From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Scriptorium Scriptorium (Help) Archives, Last archive
The Scriptorium is Wikisource's community discussion page. This subpage is especially designated for requests for help from more experienced Wikisourcers. Feel free to ask questions or leave comments. You may join any current discussion or a new one. Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel (a web client is available).

This page is automatically archived by Wikisource-bot

Have you seen our help pages and FAQs?

What I think may be a concern in {{Autolink}}[edit]

Comparing the output of : {{autolink|Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1/May 1872/Quetelet on the Science of Man|author=Edward Burnett Tylor}}


{{PSM link|volumename={{#titleparts:Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1/May 1872/Quetelet on the Science of Man|1|2}} |date = {{#titleparts: Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1/May 1872/Quetelet on the Science of Man|1|3}} |title = {{#titleparts: Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1/May 1872/Quetelet on the Science of Man| | -1 }} | author = Edward Burnett Tylor}}

I encountered a problem.. namely that {{Autolink}} is apprently adding the sequence ''. to the end of the output. This logic was presumably implemented to accomodate generic titles that needed different italicisation. However, {{PSM_link}} which is called in this instance adds it's own italics, causing the generated output to be unbalanced. Not entirely sure how to fix this, and would appreciate someone that's edited complex inter-nested templates, re-examining {{autolink}} in more detail. If this can be resolved easily, then a few Linter errors may also vanish as that's how this glitch was uncovered :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Simple solution, don't use {{autolink}} what a horrendous overly burdensome and intensive why to display a link. And I cannot support the unbridled use of #titleparts. What has gone wrong with "keep it simple stupid."
Fixed the problem. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Ambox and related[edit]

A File: namespace page was showing up as having a stripped SPAN..

File:Kosovo Ombudsperson of Kosovo Seventh Annual Report 2006-2007.pdf

based on what's been disscussed elsewhere I decided to check the underlying template..

{{From Commons}} passes a list (as markup into {{Ambox}}....

However... Ambox now invokes LUA code to handle this Module: Message box, the relevant code for handling the text parameter, uses a span., which is "interrupted phrasing" if you try to put a block level element like a list into it. Is there some additional parameter that has been overlooked here? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


I'm going to ask what may seem like a stupid question...

Why is this apparently wrapping many tables inside LI's instead of generating a table row directly?

Also if a "No.D" style was added it solves the TOC problem here - (No. D being - Number right aligned as the first cell, description as the second.). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Sidenotes overlaping[edit]

In Railways Act 1921 after the last round of editing, it currently uses a float-right, and a ref to do marginal citations and inline side-titles. The problem is that the float right's overlap, when the relevant mariginal citations are close together. What ideally should be happening is that the later float-right is pushed below the first one, but I am not sure that's possible in CSS/HTML. There isn't really a force to bottom option is there?

By comparison this is what generated as "plain view" output (and surprisingly their version has stripped the marginal citations out for some reason.)

The current layout (and cl-act-paragraph approach) is an attempted compromise between the print scan and 'plain view' versions within the limitations of mediawiki. If it can be improved by a more experienced coder please let me know.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I just started using sidenotes recently with Bible (King James)/Genesis for the first page. I used {{marginNote}} and the sidenotes do push down below each other in order as you wish. I'm not sure if that's what you want or if it's the best way to do sidenotes for that matter but I'm happy with it. Jpez (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Yea, {{MarginNote}} has a default spacing of 1px, I believe between notes, but you can set it to whatever you want if you use a certain argument. The rewrite of {{cl-act-title}}(User:JustinCB/cl-act-h) that I did as part of the rewrite of {{cl-act-paragraph}} you ask'd me to do uses {{MarginNote}} because it's designed for marginal notes, and it works correctly. JustinCB (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Formatting with brackets[edit]

How can I format the following so that the first line of text is inline with the lines of poetry within brackets? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Unlike Potosi holds no silver mine.—[MS. L. (a).]

