User talk:Zoeannl

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives: 2015 2018

John Ruskin[edit]

@Yann: I am starting proofreading some of Ruskin's books. I found a volume of "Fors Clavigera" that you uploaded. Do you think you could upload the whole set, please? Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I don’t remember why I didn’t upload the rest. May be they weren’t available, or… As usual, IA is a mess. There is no indication in the description about which volume it is, and where are the other ones. :( And then this probably needs renaming. I found 16 volumes (0 to 15), but there are duplicates. If you could look at it, and tell me which files are needed, it would be great. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
vol 1&2 and vol 3&4 says "complete in 4 volumes" but doesn't have a date of publishing. vol 1&2 and vol 3&4, published 1886 seems identical. I'd go with the latter two books. What do you think @Yann:? Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
"complete in 4 volumes" ? But [1] is volume 7… It doesn’t make sense. We need to find a complete set before uploading anything. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The copy you have found is an English publisher who published the letters in at least 12 volumes. The U.S. publishers published all of the letters in 4 volumes. I did a quick look through to compare and found no difference between the English and U.S. publications. There doesn't seem to be a complete set of the English volumes on IA so I think this is the best we can do. Better than not having any edition at all. Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 7[edit]

Thank you for all the validation work on the OHQ! Gave me a smile to start my day. -Pete (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: Hi Pete, I've been enjoying reading OHQ, and proofreading as I go along, but must admit these tables are hard work. Appendix G was particularly horrible, could you do the transclusion so I can see if I've made a mash up of it? It will boost my fortitude to tackle the rest. Cheers, Zoe Zoeannl (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm happy to help out, and a little embarrassed to see the state I had left them in -- I thought I had put the appendix material in a more readable format than I did. Do you mean Document G in the appendix? I don't see much wrong with it, you've done a really good job; the only thing I can see (and without a little research, I don't know how to fix it) is the extra dots on the "total" lines (and the lines immediately above). I can read up on the relevant templates. Anything else you want me to dig into? I'm happy to work on the remaining un-validated pages, but have been cautious about stepping on your toes! -Pete (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to let you know. I have tried several times to figure out how {{TOCstyle}} works, and I am just stumped. Maybe if I really put my mind to it I could learn it, but the time I've put into it thus far seems like it's for nothing. I am thinking I will just work the data into simpler HTML/wiki tables, which might not mimic the original format as precisely, but will I think at least permit the reader to get the information in the articles. Again, thank you for your help, and I'm sorry I couldn't reciprocate in the way you requested. -Pete (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The author of TOCstyle and I had a long conversation on my talk page that led to its present (incomplete) state. It's archived if you want to have a look. My own notes are a bit obtuse but are on my Proofreader's guide. Unfortunately, during my last hiatus, he seems to have had a blow-up with the mods and disappeared. I have asked for help on a couple of occasions on Scriptorium and there seem to be a few who understand how it works, but no joy getting anything major fixed. I am trying to come up with a resource to encourage proofreaders to work at WS. Tables are a turn off. Usually TOCstyle has very satisfying results... Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
P.S I am a bit stretched atm but do intend to get back to the tables when my stamina is on the ascendant again.
Thank you, your proofreader's guide looks quite useful. I'll take a look, and maybe see if I can redouble my efforts on the TOC style template. I suspect I'll learn some other tricks I've missed out on, as well -- thanks for sharing it.
I wonder if you could expand on your statement that tables are a turn off. Do you mean tables as a general concept (i.e., text grouped in shapes to convey meaning) or are you referring to the HTML table tag? Is your primary concern for proofreaders or readers? Is it the consistency of the display across web browsers? the flexibility of the format for future reuse? Maybe it would be useful to put some commentary on this topic in your guide as well?
In this case (and in many cases where I encounter tables and charts in original texts), my primary motivation is to complete the encompassing text. In that context, I'd like to present the contents of the tables in a way that is accurate, and where the text is searchable (which rules out simply uploading image files). More precision than that is not my main motivation. But, to the extent there are tools that will let me do a better job, I'd like to learn them.
For now, I'm just working on other volumes (Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 3 is getting close!) but I hope to get enough of a handle on the relevant templates to return to Vol. 7 soon. -Pete (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #5[edit]

Welcome to the fifth newsletter for the new Growth team!  

