User talk:Beeswaxcandle/Archive7

Latest comment: 4 years ago by RaboKarbakian in topic versions and plates

Footnote without a Reference Edit

I'm now adding links to the index in the Swift volumes, and found a footnote problem that I'm unsure how to fix. This page in the second volume has a note at the bottom of the first page of a dedication. Leaving it in the main body of the text resulted in this odd appearance in the full dedication. It could go to the beginning of the footnotes by attaching it to the title like a footnote. Or it could stay where it is (in the middle of a word in the first paragraph) by treating it like a block quote and moving it more to the center of the page. I lean toward the first option, and could make it a footnote. What do you think? Thanks for your help, as always! Susan Susanarb (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Susanarb: Hmm. It's an editorial mess-up. The reference to Irenaeus takes us back to the title page (page /53) some 50 pages earlier and correctly not transcluded to the Dedication. Definitely needs to be a footnote. I suggest you put an anchor on the quote on the title page and put a link back to that from the first paragraph (rather than the direction you have done) of the this footnote and attach the full footnote to "posterity". The link on the quote should be to Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume I/IRENAEUS/Against Heresies: Book I/Chapter XVIII. I'm in the (slow) process of sorting out the Ante-Nicene Fathers and Irenaeus is the next on my list (after Clement of Alexandria), so once I've got there I will hopefully be able to point the link to something closer than the entire capitulum. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! In the end, I made the link go both ways. So, on the title page, the link fixed to the quote goes to the footnote in the Dedicatory, the link on Irenaeus's name goes to his Wikipedia page, and the link on the quote's citation goes to the link you gave me. In the Dedicatory, the footnote still links to the title page, as that is the only place that someone will wonder "What does this refer to?" I think that's the best it can be, so I’ll leave it there. If you can improve it, please do! Susan Susanarb (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only amendment I've made to to change the Irenaeus link to his local Author: page in preference to the Wikipedia page. We try to keep readers local rather than sending them out of enWS (where possible). If a reader wanted to then look at the Wikipedia article, they can choose to do so from the Author: page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That makes sense. I'm afraid I've stopped looking for author pages consistently because they are not always there. Susan Susanarb (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I link to those that should be created as well—even though it's a redlink. Periodically a couple of our editors go through the list of redlinked authors and create pages with as much info as they can research from other sources. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

transclusion monitoring templates Edit

Hi. {{index transcluded}} should migrate to {{index validated date}} rather than be in addition to it as per Special:Diff/6548187/prev. Ta. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. Never noticed the index transcluded template before. Must be a new thing. Found it hiding on an Index: this morning. Is there any way its presence could be made more obvious? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{playscript}} for lines spanning 3 or more pages Edit

Hello, Beeswaxcandle. Is it correct that {{playscript}} only works for lines spanning at most two pages? Is there a way I could make this page work using the template, or should I seek alternate formatting? If the latter, do you have any suggestions? Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Londonjackbooks:, I've managed to make it work across more than two pages. Have a look at the Nurse's speech at The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet (Dowden)/Act 1/Scene 3#25 through to page 27. I put the {{playscript/s}} in the header box and {{playscript/e}} in the footer box on the middle page AND didn't put anything into the body. On the first page the speech begins with {{playscript/s}} (the {{playscript/e}} in the footer is optional) and on the third page begin the speech part with {{playscript/e|end of speech.}} This method also works with more than three pages. See Mercutio's Queen Mab speech in the next scene, starting on page 34 and finishing on page 38. (By the way, please ignore the tangle of footnotes on these pages, there are two sets of footnotes throughout this edition of the play and each page takes about 30 minutes to proofread—The hours do not stride on apace.) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a bunch... and I will happily ignore the footnotes. I burned out on footnotes working on Byron; probably should have followed your two-set strategy with those volumes, however. A bit early, but have a great New Year, BWC! Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Malformed categories ip address at it again Edit

This has deleted again. Can something permanent be done about this, the ip address this time is --kathleen wright5 (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've put low-level protection on the decade categories for the meantime. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mein Kampf Edit