Keeps back his ingots like
Is rather costive—like
Is no Potosi, but
an Irish Mine.—[MS. L. (b).]
I can't think of a great way, but I have two ideas:
1) Keep using your table, but pull in the first line:
{{block center/s}}
<p style="margin:0;"></p>
|  ||{{ts|padding:0;}} colspan=3 | ''Unlike Potosi holds no silver mine''.—[''MS. L''. (''a'').]
|{{ts|padding:0 0.25em 0 0.25em}}|{{brace2|3|l}}
|{{ts|padding:0}}|''Keeps back his ingots like''<br />''Is rather costive—like''<br />''Is no Potosi, but''
|{{ts|padding:0 0.25em 0 0.25em}}|{{brace2|3|r}}
|{{ts|padding:0}}|''an Irish Mine''.—[''MS. L''. (''b'').]
{{block center/e}}

Unlike Potosi holds no silver mine.—[MS. L. (a).]
Keeps back his ingots like
Is rather costive—like
Is no Potosi, but
an Irish Mine.—[MS. L. (b).]
2) Use float templates like {{fqm}} and {{float right}} with {{brace2}}:
{{block center/s}}
Unlike Potosi holds no silver mine.—[MS. L. (a).]
{{fqm|{{brace2|3|l}}}}Keeps back his ingots like{{float right|{{brace2|3|r}} ''an Irish Mine''}}
Is rather costive—like
Is no Potosi, but
{{block center/e}}

Unlike Potosi holds no silver mine.—[MS. L. (a).]
Keeps back his ingots like an Irish Mine
Is rather costive—like
Is no Potosi, but

The second's syntax is easier, but there's a tiny vertical shift in the braces. There might be a better way still.
Also, FYI, in CSS, when you give 4 values for "Top, Right, Bottom, Left", you can also do "Top&Bottom, Left&Right" if top = bottom and left = right. You can also do "Top, Left&Right, Bottom" where top != bottom, but left still equals right. So "0 0.25em 0 0.25em" is equivalent to "0 0.25em". Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! I think I like your first example. It is in the same formatting "spirit" as other incidences appearing in the work/volumes. Have made note of your CSS info in a sandbox. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Making Amends:[edit]

In ignorance of style conventions and failure to request supervision, I published 35 pages authored by James Frederick Ferrier which he had contributed to The Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography (IDUB). In the same ignorance & haste, I also published the biography of Ferrier as contributed by a different author to the same work. My most serious failure seems to be that each publication was named using ALL UPPERCASE for the LAST-NAME of the author's object (i.e., the style used in IDUB itself). It is my intention to publish new (or move?) pages to comply with WS style conventions.

  • Are there other style conventions violated in those items already published which should also be corrected?
  • IDUB is a 3 volume publication. When I republish/move these or publish future IDUB items, what naming convention is best-practice?
  • By what steps would one have performed this feat: moved page Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography/Volume 2/FERRIER, JAMES F to Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography/Volume 2/Ferrier, James F. without leaving a redirect: move to style ?

Klarm768 (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I would go for Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography/Volume 2/Ferrier, James F., adding (birth date-death date) to disambiguate if needed. No redirect if you have not already cross-linked, given that pages are quite new. Also use relative links in previous/next.— Mpaa (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Further to this, since you will probably not be able to avoid leaving a redirect: edit the redirect page and replace its contents with {{sdelete|M2}} and someone will delete the redirect for you. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I believe I have corrected all the style errors and deleted the absolute links in previous/next. I believe this issue is solved, except that I would like to learn now how to close this "section" on Scriptorium... if that's my prerogative. Klarm768 (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually you have killed the prev/next links; it would have been better to keep them as here Poems_(Coates_1916)/Volume_I/The_Ideal. And no need to close this section. It will pass away peacefully ...— Mpaa (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
1) I applied the literal-links prev/next on the fantasy that a Ferrier-aficionado might want to page through F's compositions without returning to the Author-page. 2) Besides that, I lack confidence my ability to generate relative-link syntax between widely separated segments. 3) On top of that, I presume that the relative-links ought properly be reserved for eventual full publication of the IDUB with sequencing preservation. Thus, I suppose, this section can be an ongoing illustration of deficiencies in need of address. Klarm768 (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Prev/next links usually are supposed to guide the reader to the book in page order, page after page (or section or chapter, depending on the strategy selected to transclude the text). For this text, IMHO it should be entry after entry, same order as the text. If you intend to work on selected entries, you can always leave a redlink prepared for. Hopefully, someone will jump in and fill the gaps sooner or later.— Mpaa (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
In the IDUB it is not uncommon for biographies to contain "relative links" (e.g. "a distinguished theologian, and son of the preceding") without naming the other party. I am working a strategy for the transclusion unit to be a single letter of the alphabet... while making accommodation for easy gathering of works of a particular contributor. Should such a strategy influence the naming convention? (As far as I know, I'm the only party proofing and publishing in IDUB... or having pages moved and made compliant. Klarm768 (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
In naming a contribution to IDUB are syntax/punctuation guidelines expressed somewhere? e.g. OLDENBURG (House of)? Permitted? Discouraged? Forbidden? OLYMPIODORUS (6th century Aristotelian) and OLYMPIODORUS (6th century neo-Platonist). I am averse to presuming identity from merely plausible matches to Wikipedia stubs. Klarm768 (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
WOOPS...Copy-&-Paste gets me in trouble again. I DO already know NOT to use upper-case... same question but substitute Oldenburg and Olympiodorus. Klarm768 (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

