User talk:Slowking4

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning This is Slowking4's talk page, where you can leave messages for User:Slowking4. Please use the + tab if you want to leave a new message.


Hello, Slowking4, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Carl Spitzweg 021-detail.jpg

You may be interested in participating in

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{CotW}} to your page for current wikisource projects.

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

Have questions? Then please ask them at either

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome! — billinghurst sDrewth 14:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


A DNBer :-)[edit]

Gday. By now I do hope that you have come across WS:DNB.

As a couple of pointers. For links internal to the wiki, especially between DNB articles, we created {{DNB lkpl}}, and I munged together {{d}} which crunches something like {{subst:d|Peter Paul|Benazech}} to give Peter Paul Benazech. We have a number of other tricks and guidance on the page. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

thank you, i only saw that at MoS after doing a couple of piped links. will try to return and fix those. expect to get some transcription done at DNB. please note any obvious errors, that i can avoid. Slowking4 (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello there, thanks for the DNB contributions. I've fixed up the three "problem" articles on your userpage: different transclusion problems (page range, markup issue, missing text). Charles Matthews (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thanks, i have gone back back and fixed sometimes. Slowking4 (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Two further ones: it was the same each time, missing </poem> further up the page confusing the transclusion. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Two more: markup, one an extra row of ####, the other was d. that had got in by mistake. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thanks, i've been fight the #### in ie. the nice thing about the article transclusion is that it catches the code errors, and disambigs. i see you're moving some article names, which i mindlessly got from toc, there is some confusion between the volume toc, and the author page list; and typos, will try to cleanup. Slowking4 (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
There's a point you might note about "tacit disambiguation", which comes up frequently. Basically if the first part of a name occurs as the initial part of another name, we put in dates. The point of the messy lists is to generate better ToCs; they have been typed in from a handbook, onto the author pages; and then sorted. They still have their problems (disambiguations, and the fact that the order isn't correct). I use them to check that the author pages tally with the correct names as created, when redlinks show up. Keep up the good work. A couple of things to look out for: "bom" for "born" is a common typo to miss. Also dates are subject to OCR errors: "l" for "1" is very common, and it happens frequently that 5 is read as 6. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thanks, yes i noticed - 5 for 6 about half the time? i'm including the em dash when inline of text, not always that way. the greek letters are always wrong. do we want to tag greek and latin pages for expert review? i dunno if i have those right. Slowking4 (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletes?[edit]


Sorry to bother you but I felt it best to double check before I went ahead and deleted all These DNB articles. It seems you did blank the pages but another User, who is not a regular such as yourself (in my view at least), went further and tagged them all with {{Speedy}} delete today.

In short, I'm just not sure if you intended on finishing them up and forgot or if you blanked them because they are no longer needed / redundant / created in error and so on. Let me know here either way. Thanks. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

yes thank-you. i was blanking the page, after a cut and paste move, rather that a move, since i didn't think the wrong name was appropriate for a forward. i see it's also done the other way. Slowking4 (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- thanks for your timely reply & good work! -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Draft of the Smithson will[edit]

I've realised that I got pages 1 and 3 the wrong way around when creating the DjVu of Smithson's will. I will correct this later today and move the pages of text that you have already proofread when I do so. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

thanks very much, the smithsonian fellow will be excited (i noticed reading it, it's in letter order 3214). Slowking4 (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
transcript here, but capitalization wrong [1] Slowking4 (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

{{gap}} takes parameters[edit]

A quick note to say that {{gap}} can be fed with distance, eg. {{gap|10em}} will put in a ten em gap. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

thanks, that will help with variable indents, but how to measure the em space indentation, for instance at the address of a letter for instance [2]; [3]? Slowking4 (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Page triage[edit]

Have you looked over the new patrolling feature I proposed us enabling at the Scriptorium? It does not interfere with the current method of patrolling so no one would be forced to switch if it were brought in. --BirgitteSB 01:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

ok i will give it a try, don't see a wikipedia link; contributor field. Slowking4 (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
the next article appears not to link Miller,_Edward_(DNB00); Miller, George (DNB00). Slowking4 (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

"Tacit" disambiguation[edit]

Hi there. By moving Christie, William (1748-1823) (DNB00) to Christie, William (DNB00) you were relying on "tacit" disambiguation from Christie, William Dougal (DNB00). I.e. that the reader would know that the William Christie in question happened not to have a middle name. The project decided quite some time ago that the more robust explicit disambiguation by dates is better in this type of case. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

ok, feel free to change back. hard for me to decide between conflicting contributor and volume link. Slowking4 (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The volume ToCs are actually not that reliable. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Few things while validating...[edit]

