Do you have any suggestions of poetic works for this year's Featured Texts? We're short on nominations (and comments / reviews), and poetry is something no one has nominated. As you work more with poetry than most others here, I thought I'd see if you knew of anything validated that might be worth featuring. It does not have to be something you've personally worked on, though you might have. Anyway, just looking for something to feature as early as April or May. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: No validated works that come to mind, but I will look around... Of proofread works, if it could get validated in time, there is Poems of Gerard Manley Hopkins (1918) that I would recommend. On another note, do you know when 1923 US works become public domain? In particular for an author who died in 1993. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Trees &c sounds ideal, and it was published 100 years ago, and has a WP article related to part of it. Could you do a proper nomination, and maybe draft a blurb for the main page? Or would you rather I initiated all that? The other works look promising to, although the one is yet to be validated and the other has a suspicious publication date (the title includes the date 1919, yet the date of publication is 1917?) --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can give it a go. Few things going on in RL today to be addressed, but I will work on it between today and tomorrow. Publication date of TWP always had me confused too. There are other versions; a First Series (1914-1917) published 'October 1917' ("To all those who fight for freedom"), and a Second Series (1914-1919) with a '1919' copyright date ("To all those who died for freedom"). I own the same '1917' edition (1914-1919) that we have hosted here ("To all those who have fought for freedom"). There is another version that likely predates all others (1914-1917) published October 1917 ("To all those who fight for freedom") (not part of a 'series')Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. . . . Might be a stuation where we have a reprint that reaffirms the copyright date without specifying the print date of the copy. I've seen that happen a few times, where the front matter gives a date for the copyright, but there are advertisements in the same volume for books published long after that date. Most often the text was reprinted from the same plates, though not always. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have wanted to go through each to compare contents and make note of differences on our work's Talk page for anyone that might have interest, but have yet to do so. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I never ceases to amaze me how Wikisource can be missing certain important and well-known writers after all this time. Thanks for noting and adding this one. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: No problem! I just received a copy of the book listed on her author page in the mail. Mott is poet Florence Earle Coates' first cousin twice removed (her grandmother's 1st cousin). I am reading the Life and letters to gain some insight into Coates' family's views on Quakers and abolitionism. It is also Mott's birthday today. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I was very pleased to come across For remembrance: soldier poets who have fallen in the war. It is excellent to see this on wikisource. I came across it because I was looking for a picture of one of the poets. Along similar lines, do you know if it would be possible to put w:en:The Muse in Arms on wikisource (I am guessing it would be possible, as it is on the Internet Archive site)? I wrote that article (a long time ago now), and I am also wondering if an article on For remembrance: soldier poets who have fallen in the war would be similarly possible? Carcharoth (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: I am glad you came across the work here! I hope you found the picture you were looking for. I created a gallery of images of the soldier poets listed in the work as a tribute. You can find it here if you have not already stumbled upon it. I do believe we can host The Muse in Arms as well. I will look into the scans available at IA. If I upload and begin working on it, you are free to join in and help edit if you'd like... It would also be nice to see a related article for Remembrance at Wikipedia. I would create one myself, but am none too confident in my ability nor my grasp of history :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Think I found an adequate scan here. I just have to go through to make sure there are no missing or damaged pages. It appears as though the 1918 Stokes Co. US reprint is an exact copy of the original with no additions or updates to the work, so I'd opt for uploading the first edition unless you recommend otherwise. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All pages appear to be present and accounted for. I will be calling it a day soon, so can upload the work tomorrow. Just FYI, it is not my site, but if you search the web for "Behind Their Lines", you will find a blog dedicated to "lesser known poetry of the First World War" and "lost voices and faded poems". Very insightful literary criticism. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, we link to internal (Wikisource) links for authors. If we do not have one, then it is best to create one. Also, when proofreading pages, you may notice some extra information in the header and/or footer that does not necessarily apply to the page, such as if a page number does not appear at the bottom of the page, you can delete {{center|}} etc. Feel free to ask any other questions along the way! Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Am calling it a night now. Please do ping me if I seem to have forgotten about proofreading. I will try and do some pages as well, though I will avoid the ones with difficult formatting unless I have an example from you to follow. If you have not read this book before (including the introduction), there are bits I think you will like (apologies if you have read it before!). Carcharoth (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. There have likely been some changes to formatting practices since you were last here. My own practice has evolved over the years. There are different ways to format poetry, and each contributor will find what works best for them. Apologies if I have gone ahead and implemented my formatting preference on the work ahead of you. I am open to your opinion if you find that my practice is too tedious and you wish to use some other style. Never too late to change. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some links for the introduction for The Muse in Arms[edit]
Shall I create an author page for Bruce Lyttelton Richmond? Also, while proofreading the first 10 pages of the introduction, I came across the following (I link to an en-Wikipedia article if no wikisource author page), and was wondering if they should be linked (the ballads are too obscure for them to be on wikisource, it seems)?
