.
  2. Aha. This is what I thought you meant, but wasn't quite sure. Yes, I agree and shall change this when I next get a chance. It will break our older tests, but will set an easier standard. (The omitted inent values will be the same as 0|0; agreed?
  3. I was deliberately trying to demonstrate some of the "other" parameters inherited from {{dropinitial}}. Removing the "cap-text-indent=-1em should result in the behaviour you want (i.e. you want the default.)
  4. In short, yes to the first part. All the cap-whatever (or alias) parameters carry in the various possible {{dropinitial}} parameters. Unfortunately the margin and indent when applied to {{stanza}} "spoil" the environment for normal use of {{dropinitial}} within the enclosed text, effectively applying an offset to both the left and right margins surrounding the enlarged initial letter, which depends also on the ratio of the font sizes used. By specifying the parameters required for {{dropinitial}} to {{stanza}} instead, it can calculate compensating values to pass on to dropinitial. This is probably an admission that although I have an answer which works, it is probably not the "best" way to do this! I just don't know what that "better way" is at present. Make sense?
The two templates are doing things which contradict one another. {{stanza}} is trying overall to force all lines to be of the same vertical spacing; but {{dropinitial}} has to break this rule to allow for both the larger letter; and to permit the initial lines to wrap around it. Moving the {{dropinitial}} outside of {{stanza}} does not help because there is a tendency to treat the join between the two blocks of text as a paragraph end, with result the "wrapping around the capital" effect is broken once more. Not to mention that {{dropinitial}} uses <span>; and {{stanza}} <div>s. Chalk and cheese at every stage, I'm afraid. MODCHK (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanations. They helped. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Nice of you to say so. I have changed the parameter names around in {{stanza}}, so everything is now officially broken™. The old "first" parameter is now called "margin", and the second "indent". So that your example from above:
{{block center|{{Stanza|{{drop initial|G}}ive me back the leafless woodlands where the winds of Springtime range—
{{gap|1em}}Give me back one day in England, for it's Spring in England now!
Through the pines the gusts are booming, o'er the brown fields blowing chill,
{{gap|1em}}From the furrow of the plough-share streams the fragrance of the loam,}}}}
now renders like this:
Give me back the leafless woodlands where the winds of Springtime range—
Give me back one day in England, for it's Spring in England now!
Through the pines the gusts are booming, o'er the brown fields blowing chill,
From the furrow of the plough-share streams the fragrance of the loam,
And with the alternate notation:
{{block center|{{Stanza|initial=G|ive me back the leafless woodlands where the winds of Springtime range—
{{gap|1em}}Give me back one day in England, for it's Spring in England now!
Through the pines the gusts are booming, o'er the brown fields blowing chill,
{{gap|1em}}From the furrow of the plough-share streams the fragrance of the loam,}}}}
now renders like this (Yes―different result!):
ive me back the leafless woodlands where the winds of Springtime range—
Give me back one day in England, for it's Spring in England now!
Through the pines the gusts are booming, o'er the brown fields blowing chill,
From the furrow of the plough-share streams the fragrance of the loam,
O.K.? MODCHK (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Idea: What about gap-indent-cycles?[edit]

(My I.S.P. connection has just been in a complete sulk for the last hour or more; so perhaps you may not hear from me again today...)

Here is an idea I want to bounce off both of you. I am not sure this is going to come across clearly, but it strikes me that a lot of poetry layout falls into the pattern of repeating the same cycle of per-line indents, and we end up inserting the same pattern of {{gap|xem}} in front of each line, over and over.

Don't get excited, I have not written any of this yet; but is it a worthwhile idea to have a template or template parameter which carries a cryptic pattern like "02" or "021" which has the effect of, respectively:

Gap-cycle proposal:
Value Effect

Line 1
Line 2
Line 3
Line 4


Line 1
Line 2
Line 3
Line 4

Without going completely overboard, if a simple notation (mainly for ease of parsing: I suggest one letter per line) could be worked out maybe this idea might even extend to simple repeating style-to-apply-per-nth-line pattern groups? MODCHK (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If it would be faster and easier than my copy/paste, paste, paste approach to applying gaps to lines, then it might be worth it. I'd be happy to challenge it to a John Henry-style speed duel if it is ever written, as long as I don't have to die with a mouse in my hand :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. Unless there was a lot of repetition I suspect copy-paste-paste-paste might be very hard to beat. Maybe not such a good idea, then. Oh well. Not sure I get the mouse-in-hand reference, but it does not sound like much of a pleasant outcome. MODCHK (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
W:John Henry (folklore) Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the pointer. I understand now (I was thinking Paul Bunyan, so right idea but wrong era and technology.) No; don't want to do that to you in any case. MODCHK (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Test case[edit]

I have created a test Index: Index:A Reconstruction Letter, Stedman, 1866.djvu and accompanying sandbox to view the output. Feel free to edit away on any page.

