User talk:Beeswaxcandle/Archive2

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Chrisguise in topic Westminster Confession

sc or smaller? Edit

In this case, would you use {{sc}} or {{smaller}} for "vain old man"? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In that case, I'd use {{sc}}. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. That would be my first choice too (with copy/paste of text in mind); but then I thought about whether it was there for emphasis or not, which made me think smaller might be better(?) Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For a giggle Edit

I am just validating a work that you proofread, and I had to stop and double check that it was your work as there were odds and ends there that normally never get past you. Then I saw that it was nearly two years ago that you worked upon it. So as positive feedback, your proofreading has improved over the years. billinghurst sDrewth 10:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was actually my first ever contribution to enWS back in Feb 2009. I scanned and OCR'd my own copy of the book, then did a text dump. When I came back to it and did the Match and Split in Feb 2011 I was at the beginning of the RL interruption and it looks like I assumed that my original work was fine. This despite the 18 months apprenticeship in the Grove's Dictionary. I've learnt since not to proofread during the interruptions. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Va Edit

Beeswaxcandle, would you please validate at least some of the pages in this small book for transclusion? It is very difficult getting a book validated! and I will do the same for you with your England works, which I have already been doing because the history is good reading. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Book Mexico as it was and as it is. Edit

I was trying to fix a small problem and did something to screw up the entire page. Need help in understanding what did I do. Thanks. --Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Raúl, somehow the linebreak in the header between the rh template and the beginning of the table got lost. The opening of a table needs be on its own line otherwise it gets parsed as text rather than a table. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a million, will try to bemore careful...--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ornery the VIII. Edit

"After" and sidenote "June" blended together and I don't know how to separate them. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When that happens it means the sidenotes tags in the header/footer are either missing or wrong. In this case there's no begin, just two ends. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, and thank you for the explanation. I think you know that it is your work and I had been validating many pages. But I wonder if validation is really needed since the text is already in the "mainspace" <--I hope that's the correct word). Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Validation is always required. I transclude chapters to the mainspace for all my works as I complete them for several reasons. 1) I can check that I've got the basic formatting correct (missing nop, italics or bold not terminated, correct linespacing around images and headings, &c.); 2) I can check that the footnotes are transcluding correctly; 3) As I don't know when (or if) the work will be validated, the text is made available to readers. However, none of this does away with the need for a second pair of eyes. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basic questions about England's History & her Royal Family of Today + Suggestion to Billinghurst et al Edit

Beeswaxcandle, in reading over the pages of text to validate on your work on English history that you have been working on I encounter a thousand or more questions. The history is extensive and fascinating but yet it is complicated as I was not raised with it. I want to ask questions and have no person to ask but I will try asking a couple of questions here. (1.) Does the present Queen of England descend from King Harold who was killed at the Battle of Hastings or does she descend from William the Conqueror? There is the possibility she can descend from both through intermarriages but I suspect she descends from King William the 1st aka William the Conqueror although not of lineal descent. (2) When did the Royal Family lose total power. (3) Parliament has total power now or does it? (4) The Queen of England is just a "figurehead" as I have been told? (4) How far back in history does the the family present Royal family of England go--only back to William the Conqueror of 1066? Statement: The little bit of what I have learned of the British Empire is very impressive! The number of colonies she created is so impressive that "the sun never sits on the British Empire". We should have a "park bench", some area we can go to have such discussions to learn more of this (and other books and histories &c) from one another and perhaps too that area would attract people not already here to read, participate and join en.WS in editing, proofreading and validating. Most Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Maury, I can answer some of your questions without pulling out the reference books. 1) See the article Descent of Elizabeth II from William I. She is a descendent of both Harold and William; 2) The simple version is that the monarchy lost "total power" when the barons forced King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215 (but the reality is a lot more complicated that that); 3) Since then no-one has "total power". The monarch must call parliament, but parliament must submit all finalised legislation to the monarch for signing. In addition the monarch is the head of the armed forces, which report to her and not to parliament (but the funding comes from parliament). She also appoints the Prime-minister; 4) The Queen is a constitutional monarch, so she is not just a figurehead for the UK. The amount of involvement she has in her other 15 countries varies. However, for Australia, Canada and New Zealand she does appoint the Governors-General to be her representatives and they fulfil the legislative role that she holds for the UK parliament. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow! I had not seen this until now and thought you had not replied. The information you have presented to me is amazing. I have learned that the Queen is descended from William the Conqueror and had been thinking she is also descended from King Harold but did not know. I wish I had taken English history when in the university. It's fascinating and includes my own ancestry of France escaping to England. I know about the Magna Carta but not in detail. I am coming to these things as I edit the book on Illustrated History of England vol.1 of 9. which brings about my questions. Those 9 volumes are valuable histories. We need, I want, all 9 volumes on Wikisource whether I can complete them or not. I thank you for your answers. I had fairly accepted what I was told but yet wondered about the Queen just being a "figurehead". I saw the Queen when she was in Virginia (USA). I personally have never thought highly of Royalty. There were some in the Fontaine family in 1500 that gave it up when they (French) became Protestants and later fled to England and freedom from Catholicism. To me Royalty was always the very rich (and probably with crooked background of warring, conquering others, and stealing) and where there are the few very rich there are many, many more times the poor. I have often wondered why it is that places like Australia like a Queen when Australia was a dumping ground for the poor and for convicts and why they would sing "God Save the Queen" (or King). I still wonder about it. There are many things I want to learn and so many it is impossible to live long enough. I thank you again and DO get well from whatever Billingsworth refers to below. You are an on-line friend but a good friend nevertheless. Get well and have Happy Holidays. Most respectfully, —Maury (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What index? This was a direct transcript from the Google copy... ! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Index:Lengths and Levels To Bradshaw's Maps.djvu Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK I've set my effrort as a redirect. Any chance of sorting out the map? Thanks :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Get well soon Edit


Major bummer that you are unwell. Hope that you can get well soon. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This is a Coxcomb, my father's favorite plant and I offer you, Beeswaxcandle, this flower with the greatest of hopes your illness is minor and you will get well soon. You not being here and well truly is a major bummer. Your family of wikisourcers need your help but more so your kindness and good manners that is always here and will be remembered in our lives to the rest of our days. This flower always has small "bees" roaming over it. Considering your nom de plume, I thought you would like a plant with "bees"   Most respectfully, —Maury (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sending you good vibes, man. EVula // talk // // 20:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Περαστικά Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am thinking of you and hoping your health will improve quickly. Take care of yourself.--BirgitteSB 22:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  We your friends are thinking of you and wish you are quickly well. --Zyephyrus (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks all. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Beez! We all miss and care about ya New Zelander! Hurry up and get totally well. You're already overdue from your vacation. —Maury (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Marvellous to see you. Take it easy though. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for many things including good manners and for being an excellent administrator Edit

Beeswaxcandle, "Beez", it is great having you back! You did a lot of editing today and I hope that you are well enough that it doesn't tire you back into that illness. Please don't push yourself so much. We here sincerely missed you and could not afford to lose you. In my opinion, you are among the "best all around" administrators here along with AdamBMorgan using just plain ole-time good manners with no profanities <-when one loses control of oneself) nor arguments (ditto) -- here on en.Wikisource although there are a few others that come very close. When I came to en.Wikisource several years ago, one of the strongest things I noticed was that I saw no profanities or arguments. It was a "Place of Peace" for me which is why I stayed. I have heard and once spoke enough profanities when in the United States Navy (cussed like a sailor). Like laws, controlling oneself creates a better civilization. Outsiders who peek in to see what Wikisource is do learn what it is and is not good in our conversations. Anyhow, I want to thank you for the editing today and am happy that you are home here again. I also thank you for the information above, the last you wrote before becoming sick, on my questions about "England and the Royal family." It was a definite learning experience. I am happy to no end that you are back and feeling better. Most respectfully, —Maury (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Size of Greek characters in character menu box Edit

Is it possible to increase the font size of the Greek characters in the drop-down character menu box? I often have to zoom in 125% or 150% to get a good look at them. Also, when editing, I came across a character [similar to] " τ' " that was not in the menu. Is that an actual character, or should I just add an apostrophe? Welcome back, by the way. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have asked that question to Grondin, usually he knows well this kind of problem. --Zyephyrus (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. BTW, Beeswaxcandle,—Even using the character menu box, I am still unsure of my Greek text placement. Do you mind if I keep bugging you (or whoever may catch it) for double-checks by placing the {{Greek missing}} template on the page? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course I don't mind. In fact, I quite enjoy it. Without seeing an example, I can't be exactly sure about the tau character, but it's a common character of ellision so the apostrophe is probably correct. I've been meaning to find an introductory paragraph or two for you that explains accents and breathings. I'll try to dig that out today. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Example. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, your interpretation of τ' (tau apostrophe) is correct. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Once the corresponding page's Greek is double-checked, I'll mark it as proofread, and the image can be deleted. Let me know. I'll leave the deletion to you. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have tried this:

{{Polytonic|}} template added to the Edittools, with the idea to have this template making bigger greek letters (if it is feasible).

