User talk:Peteforsyth

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to 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)

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)

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)


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)


works great when header info, TOC, etc. are straightforward and uncomplicated. I'm not sure how it would deal with multiple subpages, etc. I have used it on several occasions. I can't attest to how it works technically, but I believe it draws its info from the setup of the index/toc formatting, etc. See this work for example, noting navigation font &c. Someone else can probably explain things better. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

article link as a parent template for periodical specific[edit]

For periodicals like Oregon Historical Quarterly we probably should simple create its own link and lkpl template set, based on {{article link}} (noting that {{authority/link}} similarly exists). We utilise it in many places, gives good consistency, and allows for some semblance of metadata. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Index: and Page: namespace movements[edit]

Hi. When there is a file needing to be moved at Commons, please ask an admin to fix things up at this end rather than move pages in the Index: and Page: namespaces, as we usually wish to avoid redirects. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikisource:Requests for comment/Redirect policy


I do not seem to have a TemplateScript menu with a "running header" link present in the left hand navigation pane when in edit mode of an Index:page. How can I get one? Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I added it a long time ago, I think @Doug: is the one who showed me how. It involves pasting some code into your user space. It gives you a couple dozen scripts, of which I've found two or three are tremendously useful. ("Cleanup and lines" is the other one I use constantly; it gets rid of extraneous line breaks, joins hyphenated words, and does some other tidying things like converting ASCII quotes and curly quotes to straight quotes.) Instructions are here; I can try to help walk you through it if you have trouble. -Pete (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I will take a look! As an aside, what do you think of this? Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: did you figure it out? These scripts are super useful, let me know if you're having trouble. -Pete (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Good morning! Thanks for asking... I have been distracted by another work of poetry today (recent Twitter post explains it) and have just logged back on here. I will take a look... Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
OK. TemplateScript is in working order, but is there a way to modify how the header renders? Currently, using TemplateScript, it renders as {{running header|center=|right=}}. Can I program it to render as {{rh||''''.|}}{{block center/s}} instead to serve my purposes (to be further modified/tweaked as necessary for future works)? Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Congrats! I would imagine it's not too hard to modify it, but it's not something I know much about. However, I wonder if there might be an aspect of how it's designed to work that's not coming across. This script is meant for cases where you are proceeding through pages in order; it copies and increments the page number from the one two pages before it. You can always modify the running header's contents (of course), but it does a good job of matching it. If a chapter has the same headers on all odd numbered pages, and the same headers on all even-numbered pages, you'll find that this script puts exactly the right header on each page as you advance through them. Does that make sense? I'm not sure I fully understand your question, so let me know if I've missed the point. -Pete (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not seeing that it increments page numbers; it merely renders as {{running header|center=|right=}} /left &c. on each page (use Page:The New Penelope.djvu/297 as an example). Even if it rendered page numbers correctly, it would still be more helpful if I could somehow add some sort of code to the script that would allow me to modify output. But I know nothing about writing code, or whether this can even be done. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Weird, it sounds like something is not working properly. I just clicked the page you linked, clicked the "runningheader" link, and saved the page -- with no modification. Could you do the same to a different page so I can see the output? We might have to ask around a bit to troubleshoot. I'm realizing I won't be able to put the time into it today -- but I should be able to tomorrow. -Pete (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Looks like the page you saved did modify... I am seeing a title (albeit an incorrect one) and a page number...? Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
P.S. No problem with sitting on this till later :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I mean I did not make any manual modifications. I just clicked edit, then runningheader, then save. The title is incorrect because it copied it from two pages before...which in many cases is the correct header, but less often in a volume of short poetry, if each page has the title of the poem in the header. Could you do the same on a different page, and show me the results? Click edit, then runningheader, then save? (I can do a little more troubleshooting today, just don't have the time today to put together questions to other editor etc.) -Pete (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Should I do the same on the following page, or any page thereafter? Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The following page will do nicely! -Pete (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Seems no joy. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, well at least we've narrowed it's definitely not functioning properly. But yes, we're at a point I'll have to come back to it later. Sorry, I thought it'd be easier than this! -Pete (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
No problem :) Till later, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Aha! @Londonjackbooks: I think I have found the problem. (I had forgotten it was possible for us to look at each other's common.js files, which makes for much easier troubleshooting!) So, here's mine and yours:

I believe the missing part in yours is this:

//running header lookup
importScript('User:Inductiveload/Running header.js');

I think if you just paste that below the lines you inserted last time, and then reload your browser page, that will fix it! Give it a try...and I guess we also know that Inductiveload is probably the best person to ask if that doesn't work :) -Pete (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Will give it a shot now! Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Think you've got it, thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Excellent, hope it helps! It looks as though the collection of links that includes "clean up & lines", which I consider indispensible, is separate...I believe it's the "sidebar" and "utility" parts in my common.js. I'd urge you to give those a try as well, at your own pace of course :)

//add sidebar tools importScript('User:Peteforsyth/Regexp toolbar.js');

//Utility functions importScript('User:Inductiveload/Roman numerals.js');

-Pete (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! As for certain cleanup aspects, such as removal of end-of-line breaks &c., doing so manually is part of my "flow" :) But I will keep them in mind! Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: I understand about flow...think it's a worthwhile tool to know about, but I also find myself doing it manually sometimes...a comfortable old habit. From your chat with billinghurst I am not sure I've adequately explained how the runningheader script is supposed to work...I'll try again with a couple screenshots this afternoon. It would be good to add some better documentation in general I think, so this is a good excuse to do so. -Pete (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Only if it is not too much trouble, or taking you away from your editing... I think I understand basically how the rh script works... but perhaps I do not understand fully? I've got a couple hours left in me... So no rush as I will not likely be available when you are ready... Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: Does this help? Wikisource:TemplateScript/RunningHeader -Pete (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I have been following along. Yes. I do understand, and you have adequately explained things :) Thank you, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks! I'll see about making that more "findable." -Pete (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Excuse my interjection, but that is a very helpful help page. In the instance of headers using page titles, like the works of poetry in your example, the replacement text is usually found in the OCR. There was a snippet of script around that sliced out the top line and inserted it into the template. Anyway, I noticed you using the smaller template in a heading and maybe that gives the result you want (and I am telling you what you already know), but there is a related family of templates that you may not be aware of: Template:Smaller_block/doc. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 04:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: Thanks for stopping by! I'm not sure which header contains {{smaller}}, and it may have been a mistake. I'm slowly learning which of {{smaller}} and {{smaller block}} is appropriate to what situation, and appreciate any effort to help me see the distinction...but in this case, I'm not sure I'm understanding yet. -Pete (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it was the text you are currently working, I peeked at what you are doing (looks good) on recent changes. The smaller and larger templates are used for parts of a 'line', such as a few words, the block family formats the whole line or lines. In practice, I find they make spacing within and between headings and paragraphs behave properly. An example might be a chapter title in a larger block, the subheading in a smaller block, which should stack neatly on the regularly sized content below. Play around with it one day and you will see what the difference is. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 18:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: Well, we may have lost which edit it was...I've been all over the place this morning, working on a bunch of stuff simultaneously. I'd guess it was a mistake, not an intentional any rate, it's not something I'd ordinarily do. Your explanation is helpful though; sounds like I should be using {{smaller block}} even if it's only one line, if the entire line is intended to be smaller. I hadn't realized that. I have played around some, and I can see the difference, but I think this is the key piece I was missing about what is preferred. Thank you. -Pete (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
And another note, for future reference, which I was slow to learn (and you may already know):
Not ok formatting:
{{center|{{smaller|line one

line two &c.}}}}

{{center|{{smaller|line one<br />line two &c.}}}}

{{center|{{smaller block|line one

line two &c.}}
Not ok formatting causes linter? lint? errors (don't ask me what that means). Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Yes, that nicely summarizes what it is I think I learned from this discussion. Glad to have it finally, firmly fixed in my mind! -Pete (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Ashes of Roses[edit]