Three things I noted so far:

  1. I notice no [hanging] indentation when I make my browser size smaller.
  2. {{Stanza}} doesn't seem to be compatible with {{Right}} (see page 13).
  3. [Unrelated to new template (I think)] On the sandbox page, page numbers are not showing up in the left margin.

Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You are so good at finding these cases!
Regarding item 1: No hanging ident? Simple reason for that―you never asked for one! I have gone through and added "indent=2" to each {{stanza}} and now hanging indents appear when page is narrow(ed). This did have two extra effects I am aware of and have already addressed:
  • on page 3 the indent tickled our old favourite effect on stand-alone {{drop initial}}, and the capital was moved right overlapping the following text. Changed to "initial=" parameter to {{stanza}} and problem went away (this is the left-and-right-margins around the enlarged capital issue I was trying to describe to you earlier. Stanza calculates and applies correction factors only if permitted to by the presence of the "initial=" or "capital=" forms.)
  • on page 13 the {{Dhr|2}} just in front of "P. S. Number 2.—" needed the addition of a new line to prevent "P. S. Number 2.—" from being treated as run-on from the prior line and thus being indented incorrectly. I have added said missing line end.
I believe I have fixed item 2. Would you believe {{right}} had a (tiny) bug in it? It used to add two line breaks―one either side of the text. Nobody would normally care, but {{stanza}} does and shoves in some more <div>s in between the set-up part of {{right}} and the {{sc}} surrounding "B-lly S-w-rd." on this page, thereby effectively neutering "right" before it can act upon the output of "sc." I have modified {{right}} and if nobody subsequently screams at me I think that's a victory of sorts.
  • Also in passing, I have now learned {{right}} accepts a currently undocumented parameter "leading-top", which explicitly influences the line spacing {{stanza}} tries to control. I haven't experimented at all; but I can imagine there may be possible issues in this area if the parameter is ever used. (I am not sure how―or even if you can―search the wiki for parameter use? My lame attempt to do so turns up nothing.)
Sorry, I cannot help with item 3. I don't think there is an interaction (but am not certain of that either!) In practice I find page numbers appear less than 50% of the time for me anyway, and am usually pleasantly surprised when they appear. (They have not so far for me on these pages, so I simply cannot tell.) I have had this issue for a long time before stanza existed, and have normally dismissed it as some kind of javascript quirk in my browser. (Which is a half-hearted way of saying "I dunno.") If inspiration strikes you and you find an answer please let me know.
MODCHK (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  1. Oh—so that's how it works.
  2. et. al: Thanks for the tweaking. I'll try in a bit to look around for parameter use. It'll be a shot in the dark, but I might learn something [else] in the process.
  3. It must have had something to do with being on a subpage of my user page,—I don't know... Because the page numbers show up now that it has its own page in the Main.

Thanks overall, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Acting on a suspicion, {{left}} and {{center}} both have the same potential (fault?) as {{right}}. I have changed left, but center is locked down beyond my authority to alter it. I started to write to Hesperian about this, but seem to have accidentally edited the wrong talk page (Inductiveload). If people still take me seriously after being such a fool... I just hope I have straightened out the damage caused in trying to straighten out the damage... in making the enquiry in the first place. (I don't think I am on drugs―but would I necessarily know?)
A Reconstruction Letter still shows up page-number-less to me. Sigh. MODCHK (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Rats. {{justify}} would muck up too. Looks like this might be a common theme, and maybe I shall have to rethink {{stanza}}'s fairly mindless approach... MODCHK (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

See,—All along I thought that you had created {{Stanza}} for the purpose of Mpaa's original question about browser limitations and indentation. All this time I was under that impression, which would explain the couple/three times I kept asking about why the hii notation wasn't written into the template. My turn to cry 'dumb'. As far as my ability to find cases, they usually find me. And with regard to your being taken seriously: I don't think there's any question as to when you are being serious and when you are being a fool ;) There's a difference between a foolhardy pursuit and merely making a mistake: The latter usually involves the use of logic—only somewhat misguided—and is usually easily rectified and quickly forgiven in this forum. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

