User talk:Prosody

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, Prosody, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here. If you need help, see our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). You can discuss or ask questions from the community in general at 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 05:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sanskrit Grammar by Whitney[edit]

Hello, Please see Index talk:Sanskrit Grammar by Whitney p1.djvu#Merge?. What do you think? Yann (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


Hello Prosody, here an award for having contributed to and having finished the Project of the Month :)

--Zyephyrus (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Award for participation
Thank you. I'm glad we were able to get the text to a state of correction within the month. Prosody (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Index:Sanskrit Grammar by Whitney p1.djvu[edit]

I have purged this file at Commons, and this has now presented the text layer to the index file. This should make the transcription a lot easier for the remaining pages. smiley billinghurst sDrewth 13:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I previously had relied on the extracted text layer stored at, which was one giant page. This is significantly more convenient. Prosody (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
One of the magnificent improvements brought to us by ThomasV in his luuuuuurvely Proofread Page extension. billinghurst sDrewth 16:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sanskrit Grammar[edit]

Prosody, my Sanskrit needs work. I don't have the financial amenity to purchase books so your work on Wikisource is most appreciated. I am working on my first real offering for Wikisource which is the Avadhuta Gita which is in production and I need more skills to be able to really engage the text to ensure that the translation and analysis is sound. This work that you are 'slowly' adding, may I help progress? And if you are familiar with Sanskrit, may I ask you questions about the text I am working on?
B9hummingbirdhoverin'chittychat 14:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

To both questions, yes. I'm by no means an expert in Sanskrit, but I'd be happy to help where I can. I'll look over what you've done so far soon. Prosody (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for all your hard work on the Federalist! It's really exciting to see it advance so quickly.

Just as an FYI (you're certainly allowed to proof/validate what you want to!), pages 23137 were proofed by me. I wasn't sure if you started validating with page 238 on purpose, or if you did so accidentally, thinking that you had proofed 231-237. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 16:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I accidentally skipped that one. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Prosody (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Template support.[edit]

Thank-you very much for the support. Your link is currently installed on 3 pages...Template:DNB link/doc, and author pages Benjamin Williamson and Alexander Charles O'Sullivan. I will replace these when {{DNB Link}} is working as envisioned. Thanks! JamAKiska (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Follow-on... Have spent some time in discussion concerning DNB01. The provided link, DNB01 template, will take you to the current discussion which contains similar guidance to your previous template work...starting with the transcluded header image. Please let me know if your schedule permits you to unravel this one for us...Thank-you. JamAKiska (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not really clear what you all are discussing on your talk page and that of DNB01 to someone who isn't involved. Is DNB00 the goal-line for what DNB01 should be, or does DNB01 have additional features/considerations? Why are they so divergent? Would it be satisfactory to create a generalized DNB header template and make the publication specific headers instances of it? Prosody (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The goal is to get the DNB01 header on an article like, Clark, Andrew, to mirror that of a DNB00 article like, Baker, David. The feature of interest is a single wiki-link when a wiki article has also been written. Not clear to me why they diverged so much (May 2009), as I only just recently entered the discussion. If what you're proposing is to put together a template that generates the proper headers that will cover DNB00, 01, 03, and 12...that would be a positive set of steps in the forward direction. My inclination would be to keep it simple, but if it works as envisioned, this template would provide coverage for quite some time. The only constraint on a project like this would be a complete absence of interference on the existing templates DNB00 and DNB01 through the transition period. Does that sound reasonable? JamAKiska (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Billinghurst is on the right track and the remaining problems involve decisions about how DNB is organized. I'll keep a tab on it in case you all get bogged down. Prosody (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you...JamAKiska (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

div needs to go on a separate line[edit]


I reverted your edit to {{Left margin}} because of the issue raised at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2008-12#div needs to go on a separate line. Hesperian 23:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Mediawiki is a lot more finicky than I thought it was. Sorry for the trouble, and thanks for the quick catch. Prosody (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, you never see issues like this at Wikipedia, but here we really push the limits of what wiki code can do in terms of representing unusual layouts, and so sometimes encounter these bizarre little issues. Hesperian 00:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


