User talk:Peteforsyth

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, Pete Forsyth, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here.

Please take a glance at our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). Most questions and discussions about the community are in the Scriptorium.

The Community Portal lists tasks you can help with if you wish. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. John Vandenberg 12:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

See also: talk page archives from old account


Not sure if you got a response to your edit summary query regarding {{nop}}, but it's the (fairly new) method we use for ensuring that paragraph breaks are preserved across pages transcluded into the main namespace. If a page begins with a new paragraph, that paragraph break won't be kept when the pages are transcluded unless something special is done, and the solution we typically use is to put {{nop}} at the end of the previous page (the one on which a paragraph ends). You may also see {{blank line}} in existing texts, but it has been deprecated. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 03:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that things have gotten more complicated in the last months and years. While we don't forbid people from adding texts without page scans, we tend to discourage it.

Different people do different things to build djvu files. Some are more adept at it than I, but I use a program called PDF to DJVU GUI (unfortunately, it's Windows/Linux only). Of the website solutions listed on Help:Djvu, I've only used the one you tried (Any2DjVu), and I agree, it's not the best solution. I haven't tried using the Internet Archive; that may be worth a shot. If you prefer, I can easily create the DjVu for this PDF as well.

To access the header and footer, go to edit mode and click the first button on the left above the editing box. It looks like [+]. Anything in the header or footer will not appear in the main namespace, but will appear in the page namespace. We use a template, {{RunningHeader}} (or {{rh}}) to create running headers with three elements (left, middle and right). If one of the three doesn't exist, just leave that part of the template blank.

As far as wikifying goes, for this work your best bet is the Index talk, and notifications on people's talk pages. Most works are not worked on by more than one or two people, so they just use each others' talk pages. But in this case, with more people involved, index talk is probably the best place... but people may not notice it unless you point it out to them individually.

In general, when it comes to wikifying, local links to authors (in the author namespace) and texts are accepted by everyone. Links to Wikipedia are accepted by most; the key there is to avoid introducing bias or "reading into" what the author is talking about. And generally we follow Wikipedia's guidelines for repeat links: don't do it on the same page, unless they're far apart. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 12:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

manual copy paste from ?[edit]

you don't have to do this manually ; update the djvu file with a version that has a text layer, and it will be pre loaded when you edit the page ThomasV (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Thomas, thanks for the info -- but I don't think I understand how DjVu files work well enough to act on this! (and yes, I've read Help:Djvu files.) Are you suggesting that I should take the Djvu file at the Internet Archive, rather than portions of the text file, and somehow replace the Djvu file here on Wikisource? If so, can you help me figure out the process for doing that? (And if it's not too hard, is this maybe something that should just be done for *every* volume of the EB?) By the way, please note the related question I asked a few days back at the EB WikiProject: Wikisource_talk:WikiProject_1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica#OCR_question -Pete (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
yes, go to commons:File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu and upload a new version of the file. ThomasV (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Pete, I see you got an answer already. All the djvu files should have a text layer, you can overwrite it from the same source at or mark the Index as 'needs fixin'. The usual practice is to add categories to the text in main space, rather than the Page: namespace. You can ask questions on the scriptorium, or nudge one of the regulars. Cygnis insignis (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks much to you both, that all makes good sense. I'm having a little trouble figuring out how to download the DJVU file from -- it wants to launch an applet and display it within the browser, and I don't see a direct download link. I'll keep poking around, but if either of you knows the answer, gimme a hint :) -Pete (talk) 03:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I would download from all files, but I wonder where the text layer got separated. You might be pushing around a file with the same problem, and they are quite large. You might want to poke around and see what is going on before grabbing the file. Cygnis insignis (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
In fact, that link shows empty text files. Cygnis insignis (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, right you are. I figured out how to download the Djvu file before seeing your message, and uploaded it as you suggest; but it appears to lack the text layer as well. In addition, it seems to have a few extra pages, which throws off the page order. I'm thinking I should delete that revision on the Commons page, but I'll hold off in case you have a different idea. Meanwhile, I think I'll go back to copy-pasting in the text for this one article, as it seems to be pretty high quality..and moving pages around here later, for page order issues, shouldn't be too hard. -Pete (talk) 05:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
You could find a better file to overwrite it, then move those few pages, but there may be a better way in this case. Keep the best revision of the image and get clean text from elsewhere. There are quite a few transcripts of EB11 around - if they are good ones you can use the scan to restore formatting. You could use the match and split tool to get the article you want aligned with the scan, you might prefer that if you are doing a lot of them. Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
no, the file you uploaded does have a text layer ; I had to purge it in order to refresh the database. it works now ThomasV (talk) 05:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks Thomas! I've started moving stuff over accordingly. This scan is better anyway, it's in color (apparently some of the maps are in color!!) and I think higher-resolution too. And the OCR looks like it's maybe been somewhat edited already -- I find a few stray OCRtifacts, but very few. Looking good! Seems it might be a good idea to do this for all the volumes, no? I'm not looking to take on a major project, but would gladly pitch in on some bits and pieces.
By the way, if you guys have the admin bit, it might be worth deleting the pages I've deleted text out that whoever comes along later will get the auto-OCR. (At least, I assume that's how it works…) -Pete (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Use {{sdelete}} or let me know on my talk. Most ocr is very close these days, often better than 99% accuracy. Cool that got sorted out.
Images: adding frameless is the equivalent of a thumb at the wikipedia. You can adjust your prefs if you find all images here too small. I think the user would need to open the map in a new window to view any detail anyway, the default just shows what they getting if they want choose to click.
Also, avoid using the djvu as source for images, the online viewer usually offers a higher quality jpeg without compression. This one happens to look pretty good, maybe this is what you did. Cygnis insignis (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. I think it might be useful for the map preview to be a little larger, just so the general shape of the state is discernible; but that's a minor quibble. I actually did take the image from the djvu file; but I do know better, if only I'd paused to think it over. I'll try to grab a better copy and re-upload tomorrow. Thanks again for all the tips!! -Pete (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I do have one more big question, about the next steps as I get the "Oregon" article completed -- but it probably makes most sense to discuss this at Wikisource_talk:WikiProject_1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica, no? I'm basically wondering about how to establish a page for 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Oregon (like there is for so many EB articles, like 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Columbia River). The content would be redundant of that organized by page on the Index: page I've been working from; so is there a way to transclude it, or something? It seems like there's both "page" components and "article" components of the EB content, and I'm not clear on how they're meant to interact. -Pete (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

First the article is not yet completed, it continue on page Page:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu/278 etc. To link the contents of Page:* to the main namespace you need to do something like this 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Alembert, Jean le Rond d' (edit the page to see the code). The first and last Page: of an article is a bit special because you don't want the whole text but only a part of it, see this edit to setup the section in the first Page:. So the pages command in the Oregon article will be something ala <pages index="EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu" from=274 to=284 fromsection=s2 tosection=s1 /> Phe (talk) 08:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi -- yeah, I know we're not there yet, but was wondering what the next step would be. It should be smooth sailing now that the others have gotten me to this point, so your example should be very helpful -- thanks! -Pete (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The mysterious Header toggle button[edit]