I wasn't sure if you were aware of {{hws}}/{{hwe}} (hyphenated word start/end) for tackling hyphenated words between pages; also, while validating some pages you have proofread, I have been eliminating spaces left before/after some punctuation (quotation marks, colons, semi-colons, exclamation marke, etc.). I thought to address a third issue as well (with regard to {{fs90}}), but as I was beginning to address it, I noticed some possible template issues I had questions about and addressed them at the Scriptorium instead. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC):

yes, i am aware, i plead laziness. the fs90 i picked up from another editor; wrestling with how to show those blocks of quotations through the work. Slowking4 (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I like how the following renders in the Main: {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Page||<div style="margin:1.0em 2.0em 1.0em 2.0em; text-align:justify;">}} / {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Page||</div>}}. I just forgot about it until recently. Add a smaller text size to the equation, and it would look much better in the Mainspace. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
that's pretty slick, color me confused how to implement, might play with it; needs to be rolled out across the book. Slowking4 (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
If an agreement can be made on some other type of formatting, I wouldn't be against applying the changes myself; but probably not until next week. Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
if you did a couple to show me how, i would follow; i'm sure people would follow your lead; you could also drop a note on scriptorium to build consensus. Slowking4 (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Different topic, but not requiring a whole new section: The DNB author of the "Arnould" article on this page reads "F.R." in the original, but you have (OCR error?) listed it as "F.E." (with a link to another(?) author). I'd look it up, but am short on time, and can't remember exactly where the list of authors are (in Index) for the DNB. Just thought I'd make mention. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

thanks, yes, i tend to miss the contributor when copyediting, but pick them up when i transclude later. also clean up contributor bio name versus TOC name conflicts. E for R is common. (new editors with funky lower case in supplement.) Slowking4 (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about reasons why editors would choose the lazy route here... then I remembered a situation (et. al.) where I got lazy. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for training me![edit]

And, I found some aeronautics history in Popular Science Monthly that is immediately useful to my research and I'm reading and proofing that. -- Econterms (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

PotM quotation formatting[edit]

Quick note. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

ok, i am agnostic, this seems to be a common practice among printers to show block quotes as smaller type. the indent on the block quote is quite different from the source text. Slowking4 (talk)
It is... but since the formatting suggestion was made on the Talk page, and no one else 'challenged' it, I thought I'd alert you for the sake of uniformity. At least you are not apathetic. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
...or lazy ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

References, Greek & typos[edit]

I wanted to let you know that I re-proofread the page Page:EB1911 - Volume 16.djvu/151 and noted that the reference which started on the previous page continued on to this page, and so I utilized the ref-name/ref-follow method (hoping I handled the reference placement correctly). There was Greek within the reference that was not proofread. If you are unsure of how to add Greek, just place {{Greek missing}} in place of the Greek, and someone will come along and add it for you eventually. I also noted tens of typos, mostly consisting of failure to italicize words or phrases, spelling/character errors, date errors, and failure to remove line spaces. Granted, many of the errors can be difficult to detect (as my eyes can attest to), but there were too many errors overall, in my opinion, to have marked the page as being proofread. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

quite right, i've been spoiled by the quality of the ocr's over at DNB. i will stop validating for a while, making more red pages, and use more zoom button for the smaller characters. this is part of my ongoing effort to transcribe EB1911, for articles in wikipedia that are cut paste from there. Slowking4 (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource meetup or training[edit]

Hey Slowking,
Over the weekend I was talking with Econterms and he mentioned that you might be able to help train Wikipedia editors who are interested in Wikisource. It is tentatively planned for the summer, likely to be in NYC. Is this something you are interested in? - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

yes, sure, although, i'm more a proofreader, than coder. i could used some match and split help. Slowking4 (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Which work do you need match & split help with? I can have a look for you. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
sorry, it was a more general discontent. but Goddard Rocket Apparatus Patent; from here [4] (didn't get from jpg to dejavu) the process is very opaque to me. need something for non-coders, hence my passing on the desire for a wizard from GLAM archivists. Slowking4 (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, not my area of expertise. I just upload documents to IA and hope that they will produce the appropriate go-with files. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm more of a proofreader myself, never actually (successfully) used M&S myself. Maybe that's something we could work on at the meetup. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
About Goddard, is the problem creating a DjVu file from 3 Jpegs or skipping that stage and creating an Index page based on individual Jpegs? Both are possible. I ask because I seem to have extracted an image from the second page and I haven't done anything with it (and I can't remember why at the moment). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
yes, i think. loss of momentum to do extracted image, when the other text only docs were done.. Slowking4 (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hübmaier headers[edit]

WE seem to be fomatting these differently on the pages we've done. You've been using the smaller template for dates (but not larger for the section title, I note), whereas I've felt that shrinking the dates isn't imporant, since they won't show up in the transcribed work anyway. Thoughts? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

yeah, flip a coin; last one there gets last word. i was just happy to figure out that "ref follow". this work has some funny across the open page formatting that will get lost in transcription. Slowking4 (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I started work on a another book with a similar issue, where the pages typically consist of more footnote text than running text. The footnotes can span two, or even three pages sometimes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
the headers are shruggable, useful mainly for navigating and proofreading. the body and footnotes are more important. note there was also some quoted text in body at reduced font; it has been done 90% in other works. Slowking4 (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I haven't come across much of that, but our "finer block" template uses 92% rather than 90%. I'm not entirely sure why this is so, but I suspect it has something to do with resultion of text being easier for machines to handle. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource User Group[edit]

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

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

Template:DNB LRP[edit]

What I always do is to go to an existing template such as Template:DNB AA, edit the author and initial fields there, copy but don't save, and paste into the new template to save. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

yes, thanks for noticing my confusion. the code is very opaque. the template documentation refers to DNB authors not supplement authors. about 20 more to do. Slowking4 (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The "noinclude" stuff is the standard gimmick to get a category on the template page, but not on pages where the template occurs ... Charles Matthews (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops, sorry[edit]

You may be getting a notification that I've reverted one of your edits to this page (depending on how you have Echo set up). Sorry about that; it was an accident. I clipped the rollback link when I was counting edits. I rolled back my roll back, so there is no lasting effect, but I thought I should explain. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

yes, i thought you didn’t like the {{smaller|}} for {{small block|}}; no worries. Slowking4 (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Tenth Anniversary Contest winner[edit]