Adolf Hitler ‎died in 1945. James Vincent Murphy ‎died in 1946. United Kingdom is now in 2017. Translation by James Vincent Murphy is now Public domain. --Abelium (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright until 2016. not 2039. Please unprotect Mein Kampf and Mein Kampf (James Vincent Murphy translation) and restore Mein Kampf (James Vincent Murphy translation). --Abelium (talk)

recheck needed Edit

Not sure that you successfully completed your transclusion check of Index:True stories of girl heroines.djvubillinghurst sDrewth 11:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What was the reason for starting again on this? If it's an issue with the original being All-caps, I can agree with you on that. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images here (as with others in the category at Commons) are preliminary until someone with more bandwidth than I can get the JPEG scans from IA and crop/white balance them, something I can't do easily with the bandwidth I have (sigh) :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In respect of the musical scores, these will be uploaded as images, as I don't know how to easily do these using lillypond. Your contribution in cleaning up images and scores (or a recomendation on whom to approach would be appreciated.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Instruments of the Modern Orchestra Edit

All pages mapped out, but I am going to have to ask for someone else to do the scores as I don't know how to do these. Despite your concerns, I would appreciate it if this was an area where you reconsider your involvement in this effort. I am going to take 48 hours away from this work so that the scores can be added. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also my apologies for getting somewhat heated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I got this far in my sandbox User:ShakespeareFan00/Sandbox/Scoring, and then got stuck completely, the lillypond documentation being useless to tell me HOW.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Instruments of the Modern Orchestra Edit

Thank you, Please award yourself a barnstar for adding this to Wikisource :)

Would you be interested in doing something related to this at Wikibooks? (The thought was to do something for all 128 GM instruments. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but my time constraints mean that my focus is here on enWS. (I'm also not sure what I could contribute to a book about General Motors.) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meant General Midi , but your good-humor is appreciated :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MIDI? I'll do almost anything else than deal with MIDI in any shape or form. The battles I've had with it over the years with trying to get synthesisers to talk loom too large in the memory. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archving New texts Edit

According to the edit log, Girl Heroines was added as a New Text on 31 December, so why was it not archived as such? --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EncycloPetey: Which time zone are you looking at? According to my view of the log I added the work at 13:17 on 1 January (NZ daylight time). I try to archive based on UTC, so translating it was 00:17 on 1 January and therefore wasn't a December addition. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bleh. I wish the clocks were all still set to the same time zone as they were back when I started. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tom Swift Edit

I'd left the ones that need a pagelist alone, because I figured you might have a specfic style/standard you were using for these. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but I don't know what you mean. Can you give me some context? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following Index:Tom Swift and His Electric Locomotive.djvu, Index:Tom Swift and His Electric Runabout.djvu, Index:Tom Swift in the Caves of Ice.djvu, were recently uploaded. I hadn't pagelisted them as I normally do with new Index pages I find as I understood you were steaming away on others in the same collection. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

/* Phe-bot & others */ Edit

Beez, I saw where you used Phe-bot for England and I ask, is everyone allowed to use it? It looked like all pages in volume 1 of 5 have already been proofread except for headers showing page numbers. Can it be used just to format pages? I have to format all pages by hand and hope they are correct. It is a _very slow process_. Are all bots listed in one area and stating what they do? Who is allowed to use them? Nothing I do is an automatic help bot or gadget. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The way I'm using Phe-bot is performing Match and Split. See Help:Match and Split for guidance on how and when to use the bot. This is the only automated process I use here. I should say that sometimes using the bot is quite complex. It's taking a couple of hours to process each chapter of this work. That's because of the formating complexities in the original mainspace version (I wish I'd picked a simpler work to do this weekend). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you kind;y, —Maury (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ragged Trousered Philanthropists Edit

I don't know whether you noticed, but the title page says "Robert Tressall" [sic.] --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, I thought I had made a typo and completely missed that. I see that in the Wikipedia article there's mention that all the early editions used "Tressal" and it wasn't until the 1955 complete edition that the spelling was corrected. I'll adjust it. Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