.djvu file won't position correctly[edit]

I have asked about this ar Wikimedia Commons to no avail but every time I try to upload this .djvu file from the Internet Archive it rotates back to how it looked before, uploading using the UploadWizard doesn't seem to work either, and no matter what tool I use to position the pages correctly it seems to rotate back to the incorrect (original) scans. Is there a way I can rotate it at a Wikimedia project or could I just import it in an incorrect position and use it that way suggesting that the w:en:WP:READERS should rotate their heads 80° when they read it? -- DonTrung (徵國單)  (討論 🤙🏻) (方孔錢 ☯) 09:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes you just need to purge your cache, or wait a few days. Often, when a new copy of a large file is uploaded, the system continues to show you the older version for a time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Can I use a .pdf file for Wikisource[edit]

I have uploaded Commons:File:Annam and its minor currency (Eduardo Today y Güell).pdf which is a collection of scans from a book that I wish to import to Wikisource, but the scans always show 2 (two) pages at a time, can this be considered usable for Wikisource? -- DonTrung (徵國單)  (討論 🤙🏻) (方孔錢 ☯) 12:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

yes to pdfs, though often harder, and hold their text less well, so it is less desirable. Often this is why we upload PDFs to Internet Archive then bring them in through ia-upload tool. Yes to two pages per spread, and do a page count based on the left hand page, so usually numbers for every second page, noting that they are somewhat more painful to proofread. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Well, I have tried uploading it to the internet archive and then converting it to a .djvu file 📁, but this resulted in the image rendering rotated rather than correctly, so I had to give up, alright, I'll make it per 2 (two) pages. Maybe in the future someone that actually owns a physical copy of this book could scan and import this but as of now I will have to work with these options. How do I link 🔗 to a specific page 📃 in the .pdf file? -- DonTrung (徵國單)  (討論 🤙🏻) (方孔錢 ☯) 21:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed that the quality of these scans aren't perfect either, but that's what you get when you pirate gratis books from the internet. I have asked Pyvanet~commonswiki for a scan but he said that he was too busy so this is the only copy I could find while searching Vietnamese language websites. -- DonTrung (徵國單)  (討論 🤙🏻) (方孔錢 ☯) 21:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


I posted a formatting question over at Template talk:TOCstyle about how to format hanging indented text split between two pages. If anyone is at all familiar with TOCstyle, and the template page is not on your watchlist, can you possibly add it? I figure the best place to ask related questions is at that Talk page for anyone who comes around with similar questions in the future. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Resolved. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

TOC alignment[edit]

The TOC for A Treasury of War Poetry &c. used to be aligned. I am not sure what has thrown it off, but if someone knows how to correct this, please feel free to make changes to the first page or two, and then I can copy and take it from there. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks aligned to me. Can you describe what problem you're seeing? It might also help to know what system / browser you're using. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I am using Chrome. Parts (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND &c.) are centered, but Part sections (tables with author/title/page) are all aligned left, each with their own auto width. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Looks fine to me in Chrome... and your description seems to match the source material as well. Centered part headers, followed by sub-parts in three columns, aligned left except for the pages which are aligned right? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. Just on a whim, I adjusted my Chrome zoom setting. I usually have it set at 90%. All's good at 100%. Interesting that alignment is thrown at less than 100%. I guess I'll not worry about it! Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