WS:10 winner

Congratulations, you had the highest score in the Tenth Anniversary Contest. (You actually slightly exceeded the edit count of every other contestant combined!) I will be contacting Wikimedia UK regarding the prize, an e-reader, soon to see how they want to handle that. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

hopefully, WMUK will not be adverse to my free beer counter proposal prize. failed to recruit any WMDC, will talk it up at holiday party. <shrug> hopefully, can be made an annual contest, like wikicup. Slowking4 (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations! Yann (talk) 05:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Slowking. Adam has been in touch and if you drop me an email on richard.nevell at we can start getting the prize sorted. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Formatting for Poetical Works of Matthew Arnold[edit]

Hi, Slowking4! Just a heads-up that there are formatting guidelines for this text on the Index Talk page. I have not been using the poem tag, but instead use breaks. Sectioning is also used between poems (also illustrated on the Index Talk page). Thanks for helping! Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

ref name and follow[edit]

I saw that you skipped some of the pages with split references. The page with instruction is at Help:Footnotes and endnotes. In short <ref name=pN > (traditional) on first page, <ref follow=pN > on subsequent page(s). The name is to be the same, and not start with a number, my suggestion is p{{{pagenum}}} of the name . — billinghurst sDrewth 03:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

PotM guidelines[edit]

Hello! Just a heads up that we are not using the poem tag for the Proofread of the Month, but instead use end-of-line breaks. You can see an example of the formatting styling here. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


Really? So what does "FOBM" mean? And why is there a zero in C0RN? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

hey, i’m just happy to spell Otjombindè right. late at night, when the eyestrain is on, no amount of zoom will help on the ocr spell correct. maybe lighting a fire would work. i can leave them all red if you prefer. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 21:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the problem is more than, like a lot of folks I've seen here, we get sloppy about not checking the page headers, image captions, and similar things. I've seen this a lot from people here. They check the body text, but not the other text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
the ocr makes more errors for small caps, fewer errors for normal body text. so correction rate may be same, but more errors to miss in headers & captions. 2 on one page would indicate i was getting sloppy. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 13:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Men of Mark vol.2[edit] Slowking4, you did such an excellent work on volume 1 would you please consider coming back and work on volume 2 with me? I intend to validate all I can of volume 1 and 2. Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

ok, better than slogging thru the POTM. it will be next week before i have time. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 14:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
—Maury i did a rough TOC at Men of Mark in America/Volume 2, but it needs some work. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 21:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

proofreading and validating[edit]

Slowking4 instead of just proofreading and leaving me validating your work how about doing some validations on my proofreads? Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


Parser decided to be 'difficult' about whitespace. :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

And fixed. BTW I made the /s and /e versions for a reason. Makes it VERy much easier to do the "examples" entries as embedded ones:) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
thanks very much, works well. the paragraph indent for (1) is clever. i would suggest documenting for a general case of tabbed sidenotes, since our gov’ment docs use them a lot. for example: United States Statutes at Large if we had a "how to" manual, we could recruit some non-coders to transcribe. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 18:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the botanist's guide[edit]

Thanks for your help with the Botanist's guide. It's great to have it completed and all in green! Feeling in an enthusiastic mood I've uploaded the next Northumbrian botany project the New Flora of Northumberland and Durham. If you have any suggestions on formatting that I could follow I'd appreciate them, particularly in the middle of the book where the plants are listed. Regards Qgroom (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

not at all, sorry i got distracted by macarthur photos on commons,
will return to Index:Transactions of the Natural History Society of Northumberland, Durham, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne 1838 Vol.2.djvu, will look to you to add the species links.
if you could finish the pagelist at Index:Transactions of the Natural History Society of Northumberland, Durham, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne (1867).djvu, that would be nice. see also Help:Page numbers. check out the proofreading documentation, it has lots of wikicode tips to format the text. says hi, likes the links to their images. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 13:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Check validation[edit] —Maury (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

p.108 —Maury (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

EB1911 markup[edit]

I see you have joined me in including and proofreading EB1911 in Page space. Thanks for joining this effort! A few notes, some of which are in Wikisource talk:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica:

  • There's a conventional format, using x-larger and em-dash, for the page headings. I've encapsulated them in {{EB1911 Page Heading}}.
  • Also by convention, {{EB1911 Fine Print}} for the small-type paragraphs, and {{EB1911 Footer Initials}} for the contributors. Actually, you can scan Category:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica templates for other useful shortcuts (ETA: although some editors disapprove of the per-contributor shortcuts).
  • I've been taking care to use en-dash on things like date ranges (it's a Wikipedia guideline anyway), curly apostrophes, and hairspace em-dash using {{}} (that's an em-dash template, but easy to insert using the toolbar).
  • And, of course, fidelity to the original, without trying to modernize the English.

