User talk:RaboKarbakian

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Babel user information
en-N This user has a native understanding of English.
Users by language
Here and other places


The file for this book will need to be fixed before the book can be proofread. The OCR text layer is out of synch with the scanned text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I have been using the OCR button on every page. If there is a better way... --RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Ask in the WS:Scriptorium for someone to correct the file. There should be a text layer already there, which matches the text. I've checked several pages, and although it's there for most pages, it doesn't align with the correct pages. Asking for help fixing the file will delay work, but will make the work much easier to complete. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

small scan link[edit]

You may find the template {{small scan link}} useful for Author pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


It is unclear what the purpose of this page is to be. It seems to link to volumes titled "Bird-lore", to educational pamphlets, and to plate illustrations. If this is meant to collect a variety of resources, then it will need to be converted to a Portal: of some kind. If it is meant to be the primary page for a set of volumes in a single series, then it will need to prominently display that information, along with the appropriate license for the text(s). --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Heh, sorry. I was enjoying the easiness. The jounals contained the Educational Leaflets and also Plates. The Educational Leaflets were spread between (iirc) Volumes 5 and 28. The color plates started in either Vol. 4 or 5 and continued for some time. I just thought to collect those two features, each into one list; both are only from the journal itself. It would need to be a portal to the Jounal.
The navigation here is compelling... --RaboKarbakian (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Trueness to published work[edit]

I have finally had some time to look at some of your, and it diversifies from numbers of stylistic components that we have been utilising, see Wikisource:Style guide.

Firstly, you are not being true to the published work, and you seem to be recreating the navigation, such we have found problematic as it lacks robustness in our environment, internal to the work, and when working with other works, primarily with preparing future links. You are pulling pages up and down out of the volume and issue level, that makes navigation and templating difficult, and becomes personal rather than logical. I have started to improve Template:BLVolSpeciesheader though need to work out what is going on, whether we have to do works per issue, or per volume. We also need to get these pages best available for Wikidata, and for the eventual templating from somewhere like Wikipedia, so well worth the early investment.

Internally within the page: namespace it is quite unusual for us to utilise heading formatting == and === ..., we find that they don't have the graduations that we wish to achieve, they throw problematic section marks, and they prove difficult for users to consistently use through works. I would suggest that Help:Templates gives some good information on the size templates (div or span).

I guess this sounds very interfering, and it is, though I hope that it can see in the best light for the work, ease of work, and for fitting within our corpus of work, and calls from external. Probably a time to focus on Page: namespace for transcription, whilst we work together on the main ns navigation. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S. We have done lots of these, it will be fine, and hopefully make things lots easier. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I think you are abusing the word very and perhaps the word interfering also.
Putting all articles of one species together (especially with these smaller articles) should make a nice link for use on other wikis. The species pages are just separate from what will be the normal navigation. Bird-Lore, Volume I, No. 1 is having what I think is the actual navigation here, it wants to go onto No. 2.
I started to move the Portal:Birds#Birds_by_type around. Not so much for these club type articles, but the scientific type entires on the species (in other books) contain a list of previous mentions of the species.
Here is an interesting example. Ornithological_Biography/Volume_1/Song_Sparrow. The lower third of that page is about a species of plant. As a documenteur of species, it would be nice to have that description transcluded into its own page so that it might be included with the plant articles. In the bird portion of the page, there is a list of other books that have described the Song Sparrow and what they called it. It is the way of the TOLers (I don't like to mention them too often, them and the Flat Earthers...).
Perhaps the problem is the navigation. The navigation is uncomfortable to me as it is based on when mentioned in the journal. And it would make it a lot easier to grab the species articles (without navigation). I started the navigation among the species so that no one got lost as almost happened with the Chipping Sparrow.
So, as a summary, the books and magazines should all have the usual navigation. The species series should run independently and is easier to gather as I go.
PS, my PS is about Linaeian (an invented word) type indexers. The attempt to name everything and make an index of where it was mentioned is so appealing in its only semi-usefullness and the utter futility of the effort on our constantly changing little blue ball.... I will not attempt to sell this idea to you, but as a goal, it is irresitable. Can I please continue?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I was going to try to spell entirely correctly but I noticed the '==' information. I am so glad to be free from that! <section /> is just great! Almost like putting your finger on it and getting an "includes". I am really loving this wiki....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Linking to Wikidata[edit]

As long as you add the Author page to Wikidata, you do not need to add a link here. The fact that it's linked at Wikidata will automatically be found up by the local page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

E.g.: If you look at what I removed here, then visit that Author page, you'll see that none of that was necessary to have, and is supported entirely at Wikidata for us. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: Also, we list works by an author first on their page, and then works about that author or their works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Prioitizing. Good help, Thanks. I had wanted to separate articles from books, using the latexish definition of the two. I wonder if there is a way to deliver number of chapters to the link?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
We don't usually subdivide "Works" unless there are a lot of them. If there are fewer than six works, there is no real reason to add extra section headers. But, we always distinguish between works by an author and works about an author and their works. We never mix those two groups in the same section, even if there is only one of each. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Help:Author pages is our guide here. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Author:Florence Augusta Merriam Bailey[edit]

When listing an author's works on the Author page, we don't list the author in the citation. The author's identity is implicit in that the work is listed on that author page, so giving the author's name is a redundancy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. I was using the page while refining the template. Refining the template in this case means learning how to "if then" with that syntax so that the authors name does not need to be included. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Birds as weed destroyers[edit]

The copy you have uploaded was published in 1899 in the journal Science. Publication information is always for the copy we have here, and not for any other copy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The Hathi reprint does indeed look far superior, especially since it includes the plates. I would recommend using the Hathi copy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
You'll find two things are usually true on Wikisource: (1) a broad search before you start on a work can often pay off with a much better copy, and (2) nothing is ever as quick as you think it will be. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Internet Archive link is not for author or portal namespaces[edit]

Hi. Template:Internet Archive link is for use in the Talk: and File: namespaces as it categorises works.

