User talk:Prosody

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Index:JPS-1917-Universal.djvu[edit]

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]

Hi!

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. --70.98.142.254 23:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC) I suggest you go to the restroom. Your computer printouts will be sent to our print station.--70.98.142.254 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 https://books.google.com/books?id=698UAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=nl&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false. 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)

CAPS on Page:Omniana.djvu/19[edit]

Hello. Thanks for taking a look at Omniana. I see you changed the capitalization of the first word. You don't think it better to maintain the typography of the original where possible? Philbarker (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Philbarker: I'm sorry, I was recent changes patrolling and carelessly edited an older version of the page. I've reviewed the version history and restored a change you had made that didn't get subsequently restored and I also added a technical stumbling block to make sure I don't make the same mistake in the future. Prosody (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! --Philbarker (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Wikisource-bot/patrol whitelist‎‎[edit]

The positioning of filters within the list is purely arbitrary from the tools perspective, it has no effect on the rate of retroactively patrolling past edits. I believe that jayvdb had the "clear quickly" section was to allow for the overt quick and dirty addition and removal. If we have users working on a page set, then we can just put them in situ to the similar type of filter for convenience of human eyes.

I have the bot on a pretty slow patrol rate—just ticking over. So when the list is edited, it will reload the list, and patrol (though I couldn't tell you whether it starts a fresh at the top, or continues from where it is in the queue; though the difference shouldn't be that great when the previous part is trampled ground.) To note that the bot was out of action for a day this past week as things went down not long after I had packed up, so didn't get restarted until I was back the next day.

Thanks for your work in adding people to the list. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


I would like to request to re publish the user page[edit]

Hi ...

the user page i have created were deleated ... and it is an author page ... and the content were creative commons-SA ... I would like to re publish the user page ...

and Merci ... Hope to receive your next email soon... ____________________________ Eng. Yasir I. Kashgari

Ykashgari (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikisource normally isn't an appropriate site for publishing your own works. Please see Wikisource:What Wikisource includes for more information. Prosody (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding 'nop'[edit]

Why do you keep adding 'nop' to the pages I edit? I do not see any difference in the output. Can you explain? Cyarenkatnikh (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cyarenkatnikh: So when you're done digitizing a book and you want to present it to readers, you 'transclude' it into the 'main namespace', which is taking this: Index:Picturesque New Guinea.djvu and it turning into this: Picturesque New Guinea. The computer software stitches all the pages together and turns it into a continuous document. One problem we run into here is that the computer software can't figure out from context that it's supposed to put a paragraph break in the case where the paragraph ends on page 5 and a new paragraph begins page 6. When the paragraph break is contained in one page we just press enter twice, separating them with two line breaks, but for whatever technical reason we can't just press enter twice at the end of the page. So instead we press enter once and then add {{nop}}. The name is some obscure technical thing, I didn't choose it. That lets the software know to put a paragraph break at the end of the page. Prosody (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
It stands for "no-operation", and it means that it's inserted when, for technical reasons, you need something, but you don't want anything(in this case, you need something to prevent the newline from being removed, but you don't want anything besides the blank line). JustinCB (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Revision history of "Page:Blackwood's Magazine volume 047.djvu/233"[edit]

(this can be handled using sections and trascluding them separately rather than rearranging the page) I am certainly a newcomer here. It pleases me that someone would take the trouble to review my little project for which any foreseeable audience is, no doubt, tiny. I appreciate that I have a great deal to learn and there are many methods with which I am not familiar. I cannot visualize what you describe. I tried handling the "bibliography" as a footnote, but, I feel, that defeats the author's purpose, in that, he intended for the authors' names and works to be presented prominently. I am sure you noted that the original font was displayed more prominently than the text on the page. My re-arrangement did not add or remove any words, but simply placed them where the reader must attend to them before going forward. That today's reader will not recognize prominent personages or Edinburgh University faculty is not explained. But pressing them into a smaller font is more harmful to the author's thinking than moving them to the top of the page. If you care to compare a somewhat similar work by the same author, take a look this article from ENGLISH REVIEW, 7(14), pp. 276-313. The first page can be viewed here: (I removed the link because it didn't arrive at destination) Klarm768 (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This should get you to the other work should you care to see it: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008635104

Volume 7 (1847) page 276 Klarm768 (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Klarm768: This is a difficult case, since the design decision for that page is suitable for the printed word it was intended for, but it isn't readily adaptable to an electronic document. I arranged it as it was in the facsimile page because in the Page: namespace at least we usually try to hew to the original formatting decisions where they aren't burdensome. When we present it to the readers as a complete text, some more latitude might be appropriate. I added sections to facilitate that--they let you display parts of a page separately rather than one full page after the other. You can see User:Prosody/blackwood for an example of a way it could be arranged for readers, while still maintaining its original form in the Page: namespace. Of course, that's not the only way it could be arranged, you could have the list of works first and the text second as you had it earlier, the list of works at the end of the text, etc. etc.
I wonder if your arguments for changing the font size aren't second-guessing the editor a bit. Rereading what I just wrote about changing the positioning of the listing of works that's a little hypocritical of me maybe. There's no 'correct' answer, as you continue editing works you develop your own sensibility about where interventions are appropriate. I usually defer to the judgment of other people on their own projects, since they have a better understanding of the needs of the particular work, unless they're a new user in which case I try to nudge them towards the choices that have the broad consensus of Wikisource users. Now that you've heard me out I'll leave it to your discretion. Prosody (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
@Prosody: I had not previously seen the use of a float box, so thanks for the illustration and the thoughtful explanation. Perhaps you could direct me to a help page where other alternate methods are described. In trying make use of WS advantages, disrupting the flow of text from-page-to-page is a price I choose not to pay. Thus shall I instead resume my disruption of the first page's original layout — as the lesser of two imperfect solutions.Klarm768 (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Navajo Nation Statement (November 27, 2017)[edit]

