User talk:Struthious Bandersnatch

Welcome

Hello, 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:

• Help pages
• Style Guide
• Inclusion policy

Please consider putting a brief description of yourself on your user page. If you are already a contributor to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia, please mention this on your user page so we know how to contact you. Also, mention which languages you understand if English is not your first language.

In any case, I hope you enjoy donating your time to grow the Wikisource 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! And thank you for the upload.

btw, why do you think we need {{Infobox}}. I cant see how it is useful for Wikisource. All of our pages use {{header}}. Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You are thinking of {{Information}} ;-)

Take note of our Image guideline - we typically upload all media to Commons rather than here - the only time where a file should be uploaded here is if it doesnt meet the Commons copyright policy, but does meet our copyright policy - we have a few slight differences in what is considered PD. Dont stress about your existing uploads here; we dont mind them being uploaded here by new users - it's a common mistake and we can easily fix it.

Also note that Commons and Wikisource have special support for w:DJVU files. See Index:Emily Dickinson Poems (1890).djvu. You can convert PDF files to DJVU using the Any2DjVU website. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The local images have been deleted. Thanks for taking care of that. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for creating and uploading the DJVU file. As a result, I have created Index:A Concise History of the U.S. Air Force.djvu, a transcription project, and I've done a first pass of page 1 & 2 and the table of contents on Page:A Concise History of the U.S. Air Force.djvu/4. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A few of your recent creations are not quite right ... wait a few minutes ... John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's the limited transclusion thing, I was going to do that afterwards... --Struthious Bandersnatch 09:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're doing, moving the URLs, but doesn't that now give us two separate index pages? I was actually intentionally trying to avoid that. --Struthious Bandersnatch 09:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No it's a namespace problem. You were creating logical pages in the "Page:" namespace, which is reserved for physical pages. Does that makes sense?

Anyway, I have created A Concise History of the U.S. Air Force, and made changes for chapter 1 [1]. Do you see a "move" command at the top of "Page:A Concise History of the U.S. Air Force.djvu/Trial and Error in World War I"?? New users are usually prohibited from moving pages, so if you dont see "move" just say nay and I will do the moving for you. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we have a physical index, and a logical index. :-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Carter Presidential Directive 59

I have created Carter Presidential Directive 59, Nuclear Weapons Employment Policy, which if you look at the source code, it includes the transcribed pages from the DJVU to create a single document. This allows us to create a "logical" view of the physical pages, and we have a number of tricks up our sleeves to ensure that the physical page doesnt impose too much structure over the logical page. See Help:Side_by_side_image_view_for_proofreading#Partial_transclusion

Note that there is a button on the top left while editing DJVU pages that looks like "[+]" - that shows a header and footer of the page, which are by default not shown when the page is included (also called "transcluded") onto the logical page.

Also note "{{Redact}}", which can be seen on Translation of Detainee's Verbal Statement regarding Torture made by Abd Al Aziz Sayer Al Shammeri, ISN 217, on 28 Apr 05. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

template categories

Have you considered how templates like {{Ligature Latin oe lowercase}} will automatically turn on and off the display of ligatures? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Simply changing the content of the template does that. It would be nice if it could be done on a per-document basis too, or as a matter of personalization, but getting a template like this into the page content is what would make further functionality possible in the future. Otherwise it's a matter of a clumsy regex search-and-replace or something. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 11:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This was recently discussed here (discussion archived, but I couldnt find where it has been archived). Make what you will of it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, it's actually the existing {{Long s}} template, which I'm also using, that gave me the idea to create the ligature templates for the document I'm working on. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 16:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty. Once any of these templates are put into use, could you create a new template category under Category:Wikisource templates and move them into the cat. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the templates has a problem, as The Periplus of the Euxine Sea is being categorised as a template. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

book sources

In regards to this, I have started Wikisource:Book sources, which is a trimmed down version of w:Wikipedia:Book sources, so "ISBN 0160492084" now shows a few more useful results. You can edit Wikisource:Book sources to add any others that are useful. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, we got cross-mojoed. I should have trusted you'd mention this!