Thank you! Do you have any suggestions for the next CotW project ? John Vandenberg (chat) 23:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Scattershooting ideas here: Pacific Ocean, feminism, Avicenna, salons, deism, reptiles. Whatever y'all choose I'll try to pitch in if I have the time. Prosody (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, reptiles! A meta:Wikimedia Australia/Zootober 2010 related theme would be good. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

An edit of template:Number[edit]

I saw from {{number}} history that you fixed its code last time, and I presume that you know it deeply. I just edit it, since I found that it doesn't run properly into NsPage; perhaps it's not useful in proofread works, but I felt more comfortable saving, and fixing, it. I found it when testing Match and Split here: Critique of Pure Reason/Introduction. Feel free to rollback my edit if needed! --Alex brollo (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. The previous solution to that problem was the use of {{Sidenotes begin}} and {{Sidenotes end}} in the header and footer of every Page: which contained a {{number}}. IMO yours is a better tradeoff of complexity for reproduction of formatting in the Page namespace. Prosody (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

… it was an excellent point[edit]

We do occasionally need someone to remind us that when we have our face stuck wikignoming to still consider the big picture. A penny for your thoughts about what we can/should talk about. What we should show to people, where to show it, etc. are all useful information. Where we can we give you better value? Better opportunity? Better anything. As I said, I would love to hear your thoughts. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a little tricky, because I've either changed or maybe refined my original concerns to a weirder position. I think broadly that administrators should be able to act without specific community backing/notification in proportion with the degree to which that action is an established mandate, where other considerations (privacy, timeliness, ease of negotiations, etc.) do not intervene. To recur to the Ottava Rima thing for an example, without knowledge of the character of the emails at the center of the argument, which are rightfully a private matter between Ottava and the 'crats they shared them with, it's impossible to determine if or to what degree the 'crats were remiss in not acting on them, and whether Ottava's outrage was justified though uncivil, or an overreaction: therefore public discussion is pointless or worse. As another example, the most recent episode, which initially took a turn towards community deliberation but was ultimately handled ably behind the scenes. Therefore most of the things I cited specifically weren't really transparency problems so much as problems of mischaracterization of the situation. Which I do think is potentially dangerous, as on the one hand liable to incite the other party to continue appealing something to the very end, and on the other to check the administrator's inclination to settle the affair privately.
I guess as a better formulated request I'd ask that y'all try to be mindful of where whatever you're doing falls on the scale of well-established admin action with little oversight necessary vs. novel action with the support of the community in some degree necessary, and whatever mitigating circumstances might be in play.
Having said that, I appreciate the efforts you and others are making to invite discussion on these subjects. Prosody (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear, I wasn't clear. I was thinking on the big broad scale, not worrying about the incident. I am meaning for you as a member of our community what do you want to hear and see in a wholistic sense. While it is not up to admins to always do the speaking, we do control the access to do it more easily. What would make WS a better place to be? And how can we think about doing that for you? — billinghurst sDrewth 07:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten about this or am ignoring it or anything, just still mulling it over. Prosody (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I actually did end up forgetting about this. Sorry. Anyway, if it's general kvetching you want...
I very broadly like the decentralized quality of Wikisource--most people have their pet projects and if they happen to overlap then they work out themselves how they'll do that particular item. What policies and guidelines exist are either common-sense or have a happy ratio of utility produced to burdensomeness. And this seems to work okay, mash the random page button and you'll see a parade of uniformly passable e-texts. :::Still though, given the role of WS as producing what essentially ends up being the authoritative electronic edition of many texts, I feel a little uncertain as to whether passable is good enough. Lack of provenance, lack of multiple proofreadings, poor formatting, unidentified translators, unstated copyright statuses all fester. It's a little galling in comparison to DP's regimented system.
I'm pretty optimistic though. I've been really pleased to watch over the last three years as proofread page usage has increased massively. The work on portals being done by AdamBMorgan et al. is hugely impressive. And, while I know that talking up formatting is considered passe here, I have to say that if Aldus could see what DP was doing with basic things like sidenotes he'd have given up, while here, I think, we have a good handle on what's worth trying to reproduce and what isn't. New templates which take the heavy lifting out of things pop up with surprising regularity. I think the intersection of Mediawiki's open-ended nature and the kind of everyone experimenting in their own corner ethos results in good texts being very good. This was why I came here instead of DP: I wanted to make an e-text of Sanskrit Grammar which would serve as a model of what a good e-text could be, how it's a great medium distinct from the printed word, and it didn't seem possible at DP (incidentally, I haven't gotten around to it here either, got caught up in other things).
I guess generally I'm worried about a sort of quality disparity among texts here. And judging by an unscientific sample of random pages and my observations of RC, it seems like bad texts are mostly old, a lot even from before the partition of multilingual WS. I half remember someone from Norwegian (?) WSer mentioning on our Scriptorium as an aside that they did an organized inventory of some sort, I guess going through every text they hosted and tagging it for problems and thereby making their maintenance backlog comprehensive. They might be blessed with a better regular editor to text ratio though.
You'll pardon me, I hope, if I rambled a little. Prosody (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:Page number mislocated in Chrome[edit]

