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)Reply[reply]

See also: talk page archives from old account

Archive through 2019

"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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Thanks @Londonjackbooks: I will try to dive in this weekend. Looks interesting! -Pete (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
No problem at all Pete! No hurry... I appreciate it :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@Londonjackbooks: I created a basic Wikidata item for it. -Pete (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...and I see the architect has a Portuguese Wikipedia bio. -Pete (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
@Peteforsyth: Beautiful. Thank you very much. Ernst76 (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Done thanks for the note! -Pete (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Glad to know that's opened up some possibilities, at least! -Pete (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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).Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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).Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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).Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
  • 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).Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
  • 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).Reply[reply]

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).Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
  • @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)Reply[reply]
    • 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 1929, 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).Reply[reply]
      • @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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
  • 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).Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]



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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@Xover: So far so good. Thanks for the alert. -Pete (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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).Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
  • 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).Reply[reply]
  • 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).Reply[reply]

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).Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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).Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
  • 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).Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talkcontribs) Thanks for the note, and for putting all this work into making our newspaper content more sensible. I'm a little surprised to hear you describe yourself as "new," I've seen your name around for a while and think of you as an old hand! All a matter of perspective I suppose.
I am also interested in improving our newspaper content...quantity, quality, organization...all of it. My interests mostly derive from the work I've done with the News On Wiki campaign, which is more about Wikipedia and Wikidata than Wikisource, but many of the same principles apply here.
Speaking for myself, I am not at all a fan of using slashes in page titles, in part because it forces titles onto pages that are unpleasant to look like and, in an extreme case like newspapers that require several layers to express a specific date, difficult to parse unless you happen to know what the naming convention means. (I wrote some about this on Meta Wiki years ago, but I can't find it. All I came up with there are a few pages where this idea was discussed, mostly by Larry Sanger. Case against subpages, Why I am suspicious of subpages, Get rid of subpages entirely.) But, here on Wikisource, I realize that getting away from subpages would be a pretty monumental task, as it's so tightly integrated in everything that's been done here for years and I'm sort of resigned to never feeling like Wikisource "gets it right" on this particular point. So, I basically avoid getting into those arguments...I title pages in ways that make sense to me and that seem more or less consistent with how others name them, and I don't generally object if others move the pages around. I'd rather spend my time bringing in new content than fussing over those details.
But, you do bring up good points (both here and, I see relatedly, at the Scriptorium). I'll see if I can think of anything useful to add.
And, I'm happy to talk with you wherever, but at some point it would probably be good to move, or at least link, these conversations to Portal talk:Newspapers and/or Wikisource:WikiProject Newspapers, so others interested in these matters might follow along.
Thanks for the message! -Pete (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You recently created Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 20/Death List of Oregon Pioneers number 3 on top of Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 20/Death List of Oregon Pioneers III—are any other pages duplicated? Also, I sent you an email; did you receive it? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Ah, I believe I found that named but not linked somewhere, and did not notice that such a page already existed. Thanks for the note, I'll try to sort it out (or you are welcome to if you get to it first).
Yes, I got your message, just replied. -Pete (talk) 06:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not rude to me, but I think it's maybe not the ideal approach for readers who might arrive at a deleted page. Here's what I did instead: (1) Clicked "what links here" on each page and adjusted to make sure only one of them was the target of a link; and (2) changed one of them to redirect to the other (rather than deleting it). That way, if there's a link out there somewhere (on another site, or in an offline document) that we're unaware of, it will still function. Thanks again for pointing this out. -Pete (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, that makes sense. I tend to be pretty free with creating redirects, in cases where there is little likelihood a page title will be used for something else. In this case I kept the more recent title, because I think it's more consistent with how I've titled similar pages; but, on the whole, I try to leave titling decisions to others, there is not perfect consistency in Wikisource and I prefer to focus on generating new pages. -Pete (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your help with Charles Dickens[edit]

