User talk:Beeswaxcandle/Archive4

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Beeswaxcandle in topic Stumped

aspect Q Edit

Most of the time, when I load this page, the text appears centralized, but other times it is formatted all on the left. How does it appear to you? (How is it supposed to appear?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's all on the left for me (and in a san-serif font) because I have Layout 1 by default. If you see it centered in a serif font, then you're seeing it with Layout 2. The layout you're presented with is based on the last one you had. See the discussion at WS:S#Fixed page width. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most interesting, thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Publisher of Divorce of Catherine of Aragon Edit

Why does the publisher and city of publication listed at Index:Divorce of Catherine of Aragon.djvu not match the title page? ResScholar (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hadn't noticed I'd done that. The main series which this is a supplement to is the London edition, and I think I just copied that stuff across when I uploaded to Commons. I've fixed it in both places. Thanks for picking it up. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POTM on Main Page needs updating Edit

POTM on the Main Page needs updating as it's now December and the Index:Association Football and How to Play It (1908) by John Cameron.djvu has not been Proofread. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I already know how to play football - including in the snow. :0) —Maury (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Combining Works Edit

Another question (it's been a while, and I've left you in peace for far too long): I going back through the Swift volumes to add links to the various works mentioned (not all of which have been transcluded or proofread yet) and Wikipedia articles. Some of the references in the history of Swift in Volume 1 are to letters which are quoted, but have very few other hints as to which letter is meant. Other letters are identified by the send or recipient, and sometimes by date, but that can still leave multiple letters to review before finding the correct letter. Because I have a quote, I can easily search each letter to identify the right one, but there hundreds of letters already done, and many more still to be done. I'd like to create a temporary work which combines all of the letters in a volume, such as volume 13, into one large work. This would definitely make searching for the right letter much quicker. Is there a process for creating such temporary compliations? I have great hopes. Susan Susanarb (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Susan, the best way to create temporary pages is in your user space. Then you can try things out and see if they work, &c. A standard naming is User:Susanarb/Sandbox. You can replace the "Sandbox" part with anything that's meaningful to you. I've got a series of these currently called Sandbox1 through to Sandbox5, that I use to try things out in. When I've done with them, I just overwrite with the next thing I need to play with. I've got a couple of others that are intended to be a little more permanent, so I've use more meaningful names such as /Works & /End of page notes. If you just want to use sandbox then click on the redlink in this paragraph and create it. Once you've created it then transclude the whole volume into that page (or at least the pages of interest). Don't worry about the section markers as you don't want those. So from=13 to=484 for Vol. 13 should do it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, especially for creating that link for me. I have seen the Sandbox in various places, but I wasn't sure how to make one for myself, and I did want to be able to leave the info there for a while, so I couldn't use a shared sandbox. This will be perfect. Susan Susanarb (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mexico of the Mexicans Edit

Beeswaxcandle, in this book that I recently started, Mexico of the Mexicans, there are side notes that I have seen when validating one or more of your books. Therefore you obviously know how to handle these things but I don't. I have done some of them but differently by placing [Them within brackets] at the beginning of the text. I think that either way they can be transcluded. Would you tale a look, please, and let me know what to do with the situation. I like the book a lot but these sidenotes are very annoying as I don't know what to do with them which is why I am doing different. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beez, how much longer will this take? —Maury (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nevermind. —Maury (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, Maury, it's been a busy weekend with visitors. I would do them as sidenotes per the example on Page:Essentials in Conducting.djvu/22. Then have a look at Essentials in Conducting/Chapter 2 to see how they transclude. Toggle through the three layouts to see how they look. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Beeswaxcandle, I got frustrated and had decided to quit the book when I posted "Nevermind". I looked at both examples you have shown. The first is text running over the image beside it -- that gremlin people have been complaining about that looks so messy. Is it ever going to be fixed?

The transcluded portion shows me how easy it is to use sidenotes although the book does not use them as sidenotes so it would be a modification and I have already started on my own version of a modification.

If any person were to print out your book or make any kind of file from the transcluded portion then I don't believe it would produce any printable work or file format worth having because of those sidenotes. Therefore transcluded or not that book is of no value in my eyes other than reading the transclusion portion online. I hope all is well in your life and thank you for your reply. Oh! your showing an example is far better than all of the "help" pages I looked at on WS:HELP which was of no help. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beezwaxcandle, I bring this back to you just in case you too may need it for yourself or for helping others someday. This is how to handle that problem with the book.

Viewer 2 is correct as shown by his example. He made a TEMPLATE he calls "insert header". Look at this page including the edit page where it is used Page:Mexico of the Mexicans.djvu/30 —Maury (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks competent Edit

Have a look-see at User:Brettz9/testing/TheGreatestName and it looks as though we have someone competent. I have pointed out Grove's DMM, though you may have better idea where we could have someone feel valued in the work around the site. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer/en-gb Edit

Hello, can you tell me what the purpose and use of this page was? It seems identical to MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer and doesn't seem to show on anyone's contributions that I know of that the latter doesn't cover already. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's needed for those of us who have changed the Language settings to British English. When I did this, the footer disappeared and it took me a while to work out what had happened. Fixing it came out of conversation at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2013-11#Reader boost due to Wikipedia's Twitter account. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the response! I've got a request for MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer though, that you can also change on the en-gb langcode. Can you modify any urls to change from "//" to "{{fullurl:tools:...}}" and add either "[[:meta:Special:CentralAuth/$1|CentralAuth]] /" or "[[Special:CentralAuth/$1|CentralAuth]] /" before [//{{urlencode:$1}}&showblocks=1&showlocked=1 SUL accounts]
The rest of each url after should replace the ellipsis and enclosed in the fullurl brackets; the fullurl will speed up queries for me and the tools-colon link will hopefully re-point to the wmflabs cluster when they change the MediaWiki address. The change to add CentralAuth is because I want to look at a person's overall contribs and sometimes it's faster than vvv's SUL, I've also left you or the community the option to decide on using Meta's centralauth or the local centralauth depending on how you view Meta. If any of these is too controversial, please tell me, and I'll respectfully gather more opinions on the administrators' noticeboard. :-) Thanks again, TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My timezone is currently UTC+13, so am only just finding time to be back online properly. I see you've been having a conversation with George about this (and other things), which is where I would have had asked you to head anyway. My technical knowledge is too old to be anything than limited to copy/pasting things that I can understand sufficiently. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah but something is still not quite right. Since you have the /gb "oddity" can you please check all 6 links at the bottom of my contributions page (since I have spaces in my nick) and tell me which ones work and which ones do not. tia. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In order: User's pages—works; User rights—works; WikiSense—403; CentralAuth—works; SUL accounts—404; Global contribs—Not found; Edit Counter—works. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please check them again... I don't believe {{fullurl:tools... will work since the page where that banner is displayed at the bottom is really a subpage of the on-the-fly Special: namespace -- I changed those back to "//" as before.

Hopefully, they all work now (p.s. - the WikiSense url creation works but has some sort of coding error on their side; not ours). Thanks again. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They all work now. (All don't give something useful, but that's beside the point.) Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are above my needs as well (as long as they all work now I can totally forget about 'em). Thanks for pitching in at any rate. I'll wait for the original poster to discover something is amiss on my Talk page I guess. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December POTM award may not have been deserved Edit

Thanks for awarding me, but in all honesty I don't remember working on this project, unless someone used my identity :-). Just to be sure, I rushed to add the missing paragraph decorations. Wishing you nice holidays and a happy new year.— Ineuw talk 18:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Works of Shortland Edit

Not sure whether you have stumbled over the works of Shortland [1] before, however, of these three, the Maori religion and mythology, looks like a good (shorter) January work. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images as Placeholders Edit

Hello, and Happy New Year!

I'm still working on Swift, but now I'm sometimes dipping into Mark Twain (just because he is so funny!). Someone had already done one of the pages: Page:Sketches by Mark Twain.djvu/291. That person had marked it as problematic, and I assume that it was because there is an image at the bottom of the page. I just finished another of the short stories, and it ends with the same image at the bottom of the last page: Page:Sketches by Mark Twain.djvu/63. The image has nothing to do with the story -- I believe that the image is doing nothing but filling space so the end of the page isn't empty.Here's the complete short story that I just finished, with the image at the bottom: Sketches by Mark Twain/Experience of the McWilliamses with Membranous Croup. I think it detracts from the story. Thus, I'm now thinking that the image should go in the footer instead of in the body. What do you think?

Thank you again for helping! Susan Susanarb (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are two schools of thought here. 1. The text is all that's important; 2. The book should be replicated in most of its nuances. At present the second point of view is dominant, so many publisher's artefacts are being reproduced. When I've left such out, other editors are "correcting" the pages, so I've given in for the time being. In other words, leave the terminators in. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, but I'm not happy about it. I tend to want to read what the author wrote, not what some publisher thought was a cute addition. But I will follow the current policy. :-)
Thank you again! Susan Susanarb (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologize for butting in. I've taken it upon myself and uploaded a black & white version. I hope it helps somewhat.— Ineuw talk 23:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Index:The Ethics of Urban Leaseholds.djvu Edit

I'm not proofreading this as I've done quite a few recently.

Any chance of setting up a semi-rolling script based on Hespiran's indcies? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've got several more pamphlets ready to go when we've dealt with the few that are outstanding. Also, I don't have the space at the moment to do the necessary management of completed files in and out. My time is limited to a few hours in the evening. (I should have gone to bed an hour ago.) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why the change from a DIV based approach that was working, to the sidenotes problem that was elsewhere noted as problematic?

The DIV based approach of {{sn-paragraph}} was working as designed, and when transcluded was nicely laid out.

The conversion back to sidenotes on some pages means the layout on the transcluded version is now inconsistent :(

Not happy. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by a "DIV based approach". I just found pages in which a template developed for legislation was inconsistently used. There are too many parameters in it for a simple use and I elected to swap to something I have used before.