Maybe you should be using Mozilla Firefox, which is fine with the above page numbers. If you're not using Windows it's also cross platform. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually do use Firefox normally. Prosody (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Artefacts, not typos[edit]

For something like if you look at you will see that the djvu file is just a weird artefact of the scan rather than mispellings. I think that it is reasonable to ignore them when they happen. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

And here I was thinking the printer had n-u letterblindness or something. Thanks for catching that. Prosody (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Human Immortality: Two Supposed Objections to the Doctrine[edit]

You're doing a great job with cleaning up the text and linking to the authors and works. I just want to say thank you. - Theornamentalist 02:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm quite pleased that we were able to see it to completion so quickly. Prosody 03:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


/ That was awefully hasty of me; I restored it. - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Afrikaans Bible[edit]

Hi Prosody, thanks for your advice on the Afrikaans Bible. I've imported it at Bybel on the international Wikisource. It'd be great if you could take a quick look and make sure I did everything right. I'm also wondering if you could suggest good places to recruit contributors (maybe af Wikipedia?) Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks great. I see you've run up against the oldwikisource language link problems. I've gone ahead and filed a bug regarding language links from oldwikisource to language subdomains, which from a survey of the mediawiki code might just be a matter of changing a variable in a config file. I'll file another for language subdomains to oldwikisource later. As for finding other contributors, Wikimedia projects are a good place to solicit help; I'd also recommend other Afrikaans language internet communities. Prosody (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


Wikimania, in the organization of which i participated, is over, and i'm back here, complaining about dynamic layouts.

When you have some time, take a look at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Making one of the layouts the default, again. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you know where I can find my deleted stories content?[edit]

For Guo Jia. I have Cao's. I didn't save the information on my computer. Can you help me retrieve this?--Kamek98 (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I put up a request to temporarily undelete it at proposed deletions. Prosody (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
User:George Orwell III has appended the text to your userpage. Prosody (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


Can you respond to my comment here? Not sure if you are impling a problem with {{PD-India}} or not. Jeepday (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Excerpts not welcomed additions[edit]


Curious as to why you uploaded an excerpt of a larger work Index:Morella - Tales of the Grotesque and Arabesque 1840.djvu instead of the entire work & then statused it as source file needs fixing when that is clearly not the case? -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Site I obtained it from doesn't offer any way to download the entire text (and it's a pretty rare edition, that was the only place I could find it), I manually put together the one piece I was interested in thinking if someone were interested in the rest they could do the rest of the legwork or by that point in the future it would be available somewhere else easily. If not welcome go ahead and delete it. Prosody (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Didn't mean to come off as stand-off-ish; I just couldn't follow what you were up to was all. The other 3 versions had the entire source work uploaded and I didn't see why it was worth "breaking" what I assume was a copy & paste from Guttenburg originally just for one piece & one piece only. I guess the 1840 version is something special beside it's online rareness.
Regardless, have you approached Inductiveload to see if he can "grab" the entire work much like his previous grabs from HaithiTrust, etc? I'd hate to delete it if its important to you but, as it stands, we really need the entire work to justify hosting it (or even to justify replacing the Guttenburg copy & paste version eventually for that matter). -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Addendum - just noticed I prefixed the filename with the section. I guess it can either be deleted or kept as an excerpt with current filename and validated status or renamed to just Index:Tales of the Grotesque and Arabesque 1840.djvu and marked source problematic. Whatever pleases you. Prosody (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Accepting one more known excerpt can lead to justification for the next attempted excerpt and before we know it, we've damaged a long standing policy if not the understood practice itself while moving forward. If anything, the title of the full work should be removed and only the name of the excerpt should be kept so that we are not misleading the possible reader/editor in any way. Marking a source that we never completely had to begin with as problematic is also not the norm the way I see it - listing it along with the other "wanted works" would be. Leave title be or trim out the main title for just the exceprt's title would be my suggestion unless Inductiveload can't work his magic here. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
A complication, it's behind a subscription wall. I guess I had silently been allowed in while on a university connection. Is that even kosher for WS? It's definitely public domain. Prosody (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
PD is PD is PD in my book - the fact that it is behind a wall is of no concern to us in that regard. There is an option for a trial subscription that should get Inductiveload in far enough as far as I can tell. At any rate - please revert the status as done and not to be fixed (there is nothing to fix since we never had the base work). I'll move on to something I can actually patch ;-o George Orwell III (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't look like they normally give out trials to individuals. I put a request on Scriptorium on the chance that someone here is currently in an institution which already has a subscription. Prosody (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The Gulliver's Travel[edit]