For author and portal namespaces, we instead use {{ext scan link}} to link through, especially as this chains for multi-volume works. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Pity that the two letter template goes to autofill on the index pages.... --RaboKarbakian (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Not really, they provide different tasks. Also, with {{ext scan link}} we collect all works that have scans from a multitude of sites, which is not the case with "IA"; further if we have volumes at different sites, we collect under the one framework. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Again, thanks! For fixing what I had done.... The pity is for the ease of use. I tried 'tia' first. Eventually I stopped because it looked so ugly. Bibliographies in old books are pretty cool, eh? --RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
To help you out (hopefully), if you turn on your gadget for CharInsert, you will find that I have added {{ext scan link}} under the user dropdown. So you can just click it to get the text inserted. Plenty of other useful additions there too. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Image widths[edit]

I usually limit my image widths to no more than 420px. Much larger than that and the right half of the image will be lost on mobile devices and some monitors, so I will sometimes go with 360px, if I can. Not everyone has a widescreen monitor. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I randomly chose 620px, but my formula (from the original page sizes) width/ppi*96 screen ppi has this field guide at 640px(ish). I'm going to fix it tomorrow or monday. Frogs tomorrow.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Hardly the most interesting subject... but...[edit]

Index:Coloured Figures of English Fungi or Mushrooms.djvu

Also if this gets your interest try and see if any out of copyright works using Bertrix Potter's Mycological recordings are available yet. :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Its crack. I can't even look at those until I do some more work on Curtis. The Wayside book has the appeal of having images of our common weeds in which were one way or another imported from that one comparatively little island.
The printing of the Brits is already enough crack, btw.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Not text indent, and div/span templates[edit]

Hi. Please don't use Template:Text-indent in general use, see the style guide for how we generally ignore paragraph indentation.

Also, we have div (block) and span (inline) templates, we cannot wrap inline templates around block templates as it breaks html formatting. If you are sizing a block of text, then we would recommend {{smaller block}} rather than {{smaller}}. It is a tricky beast at times, and blame the devils that created html nesting. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 05:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Our block templates usually have a start .../s and end .../e variation which allow us to continue over pages. We will stick the first /s in the body and pair it with an /e in the footer, and then on the next page do the /s in the header, and then the /e in the body. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
eek!! Good to know. --20:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
With {{nop}} the accepted practice is to put it at the tail end of a page, rather than to lead a page, we had a loooong conversation about that years ago. To help to do that when you get to the next page, we have a gadget that puts a link in LH toolbar to do that. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Truly, I have been putting them everywhere.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Fractions. If there is the unicode for a fraction, it is preferable that we use them, rather than create a representation. Noting that the representations are not searchable, whereas the unicode are. There is an available list of fractions on the drop down character menu "maths & logic" tab. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
{{frac}} appeals so much to my humble LaTeX beginnings AND the way that using that makes all of the fractions be uniform in presentation. It will be difficult to get over it, but I will work at it. Also, I try to think of a reason/situation to search a whole document for a fraction; I find for reasons to search for what the fraction is measuring--The mathematicians that I have known and been graded by were about those numbers but the physicists wanted units (the item being measured) and the latter makes sense to me.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Good thing I have you…!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


We would only utilise a <section> where we were looking to transclude a part of a page. [Section is a tag from "labeled section transclusion"). If we are going to pull the whole page of text, it is redundant, as we would not use a "to|fromsection=" component in <pages>.

Note that the Wikisource:style guide asks for us use to straight quotes. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

PLEASE FOLLOW THE STYLES. They have been demonstrated to you, yet there seems to be an inner stubbornness to an individuality. There are clear reasons why we have abandoned the formatting that you are attempting. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
It is not so much an inner stubborness as it is a familiarity with the (gnu) culture--but I only guess at this as you have not shown the problem I am apparently creating.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Why is it that I need to demonstrate to you that the styel guide is wrong? Why do I need to push that the document developed over years of our experience and learnings to be blithely ignored as you have different ideas? Mate, give me strength. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I could use some help, as long as I have your attention, Suggestive programs for special day exercises/Labor Day/The Moral Dignity of Labor -- I can't get the paragraph between the pages to join. Probably it is because I am just not good at wiki.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC) (@Billinghurst:
There was out-of-date syntax on the Mainspace page, but more importantly, there was a template on the second page interfering with the formatting. I removed it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC) <-- Is that what billinghurst is talking about? I got to the wikimedia page from the Help pages here about how to transclude pages. I have been enjoying that.
There's a simpler local guide at Help:Transclusion. When in need, search for WS:Thing or Help:Thing to find information. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
It has been deprecated for all of 5 months! And it became deprecated after I bookmarked that link to wikimedia. Deprecation, from where I have been lasts years, almost decades. Stability is the goal there, though. I will change the syntax and expand my pages knowledge. Software Stability is something to maybe to consider? I truly do not want to upset people or ways here.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
No, It's been over two years. 2016 was two years ago. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Why are the pages going backwards in your presentation. That is not representing the work as published. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I using the program as a menu. In my minds-eye, I see this book(let) as being published both as sections with navigation following the program (at the beginning of each section) and the whole book also, with all of its pages and sections intact the way it was published (Suggestive programs for special day exercises/book. See Suggestive programs for special day exercises/Labor Day or Suggestive programs for special day exercises/Memorial Day. I have yet to enjoy the magic that happens when the {{djvu page link}}s do their thing....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
We are reproducing the book, not reinterpretting it nor individually creatively representing the day based on the book and the program.
We have also gotten local positive notice from a goldstar mother, whose opinion I truly value, for the memorial day section as it is and to have the whole book running on my ereader would be just the thing! Is there a problem with what I envisioned? The using of the software to make text available in different formats and for different gizzmos? Reading online is much easier in sections and to me, following the program shows their intent not so much their space restrictions. The book was cobbled together. Evidence of that can be seen by the residual page numbers on some of the individual parts. Several of the poets are represented here in all manner of ways, cannot the teachers also have some leeway?
We should really like using software to its fullest when it has a useful application.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
{{djvu page link}} is all work and little benefit. It has no value in the main ns. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Something I read in the Help made me think that using this would help in moving the pages into one big all inclusive book. I liked thinking that way. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Has someone put their pipedream into a Help page? :-(
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment use of width. Because of small screen presentation, we prefer to use max-width rather than width. I didn't change the as I didn't have visual when using AWB to capture and regex the existing code. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Michigan Department of Education[edit]

For organizations that publish works, and are not actually authors, we use the Portal namespace. So Portal:Michigan Department of Education. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Poems that every child should know[edit]

Hello. You are making changes to pages in Poems that every child should know (such as curly quotes) that I don't plan on implementing as I finish proofreading this work. I would like formatting to be consistent throughout the whole work. Also, you placed license info, &c. on at least one Mainspace sub-page. Licensing info need only be present on the Title page of a work. Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