Untangling some of what I have done with these poems:

  1. I proofread the entire section "TWO POEMS BEAR SAME TITLE" in The Oregonian and created a Mainspace page for it, which also autogenerated to appear at Oregonian/1915. Wondering if I should have titled using 06 vice 6 so it appears correctly chronologically?
  2. I converted Ashes of Roses into a disambiguation page.
  3. I converted both Ashes of Roses (Packard) and Ashes of Roses (Victor) into redirects to the Oregonian section "Two Poems &c." above. It is preferable to link directly to the indexed transcluded source using anchors or etc. as opposed to "excerpting."

Hoping this is all acceptable to you. Let me know if you have any other suggestions or if I've missed anything. Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: Thanks for all the work, and thanks especially for breaking down what you did and why. It makes sense to me, glad to learn. The only thing I find slightly puzzling...and it's not really a disagreement, more of a curiosity to learn about your, why would we put poems from a book on their own page, but not poems published in a newspaper? I try to think of things like this from a user design perspective (rather than trying to adhere to a principle of "consistency" which I think is often the path to insanity on a wiki). From that perspective it seems like a pretty unimportant concern, since the reader seeking out the poem will get to it easily enough, and if they really want it without the surrounding context, that's easily solved with a little cut-and-paste. But it does seem that a newspaper choosing to publish a poem twice endows it with a certain amount of "notability" (not in the WP technical sense), which is why I was initially inclined to put it on its own page.
If you're inclined to respond, I'm curious...but I don't need an answer, I realize this is getting way into esoteric details. -Pete (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I am open to getting into details :) My thinking: Both poems make up the section of the newspaper falling under the heading "Two Poems Bear Same Title". Both poems together satisfy that title. I believe when transcribing newspapers, periodicals, etc., Mainspace pages should reflect the structure/titling of the newspaper/periodical. Does that make sense? If we did not have the scan of the newspaper page available, I would say give the poems their own pages and make reference to the source at the Talk page; but in this case, we have context we can work with. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
BTW, if you have a vision for the presentation of Victor's works, I do not want to mess with that, so please do let me know. I will not be offended. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Not a bit, thank you for improving it! I suppose I have a "vision" of some day publishing something about how important aspects of Victor's work have been lost over the decades, despite (or because of) a great desire on many people's part to tell her story (and thank you for the encouragement on that). But how her work gets organized here, I think will take the wisdom of many...I'm not sure I'm the best equipped to figure out how to best present it on an author page, I'm too deep in the weeds. As for something more substantial, I do think I'm getting closer to putting pen to paper (so to speak), and may want to run some ideas by you soon, if you're game. I feel I've been dragging my feet, but then again, I couldn't possibly take longer than Hazel Mills, who worked on a biography of Victor for about 50 years, and died before it was published. (!) -Pete (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I should say more explicitly, it's very gratifying that you take enough interest to rearrange her Author page. I throw stuff up there kind of willy-nilly, mostly to make sure I don't lose it's really nice to have some careful and intelligent assistance in organizing and annotating it! -Pete (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Ha. I do try to be care-full; but I am also untrained, and depend upon the "wisdom of many" here to help organize my thought process. With regard to running any ideas by me, I am game, and at your leisure (perhaps not 50 years). I would like to complete a biographical piece on Mrs. Coates as well. Hopefully within the next couple years (optimistic). But my notes/papers are still in shipment. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


Hi! I think you may find this useful: 1. If you tinker with it as per need, for your own common.js, it can solve many nitty-gritties during proofreading. Hrishikes (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC) @Hrishikes: Thank you for the thoughtful suggestion. I'll take a look! Sorry to be slow about it, it takes me a little while to get used to new tools -- but I always appreciate having more options. -Pete (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Page:Portland, Oregon, its History and Builders volume 2.djvu/57[edit]

Seems you have requested the deletion of the image here, with it "nowcommons", though not updated the filename on the page. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. thanks for the note. -Pete (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your deleted question on the Scriptorium[edit]

If you are still wondering what to do with works about a person who is not an author, you will find your answer with many examples at Portal:People. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks @Beleg Tâl: That indeed nicely addresses my confusion. -Pete (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Index:The Columbia River - Its History, Its Myths, Its Scenery Its Commerce.djvu and sub Pages...[edit]

I don't know how this was imported, but the Pages for this are generating a large number of LintErrors, and the inline HTML formatting seems to be being ignored entirely.

What went wrong? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

See also - meta:Help:HTML_in_wikitext#Permitted_HTML ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi @ShakespeareFan00:, thanks for asking. I imported this from a Project Gutenberg transcription; this is the only work I've done where I followed the instruction at Help:Project Gutenberg, i.e., copying the underlying HTML from PG, doing some basic regex in a text editor, and then bringing into WS. I did it as sort of an experiment, to see how well it would work; it seemed to be pretty good to me, but definitely needs a fair amount of work. (Less than starting from scratch, but still a good deal.) I'm sorry to learn it introduced linter errors. Can you point me to an example? Are there certain ASCII codes or HTML codes that are throwing it off? I think it would be a shame to delete the whole thing and start fresh, as it's a reasonably usable book at present, permitting easy access to a pretty good transcription; however, I'm not utterly opposed to deleting the un-proofread pages if you feel that's the best path forward. What do you think is best? -Pete (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
It can be easily repaired, so there's no need to delete. The main issue that is causing most of the LintErrors, is an unblanced closing DIV in the footer for each page.. Example: Page:The_Columbia_River_-_Its_History,_Its_Myths,_Its_Scenery_Its_Commerce.djvu/33, removing that trailing DIV across the work should resolve many of the issues. The issue with inline HTML, appears predominantly on "image" pages, mostly due to the tag concerned not being in the list of HTML tags permitted in Wikitext (see the meta page I linked) (the lack of warning about that is something I've already mentioned in a Phabricator ticket.).