Feel free to ask questions or express opinions on that talk page. PBS and I, at lest, watch the page. And happy holidays! DavidBrooks (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

yes, should have sections added in red by end of next year. volume 1 and 4 need copying over from article space to page space, with transclusion. the adding of sections as in volume 1 would be helpful on the other volumes as well.
more concerned about the references and greek & latin character-sets; and adding references to english from WS. nice refuge from the GGTF nonsense. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 18:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'd be wary of calling article copies proofread, because there are instances of corrupt text (modernized spellings and rephrasing). For Greek, I use the toolbar with a rudimentary knowledge of the alphabet and pre-monotonic accents (and {{Polytonic}} for the right font). For Latin, I use the Windows 8 onscreen keyboard and press-and-hold for the extended character palettes. This can also give you curly apos and quotes, and em-dash and en-dash. We aren't bothering with links to WP these days, but there's a standard way of handling "See FOO" and "Foo (q.v.)" using {{EB1911 Article Link}}, with nosc=yes in the second case. DavidBrooks (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
oh sorry, by enWP cleanup, i mean going there and fixing the 100k links to and ilk. some of which are dead links. major reference effort mainly done by user:PBS. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 20:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the first thing that needs to be done when "See FOO" is found is to change it to "See Foo" which is always what is meant in my experience. {{EB1911 Article Link}} with "Foo" as an argument will do this. I see you are proofreading a lot of articles, and I thank you for this. I don't see the point in linking them into Wikipedia articles until they are proofread. Better to link to some external website. Library Guy (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proofreading doesn't look complete for Page:EB1911 - Volume 04.djvu/22[edit]

This page is marked as proofread. Certainly the material on Otto Bismarck (“Bismarck, Otto Eduard Leopold von”, in Encyclopædia Britannica, (11th ed.), 1911) has been proofread, but the material on Bismarck, ND (“Bismarck, North Dakota”, in Encyclopædia Britannica, (11th ed.), 1911) looks little touched from the OCR - there are spelling errors and all kinds of periods missing, and the for Bismuth (“Bismuth”, in Encyclopædia Britannica, (11th ed.), 1911) the formulas haven't been rendered at all the way one would expect. I think marking a page as proofread should mean the whole page has been proofread, not just portions. Otherwise article like Bismuth are going to display as if they are proofread when they are not. I admit this is inconvenient, and that is the reason I didn't transclude the Otto Bismarck article: I didn't want to proofread the other material on this page. Please don't mark a page as proofread until the proofreading is complete for the whole page. The time for that will be when all the articles on the page have been proofread. In the meantime, the old non-transclusion approach can be used for portions of the material that have been proofread. Library Guy (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

quite right, that’s definitely a red. i’ve since been adding sections to match and split, as red only, but i may have rounded up, in a fit of absent mindedness, in some cases. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 20:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

So my fix will be to take Otto Bismarck and Bismarck ND out of transclusion and mark the page as not proofread. There is another problem here, which is that, for this DJVU rendering, a lot of the periods don't show up on the abbreviations. I am used to this, and put them in where they belong. The period placement can be verified at where all the periods show up. The British seem to omit periods in places where a U.S. resident like myself would put them in. But perhaps this takes getting used to. For Bismarck ND this wasn't an issue. So the scan at is the final arbiter I think. The DJVU material seems be lacking in detail. Library Guy (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

i wouldn’t un-transclude, but rather improve the transcription to proofread (yellow) status. transclusion is more important than the status of the transcription & shouldn’t take long. woundn’t over think punctuation. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 21:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess that's a matter of opinion. I have other things I want to get to. Handling a chemistry article correctly is not a negligible piece of work, but feel free to go at it if you are so inclined and know what to do. I think the most important thing is to correctly represent what text has been proofread and what not proofread. It's just a matter of patience really. I don't think I am overthinking the punctuation. It really looked strange in the Bismarck ND article, and I found it distracting before I fixed it, and it clued me into the fact that there might be other problems, like the spelling/capitalization error. That is pretty minor proofreading, but the DJVU scan can make it difficult with its omissions. Library Guy (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually Gutenberg has already handled this page, but text suitable for Wikisource is not automatically provided. I am currently using Gutenberg text for Japan, but anticipate a long haul, what with the tables and illustrations. Even plain text takes some time, but that would go faster if I were more automated. Library Guy (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Page:EB1911 - Volume 28.djvu/349[edit]

Thanks for the email, I will be acting on it at some point. Thanks for the thanks. However I have altered you edit to Page:EB1911 - Volume 28.djvu/349 ‎because I think it better to keep the original lines as it make diffs easy to see (with the exception of fixing a hyphenated words) against the original OCR, and for that matter the actual hard copy -- it makes finding and fixing errors easier. As the text appears correctly concatenated when view in an html page it make no difference for the reader, but is I think a great advantage for the editor. -- PBS (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

no problem, i’m mainly cruising by trying to get a red version down, before the ocr rot sets in, like volume 1 and 25-27. i’m used to deleting carriage returns, flowing paragraphs so it looks better on page (phantom line break); italics are easier. tend to do it before validation though.
sorry to take down your black page break numbers for the blue page transclusions. it seems to me easier to build out the links.
and i’m accustomed to admins with control issues. i’ll eventually fix those reference removals. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 22:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The black page numbers are only an interim step before page transclusions, its just that I think it better to spend time filling in the gaps with page transclusions of new articles first rather than converting already formatted pages to transclusions, particularly when an editor has left hidden page numbers in the text -- which is something the prolific Bob Burkhardt aka Library Guy tended to do before more recently moving on to creating articles with transclusions. Not only is it convenient for the reader, having the page number on these previously formatted pages makes in a little quicker to find the right page when converting the page to transclusions. I have just posted a comment on this to Wikisource talk:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica#Intermediate step before transclusion. -- PBS (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[edit]

