User talk:Prosody

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search


Why aren't the pages you did in Index:JPS-1917-Universal.djvu marked as proofread? They look proofread. Outlier59 (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of the text is sourced from Open Siddur Project's transcription of the same work with some limited manual and automated editing. I had the impression that for ProofreadPage we want the proofreading levels to represent proofreading passes by the Wikisource editor, not any third parties, so I left them marked not proofread in the cases where I didn't do a proper proofread myself. Prosody (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Sigh. We import a proofed text from a reliable source and label it the equivalent of raw OCR? Groan.
Anyhow, the reason I'm asking is I need a reliable Hebrew Bible to check against for verse number placement in this formatting nightmare. Those writers decided to "omit" verse numbers when they changed to paragraph format, yet stuck the verse numbers beside the line where the verse begins. I don't see any way to make this a useful Biblical text version other than to move those verse numbers to where the verses actually begin. If I do that, the page view won't match the scan. The test layout page is here.
Can you help me solve this dilemma? Outlier59 (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
It looks like {{verse}} has a parameter align=float for this situation. The only issue I can think of is that if you have multiple verse numbers on a single line it'll smush them up. Maybe someone with a better knowledge of CSS could figure out a way to fix that. It's also still a pretty cumbersome layout as you say. Maybe it would be appropriate to make a {{ERV verse}} which turns into {{verse}} with align=float in the page namespace and without in the main namespace. Prosody (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
It looks like align=float in {{verse}} puts the numbers in the margin, overlapping them with the sidenotes in this case. But that was a good idea -- the verse numbers list to the left of the lines.
I'm going to think about this for awhile. I want to keep the formatting as simple as possible in the circumstances, so that it's not too difficult to proofread and maintain. Meanwhile, if I visit a page in Index:JPS-1917-Universal.djvu and it looks fine to me, is it OK to mark it proofread? Any special proofing guidelines? Outlier59 (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
You're more than welcome to. I can't think of any gotchas. Prosody (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

David Swan[edit]

I don't doubt that your correction at [1] has merit, but the problem is that the text has no source scan to verify your correction. I'm not eager to slap an unsourced tag on that whole work. Can you find a source scan at Internet Archives and upload it to Commons and Wikisource? Outlier59 (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done commons:File:Twice-Told Tales.djvu. Prosody (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikisource index file? Outlier59 (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Here. I have to caution you that while I'm happy to do this for individual cases, it's a prohibitive amount of time and effort for routine reversions of misguided 'correction' edits. If I had to do this in every such instance, I would not be able to justify spending time preforming recent changes patrolling. Prosody (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Recent change patrolling should get a lot easier when more texts have supporting page scans. Everyone seems to want to 'correct' the spelling and grammar. :( I know you're busy, but if you notice certain unsourced books are creating a lot of patrol work, maybe you could make a list and ask for scans to be added ASAP. I'm finishing up a couple of projects within a week or two, then I intend to work on "Bible", because I heard it's one of the most popular requests. If there's something else that's causing serious maintenance headaches, let me know and I'll see what I can do. I'm not a very fast proofreader, but I'll do what I can. Outlier59 (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Colas breugnon[edit]

Re line breaks. I just this morning realized my error on these. Limited experience at this Wikisource work, and am feeling my way through. However, I'm going back through what I did yesterday, page by page, and taking care of the line breaks. Maile66 (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Page:An attempt towards an international language.pdf/32[edit]

Hi Prosody. Could you tweak the table here to make it work? I've been trying a few things but nothing worked just right. Thanks in advance. NMaia (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@NMaia: taken care of. Prosody (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The American Cyclopædia (1879)/Hail[edit]


Could you explain this sentence?: "Leopold von Buch states that it never hails in regions where cretins are found..."