When proofreading in the Page: namespace and one has their toolbar turned on [Gadgets | Editing (tab) | Editing toolbar (checkbox)], one will see the button Button category plus.png, and clicking it toggles the header/footer on and off. In this space we put the relevant components for top and bottoms of pages by use of the template {{RunningHeader}}, so for example {{RunningHeader|Stanhope|3|Stanhope}} produces


I personally have my header/footer set to open in the Page: namespace and I achieved this by activating that option in my Gadgets. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

as per your question in WS ^^^

My bad guys - I reverted this page by accident while not paying attention & an errant click. Sorry for the interuption & now is reverted back. George Orwell III (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Good lord, can't we trust you with anything around here?! No prob of course, and thanks for the note :) -Pete (talk) 04:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi. I saw you validated Page:1880._A_Tramp_Abroad.djvu/13 page. Thanks for your contribution. Unfortunately the links work in the Page namespace but not if called from the Main namespace A_Tramp_Abroad/Illustrations. I think I tried the same when I made the page. Must be something realated to the TOClink template and how links are changed duting transclusion. If you can find a work-around, that would be good. I gave up after some trials. --Mpaa (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarify IRC comment[edit]


My comment was not a joke. There is nothing that can't be discussed right here within en.WS on the various talk pages.

IRC robs the community of the possible benefits of peer discussions, problem solving, consensus building and User participation. I'm glad you found something ther of benefit - I wish the rest of us could have shared in it here on en.WS where it matters. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

GO3, I think Pete's comment about real time is telling. Waiting for someone at random to answer rather than say, asking inductiveload why a template doesn't seem to be working or asking me a question of US copyright law and getting answer, rather than getting reverted/deleted, has real value. Asking where do I click to get to such and such a page and getting an answer that moment is invaluable. Although experienced users may occasionally voice their positions on contentious issues, if you clicked on the IRC link at the top of the recent changes page (or here or for a webclient here), you'd find that the room is generally quiet unless we're discussing possible bugs in 1.18, answering technical (but mundane, usually answered a hundred times on here - or walking someone through step by step) there won't be a lot of talking. Often cross-subdomain coordination is taking place (e.g. "Phe how does fr:template:foo do such and such and why do you do that instead of what we do on en with template:bar?") Without IRC I never could have asked the questions on about how to do things or what the rules mean - and I do try hard to communicate in German on the channel. You should at least stop in and see sometime - you don't have to participate to see what we're talking about. You'd soon find that we are not #wikipedia-en--Doug.(talk contribs) 05:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I have nothing postive to respond with to the above (so I won't), especially on a third party's talk page. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi GO3, I saw your comment last night, but didn't get to replying – and I think this is relevant – because I had to call my mom and catch up. One of the things we discussed was the Wikipedia article she just started, and some of the challenges she was facing.
For me, one of the greatest pleasures of wiki editing is how it mixes with everyday life, and permits a mix of communication media. Like you, I very much value open, public, and durably-stored discussions as a part of the learning process; but there are times when another format is more effective, or is just easier or more fun.
For the community to be "robbed" of something, I think it would have to first have a "right" to have it. I don't believe this is true. I enjoy and take pride in documentation and providing help (you'll probably see more evidence of that on my Wikipedia account than here), but I would strongly disagree with any claim that I have a duty to communicate in any particular way, just because that's the most beneficial to others.
I do appreciate knowing that you prefer on-wiki communication, and I will keep it in mind in my future communications with you. But I hope you can accept that I, and others, might want to use other media from time to time, ad that it might be part of what keeps us happy, thriving, and productive community members. -Pete (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Well said & that is just fine by me... but my point went towards Admins - not the regular User. Too many chefs - not enough cooks. Prost. -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. If he (or anyone) is unresponsive or aloof on-wiki, I would agree that is an issue, and something well worth bringing up in an RfA.
By the way, your commentary here was echoing in my ears when I decided to make this little comment on the Scriptorium; I agree clear discussion of issues of broad interest is important, and will redouble my efforts to participate in those discussions. -Pete (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Not to beat a hollow, straw-man argument to death with its own severed limbs but I couldn't resist after our recent exhchange....
There is nothing wrong with reaching out in IRC if nothing else (realtime or oterwise) is working for the User. It is the decision to stay on IRC once a connection with some interested party has been made that is my primary concern. I've never seen any good come from a situation where such compartmentalization, intentional or otherwise, is left to exist unchecked.
For instance... at, for lack of better term - "first contact", one would hope the presence of mind to immediately move the discussion to the User's talk page would prevail. That way, a new welcome message might be waiting there for him or her; soon followed by the presentation of the question or issue at hand by the User and so on and so forth etc. etc. I'm not making absurd demands on the 'right to wiki' or setting unrealistic goals with this labored point - I'm talking about applying plain-old common & responsible sense by most measure.
If "we" establish the discussion "here" sooner rather than mid-way thru or after-the-fact (or completely in the shadows!) do we achieve the greatest possible benefit for all & not just the few (not to mention establishing it our records forever in the process). Fin. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I fear that with such specific expectations of how other people communicate amongst themselves, you may never be satisfied. -Pete (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I can only point it out when it happens and, to my point, I can only do that when we finally know about it. So for those instances when proposals, ideas, solutions and/or consensus is built elsewhere and then attempted to be introduced here, it will always have a long uneccessary uphill battle to get implemented - good or bad. Its not about my satifaction or lack therof; its about what can help en.WS in the long run. Glorified, "lazy" or opportunistic methods aren't going to help except a few and not the whole... and I do not hold it against those few who happen to follow or stumble into such exchanges (as was the case in supporting Dominic initially). I will, however, expose it every time it rears its head and folks will get the message after being show time and time again how individuals behave and operate. If the community is less incined to support such individuals' ideas or solutions - too bad I guess - I tried to get them to walk a better path. George Orwell III (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I do appreciate the link to the earlier discussion of TOC auto-numbering, however; and yes, I understand what it represents :) -Pete (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Illustrative only. It was easy to point to because it was in the archives & easy to find. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

United States Security Strategy for the Near East and South Asia, 07-12-1983[edit]

Hi Pete. Thanks for checking and validating Index:United States Security Strategy for the Near East and South Asia, 07-12-1983.djvu. :-) Mike Peel (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem Mike, thanks for noticing! I'm enjoying pitching in on occasion to the NARA project, there are some cool documents coming out of that. -Pete (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wink back[edit]

This is what you've been trying to say to me back in SF, I didn't get what you said then, but now that John is around, I do now. Siska.Doviana (talk)

Text formatting when proofreading[edit]