A couple of (minor) clarifications:
  • The "fool, me" comment above was my own frustration at my own stupidity in composing a note to Hesperian regarding (the wisdom of/) getting {{center}} changed; and then somehow managing to actually make the edit into the talk space of the last person to alter center instead―which happened to be Inductiveload. And then on top of that messing up trying to send it to Hesperian the second time...
  • My overriding reason for stanza has always been to simplify the issue of constant leading. Remember all those apparently pointless <div>s we added to "Pathway of Roses"? That. As for hii and dropinitial, they came along for the ride largely as afterthoughts. Remember Mpaa's comment, later retracted w.r.t. gap about integrating margin, indent and gap sizes into stanza?
Apologies if this sounds testy. I am still awaiting Hesperian's response, and don't really want to fiddle with anything more until I get it. I still entertain a shred of hope this exercise might still yield something useful; but if to achieve that aim means making stanza aware of dozens of templates and/or modifying dozens of templates to fit in with the new one the cost maywill be much too high to even bother proceeding. In your own prophetic turn of phrase: "dying with a mouse in hand"―do you not agree? MODCHK (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
You are much more ambitious and patient than I. I will hope for the best, for that's all I can do [unfortunately]. The capacity that you and others have to absorb all this stuff is mind-boggling to me, but we all have different brains and purposes obviously. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
(Thank goodness―) We all have slightly different skills, strengths and weaknesses. I think I have been too ambitious here, and patience? What is that―I have no time to learn such rubbish.
I for one have been grateful for (and occasionally appalled as a result of) some of your questions. In trying to explain anything to somebody is precisely when one discovers just how many things they don't know; or have blithely assumed are true but upon examination are not so. Nobody―not one single person―is ever as smart as they secretly believe themselves to be, and learning this is rarely a pleasant lesson.
Besides which, you seem to be the undisputed de facto queen around here of reference and poetry layout, testing... (anything I've forgotten?) MODCHK (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Yup... Occassional madness. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes it is nice to have visitors to the asylum. Have you met my friends, Napoleon, Napoleon, Napoleon, and err.. Nap...? MODCHK (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
<smile> It is often difficult to distinguish the 'help' (to include visitors) from the 'helpless'... both in an asylum—and out! ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Nolo contendere. According to foregoing, apparently not a valid plea in my part of the world? MODCHK (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I could think up a better friendbetter friends than Napoleon, but I guess one doesn't really have a choice in the matter ;) And I was just going to improve on your image of Pascal, but I chose Nolo offendere.Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Regards Pascal: please go ahead. Graphics is definitely not one of my strong suites. I could not get good contrast on both the face and the frame; and sacrificed the latter for the former. I am sure you will do much better.
  • Napoleon: bad pun in reference to local comedy sketch (by outfit called "the Wharf Revue") which probably won't work for external audiences anyway. Please forget it. MODCHK (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Forgotten. And last edit for the day will be Pascal. Have a good one :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

A Small Disaster[edit]

I have tagged Page:A Reconstruction Letter, Stedman, 1866.djvu/22 Problematic again even though technically its appearance is "correct". Hesperian responded to my query regarding {{center}} and provided a link to this old discussion which pretty much invalidates all my assumptions for {{stanza}} to work. This just might make the whole thing quite impossible. I shall think a bit more and see if an answer presents itself. MODCHK (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem.

Please also see George Orwell III's rather kind remarks here. MODCHK (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yup. George is good about spelling things out. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Just a quick point - while a div might "need" to open and close on their own lines, nothing contrary to that would apply if the parent div & child divs were assigned their own class & settings (or ids). This would properly differentiate these divs for stanza use from any other div. A test css of...
div.Stanza > div.StanzaLine {
	margin-top: 0.0em !important;
	margin-right: inherit !important;
	margin-bottom: 0.0em !important;
	margin-left: 2.0em !important;
	font-size: inherit !important;
	line-height: inherit !important;
	text-indent: -2.0em !important;
div.StanzaLine {
	display: block !important;

... and an underlying HTML code of...

<div class="Stanza">
<div class="StanzaLine">P. S.—If you're reading, just try a few snatches</div>
<div class="StanzaLine">From my book, lately printed, of foreign dispatches;</div>
<div class="StanzaLine">I flatter myself they will go to posterity—</div>
<div class="StanzaLine">Historical models of terseness and verity.</div>

... produces the same output as on your problematic page. The only difference being nobody should expect any .css defined div to be applied or rendered the same as an undefined div would. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If we look at where we started from, looks like we are going towards option 2, more or less ... Is it a feasibile to define a new class CSS or something prevents that?--Mpaa (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry; between you and the other guy being set to all posts marked minor by default or something - I sometimes miss things like this at first.

Nothing is preventing that. My only concern (not related to anything here specifically) is that our Common.css is rather jumbled and a bit to long as it is. I was looking at WikiBooks approach to Common.css as proposed change here but the lack of free time keeps preventing me from drawing it up, etc. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Index:A Reconstruction Letter, Stedman, 1866.djvu[edit]

Because I felt badly about this work becoming the victim of the stanza debacle, I have taken the liberty of reworking the pages (ironically into Mpaa's "option 2" or a close facsimile thereof) as an interim measure. I have deliberately marked all affected pages as "proofread" although I consider them now "validated" and will be happy to upgrade them wherever permitted. However, I wanted you to have the right of veto if you consider their current state unacceptable. Two issues I am aware of:

  • The wrapping is not perfect with variation of width/font size due to the fact I applied a width restriction overall to obtain initial wrapping approximating the scanned pages. It appears that (in my browser at least) this seems to indicate enable horizontal scrolling for narrow pages in priority to closer wrapping of the text.
  • On the reasoning that dropinitial was being applied to a graphic image of fixed size on Page:A Reconstruction Letter, Stedman, 1866.djvu/12, I reformatted the text to flow directly around the capital, and adjusted the line styles appropriately. As this might well be considered to be me being stubborn &/∨ experimenting; please feel free to restore the drop capital template if you feel strongly about the matter.