On the first thing, I had one of my pages validated with a &emdash changed to the character; so having read at the style guide that both were allowed, I did this to your pages, as I validated it -- to see if it was a thing or not.
On the second part, the license, etc. EPetey told me to do that to main space pages; I suspect there is some interest in getting the licensing stuff working and I thought that the PD/YYYY thing that shows when works are released was kind of cool. I can quit pasting that stuff, though.
For my purposes, I was trying to do the Longfellow and any others that I had encountered elsewhere and remember.
So, sorry and good morning.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Pretty sure @EncycloPetey: meant licencing on the base mainspace page for a work. And with regard to curly quotes, our Style Guide states: "Use typewriter quotation marks (straight, not curly)". Even if curly quotes were encouraged, consistency within a work should be a primary consideration. Thanks :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Two and a half years is a long while in wiki years, especially for an active nick.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
The work is still on my to-do list. It's all perspective. To me, four wiki years is as a month... But also from my perspective, I am in it for the long haul—almost 10 years now. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Those page to scan links are nice from the index page, I will finish them. I will just make the text links to the Longfellow and I am glad not to need to link the whole thing. I am dropping 'The ' and punctuation from the title links. There was a really long one that I would have truncated. Maybe you should edit the page of link titles so I know?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Not sure exactly what you are requesting... Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Page:Poems that every child should know (ed. Burt, 1904).djvu/26 <--I made the Main space/Title links|Original title. None of the pages exist yet, so if you edit what I did, I will know how you want it done.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Just following how previous/existing formatting has been done is fine. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Rapid validation[edit]

There is no way you validated every note and word in that setting in under 3 minutes. It took me 50 minutes to typeset it and I'm highly skilled in Lilypond. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

You are right. I used the validating wrongly to express my personal happiness. I did spot check some of the notes, after having read that the notation needs a minimum of three directions (stem, etc.). I don't want to unvalidate it, because I am still so happy, but I will if it is important to you....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
It's not about what I want, it's about the standards of this community. When you validate a page you are guaranteeing that you have checked everything and it is in the best condition that you can make it. If our validators can't do that, then our readers won't have confidence in the reliability of any of our content—and they will go elsewhere. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Beeswaxcandle is right… at the very same time as he is not. Nearly every time an accusation of “speed-validation” is made at WikiSource — a potential good contributor is disheartened, sometimes to the point of giving up entirely — whilst the “bad agent”s simply don't care either way. It is a rite of passage — simply that — around here and I hope you don't take it at all seriously. Nobody else (and I especially include the accusers!) does. 06:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Every note seemed perfect, even on a third review. And while I find all midi to be an endurance test, this one sounded like the old book said it should. Maybe everyone would be happier if I un-validate it and then re-validate it (yes, still happily) in a couple of days?
Btw, does it make a difference if the arc connecting two notes is convex or concave? o/~⏜o/~ or o/~⏝o/~?RaboKarbakian (talk) 07:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Unvalidating the page will prevent you from re-validating it because of the way our system works. Any editor who sets a page to Proofread status can't then set it to Validated status. If, now that you've checked it carefully, there are no changes needed, then leave it at Validated. I hear you on the midi. I try to avoid playing with it much at all. If the tempo I set is wrong, please adjust it in the \midi block at the end of the score. A higher number will mean a faster speed. With respect to the slurs, the direction is not important unless it is obscuring notes. However, I don't recall there being any in this particular song. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
"Speedy validation" strikes at the heart of what we do here. What about it is to be taken lightly when the standard and aim is to produce faithful, reliable transcriptions of texts? That is an expectation, not a rite of passage. Potential carelessness is a legitimate concern. A "potential good contributor" won't be dissuaded by apt criticism or questioning on that point. And the happiness bit (that is, where placation is concerned) is just silly. Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
My intention in raising the matter with RK was not to accuse them of negligence in validating properly, but rather to point out that checking scores requires more work than a simple running of the eye across an image—which is all that's required for most image pages. The image work that they have been doing on another work has demonstrated considerable attention to detail, so I know that they care about getting the details right. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Understood. My reply was directed primarily toward the IP contributor's comments. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
The "IP" replies to Londonjackbooks: the speed of the validation is not the issue, just so long as quality of the verification is maintained. Equally that expectation is not the rite of passage but the occasional inappropriate accusation that one has indulged in "speed validation" is. My point is exactly the opposite of LJB's interpretation: she claims good validators are not discouraged by criticism and maybe she is sometimes right; I hold that bad validators will ignore being told to take more care. It is a careful balance and prone to resulting in an adverse outcome. It is easy for experienced users to forget often the "rules" they hold so dear have not been written down so clearly as to be both simple and unambiguous to a newcomer.

My sincere apologies to RaboKarbakian for temporarily hijacking your discussion! 03:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I was going to also comment on "bad validators" (would have used "potential bad contributors" though) as well, but I was already bordering on getting too philosophical on the matter. Accusations/inquiries made in good faith aren't necessarily inappropriate. You don't know a thing unless you ask. Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh, gosh. I have enjoyed this. Apology is not accepted as it is not needed!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I am so glad you were not offended. Now let us both look forward to the future day when you “validate” an absolutely appallingly badly “proofread” page — and find yourself holding back from writing a stiff note to the original ‘proofer’ to let them know that they seemed to have indulged in “speed-proofing” a page; and you just don't feel their apparent effort was quite good enough… Don't laugh! That day will come a lot sooner than you think it might… 04:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Ha! I was trying to determine who RK is...! BWC and LJB are more than likely to be their own best critics as RK probably is. I keep going back to a thing my high school band used to participate in called "Solo-Ensemble". Different from team sports, I guess, looking at the definitions of the two words which together is an oxymoron.

Maybe it is best for me and my "happy green button" problem, if BWC ping me and tell me how long I should compare the two pictures, which, is all I can do reliably. Or, I can start using the Thank thing (and stop considering it to be "cheap") instead and leave the green buttons alone.

But truly, I think that if BWC has pressed the yellow button of completion, probably the green button of validation is just for show (if not a way for me to express my happiness).

I was happy in other solo-ensembles, even if the individual minutes (or hours) were not so great.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

If it helps, I made the same goof (I'm so happy so validate...) because the text so pleased me. But we don't want to accidentally cover up any mistakes in the text by mistakes in our procedures. I try to be much more careful now. Shenme (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Not needing "help" so much. Years of experience in suppressing unhappiness just simply has not prepared me for this. If it is another 15 years before I have a happiness that needs to be surpress, perhaps I will find you for that help....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Score rendering[edit]

The even numbers may be line-break measure numbers, which would be added by LilyPond when the code is compiled. The explanation on Wikisource is very bad, and I generally use the explanation on Wikipedia and validated examples on Wikisource, such as the first page of The Star-Spangled Banner from The National Anthems of the Allies (here). If you have any questions, I am well-versed in LilyPond, and may be able to answer them. Yours Truly, TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC).