Is there any reason not to just make it the same as the Wikipedia page? Especially having all the libraries seems pretty appropriate for Wikisource.--❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Big pages take longer to load. By trying to service everyone, we inconvenience everyone in the time it takes to load the page. The records of most large libraries can be accessed via OCLC. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how about if I make a "more options" link that leads to the Wikipedia page? Do people even click on ISBN links that frequently, that the page load time would be an issue? There doesn't seem to be much bibliographic information around, as a rule. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not a matter of frequency -- we should be providing the ideal solution, which is in most cases, is the link to Worldcat, as they are in the business of helping people find the book after that. In Worldcat you can create an account and specify your location and it will automatically tell you about local libraries that hold the work. They do their job well; I don't think that the Wikipedia page is a better alternative.

So, personally I dont think that a link to Wikipedia is useful, but you are free to edit the page if you think it is useful.

Regarding the lack of bibliographic information, it is lacking, but we are improving. See Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:OCLC for pages that include OCLC numbers. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, WorldCat is great. It actually geocodes me and offers me local libraries without me logging in.

There's an OCLC template? Cool. I'll convert the number in the Periplus to it. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

{{dropinitial}} test

Lorem ipsum suas propriae ne nam. Duo etiam omittam ea, ex mei nostrud interesset. Sea no idque aliquyam, cu utamur impedit usu. Has te falli explicari disputationi, in ius decore denique torquatos, id usu harum similique cotidieque. Splendide consequuntur ex quo. Ut qui primis alienum. At ignota consetetur moderatius qui. Et eam habeo mediocritatem, iisque neglegentur sed ut. Tempor apeirian moderatius ad sit. Everti iriure an nam, duo aliquip tamquam et, ne tollit graeco his. Et eum vidisse maiestatis.

email notifications

Hi, after a proposal to enable email notification, Wikisource is now able to notify you of any changes to pages on your watchlist and/or changes to your talk page. In order to take advantage of these features, you need to enabled them in your preferences. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

acting anonymous

I was guessing it was you :-) The software does forcibly log users out every once in a while. Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

NYT article

Image:NYT - Fatal fall of Wright airship.djvu is the two page NYT article mentioned at the end of Page:A Concise History of the U.S. Air Force.djvu/7 Interested? --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm yer Huckleberry. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note that we have pages like New York Times to hold listings of individual articles that appeared, so be sure to link newspaper articles to their parent newspaper page :) (I already did it in this case, you'll see). Cheers! Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Percival Lowell} 01:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am finding that proof reading this is creating more questions and more work; see here. :-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The Z problem

I am crossing my fingers and hoping you can help fix the The Z problem John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

HKU

I just keep getting Adobe errors that the files are damaged, any ideas? Great find by the way, rare to find eBook sites that don't just carry mirrors of each other :) Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Percival Lowell} 12:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was running across lots of damaged .pdf files too. I thought it was because I use a non-Adobe .pdf viewer, but I guess not. I did notice that often some of the files in an ebook would be damaged and some would not - hopefully this doesn't mean that a large fraction of every book is duds. That would be such a disappointment. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 23:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Page template

{{Page}} is causing some grief, as explained at User talk:Jayvdb#margin trouble. Perhaps you have ideas on how we can make it more resistant to the html formatting of each page? see Page:Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Volume 10 - p. 367.jpg and the "section" tag being inside the "div". The section tag could be put outside the div, but then the formatting isnt accurate. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

vandal

There is a "noticeboard", but usually the best route is to do what you (presumably) did, just check "Recent Changes" to see if there's an administrator online editing - and throw them a note. Most of the "regular" names you see around are Administrators since we're pretty liberal with giving out the title, so chances are, if you recognise the name, it's an admin...I was actually a bit surprised you weren't (yet), as I have certainly seen your name a great deal. Well, perhaps in time. Cheers, Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: e. e. cummings‎.} 00:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Namespace category and Template:Wikisource category