When I look at the mainspace now, I'm not happy either. I should have used the old sidenote templates instead of the outside ones. They are still behaving (see History of England (Froude)/Chapter 27 for an example) through all three Layouts. Outside only seems to behave with Layout 2. I'll go back through tomorrow and swap them over. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The current generation of sidenote templates use an HTML span, {{sn-paragraph}} use nested HTML DIV's which are styled

independently. But as you say, you need something you can actually understand.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also - Page:The organisation of the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers explained.djvu/24 , here the table matched what was in the page... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I validate I scan the page for layout issues, but then I work in the edit box. Your multiplicity of table templates with various arcane parameters meant that it was unreadable to me and I elected to reset the table. I also knew that whatever I did I would need to copy and then modify it for the one on page /30, so I had to understand it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, So {{td}} was not understandable despite them being the same codes as {{ts}}? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I noted it wasn't documented. I'll look into this further.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Sn-paragraph/sandbox Edit

Logic check requested. This is my approach to doing sidenotes (using DIV's vs spans), I've added a noclip param to handle the issue of a page where there are no sidenotes on the original page, but where the margin alteration should occur on the transcluded versions.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I said above, I can't help you with this. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

nop Edit

Beeswaxcandle, I placed nop at the very bottom -- in the "footer". Isn't that okay? I need to know. I have seen many people do that when validating pages. You added another nop a short while ago on that page. —Maury (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Maury, an end of page nop to show a paragraph break needs to be in the "body". Anything in the footer (or header) doesn't come through to the Mainspace. The only situation I can think of to put a nop in the footer is when a table is continued over a page break. Have fun, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I will place them in the body from now on. However, when I am validating I often see a lot of material in the footer from nop, to page number, <reference />, {{smallrefs}}, {{fine block/e}} <-- and often I see the start of things in the Header such as {{fine block/s}} --> and so on. I will put nop in the body as you say. Kindest regards and God Bless. —Maury (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

footer Edit

Beeswaxcandle, moments ago you allowed {{references to remain in a footer. Is that okay? I thought it had to be references /> or smallrefs}}. God Bless, —Maury (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{references}} = <references />, so it's the same thing. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Intersting. It is the first time I have seen it used like that. Wait, not "tlreferences". Just {{references}} Blessings heaped upon ya! BTW, do you know about (history and literature) John Cassell and his publishing house? —Maury (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to source and license a text? Edit

Hi Beeswaxcandle, you just added a "no source" and a "no license" template to Fire Air Water. Actually, the poem was written in Bengali by Jibanananda Das around 1930. And the English translation I uploaded here was translated by myself. I previously share it on my facebook wall, my blog: and Anyway, how should I source or license it? - Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please check out our translations policy and our inclusion policy as a starting off point.

For the source, where can I see the original text as published? Put that on the talk page in the {{textinfo}} template. Where can I see the published translation? Personal blogs are not acceptable sources here. Has the Bengali original been put on the Bengali wikisource? If so, then we could accept your translation as a Wikisource translation in the Translation: namespace.

With respect to the license, is the original poem in the Public Domain under the copyright laws of India/Bangladesh (I'm not sure which country is relevant here) and of the USA? If so and you're prepared to release your translation under a compatible license (e.g. CC-by-SA 3.0), then we can host your translation, again in the Translation: namespace.

I know that this is quite a bit of information to take in and consider, but it's important that we get things right at the beginning and not run into problems down the track. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the newest award. It's a beauty! Edit

Beeswaxcandle, Thank you for the newest award. It's a beauty! —Maury (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ANCL vol. 1 Edit

Wanted to thank you for the work you put into ANCL vol. 1. I'm really pleased with how it came together, and how quickly it came together for a work that isn't POTM. I'm going to be doubling down on some other projects in the near future but I'm looking forward to collaborating on subsequent volumes some day. Prosody (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The thanks is due to you for coming in and validating—particularly those messy pages with the longer and shorter recensions side by side. I'm planning to work through the rest of the volumes, but need to pause a little before starting on Vol. 2 (Justin Martyr and Athenagoras) as I've got too many projects on the go at once. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BOOK: "on to Pekin" Edit

Beez, look at the watchlist on notes I've made. This book scan turns the letters l i into an "h" often as I have shown. I knew it would from the other books I validated for you under the Stratmeyer(sp?) Series. It will have many more so heads up to everyone lest it be missed. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Edit

For opposing my global ban. I will try not to disappoint. :-) DanielTom (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Woman Edit

Hi Bees. I want to create a page for Woman, the poem by Fu Xuan, but it already exists for a poem by Ella Wheeler Wilcox. Should I create a disambiguation page? ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Daniel, yes a disambiguation page is what's needed here. Move the current page to Woman (Wilcox) (and change the links on any pages that link to it). Then create the disambiguation over the top of the redirect. A good example of disambiguation page to copy is A Dream. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I did so. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Score: apparent Catch-22? Wrong output or correct + wrong double output Edit

Hello. Mainly as a learning exercise I have been trying to represent the music fragment here in <score> form. As the page has already been validated in image form, and I certainly don't want to change this unless the replacement is completely acceptable, I have kept my experiments here instead interfering with the project page.

However I've uncovered a conflict I don't seem to be able to resolve. Without the trailing "\layout" clause, the pre-staff "Voice" and "Piano" titles do not appear to be given enough horizontal space to render; but with said "\layout" present, two output versions are produced, the first rendered as intended, but also the "mistake" version I was hoping to have corrected. Have you come across this or similar instances, or are otherwise able to point me in the right direction please?

A final thought: is it possible I have inadvertently triggered some kind of debugging condition in Lilypond, so that "after" and "before" processing (for example) images are being displayed? AuFCL (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. I've not seen this before and when I copy your code across into a native Lilypond pgm, it parses just fine with only one copy. I've not used a \layout block before like this, so I suspect it's something to do with the implementation of that without an explicit \new Score command. To do that you'll need to switch to raw="1" mode (and add a \midi block).

btw, for the stem direction business, I just use \stemUp, \stemDown and \stemNeutral as needed, rather than using the Scheme # commands. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Working on it. Thanks for the stem direction bit. Shows how R.T.F.M. can lead you in strange directions when you know what you want to do but not the language in which to properly ask the question. I was dreading trying the raw="1" approach, but might as well learn that too. Thanks for the reassurance that the basic idea is not too far abeam (even I am not sure if that was a pun) AuFCL (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Addendum: You, Sir, are an absolute genius. Those suggestions made all the difference, and you have made me ridiculously happy. The number of brain-cells which died (fried?) getting this to work, and it is not as if I have too many to spare even at the best of times. AuFCL (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, but I'm learning from you at the same time. I hadn't worked out how to push the first system far enough to the right for the instrument names to not get cut off. Now, all I have to do is remember which scores I wanted it for without looking through the 773 pages with scores on them. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Index:The_London_Gazette_28314.pdf Edit

Can you give this a quick once over? I'm not sure I'm deinterleaving it fully. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "deinterleaving". I can't see any interleaving pages and I don't really understand why there would be blank pages inserted into the London Gazette. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few things on my mind... Edit

Hey Bees! Hope your "real" life is going well. Recently, I have had not much time to do anything since we had to give out a complex system of exams to the kids in each grade level, which takes up a lot of free time. Regarding Medieval Mind, I am enjoying it very much. I just wanted to let you know that when I leave the pages as not-proofed but looked at, is because I have enough time to do a basic lookover of the text, but not enough time to fully proof the page. There will be a lot of these in the weeks to come, but sometime they will get proofed and become yellow. - Tannertsf (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries, my friend, take all the time you need. I'm a bit thin on the ground myself at the moment with writing a national training programme. I'll just pop in to the Mediaeval Mind from time to time and see if there's anything for me to do. Have fun, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

interrupting references Edit

Hi Bees. The 2nd ref here continues through the next couple of pages. How would you transcribe it? Is there a way to end the reference and continue on the next page without interrupting it? (Thanks.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Daniel, you need to use named ref tags in this situation. Have a look at Help:Footnotes and endnotes#Advanced for the detail of how to do it. An example of its use (picked at random) is at Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 5.djvu/616 and /617. When a footnote goes over more than two pages, just keep using the "ref follow" tag until you reach the end. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, why doesn't this reference show here? ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe you have mislabeled the ref follow tag. It should read <ref follow="p399"> instead of "397". Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right, thanks! (Thanks Bees, too.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One more thing, if I may: how do I properly format the words that appears at the bottom of those footnotes? (I mean, the last word, or the first that appears in the next page.) Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are words that indicate the first word on the next page, and was a style of a period. On works that I have done of that period, I have usually put the word into the footer, though in that situation you have a footnote that does the same thing. As it is all a bit decorative, feel free to just ignore the components if it is easier, or if you do want to beat yourself silly you can just wrap the words inside a <noinclude> set of tags. For me, I wouldn't bother as it is nil net gain. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. (What about the headers? Aren't they too merely "decorative"?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yikes! Edit

I'm very sorry; I reverted one of your edits by mistake. I've reverted myself now, but still, I thought I'd come over and explain. Very sorry once again! —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 08:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries. I knew exactly what was going on as I've clicked the rollback button a few times myself by mistake. Have fun, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much to don´t let me finish with Edit

Sorry! User talk:Beeswaxcandle for what you delete;While I am editing, learning more... for my first time, since yesterday 3 March 2014 , I am going to edit in Spanish and in English as well, so you didn´t have any problem with it, let me going to edit and finish it in both translated parts .... ¨ for what you delete it while I am going?" ==Análisis de film 16mm-experimental 2005.Book/article p.1== skapheandros 10:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beyond the scope of English will be as well if let me finish please.The preferences is now in Spanish while I am trying editing it. 08:41 4 mar 2014 Beeswaxcandle (Discusión | contribuciones) borró la página «Ambigüedad del sueño reflejado, Book/experimental p.1» (WS:CSD G5 - Beyond scope: Not in English) Sorry again! Thank you so much Sorry again! Thank you so much

Answered on your talk page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OFF me mind more to warn me & you Edit

Sorry, User talk:Beeswaxcandle, I have already know that you understood your message previously, it can be this following message.