Slowking4, please look at this page and fix whatever I may have messed up. I formatted the page and marked it validated before saving but it does not look correct. Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

User:William Maury Morris II seems to be ok now. there is an intermittant problem with the ## xx ## section code hack. sometimes need to use <section begin="xx"> some griping on scriptorium about it in december [5]. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 00:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

section tag "sl" should be "s1"[edit]

Hi, firstly thanks for the huge effort in creating a large number of pages in EB1911. I wanted to say I found a few articles you converted to transcluded versions where the section tag for “tosection” has a typo, "sl" should be "s1". It means some articles had text from following articles displayed, I've fixed up these ones: Algol, Alhambra, The, Ali Pasha, Alice Maud Mary, Alimentary Canal, Alismaceae, Alizarin, but tthere may be more. Just a copy and paste error really, but I though I'd let you know. Also, the Template:TextQuality shouldn't be added to transcluded pages, I've removed that from a few of the above pages where I found it. Keep up the good work in creating pages! — DivermanAU (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks, for all the verification. yep, sorry about the bad cut and paste. i’ve been pasting those over randomly, but will double back thru to incorporate all the articles not transcluded. we will need to have a fix to vol 26 & 27 for a complete work. Slowking4 04:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Variations of an Associated Press story[edit]

There are variations of an Associated Press story, they get updated during the day with additional details or the publishing paper removes sentences to make it fit the space on a published page. 1) Do you think the versions should be grouped on a single page and each version have the publication source noted. 2) Just store the longest version on a page and maybe have the alternates stored as hidden text. 3) Give each version their own page. Which one sounds the best? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

wow, speaking of the rough draft of history. they have been transcribing unpublished manuscripts over at smithsonian, but there is a canonical text there (even if there are strikethroughs). we have different versions of EB, but they were printed. i’m agnostic: maybe longest version, and printed version? if we had galleys of a novel would we transcribe it? seems like a pseudo-problem. i.e. hard to get AP wire copy that is PD to transcribe. even if [6] Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 11:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

do you think that the stories authored by a news-agency should be named for the news agency or one of the newspapers the story ran in? I think it should be categorized by the author. See Washington Post/1937/Aviator Says New York Attorney Is Leftist Agent as opposed to Associated Press/1937/Aviator Says New York Attorney Is Leftist Agent. The article can run in a hundred different papers, and we really should be sorting by the author not the publisher for news agencies. Obscure papers may have one or two entries, but the agency can have hundreds. What do you think? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

with categories you could do both. you could do author page + article page. i tend to lean to Associated Press/1937/Aviator Says New York Attorney Is Leftist Agent since the papers credit the AP, implying the printing is a derivative work. you could also add a category or portal for each newspaper. and you might want to creat a wikiproject AP. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 14:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Would it be Portal:Associated Press or Author:Associated Press, does anyone have a preference? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Annotating text[edit]

Your comment on the Harpers article would fit better in my section on emendations and annotations, can we move it there? How did you write it before I even asked the question, that is spooky. I asked the question, then was reading and scrolled up and there was a comment to a question I had not posed yet. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I hope you do not mind, I moved the text to the relevant area, move it back if I was impertinent. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

External links at Portals[edit]

Do we add external links to portals? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

we don’t normally have an external links section. normally the links are in the title header; and the portals is a list of links to wikisource articles. for example Portal:Biography. there is also a review on portal talk.
external resources tend to link to library bibliographys for example Portal:Sciences of History Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 02:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


I am working on User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Wikisource:FAQ to answer the question I had when I started contributing. If you can think of others, please add them, and we can answer them together.

EB1911 footer initials templates[edit]

Hi Slowking4 — keep up the great work you’re doing on the EB1911 project. I just though I'd mention (or remind you in case you forgot) that the EB1911 footer initials templates can be used to simplify adding authors - the template also correctly adds the initials to the end of last article line rather than a line below if just using the {{right}} template. e.g. instead of

{{right|([[Author:Christian Pfister|C. P{{sc|f}}.]])}}   you can use
{{EB1911 footer initials|Christian Pfister|C. Pf.}}

The small caps for the initials are taken care of by the template, which also uses a style="float:right;" so the initials align on the last article line.

To see the difference see: and

There’s also a Template:EB1911 footer double initials for two contributors to an article. — DivermanAU (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

you might want to fix your template for only one set of parentheses, and add documentation. Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 01:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Index:Wanda, by Ouida.djvu[edit]

You appreciate these and other works are multi volume? The DJVU's uploaed appear to be only part of a set.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

thank for fixing those, i will circle back and get the other volumes, tweak the index; create work page, promise. the incomplete metadata is at internet archive. slowking4 15:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


i'm new any tips? --Fdena (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

How does the entry look that i submitted? --Fdena (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Mentorship would be great! also google books is blocked on my computer will that be a problem? --Fdena (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

vols 2 & 3[edit]