1. α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π ρ σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω

2. {{Polytonic|α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π ρ σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω}} might result into α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π ρ σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω

Woult it be workable? --Zyephyrus (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Song of the 1960s: " Where have all the flowers gone...long time passing.... Edit

Beeswaxcandle, I am pleased to announce to you that the book on Japanese flowers was completed (Done) about an hour ago. Those lesser interesting books still sit but I expect them to get done -- just nowhere as swift as the Japanese book has been completed. —Maury (talk) 07:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stratemeyer Syndicate/Charles [AE]mory Beach? Edit


Just to let you know I changed this author's name in Portal:Stratemeyer Syndicate to match the form given in Air Service Boys over the Rhine, Air Service Boys Flying for Victory and of course the Author record.

However, a quick search performed subsequently suggests the form "Charles Emory Beach" may in fact have been used for "Air Service Boys Flying for France." Can you confirm this, as maybe my change is not altogether correct after all?

Regards, MODCHK (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hadn't noticed that before. The name on w:List of Stratemeyer Syndicate series is "Amory", so I suggest we stick with it. Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I simply fluked spotting the discrepancy; changed it, and then thought: if it is only a pseudonym, maybe there were several variations (and as I mentioned above; a search only confused me even more.) So I thought I'd better go to the "Stratemeyer Man" and ask! MODCHK (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, thanks Edit

Didn't even know we had talk page templates. Learn something knew everyday. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing proofreading tools in edit mode Edit

Hi, Beeswaxcandle. Question. Most of my proofreading tools that I had a few days ago are no longer visible in edit mode. How can I get them back, because they make my life easier when proofreading Byron's works (in particular, emdash, br[eak], ref/end-ref, etc.). Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The most likely reason is that you've changed the skin you are using in your Preferences. What I'll do is move the buttons into your common.js and then it shouldn't matter which skin you use. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Try it now. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW a redirect could have been created, or the file could have been moved. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still the same. I could show you a screen shot of what I see now, but then you wouldn't be familiar with what was present beforehand. The whole layout is different from what it was before. To my knowledge, I never changed any settings... Maybe I should just reset to default & start over from scratch asking for guidance along the way? Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Asking for guidance... No clue where to begin. Basically, all the tools that I would need (unless I'm forgetting any) are what I described above (emdash, <br />, <ref></ref>). The only tools I currently have at my disposal ("proofread tools") are "Zoom" (zoom in, zoom out, original size) and "Other" ([+] show/hide header/footer, and vertical/horizontal layout). Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm signing off for now. I probably won't be doing any serious editing till Monday, so there's no rush on this issue. Have a good weekend, Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've tried something else, but that's about my limit. If it hasn't worked, then Inductiveload, Phe or Pathoschild are the best to approach next. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. sudden thought, do you have the enhanced editing toolbar enabled? It doesn't always like additional scripted buttons. The way to check is go to Preferences/Editing and then scroll to the bottom of the screen for the beta features. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yup. I believe it was already checked. I'll keep trying different scenarios, and if the buttons still do not appear, I'll speak with one of your recommended Users. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aha. You don't want it. It misbehaves with several aspects of the proofreading extension and you're better off without it in the long-run. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Back in business :) Thanks :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stratemeyer Syndicate Edit

Hi. Same note as left at Scriptorium in case it went unnoticed there ... I asked as Author:Stratemeyer Syndicate is a dated Soft Redirect. If you need a hand in replacing Stratemeyer Syndicate with pseudonyms according to Portal:Stratemeyer Syndicate, in works and relative chapters, just let me know. It should not be a big deal. Until it is done, it should otherwise be skipped in soft redirects clean-up. Bye--Mpaa (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking here, I would say the redirect can be deleted without further work, Up to you the final judgement as you are most familiar with the subject. Bye--Mpaa (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree.   Done Many thanks for your help. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have new messages
Hello, Beeswaxcandle. You have new messages at Starcartographer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

at end of month Edit

I stopped recording when steward work had me otherwise occupied. What I recorded for the early works is at User:Billinghurst/PotM watch and I had thought what would have been nice as the image was the number of books that were achieved for the month. A bit of polite skiting never goes astray.— billinghurst sDrewth 10:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updated from my version (Word doc. offsite). I anticipate disappearing tomorrow for a few days, so I don't expect to be around at end of month to make the awards, nor to monitor the last work(s). I've just uploaded File:Featured star 8.png as a possible image.  Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ta, for the bits and the efforts (roger wilco). I will take on the task for the remainder of the week. Best wishes for your exploits. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February featured text Edit

As it was your suggestion, you may want to look at {{featured text/February}} for the main page text regarding Rambles in New Zealand. It's half done at the moment. There is no summary statement yet, for which {{lorem ipsum}} is a place-holder, and the image is provisional (the map from the work is there but commented out at the moment because it was not showing up well; but that can be reverted). If you want to see how it will look in February, check Main Page/sandbox. If you want to amend this text, feel free. Otherwise, I will complete it in the next day or two. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've had an initial go mostly using text from the nomination, but have run out of time to do anything more. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Transclusion: Pupil to teacher? Edit


Only if you have a moment to spare; may I invite you to peruse Index_talk:The_Pathway_of_Roses,_Larson,_1913#Chapter_transclusion_notation. About three-quarters through composing my response to Londonjackbooks it dawned on my tiny brain that I was regurgitating much of the stuff you taught me back in about April of last year (I never said I wasn't slow on this uptake thing.) Although of course I am not trying to do so, it might be nice to get another opinion in case I am telling the poor lady too many inadvertent porkies?

Cheers, MODCHK (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've never used {{for}}—and in fact have never had to deal with transcluding from a set of jpg files. So, I really can't help. For this work, I would have taken the images and combined them into either a multipage pdf (using Acrobat) or created a zip archive. Then I would have uploaded the resulting file to IA and let them derive the DjVu file and used that. (See Help:DjVu files).