Hi. Works in Spanish belong on the Spanish language Wikisource. The works you're submitting are your own, right? Have they been published anywhere else? Prosody (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I know I had this Spanish language Wikisource as well and as welcome.

English language Wikisource is all enjoying, without any problem.Excuse me, I didn´t offend you.All the translations of these poetry are perfectly welcome in words I review, they are abstract art works how they are, and I Know that I have more people than you interested in them to let know how is it.Also I have a lawyer for both parts if your last message is representing an insult.You let my poems and you let know in peace and quick.

Excuse me, for my english I am interesting to increase it nowdays, while it is poor, sometimes either it is so nice to someone´s eyes.If it is not what you mean I didn´t understood your last message.OFF me mind more to warn me & you, thank you, best regards.19:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


Re: noincludes on Wikisource:Proofread of the Month/validation works Edit

I apologize for fiddling with the noincludes on the above mentioned page. At first, I thought that they were unmatched, and when realized my mistake, I tried to reset them but messed up. Won't happen again. Also moved the PSM works to a separate queue because I felt that the other queued works should take precedence simply because of the sheer number of pages (~800+) per PSM volume. — Ineuw talk 06:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's nothing to apologise for. The way we pull information out of several subpages in the PotM area is a challenge to get one's head around at the best of times. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formatting help Edit

How would you (or anyone) format the text which begins, "He advances to the edge of the crater" on this page? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done I usually use {{block right}} for this sort of thing. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And... Do you have an alternative to using {{Line}} for the directions on this page? Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An alternative is to use {{float right}}, but the effect is the same as {{line}} has a float right attribute. By the way, {{line}} has a "small" attribute, so adding {{smaller}} makes it very small. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. {{Float right}} does not have any padding effect like {{Line}} seems to; "antistrophe" therefore runs into the line on which it is placed, and looks bad. Too bad {{Line}} has the "small" attribute; it is, however, not that small, so I will accept it in the absence of an alternative. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appendix Edit

The Appendix itself is page 195 ( djvu/199) The editors who completed Nye's book after Nye died just added Nye's last illustrations at the end of Nye's book —Maury (talk) 09:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Edit

I tried it and it works, but the frame isn't wide enough to zoom into a decent size text without having to use the slider back and forth for each line -> jumping up and down the page. Someone suggested expanding the text in a separate window, as with any picture or Commons image, then jumping back and forth between windows. It's also a problem, but easier to click back-and-forth with less eye strain. Nice moniker :) Cheers! Shir-El too 17:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sectioning for April's POTM? Edit

Hi, Beeswaxcandle. I was wondering what sort of sectioning you would like to use for the POTM for April. Could you possibly proofread this page to illustrate most of the proofreading guidelines for the text? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hadn't given sectioning any thought. I suspect that by poem would be the simplest way. p29 is done as requested. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I tweaked sectioning a bit and am using s1, s2, etc. instead if that's okay with you... I think with multiple editors there will be formatting differences at the start until they reference the guidelines, but I'll try to make sure it stays standardized. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At your leisure, would you mind double-checking the Greek here? Thank you, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The High Alps of New Zealand: Or, A Trip to the Glaciers of the Antipodes ... (1883) Edit


I hope you are still interested on books on New Zealand. I'm still focused on books around mountains. I am willing to upload and start to review this book... but... I'm not sure which version I should uplaod between this one and this one... any idea ? Zil (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Permit me to poke my nose into this post. I noticed your post and checked both copies and they are identical uploads of the same copy by Google. The best thing would be is to paginate through and see if all pages exist especially the images (if any) because Google has a habit of blanking out image pages. I hope this helps.— Ineuw talk 00:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me too. Google does all sorts of things. Sometimes one book will have a page blanked out while the other copy is intact. Sometimes the covers are different in the same year &c., &c. My point is to look over every page and look for any differences. —Maury (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just looked through all the copies that IA holds. Unfortunately, they're all Google scans and they're all missing the frontispiece image and the map at the back (just before the adverts) has not been folded out for scanning. I really can't recommend any of them for inclusion in enWS. HathiTrust's copy is a replica of one of these, so is not of use either. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, what is the solution? Should I forgot this book or upload one even if there is missing illustrations? Zil (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would either get a different book or just mark that small partial map that I saw as a "no text" page. I would not let one partial map ruin all of the rest of a book. —Maury (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Book: With Axe & Rope in the NewZealand Alps Edit

With Axe and Rope-in the NewZealand Alps-by George-Edward-Mannering-Member of the NewZealand-and-Alpine-Club-1891

"This short work contains the story of five seasons' climbing and exploring in the New Zealand Alps.

This would make a good book in place of the two previously mentioned books and this is illustrated.—Maury (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sp template Edit

Hello Beeswaxcandle,

Thanks for working on special symbols here. I do not understand though, why would you take the trouble of removing the sp template. It seemed to me the approximation of the way the original page was set. BR, Tar-ba-gan (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought that the spacing was just a typographical defect as it seemed to be on random words. I didn't check other pages in the work, though. Is there a pattern across all the volumes or is this a one-off? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't been thoroughly researching the series. It is sure a thing in this volume, I believe chosen by the author/translator Hendrik Kern. It is more obvious in his Introduction but all the comments have all or most of the non-English words this way, with gaps between every letter (unless they are in Greek). I understand your confusion. It could be a lot easier to format and proofread without this typography embellishment. Same goes for multiple special symbols. BR, Tar-ba-gan (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for helping with the text! I had been wondering if it was going to attract any attention or help at all. I have had a very long history of, so to say, personal relationships with it, so I am very grateful. Tar-ba-gan (talk) 06:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have the time at present to work on this set of books, but I'm happy to help with any Greek that turns up. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Award Edit

Thank you! I'm not exactly sure what the award is for, since I didn't really contribute to that text, but thank you nevertheless.--Frglz (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Sorry for butting in, BWC...) @Frglz: Actually, you did.   See Special:Diff/4856424. Best regards.—Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 15:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did say "really". ;)--Frglz (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's true, hadn't noticed that. Silly me. Consider everything above unsaid. ;-) —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 17:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The PotM awards are for participation rather than volume of contributions. One edit or 100 edits, you still participated in proofreading the book and the award is our way of acknowledging that. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page:Love among the chickens (1909).djvu/64 Edit

Hello. Up-front please let me be clear I have no problem with the above edit. However, this being said it is quietly driving me crazy that I genuinely cannot see any difference in the rendered page! What browser are you using please? (I just upgraded to Firefox 29.0.1. on Linux.)

As this has happened before (and always on the Chapter headings, where modifying {{flow under|height3}} ought to be offering pixel resolution control of this same gap…) Hope this makes sense! AuFCL (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Firefox 29.0 on Windows7 (got forcibly upgraded from XP last week). With only one blank line the first line of the first paragraph is floated under the image of the urn and the dropcap is attached to the second line, so at present /33 is reading as:

ATERLOO station is one of those things which no fellow can understand. Thousands come to

Wit, thousands go from it. Porters grow grey-headed beneath its roof. Buns, once fresh and
tender, become hard and misanthropic ...

Adding the second blank line seems to push the stray line back down where it belongs. [Wish I could write like PGW!] Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most weird. O.K. I shall try to remember to put in a double-newline next time, but in case I slip up please continue amending.. Thanks! AuFCL (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bearing in mind I am "editing blind" (in the sense nothing seems to change before/after for me) would you please be so kind as to look at page 33 and see if it works for you? (Oh and if User:Clockery happens to look in, same applies, please?) Thanks all: AuFCL (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Works for me: Firefox 29.0, Ubuntu 14.04. And thanks a lot, both of you, for the validations. :D —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 10:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Works for me too. I've just checked it in IE8 as well, no problems there. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Completely different topic: I need your advice (this applies to User:AuFCL as well).

In the LoI of this book, an image (namely '"I've only bin and drove 'im further up," said Mrs. Beale"') is listed. However, on closer examination of index, said image is not found.

Now, the image is listed all right at Gutenberg here.

So, what should be done? I've stopped transcluding for the time being.

Thanks in advance, a very confused Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 18:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: the plate and the page facing it seem to have been missed being scanned in the copy, between this page and this one. So should we just pretend the image never existed, or should the file be fixed (and how?)
Hope I haven't made too much trouble this time round. ;) I'm going to bed now, see you later. And good morning in advance. :) —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 19:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least the image exists (I grabbed a copy out of Gutenberg's e-book before realising you'd captured the direct link above; anyway File:Love among the chickens plate 120-121.png ready for refinement or use.) I am not well up in the mechanics of adding/inserting pages into DJVUs so I hope Beeswaxcandle has a better suggestion. How about appending the image as "beyond the last page" (like an erratum?) and if desired transcluding it out-of-sequence?
Basically what I am proposing is adding to the current "Pages" field of the Index: page (i.e. just after <pagelist/>) something like this:
[[Page:Love among the chickens plate 120-121.png|—]]
Hope this is not too far out of line? (The above works at a technical level; but in terms of policy I am not so certain… —and also bear in mind transclusion syntax will be painful with this approach… AuFCL (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
<tsk> ...rather disappointed to see that particular vein of work-around come up again.

Anywho, the source file has been patched (properly I might add) and now requires a bot request to move all the existing pages after position /138 up by two followed by the realigning of all of the existing pages-command-line ranges in the mainspace. I'll check back later just in case though. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O.K. admonition accepted. At the very least give me credit for asking before doing? Thanks also for having the good sense to make it clear this sort of approach can be solidly ruled out in future… AuFCL (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a million a lot a bunch a ton (with a brilliant burst of invention, amounting almost to genius) Thanks frightfully. But seriously, though, thanks a lot. :D —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 04:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome. Do you need help adding the Bot Request for the needed bulk Page: moves? I just realized you might not have done something like this in your wiki-adventures yet. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried doing it myself this time round. Could you please go over and check whether it's okay here? Thanks again. :) —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 07:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the risk of offending the purists I've reconstructed the image caption lost from inserted Page:Love among the chickens (1909).djvu/139. If this is a problem kindly revert. Come to think of it, what was the provenance for the inserted page(s) because Clockery's Gutenberg reference above has it, in bold even, right below? AuFCL (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This time round I don't mind. In fact, I welcome it. We know that the scan was faulty, that it ought to have be fixed, and since no other scans could be found, we patched it with the Gutenberg text (one of the few times I was thankful to them, by the way). Nothing wrong in that, imho. I suppose my sentiments regarding this are outrageous, but there's no altering that. Apart from that, the Gutenberg edition was the same as ours (I wonder where PGDP got their scan from?), so there won't be any differences. Ultimately, the aim is to get the full book somehow on Wikisource.