I see that you have uploaded the file and then created Index:Idalia, by 'Ouida'.djvu. It is one of 3, did you manage to get/find the rest of the work? — billinghurst sDrewth 08:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

oh hi, user:billinghurst, i see you notice the one i missed. the metadata at IA is worse than i suspected. i have been lollygagging with your colleague C. Matthews, but will resume when i get stateside. cheers. Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 14:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't sure what was happening. I was on my usual grab a few things from Special:LonelyPages and tie them in maintenance run. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
we really need to figure out a way to mitigate the metadata mess at IA. an unwary uploader could do lots of one volumes without noticing, since the metadata is prefunctary. we need to make it easier to get the completest, earliest edition. could it be a property at wikidata? Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 14:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
There is an edition field, however, I am not sure how you pick up that an edition has multiple volumes for an edition. @Jura1: can you assist with that matter? (hoping that listening). — billinghurst sDrewth 09:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
the problem is less with the tool, but that the IA metadata is bad, hard to grab what they did not put online. maybe we need some IA curation tools. Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
ok done, i see there is a one volume earlier edition, but the ocr is worse, chapter layout appears the same. thanks oxford for the nice scan even if the metadata stinks (language = spanish, lol) slowking4 20:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


I've asked, but gotten no reply as to the community feelings about that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


I shall let you get away with this unopposed this one time. However I choose not to believe you are so naïve in general. If in fact you are there then is simply no hope for you· and accordingly I wash my hands… Only time will prove who is right. AuFCL (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

[7] Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
A good point; neatly made. I just hope you don't consider I am in any way convinced? AuFCL (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
tl;dr: hope over experience; the WMF are trying, we need to encourage better behavior, even as we plan for the bad; the recent conference is a hopeful sign; i save my cynicism for the arbcom election. but yeah, hard to be enthusiastic for the wishing for more blocking tools, and blocked cookies. Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Aha! There we find ourselves in total concord at least. I, personally, am totally and irrevocably pessimistic but at the very same time hope I am wrong. We shall see together. AuFCL (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
i’ve given up trying to convince; rather, i work with the willing, and try not to fight with the unwilling. no one changes their mind around here, it’s just there are so many gatekeepers who would rather fight to prevent good edits. management by drama. one nice thing about WMF neglect, you can get a lot of work done. and the community critique of WMF finance is hilarious. Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 04:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I am sort of taking a chance here: Ross? (delete if true; or indeed even if not.) I think I may have had dealings with you under a different alias (both of us; in a different forum.) AuFCL (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikisource Conference Vienna 2015-11-21 01.jpg
sorry different sock, lol Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 04:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Phew, at least you weren't the electrocuted one. AuFCL (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices, II (1984)[edit]

Thanks, but should really be Chapter based..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

right, i will go back and change. Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 20:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
ok done, although don’t know how to handle the revised chapters at end that are not in TOC. Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, The index might need to be split as it's hit a transclusion limit seemingly. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Please re-check underlying pages, I'm finding a lot of layout errors I can't pin the cause of down. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Index:Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices (1973).pdf[edit]

It would be appreciated if you could enourage others to help get this transcribed as well :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

hmm, well the nested templates might be a little off-putting, maybe we should do it. Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't use nested templates as far as I was laying it up. It use one level of {{numbered/s}}{{numbered/e}} with {{numbered div}} 's inbetween, the indentation is set by params at the end of each {{numbered div}}. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Morphing your sig to something templateable[edit]

Are you up to having your sig to be structured on template rather than something of the existing length? It does get a little long in some forums and if you would consider a simplification, then I am happy to build the template for you. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

well, the blackletter template does not work very well; we need a blackletter font, although german wikisource is transcribing blackletter into latin fonts. also the preferences, saves, but purges saved sig on opening. Slowking4₮₳₤₭ 16:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


Please refer to the talk page associated with January's PotM for information about formatting poetry and quotations in the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Glasse transcription[edit]

Thank you very much for lending a hand with The Art of Cookery. I noticed that you seem to have been using our own OCR tools, so I thought I just point you to User:Peter Isotalo/Glasse. There's already a transcription of the whole text.

Peter Isotalo (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

thanks, i’m also using this scan [8] somewhat better than OCR but less than your text. Slowking4RAN's revenge 22:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah. Surprisingly bad OCR for a text in Antiqua, I must say. Even Fraktur tools on de.wikisource produce better results than that.
Well, feel free to edit out text from User:Peter Isotalo/Glasse once you've transferred it to the page structure.
Peter Isotalo (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
the before 1870 scans are messy, and ocr’s bad. and our "open" ocr software not much improved. if you have a better solution, let’s work it. we could get the scan from internet archive, the ocr from elsewhere, and cut and paste as we go.
there are a few mistakes in yours (reversed characters, spaces, repeated titles) i think i got them. Slowking4RAN's revenge 14:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
you are missing 2 pages in the scan 330; 331. i will take a break and review recovery of fixing scans. Slowking4RAN's revenge 14:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

NIE text quality[edit]

Please retain {{TextQuality}} on transclusions for proofread articles where the underlying page is not completely proofread. An example where I have restored tq: “Anquetil, Louis Pierre,” The New International Encyclopædia. New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1905. Library Guy (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