Thanks for helping me with cleaning up Charles Dickens. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you. Languageseeker (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Languageseeker: First, I'm sorry to take so long to get back to you -- thank you for the kind message. I often come to Wikisource for the mind-calming repetitive tasks, and sometimes fall behind on the more substantive discussions. It's good to know my efforts have been welcome; I'd thank you for taking on what seems like an important project, and for explaining your thinking in ways that seem to be stimulating important discussion. I don't expect anything "in return" of course, but if you do feel inspired, there are indeed a few works where I always welcome a helping hand. I've been working at the Oregon Historical Quarterly for a long time; more recently on Oregon Exchanges, a newspaper about journalism in Oregon; and History of Oregon (Bancroft)/Volume 2 has been slow going due to the extensive footnotes, but the end seems to be in sight. There are two tedious tables to be built (or maybe just included as images) before Looters of the Public Domain is fully proofread…or if short fiction is more your speed, The New Penelope is a nice book of short stories by Frances Fuller Victor, a pretty fascinating early historian and all around literary type from Oregon. I'd welcome a little effort on any of these if you're so inclined. -Pete (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pacific Monthly article, etc.[edit]

I have recently written out the article “Writers of Oregon,” from the Pacific Monthly; you may want to upload that volume. The work on Bancroft’s History of Oregon is going quite well, though it has slowed recently; I am reading the interesting Librarian’s Copyright Companion now, in addition to the Congressional Record from January 6, 2021. (By the way, please check your e-mail.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I noticed that, and I actually tried uploading it, but I've been having trouble with the IA Uploader recently. I'm considering trying to set up the software on my own computer, instead of relying on the toolserver version. Just replied to your email, sorry for the delay. -Pete (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I’ve never really used IA Uploader, because of all the things I hear about it, (and because I don’t really have much need of it.) If there are any other articles from the Pacific Monthly which you’d like me to proofread, I will, but I’ll leave the uploading to you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The IAupload bot has been cactus recently, so I have been using the old style form with its url field. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 23:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you both…The uploader is nice when it works, because it automates some stuff…pulls in metadata from the Archive (which needs cleaning up, but is better than starting at 0) and also it can import files larger than 100Mb, and even reassemble new DJVU files on the fly when needed. So, I'm really hoping I can figure out how to run the software myself. But yeah, manual uploads are a good option when it fails. -Pete (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, and @TE(æ)A,ea.: The series that got me interested in volumes 9 and 10 was the 4-part series "Prominent Newspapers of the Pacific Coast". (The link goes to part 1, links to the others are in the header.) The text is in pretty good shape, but extra eyes would be welcome; I plan to grab the images and upload them soon. -Pete (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TE(æ)A,ea.: I was able to upload Vol. 4, and matched your The Pacific Monthly/Volume 4/Writers of Oregon transcription. -Pete (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the list[edit]

This is the list of pages. As discussed at WS:S the main ns is less desirable for external link templates.

I still think that upload links belongs in in the pertinent project. Pushing uploads where we need to build good {{book}} templates with good metadata is project work. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! -Pete (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI (@Billinghurst:) I think such assistive features are better suited to the realm of gadgets than coding them right into the Wikicode. For example, a crude implementation may look like: User:Inductiveload/IaUploadPopup. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Inductiveload: Gadgets are fine. A project-assisted space is fine. Just don't overly complicate what is meant to be open, inviting spaces where editing is manageable for those who wish to do simple things quickly. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That looks incredibly useful, thanks! -Pete (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Inductiveload: I tried installing this, but I can't seem to get it to work. I've added an external link to Oliver Twist (I tried two versions of the URL, one to the main IA page and another direct to the .djvu file). I've purged the cache. Something else I'm missing? (Also, is this designed to work with {{IA small link}} as well?) -Pete (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whoops, you were bitten by a typo I have since fixed: jss -> js. Sorry! Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great -- working now, for both "external scan link" and "IA small link" templates. Thank you! A very elegant solution. @Languageseeker: have you seen this? All you need to do is make a change to your common.js file, like this. -Pete (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