Reading music is a skill I do not have and the scores I am working on seem to be very much more complex than the scores I used on my 'flutaphone' way back in the seventies.... I have also a long history of being a software snob, sometimes out of boredom, sometimes out of necessity, occasionally for weird personal reasons and/or that I can not often remember or express in a way that can be easily understood -- but, unfortunately, guile is on that list of softwares I try to avoid, which, if I remember correctly, lilypond is mostly made of.
I would happily trade image work, for which I believe I am very competent with and my software recently has also matured (in more than in appearance, portability or scripts (good and bad)). That software is one of the reasons I avoid using guile, btw.
There are a lot more unscored score pages here than I originally thought. I have been wondering if collecting the pages for the scores of the same song would be helpful?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I’d work on some scores from the songs book if you’d be willing to create the images for these two indexes: 1 and 2. I’ve already proofread the text from both of them, but I’m bad at using image software. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC).
  • I was unaware of those Unicode points; if you believe them preferable to images, as I do so believe, you made add them in the stead of those images. For the title image (here, from here), should be represented as is such a title image on this page. I know how to format such an image. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC).
Great! I uploaded the "border" and put it in place there. The width should be its equivalent for 72 pixels per inch, assuming a 300ppi scan. Divide that by 16 if you prefer em.
I liked the unicode bits. For me, they have their origins from Davy's Dingbats, before that I do not know but they are as old friends to me. Maybe they have an entity code that can be used to make a template here. I will determine their size for 300 to 72 ppi scaling unless you prefer a different scale. And all the same with the 1916 play book...
  • This as well; are there any songs that you wish me to complete first? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC).
I have been wondering about a song called Katydid here. Maybe it is kind of blah as all the notes are about the same Page:The Riverside song book.djvu/130 but mostly, whatever you would like. I am enjoying the image work, so for this trade, only what you would enjoy.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I’ve completed the “Katydid” pages; would you mind uploading an image for this page? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC).
It should show up as File:Ballads of a Bohemian-0006.png after the name change.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I did complain about the midi, but that does not mean that I did not appreciate it.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I’ve proofread some Aviation Accident Reports, and would like for you to work on those files as well; if there are any songs or pieces that you would like me to work on, as I’ve said, you need only ask. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC).
      • This as well, if you’d like some more work; I’ll work on this in the mean-while. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC).
I have no preferences for which of the tunes or how many you like to work on. I must say, your choices are kind of fun. I looked in the needs image directory for Aviation Accident Reports and didn't find any "Aviation" there. So, to re-iterate, whatever and how much ever you would like to score in that book is just great! I'll get to your golden critter very soon. Thanks for everything. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
So, that takes me back to where I was a couple of summers ago with the Distributed Proofreaders. I was trying to write a script that would (with properly placed guides) cut an generate the appropriate mark-up. My life got worse and worse from there -- it was already spirally downward very quickly. In particular, images with black and white photographs are easily managed with a script. It is a discussion I had via email, emails that apparently everyone locally has read and made huge judgements upon and probably the email was to and from a bogus name at the Distributed Proofreaders.
I am not certain that I want to continue this trade especially with the extremely slow change in my situation. With all due respect to gamers past and present, and I mean that in my own way, as some of my happiest time was spent with slowly maturing gamers. I am unhappy when the games spill into what should be the actual past.
So, if you have something else or allow me to get back to it, gladly get back to it even, when my real life shows more improvement....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
    • How about this? I’ll proofread the text soon. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC).
I have already been working on this. I have a script that I put the text into and it spits out the image and the formated text, so, if you want to wait and check my upload, that should go fairly quickly on my part, once I get started. It would be nice to be on my computer alone, though. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I’m sorry, once again; I had just found the work, and was unaware that it was you who had begun the work. I’ve also remembered this, which has some images, that I worked on a long time ago. I’ve started another song from the book, but if there any that you’d like to be created in particular, feel free to ask. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC).
The Gordon books, I really like. I can just work on the images and you can do whatever you wish with the text(s). Birds and Vegetables.
Wow! REALLY BAD DOWNLOAD! 32MB in seconds!! Beware of Daphnaïda!!!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC) And something swallows my "Recent" in the filechooser.
    • I’ll proofread those two books, if you wouldn’t mind; there’s also the image from this page, as I’ve now finished the book. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC).
  • The remaining images from here and here, and that from here (wonky download problems, lost my "Recent" in the filechooser)RK. I will continue with this, unless you’d prefer other-wise. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC).
I forgot to do two of the Eskimo images, what a funny book that must be! They should be arriving shortly.
I will probably do the "battle for Open" images, but truly, <rant>there are some catchall phrases that get thrown around and used that lack good definition. "Open" is one of them. The other one, recently re-surfaced in my self-limited view "FOSS" which I believe expands into Free Open Source Something-or-other, but am uncertain of that. GNU has a licence and a coding style (which boils down to "don't use &#11134; (horizontal tab spaces)" which is really great advice for avoiding style arguments.</rant> The only thing I have experienced that is worse than the undefined "opensource" is that incredibly un-researched advertisement by IBM, "Linux, child of the world". (Windows, circa 1995, Linux, circa 1992 based on unix from the 1950s -- running mainframes at universities and in industry.) Advert probably by some well-meaning dingdong who thought Windows was the only thing....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC) (in all fairness, msdos pre-dates linux probably most at being the child of the world though....)
    • If you were interested, and haven’t already read, the book discusses specifically debate over “open” education and “open”-publication research. On a less general note, the images from here, which are numerous, would be much appreciated, is they may easily be removed from the .pdf on Wikisource. I’ll work here next. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC).
  • I’ve completed two more songs; would you mind creating the images from here and here? They were both former WS:PotM texts which have been fully validated, excepting their images. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC).
The Sikh's takes advantage of my skill set, but the other one, I'm going to be looking around for another copy of that, as the first image I looked at was some organized dots on a page that barely made it to the scanner on time.... Thanks for your work, btw. Someone else did the graphs for the Open Publishing pdf.
Not too long ago, I was interested in making html5 web pages of pages turning while the book was being read. Seems to be more interest in "rules" and "breaking into the computers of others" than some seriously evolved hacking. Today's thought.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The images from here, as well. I also created the sheet music here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC).
Hiprah Hunt is going to be too boring for me, I think. They just need cropping and some rotating. I saw the score at the Chickens. Akme said "You're Welcome" to me on the commons, but I did not thank for anything. And you should get a thank you but all there is is a "You're welcome". --RaboKarbakian (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Would you mind creating the images from here? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC).
  • From here, if you wouldn’t mind. It was copyrighted in 1919 by the David C. Cook Publishing Company. I wish you to remove all text excepting the title, which is stylised, and shown at the top. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC).
How about after it is uploaded and such?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Find the love[edit]