To use 'Into Battle' as an example, we have 3 versions hosted at Wikisource, all listed at the versions page Into Battle. You would wikilink to that versions page in the Intro. IF only one other version exists at Wikisource, you would want to check for a redirect page which you would then convert into a versions page listing both versions. You would then link to the versions page in the Intro. Further, if the only version at Wikisource is from The Muse in Arms, then you wait until the poem is transcribed into the Main namespace, and then create a redirect page (which you would link to), if that makes sense? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
page xi - The Ballad of Chevy Chase, Philip Sidney I had no idea what 'the men in blue and the men in grey, who wrought for the great Republic of the West a baptism of blood and tears' referred to, but now I see that it is a reference to the en:w:American Civil War! That is the sort of obscure reference that cries out for a link or explanation, but I'll need to restrain myself, I think.
If they authored anything, then I would ideally create an author page for them. If they were merely an historical figure (or anything other than an author or a work), I would leave it unlinked. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
page xiv - "Mr Dooley" is obscure, but seems to be explained here. There is even a featured article on en-Wikipedia at en:w:Mr. Dooley. I might ask over there about this. Link Kipling again? The Poet Laureate is Robert Bridges. Laurence Binyon and For the Fallen.
We have To Germany by Sorely hosted here. If you click on the link, you will find that you have been redirected to the poem within a work. Once the poem within The Muse in Arms has been transcribed, you would convert the redirect page to a versions page listing the two versions at Wikisource. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: I do appreciate your thoroughness! I was strictly proofreading the Intro for content (and my own edification), and was not focused on linking at the time. Generally, any author or work that we have hosted at Wikisource can (should?) be linked to. I refrain myself from linking to external sites—even wikilinks to sister sites such as Wikipedia. It is an annotation practice that has been debated here. Please feel free to create an author page if you like. Let me know if you need me to point you to which header template to use, etc. There may be some poems, etc. inherent to the work being proofread where you would want to link to the reference within the work itself (if I am explaining things correctly) as opposed to linking to another version at Wikisource (or version page). In which case, you might wait until that section of the work has been proofread and transcribed into the Main namespace before linking. Also to note, you need only link to an author's name or work once in any section or chapter of a work. If an author is listed more than once in the Intro, for example, just link the first instance. I will now more thoroughly read through your examples above. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Redlinking to a work not yet hosted here may serve as an incentive for a reader or contributor to add the work to Wikisource. Linking to a Wikipedia article basically removes that incentive. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking for this work is to create Mainspace pages for each section of the work (The Mother Land, Before Action, &c.), instead of a single Mainspace page for each poem. What are your thoughts? I did the same for Treasury of War Poetry that I mentioned in a previous section. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The very next page (xvii) threw up another interesting cross-reference: have a look at this, which is a slightly different version of the microbe analogy set in verse ('battles lost' vs 'banners tost'). I think Osborn (whose style grates after a while) made that up himself, and is not quoting anything. So probably nothing really. The bit about "less than Zulu war chants" is a good example of the attitudes held by some (many?) at the time. The references only understandable to one who had a Classics education of the time are difficult to understand. The Greek ὕβρις (hubris - I had to look it up) - would you link to en:wiktionary:ὕβρις? Is there a place I can put notes like this as I go along? Carcharoth (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a closer look at your link in a bit. I would not personally link to Wiktionary. You are free to use the Index page's corresponding Talk page for that purpose! or even the Talk page for the Index—listing any interesting notes that others can come across. I don't see harm in that :) I have to step away for a few, but will check back soon. Feel free to proofread any poems you wish. Don't have to follow my lead there! Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Am currently proofreading the acknowledgments section, and have done this page. Just realised I should check with you, as you might have started that (and you mentioned poems). Sorry about that. What is the best way to avoid proof-conflicting? Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No apologies! I have been adding links in the Introduction. Feel free to do the Acknowledgments section... When it comes to the poems, we could agree to work on certain sections separately...? Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Along similar lines, I found the references on page xx to en:w:Houston Chamberlain fascinating. Someone I had not heard of before. Difficult to discern the propaganda from the rhetoric at this distance in time, but in the case of (Houston) Chamberlain it seems clear (and rather sad, though so awful in consequences). Carcharoth (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will add notes and link a bit more boldly as well, but feel free to change if I go too far. I would be interested in creating some of the red-linked author pages - is that simple or quite difficult? I may also try writing an article on en-Wikipedia for one of the more obscure poets: Arthur Lewis Jenkins. There may not be enough material for an article, but I have a bit of a soft spot there as I took the photo of his grave that is in the en:w:The Muse in Arms article, and there is an article on his brother at en:w:David Jenkins, Baron Jenkins. For now, I will make a start on the list of authors (the final three pages before the poems), as the acknowledgments are done. Might need help with the formatting! Carcharoth (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I may try my hand at author pages (sorry, btw, for butting in at Billinghurst's talk page - I am following your contribs to try and learn from the edits you are making to these pages of The Muse in Arms). I see from Portal:War poetry that Ivor Gurney (1890–1937) and Edmund Blunden (1896–1974) don't have pages. Gurney's works will be out of copyright, but not Blunden's? How does that work round here? Carcharoth (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure exactly how copyright works when it gets down to the nitty-gritty. I just know that works published 1922 or earlier are public domain in the US.RE: butting in—no issues! You provided good info. I believe it is likely "our" H. S. Graham is the author we have hosted here. But I will leave that to you (and possibly Billinghurst)? Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This does look like a work I would like to one day work on. I recall there was another book I came across where a "promised second volume never materialized", but I can't recall the title... (merely thinking out loud). Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may be aware of these sites already, but as thanks for pointing me towards the Behind Their Lines blog, I wanted to point you towards a couple I've come across: Great War 100 Reads and Epitaphs of the Great War. There are quite a few of these sites out there! I keep coming across them in my researches and then losing them and then finding them again... I just used the Great War 100 Reads to help with what I've been doing at en:w:George Harold Baker, which I might keep on expanding. Carcharoth (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I may be slow-going with proofreading The Muse for right now. I am trying to finish out a couple other things here, and then I'll try to get my head in the game. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
that report shows index pages that are marked as proofread or validated, though do not have the a transclusion check template, ie. {{index transcluded}} or {{index validated date}}. So there it is running the checker tool, and adding the appropriate template with transcluded=yes or "notadv" if they pass, or adding transcluded=no. Often you can find works that are not transcluded, or pages that have been accidentally missed, which will highlight some easy gets to transclude and {{new texts}}; or sometimes quick validation completions.