<moving less related comment to its own section>

@Inductiveload: I created the IAu template to simplify the process of uploading multi-volume works to Commons. Then, the IA tool stopped working. Many of these works are serials, so I kept them on the page so that somebody does not upload the parts with an inconsistent naming scheme. It's more than just a link to IA. It's a link to the IA Upload tool with the appropriate fields filled out. Languageseeker (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Languageseeker: I think you haven't yet grasped what the script under discussion accomplishes -- I believe it does everything you were trying to do in creating {{Iau}}, but in such a way that an editor can choose to see it and use it, but a reader will not encounter the "upload" interface. Take a closer look? -Pete (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I see -- the ability to pre-determine the title is a feature of yours, which does not come across. Well, that's a shame. Still, I think removing the "upload" interface from a reader's view, which is an action that requires a pretty sophisticated understanding of how to edit Wikisource, is a pretty important -- so IMO the script-based approach (which permits the user to fix the title if necessary) is the better way to go. -Pete (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Languageseeker: the easier thing to do will be to provide me with a spreadsheet of the metadata and I'll do the upload right up front (which doesn't require IA-Upload at all). I guarantee preparing that spreadsheet will be faster than sitting there clicking through IA-Upload n' times by hand, then setting up n index pages and correcting the IA's metadata by hand (and as I said before, you absolutely should be fixing that metadata at upload/index creation time, and not dumping borked index pages for someone else to discover and clean).
Dumping what are effectively project notes into a presentation space is, indeed, not ideal. If you don't want to do the upload now, why force every other viewer of the links to visit the upload page until someone blinks and does it for you? Now, if you absolutely must record this on an author page, with some care, a data attribute of the IA link can be used to provide this hint to the script. The huge drawback of IAu as it stands is that it nerfs the link to the IA which is more useful to the casual reader than the upload link. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 20:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Inductiveload: I tried to upload these files on multiple occasions, but Commons is fairly broken right now. I've literally spent the past three weeks just to get Commons to accept the Hamlet images. Most of these links were my attempt to get [3] onto Wikisource. Rather rare editions of some very well known novels. Thank you for your offer of help, but I'm too tired to create a spreadsheet at the moment. Languageseeker (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Languageseeker: Well, when you do want them done, drop me a link to a spreadsheet and I'll sort it. One advantage is that it uses the (recently fixed) Pywikibot which seems immune to the large-file Commons problems.
I can also do image batch-uploads fairly easily. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 20:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a kind offer @Inductiveload:. I'll see if I can work up a spreadsheet based on the info Languageseeker has already supplied in the previous format. Won't be today, but hopefully I can get to it soon. -Pete (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the amazing offer. That would be super helpful. A few notes. The Victorian Serial Archive was made by somebody who appears to have had little experience with uploading to the IA so it's probably worth taking a look to make sure the links are OK, or just making a list of all the links on the page. Dombey parts 15, 16 are already here Index:Dealings with the firm of Dombey and Son (Volume 16).pdf. Orley Farm and Pickwick Papers are done as well. The original scans for the purposes of illustrations are available at UVIC. Languageseeker (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Languageseeker, @Peteforsyth: {{ext scan link}} has now learned a new parameter: displayN, which adds the filename to an (invisible) data attribute on the nth link, and the script uses that to set the filename. No disruption to the page in the meantime. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clean Up scripts[edit]