It looks like a joke to me. Or maybe the word cretin has a meaning I don't know of :-)

Stankot (talk)

It's from the beginning of Leopold von Buch's Ueber den Hagel, published in 1814. He begins by supposing some kind of relationship between various diseases of the thyroid (here Cretinism, shortly after goiters) and the prevalence of hail. I expect that theory hasn't survived the test of time. Prosody (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer! I guess in today's language it would go: it never hails in regions where congenital hypothyroidism occurs. Stankot (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Index:9-11 Joint Inquiry Report - Part Four.pdf[edit]

Checking the transclusions of the work shows that i-v are notr transcluded. Do they need to be, or are they superfluous as they replicate other parts? If they are not to be transcluded the practice has been to tag with Category:not transcluded so it is over that they are not to be transcluded, yet they will still be proofread. Once marked NOT or transcluded then we can then change the work to be fully transcluded. Thanks if you can look at this and resolve. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Addressed, thanks for the reminder. Prosody (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Deleting the page I just made[edit]

I am just concerned why are fond of deleting the page which has supporting references. What is happening to you?

The author you added is still living, and has no works in the public domain that we may host at Wikisource. We tend to delete such author pages in order to discourage the addition of copyrighted material. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Had held off[edit]

Hi. I had held off giving autopatroller to Esme Shepherd as all the work has been in the Page: ns, and nothing in main. I had instead been managing patrolling in Page: ns through managing addition in User:Wikisource-bot/patrol whitelist (though maybe not sufficiently vigilantly). We could just put to all Page: ns there, rather than all nss. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I wasn't aware of that functionality. Very convenient!
As for this particular case, it was hasty, yes. I saw that they had gotten the hang of transcluding pages and figured they could do all the things their project requires without special supervision, and by giving them the flag RC patrolling would become less of a mountain to climb. In theory I agree with the notion that more eyes on something are better than fewer, but I expect I'm one of the more liberal autopatroller granters because I feel more strongly about the scarcity of eye-time vs. things that want looking. This tool will definitely make threading that needle easier. Thanks. Prosody (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
They're definitely close, I have looked a few times and just hesitated (as above). The whitelist tool was a JVbot, ye olde tool, prior to our ability give autopatrol, and I brought it back as it works neatly where we have one work 'experts', and any user can add to it. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

An editing[edit]

I do not edit afc drafted articles. It is as becoming a request for adminship. An experienced writer can and does {{copy}} but isn't suspected of vandalism. -- 23:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC) I suggest you go to the restroom. Your computer printouts will be sent to our print station.-- 23:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The Wealth of Nations[edit]

Hello Prosody,

This is in reply to our back-and-forth corrections of The Wealth of Nations. Do you happen to know which edition Wikisource is supposed to carry? I corrected 'burthen' to 'burden' because this edition of 1880 has 'burden'. FNAS (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@FNAS: Unfortunately no. It was created during a more freewheeling period at Wikisource. I believe current policy is to let these texts of unknown providence be and to add new, properly sourced editions on separate pages. If you're interested in that, you can take a look at Help:Beginner's guide to adding texts. It's a lot of information to digest, feel free to ask any questions you might have at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. Prosody (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm not going to dive in that deeply. I was really just reading the book :) FNAS (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your corrections, but...[edit]

but can you also help with editing? or is your job only patrolling?

I've only got a limited amount of time I'm willing to spend on Wikisource. Most of it I try to use on things that interest me, the rest on patrolling new users' changes and making some minor fixes which hopefully new users are able to understand and incorporate into their editing practices. If you have any questions about editing, you can ask at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. Prosody (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Kuenen, Abraham[edit]

Hi Prosody, I noticed your revert, please take a look at Thank you for your time. smiley Lotje ツ (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Lotje: I understand that the book is properly titled Historisch-kritisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds. The thing is, the text that we're editing here is the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. And if you view its facsimile here you'll see that they misspell it onstaan. We're not in the business of correcting or newly editing the works we reproduce here. There are all sorts of inaccuracies in a 100+ year old encyclopedia. The goal is just to faithfully reproduce it. Prosody (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I guess I did not explain very well what I wanted to suggest: adding that (or another) reference explaining the fact there was a spelling error in the encyclopedia. Lotje ツ (talk) 05:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Another user's taken care of it. You can use {{SIC|what the text actually says|what the text should say}} for this purpose. Prosody (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)