@Inductiveload: Apologies for beating a dead horse (and incessant pinging), but I am just not sure exactly what info and where to copy to. It is not intuitive to me. Could you possibly spell out directions for me? Of course, you likely assume you already have ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You should just need to add that code line to your common.js file. I'd put it around line 5. Then reload an index page and look in the "Tools" section of the left sidebar. Inductiveload—talk/contribs18:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Q2: @Billinghurst: So, for instance with Index:Bunny Brown on Grandpa's Farm.djvu—the "Copyright" page is not transcluded. Should I categorize it as such on the Index:page ([[Category:Not transcluded]])? and then, would I mark the Index with {{index transcluded|transcluded=notadv}} due to the red "Advert" Index pages at end? BTW, why—when applying @Inductiveload:'s scan transcludes script—are those red pages outlined in green if not transcluded? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was a bug with the recognition of page titles for non-existent pages. It should now indicate if any mainspace page is transcluding a non-existent page (it'll go green if so). Perviously it was always blue. Note: only transclusions from mainspace are counted. Inductiveload—talk/contribs23:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Inductiveload: Looking at the Index for Bunny Brown (linked to above), the final Advert pages are not proofread (or marked in any way), yet they are outlined in green (indicating transclusion in the Main). But the Mainspace page transclusion does not include those pages as indicated (<pages index="Bunny Brown on Grandpa's Farm.djvu" from=251 to=258 />. Do I misunderstand? <sorry> Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They're blue for me (i.e. not transcluded but that's not so critical as they don't exist). Are you sure they are green? Maybe there's not enough contrast in the colours? Inductiveload—talk/contribs23:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've made them orange. I think that still conveys "not as important as un-transcluded proofread pages" and in fact better conveys "not transcluded" than blue. I think it stands out a bit more for "no-text" pages too. Let me know if you have a better colour in mind! Inductiveload—talk/contribs23:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They do essentially the same thing but I liked the idea of seeing them visually in the page list on the index page. I find that checker tool not so easy to quickly see the state of transclusion for the whole work, as you can only fit a handful of rows on a screen. Inductiveload—talk/contribs00:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the tool checker tool was a snake... I never paid attention to those icons and knew not what they did! Personally, I do like the visual aspect of Inductiveload's tool. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the above issue, @Inductiveload, @Billinghurst: —I might add that using both tools has its benefits. Inductiveload's tool gives you a good initial snapshot of the nature of an Index. Any pages outlined in red can easily be right-click-opened on the spot to investigate. Once any affected pages have been dealt with, you can use the tool checker tool to double-check the status of pages. With some works, this may even save time. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: For works not transcluded, or not fully transcluded, I (on some occasions) either fixed issues or sought out those who had been proofreading the works to see what their status was. But is it alright to merely mark a work as "not transcluded" and move on? (I felt guilty about doing so after a point) or do you ideally prefer seeking a fix first before moving on? Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this page: Thanks for clarifying in edit summary that you want an image rather than transcription. Given that, and since this is an archive.org source, there are almost certainly high-resolution JP2 file scans of each page. (It would take a little poking around to know for sure, since the original file seems to have an error in the source field.) The JPG you're currently using, if printed, would be very blocky (just 550×800px).
I'd be happy to get the original if you'd like, and upload a higher resolution version. Ordinarily, I do this by means of @Hesperian:'s bot, which they only run every few months, but which saves a bunch of human hassle...but it's possible to do it manually too. Let me know if you'd like me to do one or the other, happy to do so. -Pete (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any improvements are always welcome! The facsimile images in the intro &c. can definitely be improved upon; but I would suggest keeping them the same scale as the original and not cropping white space (so they look like the pages of a book that they are); ideally, they all remain the same size for visual effect. I would recommend not setting a width, and keeping them "frameless".—Any user/reader is free to click on the image to enlarge. I have updated formatting at the Index pages using {{center}} for mobile viewing. Merely placing |center in the file line does not center in mobile view. If you can not get to them, let me know. Thanks for the heads up and offer! Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the guidance and the info about mobile centering. @Hesperian:, if you are listening, this brings me to a question I've had for a while: Is there a way to flag a page for your bot to extract the JP2 files, without putting it right on the page itself? Because as it is, the existing JPG is "good enough," and I don't want to mess up the canonical text with a {{raw image}} template. If, for instance, I created a Peteforsyth/example page, with the raw image template on it, would that trigger the bot to grab the image?
(Side point, it looks like the link to the IA page is broken, probably as a result of a brokaen template on Commons. Perhaps that will also interfere with your bot working on this particular file. I've asked @Inductiveload: over there about how it can be fixed.) -17:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as though you've been using macrons instead of tildes in this text. Portuguese uses tildes to indicate nasalized vowels, not macrons. I've corrected the ToC pages, but there are likely to be other instances throughout the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
INCHBOLD Edward Stanley of 24 Elm-grove-road Littlehampton Sussex died 21 March 1934 at Chichester Probate Lewes 19 May to Ada Alice Inchbold widow. Effect £818 13s. 6d.
INCHBOLD Ada Alice of 24 Elm-grove-road Littlehampton Sussex widow died 21 January 1939 Probate Lewes 22 February to Eleri Margaret Cunnick spinster. Effects £2379 2s 1d.