The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.

New projects for discussion[edit]

We began the "Personalized first day" project with the welcome survey so that we could gather information about what newcomers are trying to accomplish. The next step is to use that information to create experiences that help the newcomers accomplish their goal – actually personalizing their first day. We asked for community thoughts in the previous newsletter, and after discussing with community members and amongst our team, we are now planning two projects as next steps: "engagement emails" and "newcomer homepage".

  • Engagement emails: this project was first discussed positively by community members here back in September 2018, and the team how has bandwidth to pursue it. The idea is that newcomers who leave the wiki don't get encouraged to return to the wiki and edit. We can engage them through emails that send them the specific information they need to be successful – such as contact from a mentor, the impact of their edits, or task recommendations. Please read over the project page, and comment on its discussion page with any ideas, questions, or concerns. Do you think this is a good idea? Where could we go wrong?
  • Newcomer homepage: we developed the idea for this project after analyzing the data from the welcome survey and EditorJourney datasets. We saw that many newcomers seem to be looking for a place to get started – a place that collects their past work, options for future work, and ways to learn more. We can build this place, and it can connect to the engagement emails. The content of both could be guided by what newcomers say they need during their welcome survey, and contain things like contact from a mentor, impact of their edits, or task recommendations. Please read over the project page, and comment on its discussion page with any ideas, questions, or concerns. Do you think this is a good idea? Where could we go wrong?

Initial reports on newcomer activity[edit]

We have published initial reports on each of the team's first two projects. These reports give the basic numbers from each project, and there are many more questions we will continue to answer in future reports. We're excited about these initial findings. They have already helped us define and design parts of our future projects.

  • Welcome survey: the initial report on welcome survey responses is available here. Some of the main findings:
    • Most users respond to the survey, giving it high response rates of 67% and 62% in Czech and Korean Wikipedias, respectively.
    • The survey does not cause newcomers to be less likely to edit.
    • The most common reason for creating an account in Korean Wikipedia is to read articles—not for editing—with 29% of Korean users giving that responses.
    • Large numbers of respondents said they are interested in being contacted to get help with editing: 36% in Czech and 53% in Korean.
  • Understanding first day: the initial report on what newcomers do on their first day is available here. Some of the main findings:
    • Large numbers of users view help or policy pages on their first day: 42% in Czech and 28% in Korean.
    • Large numbers of users view their own User or User Talk page on their first day: 34% in Czech and 39% in Korean.
    • A majority of new users open an editor on their first day – but about a quarter of them do not go on to save an edit during that time.

Help panel deployment[edit]

The help panel was deployed in Czech and Korean Wikipedias on January 10. Over the past four weeks:

  • About 400 newcomers in each wiki have seen the help panel button.
  • About 20% of them open up the help panel.
  • About 50% of those who open it up click on one of the links.
  • About 5% of Czech users ask questions, and about 1% of Korean users ask questions.

We think that the 20% open rate and 50% click rate are strong numbers, showing that a lot of people are looking for help, and many want to help themselves by looking at help pages. The somewhat lower numbers of asking questions (especially in Korean Wikipedia) has caused us to consider new features to allow people to help themselves. We're going to be adding a search bar to the help panel next, which will allow users to type a search that only looks for pages in the Help and Wikipedia namespaces.

How to create a good feedback page?[edit]

What is the way to built a good help page? What blocks you when writing an help page? Your replies will help to create better help contents to newcomers, that would be used on Help panel.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot, 14:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC) • Give feedbackSubscribe or unsubscribe.

