User talk:Londonjackbooks/Archive 2017

Archive 2017

EB1911 Shoulder Heading: Right- v. left-alignment in Main

FYI, Please see Template talk:EB1911 Shoulder Heading#Right- v. left-alignment in Main -- PBS (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Edinburgh

Hi Londonjackbooks, that's great that you'd be willing to help. To be honest, I'm just trying to get the hang of uploading texts to Wikisource and so your help would be gratefully accepted. I do want to understand the process better: setting up index pages, incorporating images and proofreading and so on as I have curators at the university here who would like to add lots of books to Wikisource... IF we can make the process easy enough for them to pick up and run with. So feel free to pitch in with 'Edinburgh' text's images etc. (but if you are also able to at all help with explaining the process of what you did at the same time then that would be great too as I'd like to be able to pass on to others.) Many thanks, Stinglehammer (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Stinglehammer: Great! It will be a learning experience for me as well, as I am more used to doing than explaining! but I will do my amateur best :) ... I took a look at the text's images available at Internet Archive for the specific work, but the image quality wasn't to my liking. I found the same version of the text at Hathi Trust, and was able to download much better images from there. The first thing I would do is create a Wikimedia Commons Category page for the work, which will house all of the images once uploaded to Commons. Then it is only a matter of applying the uploaded files to the Index pages using one of various formatting methods available for image placement. I'll get started creating the Commons Cat page and upload the images that I have saved... More in a bit at the Index Talk page. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

My occasional house cleaning

Hi. There are four of your images in this Category:WMF software bugs and tech support documents since September. If you don't need them, can I delete them? I promise to dust and vacuum afterwards. :-) — Ineuw talk 22:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, Thanks. I saved a couple of them to my computer in case I have a similar issue again. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but must say, like minds think alike. — Ineuw talk 06:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Clandestine Marriage

Sorry to have validated those incorrect stage directions. I'll leave them to you to sort out now. Thank you for making them more consistent, I don't feel good enough at Wikisource yet to deal with that kind of thing. BethNaught (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@BethNaught: No problem! I have actually asked EncycloPetey at his talk page how he wants to address stage direction formatting—wanting to be sure using {{float right}} is okay. I am not always sure of my formatting choices, and usually defer to those who know better :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@BethNaught: Thanks for the extra set of eyes and all the catches! Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem either! I'm only sorry that the stage directions deterred me from doing more of the validating—so I helped in this way instead. BethNaught (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Other birthdays coming

If you keep an eye on Wikisource:Scan parties, you'll know that 2019 will mark the 200th birthdays of American poets James Russell Lowell and Walt Whitman. Either (or both) would be tremendous projects and give you two years lead time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. With regard to Thoreau, I just found an inexpensive copy online of a Thoreau bibliography (Henry David Thoreau: A Descriptive Bibliography, 1982 by Borst, Raymond R.) that includes listing poetic works. If we're lucky, it will identify poetry that is Thoreau's within his essays. If not, then I have an otherwise good reference book : ) Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thoreau vol. 7

The simplest action would be to upload the correct file over the bad one at Commons. Just replace it, keeping the original name you intended, and cancelling the deletion request.

Then mark the second copy of the alternative version as a "speedy delete" (reason=duplicate). This way, all the volumes will have the same filename structure, and it will be far less confusing in future. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I was aware that you could upload over images at Commons, but not DjVu files. I already uploaded a correct File to commons, and have been proofreading from the new Index. I agree with keeping filename structure uniform, and that was my original intent; but when giving it a second thought, thought it useful to add "Journal" and Volume no. to the File names for the Journal volumes (Index:Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906) v7 Journal v1.djvu). If you prefer to leave out "Journal &c." in the remaining volumes, I will do so. Apologies, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It really depends on how the transclusion is expected to work. It will be messy, whatever we do. I just expect it would be less confusing with a uniform filename pattern. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I am not understanding what will be "messy." I am asking to merely delete the following files here and at Commons:

• Commons:File:Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906) v7.djvu
• Index:Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906) v7.djvu (no pages proofread) If no pages have been proofread, what will be "messy"? Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It will be messy in that: (1) links between different volumes will use different filename structures, possibly leading people to believe some volumes have not been uploaded; (2) Transclusion tagging will require different filenames in different volumes, even though they are part of the same overall work. If we can be consistent from the outset, when it takes the least work to do so, then it will avoid these and other potential headaches later. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Oof... Let me know what I need to do. Should I stop proofreading on the new Index upload? Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

If you can upload over the original, and switch to the standard name, that (as I say, and Billings hinted) is the easiest way to handle this. You've done very little, so a few copy-pastes could move what work we have.