Thank you for pointing out the need for tagging the copyright license for the content on this page, Navajo Nation Statement (November 27, 2017). I have the email from AMBER KANAZBAH CROTTY, Council Delegate, The 23rd Navajo Nation Council, (Beclabito, Cove, Gad Íí'áhí/ Tókǫ'í, Red Valley, Tooh Haltsooí, Toadlena/ Two Grey Hills, Tsé Ałnáozt'i'í) giving permission. "You have permission to use my statement with a Creative Commons copyright license." I do not know the protocol for forwarding the email in which she grants the permission. Thank you very much for your assistance with this.Oceanflynn (talk) 04:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph Brakes[edit]

Do the two pages you mention'd on my talk page have the correct paragraph brakes now? If so, I'll try to be more careful when messing around with white space, and can you check to make sure it was my edits that caused the strange paragraph brakes on the expressions of numbers pages? Thanks. JustinCB (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Never mind about checking the expression of numbers, I look'd into it myself. In that case, the strange paragraph brakes were caused by the previous editor adding <br /> after the template(both templates cause the same paragraph brake, it's the <br /> that caused it to be over long), but you didn't notice it till now because the aforemention'd editor is an autopatroller. The vedas one is my fault, though: I removed a newline at the end of the page(again, not related to the template: smaller is an inline template, so it doesn't affect paragraph brakes). JustinCB (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
If the vedas still doesn't brake the paragraph right, Page:Atharva-Veda samhita volume 2.djvu/318 might need a {{nop}} added to it(I didn't remove a {{nop}} from that page, only a newline). JustinCB (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Poetry of Vasyl Stus[edit]

Hi,why have you deleted poetry of Vasyl Stus?My name on wiki Ok.oksana Ok.oksana (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ok.oksana: The Portal: section of Wikisource is for lists of works. Also, Wikisource can only accept works for which copyright has expired. Because Stus died in 1985 it is likely that his work is still under copyright. Prosody (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Where did you found information about copyright of Stus poetry?These poetry was published in 1974,,,I 've newer seen information about copyright

Hajji Baba of Ispahan[edit]

Hi Prosody. I may not know the rules of English Wikisource well, so I failed to understand why did you delete the category:Hajji Baba of Ispahan which was supposed to contain the page of the novel and all its subpages. I thought every page (and subpage) must belong to some meaningful category. Would you please refer me to a relevant Wikisource policy page about categorisation?

As for the full text page, I do not feel it was redundant because it did not contain a parallel text, but individual chapters were transcluded into it, hence, there was no risk that we have two versions of the same text with potential differences accumulating between them due to user edits. In addition, the full text page would only be several kilobytes large.

Creating a book from several subpages can be quite cumbersome; for example, the novel I am talking about is 80 chapters, many of which have endnotes that appear in the end of every subpage, and which, in the full text, would look better as book endnotes rather than after each chapter, a feature I did implement. It is for this reason I thought the additional effort of making the subpages and a full-text page would be worthwhile.

If I have succeded to convince you, please undelete the full-text page so that I proceed with what I have started. If not, please tell me so, and then I will probably re-create the full-text page so that it contains the actual text from the subpages and request the deletion of the latter.

Best wishes,

--Ghainmem (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ghainmem: Hello. Regarding categories, in English Wikisource they aren't used to group parts of a text together, we leave that to other navigation tools like the header and providing a table of contents on the title page. They're mainly used for organizing individual books and texts by common properties, like the year they were published or the subject. A better explanation can be found at Help:Categorization. Regarding the full text page, most works on English Wikisource don't have such a thing, the few that do tend to be old and reflect earlier editing practices. In deleting it I meant to help make Hajji Baba of Ispahan more like the other works. If you think a full text page substantially improves the way the work is presented, then I have no objections and will restore it. Thank you for your contributions, and sorry for interrupting them. Prosody (talk) 06:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@Prosody: Thank you for clarification. Yes, please, do undelete the full text page; as I explained above, I believe this will do more good than harm. --Ghainmem (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@Prosody: Thank you! --Ghainmem (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

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

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Portal:The Bickerstaff-Partridge Papers[edit]