oh really. i thought that was deprecated. and wouldn’t you say that is now 100% now that we all looked at it. how is this different from all the transcluded articles with no percentage? when the transcluded page is proofread then the color will turn green. Slowking4₮₳₤₭ 22:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any other way to correctly indicate the state of the text when parts of a page are in different stages of preparedness. I realize eventually it will show green, but that could be a long time. I have updated the documentation accordingly. I thought this point had been made long ago. Library Guy (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
it does not add much value to me, beyond the color code. and may periodically be disfavored by filters. see also Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2015-03#Cannot_put_hatnotes_etc_above_header but if it works for you, it’s all good. Slowking4₮₳₤₭ 00:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I think its good for people coming from outside to be able to tell quickly what they are dealing with. I spend most of my time proofing text and making it presentable, and the unproofread stuff doesn't seem all that readable to me. It is frustrating to proofread text and see it presented as unproofread as would happen without TQ insert. Also to see formerly well organized text like The New International Encyclopædia/Africa now transcluded without the formerly careful placement of figures I don't find desirable. It is possible to transclude things without the jumble. See The New International Encyclopædia/United States. It takes some time, but perhaps its better to leave the transclusion until someone wants to take the time. Library Guy (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
i find new people grasp red light - green light, although maintenance categories by template work also. i add red pages with article sections on first pass, so i can add articles copied on wikipedia w:Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the New International Encyclopedia and then infill proofread. only 1361 to reference, as opposed to the 5900 for EB1911; but WS push to WP works also. Slowking4T A L K 16:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Many EB1911 pages converted to transclusion not displaying[edit]

Hi, I noticed many 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica pages converted by you into transclusions weren't displaying article text. They would just display the "pages" line e.g. Buonafede, Appiano - which I haven't fixed shows:
<pages index="EB1911 - Volume 04.djvu" from="829" to="829" fromsection="s3" tosection="s3">

The line needs a slash / before the final >

I've fixed some of these e.g. Buccina, Buccari, Buccaneers, Bucaramanga, Bullock, William, ... Bunsen, Christian Charles Josias. Did you use a bot to convert these pages? Are you able to fix others you converted using a bot? Thanks. DivermanAU (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

hmm, that is distressing. i will review. happily with VE it won’t happen again. no i don’t use bots. Slowking4₮₳₤₭ 13:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I’ve fixed several more, from Buoy ‎to Burgas; some articles display OK with the the missing "/" (e.g. Burgdorf) and others don't. Not sure why that is. e.g. Burgee (not fixed by me) doesn't display properly; I used Chrome, Edge and IE11, it didn't display properly in any of them. DivermanAU (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
ok it appears i cut & pasted wrong pages code that day. i will review that volume. Slowking4₮₳₤₭ 23:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
half thru, all the transclusions missing "/" ; it breaks only about 1/4 the time. will then review transclusions only 7000 to go. apparently not breaking when /pages is appended. hope it does not break <br>. Slowking4 15:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Index:Catalog o‌f Copyright Entries 1977 Books and Pamphlets Jan-June.djvu[edit]

Why are you creating all these pages of raw OCR gibberish at Index:Catalog o‌f Copyright Entries 1977 Books and Pamphlets Jan-June.djvu? -- Outlier59 (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

because the Library of Congress Copyright Office will not digitize their records. project Gutenberg has done the renewals only. if we are going to research orphan works between 1923 and 1977 then we will need all this gibberish proofread. hathi trust librarians are currently researching orphan works, and we need to give them the tools. 1 ½ volumes down; 673 to go. [9] better than poetry. Slowking4T A L K 02:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Is there enough useful text in the raw OCR for hathi trust to search that? The reason I'm asking is that it's an enormous volume of proofreading, likely to take years to complete here -- unless we have many more volunteers working on it. Maybe you could start with proofreading a couple of volumes, see how it goes. Are there some volumes more important to them than others? Outlier59 (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
hathi trust, or IA only have the pdf’s; i.e. you can’t search it for names via browser. gutenberg did the renewals 10 years ago. the IA text layer is ok, but it gets corrupted going to dejavu. the large file size creates problems. of the 1000 pages per volume about 5 or 10 need a complete redo. if we could automate a bot to create pages and grab the text layer, that would be a big leg up. i kinda gave up waiting. time to get some work done, and maybe the librarians will pitch in. a librarian from Penn requested some obscure music volumes, need them all (at least by year) to search and prove a negative. Slowking4T A L K 23:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
If the IA text layers are reliable, maybe they could be copied directly to hathi trust or Commons -- or at least the Name Index section of the text layer for each volume. These volumes are more database than prose. Their main use is for searching for names or numbers. Does IA know the OCR accuracy for the text layers of these volumes? If those text layers are 99.9% accurate, the original printed volumes probably contain more human errors than the computer OCR generates.
I think the best way for Wikisource to help hathi trust is to proofread a sample of pages from IA text layers for these volumes -- if IA doesn't already know the accuracy of the text layers. But I bet IA knows the accuracy. Maybe you could ask hathi trust to look into using text layers rather than pdf for copyright searches? If the text layer is more accurate, I'm surprised it's not being used. Outlier59 (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
the problem being, that the loc database has a different standing from Hathi’s - they would need also a link to the pdf hardcopy. and outside researchers would not know how to search on their own. here is their manual - Slowking4T A L K 18:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand what you said. Can you re-phrase? Outlier59 (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
hathi trust is working their text layer, but a web searchable version is better. and they are working books only - not music or pamphlets. and they released their manual of how they do copyright searches, it is very complex. and the LOC web searchable database after 1978, is qualitatively different from the offline search of hathi. Slowking4T A L K 01:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, I guess this is something I just don't understand. The "not proofed" pages look to me to be too error-filled to be useful in an online search. Outlier59 (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
for example look at the random search "Horton T. Kelsey" [10] - first result is the catalog. if the text layer can get carried over from the pdf, they should work this way. Slowking4RAN's revenge 12:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for trying so hard to explain this to me. I think it's just something beyond me. I'm sorry. Outlier59 (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Inspire campaign[edit]