I am just wondering whether there is anything going to be happening with the templates Template:Namespace category and Template:Wikisource category. They are sitting there doing nothing much at the moment. -- billinghurst (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, besides the other things that are transcluding them, of course. (At least, from what I can see in the "what links here" page.) They're probably part of some other template I was porting over from Wikipedia, I imagine. If you really want to get rid of them go ahead (after subst:ing them into the things that transclude them, please) but of course if anyone ports over something else from Wikipedia that needs them, they would be missing. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Dropinitial

A while ago, I made a fork of this template called;

• {{Dropinitial-span}}

The gist of the difference is the use of a span instead of a div, which results in better MediaWiki generated code re properly wrapping paragraphs with p-elements. I'm thinking of pasting this over the div version and refactoring the uses of the variant to use the single template. Comments welcome at;

• Template talk:Dropinitial-span

Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

{{AE}} and {{ae}}

Something to think about: {{AE}} and {{ae}} are a good idea, and fine as currently implemented i.e. with ligatures turned on. However there is going to be a problem should we ever decide to turn ligatures off: we would want "{{AE}}STIVATION to render as "AESTIVATION" (i.e. {{AE}}—>"AE") but "{{AE}}stivation" to render as "Aestivation" (i.e. {{AE}}—>"Ae"). Hesperian 12:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law

we have modernised

We have had continued development, and we have been trying to simplify bits so that the user can control the output

1. use of <pages> rather than {{page}}, and with single page like for covers we often utilise {{page break|label=}}
2. no longer wrapping in <div> so the layout toggles in the sidebar are available for layout choice
3. relative links for headers
4. header rather than header2
5. trying to keep chapter page titles to Chapter 1, Chapter 2, etc. as when setting deep links, works generally refer to either page or chapter numbers, rather than chapter names, so we can create links to works knowing that there is a naming pattern. Apart from it allows for the design of a work and the links relatively easier, especially with ToC pages. We still encourage the naming of sections with a chapter name. Developing at Wikisource:Naming conventions

— billinghurst sDrewth 06:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that to me and demonstrating it in the Air Force book. I suppose this means we should put a deprecated notice on {{page}}, but I couldn't find anywhere that documents or explains <pages/>, is there one somewhere? --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Think that it is in Help:Proofread and the generic information in oldwikisource:Wikisource:ProofreadPage. We cannot deprecate it, as we still need to utilise it for some of the weird and wonderful stuff in mw:Extension:Labeled Section Transclusion, eg. the ability to exclude, or partially include. <pages> is more vanilla ice cream then caramel swirl. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay!

Hmm. I see the first four points there but your #5, about using page titles like "Chapter 1" instead of the chapter name, is kind of an SEO no-no. The pages will (accurately) be rated higher in searches if the URL is as pertinent to the content of the page as possible. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Go for your life with redirects at that level. SEO is one factor, but do not exclude proper referencing and cross-referencing. Build links in a wiki is vitally important, and 19thC books use chapters, and then you have issues of case, etc. which is why we arrived to that point Chapter number, redirects encourage, sections to include names if so wished. Also to consider that English and American books can change chapter titles, however, we find that the contents of the chapter don't change. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to create redirects called "Chapter 1" et cetera but I'd prefer to use the name of the chapter by default to ensure that's what gets indexed. I don't see that it would cause any problem with referencing or cross-referencing or building links in the wiki. I'm open to discussion of it, but I'm an experienced internet applications engineer (specializing in content management systems like wikis, in fact) and I would take some convincing.--❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I linked to the page where the discussion was taking place, and would invite you to express your comments on its talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 07:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Presidency project

Hi. Just an FYI...

The online "database" of Proclamations & Executive Orders at the Presidency project is a great resource for 5th graders, Wikipedians and tea-party Constitutional scholars, but their content is frequently "incomplete", to put it mildly, for those who take sources seriously.