P.S. Hope Oswald wasn't too bad when it passed over/through. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah. Using {{for}} turned out to not be my proudest moment!
I have never uploaded anything (to the best of my knowledge) to IA, and so frankly would not know where to start. I did entertain thoughts of getting djvulibre functioning locally on my system, but gave up in utter confusion. Maybe I shall try again some day... Or learn IA capabilities... Thanks for the pointer!
Regarding Oswald, I was talking to my sister-in-law in Sydney earlier today and we were discussing the news that apparently the thing has swung out to sea and is apparently headed for N.Z. Hope it blows out before it gets to you. After absolutely slamming QLD it seemed to treat my region relatively lightly and then hit places further south hard again. Lots of wrecked trees here due to wind damage and there is barely a road which has not been blocked by fallen timber at some time; yet surprisingly not quite enough rain to completely fill my water tank (I am just outside the town reticulation area―actually in a hole between two of them.) Thanks for the thought. MODCHK (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For jpgs you need to construct what <pagelist would have done for you (and you can use something like for or I have used a spreadsheet to generate a long number run, and pasted it into place. When you transclude you have to have the <pages index="name of index file" from="filename of first wanted page from your list" to="filename of last wanted page from your list" /> . PrP will fill the sequential gaps from <pagelist>. happy for rain to come here, soil is so drybillinghurst sDrewth 09:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure I understood that, Billinghurst. 1) I am unclear exactly what structure <pagelist> actually builds―or do you simply mean a list of the relevant page numbers? 2) Once the effort of constructing such a beast has been performed; what extra value does selecting upon that with an additional <pages> specification?
I suspect I simply haven't got the message at all, sorry. Oh, and "PrP" stands for what, exactly?
This is interesting but somewhat academic to me, as Londonjackbooks is the originator and custodian of the JPGs, and is still producing them from time-to-time. i.e. There is not as at the current moment a complete set of page images for this book. You surely need the water, but certainly I don't wish the wind-storm upon you―not if you value your top-soil. MODCHK (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was counselled ("Scanning a book as a series of individual page JPEGs is allowed, but where the book is mainly textual, the PDF or Djvu formats are often preferred") over at Commons a few days ago. My reply being that I was doing the text "in stages. I could photograph all the pages first, convert to PDF, then upload (via or otherwise), but I am not patient enough, and wanted to get started transcribing..." When all will be said and done, will there really be a need/reason to create a pdf/djvu of the whole text if the work is already hosted here in this place? If there is some benefit in doing so, I'll consider it once I'm done transcribing; otherwise, I won't bother (not that anyone asked... I'm just thinking out loud). Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As we were beating on BWC's page (please excuse us mate), I tried to be concise.
  • PrP = mw:Extension:Proofread Page, the extension that gives us Index: and Page: namespaces
  • <pagelist> = (Pages on an Index: ) is only designed for djvu and pdf files, if we have jpg, then we have to manually build — like has been done
  • we transclude it with this sort of code <pages index="The Pathway of Roses, Larson, 1913" from="The Pathway of Roses, Larson (1913) image of page 115.jpg" to="The Pathway of Roses, Larson (1913) image of page 131.jpg" /> as per Wikisource:ProofreadPage
  • do the pages how you please, we will dance around you. That is why have artistic people like you, and bootscrapers and dunnybrush-holders like me. We all have our rôles. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you all for this. I have at least learnt something new, so please pardon my dumb questions. And a special note to Beeswaxcandle: I had really intended to thank you for the LST background; the rest of the discussion is certainly of interest to me, if somewhat unexpected. Please send me the bill for tarnished and unrecyclable talk space! MODCHK (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries about having this discussion here. It means that I know where to look when I need it. I was trying to work out how to use the pages index tag for this and had to give up last night. So, I'm grateful for the exact info. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[As a (I promise) final personal observation, I wonder if you folks know just how desperately disheartening I find Billinghurst's aside above? I know I am not artistic; do not really want to be a conscript member of Dunnekin Divers and Allied Trades, and am quietly terrified the only available third choce puts me firmly into the boarding queue for the 'B' Ark …] MODCHK (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

add pages to an existing work Edit

Thanks for your word of welcome.

I want to add two "chapters" to an _existing_ document. All the help I see is for creating a _new_ document. Can you point me toward appropriate "help"? Thanks.unsigned comment by Reb40 (talk) .

Try Help:Subpages and see if that's what you're after. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mr. Punch's Book of Sports Edit

Mr. Punch's Book

            of Sports  

does not look correct because it is broken from one line to two lines. The book shows it as one line.

—Maury (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are several running headers like that. The problem relates to an extra pipe (|) at the end of the {{rh}} template. I fixed the ones on the pages I had to open for other reasons, but because I was just trying to get the transclusion looking OK, I didn't bother with any on the other pages. You're welcome to amend as you have time or notice them. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Index:Welsh Medieval Law.djvu Edit

First of all, thanks so much for having done that!

Second, now that the whole volume is here, should I stop the simplified version and transcribe page by page instead of section by section?

Third, should I rename the work now that it's all here to go through? (I was just going to do the sections touching on the English translations for Hywel's laws.)

Is there a guide somewhere how to handle these scanned books? LlywelynII (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proofread Texts of the Month awards -- make them unique -- match the books Edit

Beeswaxcandle, can we possibly have better images for each proofread of the month? For example, Past Collaborations shows very nice varied images as opposed to the same old star, or any modification thereof. The awards images should look good on people's pages. The same old stars, or any modification thereof, does not do this. It is more attractive including for people looking in at them. There are some such as the tree rings, a face, etc. but I think the award should always be pleasing and match the story itself. —Maury (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sometimes the star is the best option (particularly when a month has several unrelated works), but we used a wider range of images for 2012 (check Laverock's page for the complete set). I intend to continue this on, but sometimes pragmatism overrides artistry and the star will still turn up from time to time. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

back-reference in wikisource search-and-replace Edit

The search-and-replace facility of the wikisource editor has regular-expression capability. Can it do back-references? If so, what is the syntax? Is it covered in "help"? Thanks. unsigned comment by Reb40 (talk) .

I'm sorry, but this is not something that I can assist with. I haven't used let alone played with this function. I suggest you check with either Hesperian or Phe.

It's important that you sign your talk page contributions so that we know who is asking or commenting. Just type ~ four times (~~~~) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Footnote within reference (or vice versa) question Edit

How to phrase?... If I decide to use a, b, c, etc. for ref/notes (see example), can I always begin with "a" (within the same poem/Mainspace page) as long as the reference within the footnote appears in a new footnote? Do you know what I mean? If so, how would you have phrased my question? Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes; Yes; "Can (Should) the footnotes within a footnote use the same sequence as those in previous footnotes? Or do I need to continue the sequence from footnote to footnote?" For me, consistency of approach across a work is important, so either a, b, c, … or *, †, ‡, §, ¶, … but not a mixture of the two (unless of course, there are more than two layers of footnote—something I hope never to see in my proofreading!) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Thank you. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Morning! I added a question for you over at Scriptorium/Help where you made reference to endnotes, etc. Hoping I've been editing okay... Copied below:

To BWC: That would seem to apply to some of the Portal:Romanes Lectures I'm working on,—where the endnotes are on the same page as the body of text in the Main. Proofreaders (of the Romanes Lecture texts) have used anchors and <sup>[[#Note1|1]]</sup> for this purpose, and I have been copying that method with Machiavelli. Is that not ok? (I might not be understanding the Help page statement) Footnotes still pepper some of the texts, although endnotes are prevalent. Is the help page suggesting that an editor copy the text of each endnote and place it on the corresponding Index: page? Otherwise, how would you treat the endnote as a footnote (using <ref>s) otherwise? I am confused. Please untangle my brain! Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Childe Harold's Pilgrimage is another example of where footnotes and endnotes reside on the same Mainspace page but I am dealing with them separately (endnotes w/ anchors; & footnotes 'traditionally'.). [To add, the endnotes also contain footnotes, and those footnotes are combined with the 'traditional' footnotes at the end of the Mainspace page. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)] Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the help page is saying that the endnote text should be copied to the appropriate place in the Page: namespace. However, it was written after most of the Romanes Lectures were proofread. This means that there is now a tension between maintaining a consistent style for a "work" and following best practice per the help page advice. The tension is resolved by remembering a) that the help page is advice rather than policy; and, b) that we're trying to make the work usable in the mainspace for both the casual and the more serious reader.