@Inductiveload: As long as we're discussing scripts, for some months now I've been missing the script "Clean Up & Lines" which I think is part of mediawiki:TemplateScript. You and Pathoschild were kind enough to add these to my user:Peteforsyth/common.js file some years ago. Do you know why it stopped working, or how I can restore it? I've been muddling through, but my productivity is massively reduced! -Pete (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You had a reference to a variable that was removed from MediaWiki a few weeks ago in User:Peteforsyth/Regexp toolbar.js. They were supposed to have warned everyone who were using the variables (at least they did for previous changes), but I guess not. I think it should be working now (pardon the intrusion into user JS, but it seemed easier than ping-ponging back and forth). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 20:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for chasing that down! It gets the menu back into my interface, but as far as I can tell there's no effect when clicking the "clean up & lines" link. I'll test a bit further and see if I can figure anything out. Maybe it's a cacheing issue...I'll try logging in from a browser I haven't used for Wikisource before and see if that does the trick. -Pete (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to work for me. At least, it does collapse line breaks and does some of the replacements. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Inductiveload: I've never sorted this out, been sort of limping along. But it's getting old! Do you have anything about troubleshooting scripts like this that you can suggest? -Pete (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really have much in the way of documentation to point at specifically. Can you have a quick check in your browser console (F12, usually) for errors? And what skin are you using and are you using the "usual" WikiEditor (looks something like this: phab:F34638315)? And what is an example of a page you are trying to clean up?
I just tried in on a blank-slate account and it seems to work with the Clean up&lines entry. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Inductiveload: Thanks. Here's an example page. The console is interesting and maybe helpful, but I'm not sure how to paste the output. This seems like too much, but I guess it's just my own talk page I'm spamming... -Pete (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Error with Permissions-Policy header: Unrecognized feature: 'interest-cohort'. VM757:302 This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "jquery.throttle-debounce". Please use OO.ui.throttle/debounce instead. See (anonymous) @ VM757:302 runScript @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:12 execute @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:14 doPropagation @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:6 requestIdleCallback (async) setAndPropagate @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:7 implement @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:19 (anonymous) @ VM757:1 domEval @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:11 (anonymous) @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:16 requestIdleCallback (async) asyncEval @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:16 work @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:18 enqueue @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:11 load @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:19 (anonymous) @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:58 (anonymous) @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:59 load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.CodeMirror.lib|jquery%2Coojs-ui-core%2Coojs-ui-widgets|jquery.ui&skin=vector&version=15d1a:663

This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "jquery.ui".

Please use OOUI instead. mw.loader.implement.css @ load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.CodeMirror.lib|jquery%2Coojs-ui-core%2Coojs-ui-widgets|jquery.ui&skin=vector&version=15d1a:663 runScript @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:12 (anonymous) @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:13 flushCssBuffer @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:4 requestAnimationFrame (async) addEmbeddedCSS @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:5 execute @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:13 doPropagation @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:6 requestIdleCallback (async) setAndPropagate @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:7 implement @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:19 (anonymous) @ VM757:1 domEval @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:11 (anonymous) @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:16 requestIdleCallback (async) asyncEval @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:16 work @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:18 enqueue @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:11 load @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:19 (anonymous) @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:58 (anonymous) @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:59 VM757:208 easy_section_syntax: Converting section markers to ##-syntax load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:1 Exception in load-callback: load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:1 Error: Another textSelection API was already registered

   at jQuery.fn.init.$.fn.textSelection (<anonymous>:685:928)
   at <anonymous>:169:86
   at fire (load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.CodeMirror.lib|jquery%2Coojs-ui-core%2Coojs-ui-widgets|jquery.ui&skin=vector&version=15d1a:306)
   at Object.fireWith [as resolveWith] (load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.CodeMirror.lib|jquery%2Coojs-ui-core%2Coojs-ui-widgets|jquery.ui&skin=vector&version=15d1a:308)
   at Object.deferred.<computed> [as resolve] (load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.CodeMirror.lib|jquery%2Coojs-ui-core%2Coojs-ui-widgets|jquery.ui&skin=vector&version=15d1a:311)
   at Object.ready (<anonymous>:693:947)
   at doPropagation (load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:6)