In your chapter 2 you linked Executive Order 9781 at the Pres. Project. No big ommission in this case for a change, but paragraph 5. was left out of their transcription.[2]. I've built the article transcribed from the link on its talk page.

If need to link to any Executive Order we don't already host, drop me a line and I'll try to hunt it down and throw it up on WS for you. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I figured that someone more familiar with finding executive orders would come along and do that eventually, the link was just a placeholder. Little did I know that it would happen so soon! --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Font

You are aware that, when transcluded, the <page> tag sets the fonts for you, right? (In re: "To the public...") Or was there another reason you're reverting the proofreading that I did? Because the text has no discussion page laying out any sort of styling guidelines, I applied regular WS standards and formatting templates. -- Cordially, Mukkakukaku (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Please don't go through and insert your own stylistic and coding preferences during the last few steps of this project I've spent a dozen hours on, stripping out my adjustments and inserting tables and templates and things that I quite obviously chose not to use. There are plenty of works out there that actually have transcription errors and need to be proofread or otherwise have work done on them. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 23:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Look -- with all due respect, I came by via the random transcription link and proofread based on the accepted WS standards as far as I am aware of them. As for there being plenty of works that "need to be proofread or otherwise have work done on them", well you marked the status of the pages as "not proofread". How was I supposed to know you'd done any work on it? If it's proofread in your opinion, mark the pages as such. At minimum you should create the discussion page for that Index to lay out the preferred formatting for the work. This is a wiki, remember -- no individual contributor "owns" anything outside of their user space. -- Regards, Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If you felt slighted because I didn't accede to your changes, I'm genuinely sorry; I was on the verge of writing a message to you, but I tend to work much more slowly than other people and was a bit tired as I'd literally already been working on the text and the djvu for it all night.

I'm a bit confused by the fact that you're both claiming that I marked the pages you edited as "not proofread" (which is something that happens automatically) and simultaneously saying that you had no way to know I had done any work. My initial edits were the only ones present in the history of the pages connected to the DjVu I had uploaded.

Note that the Wikipedia Ownership of articles policy isn't one that has been imported here, or even discussed much as far as I'm seeing. The kind of thing you're proposing as reasonable behavior—looking at recently-created pages where you don't find any textual errors or need to improve the transcription, instead making widespread changes to the styling of the work and the markup code, and telling the person who has done all the work so far that it's "at minimum" incumbent on them to write up a style guide for your convenience before that person is allowed to have the preferences already simply put into the wiki markup—I don't think would actually be seen as reasonable or purely good-faith behavior by this community.

There's no need for any of that; if you find yourself making widespread stylistic and coding changes to a transcription project or page created only a matter of minutes beforehand, you can just get in touch with the other editor and persuade them that the way you want to do things has advantages. Or be bold and make your widespread changes without an explanation of why you're overriding the style and coding already done, but in that circumstance you really kinda have to expect that you may get reverted.

One of the great things about the nature of Wikisource is that since there's no problem with adding multiple editions of the same work, if we really have irreconcilable differences about styling or coding or other such details, we can simply work on different editions. In this particular case the differences between this 1776 version and later versions are quite interesting due to the fact that those differences center around racial terminology.

As far as marking a page "proofread" myselfː I usually have had no interest in the various different proofreading form fields and indicators that have existed over the years, as I've usually done all proofreading myself and applied a much greater attention to accuracy than simply whether the text corresponds, and I don't personally care what the indicators on the stuff I'm working on say; but I'd be entirely willing to mark pages "proofread" if that's actually appropriate. However, looking at the various help pages related to proofreading, it seems to be pretty specific about the number of people who have been involved related to each category.

So are you sure it's kosher for the creator of a transcription project or of individual page articles to mark pages "proofread" themselves? If that's the consensus way of using the current categorization system, I'd be okay with doing it. ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 16:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)