Pentagon Papers[edit]

A bunch of the index pages still need to be properly set up as well with the scans possibly fixed. Is there a particular section that interests you? MarkLSteadman (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@MarkLSteadman: I tend to just start at the beginning and work through. Unless there are a lot of tables to slog through, that I might put aside for when I'm up to the challenge. I am interested in the different style of proofreading, is this continuing as Guerillawarfare set it up or has it been superseded? Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Roughly as she did... I mostly finished up the sections she did but lately have been working my way through the primary source scans (e.g. Index:Pentagon-Papers-Part-V-B-3d.djvu) to be able to link to them from the narrative text. These often have tables / formatting etc. The next unstarted section in the narrative is already set up here: Index:Pentagon-Papers-Part IV. B. 3.djvu. MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Let me know if you have any questions. I can take a look at linking the indices back to the main page next week MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #6[edit]

18:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Philosophical Review[edit]

Thank you for noticing my work on the Philosophical Review. I had just finished a 19-volume work, and was searching for another, when I found the Review. I have enjoyed working on it.

I have never liked the look of no spaces around dashes, so I have never followed that rule. However, since you started the work on the Review, I will yield to your expertise, and have stopped work on the Review. You will need to check every page I have completed, as there are a lot of extra spaces you will not like.


Susanarb (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #7[edit]

16:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Call for submissions for the Community Growth space at Wikimania 2019[edit]

Welcome to a special newsletter from the Growth team! This special newsletter is not about Wikimedia Foundation Growth team projects. Instead, it is a call for submissions for the Community Growth space at Wikimania 2019. We think that many people who receive this newsletter may have something valuable to contribute to this space at Wikimania. We haven't translated the newsletter, because Wikimania's language is English.

Please see below for the message from the organizers of the Community Growth space at Wikimania.


Wikimania 2019 is organized into 19 “spaces”, which are all accepting proposals for sessions. This message comes from the team organizing the Community Growth space.

Since you are interested b Growth team projects, and potentially involved in welcoming newcomers initiatives on your wiki, we would like to invite you to submit a proposal to the Community Growth space because of the actions you’ve done around newcomers on wikis. The deadline for submission is June 1. See below for Community Growth submission topics and session formats. Topics and sessions have to be in English.

In the Community Growth space, we will come together for discussions, presentations, and workshops that address these questions:

  • What is and is not working around attracting and retaining newcomers?
  • How should Wikimedia activities evolve to help communities grow and flourish?
  • How should our technology and culture evolve to help new populations to come online, participate and become community members?

Recommended topics: please see this link for the list for the list of recommended topics. If you do not plan to submit a proposal, you can also suggest additional topics here. If your topic does not fit into our space, remember that there are 18 other spaces that could welcome you sharing your knowledge and perspective.

Types of session. We prefer sessions that are participatory, interactive, promote conversations, and give a voice to parts of our movement that are heard less often. Please see this link for the list of recommended session formats.

Poster submissions. Posters are also a good way to introduce a topic, or show some results of an action. Please consider submitting one!

More information about the Community Growth space, topics, and submission formats is available on the proposal page.

Please submit your proposal. The reviews will happen at the beginning of June.

If you have questions about Wikimania in general, please ask them on the Wikimania wiki.

On behalf of the Community Growth leadership team, Trizek (WMF), 11:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #8[edit]

09:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Quotes at Index:Sin and Crime.pdf[edit]

I started validating some of the pages on this work but noticed that there were curly quotes in the proofread text. I used TemplateScript to clear the linebreaks after I checked the proofreading, but TS also automatically converts curly quotes to typewriter quotes per the current guideline. There's an ongoing discussion about allowing the use of curly quotes so I'm not sure if you'd prefer them to be kept in? —Nizolan (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nizolan: The OCR had curly quotes so I didn't bother to convert. It seems to be an issue of compatibility with computer fonts? I'm fine with the bot conversions. Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I finished validating and put it up on the main page new texts list. Interesting little pamphlet. —Nizolan (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #9[edit]

14:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #10[edit]

18:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #11[edit]

15:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #12[edit]

17:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Index:Works of the Late Doctor Benjamin Franklin (1793).djvu[edit]

Hi. I see that you did some of the early work on this index. I also see that the proofreading (first round) is complete, and much of the work is not transcluded. I am wondering whether you are able to spend some time to transclude the remainder of the work. Thanks if you can. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Is there a way to tell which pages I didn't proofread? I'm happy to transclude what I can though I am technologically disabled atm having broken my computer a few months back. My son has promised his old one when he has finished getting his new one going so am looking forward to doing more proofreading soon. Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Bad news about the computer. I was mentioning the transcluding to main namespace which needed doing, rather than the proofreading. That said, we have a gadget in preferences Pages I can validate... in the Pages section that will show highlight proofread pages that you didn't progress to that stage. If you cannot, it is not an issue, I know that some enjoy transcluding works where they have proofread, so was mentioning that. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Transcription links[edit]

Please do not add transcription links for works that have been fully transcribed. These links are meant to be temporary and should be removed once a work has been transcribed. Once a work has been transcribed, that link should be removed from the author page, or other general Wikisource pages where it was listed. You can always create a list of links in your own User space, or on a Project page if they are helpful. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC) @EncycloPetey: I add links to works that have no Index page e.g. have been copied from Project Gutenberg, so they can be proofread against a scan. Is this not helpful? Zoeannl (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

See The Age of Innocence, which is not a Gutenberg copy. This book had an Index page and has been fully proofread. Adding an external link beside that work is likely to result in duplicated and unnecessary work. We have a scan-backed copy from an Index page. The same is true of The Marne and Glimpses of the Moon; both novels have an Index page where all the pages have been proofread. Likewise all of her listed novellas have been proofread from scans, but you added external links to those as well. A Motor-Flight Through France was part of a PotM a couple of years ago, and has been done, and The Book of the Homeless is complete except for the musical notation on four pages. Adding external links or Index pages to works that have already been completely proofread from a scan is counter-productive, so please don't spam external links on Author pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
"Spam" seems like a pretty harsh word for this activity. I read through this to check against my own practices. While I agree with the underlying point EP is making, I appreciate the effort to provide useful info to the reader. Edith Wharton was one of my favorite authors as a kid. Nice to see people making her work more available. -Pete (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Plans to transclude?[edit]

Hi. I see that you completed Index:White - The natural history of Selborne, and the naturalist's calendar, 1879.djvu Are you planning to transclude it to the main ns? Or is that a task from someone else? (not wanting to step on toes) — billinghurst sDrewth 02:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

  • I’m not really up to anything other than proofreading atm. I’m working 66 hrs/week essential and proofreading is a rare break. Please feel free to pass it on to anyone interested. Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Saw your summary...[edit]

"(‎Not proofread: table to do)" and wanted to show that simple tables can have simple (shorter?) solutions. Please check Page:Education of the Negro.djvu/15 for avoiding 'tables' while doing short tables. :-) I possible overuse {{Dotted TOC line}}, but most any use of other templates feels like overuse. Shenme (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Growth team newsletter #13[edit]

14:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


So I want a guide to Transclusion for Proofreaders. For people who know how to proofread but are absolute beginners at wiki. They should have done some proofreading on WS and be familiar with using templates. I would expect that the namespace and pagespace are concepts they are coming to terms with and doing transclusions would be a good way to get confident and familiar with the structure of Wikisource books.

What is transclusion?[edit]

"Transclusion" is the way we get text from the Page namespace to the main namespace. The Page namespace is where text is meant to be proofread. The main namespace is where text is meant to be read.

Transclusion copies the text across whenever anyone wants to read the page in the main namespace. It is still linked to the Page namespace. So any changes made to the text in the Page namespace will be seen in main namespace as well.