Hi. Regarding your search for the missing proofreading script, I assume that it was to wrap the lines. If that's your concern, there is really no need wrap the lines during proofreading. Joining hyphenated words is sufficient to qualify due to the nature of HTML. I proofread this page to demonstrate this. I think that line wrapping is a habit we inherited from word processors. — Ineuw talk

Thanks. It did a good deal more than that, though -- I don't remember exactly what. Converting “smart quotes“ to "straight quotes" might have been one of them, managing the hyphens at the end of lines pretty intelligently was another.
As for line wrap, it is important within ordered and non-ordered lists, which are pretty heavily used in the texts I'm working on right now. Also, just for editor sanity, it's nice to have a tool that makes it look pretty in the edit window without much effort, even when it doesn't have an impact on the reader. I'm still hoping somebody can explain what happened to that script…it was hugely useful, and helped me do a lot more here. -Pete (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Missing script redux[edit]

Hi. Did anyone get back to you about the script you're looking for? Perhaps there is some sort of a repository for retired scripts? Also, check out the Gadgets options in your Preferences. There is always something new I discover there (if I don't look or read the Scriptorium for a awhile.) :-) — Ineuw talk 18:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: And thanks from me too![edit]

What a pleasant surprise to find you validating A Basic Guide to Open Educational Resources. Thank you, you've inspired me to get back to completing this text! -Pete (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) --Wylve (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Requesting a Permission[edit]

Sir, if you have time for the talkpage, whenever, I was hoping you and I could to talk to about something about my account on other Wiki webpages and hope to request a comeback to edit whether by email, or to the other wiki site, if it is all right with you, whenever is available, thank you?--GoShow (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, hello, Pete! I have been wanting to talking you. It's about my user account on Wikipedia. I am about to use an unblock request form and from what I have heard I can still use one more chance to unblock my account on Wikipedia. Yea, I know the mistakes I have made, and I admit the foolishness, although, most of them I never even edited on them, on a couple and it wasn't for vandalism, as stated somewhere in the rules to not try to use one or more accounts abusively, however, huh, I used them to do right edits, and the rest was for those votes at the bottom of each article on Wikipedia, from which I never did vandalize.

Unfortunately, for me, whoopdiedoo, The last time I got caught I was actually trying to revert vandalism on an account I made up, and yet I admit.... I should of stuck to my account! Plus, forgot to say it was me. Well, I should of told them it was me, again foolish me I did not, so damn. Forgive me.

What I want to do is I like to make articles and I hope to unblock and re-edit on English Wikipedia, since I am glad the voting box below the articles have vanished, thankfully, I have been tired of those goddarn voting boxes for a while, which had nothing to do with the article;), but I admit, I know the foolish mistakes I have made and I would be glad to help expand some resources on other wikis while searching other resources during my spare time, whether college, work, or reunions whatever I hope can study and use my sandbox to further find sources and documents for other wikis and Wikipedia, thanks, anyway and I hope to meet you on my English Wikipedia account and discuss the option, pardon me if it's such a busy mess schedule, but I appreciate you listening to my call.--GoShow (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


Pete, yea this is User:GoShow I sent an email request to your wiki strategy, yea the unblock request didn't go well as User:Danger denied the block, and talked with the user for awhile, although I did the read the appeal guidelines, stating I can possibly allow one more chance, I was hoping, maybe you can lend a helping edit. I sent you my email address, showing the address of where it was blocked, also I forgot to tell you I have a redirect account called "External Radiance".-- 20:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


Yes check.svg Done used single asterisk. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what to do about it, maybe Billinghurst can help you. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Google vs Internet Archive[edit]

Hi Pete, always check the Internet Archive for volumes first. Most have been OCR'd. Here's the search results for "Centennial History Oregon". I always go for the non-Google options in the Internet Archive if both are available. The scanning of images is usually better and there's no Google front-page to dump. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)



I just look at "edit" to see works others have done and see what they did and how they did it. I'm glad I could help. Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)



Please mark this as validated. —Maury (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC),_Volume_1.djvu/708

Centennial History of Oregon 1811-1912. Have you quit your book, Peteforsyth? Moments ago I validated a page but there weren't others I could validate. Anyway, I hope that somewhere you are having a better time than here editing. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Quotation Marks[edit]

Hi Peteforsyth,

Thank you for taking the time to validate and edit pages in A History of the Medical Department of the University of Pennsylvania. Of course I always appreciate validation and any fixes. However, I spent some time fixing quotation marks in this book (though thankfully the OCR had most of them correct). Before I uploaded, I had read on a proofreading page that if the original has them it's good for the transcription to have them as well. Only later, after proofreading, I saw that the style guide suggests straight quotes. Nonetheless, the author of that pointed out in a discussion that it truly was a suggestion. If curly quotes are used throughout a work they should remain as such, especially if already transcribed that way. As I already went through the book and fixed any straight quotation marks, I don't think it makes sense to change to single quotes as I can no longer do find/replace, and I truly prefer the look of the original quotation marks. I just wanted to let you know so you'd understand why I reverted your change. The only other comment I have is regarding annotations. I am planning an annotated copy in the future, but would prefer that this one stay without annotations for now for reading purposes. I only added a handful of tooltips and sic templates, but purposely left out wikilinks.

Anyway, I would like thank you again. I know that you still put time into this and appreciate it.

The Haz talk 00:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Aha, OK -- I didn't realize those were considered decisions on your part. Thanks for explaining! Very cool text, thanks for working on it. -Pete (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
It truly wasn't a big deal. Your doing so made me realize I should add something to the discussion page so that the "formatting guidelines" box shows up on the index page.

And I'm glad you like the text. I also thought it was pretty cool (or wicked awesome as I'd normally say). Some truly interesting things. I also uploaded The History of the University of Pennsylvania which was written by another physician from the same medical school in 1834, if you're interested. While it can be dry in places, there are definitely some interesting parts to it. I almost choked when I read the requirements to successfully advance (freshman to sophomore, et al.). Anyway, thanks again. The Haz talk 01:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

File:OER for assessment and credit for students project logos.png[edit]