However, I consider the current state of A Reconstruction Letter to be, in the immortal cop-out line, "good enough for Government work." (Hope that doesn't hit a raw nerve.)

Oh, a final question: Do you know why A Reconstruction Letter appears in Category:Pages with override author? Is Author:Edmund Clarence Stedman some kind of pseudonym (in which case I still can't see how this categorisation is being applied.) I am not sure this is worth worrying about; please consider it a casual observation. MODCHK (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

At some point, the current Header template no longer perfectly matched the one generated on the fly through the pages command line. Damn if I know why this on-the-fly thing was such a benefit never mind where to start looking for a way to re-synch the two. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Probably fits in with this stubbornness theme I've got going: I never seem to remember to use "header=1" on <pages>. Are you actually saying this, for once, has paid off? MODCHK (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
All I know is when the standard header template is used in the mainspace instead of calling one using the <pages command line (like now) there is no faux cat pointing to pages with override Author. It seems the coding is not the "same" between standard & virtual OR is caused by something in the Index:; template & its making it think override was/is being used. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Curious... Re:"apply regular header to show no override author category as under virtual on the fly header", etc.: What does all of the above mean with regard to author category, etc.? Layman's terms please :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem with the reworking. I uploaded the piece for {{stanza}} et. al. formatting experimentation purposes anyway. Feel free to validate. Should the set width be kept or is it no longer needed? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting and fixing my goof (cut/paste crazy?) on Page:A Reconstruction Letter, Stedman, 1866.djvu/13. I have removed the width restriction (only line affected significantly was "Thus far all's as smooth as your oiliest sentence," on Page:A Reconstruction Letter, Stedman, 1866.djvu/12, which I reformatted around the large capital per the lines above it.) A Reconstruction Letter looks O.K. to me, so if you are happy too only page 13 remains unvalidated (I can't promote it further as I was the last person to tag it "Problematic".) MODCHK (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks like the system will let me validate, so I'll go ahead and proof it again. BTW, I looked up some "Wharf Revue" videos, even though you told me to forget the Napoleon reference (probably because you told me to forget it ;) ). So I lied when I said "forgotten". I am curious that way, sorry! I figured you weren't necessarily giving them a plug, merely providing some realistic context for the reference... Thanks for the work on A Reconstruction Letter, et. al. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for your edit to Page:Satires and profanities -microform- (1884).djvu/25! I knew there had to be a more sophisticated option for formatting the verse than what I had been able to find. I think the hardest part of getting used to WS for me is going to be getting enough familiarity with formatting templates to make things display well. Fluffernutter (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I wasn't familiar with the {{Poem begin}} template. I could have kept the poem tag in, but I prefer to use breaks and {{gap}}s instead. {{shift left}} was created to keep the quotation mark to the left of the text that should stay inline, and it has been useful for other formatting issues as well. You can also refer to Help:Poetry for more formatting options if you ever require them. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Page numbers and EB1911[edit]

At the moment I am cleaning up about one and a half thousand edits made by Bob to Wikipedia where he did not distinguish between an article that should cite EB1911 and one that should attribute the text. (see for example w:Confession of Basel) (Myself an another editor have been through about 1,250 of the articles so far). In fairness to Bob, at the time he made his changes to the Wikipedia articles the template "1911" did not take any parameters so he used a template he wrote called "Wikisource1911Enc Citation" to link Wikipedia articles to the Wikisource article.[2] Since then there have been developments in the Wikipedia templates with one called "Cite EB1911" for articles that just cite an EB1911 article, and "EB1911" which contain copied text from an EB1911 article.

Now to the point of this posting to your talk page. I read your comments in the section User talk:Bob Burkhardt#Transclusion from EB1911 Index pages to Mainspace pages. It is useful to include page numbers in the Wikipedia citations, but because I have enough on my plate "fixing" the Wikipedia articles, if I come across a EB1911 Wikisource article that has not been transluded from the corresponding Index pages, but is simply placed in Mainspace, I look to see if there is a hidden comment for a page number. If there is then I add <div class=indented-page> {{page break|page number|left}}. I also add that as a comment to the edit so if you look in my contributions you can see which pages have been altered. You may find this a useful list if you wish to do more work on moving pages from main-space to the the index pages and then transluding them back, as the volume (I had a bot job run to include the volume number on all EB1911 pages) and page numbers now exist for those EB1911 pages listed in my history, because it reduces considerably the search time to find the corresponding index page.