I hope I made at least some sense...? Best regards,—Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 12:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question Edit


Please look @ to see if the Header is correct. Should "Preface" be above or Below that area? In short, is it correct now?

—Maury (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Maury, it looks fine to me the way you've done it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Page:Tracts for the Times Vol 2.djvu/460 Edit


No doubt by now you've seen my (several, trivial) edits on the above and have been wondering in just what insanity have I been indulging. In an attempt to more closely reflect the ideas I was trying to express in my response to your kind query I have put together this. (Please note I am not seriously expecting you to make the substitutions; it was more a personal exercise in feasibility!) In the course of constructing the latter I have been making corrections to the main page which I thought were fairly uncontroversial; however with regards "childdren"; as the word is hidden in the binding crease and must be hyphenated in any case I thought the substitution reasonably safe. However if in fact you have access to a better source than the scan please correct as you see fit.

Upon resolution of this one outstanding matter I shall be happy to tag the page (and its successor) "validated," should you wish me to do so.

Regards, AuFCL (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cripes! Stone the crows! (and other such vulgarisms). I hadn't realised that you were still devoting time to this. It's [sniff], it's just [sniiiifff] beau ... [deep breath and return to normal levels of emotion].

That "childdren" was definitely a typo on my part. When filling in the hidden text from the margin I've made my best guesses. I've hunted for another e-copy, but can only find later editions—which don't have the tables. I'm not sure that I care enough to start looking for a physical copy in the various libraries here. Please feel free to go ahead and mark the pages as validated. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are (as ever!) far too kind. In fact I went overboard converting everything to HTML tables, only to find I still couldn't get all the rules to match up. Wrt. "still devoting time" what can I say that isn't already covered by the insanity clause above? AuFCL (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tracts for the Times—indirect note references Edit

Only tangentially related to the above, may I please have your advice/thoughts on this edit? I realise relying upon dynamically allocated anchors is a really bad approach, but the only alternative I can think of—anchors inside references, which can only be resolved at point of transclusion—doesn't sound all that easy to explain to a new initiate either. Am I trying to reinvent a wheel you've already got in mass production somewhere? AuFCL (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've got no scheme for this. In fact it's only from print page 209 onwards that I even thought of linking the internal page references. I've tended for references to footnotes to just send the reader to the page and hope that they will have the intelligence to do the extra click to get to the footnote. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for that. I was applying exactly that logic up until the moment when I stumbled across a reference to "Note 2 on page xxx," and it suddenly hit me that said "Note 2" would in fact no longer be page-specific, but now becomes chapter/tract/whatever relative instead. Maybe best to stick to the "let the reader figure it out" approach. After all, this monstrosity is never going to be easy reading… AuFCL (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use of {{greek}} on page 162 Edit

This is but a casual enquiry: does omission of the above template detrimentally affect certain applications (browsers perhaps?) Obviously I can see what the template does, but remain somewhat at a loss as to why it should be necessary for it to do so, as clearly my set-up is apparently not one so afflicted? This is the first instance I have encountered of this template's use, and am now wondering about all the occasions where I have entered "bare" unwrapped Greek strings (i.e. is it worthwhile going upon a hunt for them with a view to rewrapping? I believe generation via <math> expressions is a quite distinct mechanism and ought to be safe.) If you are able to cast some light upon this or related matters I would be grateful; thank you. AuFCL (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note, this template is a later "duplicate" of {{Polytonic}}, which was designed to support Ancient Greek, and is the template name as used on multiple sister projects. There are indeed some browsers that otherwise with display little rectangles when Ancient Greek is not wrapped in a template. I can personally attest that the browsers in use on the UC Berkeley Library computers are old enough to not support Greek (or IPA for that matter), and expect the same is true at many schools, libraries, and universities. Such institutions do not have money to throw around for site licenses and software updates as often as most people think. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The main reason I started using it is that the greek font used is much clearer to read than that from the drop-down box. The template font is also in a reasonable semi-italic, which is how most of our works print Greek—as a foreign language. The bonus is that most browsers cope better with the template font than the "native" WMF version. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you both for pretty much confirming my suspicions/fears. Summary: Unicode is a trap!(?)

Just out of interest, as {{greek}} specifies fonts: DejaVu Sans, Athena, Gentium, Palatino Linotype, Arial Unicode MS, Lucida Sans Unicode, Lucida Grande, Code2000, sans-serif, and {{polytonic}} specifies: Athena, Gentium, 'Palatino Linotype', 'Arial Unicode MS', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Code2000; do either of you have any recommendations as to which of the pair gives the better result?

I can't really tell, because my environment happens to produce the same results whether a template is either used or omitted; but logically the extra two fonts of {{greek}} must be there for some sort of reason? Being unable to see any change can be a bit of a mixed blessing as at least reliable failures are instantly noticeable and subsequently fixable…) AuFCL (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not currently have easy access to a problem browser to check. All I can say is (1) both templates look the same to me whether I'm in or out of the edit window, (2) the second template may have been added to deal with modern Greek rather than Classical, but that's speculation. It may have been that the editor who created it simply did not know the first one existed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fwiw, with IE8 under XP Pro...
  • ἡγιασμένοι --> using greek template
  • ἡγιασμένοι --> using polytonic template
  • ἡγιασμένοι --> no template at all
... all three appear the same in edit mode but only the two using the templates render the same once saved. The one without any template will tend to approach whatever font I set as my browser's default (one that supports the set of course) and nearly renders the same as that default as far as word spacing, font-weight & character height/width go.

In my opinion, the one without the template renders too close to the rest of the [English] content and easy to miss if not paying very close attention while reading; most likely I'd use a template just so the word(s) 'stand out' a bit from the rest of the core language. Applying a template also lets us "track" such nuances and 3rd parties are more likely to double-check our work that way as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I should have said: Using Mac OS X in either Safari or Firefox with the default fonts, all three look identical, but then Mac supports UniCode. Oddly, the Greek looks different (and much better) in the edit window in Firefox than it does in display text. I may have adjusted the default font somehow, but have no idea why it should be different in the edit window from regular view. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I should have said that both polytonic and greek are from a Wiki-era long since left behind by advancements now standardized in today's wiki-code. The reality is the entire family of these kind of templates should have been phased out or re-tasked when WikiEditor and it's Special characters sets became "stable" a year or two ago (e.g. less & less little square boxes being displayed). Unfortunately, I don't think most folks have made the switch to WikiEditor yet and that makes addressing things like this overly problematic community wise. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank all (currently three) of you for making this matter so much clearer to me. Taking on board your collective points—and temporarily laying aside the matter of 'recent' system changes (supposedly) rendering such issues obsolete, I shall endeavour to enclose all future "greek" phrases within {{greek}} wrapping, and shall leave extant usage to the discretion of future editors. As an especial aside: due to the different handling; I shall assume that the graphical rendering of <math> formulaic expressions effectively removes them from the above discussion, and the results may be considered "safe"? (Although grammatically phrased as a question, I intend the last item to be read as a statement unless anybody materially disagrees.) AuFCL (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

…and on page 182 Edit

Hello again. Would you please have a look at the word "ὅχημα" on the above page? As you probably realise I do not read Greek, but insofar as I can tell this is the correct word (i.e. 'chariot'); but typographically I believe "őχημα" is what actually appears on the page scan (i.e. only the first character is different.) In your view is this worthy of applying {{SIC}}? Of course this may just turn out to be one of those browser/font issues again as well… Just because "ὅ" and "ő" look different here, to me, may not in fact translate (in the other sense) either. AuFCL (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I sometimes have trouble with recognizing the breathing marks myself, but I think in this case it's the printed book's use of a slanted italic font for Greek that is making the apparent difference. This is just one reason that Greek should not be displayed in slanted italics. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Crumbs that was a fast response! O.K. Just to be clear on my part, @EncycloPetey, you are voting for "ὅχημα" being correct? AuFCL (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I'm on-line, I keep occasional watch of Recent Changes to prevent vandalism, and sometimes I also find interesting conversations that teach me things I didn't know.
The second form you suggested (őχημα) is not possible. Greek does not use a double acute accent; Hungarian is the only language I know of that has that character. But, I think ὅχημα is wrong as well. It's hard to be sure because the word does not appear in Liddel & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, but all of the words they have that begin with omicron-xi, none have the breathing mark that curls towards the right, as you have. I therefore would expect ὄχημα, with the breathing mark curled towards the left, but as I say, the word does not appear in the authoritative dictionary of L&S. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the comments/feedback.

The "second form" was entirely my own invention based upon the character I perceived the typesetter may have used, irrespective of the fact I was aware it was not in the normal "Greek set" (To tell the truth I did not realise it was Hungarian either!)

The "first form" was that used by Beeswaxcandle at the point of initial proofreading, and which based on my own rather crude searching appears to be the choice others have made (e.g. see [2], about half-way down: look on start of line containing the phrase: "vehicle of the soul") in similar circumstances.

I think I shall hold off changing anything until Beeswaxcandle has an opportunity to comment. AuFCL (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This link [3] indicates that the smooth breathing is correct (ὄ). Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

smart quotes vs straight quotes Edit

Copied here to Beeswaxcandle by Maury

Thanks for helping validate The Return of Sherlock Holmes. You said: "smart quotes are automatically changed to straight quotes when a page is formatted." Is it some tool you're using that does that? I am only using the web interface and those quotes survives multiple edits.