Hello Slowking4! My name's Joe Sutherland and I'm helping to run the Inspire Campaign on addressing harassment currently running on Meta-Wiki. I'm interested to know a little more about your motivation for proposing your Idea about training reviewers to become ambassadors. What was the inspiration for this proposal? And do you think the feedback you have received so far has been useful to you in improving it? Thanks! JSutherland (WMF) (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Proofing EB1911[edit]

Hi Slowking4, nice work on Volume 28 of EB1911. Have you considered using the mostly-proofed Theodora version as a basis for proofing? e.g. on "Page:EB1911 - Volume 28.djvu/665" I used the webpage "view-source:" and pasted that in. It found two fixes in the first 1½ lines alone: "WaIter" had capital i (I) not lower-case L (l) and "£gures" should have been "figures". Exapmples of other fixes found with Theodora text were: "WiUcie's" → "Wilkie’s" (I added the curly apostrophe myself) and "facihtating" → "facilitating". Also most scans (including the version) don't pickup the ndashes (–) for year ranges and have a hyphen instead. I made such a fix on the page above.

Would you consider leaving pages in "Not proofread" status until it's had proofed text from another source or a solid proof? Makes it easier to know which pages to target then.

I also use the "clean up" script to remove line-breaks, (tick the box for "Add a 'regex editor' sidebar link which lets you write, apply, and save regex patterns" in "Preferences, Gadgets").

Thanks again and keep up the good work. DivermanAU (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

hmm, well should not have proofread that. yes, i have on occasion copied over better text layers from other sites like IA or gutenberg, and thanks for that work at EB1911. but now, i’m mainly cruising through and linking from wikipedia, and doing minimum proof to make readable. i will mainly leave them "unproofread" - only six thousand articles to go. the links will get us views and improve references there, some of which are rotting. i may swing by again to proofread later. Slowking4RAN's revenge 15:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I've also been working on Wikipedia articles with links to Wikisource/EB1911 with no citation over the past 18 months. I've created a table of numbers in the category if you're interested; see w:Category_talk:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_a_citation_from_the_1911_Encyclopaedia_Britannica_with_no_article_parameter#Number_of_articles_over_time. DivermanAU (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
yep, having made some steady progress, maybe a sustained effort can knock it out. unless i get distracted by another europeana art challenge. Slowking4RAN's revenge 12:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about OCR workflow[edit]

Hi @Slowking4:, I was looking into the OCR workflow on Wikisource for a project for using it on Indic wikis. I saw that there seems to be proofread text on the page when the page is created. Could you tell me where this proofread text comes from? Is it from Phetools? I'm also interested in hearing of any ideas you have for improving this workflow. Thanks for your help! -- NiharikaKohli (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

there is an OCR open software, which is not as good as the pdf version, or google workarounds. you might want to ask around at scriptorium, or at armenian wikisource who have OCR problems. Slowking4RAN's revenge 07:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Proofreading 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Templars[edit]

@Slowking4: Thanks for the message. A happy new year to you. If I can distract you for more than a moment from "volume 16 / letter L", There is a page that you created, that is full of OCR errors (mostly due to the original format of the page). It is 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Templars. It could do with some TLC involving a remake with Translucences.

@DivermanAU and EncycloPetey, perhaps the four of us could work on two/thee pages each? -- PBS (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

User:PBS ok, i have inserted the footnotes, i leave the cleanup to you. (that was a blast from the past - the broken volume, which i cut and paste from IA, just when they fixed the index). cheers Slowking4RAN's revenge 15:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I've done some proofing on most of the Templars pages, looks more usable now. Thanks to PBS and Slowking4 for also proofing. DivermanAU (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
yes - you picked a good critique of my practice of linking unproofed ocr’s. it does not work for articles with references, images, greek or latin. but for 80% it is readable. Slowking4RAN's revenge 00:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thirty Years' War[edit]

Please could you look at 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Thirty Years' War I have recently transluded it, but for some reason the first page of the article is not showing up in my display. Please could you have a look at it and see if you can fix the problem. -- PBS (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

User:PBS when a page does not show, that means the section tag does not match. i tend to cut past the exact code, from the page - and it worked here - you had the "&#39" in there, and for some reason it did not take. i have a problem with ’ and ' (flavors of apostrophe) also. hence my tendency to use "s1", since it is easier to match. Slowking4RAN's revenge 00:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the help and the advice. -- PBS (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Page nomenclature[edit]

Not sure why we would want a page named "The Poems of Emma Lazarus volume 2", surely it would be "The Poems of Emma Lazarus" or if required to push to subsidiary level "The Poems of Emma Lazarus/Volume 2". Either way, creating empty pages is something that we have been discouraging. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

i’m lazy and it a 2 volume work. was working on index. slowed down by volume 1 which has a corrupt page - so i’m stumped. the page is good at google books but not IA ? Slowking4RAN's revenge 01:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
When I had a corrupt file at IA, I have usually just asked them to rederive it, though I haven't had to do that since they have stopped doing djvu files by default. If it has a corrupt page only, I would just separately upload the missing page from an alternate source, and transcribe it separately. Sure it means that the djvu at Commons is incomplete, but in the end I am more concerned with having a full work here. [This hang up about putting text back into djvus is a pipe dream that will never happen, we cannot get resources for important things, let along unimportant things] — billinghurst sDrewth 10:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
ok thanks i will do that. Slowking4RAN's revenge 15:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

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

The Maine Woods[edit]

We are saving this selection as PotM for July. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  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.