BTW not all such edits were made recently and I do do other things on Wikisource, so you will find other at random intervals back through my history, but often they are in clusters. Earlier before the bot job on volumes was run, I used to mark such edits with "volume=vol number page number" eg "volume=27 page 556" -- PBS (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW I copy and modified some information from the DNB project to the EB1911 project (see Wikisource:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Transclusion) which includes a template called {{EB1911set}} which you may find useful. -- PBS (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I don't do much work on the Britannica set, but have contributed [only] one or two articles. My comments on Bob's Talk page speak for themselves, the gist being my opinion that it is best to work from the Index pages. Any improvements you make where accuracy/verifiability is concerned is appreciated. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Footnote advice requested[edit]

Hi, based on your experience with the Byron volumes, I'm seeking your thoughts on how to manage a page like Page:Romeo and Juliet (Dowden).djvu/51 where there are two sets of footnotes. The first are critical and the second are explanatory. However, both are based on line number rather than our usual reference sequence. I'm planning to transclude based on Scene rather than an entire Act (so /Act I/Scene i). I'm wondering if I should add reference markers in the text to indicate a note, or if I should just put three separate sections on each Page: and let the reader check for themselves. Alternatively, I could use sidenotes or some other tabular arrangement. However, I was planning to use {{Playscript}} for the dialog and that is a table based template, so could cause problems. Rather than speculate on any other possibilities I thought I'd see what you think. Best, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Whether I should or not, I ignore the distinction (critical v. explanatory) between the two sets of footnotes that likewise appear in Byron's work and treat all references equally. In Romeo and Juliet you can probably do the same; and the footnotes lend themselves well to reference markers where you can ref mark sir! no, for example, and then use the rest of the reference as the reference. Any non-specific (ref mark-wise) reference (I didn't note any) that merely alludes to a line number (i.e., not a specific word or phrase), you can place the ref mark at the end of the line. Unless there are other variables than these in the work, that is how I would handle it. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Noting that there are two footnotes both referencing line 66, and both referencing the same word, "swashing"[1]... You can probably combine the two footnotes (critical & explanatory) into one footnote:
  1. Qq 4, 5; washing Q, F.

    Jonson in his Staple of News &c...

The prognosis of Preludes[edit]

I wish folks would 'look before they leap'... I eventually arrived at the same conclusions as you just did on my talk page and then some! Duplicate pages; unordered pages; image shadows - this one had quite a few quirks alright.

I think I managed to straighten it all out before uploading it for DjVu conversion at [stress think]. The real pain was the omission of page numbers here & there (just for asthetic reasons?)... and the reuse of Sonet this, Sonet that every other body of work.

Anyway, you'd better take a good, long look at it over on (Read Online) to make sure my "fixes" are indeed fixes approaching the state as first published. When you give the word no further changes or swaps are needed, I'll upload it to Commons. Don't worry about the Google 1st page still being there - I whack those before I upload to Commons as a practice - & that will align left-facing pages to the left (hopefully).

After all that exposure to poetry today, I think I have an urge to go pet a kitty cat or something. Weird.

George Orwell III (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I do believe I can work with that, thanks; and I can upload it to Commons as well. I can sort out all the quirks setting pagination in the Index. Many poems in this text are not present in Meynell's collected works, so it would be good to get them onto WS too. All is appreciated, and apologies if you are not a cat person! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Done, thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I had pagination worked out (see Index), I believe, before the Google material was taken out of the piece. Now I believe I have to redo pagination, etc., for the order is now out of whack by a page when it was okay previously. It is better without the Google material, but I hope the page deletion/substitution doesn't create too much need for meddling (fixing). I'll try to figure it out tomorrow, as I was planning on retiring for the night. Have a good one, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I promise not to touch anything until I get your input. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
You should be ready to go now. Trust that there is purpose behind what seems at times to be acute madness on this end. No worries. Go knock those missing works out now :) George Orwell III (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I was hoping that with the added 'exposure' to the poetry, you wouldn't get a sudden urge to start swinging that kitty by its tail instead of patting it ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
[The above being figuratively speaking, of course. In hindsight, apologies if anyone finds it offensive and in poor taste.] Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Kipling poems[edit]

I really haven't been around at all lately. I can't say that knowing this issue was coming up was not heavily involved in my avoidance of WS recently. It really is not something I can speak about (nor view) in a detached manner. I don't wish to become upset speaking about something I am very attached to. Nor do I wish to see people making desicsions largely based on not upsetting me (which strangley kind of upsets me a little), and it looks like that is what happened. Which all leads to just my not looking at all being my default option.

I knew topic was coming up when I was proof-reading behind you on the Kipling book and came to "The Native-Born". That was my work as well. Since it may very well have been the first thing I ever did on WS, it was done before I made an account. Apparently my name not being attached to that one earned it a different treatment. Obviously I care about these works, they are the things that inspired me about Wikisource in the first place. Obviously I think they desirable and want such worsk to be supported. What I do not have a firm opinion on is the exact balance to struck with such work. Often when I would look at these after I first did them I always felt the need of pruning a few links. I seemed to find my intial attempts overdone at later review. It was something that I always hoped would be hammered out through collaboration. I stopped creating new works like this because there was not that facet of the community here to work it out with. I stopped because I was a little afraid that being too bold too soon with too little support would end up with the whole endevor banned. And later on I became afraid of people not handling the issue on its own merits because my name was too recognizable.