On a quick glance I will also note in places that the 'split' in the OCR hasn't matched up with the nominal split in the page scans, but this is a minor concern and easily resolved during proofreading. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I see, thanks for explaining @ShakespeareFan00:. I'm happy to continue resolving that during proofreading, but do you want a more efficient approach to the part causing the lint errors? If so, I might need a little guidance on how to do it. I'm reasonably compentent with AWB, which I'm guessing is the best tool for the job? My instinct might be to just delete all div tags (opening or closing), delete all img src tags, and delete all br tags that have a leading space after the opening bracket. I think I could manage to do that much in AWB, but if there's a more nuanced/customized approach I should take, I could use a little guidance. -Pete (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
If you are already familiar with AWB regexp, you know more than I do, as I've never used it.. I would suggest asking more widely on the Scriptorum...ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, I should have time to take a crack at it in the next few days. I'll ask at Scriptorium after I take a closer look, because I'm not even sure I have a handle on precisely what question I would need answered yet :) -Pete (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: (and also @Mukkakukaku: in case you're interested), I just ran an AWB process and I think I replaced all the stray div tags and img src tags, among other things. The only thing that kinda went wrong is that it used curly quotes instead of straight quotes...but that didn't make things worse, just failed to improve 'em, as it was just going from ASCII curly to regular curly. I'll see about figuring that part out before I next use AWB.
Please let me know if there are still linter errors coming up on this work? -Pete (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

HTML entity curly was pretty easy to spot. ;) It seems to have fixed up the html entity versions of ñ (cañon) and é (Nez Percés) too. Mukkakukaku (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I learned some from it...I manually set the search and replace for a number of things, including "é", but I didn't set one for "ñ". So I'm pretty sure the built-in "clean up" option took care of some things I missed. I did put straight quotes in for the manual search-and-replace, but I'm guessing that the built-in cleanup overrode it with curly ones. Maybe @Billinghurst: knows? -Pete (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The Columbia River - Its History (etc) TOC question[edit]

Just a quick question because I'm more curious than anything else. For the table of contents pages for this work, such as Page:The Columbia River - Its History, Its Myths, Its Scenery Its Commerce.djvu/15, I see you decided to use straight-up tables instead of the TOC templates. Was there a reason for this? I poked about a bit on my sandbox here and found it wasn't too hard to come up with a relatively simple approximation using the templates. But since you had started off with tables I figured I might as well keep with it when proofing/validating those pages. I was just curious as to why you had decided to go that route.

Thanks, Mukkakukaku (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Mukkakukaku: Please see section above for how I approached this work overall...your question, along with SF's, make me realize I really should have put some notes on the talk page for this work. With the TOC, in general I don't know the "right" way. Different people have urged me in different directions, typically I use {{dotted TOC line}}. With this one, I never really made a "decision," I took the existing HTML code and tweaked it to the point where it more or less looked right, and left it as something to get back to. So, if you want to approach it with another format, be my guest, I'd appreciate seeing how you make them, maybe I'll learn a new trick or two. Sorry for causing confusion, and thanks for your efforts on this (and other) works I've uploaded. -Pete (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Aux TOC &c.[edit]

Just a quick pass-by of RC (recent changes) on this busy morning... The Aux TOCs look sharp. Nice. On another note, family member loved visiting your city. Came down with a crummy cold toward the end, but it did not overshadow their experience. Have a good one! Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

So pleased you noticed, seemed like a detail worth attending to :) Glad to hear your relative enjoyed their stay, but sorry about the viral ending. I just remembered when I saw this -- I think I completely neglected a question from you recently! My apologies. Still relevant? -Pete (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
And in case you don't remember, you were the one who showed me the Aux TOC template...thanks again for that! -Pete (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah, still relevant, but no hurry no worry :) Carry on with what you're doing. I won't be attending to things until Sunday or early next week. Thanks :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Pete! At your leisure, I am all ears if you have any input on my possible conflict of interest question posed elsewhere. Thanks :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I had started validating a piece (Index) you proofread some weeks ago, but forgot the title. It was one page, I believe, and quite long. Do you remember? I want to at least bookmark it so I can finish validating in the future. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @Londonjackbooks:, this is going back a ways, but I think by your description you mean this one. (For what it's worth, there's a similar...and historically more I'd like to get to, though the scan is poor of the first column...if you have any inclination to study words in a bad scan, I would appreciate an extra set of eyes on that part! See here). Thank you for following up, always nice to have extra eyes on my work! Let me know if there's somewhere you'd like me to return the favor. -Pete (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I will bookmark both... I think I may have found three words so far... I will continue to list things on occasion at the Talk page if I come up with anything else. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The Souvenir of Western Women[edit]

The * Transclusion check tool shows that several pages have not been transcluded. The main page of the work also has red links, so it is not completed yet, and should not yet be listed as a "New Text". --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link @EncycloPetey:. That tool looks useful, but it won't load for me. What pages did you find? I'm pretty sure they're all transcluded. I'll remove the redlinks, they're just illustrations, which are included in the chapters that are linked in the TOC. -Pete (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Did you enter the full title of the Index page? Enter "Index: ... .djvu" (the full index page title) to get it to work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The checker is flagging the following DjVu pages: 28, 32, 106, 120, 160. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

That was it, thanks. I found the same page numbers, working on them now. -Pete (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Don't forget to de-link the second page of illustrations as well, if you're going to de-link the illustrations listings. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Dude. You realize it's been like 30 minutes since you posted your message, right? I'm working as fast as I can! Seriously! -Pete (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
You're also more than welcome to help if it's that urgent to you. -Pete (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, I think I'm done. Either way, I'm getting offline. Sorry to snap. There's lots of work to be done around here, and there's no deadline. So the intensity of your feedback -- some of which was very helpful -- was unexpected. -Pete (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


Hello Pete! Not sure if this got lost in your notifications, but I answered (sort of) your question. Hoping all is well with you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Londonjackbooks: thanks for replying. Sorry, I've been a bit distracted from Wikisource since posting that...I'll have to review it myself when I get a moment :) But, at first glance it looks to me like no action is needed at this point. Hope all is well with you! -Pete (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

LilyPond error[edit]

Hi Pete! Hope all is going well with you :) Not sure if you remember this issue, but I was wondering if you could possibly open up that Phab ticket if you get a chance. No hurry though! I really don't know what's causing the break... Very much over my head. Thanks if you can get to it, and be well. Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Londonjackbooks: Nice to hear from you, yes things are pretty good over wishes back at you. I created a ticket and responded over at that other discussion. -Pete (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Redundancy in the History of Mexico titles[edit]

Hi. Just want to understand what is the redundancy in the titles? I added "(Bancroft)" to the titles because I am fairly certain that we will end up with others with similar titles. — Ineuw (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Ineuw: The displayed version was redundant, in that it lists Bancroft's name twice, to no real purpose. The titles of the actual pages are fine, I'm not trying to reopen that.
"History of Mexico (Bancroft) (1886) by Hubert Howe Bancroft"
"History of Mexico (1886) by Hubert Howe Bancroft"
But when I did that, I was not fully awake. I realized there's a second issue -- the header should ideally link to the "volume 1" page, since that's the actual parent volume...the top-level "History of Mexico" page is less important to link from the individual chapters. That's what I was thinking, anyway...but I was still sleepy, so I just stopped working at it. Maybe the best way is to link both, like in the headers in Memoirs of Henry Villard/Volume 1/15. What do you think? -Pete (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Your are right that the Volumes need their own hierarchy and thanks for fixing the titles. Now I understood the issue. I am also OK with any changes anyone else makes. I only care about two issues, finishing the projects I start, and maintaining consistency within a project. That is why I was willing to change all the titles, even if it meant many hours of work, and regret that billinghurst jumped in. Wanted to understand and learn the use of the software tools. Perhaps the next time. — Ineuw (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I can see that -- sometimes learning the process and tools is just as important as accomplishing the goal. It can be frustrating. But, there will surely be other opportunities. -Pete (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Can grab jp2 pages straight from IA[edit]