We do need to amend the help page a little to indicate that it means changing the pages in the Page: namespace and refering the reader to the section at the bottom of the page. We also need to add a section about how to deal with footnotes within footnotes. Could you please have a go at this as you're doing so many of them at the moment? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll make you a deal. First, I probably won't be able to tackle it till next week; second, I can create a skeleton of a section for the Help page along with 'sketches' of what I would want to get across IF (third) someone else takes my 'notes' and tweaks them using the correct terminology/phraseology. I don't trust myself to placement on the official help page... I can place my notes, etc. in a sandbox. Does the above sound okay to you? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Accept, just let me know when you're ready for me to review it. We're all volunteers here and there are no time pressures. By the way I would see this as going in the Advanced section of the page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. Please forgive this intrusion, all. May I make a small addition to the pending review list, noting that the documentation against parameter "group" at {{smallrefs/doc}}, contains a pointer to w:Footnotes#Separating_reference_lists_and_explanatory_notes. Regrettably WP has moved on and this anchor is now gone. If the new help text should happen to be amenable, perhaps this link should be re-assigned less, umm, pointlessly? MODCHK (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I'm ready for a review. A bit of long-winded blather at times, but I think I've gotten the gist of my thoughts across—esp. where the incorporation of endnotes to footnotes in the Page:namespace is concerned... There are just too many variables, and you have to take each case (work) into account separately. Order of importance (in my opinion) for our purposes: (1) Author/publisher's intent (2) Ease of reader/browser of text (3) Ease of transcription on the part of editor/proofreader/validator. You can view my "soup sandwich" here. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added some info since I said I was ready for review. History will show any future changes/additions I might make. Please let me know if you think of anything I can't/haven't. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greek double-check Edit

Hi, Beeswaxcandle. I am almost done proofreading this text, and was wondering if you could double-check (at your leisure) the Greek on the two problematic pages for me? Thanks ahead of time, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for processing delete requests. Edit


When I created these requests I simply had no idea how quickly you would act upon them. My expected reaction time was more like a month, so I am really impressed.

(Items expunged: File:PoR-4-16-21-1-2013.png, File:Londonjackbooks-Braces-etc.png, File:Kernel and Husk 374-5.png, File:Kernel and Husk 374-5-post.png, Template:Winf, Template:Whitworth-Imperial number-fraction/doc, Template:Whitworth-Imperial number-fraction, Template:PageNumWrapper/doc, Template:PageNumWrapper, Template:Mw, Template:Min-width/doc, Template:Min-width)

I appreciate your neat housekeeping, and hope not to contribute too much to the workload!

Cheers, MODCHK (talk) 10:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the top of Special:RecentChanges there are a few links to outstanding requests. One of them is Speedy deletions. When there is something in there I usually investigate. So, "no problems cobblers" (usually said in a broad Outback Jack accent). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rabbits Edit

In January, you suggested Care and Management of Rabbits for PotM. Just letting you know that I've uploaded it, and have set up an index page for it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jugoslavenski imenik bilja Edit

Terribly sorry for that mistake! It is now on the Croatian wikisource, and ready to be deleted here, thank you. Božidar 09:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Short Titles Act 1896 Edit

Thank you.

I'll look into re-doing the formatting I had put in it for a reason. :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

page-specific style sheet Edit

I want to add a page-specific style sheet. Googling turned up "module type=css" at

That's exactly what I want, but it doesn't work on wikisource. Can you point me to a wikisource equivalent? Thanks Reb40 (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We don't add page specific style sheets, we don't look to replicate fonts, etc., instead we are replicating the words. We are looking to keep it simple so the most number of people are able to see the text. There are many templates with styles coded within them to assist with transcribing. Information at Help:Proofreadbillinghurst sDrewth 15:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't thinking of fonts -- putting entries into a large table with three columns, I wanted to make a local default style for td with padding-left and padding-right defined. PL and PR are not inherited from the table by td, and inline style entry is cumbersome and bulky. Any suggestion? Reb40 (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've got no idea what you mean by "td" and "padding" is something that's in my chairs rather than my tables. For table layout I use {{Table style}} with its various parameters and copy/paste as required for similar lines. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For tables, definitely. Also a word of caution, as we are formatting for a multitude of screen displays, devices, etc. this is where the keep it simple methodology is important. You will find that we have many components within {{ts}} and most of these are pretty safe. As always it is the width issues that affect fixed and right margins that can be problematic. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Odd validations Edit

If you want to re-validate, that's fine, but you shouldn't have to. There were definite problems with BibleinMetre's job; I picked three at random and two had problems, one with four on a page. I asked at the noticeboard if there's a fast way to rollback what's left.

I saw ShakespeareFan's work with a mistake on the first page I looked at. I blocked so we could take the time we needed to look some more. I'm glad if he's not the same person, but maybe he imitated what he thought was a good idea.

Widux probably did the same thing on one of your books, but the pages were so small and the writing simple enough that he probably really did validate that fast. I didn't block him and six of the pages he did were fine.

Revalidate if you want to, but maybe you could wait for an answer on the first two; Billinghurst has questioned if ShakespeareFan was using a bot, so he's involved, so maybe you could check out a random sample and let him know more information.

Thanks for the info. ResScholar (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guidance please Edit

I was about to leave Beeswaxcandle a message anyway about this, but I can see the issue has already been opened:

(Obviously) it has come to my attention that something I have done has initiated/contributed to a furore involving at least three administrators. Other than this I am entirely in the dark. I would very much appreciate learning what it is that I have done (or have not done, but in hindsight ought to have...) which triggered this. I joined WikiSource hoping to be a low-profile contributor with as little publicity as possible; but this does not augur well.

What is this above about only "six of the pages he did were fine"? At last count I edited of the order of 600 pages, and now I find only 1% are acceptable! Am I in the wrong place and/or should withdraw from the project as a complete insulting waste of everybody's time? (Yes, I am angry; but at whom I have not yet established.) Widux (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(e/c)The "six pages" comment is simply that ResidentScholar took a random sample of your work and all of the six pages in that sample were fine. When we did the same thing with two other editors who had validated a large number of pages over a similar period there were several missed items such as typos, italics, dashes, &c. It is both of them that the furore is directed towards and not you. I have further reviewed your validations and as you are picking up my typical errors, we are more than happy with your work and don't want to lose you from the project. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't guarantee your user ID won't show up again in another security missive. ResScholar (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not ask that question. Don't be (even more) condescending.
On second thoughts, please don't even bother responding. The seeds of doubt have been planted in my mind, and upon reviewing the correspondence between yourself, Billinghurst, ResidentScholar and Hesperian I can only conclude there exists a trigger happy accuse-first administration active here. "ResScholar" certainly seems to need a leash when let out in public. No wonder the various wikis cannot hold on to new editors.
This will be my last edit; please consider my account composted and ready for recycling; as I will not be coming back. Widux (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proofreading Edit

delete Edit

You have new messages
Hello, Beeswaxcandle. You have new messages at Hanteng's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Hanteng (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Westminster Confession Edit

I think, if I'm reading your comment correctly, that the source file is fine, the printer just skipped two page numbers while keeping the correct text. Page 14 flows clearly into page 17. I found some other printer's numbering errors, but as far as I can tell, the source file is true to the original, and the entire text is there, it's just badly numbered by the printer. --Jfhutson (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found the discrepancy and then had to go out before I could investigate. I agree that this is the printer's numbering error rather than a scanning error (which are not uncommon) and I've adjusted the Index accordingly. Best, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you think template:marginNote might be a better way to handle the scripture references, to keep them close to the text? --Jfhutson (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a matter of prefence on how it will display in the Main: namespace. I have assumed that the work will be subpaged by chapter, but you may have other ideas. If it's going to be subpaged, then footnotes as we've been doing them are fine because the pages won't be long. However, if you're thinking of a single page, then we could explore sidenotes. I see my role here as helping you achieve the look you want rather than telling you what to do. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the chapters are too short to have a single page each. I tried adding template:LR sidenote to one of the pages, but the notes all ran into one another. Thanks for all your help by the way. --Jfhutson (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Let's look at the various possibilities as they show up in other works in the main space. That way you can see what's currently possible.

1. Short pages with footnotes; see Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume I/POLYCARP/Epistle to the Philippians and its chapter subpages. If we stay with this option, then the footnotes need tweaking to show where one reference has ended and the next starts. Maybe with ; between. I really noticed this as a problem when looking at the transclusion on your user page.

2. Sidenotes; see History of England (Froude)/Chapter 2. In this work I'm pushing all the notes to the left side of the pages by using {{left sidenote}} for left-hand pages and {{RL sidenote}} for right-hand pages. However, in the default layout (no. 1) sidenotes too close to each other don't look good (see page 134 for an example of this). Layout no. 2 with its narrower text width does a better job and Layout no. 3 isn't too bad either except for it putting a background behind the sidenotes. This over-emphasises them for me.