More TOC help requested[edit]

For this TOC. I tried drawing from my past contributions for the best way to format this TOC, as well as at TOCstyle and dotted page etc., but am at a loss. I gave it my best improvised shot, but I figure there is likely a better way. If someone can provide a basic outline, I can try to take it from there. Any help appreciated. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

It is a template that I find its use error-prone, ugly to utilise and to fix, and resource intensive. Regularly see it cropping up in maintenance and error queues needing resolution. Not one that I can support, however, I'm just a ToC dinosaur. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
This TOC may require a dinosaur solution, and I was hoping one would be recommended... but my use of gaps for spacing, etc. just didn't seem appropriate or whatever the right word is :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Saurian 'nuff? 04:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Over the years you have been consulted on these things time and again and all I hear (still) is your whining. If you don't like it fix it! I no longer consult so you are free to do whatsoever you like. 04:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
MODCHK I am not criticising the authorship of the template and module, I am criticising its (mis)use. I find it hard to fix, and where it is over-/misused, absolutely laborious to fix, so I don't, and leave that to someone else, I have enough maintenance tasks. I don't play lua, its someone else's problem. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Criticise away. You have missed the point and that is the code was always a rush-job carried out in hopes of future consultation and/or modification by others. This never happened and now you are stuck with an anachronism. The fact it is still (mildly) usable after all this time without any maintenance must say something. If somebody wants to replace it with a better approach then please do so and welcome. Just remember to port over the current (over 170 main space) uses to whatever the new system may be. 08:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I hesitate to give my non-technical two cents, but here goes: I like using TOCstyle (as long as I can understand the hows and whys), and have continued to use it on occasion where it makes life easier for me, as I do not like building tables. And I appreciate *your* popping in to help on occasion (is that not 'consulting'?), but if there is no one else here willing to take up the mantle on behalf of TOCstyle, then I should probably look for an alternate solution if, in fact, the 170+ main space uses will one day need to be "ported over" in the future. If you have any suggestions for "basic" LJB-friendly table structures, I am all ears! unless you only prefer to give suggestions with regard to your brainchild (not said or meant sarcastically). Whatever is most help-ful. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst, @ I’ve started playing with Lua on Wikipedia. What needs to be done with this template? χchi (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to say thank *you*—thank you. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

screwed up 'validation' option[edit]

Hi. I marked Memorial of the Cherokees 'problematic' because of the large numbers of misreadings in it, but was informed that that's not the proper use of 'problematic'. So I changed it back to 'proofed', but now I no longer have the option of marking it 'validated' when I'm done proofreading it. Kwamikagami (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Question to anyone who knows: Wouldn't the fact that there is text marked illegible in the work be cause to keep the page marked as problematic anyway? Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
In the scholarly literature, when parts of a text are missing or blemished, they're either replaced with some holder symbol, such as ellipses, or reconstructed and set off in brackets. So I wouldn't think that makes the text problematic, just slightly incomplete. Of course, if we can find an image of another original copy of the text, we should be able to verify the two letters I was able to reconstruct and fill in the one I wasn't. Kwamikagami (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: you have a choice of not proofread, or problematic; these options are explained at help:page status. Generally we would use "problematic" where there is the need for an intervention.

With regard to the status recorded, there is hidden field that records the person who set the proofread flag, which you did with your change, and the flags don't let the person marked as proofread, to be marked as validated. In a situation that you faced, it has to be a revert to reset. Either way, it isn't a fuss, anyone else can validate the page and get around the issue. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

So I can just ask someone here then. When I finish, it will be proofread by two ppl in addition to the initial text entry, since I had someone else proof it and now I'm going over their version. Kwamikagami (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Where would you put the image[edit]

Hi. Where would you put the image in this case, see Women_of_distinction/Chapter_87? Top of the next chapter? Or ...? Thanks.— Mpaa (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