Not sure whether you are watching the conversation on WS:S, anyway I have found that you can grab a .jp2 file directly from the zips. Example links -> -> (VIEW CONTENTS)

If you are using GIMP for the cleanup, then you can just grab the url and paste straight into the app. This is going to make things so much easier. Now I just need an upload via GIMP to Commons to make my life way easier. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Yes, that capability has been there for at least a year or so -- and it is indeed a game-changer. That's the main reason I started generating my own PNGs instead of relying on Hesperian's bot. I'd like to learn your GIMP trick, that sounds great. But I've been mostly satisfied using command line tools, which make it easy to collect all the images for one work and upload them to Commons as a batch. -Pete (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


Page:Oregon Literature by Horner.djvu/8 in your transclusion. Value in using the checking tool in the top right. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I've seen the checking tool mentioned, but never knew it was so easy to find and use. Got it now! -Pete (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Some Cities and San Francisco, and Resurgam: Validation/Featured?[edit]

Hello. Just in case you didn't see, I posted on the Some Cities and San Francisco index's discussion page that the progress should be changed, and that there could be a possible push for featured status. Thatoneweirdwikier (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Thatoneweirdwikier: Great, thanks! You're welcome to change the progress yourself. (It's common to do that, it's not something that's expected to be done independently. It's a drop-down on the Index page.) As for FT, I've never engaged with that process on WS, but I'm curious. Would you like to put in the proposal? I'd be happy to follow along and help out and learn about it. -Pete (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

::@Peteforsyth: I've had a look at the criteria and I feel that we need to work on points 1 (although I'm not a style guide enthusiast) and 2 before proposal, but we're not far away. Thatoneweirdwikier (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Peteforsyth After asking through the Requests for Help section, I've decided that I'll go ahead in nomination. I'll let you know if any problems arise. Thatoneweirdwikier (talk) 13:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Democratic Ideals (Brown)[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like you are using scans of both File:Olympia Brown - Democratic Ideals - A Memorial Sketch of Clara B. Colby.pdf and File:Democratic Ideals (Olympia Brown).djvu for this. Why is this? —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: Thanks for asking. I inadvertently started with the PDF, and just uploaded the DJVU today. I'm waiting on a request at WS:AN for somebody to move the transcribed pages (introduction & Chapter 1) from the PDF's index to the DJVU's...when that's done I'll request deletion of the PDF and all its associated pages. Sensible approach? -Pete (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I have no strong feelings on this--just trying to understand. Let me know how I can help. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. If I recall correctly, the Internet Archive had not yet created a DJVU, and/or the "IA Import" tool was offline, at the time I first started this. In general it's my understanding that DJVU files are strongly preferred here, so when I'm starting a new work I generally try to start with a DJVU. Sometimes I get impatient and just start out with a PDF, and later realize the folly of my ways :) That's basically what happened here. -Pete (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
@Koavf: I underestimated your interest in helping :) Thanks for doing the first few pages. Next up, I'd say:
  • Create separate chapter pages for chapters 6 to the end
  • Proofread all the pages marked red
  • Validate all the pages marked yellow
Whatever part is of interest to you, I would welcome your help! I'm done for the day, I'll check back over the weekend...let me know, or just dive in if you prefer. I think you know the ropes around here, but if you have any questions, let me know and I'll do my best to answer. Thank you! -Pete (talk) 06:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

"Page" in header on subsequent pages[edit]

This is in line with what I've been doing in all the works that I've worked on. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Oregon "Thanks"[edit]

I appreciate your taking the time to say "Thank You". Though I jump around looking at many things that interest me, it was your earlier note of encouragement that led me to spend time on a project that's clearly important to you. A way of returning the kindness, while also enhancing the record of US History.

I'm new and don't yet know the many tools and rules, so if I see a page that needs work that I don't know how to handle, I skip over it, noting the need to research and learn the additional skill. So please know that it's not that I don't care about doing things thoroughly. I'm just producing what I can while setting aside what I can't.

If you have time and are so inclined, you're welcome to point out mistakes and inefficiencies in what I do. Ernst76 (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Favor with a project[edit]

Hello Pete! Hope all is well with you. I created a WP article (w:Exiles Memorial Center) stub, and am in the process of adding a list of refugees to the page, but I really am not sure how I should organize the information and was wondering if you could take a look... I have a "sandbox" of sorts at my WP User:page with what I have so far. Any thoughts or insights would be appreciated. And only if you have the time. Many thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Londonjackbooks: I will try to dive in this weekend. Looks interesting! -Pete (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Just wanted to let you know I haven't completely forgotten...going to try again this weekend! -Pete (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
No problem at all Pete! No hurry... I appreciate it :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Sorry to take so long to read a short article! I have read it now, and it's a great addition...seems like an important place. It all looks well organized to me. The article could maybe have a little info, it open to the public, and what can visitors expect to see...some sense of the scale of it, how much info it has about individual refugees, etc. That's not a flaw, just a possible area for improvement. Also, I'd guess there are more source materials out there (mentions in books, newspaper or magazine articles...) but beyond a basic web/library search, I wouldn't know where to find them! At any rate, thanks for putting this together, and thanks for bringing it to my attention. -Pete (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Pete. There really hasn't been much media coverage (print or otherwise). I plan to return to take photos of the interior and expand the stub a bit. The EMC is still trying to establish itself as a "valid research center." They can't have their own website at this time, so I thought it would be an easy add for me to create a WP article. Thank you for taking a look :) Be well, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: I created a basic Wikidata item for it. -Pete (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
...and I see the architect has a Portuguese Wikipedia bio. -Pete (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the WD add! Yes! I noted the architect at ptWP. Perhaps a red link I could turn blue eventually here (or there: enWP). But first some groundwork. Thanks again :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Another Oregon question[edit]

I saw your notes on the ref page numbering and will conform. Also the additional line for the occasional section vs. paragraph spacing. And I'm remembering the "close up the lines into paragraphs" thing that always seemed strange to me before.

I had seen in other pages that, when there were footnotes, the footer would contain {{rule}}{{smallrefs}}, but have now seen other pages where there is just {{smallrefs}}. Which is the goal state? Example pages are 215 and 216.

Speaking of rules, I'd noticed an old page where instead of {{rule}} they had just a single line of "----". Perhaps an old-style rule, but I noticed it had a nice variation - it produced a grayed rule line instead of the black rule line from {{rule}}. Try it out, then you specify. Shenme (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Species names[edit]

Regarding [1] - Townsendii vs. Townsendü - species names are weird and often enough change over time. When in doubt try checking Wikipedia for a possible species name. Trying w:Tamias townsendii gets you to w:Townsend's chipmunk. If you look at the species name it does have "Townsendii". Further, if you look down the infobox on the right, at the bottom under Synonyms there is "Tamias townsendii".

Wandering around I found "Arvicola Oregonü" is "Arvicola oregoni" Oregon meadow mouse ; again look under the infobox Synonyms.