I've put the smart quotes back for now. Please understand I'm not trying to be argumentative, it is just because I've formatted the rest of the book that way.

Juxtap (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

—Maury (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inserted Text Edit

Hello! It's been a while since I've begged for help, but I have a new problem now. I'm not quite sure even how to describe it, so I'm not finding anything in the Help files. There are two instances of what I'm calling inserted text on this page: Swift Volume 16, Page 13. You can see that there is one insert in the middle of the paragraph, and another appears at the beginning of a paragraph. This is a feature that the editor used for the next few dozen pages, so it is definitely something I need to learn how to do. Could you please show me how to do these?

Many thanks as always! Susan Susanarb (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Try having a look-see at the likes of {{float left}} and {{float box}}. I rather think the former is more appropriate--try having a look at the page I've formatted above. Best regards,—Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 16:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! Susan Susanarb (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are a couple of alternative ways of doing this. 1. See Page:Mexico of the Mexicans.djvu/30. This uses a special template. 2. See Page:Essentials in Conducting.djvu/48, where I've ignored the indenting and just used sidenotes. 21:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I like the inset heading template, and I think I'll use that. It looks like it does the same thing as the Float template, without needing the extra descriptors. Susan Susanarb (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just learned that the Heading template causes subsequent uses to be indented, but that wasn't what the text required. Thus, I'm returning it all to the Float Left template. Susan Susanarb (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I realise this is too late to be of much use to Susan, but I just rejigged the defaults on {{inset heading}} to address pretty much this very issue. Sad to say this had been on my personal to-do list from way back and got mislaid until now. AuFCL (talk) 09:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:Antarctic Voyage Plates Edit

There was only one that needed correcting on djvu/7. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Score on Page:1880. A Tramp Abroad.djvu/156 Edit

Hello. I have almost validated the above page, but am in trouble over a single note, and hope you might be able to set me straight. The first note in bar 7 (second last) top staff persistently renders as a pair of notes (certainly the two voices have different duration, overlapping same pitch notes; however the book/scan rendering represents them as a single symbol.) Any suggestions please, as I believe this is the last item before I consider the page may be considered validated. I hope my rambling above makes at least a modicum of sense? AuFCL (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Try it now. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well that's a keyword I would never have thought of trying to look for. Thank you very much. (Oh, and thanks for the other activity? Most strange.) AuFCL (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1911 EB Image help Edit

I'm working on the "Theatre" article from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. I think I can handle everything except the photographs in the plates. To see what I mean view the four plates between pages 730 and 735 in Index:EB1911 - Volume 26.djvu. The scans are very dark, and some almost black. Is there any way that you can help, or can suggest someone else who might be able to do so? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The images on this version seem to be better. Do you want me to pull them down and have a go at tidying, or are you OK with that process? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this case, I'd rather have you or someone else give it a go. I'm OK with black and white line drawings and reasonably clean photographs, but my graphics software is sorely primitive. The EB project page has info on where they want images to be stored, and how to tag them for PD. For the figures in the aticle, I'm naming them "File:Britannica Theatre 1.jpg" according to the Figure number; you might name yours similarly, but as "Plate I", "Plate II", etc. The norm for EB files over at Commons seems to be similar to this, when more info isn't added to the name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, all nine images are now uploaded to Commons. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks very much. I've inserted the images where they belong. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

600 Edit

Beeswaxcandle, would you be so kind as to transclude this 35 simple pages? These men were prisoners of war and treated very harshly. I have tried but cannot figure how to transclude it as you can see. The story is true and worth saving throughout history. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You were very nearly there. The main thing you were missing was the .djvu from the index name. I've refined it a little with some page breaks. Best, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Beez. I knew I was somewhere in the area but could not figure out what to do. I will try to do as you do with any similar work in the future. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Index:Goody Two-Shoes (1881).djvu Edit

Can you give this a second pass, I'm being rather careful, but can't possibly spot every single minor issue. Would really like to get this one done, so I can get it into use at a local musuem. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trending to complications Edit

Just have found that we have had started a nest of templates that start to complicate editing

Some a bit older


  • Template:Pling
  • Template:Shriek
  • Template:rsquo rsq
  • Template:lsquo lsq

which I discovered via a bot request to put these into play.

I don't like the trend, and the move away from our basic principles, though maybe I am being overly protective of an earlier time. So just seeking a second opinion. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't support most of them with the possible exception of Template:' " and Template:" '. If validating anything with them in, I will be systematically removing them. From memory, the various space characters will break searches. I agree with your response at BOTR. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. Manufacturing a templated typography when it should be handled through CSS seems to me to be misdirected energy. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Automated import of openly licensed scholarly articles Edit

Hello Beeswaxcandle,

We are putting together a proposal about the automated import of openly licensed scholarly articles, and since you are an active Wikisourceror, we'd appreciate yourcomments on the Scriptorium. For convenience, I'm copying our proposal here:

The idea of systematically importing openly licensed scholarly articles into Wikisource has popped up from time to time. For instance, it formed the core of WikiProject Academic Papers and is mentioned in the Wikisource vision. However, the Wikiproject relied on human power, never reached its full potential, and eventually became inactive. The vision has yet to materialise.
We plan to bridge the gap through automation. We are a subset of WikiProject Open Access (user:Daniel Mietchen, user:Maximilanklein, user:MattSenate), and we have funding from the Open Society Foundations via Wikimedia Deutschland to demo suitable workflows at Wikimania (see project page).
Specifically, we plan to import Open Access journal articles into Wikisource when they are cited on Wikipedia. The import would be performed by a group of bots intended to make reference handling more interoperable across Wikimedia sites. Their main tasks are:
  • (on Wikipedia) signalling which references are openly licensed, and link them to the full text on Wikisource, the media on Commons and the metadata on Wikidata;
  • (on Commons) importing images and other media associated with the source article;
  • (on Wikisource) importing the full text of the source article and embedding the media in there;
  • (on Wikidata) handling the metadata associated with the source article, and signalling that the full text is on Wikisource and the media on Commons.
These Open Access imports on Wikisource will be linked to and from other Wikimedia sister sites. Our first priority though will be linking from English Wikipedia, focusing on the most cited Open Access papers, and the top-100 medical articles.
In order to move forward with this, we need
  • General community approval
  • Community feedback on workflows and scrutiny on our test imports in specific.
  • Bot permission. For more technical information read our bot spec on Github.

Maximilianklein (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Validation Completed Edit

  Done —Maury (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beeswaxcandle, did I make many errors when I validated your book shown above? It is a simple and therefore fast book to look over and validate. "Be bold" and let me know please. —Maury (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to say that the book was poorly sub-edited to begin with, which made the OCR a bit challenging at times. (It also wasn't very well written.) Did we turn out a perfect copy? Probably not, we are human after all. Have we rescued the book from oblivion? Absolutely. Did we enjoy the process? I hope so. There will probably be some upper case I characters that should be lower case i—this was the most common OCR problem—but not to worry, the meaning of the words isn't changed. If someone else cares to fix any we've missed, they are welcome to do so.

Oh, and thanks for validating it, I didn't expect that. Between you and Billinghurst, my 50th Stratemeyer contribution and the 90th book that I have fully Proofread was Validated within a few hours of me completing it.

Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are very welcome. Beezwaxcandle, where is that list of Stratemeyer books - especially any not validated? —Maury (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The list of proofread Stratemeyer books is User:Beeswaxcandle/Works#Stratemyers. I don't know which aren't validated as I haven't kept an eye on them. I know that some have been done by your good self. The list of Stratemeyers waiting to be done is at Portal:Stratemeyer Syndicate. Anything in red with a § beside it has a djvu file on Commons waiting for me to get to it. Given that that's another 100 or so, I'm not too worried about looking for files for the others at present [grin]. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you don't mind I would like to do some casual validations of Stratemeyer. Validations are important are they not? It often doesn't seem so. There aren't a lot of validators around. Kathleen.wright5 is a Godsend for validating! Your Stratemeyer collection is a relaxation to read as I validate. If you do mind then hail me on my talk page. I don't want anymore placing of books on WS either. I have about six already on WS waiting to be finished in proofreading. Remember that illustrated cartoonish/historical one of the Bill Nye's "History of England"? I have one by the same author on the "History of the USA". But I weary of them at times - especially the work on the many illustrations. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mind? My dear chap, of course I don't mind. I proofread the Stratemeyers for relaxation between the other 18 or so works I've got on the go at the moment. Victorian novels with bad OCR mixed with the Dictionary of Music, Shakespeare's plays, Linguistics and Ancient Christian literature can be quite wearying, so I quite understand. However, the important thing to remember is that because we're volunteers, we're doing it because we enjoy it. So, I also do the Stratemeyers because they're enjoyable—sometimes complete tosh, but nonetheless enjoyable tosh. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linking to a Wikisource Footnote & Editors Edit

I’m adding links to Wikipedia articles and Wikisource works that are mentioned in the The Works of the Rev. Jonathan Swift. Most are pretty simple. However, there are some important people and aliases for people mentioned in the Works that do not have Wikipedia articles. For example, Erasmus Lewis is not mentioned in Wikipedia. However, because he wrote letters to Swift, he has an Author page in Wikisource. There is also a footnote that describes him well. It is footnote #1 at Journal to Stella – Letter 59; or alternately at Page:The Works of the Rev. Jonathan Swift, Volume 15.djvu/380. I’ve been using the latter link because it is a much smaller work to search for the Lewis reference: 1 page versus 13 pages. But the pertinent information is in the footnote. Is there a way to link to a footnote? There are a couple more instances in the Works where I would like to link to footnotes, so I hope there is a way.

Also, when I go back through the volumes (to fix the things I didn’t know how to do when I started), I will be adding the Editor to the transclusion pages for each segment. But there are two men listed as editors on the title page of Volume 1. Thomas Sheridan is listed as the Arranger, and John Nichols is listed as Correcting and Revising the edition. It is not clear who wrote the footnotes: Sheridan or Nichols. Sometimes, a footnote will have "N." at the end, which makes me think that Sheridan wrote most of them. However, Nichols wrote the biography, so maybe he wrote them. Then, there are a number of footnotes which appear to be written by yet other people. For example, Section 2 of A Tale of a Tub as quite a few footnotes attributed to W. Wolton. Should I list all of Sheridan, Nichols, and Wolton as authors on each of these works because they apparently wrote footnotes? Or list all of them as editors?