Don't give up on wikimedia. Prompt discussions, reiterate ignored points, win with academic memes and ethical depth, give others fair opportunity to respond at their leisure, don't let others edit against you without participating in your discussions, whoever stops discussing has stopped participating so edits thereafter don't contribute rather disrupt, but most of all don't forget to love ;) 2600:1700:8680:E900:45BE:5CE:7151:FE6A 18:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It is the only reason I keep working on things here. That and the fact that this stuff is so cool. Thanks for asking a good question!! --RaboKarbakian (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

If you ever would like help on any project or merely to converse or merely to discuss, ping User:Eaterjolly. I've gotten to IP-editing lately, since I started appealing an IP block on main wikipedia which I'd rather not login thusly provoking anyone to taint my account with a block. (very silly block involving supposedly disruptively editing a banner on a talk page by removing. *sighes*) 2605:A000:1238:A03F:F4E7:1B24:D13C:D526 08:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

If I don't get back to it soon...[edit]

You could copy Page_talk:The_Riverside_song_book.djvu/29 to the page space, as a start on a good copy. Check the text of the talk page for notes on all the bits not yet done. Also, since I'm not as familiar with the Lilypond syntax, this score text might be a bit more readable than some others? ;-P Shenme (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

sheet music (cont.)[edit]

@TE(æ)A,ea.: The David C. Cook Publishing Company image.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Would you mind uploading the images from here? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC).
  • From here, as well. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC).
  • From here and here, the latter the current WS:PotM, if you wouldn’t mind. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC).
  • In addition, there are a number of images from here, which is a very interesting read, personally. However, not all of the pages which contain images have been created yet. In addition, I finally got back to work on The Riverside song book, beginning here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC).
  • The images on this page, as well. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC).
  • The images from here, preferably those not from advertisements. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC).
  • The image from the title-page of here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC).
  • The image from the title-page of the Medicina de Quadrupedibus, here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC).
  • The images from this book of poems. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC).
  • I’ve been thinking of uploading some more works that were illustrated by Rackham, if you would like to provide the images for them. There is a list here, with a number of plates and in-line illustrations given. I would be able to proofread the text, if you would like to create the images. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC).

Wikisource:Manual of Style[edit]

Lord Hategood-Pilgrims Progress Bennett-0115-15.jpg

Use typewriter quotation marks (straight, not curly) --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The fact that the curly quotes are available in the character radio menu "Insert" (available to all who edit, regardless of what gadgets are not used) makes that Manual of Style dictate very confusing.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Use typewriter quotation marks (straight, not curly). That's not confusing at all. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
"Eat at McDonalds" even if we have baked potatoes and pot roast available right here?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Use typewriter quotation marks (straight, not curly). What and where you choose to eat is not at issue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
It is an metaphor. Might I edit the style guide to encourage the use of xml-entities whenever possible? It makes more sense than the boisterous demand to use straight quotes as many of the entities have been available and in use since way before 2000.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
No. The community decision has been for exactly the opposite. We regularly use bots to replace xml-entities. Use typewriter quotation marks (straight, not curly). This is not hard to understand at all. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Use typewriter quotation marks (straight, not curly). Repeated refusals to follow community norm may result in a block. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, fine. I thought you were guiding me away from the one version and to the other with the beautiful illustrations. I thought this because you were so intelligent and capable when I first got here. Lately, you seem more likely to read "guides" here and the tool-tips at wd.
Concurrently, the "locals" seem to be trying to "steal" my dumb tool for pulling "follows" and "followed by" from wikidata, which seems sad to me as all they are going to actually "know" is how to invade vulnerable computers. The thingie at the header template is only a little broken if you actually have just a bit of knowledge.
That I saw curly quotes today in the recent changes that were not mine. Concurrent is concurrent. Knowledge is something gained. I once had a rechargable drill stolen from me, only without the charger. That was kind of dumb also, but that was a child, actual 10 years of age or less.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
To show my shock and ignorance, I had to go look up wikt:norm#Etymology_1, as I'd thought it meant "the usual thing done." But no, it includes "2. A rule that is enforced by members of a community."
As you'll remember I had no problem with proceeding with curlies in Tales of the White Hills, even fixing a use of {{adq}}. After peeking at previous discussions elsewhere I'm astonished that curlies are found to be technically difficult ... But then I remember how many things are commonplace now, but not even possible five years ago. We'll all laugh at now, later, yes?
Anyway, there's w:Perfect is the enemy of good as a guide, even if it grates for me personally. There's more good to be done even given restrictions. Shenme (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
@Shenme: Here is the sorrowful conclusion I came to some time ago: the “no curly quote” rule came into play as a result of the occasional ‘lazy’ or maybe even incompetent(?) user who cannot figure out how to maintain consistency with others. The "easy" way of dealing with inconsistencies is to mindlessly perform a rigid string-replacement across entire swathes of work. Because “our” local programming element is not very clever, the simplest answer is not to have to figure out whether a given quote-mark is correctly positioned… so as a result ‘straight quotes’ are the go-to choice of the not−very−smart amongst us…—sarcasm entirely intentional… 07:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
If I were participating in the POTM or another group effort, I would be using the group style. I have done all of the work, so far, on the books in question. Some have images which I took extra time and care and previously learned skill at preparing.
User: Something like "The Lord of the Flies" mashed with "Davita's Harp"? (a very well written story about a child who was denied their rightful standing due to old-fashioned, in the 1940s, tradition.)--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


Look at what the wiki can do, using only <q> and </q>.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Motoring Magazine and Motor Life[edit]

I can correctly format the advertisements, but the edit that you referred to (1) was not heavily consequential to the outcome of the page, except in changing the position of the image. I will attempt to format the advertisements very soon. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC).

The changes were fine, it is just that I did not make them and I was wondering who did. The history says that I did it.
As requested, I did not "worry" about the ads but I did enjoy them.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It appears that you (?) had forgotten to close the table (on this page), and that was causing the formatting issue. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC).


The Hawthorne does sound rather nice. Whilst I do enjoy the music of Wagner, and not the least his Ring cycle, the formatting for those works seems rather complicated, and that I would prefer to avoid. It seems that there is an earlier version of the Wonder Book here, which is definitely in the public domain and contains a greater number of illustrations. It seems that the Wagner is already uploaded here. I also have a copy of Hawthorne’s Tanglewood Tales, illustrated by Mr. M. Winter, that doesn’t appear to be on Internet Archive; I’ll upload it if I have time in the future. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC).