"Scurius Richardsonü" is most likely "Sciurus Richardsonii", "Richardson's Columbian Squirrel". Note the probable printing error of 'Scurius' vs. 'Sciurus' ; 'Sciurus' is found just prior! However, I can't find the modern species name - maybe it got combined with another so long ago it has disappeared?

I'll go fix those two. Shenme (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Oregon again: competing colonies?[edit]

I was looking for a frequent goof in the early pages and so searched within History_of_Oregon_(Bancroft)/Volume_1. Afterwards I noticed that pages xx through xxix are duplicated? Do a find on either "Zavalishin" or "Siskiyou County Reminiscences". I see these two lines therein:

<pages index="History of Oregon volume 1.djvu" from=1 to=46 />
<pages index="History of Oregon volume 1.djvu" from=27 to=49 tosection=s1 />

Is one of these a 'leftover'? Shenme (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Shenme: Thanks for your diligence in tracking down that error, and for catching this as well. Yes, I'm pretty sure it's a vestige of the Match and split process I used to generate the OCR'd pages from the Internet Archive text. Whoops! Fixed now. -Pete (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


At the article on Susannah Lattin, I clipped off a paragraph by accident when I added in a link to Wikidata. Thank you for catching it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Problem with new file[edit]

Trying to use the directions found in the "New Upload" help file, (I say "trying" because I obviously didn't do something correctly) I uploaded a new file on Wikimedia Commons. It's a .pdf titled "The Invisible World About Us - Rogers". I'd like to see this essay on Wikisource, but getting it's pages into an index file where they can be proofread is a problem for some reason. Would you please look into this, and assist? I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks. Ernst76 (talk)

@Ernst76: It looks like you were on the track, except you created a page whose title lacked the ".pdf" file extension: Index:The Invisible World About Us - Rogers If you click the following link (with the ".pdf" file extension added in) you can create the page you want. Let me know if you have trouble. Index:The Invisible World About Us - Rogers.pdf -Pete (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Beautiful. Thank you very much. Ernst76 (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia[edit]

It looks as though there was a completely vandalised version which was deleted without examining the history to see the underlying, earlier creation. I have recovered the page, leaving deleted the interceding vandalism, and have also protected the page, as it is clearly a target. If there was a WD item for it, then it will need reattaching, that I haven't checked or done. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes, it really *isn't* our fault[edit]

See my note dropped at User_talk:Ernst76#It was the software's fault? :-) Shenme (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Drat. Ernst76 had originally set the status to 'validated', and I just now mistakenly set it back to 'Proofread', so now can't fix it to 'validated'. (And I just checked it over so there's _two_ votes for 'validated'.) Hopefully you can set it to 'validated'? Shenme (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done thanks for the note! -Pete (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Double Space Between Paragraphs[edit]

Yes, I understand. Removing that double spacing on page 326 was a mistake. Thanks for catching it. Ernst76 (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Roseanne Arcanadanna[edit]

I'm quite happy with your change to using {{Dotted TOC line}}. But... what does the "|col4-width=8em" do? It seems to not matter whether present or not, in the absence of a "|col4text=Hiya!" ? I may be able to use this - {{Dotted TOC line}} - in pages like this one, so I'm interested in its oddities. Shenme (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Shenme: Hmm. My understanding* (*big word) of that parameter is that it determines the width of the righthand column. So by specifying 8em, I thought I was giving the word "Frontispiece" enough room to exist without pushing things to an extra line. But, maybe I got something wrong? -Pete (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
But that's (Frontispiece) column *3*. :-)
{{Dotted TOC line||"The crows come flying and form a bridge over which the Weaving Maiden crosses the Silver River"|''Frontispiece''|spaces=2|entry-width=95%|col4-width=8em}}
Let me see what happens if I change that to "|col3-width=8em"... It does reserve more whitespace to left of Frontispiece, but then that means less room for the col2 entrytext, so that the text wraps 'sooner' at narrow screen widths. I think it's not worth it, and that, except accidentally, we can't reproduce the typeset effect as shown on that page for that particular line, so best just to be similar to the other such lines on that page. Which is what you were doing!
BTW: I have been experimenting with "|entry-width=100%" like you have. To avoid the perplexing text wrapping. But rather than "95%" or other numbers, I just use "100%", because it's not _really_ a _command_, more like a wish: please use everything not *required* for other parts. It makes usage and text wrapping more like we'd expect, I think. Shenme (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Glad to know that's opened up some possibilities, at least! -Pete (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

George Granville Wikidata entry[edit]

Could you correct the image parameter for George Granville’s Wikidata entry? It does now not show an image, and the original image is no longer listed in the entry. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC).

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Done. Sorry about that. Do you agree with my replacement? The portrait that was previously on the Wikidata entry showed him as a young man (teenager?) and it was significantly lower resolution; the one you found seemed like a better choice for a default picture. Yes? -Pete (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes; although I would like to see the original image restored to a higher resolution, it appears that such an event is unlikely to occur. I thank you for your work on Wikidata, and for uploading those works. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC).
    • I did find a higer resolution version of that one, as well, and uploaded it. Good idea. -Pete (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

George Granville entries (on Wikisource)[edit]

You have mistakenly transcluded the entry from A New General Biographical Dictionary (Rose) over the entry from the General Biographical Dictionary (Chalmers). They are separate works. Could you revert your changes? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC).

Oh my, I'm sorry TE(æ)A,ea. I will do my best to undo it...please feel free to revert if I miss part of it. -Pete (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I will need an administrator's help to fix the page move component of my mistake. I'm happy to seek that out, but I'm heading out for the evening, and I don't want to rush the request -- want to be sure I phrase it properly so as not to make it worse. Again, my apologies! -Pete (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
TE(æ)A,ea.: Taking a closer look, I figured out how to revert them myself. I think it is now back to how it should be, let me know if there is still a problem. -Pete (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Chinese Fairy Book[edit]

Pages have a number in sequence, even if they're blank. The numbers are there to identify which page is which. The dash on an Index page is for marking pages that are blank only if they are not part of the numerical sequence, such as the back of plate insertions, end papers, the back of a frontispiece. It is not there to say "This page is blank"; that's what the Page status of "Without text" is for. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Page creation[edit]

Regarding your message: I do not have a "process" of any kind for creating pages. I just create them manually using a touchscreen device. When I correct the text of pages, I also do that manually. The total number of edits is attributable to the amount of time that I spend editing. I have never used Match and Split. It looks like a complicated process and I fear that I might make a complete mess of it. In any event, I do not recall ever encountering a text that had been proofread to at least 75%. I have been doing indexes from the "not proofread" ("to be proofread") category. These are not supposed to need Match and Split. I have never heard of RegEx or Clean Up & Lines before today. I have never used the OCR from the Internet Archive either. The scans in the "not proofread" category have their own text layer that is part of the file on commons, and pre-loads in the edit window that comes when you follow any redlink on an index page. James500 (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind words in the message you placed on my talk page yesterday. Unfortunately, I might not be able to create any more pages in the page namespace. I have been getting messages about page creation from Billinghurst. I fear that he might try to use admin tools to prevent me manually creating pages in the page namespace at some point in the future. I asked him what his intentions are, but he has not answered. James500 (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