/*dot dot dot dash dash dash dot dot dot = sos */ Edit


Is there a way to keep the dots at the end of many words in this book . …… …… <--and here! from turning into a underscore line? Please look at this link and you’ll know what I am trying to say. Thank you kindly, —Maury (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Umm. The way it's been done by Nigmont is the way I would do it. The ellipsis character … is the correct one and should follow the full-stop. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, good, because that is what I have been validating. Either my editor or my eyes or both are getting too old because the ellipsis seems to get smaller once beyond the full stop. They seem to blend together. However, I enlarged it and saw they are all the same. There is a saying I read here, "Just because you can doesn't mean you should" but conversely _just because you should doesn’t mean you can_. <smile> Thanks, Beez —Maury (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Beeswaxcandle, I believe the following is the method I was seeking above. It was used by Billinghurst,[ … ] but not Nigmont and they look different in spacing and size of dots. . . . Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two questions and Thank You Edit

First of all thanks for you welcome!

I have two questions for you. Working on a play of Lord Dunsany I noticed some spaces (for the sake of some sort of alignment) between ACTOR and the words, e.g. Should this preferably be included in the text when proofreading? If yes, what is the best way ?

NB: I spent (quite) some time looking for a clue in the manual, but was not able to find a clear answer. Did I follow the wrong strategy or could this be considered a useful addition?

Another Question: Anything else by the author Lord Dunsany (Edward Plunkett (1878–1957)) to be expected in the future?

Yours Sincerely.

Man de Pier.

MandePier (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MandePier: Rather than making an exact replica of printers' tricks like this, our main focus is on reproducing the text in the way the author intended without the constraints of the printed page. My usual way of dealing with this sort of thing is to look at the preview and see if it flows OK on the screen. If it's too jammed up, then adjusting is needed. One possibility for a play is to use {{playscript}}. Otherwise I would set it with just a single space.

There does seem to be quite a lot published by Dunsany prior to 1923, so we could certainly add some more of his work. It really depends if we can find scans. Is there something that you're particularly interested in to start with? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dunsany a.o. Edit

@Beeswaxcandle: Thank you for the information on playwrights. As for Lord Dunsany: anything that needs proofreading. ("The Poet Speaks With Earth"-perhaps?) I also wonder if 'Selections from the Writings of Lord Dunsany' is not already published.?! Did it really need further proofreading?! See, Selections from the Writings of Lord Dunsany (1912)( or am I missing something?

Also I would like to mention: Robert Munro, see: and other source on the Paleolithic and Neolithic.

Last question: on the Plates of sources like I read 'Digitized by Microsoft.' Is this a donation by Microsoft' of does it mean something else? Should this not be erased, or just ignored?

Thanking you again.

MdP MandePier (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MandePier:, the copy of Selections … isn't scan-backed. Our aim is to have all our printed works backed up with scans. So, yes, proofreading is needed. We also need to split the book into subpages.
For Author:Robert Munro, I see that there are a couple of Index pages already loaded and waiting to be proofread. You can access them by clicking on the link "transcription project" on the Author page.
The phrase "Digitized by Microsoft" is a watermark that they added at the time of doing the scan. Some editors here are erasing it before uploading the files. If it turns up in the OCR of a page I delete it, otherwise I just ignore it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

re: tagging; best practices Edit


this item:

A Neglected Anniversary

was written, in 1917, by an american author, for whom we have a page

i even included a link to the wikipedia article about the piece


why did you, who clearly knows far more about using tags & license templates on here than i do,

think it was "better" to tag the item "no license", which could get it deleted,

instead of just fixing the license?

when it would have taken you about the same amount of time to do either?

with all due respect, that does not seem very helpful, or wiki-collabourative of you.


Lx 121 (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lx 121: The onus is on the uploader/contributor to ensure that a work meets all requirements. This includes adding header, license and source. We don't summarily delete works without a license. Tagging a contribution with that template puts it into a category for an experienced editor to investigate. If there's a problem, then a discussion would be held to see if anyone else can find something. "not collaborative"? au contraire. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
comment -- good to know, but that is NOT what the template says. & really, why didn't you just add the correct license instead? Lx 121 (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ec) @Lx 121: I believe that it is an indication that you need to do more to retain the work. As at enWP you need to add citations, here you need to add sources, but in headers, etc. You have been left hints about what to do adding works here, yet it seems that those hints are not actioned at your end. Please read some of the links on your user page. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
read them, replied.
if you don't value the work i am doing, i can stop doing it.
i guess you guys feel you don't need to get more people working on this desperately under-manned & neglected wikiproject?
also, i still haven't heard how tagging it "unlicensed" was better way to improve the wiki, than adding the license that you knew how to use & i didn't?
& i'm sorry if i seem a bit short-tempered here; but you broke the "wheaton rule" before i did.
with all due respect, Lx 121 (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lx 121: We are happy to lead, though we cannot do all the legwork. We need for users to learn and to adapt their efforts when they are shown the community style. If you have questions then please do ask them, WS:Scriptorium/Help is a supportive environment.