  • I’ve created the pages for the plates in A Wonder Book; could you add the images? I’m not very experienced in image formatting. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC).
  • Could you validate this page? It’s the last proofread page from Undine. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC).
  • I’ve finished proofreading A Wonder Book, and have started this shorter work, with a number of plates by one Frank C. Papé. Could you create those images? In addition, are there any other works of Rackham’s that you would like to begin? I would be happy to start proofreading one of them. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC).

I thank you, hamsters thank you[edit]

thank you from hamsters

Thank you so much for fixing the images at The Golden Hamster Manual.

I had started this project on my holiday in December 2016, did more on holiday in December 2017, and you fixed all the images in December 2018. I had been wondering how this work would ever be completed. Thank you so much! The images in Commons:Category:The Golden Hamster (1949) look so much cleaner than the original scans!

I am going to first share this with the newsletter of the British National Hamster Council then I will begin to integrate this work into Wikimedia projects elsewhere. I am excited to have this published! Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Wayside and Woodland Blossoms is proofread[edit]

FYI. Waiting for the lovely pictures to be done. The only thing unresolved with the proofreading is the 3 or 4 double-headers; marked problematic. Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)mmm

My computer died. It will be sometime before I can do image work.
In the meanwhile, I was going to try finding times for paragraphs for matching audio with text.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Index:Bird-Lore 02.djvu[edit]

I notice you ran into some problems with Index:Bird-Lore 02.djvu, but I'm not entirely clear on what you're trying to achieve here.

It looks like you've tried to split out two volumes published together into separate DjVu files and run into problems with the OCR text layer? If that's the case, that is neither necessary nor recommended: when we transclude the work to mainspace you can transclude the relevant pages into whatever layout makes sense from a single Index:/File:. If that's the case I would suggest just deleting the extra Index: (tag it with {{sdelete|Author request}} and someone will be along shortly to delete it).

If the issue is something else, please explain and I'll see what I can do to help. --Xover (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2019 (me I

I think the word published is not being used correctly here. The scans are of a rebinding of several publications. A years subscription of the journal was rebound into one book.
The earlier volumes lacked the original covers which included the index for the index (later volumes include these covers). I was making new indices using existing indices as a model. I was unsure how to indicate my remodelling effort and left them marked as blank pages. Index:Bird-lore_Vol_01.djvu is what I was trying to do here.
I don't remember the OCR being missing from this scan. Maybe I am confused about what you are asking. I certainly would welcome assistance with the OCR! Maybe your questions could be answered more easily by looking at the first volume?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
The original scan at IA appears to contain Vols. 1 and 2, for 1899 and 1900, bound together. Index:Bird-lore Vol 01.djvu appears to reflect this, with both Vol. 1 and 2 covered.
The file behind Index:Bird-Lore 02.djvu is described as being extracted from File:Bird-lore Vol 01.djvu (and in turn thus from the same scan at IA). Index:Bird-Lore 02.djvu is also tagged as lacking an OCR text layer (which appears to be correct), and on its talk page is noted This is a home-spun djvu file. It is off-by one. I am remaking the file in hopes of fixing that..
Based on this I assumed that you had tried to split Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 into separate DjVu files and Index: pages, but had trouble with the OCR text in the extracted file (Vol. 2). My advice above was based on that assumption: Index: pages are primarily a technical facility to aid proofreading etc. and presentation together, or apart, or per chapter, or… happens in mainspace when the pages are transcluded. There is thus no need (and it is generally not good practice) to split files in this manner. In other words, if my assumptions are correct, the best course of action is to just delete the extraneous Index: page.
I do have tools for manipulating DjVu files, including generating OCR text, and would be happy to help where needed. But in this particular instance it looks like that would be redundant. --Xover (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your time explaining/reminding me of my past actions here. Bird-lore was one of my earlier attempts. I am also greatly handicapped from further work as my computer died and this small device is not something I am going to migrate real work to.
It is humbling to be reminded of how broken my djvu making script was and you can probably see from my first reply here -- the memory had been tucked well out of harms way. My only defense is that I was unable to find much documentation.
I did write some scripts that worked. Again. It takes more time to back track over messes than it takes to make them and I thank you.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Heh. I can barely recall what I had for breakfast this morning, much less the details of why I took a particular approach with something on here years ago. :)
In any case, do I take it then that you confirm my above assumptions to be roughly correct and that you agree this index is redundant and can be deleted?
PS. Sorry to hear about your computer. My own main laptop just went in for repairs with a battery that had started expanding and, though I was lucky enough to still have the ancient one it had replaced as a backup, even just migrating between those two is a right royal pain. Hope you get your computer issues sorted out soon! --Xover (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete it, for sure! -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

More image collaboration?[edit]

If you’re computer’s fixed, or even if it isn’t, I’m glad to see you back! In case you hadn’t already heard, curly quotes are now approved! As WS:PotM has been floundering about quite a lot recently, this is a great time to take a break, and what better way than with some beautifully illustrated works? If not some longer works of Papé (cf. external scan), perhaps The Romance of King Arthur, &c. (external scan) or English Fairy Tales (external scan). Regardless, or even if you are unable to work on this, I am glad to see you working again at the project (although it has been more than a few days, I’ve been far too distracted). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC).

Thanks for the heads up about the curly quotes. I divined its approval from my watchlist but it is good to know beyond inference.
גיר צבעוני.jpg
Those three works are like a mirage for the extremely thirsty crossing a desert. Yes to all of them but not yet as I don't have a computer. If my box is like Tovalds House of Fine Art and its Tools, the local library allows me some few minutes everyday with their boxes of large crayons. As near as I can see in this box for the kinder, they don't even have a simple text editor.
My plan was to do text so that when I get a computer, it will be easier to just drop images into place.
The Spenser book looks like format fun and the other two have images faded such that I am anxious to see the color that can be dug out of them.
I have no timetable regarding a computer, but I am about 2 weeks away from completing a project for my mom (that became a lot more than either of us anticipated).
It is nice to here hear from you and follow your links.... --RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I should have some more time to work around then, as well. For my longer-term project, I can work on uploading a scan of my copy of Hawthorne’s Tanglewood Tales, illustrated by Mr. M. Winter, that I mentioned some time ago. I had forgotten about the length and formatting issues that would involve Papé’s work, but any of his illustrations would be welcome (from other works). If you want to work on digging up image colour, I saw Rackham’s illustration of Hansel & Gretel, & Other Tales (external scan), but I thought that it would be much harder to extract the image colour from them. If there are any works that you want help with proofreading, just ask; the PotM works for last month is (nearly) finished, and that for this month is rather dull. Separately, I also found these other scans: Snowdrop, and Other Tales (external scan) (Arthur Rackham, illustrator); and Hansel and Gretel, and Other Stories (external scan) (Kay Nielson, illustrator). I found more interesting works, but I’m really just getting too ahead of myself here. Thank you for your continued work, and I hope your computer situation improves. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC).