3. Margin notes; only been used in the Main: mainspace so far. As a result I'm not sure how it would work in the Page: namespace and then through to transclusion. See The History Of England From the Accession of James II/Chapter II for a straightforward usage and Bible (Authorized Version)/Prouerbs for a more complex implementation.

4. Marginal summary; only used at The Rime of the Ancient Mariner (1817). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for explaining all that. I think I'll do this, using <p> between references as in refs 1-3. I would prefer margin notes, and the whole thing together, but I can't come up with a solution for where a large number of notes causes the notes to severely lose sync with the text, and ideally we would revert to endnotes after each section as the document itself does. --Jfhutson (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I've just migrated the 1817 version of the Rime of the Ancient Mariner, having set up the index page for Sybilline Leaves, where it was taken from. I originally tried to stick with the Marginal Summary method for doing the side notes but it looked really bad on the individual pages, so I switched to Margin Notes, which seems much more controllable. I have kept the notes on the correct side for each page (i.e. alternating LHS / RHS). The only drawback is that when the pages are transcluded, the margin notes remain alternating left and right, which doesn't look too bad. If I'd used Sidenotes (which I personally think has some issues at the page level but works well when transcluded) the pages would have been left and right but the transclusion would be all on the left. Picked up this link from the 'What links here' feature.Chrisguise (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greek check request Edit

Would you mind double-checking this page for its Greek, and then I can validate it. At your leisure. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done no amendments required. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Edit

Beeswaxcandle, thank you for the award. I like these pictorial images more than the green stars and also I would not feel right without a "thank you" for the time and work you put into making these awards. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:Doctor Dolittle Edit

There wasn't much to correct and has now been  Y --kathleen wright5 (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protection needed on page Wazzup brother from being created Edit

Will you go protect the page Wazzup brother from being created by other users and it will be indefinite protection? Please go protect it from being created by other users, then respond below this message. Thanks! --Starship9000 (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given that this page has only been created by you (4 times) it doesn't need protecting from other users. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Author talk:Banjo Paterson Edit

Hi Beeswaxcandle.

I just took your name in vain here. As an aside, when you cleaned up after's edits, is there anything you can do to remove the "Warning: You are recreating a page that was previously deleted." tag on this page?

(No I do not wish to edit the page at this time; but am merely thinking ahead for the next person who does, and may be put off by the warning. I hope this makes sense. MODCHK (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC))Reply[reply]

The only way to hide the warning is to re-create the page with some valid content. However, the reason for deletion is also given (in tiny text albeit) and I would hope that the putative next person would read it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough. I was idly thinking it might be one of those "move-without-redirect" style operations where a page might be reset into a pristine state. Sorry―silly idea! MODCHK (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mediaeval Leicester: Guidance request Edit

I am looking to expand my very limited wikisource abilities (although I know my way around wikipedia), and was really pleased to see that a month ago someone added Mediaeval Leicester, a book I had been hoping to find here. When I looked at it, I could see a number of oddities and unresolved issues, which I would be happy to work on, so went to the editors page ... User talk:ShakespeareFan00 ... intending to open a discussion, and found a great load of stuff which explained why nothing had happened on it since. Taking a good faith standpoint that they would have been addressed if the blocks had not got in the way, I would welcome guidance on the best way to proceed, given that the book is marked as proofread. Should I just go ahead with tackling some of the issues (and note them on the index talk page?). The issues that I have spotted are:-

  • non-standard author field.
  • some prelim pages missing from prelim section.
  • some header fields (eg title, previous and next section) are not filled in in some sections.
  • no images.
  • The text still has its original line endings and punctuation querks such as " spaces " around quote marks.

If I were to have a go at tackling these, and then do a read-through of the text, should I then mark them as validated, or should this be seen as getting the book to an actual proofread stage? Any guidance (and perhaps casting an eye over the result) would be much appreciated. RobinLeicester (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Robin, thanks for dropping by. We all get excited when someone wants to help out on one of our works, so SFan00 won't mind at all. (We've just about got that situation sorted out.) Please fix anything you see and just note what you've done in the edit summary. There's no need to add notes to the index talk page. (We tend to keep that for formatting notes so that we get consistency across the work.) If, as part of this process, you are re-reading a "yellow" page then by all means mark it as validated. The only exception to this would be if you feel the changes you've made are so major that another pair of eyes would be good. Because you are new one of the RC patrollers (probably me) will have a squint at what you're doing. If there's anything we need to comment on, we'll drop you a note on your talk page. Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To "The Barefoot Kiwi" re:chapters and mainspace Edit

Beeswaxcandle, this book doesn't have a separate Chapters List. How do you go about creating one or is it just ignored? I thought all chapters were somehow placed in one list for a "mainspace" so workers can see what is and isn't done and make changes if needed -- before all squares are completed.Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan —Maury (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Maury, we use {{AuxTOC}} for this. See The Warden for a example use. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:A Treasury of South African Poetry.djvu Edit

FYI this has been moved to enWS from Commons where you uploaded it, and subsequently it was deleted due to its copyright status. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Index:The Boy Travellers in Australasia.djvu Edit


I saw your change to remove a binder's mark. Unfortunately I have been adding these all over this work, as I have a tendency to record anything I perceive as "original publisher's ink" in case it subsequently proves useful. Would you like me to go back and remove these binder marks, as obviously there are of the order of 26 of them (less any I had missed)?

In fact I have made a few "broad-brush policy" edits regarding this work which I fear may be controversial, and would appreciate your thoughts and recommendations:

  1. I was hoping there may have been alternate suggestions (obviously didn't occur), and
  2. I was reluctant to engage in a lot of effort just to make the index "look" worse than my current compromise of splitting the illustration index in two. (O.K. so I'm feckless.)
  • Also illustration-related, I have been modifying image sizes to fit an approximately a 400px line width. In general this has resulted in a narrowing of the image, which has resulted in such unsatisfactory situations (worst case I can think of) like this and the following page. I really would like to enlarge the image enough so that the labels referred to may be visible, but doing so would completely destroy the Page:-space view. At about 800-1000px (the image will take it) the image details are about comparable size with the text font, but I think you will agree this is near ludicrous?
  • The occasional images was published with text intermingled. I have (probably―you can say it) been mad enough to approximate the layout (once more, worst case example I can recall) with uncomfortable transclusion results like this (see transition to following page.) Upon reflection is probably worse, as the paragraph continues across the following page margin and is "cut" strangely as well. In short, am I just creating more problems for later on?

I know I am landing multiple issues on your plate here, so I don't expect magic answers. Any suggestions at all you may care to make will be appreciated (if I hear: "Give it up!" I shall simply assume Billinghurst has read this). MODCHK (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had thought when I started working on this book that I would go on to do some of the other volumes in the series, but it was so much effort that I've quailed from even thinking about another volume. The upshot of this is that I'm grateful that you're having a go at it. With respect to your specifics:

a) Binder's marks are an artefact of the printing process, which doesn't affect the way we present the work. We're not reproducing the page images, but making the text available. As a result I delete all binder's marks on sight.

b) When I first set these pages I wasn't familiar with tables or the {{tl:TOC begin}} templates, so just did them as dotted TOC page listing. And of course I never thought of providing page links. I think, in terms of the integrity of the work, splitting the Illustrations list into two pages is pushing the envelope a bit too far.

c) For the image widths I figure that if a reader wants to look at the image in more detail they can right-click on it to open it in a separate tab/window and then compare. So, I'm not concerned about your example.

d) I debated using over floats for the text entangled images and decided against it as the margins would be jumping around in mainspace, and for me the end result in mainspace dictates what we do in the Page: namespace. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your views. I haven't done this, but was also playing around with the idea of turning the "summary block" at the head of each chapter into (internal) links to the relevant page. Bad idea?
I am now clear regarding the binder marks; will stop putting them in and remove any old ones I find. On the (probably) specious argument I am more than half-way through I'll keep on with paring images down to a consistent standard overall size.
Per reassembling the illustration index into a single page: without some degree of care/simplification/privation I an nervous about reinstating the "Template include size is too large" warning. This issue at stake is not so much the warning itself, as the fact that in fact it is so unobtrusive that I only noticed it when trying to figure out why not all pages were being transcluded. It seems that <pages> misbehaved fairly sedately in this instance and the error state is fairly easy to miss. I'll give it a shot; but will probably have to ding you further for more advice if I run aground.
One last clarification regarding the "overfloated" image pages, please: mainspace margins jump around a lot for wide screen displays; rather less so for narrow ones. Is there either an envisioned target "ideal" screen width (400px would of course mean nothing need be done)? Alternatively, are you aware of a technique to release text flow to adopt all display width available in these situations. (As far as I know there is no generic way of flowing text around an arbitrary shape―particularly not one embedded in the centre of text. Am I wrong?) MODCHK (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a reader I've never wanted to be able to go to a specific point in a chapter from the summary block, but it's an intriguing idea and would probably add value. I'll ponder this overnight as it could be useful in The Divorce of Catherine of Aragon as well.