The project is not looking to be a copy and paste of other people's transcription efforts, we are looking to add works that can be proofread and validated. Verified text for us is important. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rationale query Edit

Hello & question. If you were asked why you prefer to use block center and breaks instead of the poem tag, what explanation would you give? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I only ask to have at the ready some answer that consists of more than "I prefer its use because of its stability and flexibility." What are some technical reasons behind its stability and flexibility that the poem tag lacks? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for delay—RL gets in the way sometimes and I wanted to give you a considered answer. I find the poem tag problematic in most uses. In fact the only time I use it is to set long lists where I don't want to use a table or html lists. I've had problems with alignment at page breaks when using the tag; line wrap is awkward on long lines (remembering that we don't know what screen width a reader will be using); because block center uses tables, the margins behave consistently; it's easier to wrap block center around other templates; block center with explicit breaks gives a better line height than the bare poem tag; using a double line break between stanzas in a block center gives a more pleasing inter-stanza space than does two br tags in a poem tag when transcluding; and when I use block center I know that it will behave consistently for all readers at whatever screen resolution and size they have.

However, all that said, the main reason is that I don't have to think how to set a poem regardless of its length when I use the block center technique (or block left/right if that was needed); whereas doing it with poem tags and colon indents requires a lot more thought on how it will look when transcluded—which might be days later for long articles or chapters.

In terms of the technical reasons block center is table based, the poem tags simply surround text that is then constrained to look like a poem.

Hope this helps, happy to continue discussion as required. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More than sufficient, thank you. You added reasoning to my intuition. Hoping you don't mind if I copy your answer to my WS housekeeping subpage for future reference? Always appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beez, don’t the pages still need to be formatted when viewed in edit mode? I think they do but now I am beginning to wonder after seeing so many that aren’t. —Maury (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@William Maury Morris II:, I'm not sure exactly which pages you're referring to, but if it's the Scottish Songs, there are some directions on how to do the pages in stages. As long as they aren't tagged as Proofread until all three stages are done, then it's OK. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No sir, but thank you for your reply Beez. That is not what I refer to whereby these examples where I take breaks show.

When one looks at these 2 pages marked as "proofread" but then looks again when in edit mode and sees text not formatted, are the 2 pages ready to be marked as proofread? I have always believed the text even in edit should be not have broken paragraphs, stray words, etc. I believe every page of this sort should be proofread and then mark the (outside) of edit mode look proper. Some people don’t bother to perfect in edit mode and for some reason it looks fine after proofread -- but is it really proofread. I say "no" and therefore cannot/should not be validated. I am not working on Scottish Songs. I did a few pages and got back to my 9 volumes of Cassell’s Illustrated History of England which is fascinating but also tiring. So, what is the answer? Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are a couple of proofreading mistakes in the first one (preemption should be preëmption). With respect to the linebreaks, these can cause problems when transcluding, which is why I remove them. They look OK in the Page: namespace, but don't behave in the Mainspace. This is also why I transclude chapters as I proofread them. Then I can check immediately that everything is as it should be. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Londonjackbooks: pointed me to this discussion. Thanks BWC for spelling out the reasons, I will bookmark this discussion. I'm always a bit confused by competing formatting advice I have received at different times...for instance, I must admit I have a distaste for tables that may not be rooted in anything relevant to MediaWiki. (I just looked up this discussion on Quora and I think, since our formatting here tends to be CSS markup-based, it doesn't apply.) I'm mostly feeling around in the dark on this stuff, so it's great to have a clear articulation of your reasons. -Pete (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Petty Edit

Hi Beeswaxcandle,

As you have perhaps noticed, I'm quite active in getting the Economic Writings of Petty done. But I still have a few problems and some questions. In the near future I'll get in contact with you to ask you if you could perhaps help me with these things.