H H Bancroft's list of publications from Wikipedia[edit]

I copied the list of publications of H H Bancroft and placed it HERE to add the volume titles etc. and I am inviting you to add your knowledge to the list.— Ineuw (talk) 08:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


Index:History of California, Volume 1 (Bancroft).djvu is actually volume 3 (1825 to 1840). It is not volume 1. Do the file and index page need to be moved? (A scan of volume 1 (1542 to 1800) is at [2]). James500 (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @James500: Good catch. Yes, it looks like I messed that up, and it should be moved. Would you like me to do it? -Pete (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Raw OCR text[edit]

Regarding the conversation elsewhere…

I get the impression—but am not actually aware of the context—that you are in favour of, or see some need for, bulk-creation of pages containing nothing but the raw OCR text. For the benefit of my greater understanding, could you quickly outline what you see as the need this meets and the advantages of that approach compared to the alternatives? And to be very clear: when I have previously indicated that I am sceptical of this practice it is based on a superficial observation of other users' actions, and not on any edit you have made. --Xover (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Xover: Thanks for asking. Maybe nitpicking, but I'm not aware of the extreme version you describe taking place (bulk creation of completely untouched OCR), nor would I advocate for it. (It's possible I did a bit of this early on, as part of my learning process, but nothing more.) But, I'm open to something sort of simililar, so I'll address that.
I try to think about the benefit to readers and to editors when considering something like this. Readers first:
I've been working on the public domain volumes of the Oregon Historical Quarterly for a long time, it's one of my main projects here. At one time, after I'd maybe completed 3 of the 26 or so volumes I was working on (with intermittent pages and articles in the others), I saw that another user started creating all the pages. At the time I thought it was just raw OCR, but I have since learned there was some light proofreading involved. I was immediately excited, because this means that the Wikisource edition and, especially, the search engine on the front page makes it possible, unlike anywhere else online, for readers to search the entirety of the first ~26 volumes, and find results that are reasonably well structured, and that link back to the source materials. It will take a long time to proofread all the pages, but readers have something useful in the meantime. It occurred to me that this might be a good moment to reach out to local historians to help them learn about Wikisource, and the value it offers to their field; because this search engine capability is something unique and clearly useful.
Now, for editors, two cases:
(a) If a work has high quality scans and OCR, that means that per page, it takes little effort to proofread it. Every second you remove from the process of proofreading such a page has a significant impact on the length of time it takes to proofread the entire work. So if, for instance, a page like this one can be automatically generated -- better yet, if the header is stripped out or moved to the appropriate field, if hyphenated words are reunited, etc. -- that will save a significant amount of human intervention time (by proportion). It allows our humans to be more productive.
(b) At the other end of the spectrum, a page like this one, with page-spanning footnotes, accents, italics, etc. requires a lot of time for a human to process. I don't see any benefit to automatically generating a purely OCR version of it, which can be generated by the proofreader almost instantly anyway; but if there's a way to use semi-automated processes like RegEx etc. to substantially clean it up prior to bot-generating it, it might be worthwhile. If you can reduce the number of actions required of a human proofreader, you make the human's work easier.
The only downside I see is if pages are auto-generated with minimal processing, where there's an opportunity for accomplishing a lot with RegEx, scripts, and the like. It's not easy to undo and redo a mass page creation, so it's not good if there are mistakes or overlooked opportunities in the initial effort. I'd say this is an argument in favor of documenting the possibilities and encouraging communication among editors.
Finally, I am a big supporter of a general approach of getting out of the way of good faith editors. We all have different skills, interests, inclinations, even neurochemistry. When there is respectful communication, there's a lot of opportunity for us to learn from one another, and support one another's work. When there's too much strict policy or admin shaming, it can be detrimental to individuals finding a rhythm in which they do their best work, and enjoy their time here. I support communication about the pros and cons of different approaches, but sometimes I am disheartened by assumptions of bad faith that I see on talk pages. (Not usually on my own behalf, but with communications I see among other editors.) -Pete (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to respond in depth on this. I do intend to follow up on this, but 1) I need to consider the issue more and, 2) I have some higher priority demands on my time and don't consider this issue to be particularly time sensitive (i.e. it's an issue that is important but not urgent).
I will say that in the general case I absolutely agree with your last paragraph above, even if on any given specific issue I may (or may not!) end up disagreeing with you on where to draw the line when balancing multiple conflicting concerns.
The only point I'll make by way of qualifying that is that I believe that in a lot (not all, certainly) cases, having good and detailed policy sets out expectations ahead of time and prevents inconsistent and subjective responses by admins and other community members alike. And as the exempli gratia here: the community did long ago decide that we do not want Not proofread pages transcluded into mainspace for quality reasons, but since that has not been made explicit in any policy document or formal discussion (ala. an enWP RFC) that I have found, much less with definitions of the scope and implications of it, you get some admins acting on that decision from their subjective understanding of it, and some that do not or acts based on a different understanding.
I understand where you're coming from in referencing "strict policy", but good policy is strict in the sense that it is clear and detailed and spells out the scope for individual contributor choice, regardless of whether that scope is wide or narrow. It's the getting everyone playing by the same rules, and understanding ahead of time what those rules are, that is the goal.
And since I'm already up on my hobby-horse… A rule or decision that is made explicit in a policy can be brought up for discussion and changed. One that isn't is almost impossible to change or even meaningfully discuss, because everyone has different conceptions of what that rule is and what it means. And long-time community members (regardless of whether they are also admins) have very strong conceptions of what those rules are and what they mean that newer or more casual contributors have exactly zero chance of understanding: meaning they end up having to choose between taking the old-timers' edicts on faith (they are usually right), or directly butt heads with the dinosaur (I use the term affectionately). This is a perfect recipe for conflict and poor communication.
You'll see me get up on this particular soap-box regularly, and I'll take every opportunity I find to advocate for more and better policy. Not to reduce the scope of individual choice, but to make clear what that scope is and to make it possible to discuss expanding or narrowing it when needed. --Xover (talk) 06:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Xover: we agree more than you think. I am a big fan of carefully written policy, and I think the absence of it is one of the biggest gaps here, relative to other wikis I've worked on. It's strange, because I think the skillset and mindset of Wikisourcers lends itself to policy writing better than with some other wikis...but my sense is that we are all more inclined to just quietly do our work, than to put our time into the often difficult work of formalizing rules. I suppose I misspoke before, because it's really the "alleged community positions" that can't be validated by linking a new contributor that drive me crazy. I am absolutely willing to pitch in on getting formal policies up for debate and hashing them through. I also think less constraining guidelines can be a really good tool. For instance, a guideline that not-proofread-pages shouldn't be transcluded to mainspace unless there is some agreement that it's especially good OCR might be preferable to a strict policy that not-proofread-pages should never be transcluded to mainspace. -Pete (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Heh. I love preaching to the choir. :)
I'm not sure I agree with you on the specific case (then again, without expending far more thinking-time on it, I'm not sure I disagree either), but the general point is well taken. Policies should not be draconic and needlessly restraining, nor be without possibility of exception. Preferably with well-defined criteria for when deviating is permissible, but at the very least with an IAR-style safety valve through community consensus (that's always an option, of course, but it's much harder when the policy doesn't itself open that option).
In any case, I appreciate your taking the time to elaborate on this, and I'm glad to see we're not that far apart on the general principles. I'll try to get back to the specifics of this issue when I have the spare cycles to give it the attention it deserves. --Xover (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

History of Oregon problems[edit]

I’ve noticed two.—First, date or pages ranges should be marked with an en-dash (“–”), and not with a hyphen (“-”). Second when you mark references that continue from previous pages, you cannot just move them to the bottom of the page (like, e. g., here); when you do so, there is a line break at the bottom of the page when it is transcluded (see here). I can go through the first volume and fix these errors, if you don’t want to do so. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC).