Thank you as always for your help. Susan Susanarb (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've not needed to link to footnotes directly like this, so have had to experiment a bit. The best way I can think of is to use an {{anchor}} in the footnote, then you can link to the anchor using [[The Works of ... /Stella#anchor_name|Erasmus Lewis]] style of linking. We try not to link the Mainspace to the Page: namespace because we don't want to put the general reader in the middle of our backend.

When you've got more than one Editor then use

editor = | override_editor = [[Author:Thomas Sheridan|]] and [[Author:John Nicols|]]
for example. (The Author fields will expand automagically when entered in this format.) I think that you are correct that Sheridan did most of the footnotes, with some extra ones by other editors.

With respect to who to list as editors, I would just list the particular people who have a major involvement in the particular work. So, Wolton would be on A Tale of a Tub, but not Gulliver.

Have fun, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! This helps greatly. Susan Susanarb (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

trans. Edit

Beeswaxcandle, if you ever get the time would you please transclude the above? It is already started and the pages are listed for transclusion. —Maury (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just noticed this. I've done the transclusion and adjusted the TOC (page 305). There's some odd blank spaces in the Ages of Antiquity section and something that looks like a footnote in the middle of it. I'll leave those to you to have a look at, but if you need help just let me know. Have fun, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh! THANK YOU! This is one of my most favorite books on all of Wikisource! I learned a lot about how Women were treated down through the ages by man - much of what I have never known - and how they have worked their way to near equality. How noble they are in history! I wanted a course like this, or similar, when I was in the university decades ago. I will look at what you have stated. You are a treasure on Wikisource Beez! Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

done Edit

  Done —Maury (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I think that this was one of the better books in the series. The plot is quite tight and there were no extraneous characters. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I always use shift+alt+x to remove spaces and change the <wiki>&mdash</nowiki> to a straight line. I did not see many errors and I do look carefully. I compare the scan and the page and then go into edit and look around again because misspellings are usually underlined in red. I guess that makes 51 of them for you now. —Maury (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

formatting Q Edit

Hi Bees! Could you help me here? After the "block center" template, an extra line is added – isn't there too much space now between "Æn." and "The historical &c."? (Oh, and what to do about missing letters during printing, e.g. in said "historical"?) Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Another example of extra space: here, after "equos.") ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. Never mind, I'm probably hallucinating (or I've fixed it somehow). I'll revisit this tomorrow. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

British Spelling Edit

Beeswaxcandle, we work with books up to 1924 and most, if not all, use the British spellings such as colour whereas the USA does not (color). This happens in many spellings and I am used to it now. But I am always wondering when and why did the USA change from the British spellings. Do you have any idea about this? Long ago when I was in a university I accidentally used colour when writing a paper and was marked down a point for it. I asked fairly the same question of you here. I was shrugged away without an answer other than I was told it isn't American English. I was also very annoyed by the instructor's attitude as well as the markdown of my use of "colour". I therefore used "colour" in all of my papers in that class and was marked down for it every time but I did not quit using colour. Now, in these books, most all spellings are British spellings. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Short answer: Webster's dictionary standardized American spelling, while Johnson's dictionary standardised British spelling. You can read a little more in the opening sections of w:American and British English spelling differences. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. —Maury (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Pages with score rendering errors Edit

There are several pages showing up in Category:Pages with score rendering errors. Are up to giving them a poke to resolve their issues? Thanks if you can. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contractions Edit

How do you recommend handling contractions in Jack London's works? For example, "It 's", "himself 'd", "I 've" and "have n't"... Would you combine them or leave the separation? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would leave the separation. I get the impression that London was thinking in separate words and then representing how those words were spoken. Whereas a few years later writers were thinking more in spoken elements and so started to combine the contracted words. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-standard(?) musical symbol Edit

Hello. I have been hunting around for a possible character to satisfy the missing one on the final line of Page:How to Write Music.djvu/39, and have stumbled across Unicode &#119227; (description: "musical symbol minima"; appearance: 𝆹𝅥) which is sort of close, yet the wrong way up. May I have your opinion whether 𝆹𝅥 might just suffice? (Probably best if you don't look too closely at the coding at first as it isn't particularly pretty.) AuFCL (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That glyph doesn't show up in my browser. How about using a score snippet such as:
? Alternatively, could just use the image  ? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both much better suggestions than my original thoughts. Thank you. AuFCL (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Identifying Authors Edit

Please help! (I know you will – you always have, and thank you.) I’ve run into an odd situation in the The Works of the Rev. Jonathan Swift. I’ve already asked you about the editors, but now I’m finding issues about the authors too. In prior volumes, there have been works written by Swift in someone else’s name. Now, I’m finding the opposite: for example, Song by a Person of Quality was indirectly identified as being written by the Earl of Peterborough, Charles Mordaunt. At first, I thought that it was Swift writing the poem as if he were Mordaunt. I finally decided to attribute it to Mordaunt.

I’ve done quite a few more poems now in Volume 17. Today, by chance, I picked up a volume of works by Alexander Pope. Included in the book are a number of poems such as Macer, Umbra, and Sandys’ Ghost. Those are all odd titles, so of course I recognized that I had just proofread them: Macer; Umbra; and Sandys's Ghost (yes, it’s spelled differently). But there is nothing in the Swift Volumes to even hint that Pope wrote the poems.

Then there is the slightly different situation of Epigram on Handel and Bononcini. I wanted to provide a link to Wikipedia for Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee. I expected to be directed to Lewis Carroll. Instead, it seems that a man named John Byrom is responsible for a longer epigram than is attributed to Swift. There is a sentence that states, "Although Byrom is clearly the author of the epigram, the last two lines have also been attributed to Jonathan Swift and Alexander Pope."

Hence my questions: (1) Do you agree that I should attribute Song by a Person of Quality to Charles Mordaunt alone? (2) Should I attribute Macer, Umbra, and Sandys’s Ghost to Pope or Swift, or both? (3) I don’t have a perfect list of the works written by Swift, Pope, John Arbuthnot, John Gay, or others who were friends with Swift and may have written pieces included in these volumes. How do I decide who the author of each work is? Should I put a note on each that I suspect could have been written by someone else of the possibility? (Right now, that is every work in Volume 17.) (4) Should I attribute the Epigram on Handel and Bononcini to all three potential authors? (5) Am I worrying unnecessarily about this? (No, I didn’t think so. Unfortunately, these are not unique examples in Volume 17, so I'll use your guidance many times.)

Thank you for your help, as always! Susan Susanarb (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Susan, I think that you should keep Swift as the author for anything in this set of volumes that doesn't provide hints or clues to alternate authorship. This is really to maintain the integrity of what is supposed to be a collected works of Swift. However, I would use the notes field in the Header template to add a brief note about possible alternatives (with links to the evidence). If the evidence is more complex than a brief note, then the optimal thing to do is to add material to the relevant Wikipedia article (with Reliable Sources) and then link to that from the Wikipedia field of the Header template. Should the optimal not be possible because it's original research, then use the poem's Talk page to explain.

If you have a spare moment, have a look at the excellent response by Hesperian to Billinghurst's question about how to manage a complex work. Couched in fine prose is the philosophy of be pragmatic without damaging the text. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, and thanks to Hesperian. I'm off on my search for the elegant solution which does not exist. Susan Susanarb (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editor Bar Edit

Beez, 1/2 of my editor bar, the beginning, is gone which is fine by me, but will you please restore the the 2nd half--where "zoom in", "zoom out", plus "expand page width" options for editing be restored. It has been like this about 2-3 weeks now. Please —Maury (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've changed your optional buttons into the new way of doing them. However, I don't know how to sort out the standard buttons for you. I see that George has done some tweaking for you in another area of your common.js. Hopefully, between us we've sorted it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Edit

Thanks for being on top of that. I like to run a tight ship on confirmations, but there is that one thing that is out of my control. To find it done for me before I've even woken up on the first of the month is jolly pleasing. :-) Hesperian 00:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

and now I'm even more chuffed to visit this page and find you citing my sillyness in the most complimentary terms. :-) Hesperian 00:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AuFCL points out the fact that Ineuw voted twice. Leave it alone? Strike and re-close? Hesperian 09:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He picked up his double-vote on my confirmation, but left the other 3. I've just struck them in the archive as that appears to have been his intention. There is still a clear pass on all three in accordance with enWS policy, so I see no issue. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rest assured, both of you, I was not impugning the validity of the voting process; merely trying to make light of the fact I do not wish to be intimidated into not voting on the strength of other's opinions. (And in saying that I sincerely hope I have misjudged the intent of those who expressed or implied such views.) AuFCL (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi Edit

Thanks for your welcome message. I hadn't planned on contributing, and just dropped in to look at those biblical verses (for musical reasons). Maybe I'll be tempted back! Tony1 (talk) 07:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

icon-icon-i-a, My grandma and your grandma...sittin' by the fire. . . Edit

Beeswaxcandle, where is the icon for "Proofread of the Month" for July? I like to collect them like some people collect stamps and I did contribute to it in July. —Maury (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. I haven't had the mind space up until now. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Beez. What filled up your "mind space"? —Maury (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Updating the materials for a national training programme after implementation of a new edition of the classification took most of my creativity. By the time the evening came round all I wanted to do was simple proofreading and there kept being messy tables needing attention, which swallowed the rest. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heavy! BTW, moments ago after reading your statement about mind space and my wanting to "collect" these icons I thought of something unusual. There is a fellow on WikiPedis (a place that gets all of the attention while WikiSource doesn't) using an alias of VirginiaHistorian that did an excellent page on stamps. A friend here who collects, recently sent me a quarter minted in San Francisco that has more silver in it. It has George Washington and Shenandoah on the back. He also sent a link showing this coin that have more silver and some tat have these coins in gold. I myself collect small ornate boxes and old cigar boxes, etc. because of their illustrations. These things suddenly came together in my thinking coupled with your statement and I thought of the following. These icons, in full, look like pretty "return addresses" to me. These are all public domain. We all could create return-type icons by printing them out and placing them (extra) on envelopes we send out and thus advertise WikiSource. We could send anything public domain and/or just these iconic rectangular images and text we have earned through our work on envelopes to advertise WikiSource and/or wikis in general for all wikis on WikiSource. I do not mean anything "official" for postage but rather like one uses such return address labels. These would travel the world and in time could become collectors items and with more time could become valuable as collectors items. Some people collect famous human body parts and some do that for the extraction of DNA, including Einstein's brain and eyeballs, but that's beyond my desires. Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge". People will collect many strange or unusual things. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

nominating a book Edit

Beeswaxcandle, this book, Woman Triumphant covers women throughout all of history and is well-illustrated. There are more than one person who worked on it and it is heavily linked to wikipedia by Kathleen and me, and perhaps others. How would I place this (somewhere) as a possible "Proofread of the Month"? I do not recall ever asking about or doing this but this book is so well-worth that risk. It is informative to the extreme and should be read by everyone for the sake of knowing and understanding women's plights, and advancing throughout all of history and in many nations. Many of the quality images, especially at the beginning and middle, show and tell of things I have never heard of or even seen any image about these events. It is a fully completed book. Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maury, as this book is already completed I wonder if you mean that it should be listed for consideration as a Featured Text.