But for now my most important question concerns the second volume. You asked about that.
I have imported the second vol here: Index:William_Petty_-_Economic_Writings_(1899)_vol_2.djvu. But I think the quality of the OCR is really poor.
I used this file in
Perhaps this one is a little bit better?
Or do you perhaps know better possibilities for this?

I would be happy to hear from you. Greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow-up Question Re: Hebrew Accents Edit

Since you're the last person to help me with this, I figured I'd bother you about it. This is a more advanced version of the previous problem.

On page 1 of Brown-Driver-Briggs [1], I've started proofreading and found a trickier variant of the problem you helped me with earlier. Now, the very first word of the main text on the page has an issue.

The word is "Aleph." In the Wikisource version, it's first letter is Ā. In the scan, the Ā has above it a little < or "ole" on top of the first accent. I've tried to use the Hebrew keyboard you showed me to put an Ole on top of a Ā, but when I put it into the text, the ole shifts into the middle of the word. This makes sense -- no reason a Hebrew accent would play nice with the Latin alphabet.

So I guess there's a couple possible solutions. If you can give me any guidance or direct me towards someone who could, that would help me out. If you don't want me bothering you, just let me know.

First, I'm wondering if there's some way to force a simple "<" less than symbol to stack on top of the letter. If there isn't, I'm wondering if it would be acceptable to produce a work-around. All the ole is there for is to indicate where the stress comes when you pronounce "Aleph" (it's on the A). So I'd be perfectly happy to just write the word as Ā'leph. If there's no way to do reproduce the original look, I'm thinking we could at least reproduce the original intent. Alephb (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is that multiple modifiers don't like playing together very well. It could be set using LaTex (maths notation), but that would look odd as an inline thing. I've got to go out to a meeting shortly, but when I come back I'll have a play and see what I can come up with. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alephb: The character is א֫. Write &‌#1451 followed by semicolon after the Hebrew character, you will get your ole. Hrishikes (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not quite. I have no trouble sticking an ole on a Hebrew letter anymore. But BDB, page 1, sticks the ole on top of the letter A of the transliterated word (in Latin letters) Aleph, not on top of the Hebrew letter called Aleph. The problem shows up on the very first entry on this page (the problem becomes clear if you look at the scan) [2]. Alephb (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alephb: You can use {{Letter position}}: A  ֫. Hrishikes (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't know about that template. Could be very useful for dealing with some of the abbreviations in renaissance texts. So, Ā< would be a solution. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow. That is super-nifty. Given that Brown-Driver-Briggs is absolutely crammed with weird character issues, this might get me out of several scrapes. Alephb (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page loading Edit

Hi. Are you still having page loading issues? Also, can you please let me know which browser and version you are using? Thanks in advance. — Ineuw talk 20:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not any more. Whatever it was that Billinghurst did to the nop gadget seems to have done the trick. Firefox 52.0.2 (32 bit) on Windows 7 is my main browser for Wikisource. However, the problems in the weekend were happening in IE8 (Windows) and whatever the latest version of Safari is on the iMac as well. Note that it was specific to the Page: namespace. While I occasionally have slow page loading that's normal in a household with an inveterate internet video watcher. They go to bed and my connection speeds up. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Essentially we have the identical setup, both OS and software. My second browser is Chromium 58, which also exhibited the problems. — Ineuw talk 08:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Texts Edit

I don't understand why you made this edit. The book was already listed. It is currently listed twice. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just an oversight. I simply didn't see it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Author:Boris Korzhov Edit

Just wondering why we have the author page. Do you see that it still sits within our criteria for hosting author pages? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No idea now why I created it 6 years ago. I can only assume that there was a redlink from a work at the time. Given that 2028 is a couple of years away yet, I see no problem in losing the page in the meantime. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

backpocket Edit

FYI: Found and started on Index:Outlines of the women's franchise movement in New Zealand.djvu. Seems pretty simple so far and has some images that I am guessing will be of value. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page:Original Waltzing Matilda manuscript.jpg/1 Edit