I'll have a proper look at the illustration pages tomorrow and see if I can tabulate them easily.

There is no generic way of flowing text around a shape that is device neutral. The original wikimedia software wasn't designed as a page layout tool, hence the plethora of templates that George complains of. For Mr. Punch's Book of Sports I set the portrait images at 400px and the landscapes at 500px. My eReader is 600x800 so I try not to go above 550. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just as a trial I've formatted (page 1, Chapter 1)'s summary block as proposed. Links from page:-space ought to lead back to page:space and main-" to main-" (unless I've made a mistake!) If you like the result I'll proceed.
Also, after a bit of fumbling to find the reference I finally (re-)found Ineuw's technique for stitching/tiling images which "solves" left-and-right flush images with odd text flow (see page 2.) Unfortunately I saved the image as grey-scale when I split it, so it doesn't match the sepia-tone image theme you had going previously. Another to-do. Also this technique does not (as far as I can tell) address the issue of text flow either side of a centralised image. Need to think more on that.
Landscapes at 500px seems a good idea; I think most of the landscapes in this work had originally been sized at 600px. I don't own, and have never even tried an eReader other than browser emulation in anger. Is there an unusable margin around images? i.e. why the 550 limit if the device as you say can render 600x800? Navigation area?
Thank you very much for spending brain-cells on this. I did not intend to so monopolise your time; and am grateful for your comments/hints. MODCHK (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think for the chapter summaries to be fully effective each item would have to be linked separately. I'm also not sure that the chapters are long enough to warrant this. I wonder though if it would work to do this linking from the TOC pages.

The only reason for the "sepia" was that I was learning how to use IrfanView to clean up images, so I'm not too worried there. I do note though that the caption has disappeared.

The effective area for the eReader is 584x754. However, having been a desk-top publisher in the past, white space is an important design element and I do like to see some around images as it then feels like there is a context. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding chapter summaries: I agree regarding separate linking if linking is provided. However, as you point out the chapters don't really justify this, and the "density" of cross-reference is quite variable (sometimes 5 references per page, others one reference per 5 pages.) Also, no sense in making the TOC even more complicated (visually similar, but separate encoding.) On balance I shall take this out.
Losing the caption was a complete oversight. I "had a feeling" I had missed something; but what that 'thing was had slipped my attention entirely. Hope retrofit is acceptable, as centring within a width-forced div with right margin is not something I have ever tried before. Phew.
Thanks for clarifications regarding sepia toning and image size. Good to know. MODCHK (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I attempted to just simplify the template calls to {{TOC link}} but after doing it to the first three pages and finding that it made no difference to the warning, I decided to give in and convert to a table with TOC links. I thought of using {{TOC 1-dot-1}} but discovered that this used {{dotted TOC page listing}} anyway, so ... Once I realised that I could copy the pages into Word and do find and replace there it wasn't too bad. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A very belated thank-you for this! MODCHK (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problematic: Page:The Boy Travellers in Australasia.djvu/401 Edit

In a bad case of being much too clever for myself (i.e. functionally dumb) I appear to have messed up the above page and accordingly have demoted it to "problematic" while I think about how to best repair the damage. Somehow I appear to have "stretched" the lower three image elements so that they no longer align with the upper set. Graphics do not like me at the best of times; and unless inspiration hits as to what I have done wrong in the next couple of days I might just have to swallow my pride and regenerate the images set for this page.

If you get a chance to have a quick peruse and/or offer advice I would be grateful; however please don't take this as pressure to fix up my errors as I have taken far too much of your time already. Regards, MODCHK (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please ignore the above. I re-diced and re-loaded the image "slices" into Commons and now all is well again with this page. MODCHK (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wb Edit

Nice. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Play/poem formatting suggestion request Edit

Knocking on your door to see if you had any suggestions about how to format this play/poem: how best to indent & keep lines inline, etc.... {{left margin}}?, {{shift left}}?, etc.? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just found {{playscript}} so have had a go at that. It over-rules block centre but that can be dealt with in the transclusion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Playing with the formatting a bit on first two pages; still not quite lining up, but I'll keep trying as I have time. Feel free (anyone) to tweak. I have the pages transcluded in a sandbox for rendering. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I get it; slowly but surely... Criticism welcomed. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

prob. Edit

Beeswaxcandle, I am at my wits end and beg your help. Would you _please_ set up all that is needed of my book, [Six Months In Mexico]. I uploaded it yesterday but I know I don't have things inside "Index" correct. I am exasperated and frustrated with trying and I just feel very depressed now. I would love to edit that book, pages of text and images, if it were only set up proper. —Maury (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I set up the pages, and added some info to the Index. The source at Archive says 1888, but the title page states 1889. I also found other references online for an 1890 edition. I may have overlooked some things, so BWC, feel free to check/tweak my changes as necessary. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May God always watch over you and your loved ones, Londonjackbooks. I have been awake far too long and at my wits end with what you have fixed for me and apparently easily. Bless you and all like you. Nobody has any idea of how depressed I have been feeling over this book. Author Nellie Bly will be completed with her 3rd book after this book is done. The other two that you did and added speech files also pushed at me to do this book. Nellie was quite a character, an amazing character and especially for a lady in that time period when men dominated most everything. I can never thank you enough. —Maury (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to work with some black and white images, you can look over at Hathi Trust. Might be easier than removing color from your yellowed images. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am aware of HathiTrust and I would use them except I believe all images are already on WikiCommons. This project should have been exceptionally easy with all images uploaded to Commons and text in proper places. Presently while I can see text page and image page when I go to edit (proofread), the image turns solid black. I have never see that until this short book. I am using the same file on my hard drive in Adobe Acrobat 11 so I can see how the text should be while the image page remains solid black. It only turns black when I start to edit. Not all work this way. I think page 19, showing an image, will turn black. I thank you for all you have done. You are a kind person. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The index looks fine to me. Thanks LJB for picking this up. Maury, I've taken out the 800 scan resolution. The original file is 662x1045, so you were asking for the server to do the calculations to make the page images bigger. Even with this I'm finding that the pages are downloading very slowly. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you both. Beeswaxcandle, that 800 scan resolution is the first time I ever inserted any scan resolution and I did so 1. I have seen it in other works and 2. I was blundering about trying to get all of the scans to show by any method. This book by "Nellie Bly" is all over Internet and on for sale. I sometimes like to make those books for sale as books for free on en.WS She was an amazing woman--reminds me of "Little Sure Shot" Annie Oakley, another amazing woman. I took a class at the university to learn about women in American Lit. but that class was only a feminist class. The dean covered my asp before I even joined that class that was due to be ousted for not following what was to be taught and he warned me before I joined. I once got straight A on papers I wrote but the female instructor gave me a D and then I was to take my paper to the dean and he graded me a B+. Then I was to take it to the same female instructor and that D became a B+ and that was her last class at the university. Many people, male and female, had complained about her before I ever arrived. I was determined to remain and was the only male in the class. I was also a target but that did not phase me. What did not happen is that I never got what could have been a great class, "Images of Women in American Literature". I got the final grade of B+ but not that proper education I seriously wanted from that class title. I already knew about "Games People Play". I was used to those. Anyhow... thank you both. You both are good people. Respects, —Maury (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Validations of TWP Edit

Just a thanks for the validation you have done here and there on Treasury of War Poetry. Aside from Coates' works, I think my favorite contribution has been that work. Have a good one, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jan H.Hoowij Edit

I would like the entry of Jan H.Hoowij to begin with Jan H.Hoowij and not Jan h.hoowij as was previously indicated is that possible ?