On a related note, were you aware that Vol. V has a large selection of poetry at the end and appears to be the source for the list of Thoreau's poems? The list appears near the end of the volume. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Yes, thank you. I was aware of the poems, and will happily proofread those pages as well. I also noted the list of poems and bits of verse from Thoreau's prose writings near the end of the volume. I used it as a guide to proofread those poems we have Indexed here. Now all of the poems listed in the WS Index of Thoreau's poems are Indexed unless otherwise noted (such as Redlinks list on Poetry index talk page; most of those poems and bits of verse are found in the Journal writings). Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: To be clear, I will be overwriting the existing File at Commons with the correct File by clicking on "Upload a new version of this file"? [More questions may be in store, so apologies at the outset!] Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: done.

Now we have:

1. Overwritten Commons file with correct filename
2. "Duplicate" Commons file with incorrect filename
3. Index associated with desired Commons File (no proofread pages)
4. Index associated with undesired Commons File (some proofread pages)

Awaiting next step. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Next, mark the Duplicate file at Commons with {{duplicate}}, including the name of the file it duplicates. Duplicates can be processed quickly without listing them for deletion. The template adds them to a file, and the duplicate status can be easily and quickly checked with a bot. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: At what point can I copy/paste proofread pages to the desired Index so I don't lose the work? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

As soon as the new copy of the file shows up in your edit window when you edit from the Index page. I'm already seeing it. Depending on your browser, you might have to purge or to clear your cache, but it should be ready now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Done and done Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

P.S. @EncycloPetey: Would you prefer that I not ping you at every step? Also, I appreciate your help and patience. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging is fine. Everything looks good at this point. If you have finished all copy-paste you need to do, then I can delete the unused Index page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Copy-paste is complete. Thanks! Let me know if there is anything else... I also meant to ask with regard to the Writings Volume 5 "Poems" section: I can proofread the poems; were you envisioning transcluding all poems onto a single page in the Main (Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Poems)? I assume so, but wanted to make sure before deciding on sectioning/formatting. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Working on the poems is fine with me. I intend only to work on the Translations. I'm not sure what the best way would be to transclude to Poems. They might all work on a single page, if there aren't too many. However, I also am unsure whether to put them at Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Poems or at Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Volume 5/Poems. With a multi-volume work, it can be better to have the sections grouped within the volume. But as I say, I'm not sure whether or not this would be the best option for Thoreau. I'm also not sure who would be best to ask for a second (or third) opinion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: This might serve as a second opinion (thanks to AdamBMorgan). May I propose:

• Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Volume 5/Translations/Translations from Pindar
• Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Volume 5/Poems (there aren't many—only 22) otherwise, Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Volume 5/Poems/Nature
• Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Volume 7/Journal/Volume 1/Chapter 1 OR Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Volume 7/Journal Volume 1/Chapter 1 ? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

For the first six volumes, I would prefer:

• Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Volume 5/Translations from Pindar

over the use of

• Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Volume 5/Translations/Translations from Pindar

because subsections within volumes tend to make navigation messy.

For the Journal volumes, I am less certain, we might simply use a structure like:

• Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Volume 7/Chapter 1

provided that all the journal volumes are organized into chapters. And the overall Journal could be indexed using:

• Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Journal

--EncycloPetey (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I confirmed that all of the Journal vols. are divided into chapters. For lack of a better way of putting it, I assumed levels in MS titling should be—what's the word...—in other words, does it not matter that Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Volume 7 would be at the same "level" as Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906)/Journal? Do you know what I am asking? Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter, no. Especially if "Journals" is the only such grouping that isn't leveled that way. The challenge is that his Journals span several volumes, so we'd either be creating an extra page not in the original set, or we would simply list all journal entries in the main table of contents... wherever that ends up. The contents could be listed on the "main" page for the set, or on a separate "Contents" page, or we could list most things and "Journal" on the main page, and have a separate "/Journal" page for listing the journal chapters to keep the main Contents listing of manageable size. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Because I work better with visuals, I have represented TOCs for the Main page (using Aux TOC), V. 5 and V. 7 in my sandbox (first 3 sections), using what I think to be your preference for main/subpage titling. Feel free to make adjustments to titling if I have misunderstood you. I don't think we need a separate page for a Journal listing, do you? Apologies for belaboring this subject... it can wait... Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

That's pretty much how I imagine it should work. The would be an overall contents pointing to volumes (though we might also identify the major components of each volume in the main contents), and each volume would have its own main page with a more detailed contents listing transcluded from the volume itself. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Thanks for the input. Done for the day! Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

House of Atreus

Thanks for catching that error.