Hi, Prosody, I currently translate the Jonathan Swift's work to Portuguese and I can't understand when the author says: the walls are bevil. What does that mean? Could you help me, please. Claudio Pistilli (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I had to look that up, it's pretty obscure. It seems to be an alternate spelling of bevel. According to this page, it means as an adjective 'Having the slant of a bevel; slanting. Poetic Hence: Morally distorted; not upright.'
Thank you for helping, you're right. Claudio Pistilli (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Memorial of Hannah Stephens[edit]

I have just validated it with only one change on the second page. The capitalization of the name of the town "Concord". Very well done! Božidar 15:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see someone working on the NARA contributions. It was pretty disappointing when it petered out. Prosody (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help with Letter from Department of State to Defense Distributed[edit]

Thanks very much for your help with Letter from Department of State to Defense Distributed.

Is there a way you can make it so it shows images from the PDF? -- Cirt (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I experimented with adding a thumbnail of each page, but wasn't able to get it to work. I've restored the thumbnail from the first page from your original version, though. Maybe someone else can figure out how to get them all. Prosody (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see, okay. FYI, if you're interested, there's other related documents at Category:Defense Distributed. Thanks again very much for your help!!! :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource User Group[edit]

Wikisource, the free digital library is moving towards better implementation of book management, proofreading and uploading. All language communities are very important in Wikisource. We would like to propose a Wikisource User Group, which would be a loose, volunteer organization to facilitate outreach and foster technical development, join if you feel like helping out. This would also give a better way to share and improve the tools used in the local Wikisources. You are invited to join the mailing list 'wikisource-l' (English), the IRC channel #wikisource, the facebook page or the Wikisource twitter. As a part of the Google Summer of Code 2013, there are four projects related to Wikisource. To get the best results out of these projects, we would like your comments about them. The projects are listed at Wikisource across projects. You can find the midpoint report for developmental work done during the IEG on Wikisource here.

Global message delivery, 23:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Advanced hanging indent template[edit]

I see you & I were on the same page when it came to the poem tag problem but your new template still locks in the need for over-the-top editing being done for each "line" between the poem tags. I doubt the poem extension / tag itself will ever be "re-worked" the way we need it to but can't we find a way to Lua script this instead? We really should only have to set the hanging indent value once and then have the spans inherit that value via a single css class definition instead (not that I know how to pull that off script wise mind you). Thoughts? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That hadn't occurred to me. What I'm doing now is definitely the pessimal solution. Until the poem extension gets some TLC or enough of our readers use browsers which support the text-indent: each-line; value (I don't expect either in the near to medium-term future), that seems like the way ahead. Assuming it's even worth representing this formatting. I do think it's nice to distinguish the linebreaks from the line wrapping, but maybe it's just more trouble than it's worth. Prosody (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Another less ambitious solution with sitewide CSS: stop using poem, add a div class which causes child ps to have 0 top and bottom margins. Prosody (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Well we can stop "using" the poem tag and still retain "some" of it's behavior that is forced under its class definition(s) (both from those generated by the poem extension's css defaults induced from our servers [if any] and; as well as those set from our local css tweaking - where I believe the zeroed top & bottom margins come from anyway; not from the extension/servers). So in case you haven't noticed the nuance by now, using a div tag with class="poem" in any given poem tag's place generates the nearly the same behavior except no BRs are generated at the end of each line. This leads me to believe the poem class was always suppose to be the way to manipulate output behavior in addition to the extension (which, I believe, merely adds a BR at each end-of-line and little else format wise.