It would be great if you want and put the data inside {{information}} and marking the file with either {{move to Commons}} or {{do not move to Commons}}. If using the latter, would you mind explaining the reasoning for this image being at enWS, rather than at Commons? Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I also have found

and I would appreciate if you can do those too, plus others that you know that you have added. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, @Billinghurst, @SDrewth:. The OER file is one that I'd very much like to get resolved, and I'd love to have your thoughts on it; please see User talk:AdamBMorgan#Completing a text for my thinking up to this point. (Long story short, IMO the best outcome would be for Wikisource to adopt an "exemption doctrine policy" permitting the use of non-free files in these circumstances, and the file should remain here.)
I think that we mark it as "do not move ...", add the info template and at some point we think about it in more depth, especially considering some of the mutterings in Wikimedia-L and watching some of those outcomes. It isn't for Commons at this point of time. I don't think that it needs a resolution today. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense. How do we go about marking it? {{do not move to Commons}} has a built-in justification (PD in US only) that doesn't apply here. -Pete (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The Warren County ones were initially uploaded by a bot. I had thought it a bit strange that they were uploaded here instead of Commons, but hadn't gotten around to figuring it out. Maybe @Hesperian: has something to add? I'll look at {{move to Commons}}, which does seem like the right approach -- thanks for pointing me in that direction. (One thing I remember getting stuck on: it seems to me that this one would be better be stored as two separate files, one for each portrait; but I suppose that could be sorted out after moving to Commons...) -Pete (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, on the second issue I can add some more following a better look. We extract the raw images from the best quality scans (not the shite djvu), and they usually have superfluous text and stuff. So once they are trimmed/cleansed/whatever'd they can be moved to commons if they qualify, and the raw images deleted here. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I realized (right after uploading the new version of the portraits file) that the bot had been smart enough to track down the JP2 files -- very cool. -Pete (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The joined images should be split prior to the move to Commons. Hesperian uploaded the images here due to the more restrictive practices especially exhibited by some. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'll try to get to that later today (but I don't have access to the graphics program I like to use for this stuff at the moment, so no promises!) Are you saying there are Commonists who would tend to delete (or complain about) files like these? On what grounds -- or can you point me at past discussions? That sounds unfortunate. Possibly it could be addressed by putting a short essay on Commons explaining the bot's practices? -Pete (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I've addressed each of these now -- please feel free to leave feedback if I got anything wrong. (I'm not sure how "move to Commons" works here -- obviously, at some point I'll need to create a nice description/authorship/PD tag template for Commons. Do I do that ahead of time..?) -Pete (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello Peteforsyth. I updated your regexp toolbar.js page to the latest version of TemplateScript. This is just to enable automatic updates, so you shouldn't see much difference. If you notice any problems or have questions, let me know! :) —Pathoschild 02:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Oregon History[edit]

I did very quick scan, seems to have at least 2 non-google versions, so assuming those check out page wise, it might be better to start with a quality IA version rather than a Google one.

BTW This seems to be a 2 volume work?

Busy on something else right now, rather complex table layout work :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, good point -- I did not think to look for alternate scans at IA. Yes, it is a two volume work as far as I know. I will take another look, but it might be a week or so before I have time to dive back in. Appreciate your taking a look! -Pete (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi @ShakespeareFan00:, in this diff/edit summary you bring up (I think) the same point. however, in that case, I did upload the DJVU from the Internet Archive (who had in turn imported it from Google). Is there something else I should have done? By "flattening" do you mean removing the extraneous cover sheet and blank pages? If so -- what is the best process for doing that? -Pete (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

PDF generation as mysterious as X-Files[edit]

Hey again,

I keep "discovering" more and more oddities regarding the PDF generation issue discussed in Scriptorium - specifically when done thru the "Download as PDF" sidebar link. As a matter of fact - initiating the bookcmd= from the sidebar of what technically amounts to the same page that you're trying to convert to PDF in the first place might be "less-than-optimal".

I came up with a templatized "proof-of-concept" as a result. I also figured out how the parameters the full book tool are applied and incorporated them for now as well -- its preset to Letter size, single column and no built-in ToC replication/generation. Still no joy when it comes to rendering more than simple symbols or images however. Whats really pissing me off is not being able to stop the auto numbering of heading elements somehow.


{{GenPDF|title=Guidelines for Open Educational Resources in Higher Education}}

Generate PDF

Let me know how you make out if you go around using it (or the premise behind it even). Of course - that is the "watered down" application. Once additional testing and the like proves useful & reliable enough, this simple template can become a Vector menu tab, a static mw-button; an additional sidebar choice; a simple formfield with manual text input, etc. etc.

The point for now is GenPDF takes our mark-up reduced content and successfully generates a PDF w/ letter-size, 1 column & no Toc by default. The fact that it can take additional parameters as "we" discover them is a bonus. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@George Orwell III: Thanks for the update. GenPDF looks pretty cool, I will dig into it a little. I've realized that one possible hack would be to remove some of the early H2 headings, in order to make "Introduction" the first that the auto-numbering matches the manual numbering...and then remove the manual numbering. I may fool around with that, though it is far from optimal.
I'm in the midst of some travel and family stuff, so my efforts will be slowed...but I do want to return to this in the next week or so. -Pete (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Strangely, the "Footnotes" header still appears below the list of footnotes, instead of above it. I am truly mystified by that part! -Pete (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Page:A Recommendation of Inoculation - John Morgan.djvu/7[edit]

Thanks for validating! To answer your question(s), I linked to Google Books for two reasons. The file wasn't on Commons at the time (I uploaded it to Commons after I proofed the page) and I also was linking directly to the page on Google Books. You can show a specific DJVU page from Commons, but as far as I know you can't link to it. I'm also the user that uploaded the file to the French Wikisource. It might be awhile before it's proofread there. The Haz talk 01:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hazmat2: OK -- I just wanted to call it to your attention, your reason sounds fine to me. (And after I made the edit, I did notice you were the uploader!) Anyway, this is a good and timely work to transcribe -- thanks for finding it. -Pete (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for deleting the catchword from Page:A Recommendation of Inoculation - John Morgan.djvu/10. It's a good catch, pun completely intended. The Haz talk 18:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and a word.[edit]

Thanks for your help on this document. If you have some free time, there's this document that needs some bringing up to speed. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Illegitimate Barrister:! Been a bit busy the last week or so, but I appreciate the note. -Pete (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Index:Address Delivered by Joseph N. Teal.djvu[edit]

Hi. There are three images in the work "Address Delivered by Joseph N. Teal.djvu". Should they be transcluded with the work, or are they separate from the narrative? Or is the index component presented bigger than the article? — billinghurst sDrewth 07:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:: Thanks for the question, addressed this here: Talk:Address Delivered by Joseph N. Teal -Pete (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

IA-upload tool[edit]

toollabs:ia-upload or prod someone like me who has admin rights for a direct upload to Commons via url-upload (from designated sites). Also note that at toollabs we also have BUB that will grab from Google Books and take to IA. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm aware of URL-upload, but generally avoid it since I don't know what sites support it, and it's failed when I try. (But I suppose is an obvious one.) I think I have the technical ability, I'm not an admin at Commons but I do have a few lower-level permissions, and if I recall correctly that's enough. Thanks for the link! -Pete (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
billinghurst, just wanted to let you know, in the time since you pointed it out, I've found this tool very useful. Thanks for pointing it out. -Pete (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Oregon Historical Quarterly[edit]