logError @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:1 trackError @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:3 doPropagation @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:6 requestIdleCallback (async) setAndPropagate @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:7 implement @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:19 (anonymous) @ VM781:1 domEval @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:11 (anonymous) @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:16 requestIdleCallback (async) asyncEval @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:16 work @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:18 enqueue @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:11 mw.loader.using @ VM757:693 enableCodeMirror @ VM757:168 addCodeMirrorToWikiEditor @ VM757:171 (anonymous) @ VM757:172 fire @ VM757:692 (anonymous) @ load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.wikiEditor&skin=vector&version=1bdu1:29 setTimeout (async) build @ load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.wikiEditor&skin=vector&version=1bdu1:29 create @ load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.wikiEditor&skin=vector&version=1bdu1:17 addModule @ load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.wikiEditor&skin=vector&version=1bdu1:8 $.fn.wikiEditor @ load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.wikiEditor&skin=vector&version=1bdu1:13 mw.addWikiEditor @ load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.wikiEditor&skin=vector&version=1bdu1:5 (anonymous) @ load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.wikiEditor&skin=vector&version=1bdu1:5 mightThrow @ load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.CodeMirror.lib|jquery%2Coojs-ui-core%2Coojs-ui-widgets|jquery.ui&skin=vector&version=15d1a:309 process @ load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.CodeMirror.lib|jquery%2Coojs-ui-core%2Coojs-ui-widgets|jquery.ui&skin=vector&version=15d1a:310 setTimeout (async) (anonymous) @ load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.CodeMirror.lib|jquery%2Coojs-ui-core%2Coojs-ui-widgets|jquery.ui&skin=vector&version=15d1a:310 fire @ load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.CodeMirror.lib|jquery%2Coojs-ui-core%2Coojs-ui-widgets|jquery.ui&skin=vector&version=15d1a:306 add @ load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.CodeMirror.lib|jquery%2Coojs-ui-core%2Coojs-ui-widgets|jquery.ui&skin=vector&version=15d1a:307 (anonymous) @ load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.CodeMirror.lib|jquery%2Coojs-ui-core%2Coojs-ui-widgets|jquery.ui&skin=vector&version=15d1a:311 Deferred @ load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.CodeMirror.lib|jquery%2Coojs-ui-core%2Coojs-ui-widgets|jquery.ui&skin=vector&version=15d1a:311 then @ load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.CodeMirror.lib|jquery%2Coojs-ui-core%2Coojs-ui-widgets|jquery.ui&skin=vector&version=15d1a:310 jQuery.fn.ready @ load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.CodeMirror.lib|jquery%2Coojs-ui-core%2Coojs-ui-widgets|jquery.ui&skin=vector&version=15d1a:312 jQuery.fn.init @ load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.CodeMirror.lib|jquery%2Coojs-ui-core%2Coojs-ui-widgets|jquery.ui&skin=vector&version=15d1a:303 jQuery @ load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.CodeMirror.lib|jquery%2Coojs-ui-core%2Coojs-ui-widgets|jquery.ui&skin=vector&version=15d1a:262 (anonymous) @ load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.wikiEditor&skin=vector&version=1bdu1:4 ext.wikiEditor.js @ load.php?lang=en&modules=ext.wikiEditor&skin=vector&version=1bdu1:5 runScript @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:12 (anonymous) @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:13 flushCssBuffer @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:4 requestAnimationFrame (async) addEmbeddedCSS @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:5 execute @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:13 doPropagation @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:6 requestIdleCallback (async) setAndPropagate @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:7 markModuleReady @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:12 runScript @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:12 (anonymous) @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:13 flushCssBuffer @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:4 requestAnimationFrame (async) addEmbeddedCSS @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:5 execute @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:13 doPropagation @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:6 requestIdleCallback (async) setAndPropagate @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:7 markModuleReady @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:12 runScript @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:12 (anonymous) @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:13 flushCssBuffer @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:4 requestAnimationFrame (async) addEmbeddedCSS @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:5 execute @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:13 doPropagation @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:6 requestIdleCallback (async) setAndPropagate @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:7 implement @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:19 (anonymous) @ VM757:1 domEval @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:11 (anonymous) @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:16 requestIdleCallback (async) asyncEval @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:16 work @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:18 enqueue @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:11 load @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:19 (anonymous) @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:58 (anonymous) @ load.php?lang=en&modules=startup&only=scripts&raw=1&skin=vector:59

This is very strange. Can you try without the syntax highlighting mode active? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Inductiveload: Aha! Problem solved, thank you!! -Pete (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Color me confused[edit]

I've been wandering around the backlots here looking at templates and such. Happened to be looking at color-thingies and came across {{background color}}.

First, 'bgcolor' is ancient HTML terminology, and should be 'background-color' as seen here.

Second, a couple of my recent template discoveries are {{colors|red|blue|hello?}} hello? and {{color|red|Hello!}} Hello!.
I'm not finding anything that specifically and exclusively sets background-color, but {{colors}} looks most useful. Also, check if some other template you are already using takes a |style= parameter, and then you can piggy-back your tweak onto it, like I did with {{xx-larger block|style=color:white; background-color:#D93734; padding: 0 2em;"}}

Third, mark {{background color}} for deletion or update to "background-color" ?