When to transclude[edit]

The preferred time to transclude text to the main namespace is after all of the pages have been validated (green page status) and the proofreading is all done.

Sometimes it can help with the proofreading if you can see what the final version will look like in the main namespace. If so, you can transclude pages to the main namespace before the proofreading is all done. As the main namespace is the one we want people to read, we would like it to look as neat and tidy as possible. So please try to only transclude text that is in as good a condition as possible.

Simple transclusion[edit]

Single author, simple title, short front matter

  • 1. Go to the Index page of the book you want to transclude.
  • 2. There should be a red link for the title. Right click this. Go to the base page [[Title]].
If it is not red—create the link by editing the Index page, contact the project manager from the Discussion page, or ask for Help. There are Naming conventions to consider.
  • 3. Click to load the header template to the base page. Add {{smallrefs}} at the bottom of the page.
  • 4. The title, year and author parts need to be filled in. Open the Index page in Edit and copy.
  • 5. The beginning of the book, including the title page is called the Front Matter. Make the link to the next section (|next=[[/Chapter 1|Chapter 1]]). Transclude (see below) the front matter pages on to the base page [[Title]]; copy the file name from the index page–Index:file name.djvu; determine the first and last pages of the front matter of the book from the Index page.
  • 6. Preview and check all of the front matter pages are present and correct. Right click next section, Chapter 1, on the preview. Copy the header template from Front matter and paste on to the Chapter 1 section. Publish page (the Front matter section)
  • 7. Fill in the Chapter 1 section. Edit the copied template: section=Chapter 1; |previous=[[Title|Front matter]]; |next=[[../Chapter 2|Chapter 2]] (note addition of ../)
  • 8. The Title of this section comes from the book. See Wikisource:Style_guide#Page_titles. So section=Chapter 1 or the chapter title from the book (which you can copy from the preview). Transclude this section. Preview. Check. Right click next section. Copy this section header template. Publish page.
  • 9. Paste and fill in next section. This gets really easy when you are moving through the chapters: Add to the chapter number for previous=, and next=. Preview. Copy chapter title. Right click next chapter. Paste chapter title. Copy header template. Publish page. Go to next section.
  • 10. At the end of the book, you may have an [[../Index|Index]]
  • 11 You don’t have to transclude [[../Advertisements|Advertisements]] at the end of the book.

Transclusion displays the contents found on another page without having to copy-paste nor synchronize any later changes. It is most commonly used to group text into logical and reasonably sized chunks—most frequently as chapters or sections. Examine the transcluded text at The Wind in the Willows (1913)/Chapter 1 and compare with some of the source text found at Page:Wind in the Willows (1913).djvu/19. As the individual pages from Index:Wind in the Willows (1913).djvu were saved in the "Page:" namespace, they populated into the chapters of the book through transclusion. Creating readable sections from scanned pages is the most common use of transclusion on Wikisource.

How to transclude full pages[edit]

From the book, note the first and last page of the chapter/section. These pages are listed for inclusion in the section below the header template.

The syntax for <pages/> is as follows:

<pages index="file name.djvu" from=x to=y/>
  • "file name.djvu" is replaced with the exact name of the Index you are working with.
  • The number after the slash (/) following the file name of the first page you wish to transclude is "x".
  • The number after the slash (/) following the file name of the final page you wish to transclude is "y".


To display what is transcluded at The Wind in the Willows (1913)/Chapter 5 you would type:

<pages index="Wind in the Willows (1913).djvu" from=133 to=161 />


We sent you an e-mail[edit]

Hello Zoeannl,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Growth team updates #15[edit]

10:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Growth team updates #16[edit]

14:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikibooks hosting annotated Wikisource books[edit]

Hi @JimKillock: Sorry for the late reply, I’ve been away. So, I proofread and I have no idea what you did but Economic Sophisms looks much better with formatting. Thank you. May I ask why you use the narrow columns? I would prefer the wider format as more readable.