Yes, it's possible to move the page to the appropriate spelling. However, this part of the project is in English. You need to put this article on to the Dutch Wikipedia. Let me know when it's done and I'll delete the page here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright Edit

I would like to ask your opinion on a copyright question which came up about the text of the opera Cox and Box: Savoy edition. The original text is itself PD in the US and most other countries, as the librettist died in 1917 and the composer in 1900. However, the Savoy version was created in 1921. What copyright covers the text now? Sincerely, Clockery (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It depends on who made the abridgement. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't know that. I'll check. Thanks! Also, thank you for adding Box and Cox. I'd wanted to do that for a long time, but was too lazy to.:) Clockery talk contribs 06:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like Harry Norris made the cuts; however, he died in 1979. Doesn't that mean that the edition is public domain in the US, but not in its home country? So should the work be deleted, or a copyright notice put?Clockery (talk·contribs) 07:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice to see he's a NZer!! However, yes it's PD in the US, but not in NZ or UK. Our policies let us host the scans, but Commons doesn't. The scan needs to be moved to here from Commons. Ask Billinghurst for help with that as he's able to look after the Commons side of things for us (and won't call the file something different and cause a "Ruddigore" mess). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I hadn't uploaded the file to Commons. So should I upload it here instead? Clockery (talk·contribs) 08:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. - And what's more, I took it from this website. Even though I've been able to check that it's the Savoy edition, would it be under copyright? Clockery (talk·contribs) 08:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I got confused between the full version that you have uploaded and the Savoy edition. There's not a lot of point in uploading that pdf as it's a modernised reprint from somewhere else not specified. I guess we'll just have to wait until a 1920's printed copy of the Savoy edition turns up. I don't have one in my collection, so I wonder if it was ever released (as a vocal score at least). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All right. Thanks for your advice! And so shouldn't that version be deleted? Clockery (talk·contribs) 09:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ronat_p0183.pdf is temp file Edit

Beeswaxcandle, Re: [1] From what GO3 said on his talk page ("Let me know if/when I can delete the temp file File:Ronat_p0183.pdf"), I believe File:Ronat p0183.pdf was intended to be a temp file, which is why I updated File:TheRomanceOfNature 0183.jpg to the correct flower. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I thought it was still the old image. I cleared the cache a couple of times and it was still showing. Please feel free to revert my edit. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
George beat me to it :) Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Issue that arose at Wikisource earlier Edit

(reposting here for reference, as I appear to now be able to). Per the discussion at Wikisource, you placed a block on Sfan00_IMG at English Wikisource. That is not in contention.

However, having used Sfan00_IMG at English Wikipedia earlier (for image related matters),I looged out and logged back in again as ShakespeareFan00 and used the link from the English Wikipedia to transfer over to Wikisource, to check on something. I'd found a possible glitch and was wanting to check if something could be implemented as a fix, only to find that "You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: "Your IP address has been automatically blocked because it was used by another user, who was blocked by Beeswaxcandle. The reason given is:

  Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Sfan00 IMG". 

The reason given for Sfan00 IMG's block is "User request; multiple account confusion"

   Start of block: 19:32, 13 April 2013
   Expiry of block: 19:32, 14 April 2013
   Intended blockee: 

You may contact Beeswaxcandle or one of the other administrators to discuss the block.

Note that you may not use the "email this user" feature unless you have a valid email address registered in your user preferences and you have not been blocked from using it.

Your current IP address is ###.###.###.###, and the block ID is #####. Please include all above details in any queries you make."

I'd switched accounts BECAUSE we'd agreed Sfan00_IMG was an alternate (and thus blocked at Wikisource).

I would appreciate it if you could contact me about this as soon as possible, because whilst Mediawiki is working as designed, it's a demotivater to get an autoblock, apparently for playing by the rules. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Medieval Leicester transclusions Edit

In checking back over Mediaeval_Leicester/Chapter_14 I've noted something might have glitched the tables. I tried inserting a {{nop}} but that did not seem to be the issue. I'd rather not break it further, so would appreciate your examination of possible causes. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed it. On page /269 the {{TOC end}} was in the body rather than the footer. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's still not quite right ;) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you be a little more precise? What's not right? And which section of the text are you meaning? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resolved for now I think - I went through adding {{nop}} liberally at the start and ends of pages, That sovled it ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page:The Warden.djvu/77 - nops both inside and outside of sections? Edit


The above page has a construction of your making which I do not entirely understand, and I'd appreciate your comments before I proceed with validating it. The final lines amount to:

without a look of love or a word of kindness.

―i.e. a trailing {{nop}} both within and without section "s2". I agree fully with the first one when transcluded into Chapter 7, but in which case shouldn't there be an equivalent {{nop}} inserted into section "s1", which currently reads simply:

leaving her lover in anything but a happy state of mind.

? (I realise that being at the end of Chapter 6 this might be considered cosmetic/optional, but I'd appreciate your thoughts.)

In any case, unless I have missed something, I cannot see any benefit arising from the terminal {{nop}} outside of any sectional control. Please enlighten me.

Regards, MODCHK (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah. My best guess is that when I was doing /78 I used the "Previous page nop" gadget and because the section marker was there it didn't recognise the nop before the section marker and added another one. Please dispose of it (and any others like it). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I did think perhaps you had been proactive in keeping that gadget happy―never occurred to me it might have been the result of using it. D'oh™! MODCHK (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Journal" Quotations Edit

On at least two pages of The Warden (i.e. 71/79, 140/148, 152/160, 153/161―there may well be others I haven't encountered yet), there is a peculiar construction of opening single quotation marks preceding each line to indicate a direct quotation from the fictional "Jupiter." Despite my best efforts I have been unable to reproduce the effect and have in fact given up in defeat. However, do you think the affected sections should be set off as distinct from the surrounding story (use of <blockquote>s perhaps)?

May I have your thoughts, please? MODCHK (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've come across this printer's trick in works of this age before and have not even tried to replicate the quotation marks. I had thought of using blockquote, but can never remember the name of the tag at the right time. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. This form of presentation is indeed a new one to me. I have hit upon a compromise which I hope you find acceptable (I have finished the validation; but will not mark the work as "Done" in case you recoil.) I have marked the quoted blocks with a dashed left margin line (sort-of symbolic of the row of quotation marks?)
I shall be happy to remove this mark-up if you disagree with the appearance.
Regards, MODCHK (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, I'm not convinced. It looks odd in the mainspace (e.g. The Warden/Chapter 7). I think it would be better to either pull in the margins with blockquote or leave it without indication. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
O.K./fair enough. Done (opted for no indication.) MODCHK (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick question Edit

Hey! Thanks for welcoming me, and for fixing my mistakes at Page:A Treasury of South African Poetry.djvu/55... I read Help:Poetry but apparently didn't pay enough attention to the part about avoiding <poem> tags. Just wondering, though... I notice that the indents are now 2 ems, not 1 em. Is there a reason for this? To me it looked like 1 em in the scan. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 06:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't consider anything you did to be "mistakes", it's more around what the final transclusion into the Mainspace pages will look like. WRT to 1em vs 2em: Our poetry expert (Londonjackbooks) has been pondering this very question recently, but at the moment we've stuck with just using {{gap}} as it's become a de facto standard for indenting poetry. Then, if the decision is made to amend the standard gap for poetry we can use a bot to find the uses of <br /> followed by {{gap}}. The default size of the gap template is 2em. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah okay. If you don't mind indulging my curiosity, why couldn't one just use {{gap|1em}}? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 06:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One could. I'm lazy and have set up an edit-button in my js that inserts the template for me and I end up using it in other places as well, so have left it as the default and only modify the width if I need a bigger gap (such as the poem on page /53 that you first had a go at). Also, we're interested in consistency across a work more than a precise replication of a particular page. So, if some editors use 2em and others 1em, at some point one of them's got to be changed. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. :) Makes sense. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 07:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indentation Edit