The school law of Michigan[edit]

@Billinghurst: (I am unable to leave a message on your talk page. Sorry for the rude ping here....)

I wanted to tell you of my reasoning for putting the date into the name of the document. I spent a lot of time here sorting through various publications of the same works. Putting the date into the upper level name was a way of differentiating between duplicates. This publication, in particular, (since laws are more liquid fluid than other publications) I have great hope that another "updated" publication (from the 1900's or even the 2000s since it is a government document) of the same will surface.

If you can tell me the problem with my reasoning, it will help me to free you from such a great cleanup in the future.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Not certain why you cannot edit my user talk page, you are an autoconfirmed account so should be able to do so. I don't see that you are caught by an edit filter.
I am sorry, I read the message and assumed that because I still need to be patrolled (the red exclamation mark on my edits) that I was in this other category. What are those who need patrolling called?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


We generally do not disambiguate prior to a requirement, and the capacity still exists to move it when other works are there and convert to disambiguation page. The name as you originally used is still active, it just redirects back. None of that sort of maintenance is an issue, in fact it is an expectation with the existing practice. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I looked up the word "practice" at wikitionary. I suspect you are using the 6th definition which is something like custom or "we always did it this way." I spent some time trying to clean up the main namespace for several items some few months ago by now, mostly for wikidata purposes. This clean up was a pain in ways that I would not have imagined before having worked at it. So when I put the date on that one publication (and not on several others), it was to prevent a future bad experience.
@Beleg Tâl: I wonder if you have some thoughts about the removal of the date in this legal publication's mainspace name.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Use of Template:Indent (Template:Text-indent)[edit]

In The Book of the Aquarium, you have used Template:Text-indent (which I have, for ease of cross-page usage, changed to Template:Indent) for paragraph divisions. Would you like it to be used in The Amateur’s Greenhouse and Conservatory as well? They are both written by the same author. I would be willing to change the formatting on the pages as I proofread the work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC).

I prefer indented text when reading. I had some discussion about this when I first started editing here. The outcome of that discussion was to put text-indents into the style of the Main space transclusion bits. But this book has unindented first paragraphs. So, I was putting them in at first.
Then, upon my return, I thought it was too much to leave them in, in the case that someone would start to edit it before I get another computer (etc). So I was removing them.
So yes! Indents and outdents. Your preference is better researched here than mine!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I will add those to the remainder of The Amateur’s Greenhouse and Conservatory, then. When proofreading other works, or continuing to proofread these current works, it would be helpful if you could use it as well. Thank you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC).
  • I’m sorry, I hadn’t noticed your comment. (I don’t check my talk-page very often.) Whilst I think that is interesting, I usually replace all templates and ASCII–XML modifying characters to the final XML form; thus, “a” replacing &ldquo;a&rdquo;, and replacing &mdash;. I do this because it makes the text file easier to read. However, I understand your goals, and will not replace those characters in the future. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC).
Template:dq is easy to proofread. The Template:sq has been dumbed down but can be upgraded. Perhaps templates — and ’ would make everyone happy?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@TE(æ)A,ea.: I needed some time to remember.... Consider waiting until transclusion and including the indentation formating within divs surrounding the pages. Template:Nodent exists to prevent indents on special paragraphs (like the first paragraphs of the chapter). I ended up preferring this because (in this case) the exclusion is less work than the inclusion. And I am sorry for stumbling through this explanation, but I like less work for the same outcome. I also like lighter weight texts (which might be moot because the images are so much more than a few style dictates), but still.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I have used a modified system for indents; I have implemented it here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC).
@TE(æ)A,ea.: So, these are my priorities while I am without a personal computer. I want to make pages ready for images. I have a few projects that were left in various stages of undone, but without the tools found on my computer (and not available on library boxes) -- I am really just doing things that are equally difficult on both os. No image work for me on Windows. Those futsy book advertisements at the end of the aquarium book are an example of equally difficult.
Stories from Old English Poetry. I will be making a header for it that will pull in the navigation from wikidata, so please don't start to make the main space sections/chapters yet. I am making the image pages so that when I drop an image onto them, I can toggle it to yellow. If you start to proof the rest of it and put any text indents in, I will mirror your work on the image pages I proof. I am fine with the person doing the majority of the proofreading also making the call on the futsy things like indents and such. The wikidata work is time-consuming especially as the minor works covered in this book do not necessarily have their own data item yet (like Chaucer).
Any questions, warnings or better methods?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Nothing sounds out of place; I hate working with Wikidata, and am glad that you are willing to do that work. I will, in the mean-time, work on the proofreading. I will adjust the formatting as appropriate. I do have one question: Do you think the main-space sub-pages should be numbers (as they are now) or names? I usually use the former, but the latter may seem more appropriate here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC).
I just put the toc on Index:Stories from Old English Poetry-1899.djvu, at least from here, the djvu page link goes to the pages that need editing. I have found this useful for making interlinks and also for working on the chapter/song/poem/story that I wanted to. The same links, in the main space (Stories from Old English Poetry), are just unlinked page numbers. If these page numbers are not useful to you, at least they are not a problem in the main space--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Stories from Old English Poetry[edit]

There is a .djvu file available, by the way. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC).

I think I tried to fix by uploading the pdf, way back when.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I notified an admin of this. It gets worse, one page off at 4 and 5, two pages off at 10 and 13. I did not check farther than this.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

More Chaucer[edit]

The woorkes would likely be nigh-impossible to complete, as black-letter text (what the collection is rendered in) cannot be received of by OCR, which leads to text that looks like this. I could try to render the text separately, but I presume that you would enjoy an illustrated edition more than an early edition. I see no edition of Rackham, alas, but I see some (1, 2, both low quality) of one Goble, who seems to have also been a prolific illustrator. When you may so desire, I would recommend perusing his work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC).