Hello. I changed 19OO to 1900 at this page, and was going to also tweak/suggest alternate formatting ({{sc}} etc.), but wanted to check with you first. I also suggest eventually 'moving' The Genesis of Political Authority and of a Commonwealth Government in Oregon to Oregon Historical Quarterly volume 1/The Genesis of Political Authority and of a Commonwealth Government in Oregon. I'm not sure where you are right now with regard to transcription/transclusion, so I don't want to jump ahead of where you're currently at... Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Londonjackbooks:, thank you for the feedback -- always nice to have somebody take notice of one's work. My knowledge of Wikisource standards is incomplete, so I'm always glad to learn where I can improve, I'm happy to have others fiddle with "my" work (which I don't really regard as my own).
I have been moving rather quickly through the OHQ, hoping to get a substantial portion of the (public domain) first 23 editions transcribed -- in other words, my emphasis has been on speed over quality. Volume is complete, Volume 1 is nearing completion, and I've completed a number of individual articles from other volumes (central page is Oregon Historical Quarterly). I'm working somewhat piecemeal as the mood strikes me.
Any assistance or feedback is welcome. I've used {{sc}} in some places, but perhaps neglected in others. In general, if I'm not to the point of validating a page, I don't tend to worry about that stuff too much...please let me know if that approach is going to cause problems. -Pete (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Good to go. Came upon your contribution via a Twitter post. In my opinion, the "speed" approach may make it more difficult to keep track of pages in the long run if other contributors proofread or validate. Unless you will be systematically reviewing the work yourself for formatting consistency in the end, uniformity of text ("quality") could suffer as a result. There are many approaches to editing, however; you'll find what works best for you... it's the end state that matters, although sometimes "slow and steady" often wins the race and saves future headaches and cleanup. Any way I can help, let me know. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thinking further,—ideally, we would have the base page, Oregon Historical Quarterly, and each volume as subpage: Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 1. Further, Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 1/The Genesis of Political Authority and of a Commonwealth Government in Oregon. If you'd like, I can make the moves for you. It shouldn't be too much work... Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Londonjackbooks:, makes sense to me. There'll be a lot of articles to move, but I can help work on it. I'll start on Oregon Historical Quarterly volume 7 to minimize conflicts, if you do anything on v1. -Pete (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
OK. Keeping in mind, I would capitalize "V" in "Volume". Will get started soon :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. One question: do you know what's going on with this page (and a few others), where the links are not working properly in the header? I suspect the override_author parameter has something to do with it. Route across the Rocky Mountains with a Description of Oregon and California, chapter III -Pete (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I also have an unrelated question about that page (and the other six chapters from that book republished in the OHQ). It's an entire book of its own that was serially republished in the OHQ; I would imagine that some readers might have an interest in the original book, but not in the OHQ. To that end, I created this index page: Route across the Rocky Mountains with a Description of Oregon and California. But of course, if somebody goes to that page and then into a chapter, they will find headers that reflect a different sequence, etc. I don't know if there's really a major problem here or not, but I've been curious to get another opinion on how to handle this. -Pete (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
[ec] I am better at doing than explaining, but I'll try... It has to do with the moves. The formatting for the navigation links in the header will also need to be tweaked. If you'd like, I can finish with Volume 7 and work out the kinks if you want to continue proofreading as you were yesterday before I approached you about the moves. There are more pages involved than you might think. It is helpful to click on "What links here" under "Tools" at left to see what pages will be affected as the result of a move; then one can adjust accordingly. Sorry I am not great at explaining! Let me know if what I say confuses. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I will think about your second question. Someone may come along who has a good answer before me :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The Route across the Rocky Mountains with a Description of Oregon and California is complicated in that it is split between Numbers 1, 2 & 3 with other articles in between. My thought is to create Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 7/Route across the Rocky Mountains with a Description of Oregon and California with an {{Auxiliary Table of Contents}} pointing to the chapters Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 7/Route across the Rocky Mountains with a Description of Oregon and California/Chapter 1, 2, 3 &c. While we seek to remain faithful to the original, sometimes we need to improvise a little... What are your thoughts? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all this, I'm learning a lot from your words and from reviewing your edits. I do know about "what links here" etc., I was not being diligent about it and was relying on redirects etc., but appreciate your more dedicated efforts.

One thing maybe worth some thought...I had transcluded the TOC into the index page, and those links are now broken, because the [[../]] code refers to a different root path. Not sure what to do about that... see Index:Oregon Historical Quarterly vol. 7.pdf -Pete (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not familiar with the formatting for the Index's TOC transclusion. I guess it is pulling from the base page, and since I started formatting the base page links relative to the base page, it doesn't translate back to the Index TOC. I could write out the full links instead of using relative links. I'll do that now... P.S. I appreciate your patience with me! I have the remainder of today and some of tomorrow to keep plugging away, but will then be away from the helm for a day or two. Just so you don't think I have abandoned anything :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Done for the night. Done through Volume 7 Number 3; will attempt Number 4 adjustments tomorrow. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Have finished updating Volume 7. Let me know if I have overlooked anything or if you have any further suggestions! Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again for all your efforts. I've been mostly offline myself, nice to come back to these messages. Enjoy your time away from screens, and I'll let you know if I come up with further questions. -Pete (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hoping you wouldn't mind, I am reformatting the poems in Volume 7. I got to reading some of them, and they make me want to read everything else in context. . . . I also noted/made some changes of instances of fi as opposed to fi (must have been an OCR issue? Not sure if it is problematic or not to keep the former or if we should have a bot run through to make the substitution. If you are not sure, I can ask at the Scriptorium. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I noticed those -- I was entirely unsure what formatting to use for the poems, so thanks for improving that. As for the ligatures, yes it came from OCR. I didn't realize it was a problem; I've found that ligatures are discouraged in the Wikisource style guide, but I suspect the reason (search engine indexing) is outdated. Yes, I'd imagine a bot would be the easiest way to handle that if a change is needed. -Pete (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Put in a request to replace ligatures at Wikisource:Bot requests. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Eek... Translation: "I put in a request..." is what I meant to say. I must have sounded bold ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Volume 4[edit]