I'm so confused about templates here I'm thinking we should have a Wikisource:Templates Bestiary full of pictures (examples of use) like a real bestiary. I keep discovering new sets of templates in non-obvious categories. Like {{Rbstagedir}} - who knew?! Shenme (talk) 06:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, thank you @Shenme:! I had missed the background feature of {{color}} which perfectly meets my needs. I was experimenting, probably ill-advisedly, and right before I left on a mini vacation. Yes, mine should definitely be deleted. -Pete (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Historic Oregon Newspapers[edit]

While messing about with Open ONI support for User:Inductiveload/jump to file, I discovered Historic Oregon Newspapers: You probably already know of it, but on the off-chance you do not, well, there it is. ^_^ Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very aware of that @Inductiveload:, but I appreciate the note! Curious about this project of yours, though... -Pete (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Peteforsyth it allows to load high resolution images directly into the new OpenSeadragon viewer in page edit mode. For example, if you enable that script and then edit this page, you should see a list of links in the top bar to high-res versions of the page, as well as a link in the side bar called "High-res options" that allows the OSD viewer to load the images directly into the canvas. Especially for newspapers, the quality can be substantially better than what MW can serve.
The name of the tool is a bit misleading, since the high-res thing was a bolt-on to an earlier tool. I plan to split it out at some point for clarity. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 09:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, that sounds incredibly useful. It's pulling JP2 files directly from Internet Archive, converting them, and matching them up? Or am I misunderstanding? ... is it possible to directly download a PNG version ... ? Too much to ask? This sounds like really, really useful stuff. -Pete (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Peteforsyth currently, the IA link-finder (e.g. for this page does two things:
  • gives you a link to the highest resolution JPG it can in the top menu. This comes directly from the IA.
  • also uses a high-res "IIIF" tiled image for the image viewer. This is still provided directly by the IA, and is basically the same JPG, but broken into tiles. The advantage of this is that it can load faster for the region you are looking at than the complete JPG, which can be slow to load
  • there is, as yet, no access to the JP2 files specifically at the IA, because they have a unique system and I have to process some XML data to get hold of the right URL for JP2s and it's just not quite done yet (this need for this processing need is also what causes phab:T268246: the IA-Upload tool is not doing it correctly)
For Oregon Newspapers, you do get a link to the JP2s in the top menu, as well as an IIIF tiled image. This is because the ON site provides the JP2 URL directly. No image conversion is done by the tool itself (though, in principle, it could do it if it needed to).
Neither the IA nor ON provide PNG access, and an "after-market" conversion of the JPG to PNG would not be useful as the compression is done and cannot be reversed simply by converting to PNG. For ON, the JP2s should be the "best" files, and for the IA, the JP2s also are (usually, but not always) best. The IA JP2s are also often pretty heavily compressed, but AFAIK, they are still the best files the IA keeps, presumably for disk-space reasons.
Also I see I messed up the link above: you should see the hi-res image if you turn the script on and edit Page:Morning Oregonian 07-26-1916.pdf/1. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Come January, I will have access to some ILL services, and I can request some of the books from this list. I was thinking especially of the mid-20th century works where the copyright has expired. Are there any you are particularly interested in proofreading? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing pages clarification[edit]

