Allixpeeke

Hello, Allixpeeke, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here. If you need help, see our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). You can discuss or ask questions from the community in general at the Scriptorium. The Community Portal lists tasks you can help with if you wish. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. :)

Welcome to Wikisource

Hello, Allixpeeke, 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, especially for proofreading
• Help:Beginner's guide to Wikisource
• Style guide
• Inclusion policy
• Wikisource:For Wikipedians

You may be interested in participating in

• Proofread of the Month
• Monthly Challenge
• Requested texts

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{Collaboration/MC}} 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

• Wikisource:Scriptorium; or
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help

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 username if you're logged in (or IP address if you are not) 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!

Presidential Candidate categories

Hi, I'm not convinced that this way of categorising people works well in Wikisource. Help:Categorization says that Occupation categories should be the primary occupation of the author. By adding these categories you're putting some of the authors into the politicians tree, when (for example, James Iredell) they are not. The reason we have them here is for reasons other than politics. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

If you're saying Category:United States presidential candidates by year should be moved from Category:United States politicians to some other category, that's fine by me.  Perhaps we should move it to Category:Politics of the United States?  Best, allixpeeke (talk) 05:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting thought, but that would end up with authors in a works category, which we can't do. I'm actually querying the need for these categories at all on enWS. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh.  Well, that's a horse of a different colour.  Hmm.  If an individual is specifically looking for tracts written by the various presidential candidates in the first election (e.g., to compare their respective views), having a category is useful.  The alternative is for someone to go to the Wikipedia category, take note of who is listed, then come here and search for each author individually to see whether or not they even have pages here (which, in the case of 1789, only four of the nine do).  Can you think of any other way of recategorising Category:United States presidential candidates by year that might be more acceptable?  allixpeeke (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

How about a Portal? e.g. Portal:United States presidential elections. You could then have a section for each electoral period with links to the relevant works as well as the author links. The main caution with Portals here is not to use them to do the work that Wikipedia should do. By that we mean that a simple listing of works and authors is fine, but curated commentary is beyond our ambit as a library. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I am with BWC on his disquiet on the categories. A portal allows for us to curate the works that you identify, whereas a category here is going to be a lonely and empty and categorisation of authors is pointless whereas a curation of the campaign works would have value. This is not the encyclopaedia, this is the library, so summarising the authors in the form is not of real value IMO. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I am in agreement.  allixpeeke (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this is turning out much better than the categories approach.  Thank you, Beeswaxcandle, for suggesting it!  allixpeeke (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

sentence spacing

Please do not insert double spacing between sentences. Wikisource transcribes with the internet standard of a single space after the period. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, please do not indent the beginnings of paragraphs with {{gap}}. We don't do that either. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

(1) If you look here, here, and here, you will see that the original printed text includes double spacing between sentences.  To remove the second space, therefore, is to insert error.  If the original printed source employed only a single space, your argument would hold weight, but it does not.

(2) The single-space method is not the "internet standard."

The reason why the double-space began falling out of favour was the commercial pressure to reduce cost in the mid-twentieth century physical print.  By no longer adhering to the tradition of double spacing, the man-hours required to set type was reduced, thus saving the publishers money.  (They also saved a bit of money on paper.)

But now, we are in the age of the Internet.  With no publisher breathing down the necks of Internet users telling them they must buck the double-space tradition simply so that said publisher needn't pay them as much, the double-space tradition can once again rein.

That said, that matter has no relevancy here.  Even though the Internet is ripe to revive the double-space tradition, Wikisource should still employ a single-space when the original printed source material includes a single space.  (That just doesn't happen to be the case here, here, or here).

(3) In undoing those edits, you also removed the indentations (amongst other minor improvements).  Wikisource includes a {{gap}} template for a purpose.

Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, we have {{gap}} for a purpose, but not the purpose you seem to think. If you would like the community to change its existing practices regarding spaces and indentation, then you can make your case for that change in Wikisource:Scriptorium. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Although I do believe the community should augment its indentation policies, that is not relevant here.  Hesiod's Theogony is a poem.  H. G. Evelyn-White's translation takes the form of free verse poetry.  I believe Evelyn-White's formatting is part of the text, and ought to be considered as such.  Respectfully, allixpeeke (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I should also let you know that there is no point in transcribing the Greek text. That should be done at the Greek Wikisource, because the English Wikisource will not host Greek texts. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Community style

I see that you have a few discussions about differences in approach with where the community style has developed, though no one has provided the appropriate links (added above). It would seem that much has developed during your periods of active editing, eg. use of templates and styles for formatting; proofread page extension, etc. due to our response to mobile technology, the ever modernising of web standards, and the like. As a consequence while we trend to preserving a book's look, we do not do it slavishly as it still needs to be functional in a web environment.

We do maintain our style as a guide, though where people are stepping outside of the guide we expect a rationale of why the difference should occur, though it will be a community consensus that determines the outcome.

Some points.

• We try to put commentary about a work at the top level, and only have chapter commentary where it is only pertinent to the chapter, not propagate through the whole work.
• Please turn on your [Page links displayed] from the display options in the left sidebar, you will see that the links that you are adding to the header are now displayed. As you are a user from ages ago, you may not have the new default settings.
• Interlanguage links will appear on left sidebar and they should be utilised in a traditional method rather than forced in the header. They definitely show in the /complete version.
• Please stop the gratuitous addition of <br/>, it just makes complete ugliness with web pages and the export to epub, etc. We are on the web, web standards apply, not book standards.

— billinghurst sDrewth 01:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear billinghurst,

On the left sidebar, I don't see anything that says "Page links displayed" or "display options."

I looked in my Preferences (top right of the screen), but didn't find a single option there, either, dealing with the display of page numbers.

How do I turn this on?  Where should I look?  I would like to see this.

Thanks in advance,
allixpeeke (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The link/option for "page links displayed" will only show up in the Main namespace. So if you're looking for it here (in the User talk space), you won't see it. Try on a page of the work you've been doing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep, it is for displays of works, so should only show in Main and Translation: nss where a work is transcluded. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC). — billinghurst sDrewth 03:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Dears EncycloPetey and billinghurst,

When I click here, I see the following on the left-hand side of the screen:

Main Page
Community portal
Central discussion
Recent changes
Subject index
Authors
Random work
Random author
Random transcription
Help
Donate

---

Display Options

---

Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Cite this page

---

Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

---

Languages
⁠Add links

When I go to this page, I see the same thing plus a Wikidata item link.

Am I looking in the wrong place?

If either of you could give me a step-by-step description of how to find this feature, I would very, very much appreciate it.

Thanks in advance,
allixpeeke (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I see on /6

Display Options

    Layout 1
    Page links displayed
    Page links beside text

and on the root page

 Display Options

    Layout 2
    Page links displayed
    Page links beside text

Try to flush your cache. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, try to flick the gadget Site: General utilities needed by the templates and portals of this wiki project. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear billinghurst,

Thanks for helping.

I don't know what my cache is or how I would go about flushing it.

As for "Site: General utilities needed by the templates and portals of this wiki project," it was checked, so I unchecked it, hit save, and checked /6.  I saw nothing under 'Display Options.'

I went back in and rechecked it, and saved again, and again went to /6.  Still, I did not see anything under 'Display Options.'

I'm going to try logging in with a different account and see if I can see anything under it, and I'll be back.

allixpeeke (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm back.  Nothing under the other account, either.  And "Site: General utilities needed by the templates and portals of this wiki project" was checked under that, too.  allixpeeke (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you see anything different when logged out? — billinghurst sDrewth 04:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Flush the cache is generally ctrl-F5 — billinghurst sDrewth 04:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

billinghurst

(1) Oh, yes!  I see it when logged out.  (And, now that I can see it, I have something to say, but I'll say that later.)

(2) Logging in, however, still nothing.

(3) control-F5 did nothing.  Perhaps I should note, I'm using a Mac.