I can't say I don't care what you do about these works. I can say that I still want you to do whatever you would if it were just an IP (At least I can say that so long I can pretend I don't know the answer.) I am certainly NOT going to edit-war or anything. I think you are awesome and have great taste in poetry! I don't want you to feel bad or conflicted about all this, but I don't really have any answers here. We discussed this all in the past and I doubt you wil be convinced by a re-hash. I think there can be a technical solution, but I am not sure that even opt-in solutions would be enough for you and those who hold your views. And it certainly won't be easy to implement when none of us understand programming.

The whole thing makes me quite sad. I was so happy to see you working on Kipling poems. I was really excited at the chance to help you proofread that whole book until I hit "The Native-Born" and realized where it was all heading. I don't want to argue with anyone over all this. I don't really like arguing at all, and the more attached I am to the outcome the more I dislike arguing about it. I am not telling you this for any other reason than if I do not say this I will probably keep avoiding Wikisource (cause that's what I do with things that make me feel unhappy). I don't like sitting here crying about this I don't want Wikisource to continue making me feel unhappy, I actually do miss it. So there it is. I am not sure that explaining all this will necessarily change the sadnees on its own, but I know staying quiet about it won't change anything.--BirgitteSB 04:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I made note on your Talk page which poems I had come across that you had "penned"; and yes,—it was probably incorrect of me to assume that some of the other poems perhaps didn't "deserve" to be handled with the same respect. But there were dozens of poems—to include poems by Poetlister (most of them), and most of the poems were unindexed. I tried to be discerning, however... Not always a forte of mine... and I did seek advice beforehand. I believe my work is reversible, and have no issue with handling the situation as you would have seen fit. That is why I came 'knocking on your door' to begin with. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I don't remember where we had "discussed this all in the past". Can you point me to the conversation? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I will look for the old discussion. (found at Wikisource talk:Annotations/types) It was in more general terms, not what to do about X poem, but we discussed Kipling's work as an example. I am not really criticizing your descisions about how you handled this. I cannot be even halfway objective enough to claim an opinion on that. I don't want handle the situation as I see fit. I want there to be consensus, but I believe I know your opinion amd we have never been anywhere close to that.--BirgitteSB 12:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I have no problem with trying to reach a consensus, and if it means going through each poem myself and rectifying things, I am more than willing! My 'opinions' are not necessarily written in stone. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
going to work now. Will reply later.--BirgitteSB 12:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I had some questions related to your initial post, but I'll ask about them later if the need arises. I tend to get off on tangents, and I would like to remain on point here. So I'll await your return to hear about whether/how we can reach a consensus, rectify the situation, or hear how you would have handled the situation using specific examples so that I can learn from this situation and handle it differently next time. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Taking in everything as a whole, I see now how annotations comes into play in your concerns above. I hadn't really considered that aspect when deciding to "usurp" the poem pages you had edited. My decision was based mainly on the fact that most of the poems-in-question were unindexed. There were a couple/few that were indexed, and one that was a Featured Text (can't remember if you had collaborated on that one—or which one it was), and at least one that I also decided to keep ("Fuzzy-Wuzzy")... All of which I added to versions pages to make the distinction between the indexed version and the unindexed version, etc. If my issue had been with annotations, I would have removed everything from the unindexed "Fuzzy Wuzzy" version. As for my current opinion on the annotations debate, I believe I have only contributed one line to the discussions now ongoing about Annotations. The discussions are so vast and detailed, that I can't even begin to wrap my mind around them at this point. Hoping this clears some things up. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
This is not a full reply as I doubt I will have time for that over lunch, but I just to clarify a few things. First, it is only the annotations that I have any concern about. Replacing the pre-indexing versions with indexed will often be uncontroversial (although not 100% with poetry). I am unaware of any significant edits Kipling made between Barrack-Room Ballads and the Seven Seas. if any of these had been sourced to The Scots Observer or the Inclusive Edition, I would hesitate to usurp them with The Seven Seas. I would be shocked to discover any of the poems you usurped were sourced to those editions. Therefore the only issue I have is the loss of annotations. Secondly. Besides giving extra attention to works with my account in the edit history (which is the smallest part of what I found upsetting),, I have no complaint with how your process in handling this. You did nothing that was not beyond "debatable", so I cannot believe you did anything "wrong". I am unhappy about The Native-Born, but that is life sometimes. It would have been best if I could have started this dialog when I first came across The Native-Born. That was my choice to do otherwise. Just like it was my choice to refrain from integrating the annotations into the The Seven Sea/The Native-Born. I probably would have done the latter without a second thought if I hadn't known you were working on the text and believed that you would find that highly controversial. I didn't open a dialog about it, because I knew it would upset me and too much else was going on at the time. I choose to go away for a bit only because I knew I would handle the situation better when I had less stress from meat-space. What you did in the absence of my speaking up was entirely within reason. --BirgitteSB 18:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
That actually was a full reply after all. I appreciate your restoring the other version of The Native-Born. I know you weren't working on this text with the purpose of overwriting the annotations and I apologize for coming across that way. Truthfully I am just worn out from the long-term debate over topic. It has really disheartening to me for some time now. This wasn't the first time this had happened and I have never said anything about the other time (also they never approached me about the other text), so I am afraid you had an exaggerated response out of me. I really appreciate your hearing me out so kindly. --22:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Not a problem. And if the results of the current discussions about annotations line up with your vision for Kipling's works, I will gladly help with proofreading poems from the Inclusive Index so you can do your thing with the text. So let me know if you are ever inclined to take up the task once again. Have a good one, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource meetup or training[edit]