As for me, I would place it so that it is atop her bio in the Main. I don't know if there's a way to format to keep it on the same Index:page yet still transclude in next chapter...? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I would also put it at the top of Chapter 88. You could use two <pages> tags or section tags to start transclusion from one page earlier. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Add text vs add PDF and index[edit]

I am confused as to what guidance to follow to properly contribute to Wikisource. I have read Help:Adding texts, and it seems to say that any text first needs to have its original scan uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and then have an Index created for it. However, I have looked at multiple U.S. Presidential Executive Orders (Author:Barack Hussein Obama/Executive orders) and I can't figure out wether those steps were taken for those texts. Could someone kindly clarify if the PDF upload and Index steps are required for all texts, or if there is some other guidance I should be looking at? Thank you. (talk) user:Al83tito 16:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

It's very strongly preferred, and there have been some discussions around making it required. Adding a text without a DJvU or PDF upload and Index should only be done if no DJvU or PDF file can be obtained. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl:, thank you for kindly replying to my question. I am still a bit confused. An Index page for a work seems to be aimed at a work thet requires manual transcription. What about a work that is originally published as a text in PDF, from which it can be easily copied and pasted into wikisource. Specifically, the instance I am thinking of is this work in Wikimedia Commons, of which I created this Wikisource page. In this case, is an Index page necessary/desirable? I am still happy to do it, I just want to make sure that it is warranted. Thank you. (talk) user:Al83tito 10:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
@Al83tito: yes, in this case an Index page is necessary so that fidelity to the source PDF can be ensured. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for symbol to use..[edit]

Marked as a symbol missing as I hadn't found it quickly: Page:A general history for colleges and high schools (Myers, 1890).djvu/811

Suggestions? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it would be unreasonable to use "ɕ" for this; it's upside down but it fulfils the idea of "c-modified-with-curl". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Alternatively, some type of overstruck combining diacritic, e.g. "c̴" —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I just found this Abkhazian letter which would work admirably: "ҽ" —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks... What sound is it supposed to be representing?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The work uses the character to represent a hard ⟨c⟩ that makes a [k] sound. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Can you review the index pages I've attempted to clean up? Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
A cursory glance over page 811 looks good. I would not use "k" for the character discussed above; the author clearly intended to use a modified letter "c" to preserve the spelling while indicating the hard pronunciation. I'll proofread it using "ҽ". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, the stress marker appears to be a prime symbol ′ rather than an apostrophe '. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: I’m certain the author used the letter "C with bar" Ꞓꞓ as seen on page 813. unsigned comment by Χ (talk) .

Splitting a page[edit]

Hi. Is there any way to cut a pdf page in half? There are pdf files which include two pages on one page. --Yousef (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Not that I have seen, I have just seen those that trim. You would also need to be aware that the text layer may not trim in the same way as the image as I don't believe that the text is x,y mapped to the image. I wouldn't fuss it as you can just as easily do the text checking. It does screw the page headers, and you do have to numbering on the Index for every second page; neither of which has been overly inhibiting in my experience. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Here’s what I used for Index:Casement Report.djvu: χchi (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Moving transcriptions from one index to another[edit]

Hi, @Billinghurst: described this process to me in broad strokes before, but I'd like to know how to do it myself.

I have uploaded a new file and created a

(The new one is more complete, with 11 pages preceding the previous document.)

I'd like to move the base page, and have it carry all its sub-pages with it. However, I'm not sure how to "renumber" them in the move process. (Page 1 in the old index should be page 12 in the new one, and so forth.)

Is there an automated or straightforward way to do this? -Pete (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC) T188122

??? if it is /1 to /1, then it is usually just do, THAT SAID, it is better for an administrator to do it as they can do it without redirects, and delete the false page that you create to do it. If it is not /1 to /1, then we would normally use pywikibot, and Mpaa has predominantly done those. This looks like /1 to /12 (and increment), which users cannot do except as one by one, and require cleanups. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's 1 to 12 -- I mistyped it above, sorry for the confusion. Thanks for the explanation. I'll come back with a more formal request later, but for now there is a glitch with the newly-uploaded file...I'll get that sorted out first. (bug report) -Pete (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)