Follow so far? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Moving to subpages of work[edit]

I see that Mujer has become a transcluded work. Nice. As part of that transformation, would you please consider moving these works to be subpages of the published work? Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Is that expected for poems now? I've observed in the past that they frequently aren't unless there are multiple editions being hosted. But we certainly have a lot of situations where our existing arrangements are as they are because of the great deal of labor it would take to bring them in line with new standards. Prosody (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Generally you will find that where the poems sit at the root level that they are old renditions, often unsupported by source. It has been the recent practice to maintain the integrity of a published work, and the order of the work as subpages, hence why I suggested that the work could be moved. This also allows for where we have multiple versions of a work in that the root page becomes a disambiguation {{versions}} page that points to each in situ. If you don't do it <shrug> it just means that the published work just isn't reproduced in that for; and someone may get it in time, or not. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the advice. I'll take care of moving all the poems in Al Que Quiere! when I've finished transcluding them from the page namespace. Prosody (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


I was reviewing Copyright Violations when I realized you are not an admin. Looking at Global account manager and reviewing your talk page, I don't find any reason for you to not to have been given the mop long ago. If you would like to be nominated for admin, please let me know I would be happy to post the nomination.

Ditto. I know I've mistaken you for already being an admin once or twice already. Give it some thought. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Might be cool. Our current roster of admins does a bangup job, but if it'd help I'm in. And for personal projects I don't find myself in situations where I could use the admin bit too often, but when I do it'd be handy to be able to take care of it myself rather than increase someone else's workload. Thanks. Prosody (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
You have been nominated, thanks for accepting :) Jeepday (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


Hi Prosody,

I have closed your nomination as successful, and added you to the 'Administrators' group. Congratulations and I hope you enjoy the extra responsibility.

Hesperian 11:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Botón Me gusta.svg Great job. :) —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Prosody (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations, you know this means you can be the admin to do the revdel :) JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Tardy congratulations please accept this gift in appreciation of all the good work that you will get to do. If you would like a permanent reminder of this gift, we have a special handshake that you can use on your user page. Welcome to the secret cabal. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

thank you[edit]

Very very grateful for your help.   I'm the one who posted the 1875, long, long version of advice to "Boil it Down." 

,Just trying to get a message back to you proved to me I could use Wikipedia Instructions for Dummies. It all does require a little patient learning. Anyway, persevered, so here I am.

Don't be surprised if I beg you for help another time. Try as I may, some of this is beyond me.

Thank you.

Wikipedia lover. Publicgoods (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Length of blocks[edit]

Hi, I've just been reviewing the edits to the PotM and noticed your reversion of the subtle vandalism. I missed it altogether and blithely added the user to my list for the monthly award. With respect to the length of the block, I've tended to be a bit lighter with block lengths rather than jumping straight to a longer block. With the level of RC patrolling that you and I do, we'll pick up any returns and can then gradually move it out. I also try to put one of the block templates on the user talk page explaining exactly why they've been blocked. This applies, of course, only to human users. Usernames that patently belong to bots get short shrift, but these edits tend to be spam rather than vandalism. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate the advice. I was looking around for some sort of guidance on ban lengths and went with the first thing I saw marked for vandalism in the ban log. Guess that wasn't an equivalent situation. I'll try to be more circumspect about it until I've developed good intuition on what the expected practices are. Prosody (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Just curious about the reversed reversion[edit]

Hi. What happened on Volume 17 djvu 279? Did I do something wrong? — Just curious about the mysteries of adminship. Face-smile.svgIneuw talk 01:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I accidentally hit rollback from Recent changes. I think I might remove the link to that for my account via CSS, the one click thing is a bit worrisome. Prosody (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Another mystery solved. TY.— Ineuw talk 01:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


But wait,

I thought Wikisource would be a project in line with the philosophy of Wikipedia in general. If the Jowett text is in-editible then why does Wikisource give the option to do so with the 'Edit' link? unsigned comment by Apollon.musegetes (talk) .