Hello. What kind of edition is in this Portal? Anonimous texts with lower quality than 1801 ed.--Philip J.1987qazwsx (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Philip J.1987qazwsx: Portals aren't editions, they're just ways to link together related pages. In this case it looks like two of them are from The Battle of the Books, and Other Short Pieces published by Cassell and Co. in London in 1891, the others are unknown. Being of unknown providence and having errors isn't a justification for immediate removal from Wikisource, rather efforts should be made to identify the edition of such works and bring them up to par. Prosody (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I identified 1 and redirected to identically text, but higher quality, but it cancellated. (And "T. N. Philomath" may be Richard Neve).--Philip J.1987qazwsx (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Philip J.1987qazwsx: Redirecting a work to another is functionally equivalent to removing it--it's no longer accessible to normal readers. Further, they aren't identical, there are many textual variations between the two editions. You can do a word by word comparison of A famous prediction of Merlin, the British wizard and The Works of the Rev. Jonathan Swift/Volume 5/Merlin's Prophecy to satisfy yourself of this. The authorship question is an interesting point, A really cursory look at academic stuff about this work makes it seem like Swift being the author is the prevailing opinion, but if this is a matter that you're familiar with I'll defer to you on it as to whether it's worth indicating it as such. It's possible to change how Wikisource displays the author of a work using the override_author parameter of {{header}}, which you can find more information about by following that link. Prosody (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
1) Yes, not identically. But textual variations is minor: &c to etc, lowercase letters to capital, and some variations, wich seems mistakes — "woe the Morne" ("A famous prediction...") and "woe the Dorne" (1810). But now I found to 1st — Swift's Works ed. by Walter Scott 1824 (3d edition) and some laters (1841, 1843). "A famous prediction..." needs to be moved to version page. How to call 1824 page? 2) More attributed to Swift. I saw some books where written that Richard Neve may be the author, for example.--Philip J.1987qazwsx (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 00:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I've learned a lot from you....[edit]

I have learned a lot from you. Even if it took a few days to sink in.

I re-added one of your deletions a few days ago. Today it occurred to me that there probably doesn't need to be two nops in a row. I was working on how to find it via contributions, or some such.

So, sorry and thanks!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

No need to apologize, these things are some of the unintuitive bits that everyone runs into when they start. It all becomes second nature soon enough. Prosody (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
It is worse than that, actually. Once I get something wrong, it is so difficult to undo it in my brain. hwe, for instance. I (obviously) thought that for it to work, it needed to occur right after the hws or hwb (a confusion which still is in the muck I try to work with). So I have a supposed "logic" interfering with me just getting it. It is a painful gladness I have when you fix these things.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Samuel Butler[edit]

You'll need to specify Author:Samuel Butler (1835-1902), as Samuel Butler is a disambiguation page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Thanks for the catch. I notice in this particular case the disambiguation for the author page is conflated with the disambiguation page for works about the author works with the title of that name and placed in the main namespace. That seems odd to me but I can't find much in the way of documentation or discussion about that kind of thing. A second opinion would be appreciated. Prosody (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
We'd need to disambiguate either way, so I think the current situation works well enough. Help:Disambiguation hints at disambiguation pages in the Author namespace, so (if you wanted to) you could convert Author:Samuel Butler into a disambiguation page like Author:John Smith. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
If we need to disambiguate for the same name in a couple of namespaces, then we can/should only do that in the main namespace, as we can only have the one disambiguation page registered at Wikidata for a name. There was a discussion at WS:S last year and that was the end direction of the discussion, though sounds as it didn't flow onwards, or maybe not sufficiently. Not certain that we set up all the rules, and how and where redirects should occur, though the ultimate target for links is the main ns page. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Apocalypse that won't be[edit]

Most of our div<->span issues seem that they will only have display issues, not the text, and they will default to normal text, rather than moving others, so whilst we have a big to fix it doesn't seem to be panic stations. We need to pick the eyeteeth out of the problematic templates IMNSHO. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Giving heading for pages[edit]

I have a small doubt regarding the header that needs to be included. In a page, if I need to give the heading as INDEX 75 where Index is center aligned and 75 is right aligned, what statement do I need to include in the header section? Adithyak1997 (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Adithyak1997: If the header is like this:
75
INDEX
then the code to format it is {{rh||INDEX|75}}. On the other hand, if the header is like this:
75
INDEX
then the code to format it is {{rh|75|INDEX|}}. It can be understood in this way: rh is the name of the template code used to create the header, it's short for "running header." Each | divides the information used by the code. In the first example, the first division is empty, so the left part of the header area has no text. The second division has the word "INDEX", so the center part of the header area is populated with that word. The third division has the text "75" so the right part of the header area is populated with that text. Likewise in the second example, the first division has the text "75", so the left part of the header area is populated with that, the second division "INDEX" so that goes in the center, and the third division is empty so the right part of the header area is empty. Prosody (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Adithyak1997 (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Rafaeladasilvamelo[edit]

Yeah ... nah. Seems a level of excitement, like a new toy at Christmas. They were here a few days ago in a somewhat similar creation tasks, it is all empty shells, and I have addressed that to the user. If they don't settle on their own account, then the intervention may need to be stronger. I don't wish to dim their enthusiasm, I do wish to direct it. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)