I'm gonna be a busybody again... I saw that Volume 4 was added to New Texts, and so had a visit. You might consider adding previous/next info in header fields for Mainspace pages for ease of reader navigation between articles. Also, for a work backed by an Index, a New Text is pretty much considered one that is at least fully proofread. If the pages marked red have been proofread, then they can be turned yellow. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Londonjackbooks, thanks as always for the feedback. Specific replies...
  • I've been gradually adding previous and next info, and doing so systematically is the next thing on my list for this work. I figure I can come up with a pretty efficient process now that all articles have their own pages and headers.
  • As far as what qualifies for "New Text," I suppose I have generally used "proofread" as the standard in the past, and while it wasn't a very conscious decision to deviate from that practice in this case, I think it might be justified -- let me explain, and let me know what you think. I'm fine with removing it from New Texts if you think that's best after considering this.
First, there's no definition of what constitutes a "new text" in the only place I know to look, which is the inline comments on {{New texts}}. On that page it simply says "This is for newly completed works.". "Completed" is not defined.
This text is another one from Project Gutenberg. Having proofread many of the pages, I have found the quality of transcription to be very high; all that needs to be done is (a) add a running header; (b) check for the occasional italicized word or phrase, smaller text, or (in very rare cases) table; and (c) make sure hyphenated words crossing from one page to the next are handled properly with {{hwe}}. It appears that proofreader Melissa McDaniel did an exceptionally good job, with the only remaining issues being the formatting issues I outlined; I have found no errors in the text itself. To my way of thinking, this rises to a level that is actually higher than many of the pages I have seen Wikisource volunteers mark as "proofread." Yes, we still have to do two rounds of proofreading here at Wikisource, but since it has already been proofread at least once, those two rounds will have a pretty light touch.
So, what do you think? To remove, or not to remove? I have no strong preference. -Pete (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I can't (won't) suggest whether to remove or not. All I can say is what I myself would have done, which isn't always helpful or instructive if one is looking to align with ambiguously defined guidelines for what constitutes a "complete" text. There have been past discussions about what should constitute a "New Text"—whether it should be fully validated first—so I believe the general thinking on the matter is that it at least be proofread (yellow when an Index is available). This is yet another area—in my opinion—where Wikisource ought to be a bit more clear. Otherwise, we are just kicking the can down the road for the next generation of editors instead of providing structure (which can always be debated, but at least it has some foundation). My opinions only. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
P.S. I am not necessarily competitive, so I don't view it as a competition, but we should strive to be better than other online libraries (where reliability is concerned)—not merely just as good. Do you feel that our means of proofreading an Index is less reliable than matching text from elsewhere? Don't you think we should do more than copy the work of others? What sets Wikisource apart otherwise? What will keep us relevant? Slow and steady... Merely thinking out loud. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
The above now sounds more like I'm venting. Apologies if it came across that way... Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Not at all! I love the philosophical questions, and look forward to addressing them when I have time (likely tomorrow). Interested to hear your views on these as well, and ideally to also revisit the Wikisource strategic plan doc that I haven't looked at in a long time. Happy to adjust practices if my views turn out to be out of sync or something. You might get a bit of a feel of my thinking from this blog post I published last week...I've been meaning to address the bigger questions you're asking on my blog for some time, but it's been on the back burner for way too long. -Pete (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
BWC briefly brought up some key points in a recent post about scan-backed works at WS. I'd be happy to give my POV on 'philosophical questions'—although not well formulated or thought out. I don't actually think I'm familiar with a WS strategic plan... I'll have to look for it and give it a read... BTW, if you want a representative view of things for a blog post, you might solicit opinions at the Scriptorium. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Londonjackbooks:, I'm back after some hiatus...and perhaps better able to address your points and questions having had a bit of time to ruminate. I'll take them mostly in order, after starting with the one that seems like the best jumping-off point:

What sets Wikisource apart?

I agree with @Beeswaxcandle:'s point that you quoted, that scan-backed texts are an important distinguishing feature of Wikisource. I think there are a number of things that should be included...I'd add these:

  • Structure
    • Metadata (e.g., headings, copyright/PD notices, author pages...)
    • Organization of works (categories, naming conventions, hyperlinks for context and convenience...)
    • Integration with Wikidata, Commons, Wikipedia
    • Transparency of quality assessment
  • Ease of participation (we do pretty well, but IMO we can always do better on that)
    • Technical ease of working with a wiki
    • No need for subject matter expertise
    • No need to identify oneself
  • Size of our collection
We should strive to be better than other online libraries (where reliability is concerned)—not merely just as good.

Most definitely, and I'm unsure why it appears I think otherwise...I'd say all of my 9,000+ edits are in service to this principle. One of the main ways I think we can be better is by taking the efforts of others (library databases, Project Gutenberg/Distributed Proofreaders, Internet Archive, OCR software...) and using it as a starting point for our own proofreading efforts. Of course it is possible to simply take the raw texts and type every word, so that every bit of work is done by Wikisource volunteers... I don't think that's what you're advocating, but if so, I'm not sure why that would be better. I don't see how it would lead to better results, and I do think it would have a huge negative impact on the pace of our work.

Do you feel that our means of proofreading an Index is less reliable than matching text from elsewhere?

No. I think there are many effective and reliable approaches to proofreading, that are compatible with Wikisource.

Don't you think we should do more than copy the work of others?

Absolutely...and I think we do so routinely.

What will keep us relevant?

(see my list above)

Overall, I do see that I erred in placing Volume 4 on "new texts" prematurely. I'm glad you brought it up, and it's timely, will inform my efforts with Eleven years in the Rocky Mountains and a life on the frontier, which is also based on a Project Gutenberg transcription.

But I'm not sure how that error (which has to do with my misunderstanding of Wikisource's poorly-documented but well-established standards) casts doubts on my general proofreading efforts. If you do have remaining concerns about that, I guess I'll need more information to evaluate them.

As for the strategic planning effort, after further review I think I was mistaken in thinking that it addressed the points we're discussing.