Yes, sir, that is exactly what I meant. It has great historical value on "Women". I do believe I saw somewhere here on WikiSource that there should be more works by or about "Women" This is an excellent book for exactly that. It is also heavily linked to wikipedia articles for even more detailed information. That, I think, is mostly Kathleen5.wright's work. I myself would use this book to teach a college course and I do have a Ph.D. so I know about education as taught in (3) three universities even though it probably doesn't seem so here with my lack of knowledge of codes, &c. But I learned what I know about computers and html by hand and codes here on my own. There were no courses in computer technology as with today. We used slide-rules for calculations in chemistry and physics classes when there were no computers. I did not know we could nominate our own (done with other's work). That sounds a tad bombastic. Thank you for the feedback. —Maury (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this is the case, then feel free to nominate it there. If I've misunderstood you, please let me know. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To transclude or not? Edit

Thought I would bug you instead of adding yet another post to the Scriptorium... The image/poem on this page looks like it is taped in to the text, and not necessarily part of the original. I have a 1902 edition which does not include the image. Both texts at IA are scans of the same text (one in color, one in B&W), and I can't find another 1900 edition online to compare whether the image is present in other editions. What are your thoughts? to transclude or not to transclude? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definitely a paste-in. The font is wrong for Doubleday and McClure, the border is wrong for this book, it's in the wrong place in the work, and the poem was published in the collection The Shoes of Happiness (1913). I would proofread it (to keep the completists happy), but not transclude it as a part of the book. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For now, at least, I have declared that the "page does not need to be proofread." I'll leave it to the 'completists' to complete if they are not happy... unless I get to it myself eventually. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And, should I consider the text on this page to be part of the illustration and transclude the entire original image as is? Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would do it as a single image and put the text in the alt= parameter so that it can searched and picked up by ScreenReaders. My own preference for the painting would be to leave it in sepia rather than flatten it to B&W. For example, the fires in the background are a bit lost and there's more movement in the sky than in the original (see File:Jean-François Millet - L'Homme à la houe.jpg). All aesthetic rather than necessarily practical, but ... Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your input. I have kept the whole image sepia, and added alt text. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Button fun Edit

Just to recap.... in your User prefs,

Editing tab:

  • Editor section.
    Show edit toolbar - unchecked
    Enable enhanced editing toolbar - checked
    Enable wizards for inserting links, tables as well as the search and replace function - unchecked

Gadgets tab,

  • Proofreading tools section
    Disable OCR button in Page: namespace. - unchecked
    Use the old syntax in the Page namespace - unchecked
  • Interface section
    Allow pages to override my dynamic layout preference on a case-by-case basis - unchecked

Leave your common.js as it currently is!!!! then clear your cache, purge your cache, beat your cache & murder your cache. Report back here afterwards & then I'll stop pestering you too. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. I still had "show edit toolbar" checked. The CharInsert is now in the useful place. Thanks.

The problem now is that the enhanced toolbar at three lines takes up too much space. I need to work out how to move the "proofread" tools into my main section and then dump the "advanced", "special characters" and "proofread" drop-downs. I'm part-way there, I think. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hehe, just be glad we're not dealing with VisualEditor - that monster practically takes over the edit window leaving you 4 or 5 lines to work with!

Anyway, stick with your plan, keep trying various ways to rejigger the toolbar [time permitting of course] and collectively we might find a better way to handle all this toolbar nonsense. I've already trimmed some of the more esoteric character sets via your common.css btw.

Also, those collapsible toolbar menus remember their last state - so unless you close them before you save your edit, they be open again upon your next edit. This is why I prefer to use the CharInsert bar, User menu for a couple of the more common template or character inserts instead.

In the meantime, also drop User:Pathoschild a line and ask him to "look-over/re-do" your Common.js' RegEx components per his offer in WS:S -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I migrated Beeswaxcandle's regex scripts to TemplateScript as requested. Some of the Page-related functionality seems pretty generic, so it could probably be turned into a gadget and further reduce the amount of code in User:Beeswaxcandle/common.js. —Pathoschild 03:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle: I have the identical space issue as you. When you resolved removing the unnecessary tools from the edit toolbar, please let me know so that I can implement the solutions. — Ineuw talk 06:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Treat yourself to a 26" or larger LCD monitor. I too once pointlessly scrolled up, down and around even with a 19" 'tube'. Going 'wide' earlier this year helped cut down on both the eye strain & the scrolling - though I sorely miss keeping my coffee semi-heated by placing it on the back end, over-hang of the various old tube monitors I've had before all this new 'flatness' I have now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds nice, but a 26" monitor on my lap sounds a bit much. I've got a pair of 22" wide-screens on my desk at work (which are great), but for some reason work wants me to use them for purposes other than enWS. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Think you're on the right track with your last few changes but think you need THIS change to go through & be rolled out before tinkering any further along those lines will make any sense. Looks like is 3 steps ahead of everybody! -- George Orwell III (talk)

@George Orwell III: Is this code for the advanced or the old toolbar? Can you please clarify — Ineuw talk 14:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ineuw talk, the changes I was referring to were dealing with removing all the drop down tabs in the advanced editor (WikiEditor) and just placing the needed buttons across the visible toolbar. Those were a few edits back however. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will reply on GO3, talk page at User talk:George Orwell III#Continuation of the button funIneuw talk 00:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

toogleLayout -> toggleLayout Edit

FYI: I submitted a patch to fix that typo in the function name: gerrit:156266. However, in both cases you won't be able to use the function on your scripts because it is a local function used internally by the ProofreadPage script. Helder 12:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You mean Bugzilla: 70017 ? -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copying GPL2 code to WMF wikis Edit

Since the scripts in the ProofreadPage extension are under GPL (not CC-BY-SA or public domain), I'm not sure they can be copied to WMF wikis like this. Helder 12:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vertical screen space and screen size Edit

Hi WBC. If you are using Firefox, there are aeveral extensions which provide the extra vertical space by eliminating something on the top. Currently, I am having success with the "Hide Caption Bar Title Plus 2.8.6. which also provides for compresing the tabs and bookmark toolbar height. It has some drawbacks but it helps and it's better than using full screen mode, in that you can choose what to see.

In response to GO3: (screen) size doesn't matter. I also work with 22" LCD set at 1408 x 792 pixels and still have the same issue of seeing the "Charinsert" bar. . . . while giving up on seeing the

My Wiki editor is set to 12 lines and line height in the enhanced editor is greater than in the old editor. I Also work on a 13" Macbook screen but the scaling issue and the number of visible lines without scrolling is the same.

What I find difficult to convey is that the programmers who design the text editors may do some editing, but not sufficient amount to relate to us who proofread thousand of lines of text where we seek minimal screen movement for the repetitive tasks. — Ineuw talk 00:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protection/thanks Edit

Regarding your 27 August 2014 entry here: much appreciated ("your blood is worth bottling.") I was in fact debating asking for this very action, but was wondering if it might be considered much too much to ask; so a most heartfelt "thank you." AuFCL (talk) 07:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problems. I have an internal guideline for doing this—three times and it's protected. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sound policy. Not sure what I have done to attract the ire of 46.118/16 (either regional politics or pharmaceuticals) but perhaps searching for a reason is itself a pointless exercise. Your actions appreciated regardless. AuFCL (talk) 08:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links for Incorrect Citations Edit

Good evening! I've run into another situation where I'm not sure which would be the preferred option. On this page, the editor includes a few quotes from Swift’s Journal to Stella. (I'm just going to shrug my shoulders at the fact that the quotes are not exactly the same as what is found in the Journal entries in another volume.) The first quotation is from Journal Letter 8, although the words appear in the Nov. 8th entry, not in the Nov. 1st entry. If I had separated the Journal entries by day rather than by letter (he usually included about two weeks’ worth in each letter), this would have been a problem. The next quote is the problem, though. The quote that is attributed to Nov. 8 doesn't appear in the letter covering Oct. 31 to Nov. 11. So, what should I do? Link the quote to the Letter 8, the one that covers Nov. 8, or link to the letter where the quote actually appears (I haven’t found it yet, but I will).