(4) "Later" has now arrived.  Although I hope you and EncycloPetey can still do something to help me see page numbers while logged in, I want to make a side-comment about the notes on the various sections of The Production of Security.  Let's use section 10 as an example.  Here is what section 10 looks like now, and here is what it looked like before my notes were removed.

When logged out, the page numbers along the side of the text includes links to the .pdf's page, e.g., Page:The Production of Security.pdf/54.  But the links I had here are quickjumps to anchors on the selfsame webpage.

Thus, if you click on 53 in my version, it keeps you on the same webpage but down to section desired, i.e., The Production of Security/10#53.  Same thing with 54 taking you to The Production of Security/10#54 and 55 taking you to The Production of Security/10#55.

In other words, it performed an entirely different function from the page numbers that appear alongside the text.  And, I believe that that adds value to the webpage in that it makes it more user-friendly.

Also, in the notes, I had the following message: "The title applied to this section by McCulloch is not found in Molinari's original, where it is merely denoted as 'X.'"

I put that there so that students and academics, in citing this text, would not be confused into thinking that Molinari himself had titled that section "The Free Market for Security."  The official title of that section is X (notwithstanding McCulloch's contribution), just as the official title of the proceeding section is IX, and readers would probably want to know that.  I know I would.

I feel that that note, too, adds value to the webpage.

Do you believe there is any compelling reason to not include these notes?

Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I will look later to what configuration issue may be inhibiting your page display (@George Orwell III: to note issue.) Your notes belongs at the top level of the work, and does not need reproducing through the work per chapter. We are reproducing the edition of the work, which will be directly linked to the pdf, academics can see the edition there. Re the linking to the page anchors, why is that an advantage? We can link to the work currently with anchors, and anyone coming to the work fresh can scroll, top links to individual pages don't add clear value in my opinion. We also don't do it anywhere else, so how is this work different in that regard?

This work isn't different.  Methinks it makes sense to do this with all works.  allixpeeke (talk) 05:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

[Back-dent] I'm using a Mac as well. What browser are you using? Safari doesn't always play well with some sites, so I switched to Firefox a few years ago. If you have a different browser already installed, try it. If you're already using Firefox, go to "History" and select "Clear Recent History" to clear out your cache, cookies, and other stuff. It means you will need to re-renter your user names and passwords at any sites you use. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I am using Safari.  When I go into Firefox, I see the page numbers, so it seems this problem is somehow related specifically to my use of Safari.

But here's the thing: I have been using Safari for quite some time, and only very recently I've noticed a variety of issues.  And it's not limited to just the page number display.

When I click on the m-dash below the box in which I am typing right now, the m-dash used to always appear in the text itself exactly where the curser rested.  Now, it's no longer doing that on Safari, but it is working just fine here on Firefox.  —  See?

Likewise, the bar that appears above the box in which I am typing right now has an 'advanced' thingie that, when clicked, allows a second bar to appear which includes a little blue arrow icon.  In the past, whenever I would click on that icon in Safari, #REDIRECT [[Target page name]] would appear.  Now, the bar isn't even there in Safari.  It's here in Firefox, however, and works.

Moreover, this problem isn't limited to Wikisource.  I'm having these same exact problems on Wikiquote, etc.

I would love to know what's going on, because Safari has never had issues with Wikiquote (etc.) before.

(I'm going to go back to Safari now.)

Thanks,
allixpeeke (talk) 05:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I am lost on your views, as there are a variety available, depending on toolbar in use, and whether you are using the different drop down displays below the editing box. Sounds as if we need to raise some issues in phabricator: per the instructions at mw:How to report a bug. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Page links in TOC

Hi, I have fixed the first page link at Page:The Production of Security.pdf/8, hope you can proceed from there? Hrishikes (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!  : D  allixpeeke (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Categories

That was a burst of enthusiasm that you had. As has been noted to you previously, we are not looking to create empty or poorly used categories. We also do not wish to create categorisation that is not pertinent to our site. Creating "Contributor to ..." categories where we do not have the works is pretty pointless and is in fact a better task for Wikidata. Help:categorization is the best guide and if yo think that it is slim on the required information then please start the conversation at WS:S — billinghurst sDrewth 05:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

ct ligature

We already went through deletion of the "ct" ligature in Wikisource:Proposed deletions. Please do not recreate it without a discussion to reverse that decision. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey:

Strange.  When I created Template:Ligature Latin ct, there was no "Warning: You are recreating a page that was previously deleted" notice.  Nor am I able to find any discussion about this ligature in the Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives.