You're probably the only regular editor who's good with LilyPond. Would you be interested in doing "Waltzing Matilda"? It shouldn't be too hard, and is a fairly high-profile work which was nominated for feature status a while back. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Beleg Tâl:   Done Quite different from the version we sing today. It's just recognisable. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chopin's Nocturne Op. 9, No. 2 Edit

Hello, Beeswaxcandle. I was wondering if you were familiar with the above Chopin Nocturne, and if so, whether you would mind if I emailed you with a request. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Londonjackbooks: Yes, I'm very familiar with it. Feel free to drop me a line. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving File:DoD USS Liberty Inquiry Press Release 28 Jun 1967.djvu Edit

Can you please explain why you tagged the file as a candidate to be moved to Wikicommons? I'm not being snarky, just trying to learn. Thanks. Mox La Push (talk) 04:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it just the djvu file that you think should be moved? I was planning to create a page with the transcribed text of the press release. Mox La Push (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mox La Push: We only host files that are PD under our rules, but not accepted by Commons. Anything that is acceptable to Commons (and this file is) should be hosted there. Yes, it's just the file. The proofread text definitely belongs here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, thanks for clarifying. I will plan to move the file to Commons unless someone else does before I do. Mox La Push (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Score proofreading Edit

i salute your singular determination on score editing. i gave up after trying a single voice. this is a big hole in digitized content: lots in pdf or out of print, and people still scrambling with xerox copies. would you consider a wikimania lightening talk or hackathon pitch. if we could find a coder to create a visual editor interface, it could reduce the learning curve. we could recruit some choir minded editors; wikisource could become the place for PD scores. Slowking4SvG's revenge 17:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Slowking4: I have no idea what you mean by "a wikimania lightening talk or hackathon pitch". However, I believe that the best home for PD scores is the IMSLP project. Snippets of scores, such as those sprinkled through the DMM or in Fugue (Prout) are what I see the best use for scores here. The score on Cox and Box (complete)/Rataplan took me about 8 hours to produce and even now I'm not that happy with it, which is why I haven't completed the rest of the opera. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Sorry to interject) If we're talking visual editor interfaces, I had this idea a while back that this could be accomplished by taking an existing WYSIWYG LilyPond editors like Frescobaldi and writing a script tool that will convert it to syntax that the <score> extension can read. This would be easiest I think, especially since we don't have a lot of people itching to write new editing tools. If I get a chance in the next few months I may try my hand at it myself. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Beleg Tâl: I wasn't aware of Frescobaldi (the program, I know the composer's work well) and have been doing all Lilypond in a text window and compiling it. I've downloaded it, but I'm missing a dll file to be able to run it to see how practical it is to copy/paste the text from the editing window into here. I note that it's not really a visual music editor like Sibelius or Finale, it just previews how the text version will look when compiled. However, it may well be enough (once I've sorted the file issue). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
about wikimania - the programme is out, and thoughts turn to how to occupy all that coder talent. and there is time to proselytize about all the neat-o wikisource stuff going on. also a beginner’s guide would be nice in order to welcome newbies. Slowking4SvG's revenge 10:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i am a fan of IMSLP and also, but these are pdf based. a roadblock to getting to pad / phone use is music transcription. there is also a lot of sheet music not digitized. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I use pdfs to play from on my iPad via the ForScore app—they are an essential part of my workflow for music. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Registration Acts of 1836, England Edit

Hello, well, for starters, birth certificates from 1837 only entered the name if any, sex, date and place of birth, name, surname and occupation of father and name and maiden surname of mother - not anything else, except for date of registration and signature of registrar - further, if you check the schedule to births, the sex of the child is not specified and isn't in - in it's place is the name and surname of the father (!) so if you put the sex (male / boy), of the child in the column and shunt all the other items one place to the right, then it will make much more sense - even though, as stated above, the actual certificates don't sadly furnish parents date and place of marriage - the deaths I have a similar problem, no place of birth is given in the certificates from 1837 - the age cannot be Leominster so again, the age should be placed in the correct column, the sex of the deceased is stated in the certificates not given in this schedule and the other items shunted one place to the right - the marriage certificates supply occupations but not place of birth, also marital status, and occupations of the father of each, not specified in this schedule.

I trust this clarifies what I specified before ...