Hey LJB,
I was talking to a few Wikipedia editors last weekend who are planning to have an edit-a-thon during the summer in NYC, most likely Manhattan. They suggested doing a Wikisource thing too, where we could most likely help interested Wikipedia editors learn how to use Wikisource, but I think it would be a cool opportunity for some of us to meetup too. I think I recall you mentioning that you live in the tri-state area, but I may simply be imagining things. Is this something you would be interested in doing? Nothing is definite yet, but I wanted if to see what kind of interest there is in this sort of thing. It'd probably be half about Wikipedia and half about Wikisource. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Theornamentalist. I actually live in the D.C. area, soon to be on the West Coast. Otherwise, I probably would have had an interest in attending. Have a great time! Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok :( I heard that you had made it to one of the meetings in DC some time ago and wished I would have been there to actually have a Wikisource meetup thing. Maybe sometime in the future - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Custom edit button recovery[edit]

Billinghurst, Would you be able to do what is necessary to recover my "lost" custom edit buttons? They reside on my common.js page. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Reload your cache file and see whether it now works. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Like a charm, Thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help[edit]

LJB, Thanks for the help cleaning up some errors on The Yellow Wall Paper! I'm sure you noticed I've nominated it for FT. Sometimes I think we need a third set of eyes on everything, especially when we have so many people working on it (I don't really think we should require that but does and this work apparently needed it). Wish you could've made it to the GLAMWiki Boot Camp where we started work on this. It's getting a lot of attention (relatively) over on the enWP world.--Doug.(talk contribs) 16:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I'm giving it another lookover for a few reasons: To read it, because it's short, and because I noticed it had been nominated for FT. Some "errors" are not really errors, like the removal of some end-of-line spaces; but I like to tidy things up that way, so please ignore that idiosyncrasy of mine. More Wikisource gatherings would be nice to see—small though they might be. Have a good one, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Georgie Johns Ruger? (Page talk:Memory (1913).djvu/3)[edit]


Aren't you the clever lady? I had struggled as far as figuring the H. in H. A. Ruger was "Henry", before realising somebody else had already figure out "Henry Alford" (without supplying any kind of reference!), and now you promise this gold-mine of biography (tease, tease!)

If you can uncover (or remember) your "online sources" would you mind please recording them and/or passing them on so I can⸻if it is not too much trouble? Of late I have become quite lazy about creating Author records, because I (frankly) don't understand the rules any more. You know, you seem to "know" a lot more when you are truly ignorant; but then you learn a little and find out just how much you are never going to know...! MODCHK (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Additional note: I did a quick search for GJR and came up with [3] which doesn't supply much except an association with Columbia University; so looks positive anyway! MODCHK (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Might not exactly be authoritative, but...

  • "HENRY ALFORD RUGER, research pioneer in the techniques of learning and of ... In 1901 he married Miss Georgie Johns of. Port Byron, Illinois, lady principal ..." (came up in Google search; can't get access to orig. site)
  • Library of Congress record for Mrs. Ruger shows she collaborated on a book entitled, "Psychological tests, revised and classified" (1918)

As far as Author pages and following rules goes, I just copy the formatting of the most recent author page created by Billinghurst. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Fugitive ref[edit]

Hey LJB,

In case you're not seeing it (maybe a difference in browser or something, I'm using Chrome) I do not get sent to the main page reference list; instead, on the Fugitive Verse page I get a '''Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found''', that's why I made the edit. - Theornamentalist (talk) 11:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I see the red error message too (on the Fugitive [sub]page). Billinghurst came across the same not too long ago... The issue is that when you supply the ref tag on the Fugitive page, it sends refs askew on the Author page—where the Fugitive page is "housed" (i.e., transcluded). Do you know what I'm trying to say? I'm not sure if there is a way to 'hide' or noinclude the ref issue on the sub pages or not, but if you know of a solution where refs appear correctly both on the subpages as well as on the Author page, please feel free to make changes! Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
So it doesn't seem to be a problem when used in Author:Florence Earle Coates/Other Works, and others; they both appear properly on the subpage and the main page. - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
You'd know better than I would, I added a <noinclude> and it seemed to work; does everything else look in order? - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
All present and accounted for, Thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource User Group[edit]