Hope you don't mind me putting my nose in here. It is, but not quite in the manner of Wikipedia. Actually, on Wikisource, the text of a public domain work is transcribed just the way it was published, with no additions or corrections. If you'd like to, you can add a new version of the translation yourself (or maybe even translate it yourself?) Regards,—Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 08:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: "empty" numbered parameters[edit]

Oops. Sorry. I "knew" that; whilst simultaneously "forgetting" it!

Just shows the dangers of writing up a theoretical solution without actually trialling it myself. Good to see you recovered it so fast. AuFCL (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


Titles here should have end periods per text, but your template modification doesn't seem to add them in. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)



Also, see my talk page. I reverted that editor's particular change as completely unhelpful, given the current formatting; but—if you're one of the guys in charge around here—there's probably some way to format the raw page scans to only display the relevant article (and without the column formatting). Something with ### hashes, I think. Let me know if you understand what I'm talking about and I can try to incorporate it when I'm editing new pages. — LlywelynII 04:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't sweat that too much. Using ProofreadPage isn't a policy (yet), and while it's pretty widely preferred by the active editors here, it's still just a tool. If it's getting in the way of doing your work, don't use it. In this case, as you have an idea of, there is a way to get it to do what you want, but it does require some extra labor. Check out this help page section for an explanation and examples. I've tried fixing the article on Kaffa as an example, please take a look at it and see if it came out right. I used the alternative <section begin="label" /> and <section begin="label" /> explained in that help page and the section titles s1, s2, s3, etc. because that's what the other 1911 Encyclopedia articles do and it seemed like a good idea to keep uniformity with that, ditto removing the column layout. Prosody (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

When patrolling[edit]

With patrolling an addition by a new user like Page:Heralds of God.djvu/17 I think that it would have been useful to have validated the page and added the {{nop}}, and let the user know about that template. It is one that is readily missed, and I have found it helps to engage newbies early with that bit of advice. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

In the past I had used patrols only to mark that there's nothing really screwy about a given edit. I can definitely see the value of this approach though. Will adopt it here on out. Thanks. Prosody (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


Hey, I have to say that it really is a treat having someone watch my workǀ
I'd say that I am quite acquainted to Mediawiki's formatting, it is just that I was copying text from a better OCR, and forgot to mark it as Not proofread, instead of Proofread.

Yours, D'AroemenenZullenNiVergaan (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

User rights[edit]

Thank you for making me autopatrolled!--Frglz (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Indices[edit]

And those where uploaded only by one user. Possibly there's still lots of more unused book files O_O Lugusto 00:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for the validation! I notice you changed the indexes status to imply something was wrong with the source PDF. Is there? Can it be corrected? Abyssal (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Usually we prefer scans of a complete text rather than a extract (i.e. in this case Bulletin AMNH vol. 21). It's not that important though. If you got it from a site that only serves individual article PDFs, it isn't worth the effort to try to stitch the entire volume together or something like that. Prosody (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Lhokseumawe in figures[edit]

but always deleted :( i think its important for people know about it should i create the page "Lhokseumawe in figures" ? if yes, where? wikisource or wikipedia?

I'm sorry, I misunderstood Lhokseumawe in Figures when you first submitted it. It actually would be suitable for Wikisource, except for one problem. According to its website, "Permission is granted to copy and distribute this book as long as you put the source of this book with website link “Bappeda Kota Lhokseumawe.“" Wikisource requires the permission to modify in addition to the permission to copy and distribute. Prosody (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

i will talk to them to give us permission under GNU, after permission granted i will create the page Lhokseumawe in Figures Bappeda lhokseumawe (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Castle of Otranto[edit]

It's actually from an online copy, available at And it's possible to double-check with a scanned copy on Google books at 18:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Quick chat on Wikisource-related image you uploaded to Commons[edit]

Hello, just FYI I left a comment on your Commons talk page. Nothing urgent. djr13 (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

ANCL Volume 2[edit]

Hi, per our conversation back in February, thought I'd let you know that I'm most of the way through Volume 2 (only 22 volumes to go). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Moby-Dick NN Text not copyright[edit]

Hi Prosody;