Name: Edward Stanley Inchbold
Registration Year: 1855, Q2
Registration district: Greenwich
Volume: 1d
Page: 502
Baptism
Name: Edward Stanley Inchbold
Baptism Date: 21/08/1855
Baptism Place: Lewisham Hatcham St James England
Father: Thomas Mawson Inchbold
Mother: Anne Inchbold Annotated born Dec. 21, 1855 an error, so presumably is March, April, May or June
@Billinghurst: Over at WD, Mr. Stanley Inchbold seems to have many referenced but incorrect death dates, and birth date as well. Should I change to the correct dates citing FreeBMD info above? Is there a website to link to? I am creating his Author page, but want to wait until dates are corrected at WD first. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Had to dig deeper to find that, and can find him in postal directories in late 90s, and possibly
↑1="Index entry". FreeBMD. ONS. Retrieved 13 February 2018.
↑1="Index entry". FreeBMD. ONS. Retrieved 13 February 2018.
↑1="Index entry". FreeBMD. ONS. Retrieved 13 February 2018.
To answer your question about WD. We would deprecate the 1921 death information (reason for deprecation = incorrect value Q41755623) and add 1934 and set to normal
I'm a civilian without rank who spends my days doing basically whatever I like—like editing wikis—and sometimes what I have to. Any contribution or sacrifice I have made is eclipsed by the sacrifice made by those who make it possible for me to lead this life of leisure. To them I owe my gratitude and respect.
Yeah, I think that you might have been, just a weeeeee tad. [I am laughing, if that is helping.] Life is too short to not go through it laughing at the inanity of it all. It may have helped if there was a goofy grin emotion that sits beside me standing at attention. <- apply goofy grin here too, or double raised eyebrows. 22:35, — billinghurstsDrewth 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Dianella – from the Greek Diana – goddess of the hunt &c. —apropos of your chooks. There is a poem there somewhere. Chooks among the flax lilies. Right now I am watching a raccoon (one of two born and living under our deck) on the hunt for peanuts, but settling for the cracked corn left by the birds and squirrels. Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
<laughing> add a pair of legs in shorts and gumboots; mattock in hand, foot pushing to get the dumb chook's head out of the way, and some cursing and the picture is complete. — billinghurstsDrewth00:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will listen to those some time soon. Just looked at the main page for The Muse in Arms and it is looking really good! Do you know how to get the Herbert Jenkins footnote to appear in a better place, more within the introduction rather than at the bottom of that page? Also, may I try doing the 'Battle Pieces' section when that is ready? Carcharoth (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into the footnote question. I am not currently aware of a method. As far as working on "Battle Pieces", do you mean proofreading poems? or creating the Mainspace page once the poems have been proofread? If the former, please—have a go whenever you like! If the latter, also a "yes". Help yourself to any aspect of this work :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: Marginal marks of the printer to help following w:imposition. They are used so the imposed printed sheets (unfolded and uncut) can be checked to be present and in order prior to the binding process. So you will see them regularly appear in the page sets, so /21, /37, /53, ... binary pattern and think back to books being 64, 128, 192, 256 pp, especially old exercise books. [Yes, too much information I know! <eyeroll>]. — billinghurstsDrewth21:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: (Read above from Billinghurst first if you haven't already) Beginning next week, I will not likely be editing regularly for a few days, so please feel free to help yourself to any aspect of editing this work. I'll check in on occasion to see if you have any questions, etc. and to keep an eye on my Watchlist, but no serious proofreading for me beginning Monday for a spell. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: Remnants from a WS translation that has since been deleted due to inactivity with no likelihood of being worked on further. I wanted very much to find a PD translation somewhere, but none were available, so I gave the next best thing a shot, only I don't speak the language. I was willing to transcribe from the images and was hoping someone else would come along and translate, but it just sat there. :( They can be deleted as they serve no current purpose here. Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, these templates [{{nothanks-inapt}} and {{nothanks-drm}}] are useful for putting on user talk pages when deleting pages that don't meet WWI or our copyright rules respectively. If the edit was a test then use {{test}}. For the two nothanks templates, you should put the name of the page as the second parameter and the signature goes outside the template. For test, the pagename isn't put in, but the signature is as |sig=4tildes Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeswaxcandle:Thank you for the direction... I am not confident in this area—it is like pulling teeth for me! but no one else seemed to be around, and the initial deletion (noted at Noticeboard) seemed like it should be dealt with right away. Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: Thanks for your 20c as well at the Noticeboard. I didn't place a welcome for reasons cited at the Noticeboard. It may have been the prudent thing to do, but you are more diplomatic than I am :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the "nothanks" templates have a link to the "welcome" template. As a result, I don't usually use both together unless separated by a few days. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A case where I perhaps need to learn to swallow my pride. This is more of a rhetorical question, but sincere,—What if I don't "appreciate [their] contribution" (re:Welcome)? I suppose I can leave it unsigned. Again, merely thinking out loud (and stubborn). Thanks both! Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: Great :) Did you want to give proofreading a shot? If you prefer to validate, I will try to be more vigilant about getting back to work on it. I should be "back" in a few hours. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could we continue with the current you proofreading and me validating setup until we finish the 'Battle Pieces' section, then I try setting it up on the main works page, and then I'll try formatting and proofreading some pages from the later sections. Would that work? Carcharoth (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: 'Battle Pieces' is all set to be transcluded if you'd like to set it up in the Main. Just copy/paste the previous section's formatting, then adjust as necessary. I can do the redirects/versions pages & poem additions to author pages once the section has been transcluded. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Is there a reason why the bit at the top of the main page is only saying "34 pages validated"? Is there some cache I need to purge somewhere to get that to display correctly? Carcharoth (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's displayed correctly... pp. 35-69 is 34 pgs. With respect to the bar not being completely green, I don't think it ever renders that way, even when fully validated. Dunno! Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question? I will get to adding redirects &c. for that section in just a bit. Just returned home. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you have been able to do more. I will try and add to what has been done soon. If at all possible, would I be able to do the initial page creations and proofreading (this is assuming no-one else turns up!) for the 'IN MEMORIAM' section (book pages 123 to 140, index pages 165 to 182)? I may not have time to do more proofreading than that, but will happily validate everything else as you get to it. Carcharoth (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: Just a heads up that it may not be until June or July that I will proofread The Muse in Arms again in earnest. Please feel free to continue as you are able! My editing here until that time will likely be rather light. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the purposes of what they are, I do not see how they could be considered works of art, or creative compositions. Here, any such variation outside of a specified size and posture would exclude it from the purpose. At Commons I would even be prepared to entertain that passport photos would fit under the provision of c:Com:de minimis and aligned with c:Commons:Threshold of originality. — billinghurstsDrewth20:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: Thanks. I'll explore those links. The guidance I was given elsewhere led me to create a file locally at Wikipedia with explanation supplied as to why I felt it should be marked as "fair use". I'm open to suggestions. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure if we consider it is only fair use issue. Copyright is the law of the right to make a copy based on numbers of artistic criterias conceptually for intellectual property, all of which should be missing from passport photos, which have their own raison d'être. Interesting argument and one that would be fun to argue. How would you ever know who took it, the purpose of taking it, the derivative of a larger image, etc. :-) — billinghurstsDrewth00:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea who took the photo, and don't know the history of such. It may be the case that in the US that photographs were taken by the public servants. Give it a go and await any challenge, though I would not leave the field empty, more likely to say "not stated" as filled fields are less queriable than empty fields. — billinghurstsDrewth08:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If same image, then upload with the same name, local uploads always have precedence over Commons. The file at enWP will show up as being a duplicate of Commons, and likely be deleted, which is all fine. — billinghurstsDrewth12:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of copyright, it is looking more and more like an overseas move will be in the cards for us. Not sure how that will affect what I will be able to edit. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