Thanks @TE(æ)A,ea.: Yes, both are problems that need addressing. I've been sloppy with the hyphens (doing a lot of editing from Linux, and if there's a keyboard shortcut for an en dash I don't know it). I noticed the problem with an extra carriage return before a "ref follow" tag part way through, but I haven't gone back to fix my earlier edits. I'd be happy for any assistance on fixing them. The hyphens, I think, could probably be fixed pretty easily using an automated tool like AWB; so if you were planning to do them manually, I'd be happy to come up with an automated process instead. Thanks for your efforts on this, very much appreciated. -Pete (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
@TE(æ)A,ea.: Um, trying to understand "... when you mark references that continue from previous pages, ...". If I get it, on the following page put the continued ref at beginning of text. Fine. But then, what to do for some of these that were continued across *many* pages? (more than five as I remember) Always at beginning of page? Shenme (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
If I'm understanding correctly, it's fine to leave it at the bottom, but an extra carriage return will result in an undesirable line break. One carriage return before the <ref follow> tag is fine, but two causes a problem. -Pete (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I’m going over the first volume now, and correcting those two specific issues. I would like you to address the following two additional issues. First, the em-dash (“—”) is often given surrounded by spaces on either side; this should not happen (i. e., rather than ). Second, your use of {{SIC}} on this page is served more correctly by {{tooltip}}; I would especially like you to correct the last issue. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC).
    • Hmm, neither of those sounds like me. Perhaps these are ones that @Shenme: worked on? I will take a look when I have a moment though, and for em dash spacing issue is another that can probably be dealt with pretty easily with AWB. -Pete (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Correction, sorry -- the incorrect use of "SIC" was indeed me, and I've fixed it as you suggested. Good point, thank you. -Pete (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: On Linux, you can use a w:Compose key: Compose,--. for an en-dash. Compose,--- is em-dash. I set the right alt key to be the compose key with setxkbmap -option compose:ralt in ~/.profile, but you may have a GUI to do that depending on your system. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Inductiveload, I'll read up! Much appreciated. (I'm using Ubuntu Mate, for what it's worth.) -Pete (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Then you probably have a keyboard preferences entry in your "Start" menu somewhere. Something like the GNOME example here. When set, you use the compose key by pressing the compose key (e.g. I set mine to AltGr), followed by a sequence of keys like --. for "–" or 'e for "é". Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 20:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I have made the aforementioned changes through p. 348, the last page of the initial set of validated pages. I trust that the validating editor may make the same changes on the pages which follow that page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC).

History of Oregon, Volume 1 completed[edit]

I have just finished proofreading the last remaining text of the first volume; only some images remain, and the whole will be complete. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC).

@TE(æ)A,ea.: That's excellent, thank you! I've been following along as I've chipped away at some pages myself. I will try to get the images taken care of in the coming days, and continue validating.
If you've enjoyed working on Ms. Victor's work, maybe a good (and lighter) next project would be The New Penelope, a book of enjoyable short stories? Not so many footnotes to wrestle with! Or, is there a work you'd like me to help out with for a while? -Pete (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • That collection does look interesting; I may start proofreading quite soon. I would also like to finish proofreading Letters from an Oregon Ranch; I just want a decision on contraction spacing. As for works which you can proofread, The Terrible Twins doesn’t seem too terrible. (That is another work that I looked at some time ago—I created the table of contents page in October 2019, it seems.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC).
@TE(æ)A,ea.: Just want to point out, I've finally brought the contraction question up at WS:S. -Pete (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @TE(æ)A,ea.: OK, I've finished uploading the maps, though some cropping and in one case, clever file merging is still required. I'll do what I can, though I'll need to find somebody handy with image editing to help me with the main map. Thanks for the ping on the Oregon Ranch book; I'll post on the Scriptorium about that. It had slipped my mind. -Pete (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
    • One question on The New Penelope—is this page still needed? Also, I’ve just started looking at a list of “The 100 Oregon Books,” and am now adding information about copyright. There are a fair few with existing scans, and which were published before 1926, but which are not yet on Wikisource—if you want even more work to do. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC).
      • @TE(æ)A,ea.: Great idea with the OHCOM list. I used to consult a similar list the Oregon Secretary of State maintained, but I think it has been taken offline; this list looks more carefully curated. Might be a good idea to copy the full list to a project page here, and do the work of figuring which ones are out of copyright and/or have scans online here, so we can continue to consult it over time. I'll respond on the New Penelope question on that work's page. -Pete (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
        • I have given the list below, under “List of works;” if this list should be moved elsewhere, please do so. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC).

List of Works[edit]

This is great. I've used it as the basis to start Wikisource:WikiProject Oregon -- how does that strike you? -Pete (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I’m surprised by the fact that you had not already created a WikiProject Oregon. The list is quite fitting there; the works of Frances Fuller, &c., should also be given there, as work which can be done to improve the project. Some connection with Portal:Oregon would probably be helpful. I’ve removed the list from this page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC).
Great. I often get lost in the details here on Wikisource, I've got many "meta" type project I've been meaning to get to for years. It helps motivate me, though, to find somebody else interested in working on the same things. Thanks! -Pete (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I have added the article you mentioned on the talk page, with thorough annotation. I’m glad I can motivate you—certainly the Oregon work helps motivate me through my current (main) work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC).



Came in late to a wall of text. It looks like you were treated a little as though you don't understand the workflow, when in fact you've probably cleaned up more of those raw images than anyone else -- sorry about that.