@TE(æ)A,ea.: They have a Canterbury Tales that they are not ashamed of, so the daunting task of proofing the woorkes is much lower a priority to me (maybe the Sourcerer's as well). I suggested it before doing my homework.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion: Given the importance of Chaucer's writings in the history of English literature, you might consider making a Portal for the writings of Chaucer. A Portal has the advantage of being more flexible in format, so that you could index complete and partial collections, individual tales, and even literary analysis or other writings about Chaucer's work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Well, the same with Hawthorne and all of those poets. I did a lot of tidying here for The Riverside song book and other poetry collections. There are a lot of poets here and some with a lot of poetry.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I was surprised at the namespace that @Billinghurst: moved the individual poems to. It is classic Foroa commonscat namespace scheming but not how they name things here. Here they would be more likely to name it The Knight's Tale (Chaucer).
I was going to make a Template:Secondary list so that the list of versions of individual poems would be linked and perhaps an edit link also. 1. Is that okay? 2. Maybe someone is better at writing it than me? 3. I really really liked the tidiness of the Original Collection/Individual work of the existing namespace that I worked with yesterday. With a heavy heart, it would be nice if someone else would mourn the lack of tidy here with me.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
A template isn't likely to be useful unless you have a very large set of very uniform works. We used a Template to format the pages for Shakespeare's Sonnets because there are a lot of them, and they're published with uniform titles and numbering.
(I think that) A generic Template:slist might be useful for any list whose members might or might not be parts of collections.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't compare Chaucer to Hawthorne or the Riverside collection. Chaucer is significant worldwide, and his works sit at an especially important crossroads in the history of the English language; his works are cited in English dictionaries because they demonstrate the existence, usage, and spellings of words in English at a time during which most documents in England were written in French or Latin. Hawthorne is less known outside of America, and is most remarkable for having written during a period when not much literature was being written in English in the Americas. He is important somewhat in the history of American English literature, but not for the English language as a whole. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Author from England, C.S. Lewis borrowed heavily from Hawthorne -- but I am hardly qualified to have any thing to do with decision-making about which literature is good for this or better for that. I like the challenge of the mess and see all similar lists as being equal, in a software kind of way. If you want a portal, I can easily paste this list there. I don't think that there should be a portal and not a version page....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Keeping it simple[edit]

Please don't create templates for nesting {{versions}}. It is an unnecessary bloat of templates where there is very limited use of scope, and you can simply use the target template. Versions pages are simply version pages, and users should be able to arrive and edit those pages without having to try and determine what is different or how it works. (This exists as a community practice over a long period.) Also to note that for version there is neither a previous or a next; such pages are standalone when they become a version.

If you are wishing to be building something more curatorial for the work, then please consider building a Portal: namespace page. There we have more scope for contributor additions, comments, etc. It is can be more encyclopaedic or finding aid in nature. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

If the template is so offensive to you, it can easily be sub stringed and disappear once the work is complete.
About the portal: the listing of versions of poems is how I did a lot of this a summer ago. If this should be changed, then let me complete it as is and it can be changed (by all those who agree with you, etc) along with all of those others.
I value your opinions!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Substringed? Do you mean substituted? Otherwise, we have a community practice, so best to follow it, and not expect that others can or should have to come along and later and resolve it later. Doing it right the first time is preferable to all. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Heh, +10 yrs of not knowing what that was a shortening of. Yes substituted. Also, you were completely correct in labeling that template as, well, however you labeled it. It is a sorry excuse for a template, and if you restore it, it becomes even worse. The author portion did not work with wikidata, I assume because of the nested versions template which is probably already a nested header template. And, if you restore it, I am going to make it worse before it has completed its task and is killed in a more timely fashion.
My goal is to make a place to put the chapters of Stories from Old English Poetry. It also involves some clean-up at the commons. And I thought that while I was at it, I would make a wikidata for the chapters of Canterbury Tales (ed. Skeat). Illustrations of a one or a few other versions to follow, if all goes well.
Anything that I left to be resolved later was due to being without a computer. Is there anything that I left to be resolved?
@EncycloPetey: could have made the portal and I would have gladly fleshed that out. I am not at my happiest when others send out decrees for me to do things they are more qualified than me to do, especially when those decrees make me stray too far from my original task (which is to edit and add the already done illustrations to Stories from Old English Poetry.
Please restore the template. I will gladly let you know when to delete it. I have been thinking about the license (should it have one) and seeing if the small scan template can handle being pointed to a page (since I added the table of contents of two or three orphaned versions of Tales to my todo list). It would be cool if the ability to go directly to the exact page that needs to be proofed from these pages....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Two Noble Kinsmen[edit]

The disambiguation page for The Two Noble Kinsmen is now set up. Please note that retellings and other derivative works are considered works in their own right, and not "editions" of the original, even if they retain the title of the original work. So Richardson's story is not considered a "version" of Shakespeare's play, but is treated as another work based on it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Richardson's story is not a "translation" of Shakespeare. The Two Noble Kinsmen is in English, and so is Richardson's story; the one was not "translated" into the other. Rather, Richardson wrote a story based on Shakespeare's play. It is considered a new work, not a "translation". --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages[edit]

Unlike other listing pages, disambiguation pages are for works that share the same title, not the same topic or subject. Works appearing on a disambiguation page should have the same title, or the same primary title, or bear a shortened title that is the same as all the other works. A work with an entirely different title, would not be listed on such a disambiguation page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Covered at Help:Disambiguation. Categories would usually be utilised for subject/topic matter, though if curation is required, then a portal: ns page can be used. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
So, it would help if after undoing a mistake, that you complete the task and put the link in the correct place. Then I learn and understand, without that, I guess.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Author page; and if there is a pertinent portal page, there too. The main namespace is for works, not a listing page unless we are having to disambiguate (refer previous above link). — billinghurst sDrewth 10:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
There isn't a correct place to put the links. There would have to be another work with the same title to share a disambiguation page, and I don't know of any. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Letters of Mary, Queen of Scots[edit]

I’m glad to see you back editing again! Quick question—which edition of her Letters do you want to proofread; the 1842–1843 edition (3 vols.) or the 1844 edition (2 vols.)? The first volume of the three and the latter pair have been uploaded. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC).

Three things. I wanted to try IA uploader with this device and I had some questions for Xover. That's one. I am trying to rebuild my computer and that is being a challenge so no promises for when. That's the second. Third, I pasted a wrong link. I was interested in The Lives of the Queens of England which was kind of an accountants telling of history. And the originals for that had text lost in the creases (that's where the wrong link came from).
I don't know the books I caused to be uploaded. My device is just not big enough for proofing. Even this message is a greater challenge than it is worth. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)