<laughing> I love that word, and I am known to use it, though I would never use it with you. Sorry to have caused you nightmares. To life circumstance, one door opens, and sometimes a door closes, or maybe we can keep it ajar, maybe fully open. Whichever it is, the doors still exist, and the community will still be here building on your contributions. Hugs for your next journey, and here is hoping ... ! — billinghurstsDrewth21:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwilson, @Billinghurst: Not much dedicated editing here due to preparation for an anticipated move. Also not much tweeting for @Wikisource_en. My priorities lie with at least a daily Coates tweet or two or my unsolicited two cents here and there as moved. Please feel free to tweet for WS_en every now and then—to keep it alive :) I will try to tweet for it when I am available or as inspired. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both :) I have at recently confirmed that access to English Wikisource in edit mode is available at our future destination. Didn't inquire as to dependability of connectivity. Should have no issues as it is not rural (both positive and negative). I am told there will be 'wild' birds to feed, but it comes at the expense of giving our beloved pet dove to friends. So it goes! Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peteforsyth:—& sorry, @Billinghurst:, I'm being serious again :)I started editing WS because I had a purpose. I have begun to realize in recent years that I continue to edit largely because of the people—the community here. There are aspects of each one of you that I draw inspiration from that I selfishly seek to preserve/promote. Whitman once wrote (or likely merely stated) that "every man has that better thing to be said of him—is entitled to all it may mean, signify, explain". And if our primary focus is on these "better things", perhaps we can overlook certain negative aspects of our natures and afford one another the benefit of the doubt when our motivations become questioned (by ourselves or others). But I interfered in your almost-conversation mostly for selfish reasons—which is rarely helpful. So apologies. Sometimes conflict can be a good thing. And you are adults. And I will stop trying to play mom. Sincerely, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Londonjackbooks:, I am not at all bothered by you dropping in on my talk page. I appreciate your efforts. I am very willing -- eager, even -- to converse with fellow editors who hold up their end of the conversation. I have a low tolerance for drive-by comments, though. billinghurst and I clearly have some differing views, and in my experience only good things come when things like that are discussed -- but for good things to come, both people would have to participate in the discussion. -Pete (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I suppose this is also an effort to reopen any lines of communication that may have been shut down as a result of my interference. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the concern, but I don't see how it's your doing. The disagreements we have are not all that important in the grand scheme of things, and I'm happy to let it go if there's no followup. -Pete (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? I am clearly not in "pay attention" mode — too busy, too meh, just operational. I hadn't even realised I was in a conflict. I don't even think that I have yelled at anybody, or even got exasperated. Is sparing/concise being interpreted as terse? If it is alright with people, I will wait until the weekend before I even fuss about it. Head down, bum up, trundling along, just working on uninspiring back of house issues, wondering how in the hell we are going to get around this span and div issue that still grows rather than resolves. Such is life. — billinghurstsDrewth21:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know the feeling, @Billinghurst:. There's no major issue, so don't sweat it. Patience is not always my strongest suit, but my hindsight is pretty acute...I think it only ever got to LJB due to my momentary overreactions, which I'm now over. I do think it would be helpful to me, and maybe to the project, if we could talk through some issues related to your recent comment on my talk page. Happy to hold off till the weekend. Do let me know if there are ways I can help out with the span/div stuff, I've tried reading up a little, but I don't really see a good way to pitch in yet. -Pete (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it did (though I'm not 100% sure my method for figuring out whether it worked is valid! Basically I just go back to the list, and if the page name is no longer listed, I think that means no error still exists.)
As I understand it (see link to post from @Samwilson: below), it doesn't have to do with that template, but rather with the fact that it's in a "caption" field. (Fields like that apparently will throw errors if there are line breaks in there. The current parser will simply ignore them, which is why we need break tags, but I guess the new parser will freak out or something.)
I understand about 1% of what I'm doing here, so feel free to correct me or tell me to bug off. I am learning all kinds of things about what templates to use where and so forth...embarrassed that at how little I've figured out previously. Working on this is good (if spotty) remedial education.
Ah, the caption bit is a new one for me. I'm learning all this stuff now as well, and trying to correct my bad formatting habits. I would never tell you to bug off, by the way :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon the caption in {{FreedImg}} should be changed to be a block element, but I'm not familiar enough with how it's used (e.g. there's also the tdisplay that can be used to switch between block and inline). But it seems odd that it's ever inline. Adding things like {{right}} inside a caption will break it (as far as the linter is concerned; web browsers are more forgiving) if it's inline. SamWilson02:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, this is a great template to know about, I should be using it. </note-to-self> @Samwilson: I don't think I know enough to follow up on your suggestion...what do you think is the next step in assessing whether that change needs to be made? Thanks for explaining! -Pete (talk) 02:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(top right). Or am I missing something. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