However, reviewing it did lead me to your own blog post about Wikisource, which I had only seen in passing. I enjoyed it, and found it very relatable...I also had a good experience with poetry in the grieving process. for my own blogging, at present I'm not planning to do anything that would characterize the general sentiments of the community. As somebody who's been writing in connection with open peer production projects for many years, I'm well aware of that concern, and I like to think I've generally approached it responsibly. I'm always open to feedback though, if there's something I've missed. -Pete (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I read the above quickly, for I will be away from the computer for a bit. But I will read it more thoroughly when time again permits in order to give you a better explanation of the concerns that were running through my head at the time of my previous postscript. Nothing too deep :) Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks:, you know, I think I just figured out where our disconnect may have come from -- let me know if this resonates? I think maybe you were interpreting my act of adding the text to "new texts" as a declaration that the work was pretty much done. But that's not the case. This discussion is making me articulate and refine my thinking more clearly than I did before -- my "threshold" for putting stuff at "new texts" has been, more or less, (a) the entirety of the text is present in the Wikisource version, and it's presented in a way that makes it useful to a non-wiki-editor reader; and (b) work has reached a point where the efforts of other Wikisourcers would be especially welcome. I see "complete" and "validated" as being two different standards, and maybe you and I differ on that point? With regard to (b)...are there maybe other mechanisms for that, that would be more appropriate? I don't want to clutter up the Scriptorium every time I've made some headway on a project, but it would be nice to have some way to highlight that I'm working on it. And I enjoy finding texts that others are working on via the various front page features, and pitching in from time to time. -Pete (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I suppose my concerns came primarily from your post above which reads: This text is another one from Project Gutenberg. Having proofread many of the pages, I have found the quality of transcription to be very high; all that needs to be done is (a) add a running header; (b) check for the occasional italicized word or phrase, smaller text, or (in very rare cases) table; and (c) make sure hyphenated words crossing from one page to the next are handled properly with {{hwe}}. It appears that proofreader Melissa McDaniel did an exceptionally good job, with the only remaining issues being the formatting issues I outlined; I have found no errors in the text itself. To my way of thinking, this rises to a level that is actually higher than many of the pages I have seen Wikisource volunteers mark as "proofread." Yes, we still have to do two rounds of proofreading here at Wikisource, but since it has already been proofread at least once, those two rounds will have a pretty light touch. Each contributor has their own method of proofreading, and it is likely that my misunderstanding may be a result of my personal method. I take a word by word, line by line &c. approach to proofreading, and even when the quality of the text to be proofread is high, I still give every word, line and page equal scrutiny and treatment. That is not to say my method is perfect, for it is not. My eyes can get lazy going back and forth incessantly... But when you stated after "having proofread many of the pages ... all that needs to be done...", to me that translates to eliminating certain elements of proofreading on the assumption that what has been shall also be. That is where I developed the impression that you might be settling for "just as good" as opposed to what might be "better" or potentially improved upon. Apologies if I have misunderstood. It is late, and I don't wish to belabor... I appreciate your taking the time to address all of the above! Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
& Re: my WM blog... It's not very good (in my own estimation)—although my mother was happy to comment on it :) —I would redo/reword parts differently now, but it fairly well represents my motivation to edit. Probably a little better is a WM metrics meeting presentation from last year []. I'll read/re-read your won contributions—I enjoy hearing about the experiences and opinions of other editors. Gives me a broader perspective of the sister. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, I understand better now. Certainly, my own approach to proofreading is not as rigorous as yours...I respect and appreciate your approach, and I also think mine has benefits. Two of them, if we're going to count: (1) it permits me to work here (as I would quickly lose patience and move on to other projects if I had to work word-by-word on every page), and (2) it permits me to process texts more quickly than I would otherwise, so I can get more done. A document like this one might not be perfect, but it's there now -- and it's an important one to Portlanders. Prior to putting it here, there wasn't a version of it online that was easy to read, or easy to search. But now it's there, and accessible to the masses. I may not have caught every typo produced by the OCR, but I caught a whole lot -- it's a whole lot better than what was available online before. To me, that's an accomplishment, and it's not going to be my top priority to go through with a fine-toothed comb and catch every little glitch...but if or when somebody does, I'll be pleased. In the meantime, I'll be chipping away at other texts.
If I take you at your word that you're simply sharing how you would do things, I have nothing to quarrel with. But, I see you several times say that you're being a busybody, or similar. It only comes across to me that way when you describe it that way.
Maybe I'm giving you the impression that I'm bumbling about with no standards whatsoever. Not so. An example that comes to mind is the portrait of Mrs. Coates. I myself would not edit that the way you did. I do have some professional background with image manipulation, but it's just enough to know my limits. When reproducing older images, I strive to get the highest-resolution version on Wikimedia's servers, with maybe a slight bit of blurring to eliminate the most glaring moire, and usually adjusting the white and black points in a way that doesn't get rid of any information. I will usually stop there, and let somebody with genuine expertise and appropriate software make the final steps if they deem it necessary. But just because that's my personal standard, doesn't mean I'm going to impose it on others. You're the one with a strong affinity for the poet, and if you're happy with the result, so am I. The un-retouched one still exists in the file history, so it's possible for somebody with a specific reuse in mind to go back to it and do their own adjustments if they like.
The way I see it, in a project like Wikisource, it's a strength and not a weakness that different individuals bring a passion for different aspects of the work. I'm happy to understand your standards and approach better. I don't think I'll be making big adjustments to how I do things here (apart from a bit more caution about when I declare a work as "complete" enough for the new texts page). But I do appreciate your elaboration on your thinking and approach. -Pete (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
As to the portrait of Mrs. Coates, the image I worked on and uploaded to Commons is an entirely different file than the one you worked on. They are two separate files. I did not overwrite. As to other issues, I only shared how I do things to explain where my perspective was coming from. I was trying to explain a possible misunderstanding, but instead I created one one top of it I think. To say I'm a busybody is just me apologizing for incessantly "bugging" a person about a thing. I worry too much about being annoying or offending. This sort of forum has its drawbacks where communication is concerned. No issues. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks:, I'm having a hard time with this discussion. Even with all the words exchanged, I'm not sure I know what it's about. I have conceded on a couple of occasions that I erred in posting this to "new texts," but you have declined to suggest what is to be done about that, so I'm not sure whether that agreement reflects progress or is just a minor detail from your perspective. We have found that we have different standards and approaches; I have expressed that I think our approaches are compatible and we can coexist in a project like this, by which I mean we can accomplish good things together as part of a loose-knit community. But you have not commented. I can only assume you disagree, which is rather disheartening, but reasonable enough I suppose. On the portrait, I guess I just regret bringing it up, because my point has been utterly lost, and seems tangential to anything but an understanding of my motivations and standards, which may not be of interest to you at all. I'm stuck. If there's something we need to continue discussing, could you help me see what it is? -Pete (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I know... I have become lost and stuck myself, and would very much like a do-over :) My concentration is shot after learning we may be moving to another country later this year (exciting, yet overwhelming), so my thoughts have been all over the place. I am willing to try to reiterate, but only if it would provide some clarity? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks...sounds like a lot to deal with. I am a bit overwhelmed with some stuff myself, and I guess part of it is that I find editing Wikisource a source of relaxation and satisfaction, and one of the things I like about it is the idea that compared to other wikis, I can more or less work in peace without the kind of conflict can occur on other wikis. But that's not something I should take for granted, as it's always important to try to sync up when there are significant differences.
I have also been trying to put myself in your shoes. It occurs to me that on another wiki I work on, there is an editor who for years has been disregarding what I consider an important guideline, and though he often seeks input, seems to completely disregard that feedback from myself and others. Maybe that's a similar place to where you find yourself right now. It's a tricky spot to be in. "Do-over" might be a good way to look at it. I'm still trying to listen, even if I do get a bit frustrated from time to time. -Pete (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Some Wikisource guidelines are ambiguous. This can be good (as it allows for ingenuity as I have mentioned before), but it can also be a source of confusion, like what does "complete" actually mean at New Texts? I was wrong to try to direct you toward my notion of what "complete" is instead of taking my concern about the ambiguous wording to the community. I think that is as far as I should have taken things in my discussion with you. You were faithfully following guidelines as you interpreted them. The last thing I want to do is distract you from your purpose here. I really do have "no issues." Hope you weren't thinking I was being flippant or dismissive when I said that. Is that ok for a do-over? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't say you were wrong -- I'm glad you brought it up, and while it's true that I was trying to follow the guidelines, in hindsight my interpretation was sloppy, and I'm glad to have an expanded awareness of the thinking around that. However, I appreciate your summing up and reflecting back what I had to say, and maybe that was the missing piece. If I can, I'd be glad to help in advocating for some clearer guidelines on that. Yes, I'm satisfied with all that...I think our do-over is done. Thank you, and I look forward to our next discussion, as I'm sure our work will continue to overlap! -Pete (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:new texts[edit]