Re: [2]: It is a separate section of the poem, but if you look at other versions of the poem online, the printing of the first stanza is consistent with the remaining stanzas (even though other versions have indentation). Which is why I think there should be no indentation at all in this case (even the 1em for the sake of the drop initial). I understand your use of the 1em throughout your validations, but I don't necessarily agree with the practice, although I am not so concerned that I would choose to revert them all—or ask you to. I am not so bold. I am grateful for the validations. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, I debated with myself about the indentation on that one, and decided that because the third line had been indented that we should follow. With respect to the 1em adjustments, they're mostly to prevent line wrap. I find that block center has some odd behaviour at times. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good to go, Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page missing from Natural History, Birds Edit

It looks like pages 161-162 are missing from Index:Natural History, Birds.djvu. EricSerge (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bother!! I'm working on a replacment copy right now. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I prefer a replacement book. —Maury (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All fixed now. This copy has better images and sharper text as well. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply from smiller385 Edit

Dear Beez (if I may be so forward), thanks for the prompt greeting after my first foray into editing Wikisource. Newcomer is right—I don't even know how to edit my own talk page to reply to you. Any tips for the newbie? Many thanks! unsigned comment by smiller385 (talk) .

Category:TOC templates Edit

Re this edit, we have a stack of TOCs already. If none of those are what you need, is it worthwhile converting your needs to a separate template and adding them to the list. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concerning Score Extension (1) Edit

User:ShakespeareFan00/scoretesting Notes play in generated MIDI file but not in generated OGG file.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shrug. No idea. Sound generation hasn't been my focus for the Grove's Dictionary, so am yet to bother playing. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concerning Score Extension (2) Edit

How do you do the equivalent of Mediawiki templates inside Score extension tags. I'm asking because it would be rather useful to be able to have 'templated' setup's for some complex staff setups..?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you mean these? I should also point out that the extension is not coping with short clips of moderate complexity or with longer clips with only minor or no complexity (another reason for not adding the lyrics in the middle of the hymns). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
amomgst others ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Index:The Army and Navy Hymnal.djvu Edit

I would appreciate a second or even third pair of eyes on this, little tiny mistakes keep coming out of the woodwork :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talkback Edit

I have a question for you on my talk page. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A second pair of eyes would be appreciated as this gets put into the templated entries form. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New messages Edit


In case you're interested.. Edit

Noticed that the "Grove Encyc" is one of your interests....this is the type of thing I'm doing...(a very minimal one) with the intent of getting the wikisource references consistently /in/ the WP articles, at least. Too many are something like a "EB1911" stub when there is lots of other info, and the 'stub creators' over there strip out the cites... The Grove Encyc, for instance, is cited a LOT in the DNB, but that doesn't seem to translate to people 'finding' the sources. Revent (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's taken me nearly 4 years to get this far with volume one of Grove and we still don't have mainspace pages yet. One of the later tasks on the Project is to do the linkages between DMM and DNB in both directions. I'm close to getting A to H into the mainspace and, if you're interested, add yourself to the project participants list to begin the linkage work when the pages are up. It's the best place for a reminder as things on here leave my memory fairly quickly. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will do..yeah, I'm not really a 'writer' type, as far actually generating copy myself, but I have an interest in bibliographic research. My 'goals' with this are basically to get the 'citations' into the articles, in a somewhat methodical manner, and dig up the cites and 'virtual copies' for the deeper back references. Revent (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* I'll have to learn about how the wikisource part (i.e. links) works, but yeah, a side effect of this will be (eventually) a giant indexed list of everywhere these things cite each other....I'm working on the DNB right now, so I'll end up with a list of everywhere it cites grove (a looooot). Revent (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BWC, how do you want to do Grove's? Collections of articles as ThomasV discussed, or do you wish to go one article per page? We can probably look to push some of this stuff through. It might even be bot'able. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've already started (with Mpaa's help) transcluding à la ThomasV. See A Dictionary of Music and Musicians/A for the the first of the pages. What I haven't worked out is how to combine lists from two volumes. So, for the time being there's A Dictionary of Music and Musicians/Appendix. But even with this there will still be a problem at I, P & S with these letters being split across volumes. The S is the worst as there's an article split between vol 3 and 4. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sea-mail Edit


You wrote to me in email. Please see my reply to you in your email.

God Bless,


Can I interest you in some Greek squiggles? Edit

If you could be so kind to have a poke at Page:Aphorisms — an address delivered before the Edinburgh Philosophical Institution, November 11, 1887.djvu/44 it would be fantastic. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Dictionary of Music and Musicians/A Edit

Hi. Nice way of presenting info. I noticed that "Abbé, Philippe & Pierre" does not load. Is it the same for you? If so maybe "&" bothers the script? Did not dare to try to fix it.--Mpaa (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that. Yes, I'm finding that not all characters are liked by the DL method. To fix it we've got to change the section names in the Page: namespace as well as in the mainspace. I think that this is a method we could well use for other works where there are lots of short articles that may not warrant pages of their own. frWS developed it and this is our first usage. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree.--Mpaa (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have found that this style doesn't work well (well at all for the detail layers) in EPUB export. We will need to see what frWS has done to circumvent this matter. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May PotM and bits Edit

From a quick look at the PotM, we are going to have a variety of edit formatting through May's. We don't seem to have much in the way of direction at the corresponding 'Index talk:' page, and may be something that we may wish to consider when we have the work as part of a series.. One example of a freehand style is this edit, which isn't wrong, just going to be different so we may wish to plan some bot time.

I will admit that I rarely change size in center blocks any more as {{smaller}} is too small for me, so I just rely on the centring to distinguish, and with things like journal inserts I find that it is easier to rely on <blockquote>. We have tended to not use {{fine block}}, which is interesting, and may be something that we consider for style guide. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last five pages Edit

May I finish this off?
Sincerely, Clockery Fairfield (talk·contribs) 09:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Clockery Fairfield (talk·contribs) 10:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing Letters Edit

Please help! I am editing the letters of Jonathan Swift. I've read through several Help sections here, and find conflicting styles. I've seen a direction to edit the pages so they are exactly as they appear. I assume that means that if there is an error in the original, I should keep the error, and mark it with {{SIC}}. However, I've reviewed a couple of other works here (such as Austen's Pride and Prejudice), and find that they are not exactly as they are on the page. Each line is not limited to its appearance on the page; instead, the lines tend to run to the end of the line in the Wikisource screen. Also, the entries are divided by chapters, not pages; thus, many pages can be found within a single chapter.

So, I'm editing the letters. Since reading your previous comments, and thinking a bit, I've decided to skip the table of contents for now, and I've moved to the letters. There are screen-prints of each page. I have learned how to create the page, and how to do some simple coding, such as the Running Header. The first letter is running through several pages. I'm thinking that it makes much more sense to organize this by letter than by page, and to run the lines together. That would mean that I should not worry about adding the Running Headers that contain the name of the work and the page numbers. What do you think? If you agree, I need to learn how to combine pages, and how to split pages into two or more parts where there are parts of letters on a single page. Can you point me to those directions?

Thank you again so much for your help!

Susan Susanarb (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Susan, sorry for delay in response, but we're in different time zones. There are several questions here. 1) yes, keep typographical errors as they are and mark them with {{SIC}}; 2) beacuse this is a different medium than the printed page we're not restricted by line length and so we run the lines in a single paragraph together; 3) Running headers only appear in the Page: namespace and so they should appear at the top of each page in the Header field; 4) see the second section of Help:Transclusion for guidance on sectioning pages. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem; I guessed that you don't live next door! Thank you for your link to the Transclusion page! Susanarb (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re-validating Edit

I've been working on the pages, and thought I had mistakenly validated a page:,_Volume_13.djvu/5&action=edit. Now that I understand a lot more about formatting, I thought I'd revisit this page. Before looking at it, I changed the page status back to Proofread. Then I noticed that the page was much more complicated that I had left it. Someone else had fixed it for me! Unfortunately, I cannot now re-validate the page because the green button does not appear. Can you please fix it (again)?

Thank you! Susanarb (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]