I discovered this weekend that the entire trilogy (and prefaces!) in this volume were recorded as a full-cast reading for LibriVox, so I returned to working on our transcription. I had thought to nominate E. B. Browning's translation of Prometheus Bound for November (and Beth kindly validated it), but with the LibriVox available for this work, I may nominate this one instead if it can all be completed by September (and that should be easily done), and hold Browning for a later date. We've never had a Greek play (or any Greek work!) featured before, and the only Classical work we've featured was from India. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Our chief is gone ... And hath not left his peer! grabbed my attention. I was familiar with the lines in Milton's Lycidas ("Lycidas is dead ... and hath not left his peer") from Mrs. Coates' dedicatory piece on her mentor, Matthew Arnold, some years after his death. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

File:FEC Works.jpg

still needed? — billinghurst sDrewth 12:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Ooh... that is old. Nope, not needed. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

«I’m over young»

Hello, Londonjackbooks! I have seen that you also participate on Index:The Book of Scottish Song.djvu, and also you created and filled the table of contents for it. Please take a look on this page — Page:The Book of Scottish Song.djvu/141: how do you think, which is the name of the second song: «I’m over young» or «I’m ower young»? It seems to me that the second one must be picked (unfortunately, it is not fully repeated anywhere in the song's text, being spelled only in shortened form — «I'm o'er young», so we cannot derive the full name from the text). Regards, Nigmont (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Nigmont:. If you are asking if I believe a "w" or a "v" is or should be used in the heading, I believe it is a "w". Compare to the "w" in "Polwarth" in the song that follows. "Ower" is translated as "over" (see http://www.scotranslate.com/translate/scottish/ower/1/215#.WOpEwtLyvIU]) So "o'er" as rendered in the song is short for "ower". Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Londonjackbooks: thanks, I think the same. So, as I understand, it would not be wrong if I do replace that "v" with "w" (in both places: on the proofread page, and on the table of contents as well)? --Nigmont (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, by all means! Thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, now I've found that I really missed that on the Table of contents it has been already correctly written with "w", so really only the proofread page has been left to be fixed (now I have done it). So if I, at first time, looked more attentively to the Table of contents, and would see that is was already correct, — maybe my this question was unnecessary... Anyway, thank you for the clarification (and patience)! Best regards, Nigmont (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Ha! Don't count on the TOC to be correct... I have already misspelled at least a couple titles thus far :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Nevertheless, just a couple (or maybe a bit more) of errors in comparison to all plentitude of names of songs which are contained in this mighty book — is nicely a very low number, as I think. I use this Table of contents for checking whether the headers on proofread pages have been spelled correctly by previous users. Of course, I don't blindly rely on the Table of contents, and I also check actual appearance of the headers on the pagescans (I myself have found and fixed two errors on the Table of contents), but I find errors made by previous proofreaders much more often than errors on the Table of contents, so you did a good work, anyway. :) --Nigmont (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Your fastidiousness is appreciated. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Opinion about page

Hi, Appreciated the link you provided on my discussion page. I have been fighting with sidenotes and went back to the example you provided. None of the paragraphs were indented and the neither were the sidenotes (my issue). You sent me here. I have started to apply the principles here. Am I being too much of a nit picker ? That would be a first. Thanks again for the link because it was a huge help in getting me going down a better path. Rcollman (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The Rockman talks to Oblio and Arrow in the 1971 version of The Point: "...ever seen New Delihi? ...Well, that is it, you see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. " I usually say Ikot Ekpene instead because I lived there for two year. Rcollman (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rcollman: We try to replicate source texts as closely as possible to the original, keeping in mind author's intent when possible. So nit-picking is not necessarily frowned upon here! I'm glad the link was helpful, and if I can ever be of assistance, please let me know. An amateur editor, I lack much technical knowledge as to how templates/coding, etc. work, but I happily apply the magic. If you ever reach a stumbling block, there are many here who will gladly assist! Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rcollman: One thing we do not replicate here is the indentation of paragraphs. Certain things are indented, such as lines of poetry &c., but not the beginning of new paragraphs. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, That makes a lot of sense to me from a time and ease of editing perspective. {{indent/s|1}} is harder to see instead of a clean line break in edit mode. But I learned some things I never had to use in docs.moodle or wikipedia.org :) Rcollman (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Would you like to talk about your work next Thursday?