Hi. If you utilise the nowiki parameter, then it applies plain text, and from there you can just wikilink as you would normally do for plain text. I have done this occasionbillinghurst sDrewth 07:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Billinghurst:! -Pete (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Transclusion and status of Oregon Historical Quarterly Volume 1[edit]

Hello! I have been going through "index pages that are marked as proofread or validated, though do not have the a transclusion check template" and noticed some issues with the above work. It has been marked as a New Text at the WS Main Page, and while the Mainspace work appears complete with content, it seems that it draws some content from alternate sources instead of the assumed parent Index. Also, there are several Index:pages that have yet to be proofread. I am new to spotting these sorts of things, so please forgive. Just wondering where you were regarding the proofreading/transclusion of the Index. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

While I was in the process of transcribing, I discovered a very nice, volunteer-produced transcription of Vol. 1 No. 2 exists at Gutenberg. So I copied some of those articles to pages here. There was a bit of clean-up to do; I went through the Victor article to add reference tags for the footnotes, and next I have to go through and eliminate all the page numbers, which were included in my copy-paste. That's as much as I anticipate doing myself, but of course if somebody wishes to go through and separate them out into pages, and transclude them from the article pages, etc., that would be just fine. IMO that's not a huge priority, since Gutenberg is known for high quality transcriptions, but if somebody wanted to do it that would be fine by me. I'd rather spend my time on volumes that have not yet been transcribed. And similarly, I see little value in transcribing the remaining pages, which are a "subject" index which did not appear in the individual numbered issues sent to subscribers/members, but only in the annual bound volumes. Computer-based text searches make these navigational aids much less necessary. So, I guess I'd say the chances that the index will be completely finished are slim, but the work is complete. Does that answer your question? -Pete (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok. I'll mark the Index with {{index transcluded|transcluded=no}}. Technically then, the parent MS page should correspondingly be tagged with {{incomplete}}; and unindexed/unsourced Mainspace pages such as Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 1/The Oregon Question, part 1 should technically be marked with {{No source}} if not supplied with a {{Textinfo}} or source mention at the Talk page. Ideally, parts of works shouldn't be mix-matched from various sources to make up a Mainspace work; I'll bookmark the Index in case I have time to devote to it in the future. I understand your wish to move on :) Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
P.S. Since the Index is not fully proofread, I will mark it as "To be proofread"... I think {{index transcluded|transcluded=no}} is reserved for proofread/validated works. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for explaining. To be honest, I will probably never be 100% diligent about attending to all those details, but would like to support that work as well as I reasonably can. Is this the proper way to tag the source, then?
I guess the definition of "proofread" here is highly site-specific, which seems unfortunate to me. The good folks at Gutenberg have been at this since the 70s, and though I don't know them intimately, I believe their proofreading standards are every bit as high, if not higher, than ours.
Do you happen to know if the "transcluded" tag (of which I know nothing) impacts search engine performance? If so, it seems works like this would be less accessible to Internet searches. Getting a search result like an OCR'd PDF from JSTOR, with an implication that you owe them money, seems really unfortunate when a good transcription exists. I don't necessarily want to get into lengthy wiki litigation about such things, but I am definitely curious how it works and what the thinking is behind it. -Pete (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
(p.s. I do now realize that 321-326 are simply not proofread at all, and intend to address that soon...I had not realized I missed those ones.) -Pete (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I think your marking of the source is appropriate. I would not think searches are impacted by transclusion status—I would assume (never helpful) any Mainspace work is as searchable as another. But I really am not knowledgeable on the subject. I am not so familiar with Gutenberg. If a work there does contain errors, how easy is it for a passer-by to make a correction to a proofread text? IMO, WS strives to be reliable and maintain high standards—and it tries to balance that with an ability to also be innovative. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)]
Yes, those sound like the right values to me...and certainly Wikisource is superior in the way you describe. I'll come back to your questions later, but for the moment...I don't know if this is coincidence or if it's something you set up, but Phe's bot just did something marvelous to one of the files in question, which may obviate any differences you and I have... take a look at the file history here: Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 1/Reminiscences of Louis Labonte (my most recent edit was to click a tab that said "split" -- just one click, and everything fell into place.) Talk about innovation!! -Pete (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Not set up by me... I assume Inductiveload stumbled upon this conversation; otherwise, coincidence... Don't know how what they are doing with the bot works exactly. I just call it all magic :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Just being nosy (and procrastinating...) in recent changes! Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Greetings - pardon the intrusion! That was me testing if Match and Split works here. The answer is "yes, yes it does". There are instructions on that help page if you want to do more. After the split is complete you do need to check for weird formatting and things around the page boundaries. For example, it doesn't do cross-page hyphenation. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
With respect to search, text in the mainspace that is transcluded from Page: namespace is searchable both by Wikisource's search engine and also findable on Google. If searching on Google, you probably won't find results for pages you've made very recently, as it takes a little while for them to find it. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @Inductiveload:, this is indeed a powerful tool...I did not realize how sophisticated the match & split technology was. I've not M&S'd all the remaining articles, and am working on proofreading them. Looking forward to a nice quick import of the entirety of Volume 4 next! Thank you both, this is great stuff. -Pete (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I will have to learn how to match & split some day... Baby steps for me :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks:, whenever you do, you'll find it's incredibly easy! Basically:
  1. put the following text on the page: ==__MATCH__:Page:Oregon Historical Quarterly vol. 1.djvu/123== (where, obviously, the "Page: ... 123" gets replaced with the first page you want the text to match.)
  2. After you save the page, click the blue "__MATCH__" link that will show up on the page. Wait a few minutes, and refresh the page.
  3. Click the "split" tab at the top of the page. Wait a few minutes...a bot will do all the magic. And that's it! Now you'll have individual pages to proofread.
Help:Match and split has some worthwhile cautionary words, some of which are relevant here. -Pete (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that :) I have copied your instruction to my housekeeping page. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, the Match and Split problem you mentioned on the Scriptorium is why it's important to follow the instruction to pause between the Match process and the Split process. Checking that the Match hasn't stalled part way down a page is an essential part of the process. I find it happens about 1 in 8 times. Fixing it can be a bit of a pain, but it is worth it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Beeswaxcandle:, good to be aware of. I think in this case it was just a matter of the match process failing when it came up against some unusual pages (photo plates etc.), and me not realizing the consequence of splitting a partially-matched page. But going forward, I'll be extra careful about determining the results of the match before splitting. -Pete (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Author categories[edit]

I checked, and Beeswaxcandle says we do not categorize by author; that we "categorise per Help:Categorization". I pinged EncycloPetey on my inquiry as well since I thought I remembered their giving such guidance some time back. That is the reason for all the rollbacks, etc. going on right now. I wanted to inform you before that all happened. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A reminder that Wikisource does not support categories for individual people. Such categories will be deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to you both -- noted. -Pete (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)