Wikisource, the free digital library is moving towards better implementation of book management, proofreading and uploading. All language communities are very important in Wikisource. We would like to propose a Wikisource User Group, which would be a loose, volunteer organization to facilitate outreach and foster technical development, join if you feel like helping out. This would also give a better way to share and improve the tools used in the local Wikisources. You are invited to join the mailing list 'wikisource-l' (English), the IRC channel #wikisource, the facebook page or the Wikisource twitter. As a part of the Google Summer of Code 2013, there are four projects related to Wikisource. To get the best results out of these projects, we would like your comments about them. The projects are listed at Wikisource across projects. You can find the midpoint report for developmental work done during the IEG on Wikisource here.

Global message delivery, 23:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Treasury of War Poetry is completed[edit]

Hi, I had intended to complete this while you were moving house and have it ready as a welcome back present, but life got in the way. Anyway, with some help from Kathleen, it's now all done. Adam is thinking of using it as a featured text during the centenary period of WWI and working through it has nudged me to start thinking seriously about a Poem of the Day (or Week) feature on the Main page. I need to think through the logistics of how to make it work without having to manually change a template every day. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I was just in the process of thanking you again for the validation on your Talk page after seeing the work's status changed to "done"; but then I noticed your post here, and the little bit I began to write seemed an understatement in light of the "welcome back present" :) MUCH thanks to you and others who have helped me with this work. It is a favorite of mine. To note, I completed the work by—and added it to new texts on—9/11/2011 (8:46am NY time) in remembrance of the September 11th attacks. Again, thank you guys so much. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Not a short poem, but if I may suggest a poem from the text to illustrate (perhaps during that "centenary period"), it would be "Sonnets written in the fall of 1914" by George Edward Woodberry. I remember editing the poem, and not wanting it to end. It well illustrates the time, in my opinion. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Want to have a go at this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit burned out from Armistice Day—thanks, by the way, for having a go at that one; it motivated me to see it through to completion, even as validator. I already have a To Do list, and am moving at a slow pace, but I will place Canadian poems on the backburner. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Advice request[edit]

Hi, Susan has asked me a question at User talk:Beeswaxcandle#Translations that has taken me out of my depth. I was wondering if you might have some thoughts about it? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

In respect of Armistice Day[edit]

Thanks for getting that to completion, even you did have to do a double validation. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem; sometimes the best motivation is collaboration. Wish it had been a simpler task, but then one doesn't learn something new in the process! Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Audio recordings.[edit]

I note that you've been a contributor in respect of other War Poets as well. Are there good recordings of them?

Also has 'The Unseen Host' (by Percival Wilde) ever been adapted as a radio production? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't heard any. Re: Wilde, I have no idea; but a quick Google search shows that a Wilde one-act play entitled "The Finger of God" was "presented with a technique never attempted in radio before." [4] Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Help with a poem in a footnote[edit]

Hi, I'm having problems with the poem split across Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 5.djvu/613 & Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 5.djvu/614. It's coming out oddly on History of England (Froude)/Chapter 33#cite note-p613-92. What am I doing wrong? Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, BWC. Look what I did here, and on the subsequent page. When formatting the poem, I basically treat it like it is not broken over two pages. It looks messy on the index pages, but it works perfectly in the Main (footnote 59). I have tried other ways, but they don't seem to work. Hope it helps; if there is a better way, I'd be interested also. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
In other words, don't make it more complicated than it needs to be. Thanks, much appreciated. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
On a different note, is there a new default Layout for Mainspace pages? All books when now viewed on my computer are displayed with what used to be (may still be) Layout 2. Is it something I can change in my Preferences? Some books render well with this layout, but not others (to include poetry with long lines). Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure with this one, as I'm not seeing it, but I'm still using monobook for my default skin. As a possibility to look at, have you turned on the beta feature "Typography refresh" in your preferences? Beyond that I can't help. It's probably more George's or Eliyak's (or maybe Viewer2) area. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, if anything, the "cookie" feature for Dynamic Layouts has been improved so that it actually remembers the last Layout invoked in the left hand Display Options menu. In short, cycle thru the Layouts until "Layout 1" (the default) is displayed. This should not change unless you change it or a mainspace work has the lines to force a particular layout included in it somewhere (which is probably going to become real problem in the coming weeks).

The other 2 options in the Display options menu ( hide page links & page links within text [or inline page links] ) should also now work for everybody regardless of browser in use. All credit goes to Eliyak and his script tweaking - I only b*tched & moaned to him about fixing it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)