HI Londonjackbooks,
my name is María, I work for the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit that supports Wikipedia and its sister project. I recently found out about your work, and was wondering if you would like to present what you do on Wikisource at a meeting we have on Thursday, August 31st. Would you be interested in participating in this way?
The meeting is a public monthly gathering called Metrics meeting. We usually have a theme throughout the meeting, and community members and Wikimedia Foundation employees talk about projects they are leading. The theme for the coming meeting is What it means to contribute to Wikimedia?, and this is why I thought it was a great idea to have you join us. You would be presenting in a section where we have a community keynote speaker. Your presentation would last 5 minutes, and it, you would share what you do on Wikisource, and why it is important. I would work with you to create a few slides and practice your talk, as well. The meeting is transmitted live via Youtube streaming, and the recording is later on available on the Wikimedia Foundation's Youtube channel.
Are you interested in taking part in this meeting and presenting? If so, please contact me on my talk page, or email me at mcruz [at] wikimedia [dot] org
I look forward to hearing from you! Best, MCruz (WMF) (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

presentation

hope it went well today. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I hope so too! ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikinexus

You wanted this to support a forum model.

I was wanting a Wikimedia equivalent to Stack Exchange. The Wikipedia Reference Desk for all it's good efforts isn't necessarily the correct forum for responding with direct research, and Wikiversity doesn't yet have a credible alternative.

Would you be willing to have WikiNexus as a host for a project were a question could be asked and contributors would be able to ask "reasonable" questions and get "unreliable" answers in return? (Kind of like a Refdesk+) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you meant to say "reliable"?I may not be understanding your aim completely. I am interested in a discourse/dialogue of ideas, not merely a Q&A/research type forum. I also don't think 'answers' should be ranked by 'helpfulness' as it is at the Stack Exchange. The discussion would be be a process—an effort to encourage critical thinking/logic and explore ideas based on article topics/works. Particularly surrounding current events. But some discussions may be as simple as a Q&A forum. It depends on the topic and where people wish to take it. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Think Crito and the like with more players. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I should have addded an emoticon to explain the "unreliable" comment as a joke. Yes, reliable answeres would be preferable. I had in mind somewhere where to give an example an area for mathematical investigation like this w:Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics#Volume_of_spherical_caps_and_hemispheres.... could be explored or extended upon, in more depth then could be at present on the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Perhaps what I had in mind was something more akin to the sort of discussion that occurs before writing an article/paper together summarizing a collaboratively developed result or method, albiet in respect of the investigation suggested in that article it would be an exploration of existing understanding at just above high-school level as opposed to anything cutting edge. Such a Q&A forum would need to be able to allow for semi original thinking, which was something you wanted to encourage on Wikinexus as I understood it.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate humor, but it often goes over my head! You state "discussion that occurs before writing an article/paper"... Yes. That is the sort of discussion I have in mind. A conversation that takes place before a more structured debate &c. Ideas, inspiration, connections. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

A bit decorative edit

Hi, the TOC on the index page Index:Florence Earle Coates Mine and Thine (1904) looked very long, so I have made a bit decorative edit. Please revert if you don't like. Hrishikes (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: No issues with me!—it's just the Index. Tinker with the pages, though, and you might have a fight on your hands! Just kidding. Free to improve—even my pet project. Have a good day :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Mary Wollstonecraft

Would you like me to set up the Table of Contents? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Would love that, thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Will do. I ask because with experienced editors I never know whether they like doing that sort of thing or would rather not. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

My least favorite thing to do here. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Done --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The Apology

Thanks. I didn't realize those were from Jowett. I'll change them back. Are the multiple headings also original? It doesn't seem well organized.

@RH Swearengin: I wish I was familiar with the translation/work in general. It would be better for us to have a scan-backed version of the work—eliminating issues. I am going to call it a night, but if you wish to improve the work as it is, you might consider asking for help/suggestions at the Scriptorium. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Italics..

The change made was to do with parser changes, apparently the new parser may not be comfortable with raw italics over line-feeds, and using the markup italices over a <br /> apparently required the text to be in one paragraph which was ugly.

If you have a better technical solution feel free to let me know as well, so Linter error fixing can be progress more effectively. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)