Can you please provide me with a link to the relevant deletion proposal discussion?

I am very curious to know what reasons were cited in the discussion for removing a template that (1), as far as I can tell, has no negative effect on the page(s) on which it is used and (2) serves as a placeholder for future improvement of the page(s) on which it is used.

Thanks in advance,
allixpeeke (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The original name was Template:ct, which is why you did not see the warning. I am not sure where the discussion ended up, but the reasoning had to do with (a) breaking internet text searches, and (b) the ligature was not displaying properly in many browsers or operating systems. The en-Wikisource community has generally disfavored the reproduction of ligatures in recent years (aside from æ and œ), and even long-s is frowned upon by many members here. The general principle being that such ligatures are a typesetting artefact, and not inherently part of the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the former template tried to insert a ligature that did not display properly, but the template I created did not try to actually insert any ligature; instead, it simply left the characters as ct.  The purpose of the template I created (as the documentation pointed out) was as a placeholder, to be utilised in the event that a ct ligature is someday actually created for unicode.

As to the concern about the template breaking internet text searches, I wonder if that is problem that (A) specifically resulted from the former attempt to use the template in order to insert a ligature that does not exist in unicode or (B) generally resulted from the mere fact that it was a template.  If it was the former, then this problem would not result from the template I created.  If it was the latter, then this problem is the result of all templates, including but not limited to {{ae}} and {{ls}}.

Yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Our only use of {{ae}} is for ease of typing; we intend to replace all uses of that template periodically with the Unicode character æ. The long-S template has been the object of recent discussion / changes, and we are considering the same manner of replacement for it. But our editors have a variety of opinions about long-s. As I say, you are welcome to start a discussion about the merits of a "ct" ligature template. It would not be up to me to make that decision apart from the Wikisource community. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer, if you don't mind, that you direct me to the recent discussion(s) regarding long-s.  It is something upon which I am strongly opinionated, and I would definitely like to weigh in.

Thanks in advance (again),
allixpeeke (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Almost all of our community discussions occur in the Wikisource:Scriptorium, because we are a relatively small community. However, discussions do sometimes begin on User talk pages before moving. Archiving is done by bot, if the discussion in the Scriptorium goes stale for long enough. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikisource:Style guide is the place for the existing community guidance built through consensus over many years. The discussions for that consensus will be Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives. The consensus of the community is to not focus on reproduction of numbers of aspects, and one of those was ancient typesets. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't seem to edit the relevant section of the Scriptorium to make this comment, so I'm at least going to post it here:

The {{s|2}} and {{ss|2}} options are going away because they were implemented in error. The long character they produce is the mathematical integral sign, and not an italic long-s. The long-s can be italicized just like any other character, provided the font at the user's end possesses that variant. The italic long-S is not a separate character in Unicode any more than any other character. Substituting a mathematical symbol to force a particular style is a kludge, and an incorrect one at that. So, we are altering the templates to eliminate that error. Long-S should be italicized using the same markup as any other character. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

What about {{f}} (ƒ)?  Is that, too, a mathematical symbol?  allixpeeke (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes, but it's also used in photography for f-stops, and it's the currency symbol for the Dutch guilder. It's not intended to be used as a substitute for italic "f". --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the info.  Seems that, when the font is in Times New Roman, the italic f and the italic long-s both incorporate the descending hook (f, ſ), but when the font is in whatever-this-font-is, the italic f and the italic long-s do not incorporate the descending hook (f, ſ).

In any event, I'll go back and remove the {{f}}s, {{s|2}}s, and {{ss|2}}s I've incorporated into pages.  Thanks, again for the heads up.

allixpeeke (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)