I have a number of WS books I have proofread that I would like to annotate on WB so I’m looking forward to your ebook export! Are you planning to export the book from WS or somehow link to the WS pagespace and have a transcluded book on WB? In terms of annotation the first would be preferred as it would be stable; though as a proofreader I would rather the latter (which I had deemed not possible). On consideration I have settled on this preference: to transfer fully validated books as a stable version for annotation but to have a way to notify changes in the original WS version to see if the WB version needs updating-I would presume these would be small proofreading errors where the original text had not been faithfully transcribed and would not include formatting or typographical changes.

It would be nice if there was a link to the original WS pagespace on the WB page, as there is on the transcluded WS page. As a proofreader I feel this is a major strength of WS-to be able to see the original page image source.

Do you have any preferences/ideas on how to create annotated wikibooks? I have seen annotations as footnotes; linked as per references; The_Grand_Inquisitor seems to be an attempt at side-by-side text and annotation which looks promising and is appealing; The_Poetry_of_Gaius_Valerius_Catullus is interesting, I wonder if the annotations and links to WS could be added to the tables; Biblical studies are comprehensive collations of annotations and perhaps something to aim for-could the discussion page be a place for individual contributions and consensus?

The WB William Shakespeare's Works is very sad, it shows a lot of confusion about the connection to WS which supports the plan to export the WS books to WB for annotation; it proposes individual commentary as per a discussion page which seems a good idea to try as it allows individual contributions and discussion. Here is a book of commentary on WS that could be used as the basis of discussion but would be best with the commentary side-by-side, I think, rather than linking to a separate page of commentary.

I personally would love to provide a platform for collaborative discussion and crowd-sourcing material which supports better understanding of literature. It has very exciting possibilities!

It would be good to set up exemplars of possible approaches so people could try out what might work best for them/for the work they are interested in.

Finally, re Wikibook policy It’s a bit vague but it suggests that the WB books should have some level of "significant" annotation; WS policy is that WS books that are wikified (i.e. have WP, Wict, WQ etc links) are not suitable for WS, therefore should live at WB. Is it possible to use a bot to wikify a book so it immediately becomes annotated "significantly" and isn’t a candidate for deletion?

I hope this doesn’t scare you off. I feel better putting my thoughts down in print and would be very happy for any feedback. Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 09:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, and sorry for the brief reply:
Annotated copies is not something I am aiming at or thinking about, but I am happy to help a bit where that is useful, as we have the shared aim (I think) of easy export of ebooks from Wikibooks, and retaining Wikisource features on Wikibooks so migration for you, and ebook export for me, is easy.
Here are two books I have been working on:
On narrow columns, the reason is readability. This is why newspapers use narrow columns for instance, and why books are tall rather than wide. It is harder when you read to know where the start of the next sentence is on a wide text area than a smaller width. For long text a balance is needed, however, as moving to the next line is also tiring on the eyes.
Wikipedia's default width is very wide, and not IMO good for long texts. it works on Wikipedia etc because it is usually frequently broken up. Not so much for trancribed books IMO.
Re Wikibook policy I am sure that the question is fine so long as you are doing work on it. Nobody will mind so long as that is taking place. As for bots, that's a bit hard to imagine it doing siginficiant annotation work as surely annotation requires human context, unless you already know the values you are trying to insert. JimKillock (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
@JimKillock: b:Jánua Linguárum Reseráta looks really nice. What text is it sourced from? I would happy to proofread it on WS (I did Latin at school). Would you like me to proofread Latin for beginners (1911)?
Can we have links to corresponding WS pagespaces on the WB page. I think the header template does it automatically on WS? I’m glad you think this is easy, I don’t want to be a pain but YES I would like WS features on WB books. Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Growth team newsletter #17[edit]

16:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)