Hoping that this is the worst of the problems you face for the rest of the month, I thank you once again for your help. Susan Susanarb (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Susan, my inclination in this situation is to link to where the text actually is rather than to where the editor thinks it is. This way we don't end up causing the casual reader to hunt around for something that isn't there. Something that would help linking to Stella is to put anchors in at the beginning of each date in the letters. Then you can link directly to the anchor. I'm doing this with the Ante-Nicene Christian Library. See Chapter 29 of the Dialogue with Trypho for a random example of how it works in the mainspace. Then go to Page:Ante-Nicene Christian Library Vol 2.djvu/136 to see how I've done it in the Page namespace. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you -- I had hoped that you would say this! I’ve used anchors a couple of times, so I will start using them for the Journals too. Susan Susanarb (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Running header script Edit

Beeswaxcandle, is it possible to port User:Inductiveload/Running header.js into the new TemplateScript library? Refer [4]. Moondyne (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know enough js to put it into the TemplateScript library. I disabled it because I wasn't sure how importing the script would go with the enhanced toolbar. I've had a go at creating a button and linking it. Have a try now and see how it goes. If it works there are implications for doing what Ineuw wants for his toolbar. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'hyphword' and 'runhead' buttons have appeared but neither do anything. Moondyne (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've tweaked the button scripts so that hyphword is identical to mine, which is working. If we can get it to work for you as well, then we're closer to sorting runhead. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No detectable change from above. Moondyne (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, when there's an {{hws}} template on the previous page, the hyphword button is not generating an {{hwe}} at the beginning of the nest page? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirming yes, that does work. I wasn't aware of what it needed. Runhead, no. Moondyne (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I managed to get part of the runhead scripts to work on my js. Unfortunately, only the bit that blanks the current rh template. I'll ponder some more, but I think I'm at the end of my current javascript knowledge. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pathoschild: can you help here? Thx. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would this replace the 'add header' script (from the Hesperian page tools), or is it a separate script? —Pathoschild 13:20, 06 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fwiw, the script in question was given at the top - User:Inductiveload/Running header.js -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, but before I port it into TemplateScript I need to know which of these is preferred:
  • replace the existing add {{running header}} script from Hesperian's page tools;
  • or merge it with the existing script;
  • or add it as a separate tool entirely.
Is there someone familiar with both scripts who can clarify how they're related or how they compare? Do they each have their own separate features that would need to be merged together? —Pathoschild 12:55, 09 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From my perspective, this is a separate tool. I happily use Hesperian's script for what I need and don't want to lose that. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strange numbers Edit

Hi. I placed the years to indicate the last time they were worked on. User:Mpaa just emailed me the list of the books queued for validation. I prepared the list as:

Current order | previous order | Year and month last edited

  1. 32 2010-01 Index:Myth, Ritual, and Religion (Volume 1).djvu

but if it's a problem the I won't touch it. Please let me know — Ineuw talk 23:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Umm, that's the last time the Index was worked on, rather than the last time a Page was worked on within that Index. Also, remember that the four Indices in "Running" are transcluded to WS:PotM. Put yourself behind the eyes of a new editor who ends up on that page. What will they see when looking for something to work on? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A La California Edit

(NOT DONE -- Chapters are not fully transcluded. I don't know how to transclude the blasted things! Someone else did some of them. To Hades with them. —Maury (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops, I entered your territory without a visa Edit

I acted on the wrong assumptions and didn't read the heading of the Validations page. I will also remove the PSM volumes on the bottom because I don't believe that they have any priority for validation. I am just glad that they are in readable condition for those who access it from the web.

A question: What is the exact purpose of the list in Queued to be validated? User:Mpaa was kind enough to extract the last edit date of the books listed. Are you interested in me replacing the current list? with this one?Ineuw talk 19:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's certainly not my territory, I'm just looking after it because no-one else has. The Queued list is use primarily to feed into the 4 works in Running and at Validation Month. Anyone can add a work to the queue and I just pick them out with an eye to maintaining a balance of subject matter and length.

The list in your Sandbox doesn't look right. The dates on the Swift volumes are all from before Susan joined the project. I think that April 2013 was when Hesperian uploaded them. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

disambiguation Edit

Hello. Is it okay to have a disambiguation page for variant translations? ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely. However, we have a special type for translations. Change the {{disambiguation}} template to {{translations}}. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice, thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dummy spit at C: Edit

At c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, I have again vented my spleen. I am closer and closer to the point of just not recommending/requiring uploads at Commons due to administrator actions. Bad culturally, but that would be due to lack of respect and consideration. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominating a PD template for deletion, deleting it a week later, then tagging every file with that template as "no license", all of which then turn up on a backlog 8 days later as not fixed, so they get deleted, all without consultation. I want to proofread and validate, not be a file administrator, which I've spent considerable time doing today. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have made specific comment to the deleter that 1963 legislation is now out of crown copyright, and suggested a tag that could be used if the work is undeleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As an aside to this I will note, I'd put a proposal on the Scriptorium that 'undercut' deletion should be prohibited.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will also add that it seems to be a small number of people with an agenda that normally cause problems in repsect of this,

including commons admins that close down discussions as 'stale' or rants, Sigh :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

My sincere apologies Edit

Sorry, Beez, I goofed somehow. I don't want garbage on WS either! Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add another row to the Firefox browser Edit

Hi. I recently discovered a very neat addon to eliminate another row (the menu bar) from the top of the Firefox browser and I was thinking of you, since we share some of the editing issues relating to vertical screen space. This is the addon (Personal menu}. It took me a few days to get used to it, but by now, I forgot about the menu bar. I am usig FF 33.0 where the menu bar can be hidden. Also, I have a collection on Mozilla, geared toward easing proofreading: Ineuw's collection Firefox addons for proofreading. I hope this helps. — Ineuw talk 05:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Am I just set in my ways Edit

Looking at the revisitation of the early style root pages for a work The Development of Navies During the Last Half-Century doesn't have me excited. Is it just me, or does it lack something compared to our more recent approach to display? — billinghurst sDrewth 12:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, changed to transclusions. I haven't been keeping a close eye on the PotM other than recording who's been working on it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
K. I wasn't going stomping in where you watching. Nor I recently, I came across stuff while patrolling, and that identified some backend mechanics where someone who had been working on biographical entries was applying the sectional component to chapters, and it was adding unnecessary complexity, and some slight difficulty. Thanks for the fix. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Red and the Black (1916) spelling Edit

Thanks for sticking with the project to get The red and the black proofread. We started about one year ago when I was new to enWS and more naive about scope and level of commitment. At the time, I didn't realize how much time it can take to validate a set of pages for a work of moderate size. Alas, we make progress. Please excuse my pace. Your speed at proofreading far out strips my efficiency at validating.

I would like your input on a matter that keeps popping up. There are what appear to me as typographical errors ("essentialy" and "inuendoes") which I hope are not archaic spellings. If you have a moment, look at page 119 and page 120. See if you agree with using the {{SIC}} or if they should be left undisturbed. I value your judgement. -- DutchTreat (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Site notice and Nov 2013 validations Edit

I have boldly put in a site notice to push validation month, especially to those who visit with an IP address. It will be interesting to see whether it has an impact on users who edit. I am thinking that I will vary the text once of twice this month (just because!) and was wondering whether you have some stats on how many works we fully validated last year, as I think that if we can wrap some of those stats into narratives about contributing (I did an analysis a few years ago when we had our first one). I am going to prod Phe to see if we can work out how many pages we validated on daily bases for Novembers versus other months. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikisource:Proofread of the Month/validation works/Archive has the lists of the works we validated from the template rotation. No. of editors involved 2011: 28; 2012: 22; 2013: 28. In 2012 we validated ca. 4500 pages. I don't have page numbers for other years. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links in Poetry Edit

Good morning, afternoon, or evening!

I will soon be finished proofreading the Jonathan Swift volumes, and then will start adding links to those volumes I proofread before I learned how to add links. One thing that has been troubling me has been whether or not I should add links in poems, essays, or other prose works. I have no problem adding links to Wikipedia to letters and histories, but somehow, it doesn't seem right in poetry. The author probably assumed his readers would know the references, and would not want to interrupt the flow of a poem by suggestions that the reader immediately look up who Diomede (who, interestingly, is not the same as Diomedes) or what Pegasus was. But, these days, many readers will not know who Diomede or what Pegasus was, so shouldn’t we provide a little help so that the readers’ comprehension is as great as possible? And if we don't add links to poetry, what about essays or prose? Since meter or rhyme aren’t involved, it seems that interruptions for links to explanations would be less intrusive, but these are still works of literature. Maybe it is not acceptable to mess up literature with what amounts to editorial comments.

I have found that, as I’ve been reading these works, I’ve been grateful for the editors notes explaning who people are. Sometimes it’s downright necessary. For example, I've seen times when Robert Harley was called both Mr. Harley and Lord Oxford in the same paragraph, without any indication that both referred to the same man. But, too often, there is no indication that "war" means the War of Spanish Succession, or that "king" could refer to King James II, King William III, King George I, or King George II, depending upon when the piece was written. Yes, I was able to determine which king was intended, but wouldn't it be easier to know immediately which king is meant? Or, when a political tract refers to the "bubble," do most people recognize that what is meant is the South Sea Company investment collapse of 1720? Or that constant references to the Drapier should make readers think, not of cloth and curtains, but of whether halfpence should be made of silver or copper in Ireland?

I've thus come to the decision to add as many links to Wikipedia or Wikisource as I can wherever I think that references might aid a reader’s comprehension. However, I will stop, and remove links I’ve already added, if there is a common policy that no links be added to poetry, essays, short stories, sermons, political tracts, or any other kind of literature that is not primarily historical in nature. Please let me know what you think. (And I’m sorry for the length of this entry, but I thought you deserved a short diversion in the manner of Jonathan Swift.) Susan Susanarb (talk) 03:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stumped Edit

Hi Bees, hope this finds you & your's well...

I'm having a hell of a time trying to figure out what template exactly is placing pages like Page:The Army and Navy Hymnal.djvu/33 (any page in that work really) into Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls - mostly because I'm not sure that's best way to transcribe a music-based work in the first place.

Can you take a look when you have some free time & the will? TIA. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My best guess is that it's something in {{Music/header}} as {{Hymn/header}} is based on it. Quite why there is a separate one for hymns I don't know. Lilypond has the ability to deal with all of this stuff within the score and it would probably be the better solution. I'll have a play with this particular hymn in the next couple of days and see what I can come up with. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]