I left a message for you at the Moby-Dick Talk Page, but to make sure you see it I'll also paste it in here:

Sorry for the delay in responding -- I stupidly assumed that my Wikipedia account would notify me of changes here.
As to the Northwestern-Newberry text, it is in fact not under copyright and has been reprinted in all the recent paperbacks such as the Penguin or the Northwestern University Press.
If you really want to make your head spin, look at the side-by-side comparisons of the British and American texts at Melville Electronic Library! Cheers, CWH (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


I'm excited to see someone working on this. I'm also interested in helping, particularly with the Twelve (Minor Prophets). However, I don't want to dive in until I know there is an established format for me to follow. Could we work together to get two short books done, so that they can serve as models for formatting? If so, then perhaps we could start with Ruth and Lamentations? I suggest those two because they're both short, with one being in prose and the other in poetical format. Lamentations also has some odd additional formatting that would be good to tackle early on. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Good call. I'm going to write my thoughts on index talk page in a bit. Prosody (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Two points I'd suggest as changes, now that I've created the first page of "Ruth":

  1. I'd put the book title in {{x-larger}} instead of {{larger}}. Also note that, because {{lang-he}} uses <span> instead of <div>, the font size increase doesn't carry over to the English title unless the template is invoked again, as I have done at "Ruth", at least it doesn't in the browsers I've used.
  2. The calls to {{verse}} can be simplified as, e.g. {{verse}}, instead of explicitly calling chapter= and verse= every time. The change would require less typing and would allow more text wrap to occur in the edit window.

--EncycloPetey (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, kinda put that on the to-do list and then went and started doing more JPS1917 editing before addressing it.
Definitely agree on the book title size thing, and appreciate your pointing out that bug. I didn't even notice the English titles were still normal size.
Little bit conflicted on verse. I had hoped I could do all the pre-proofread text preparation with a script so as to save everyone the bother of manually typing those verse things. But the text wrap thing is a good point. My only reservation is that right most of the Torah uses the parameter names and I dunno how much we care about consistency. In the end it's still going to be consistent for the reader, so it shouldn't matter too much if we change partway through. Prosody (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
If we do decide to change, the inconsistency can be cleaned up as part of validation, and I'd certainly be willing to help. But I would like to decide this point before proceeding with more proofreading. It's easier to delete the parameter quickly than to add them in quickly, but it's easiest of all not to have to make the change afterwards. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
True enough, I've updated my script to produce the anonymous parameter version. Prosody (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I've finished proofreading both Ruth and Lamentations. The latter required a template tweak to keep the verse numbers from overlapping the text, but the results look good now for me. Please have a look and see whether you can spot any issued I might have overlooked. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks great. I'll apply the poem style you've developed to the poems in the Torah soon. Prosody (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much[edit]

Thanks for keeping an eye on Jimmy Wales Speaks at Closing Ceremony of Wikimania 2014 and fixing some odd edits, much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


Been blocked elsewhere temporarily. Clearly falls on the spectrum between not listening and not understanding. :-/ — billinghurst sDrewth 22:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

New Proposal Notification - Replacement of common main-space header template[edit]

Announcing the listing of a new formal proposal recently added to the Scriptorium community-discussion page, Proposals section, titled:

Switch header template foundation from table-based to division-based

The proposal entails the replacement of the current Header template familiar to most with a structurally redesigned new Header template. Replacement is a needed first step in series of steps needed to properly address the long time deficiencies behind several issues as well as enhance our mobile device presence.

There should be no significant operational or visual differences between the existing and proposed Header templates under normal usage (i.e. Desktop view). The change is entirely structural -- moving away from the existing HTML all Table make-up to an all Div[ision] based one.

Please examine the testcases where the current template is compared to the proposed replacement. Don't forget to also check Mobile Mode from the testcases page -- which is where the differences between current header template & proposed header template will be hard to miss.

For those who are concerned over the possible impact replacement might have on specific works, you can test the replacement on your own by entering edit mode, substituting the header tag {{header with {{header/sandbox and then previewing the work with the change in place. Saving the page with the change in place should not be needed but if you opt to save the page instead of just previewing it, please remember to revert the change soon after your done inspecting the results.

Your questions or comments are welcomed. At the same time I personally urge participants to support this proposed change. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)