It looks like Xover et al have diagnosed the issue, and Inductiveload has provided a workaround, so hopefully you are all good. At any rate there doesn't seem to be much I can do. But I'm just dropping you this message to say hi anyway. :-)

Hesperian 00:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hesperian, thanks for the note, I appreciate it. It was frustrating when I couldn't tell what was going on, and I let my frustration that get the better of me. Once it started coming into focus what happened, though, it just seems sad. Seems like instead of Bold-Revert-Discuss we had a scenario of Bold-Revert-Take Invisible, Privileged Action. All that frustration could have been spared with a few words of "hey, could you attend to these details a little more quickly" many months ago. But yes, now that I see what's going on it's no big deal, and it will likely have no practical impact on others. Anyway, thanks for taking a look, and saying hi. Hope all is going well with you (or whatever approximation of "going well" there is in 2020.) -Pete (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Note that the relevant filter is not currently enabled. But in the interest of not making people discover annoyances right in the middle of doing something: I have blacklisted the {{raw page scan}} template and the attendant category from FileImporter so that a file with one of those will not be possible to transfer. As before, a valid license is also required. In other words, in order to transfer one of these files you will have to add a minimally acceptable set of templates here before exporting to Commons. If you prefer doing the cleanup over there, there is nothing stopping you from using just the bare minimum of info here (without testing, I believe all you really need is for a valid license template to be present). Let me know if you run into trouble or needless impedance and I'll see if there's anything I can do about it. --Xover (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@Xover: Thanks for letting me know the filter was disabled. Might be worthwhile to mention in the Scriptorium thread, since it's tough for "mere mortals" like me to detect what happens with abuse filters (also, when pointing out a bug it's always nice to have the resulting fixes expressed in the forum where it's made, both for myself and for anybody else who might be following). I appreciate you doing it, that action nicely addresses my concern. I've tested what you described, and it seems to work fine. Working on moving the images from Centennial History of Oregon now. -Pete (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, now that I've edited the files with AWB, I get an error message...I'll report this in the appropriate venue for the Commons Importer, but FYI, it's [077697f4-8f83-42c0-abd2-75ea794046ff] 2020-07-22 20:27:27: Fatal exception of type "MediaWiki\Revision\RevisionAccessException" I didn't have any trouble with the one I did manually, so I'm not sure what's different. -Pete (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@Xover: (It looks as though somebody else is having a similar issue recently.) Is it possible that your blacklist entry is causing this transfer to fail, because the first two revisions of this file page contain the offending {{raw page scan}} template? -Pete (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
From a technical perspective it is extremely unlikely to have been caused by that blacklisting, or to be triggered by previous revisions of a file (the filters only look at the current revision). But I'm seeing multiple reports of this problem from multiple wikis so it looks like it may be something on the Commons side that is broken, possibly, but not necessarily, related to the new version of MediaWiki that was deployed yesterday. I'm trying to track the issue and will let you know if someone figures out what's going on. --Xover (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Phabricator reports that the patch for the bug has been deployed out of cycle now. Could you test a couple of these images and let me know how it goes? --Xover (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@Xover: So far so good. Thanks for the alert. -Pete (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@Xover: I've now transferred many of them, it seems to be working well. I've proposed updating the guidelines for transfer too. -Pete (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Wow, many thanks for the impressive list of page validations on this work in the last ~24 hours @Kathleen.wright5:. Much appreciated!! -Pete (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The Early Indian Wars of Oregon/Muster Rolls[edit]

I was wondering how this page looked. I had initially intended to split the page by the wars, but there was only the heading for the Cayuse War—there were no other headings. The contents I have created myself. Alas, most of the rolls are horizontal, and don’t have good OCR, so the proofreading will take a great deal of time. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC).

I'm impressed! Personally, I'm unlikely to put much time into the muster rolls. Seems like a tremendous amount of effort, and the value would be pretty limited, only serving a pretty tiny set of people and projects centering on the military personnel in these wars. I'd rather put my time into things that will be of broader interest/utility. One option I've considered, is to simply upload page images of the muster roll pages, rather than transcribing them; that way they'd at least be available to read, easily, even if they can't be searched or copy-pasted. If it would help to have a version of the book with the pages oriented properly, I could probably manage that...I think I have all the tools to rotate and reassemble pages. But that might be about all I can offer on this one! -Pete (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@TE(æ)A,ea.: What do you think is the best way to move forward with this? One possibility might be to add your page to the bottom of the main The Early Indian Wars of Oregon page, wrapped in an {{AuxTOC}} template. It would also be possible to transclude the text you've inserted, using page sections. What do you think is the best way to present this work to the reader? -Pete (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the best course of action would be to mention the “Muster Rolls” page on the main page, and keep the full list on that sub-page. Then, the individual rolls given on that sub-page can all receive Wiki-links to sub-pages, so that they can be created “at a later time,” whenever that may be. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC).
  • Also, could you create the images of this work? On pages such as this and this, there are a number of small images which it would be preferable to extract. A scan from the Internet Archive may be found here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC).

The Centennial History of Oregon, 1811–1912[edit]

I have recently corrected the page listing for the index for the first volume, and have just moved the preface, &c., to the main page (so Preface, Contents, Introduction, Oregon Chronology, and The Author should be deleted). How many volumes are there? I have seen both three and four volumes given as the number, but only the scan for the first volume, and a broken scan of the second volume, have been uploaded. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC).

Thanks -- I just left a general note about Gaston's two major works for you here. I kind of liked having those sections separate, making them easy to link to directly...but it's not that big a deal to me. However, I will make each of those pages a redirect, as it's possible I (or somebody else) have already linked to them. Thanks for your efforts, and for the heads-up. -Pete (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
P.S. I may very well have erred on the number of volumes, I vaguely remember being confused by seeming contraditions I found on that point as well. -Pete (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

A request[edit]

Hello. I think I need an editor in the United States of America to upload a scan of volume 146 of The Law Times for me, as I am unable to download this myself. Google Books has this scan and this scan. I am under the impression that these scans can be downloaded by anyone in the USA. I suspect the scan should be uploaded here rather than the commons. Best regards. James500 (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @James500: Sadly, both of them come up "no eBook available" for me as well. -Pete (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Some more images[edit]

I finished proofreading another work with images (this one); there aren’t too many images, and the images from the front and back covers don’t need to be created. By the way, how are the images from this work coming along? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC).

My apologies @TE(æ)A,ea.: looks like I lost track of that one. I think I got started, I'll have to check my other computer. Do you have a preference whether I prioritize the previous request or this one? -Pete (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I have no preference, but this request is much shorter. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC).
  • So, how are the images coming along? I’ve just finished chapter 6 of Fuller’s History of Oregon, volume 2, and I plan to complete some more work soon. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC).
Apologies again @TE(æ)A,ea.: Last time I believe I got as far as confirming that I still had the partially-processed images, but then got distracted again. I've been a bit overwhelmed by off-wiki responsibilities and I've been approaching Wikisource in a very piecemeal way for a while now. I appreciate the reminder, I will see if I can get it done by Sunday (even making myself a calendar reminder). And, it's great to see the continued progress on History of Oregon! Thank you for your efforts there. -Pete (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Don’t worry too much about it; I just wanted to make sure you hadn’t forgotten about it. I have also been inundated by work recently, so I haven’t been able to edit here as much as I would like to, so I know the feeling. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC).


Thanks for formatting my section Portal:Newspapers. I am relatively new, and I was confused by the myriad ways entries are formatted and indexed. I was a little frustrated by how hard people push for their preferred version of formatting and naming, despite all the existing permutations. I am currently categorizing all the newspapers by state and I am still finding novel schemes for categorizing, and indexing, and formatting entries. I started contributing in 2015 and then stopped when I was told we were not allowed to aggregate news articles about ordinary people, only famous people get Portals and categories and wikilinks to tie them together. I found I could get the effect I was looking for at Commons by adding a category and wikilinks to the text. I came back recently, and things appear to have changed, editors are a little more open minded about trying different things. I don't think most editors are even aware of the variations that already exist, they are only aware of their preferred scheme. Thanks again! --RAN (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)