If I recall , I use fp to mean 'facing-page' , typically an image, Can you list the specific index you were going to attempt a repair for? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will also note that the sequences /fp([0-9]+)/ are in 'work' numbers not DJVU scan position numbers.
Also - I can't currently see anything that didn't have numerical attached values for the printed page in the work they were supposed to face. ShakespeareFan00 (talk)
I also have used F to mean 'Frontispiece' on more recent efforts. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ShakespeareFan00: I see, what you're referring to are the blank pages that (now that I have the physical book I can see) area just the backs of the glossy pages with the photos. I had been looking after the pages "following page" rather than "facing page", but didn't look at the pages error. So, there's nothing missing for those ones, I'll remove them from your notes, and I'll add the other pages. Thanks, -Pete (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note for posterity, this continues a discussion begun at Index talk:History of Oregon Literature.djvu. -Pete (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Did this fall by the wayside in the middle of a Match&Split? Xover (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Xover: I think so, I don't remember for sure, but it's not uncommon that I try to do a "split" and the bot just doesn't respond. I'm not sure why, I think on a recent one on California Historical Society Quarterly/Volume 22 that @ShakespeareFan00: was able to shake it loose by removing some extra carriage returns. But I'd guess that's what happened here. I'll see if the "split" button does the trick now. -Pete (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Xover: Well on its way now, thanks for the heads up. -Pete (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi PF. I am probably a hard marker, however, I have higher expectations of how you should be dealing with a disambiguation page. You have been here long enough to get it right or to ask, and not leave it in the state that you did. Please have a little more pride in the work that we do here and take more diligence with your efforts, not leave it for someone else to fix up. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:18, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ha..yes, that was indeed a pretty egregious collection of oversights. I had intended to come back, but got pulled away mid-task and it would have been a few days. Appreciate the clean-up help. -Pete (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Please would you re-read the guidance for disambiguation pages. They are for disambiguating, not pseudo-portal pages, and not for listing of similar titles. I would suggest that a Portal:History of Oregon could be a consideration if there are that many historical works, then list the portal page on the disambiguation page. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello. I don't know if you have seen, but another users has been moving some newspaper articles from a volume naming to a year naming. See the conversation at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Redirects. Unfortunately, he has overlooked correcting some of the incoming links, and I have tried tidying up some of that. -- Beardo (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks @Beardo: I had seen one such instance, looks like it was handled fine, with the San Francisco Call, but was unaware of a wider campaign. I have no strong preference between volume or year naming, I've generally tried to go along with whatever people have used before me with a given publication. And hopefully redirects get put in for anything that's been at one page title for a while. But I'll take a look at the discussion. Thank you! -Pete (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you plan to re-create the file soon? If not, could you mark the Index: and Page:s for deletion, please? Thank you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I do. It turned out to not be as straightforward as I'd hoped, or it would have been done the same day. I expect to have time to return to it this week. If the pages get deleted in the meantime, no big deal, I hadn't transcribed too many of them. -Pete (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Code of Honor[edit]

Might I recommend this scan, also from IA? I checked, and this one isn’t missing any pages. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I'll try to do that soon. -Pete (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Splitting from Gutenberg[edit]

Hi Pete,

Regarding this: it's generally not to be recommended to paste text from Gutenberg and split it to a scan here. Gutenberg has a very approximate standard of fidelity, mixing multiple editions of a work in a single text, silently changing aspects of a text (correcting typos, "standardising" spelling, changing punctuation, etc.). The net result is that we're left with lots of very subtle and hard to detect errors in our text. We've had examples where these errors persist even after three separate people have corrected the Page: pages. Much better to start from raw OCR where the errors tend to be much more obvious. Xover (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gotcha. I've seen some problems like that (there's a really nasty one at The Oregon Trail that I don't know how to reckon with, though I think it reveals something pretty intriguing about the publication history from 100+ years ago). I made a reasonable effort to determine it doesn't pertain in this case, by comparing text and also considering that it appears this posthumously-published work does not have many editions (maybe just one), but you're right that I can't know for sure it's the only edition. Appreciate the heads-up. I'd note that relevant documentation pages don't reflect any of this, and could be updated. -Pete (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xover: For what it's worth, since your comment I've spot-checked maybe 5-10 pages by programmatically comparing the existing text to OCR, and found no evidence suggesting that there's an issue with this particular work. (One page does seem to have a scanno that wasn't corrected on Gutenberg, but it doesn't appear that it was taken from a different edition.) -Pete (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Poems of John Greenleaf Whittier[edit]

I saw the additional works you added at the bottom of the subpage of his poems. I have moved all but one of the 'unsourced' works to pages that will eventually link from the ToC in 'The Complete Poetical Works of John Greenleaf Whittier', and updated any other links I found. The one exception does not have a similarly titled entry in the 'Complete Works'. Whether it is lurking there under a different title, or whether the work is misattributed, time will tell. Regards. Chrisguise (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Chrisguise. I know there's some work being done on his poetry and I didn't want these to get missed, as they were apparently not linked from any Whittier page or category. Looks like you did what needs doing. -Pete (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]