Yours truly, Neil, South Africa.

I have no idea what this is in relation to. Could you please elucidate? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Edit

Your proofreading and editing has me hopeful you can help me get started.

Any starting advice for someone with a lot of work cut out for them? Kethertomalkuth (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Score check Edit

Could you please look over Page:The Wonderful Visit.djvu/121 to be sure the short score is completed correctly? I have not used LilyPond before, and although I could figure out some things, I could not get the bars in the correct location nor does the audio play. There may be other syntactical issues of which I am not aware. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: I figured out how to get the partial bar. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EncycloPetey: Looks pretty good as a first attempt. I've simplified a little. The << >> pair indicates music that needs to happen simultaneously, when there's only one line they're not needed. Also, the automatic stem direction mostly works pretty well. I'm not having any playback problems. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. The playback problem must be at my end. I'll try from a different computer when I get the opportunity. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proofreading Quality check notices Edit

Thanks for the reverts on the relevant talk pages.

However, it was left because the item mentioned had been missed on both a proofread and validation. If you think it's not appropriate to warn about missed items like that, perhaps you could suggest a more appropriate response, other than to fix the relevant formatting or typos?

I've also had some comments on my talk page recently about typos in template calls, as a result of which I am in the process of reviewing a number of pages. In the process of that review, the missing formatting on the validated page concerned was identified. Either Wikisource wants 'perfect' transcription (within the limits of the relevant markup) or it doesn't. Missed formatting on a proofread or validation (something concerns had been directed to me in the past about) is not a 'perfect' transcription.

Some recent comments on my talk page suggested that a 'perfection' standard for proofreading and validation should be applied, and thus, I am currently of the view that if there's a perfection standard being applied, it should be applied equally. If you think otherwise than you are welcome to take this up with the contributor(s) that have raised concerns on my talk page (both recently and in the past) or more generally, due to despite my best efforts to be 'perfect', a few typos occasionally slip through.

I am currently considering owing to the relevant concerns being raised, if I am able to continue to contribute effectively, owing to the apparent allegation of incompetence being implied by the relevant comment on my talk page. In response to previous concerns of this nature, I have reviewed specifc past efforts, attempted to avoid typos (using preview more frequently), and yet I STILL get concerns about missed typos or things missed in proofreading (and validation.).

On that basis I am having to conclude that there IS a first-time perfect standard being applied by some contributors, and that certain contributors like myself are apparently no longer welcome to contribute "new material". If this is so, then it should be applied equally, and hence the "Quality check" messaages wording.

However, you have deemed the precise wording as "inappropriate", which I am not going to dispute.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(e/c) Warning people in relation to a single error on a single page is inappropriate (just fix it and move on). Telling an established and experienced editor to stop working on anything until they have fixed all the mistakes they have ever made (which was what you implied) is way beyond that.

If there had been egregious errors on that page, then pointing those out would be appropriate. If there is a pattern to errors, then a warning is also appropriate. The "other" admin was bringing your attention to a pattern in your editing. The choice is with you to act on that warning and take more care over ensuring that you don't leave faulty template calls on pages (whether in progress or proofread), or to continue on blithely leaving them for other editors to clean up later.

With respect to "perfect" transcriptions: while that would be lovely, we are realistic enough to know that we can't achieve that 100% of the time. However, we should be able to achieve between 90% and 95%, or even 98%. When any of us spot something missed and fix it, then we bring the book and the site closer to the 100%. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On your second point (about telling other contributors to stop until they've fixed previous mistakes), I feel I've been told that implicitly by some other contributors on at least three previous instances. It's never been directly expressed though, and has been expressed as an extension of the "slow down" or "take a break" comments you've noted. I have recently and previously asked for details of SPECFIC works where the issue has been identified so to focus any reviewing more effectively, the response to that wasn't necessarily helpful.
I get the distinct impression from the tone of your comments and those of the "other" contributor, that you aren't interested in hearing further arguments on this matter. With that in mind I will continue reviewing past efforts back to March 2017, which is when I took a previous break from editing over previous concerns of a related nature which I had self-identified.
However, I am giving serious consideration as to to withdrawing from future contribution, unless their is a change in attitude from certain contributors, and some technical measures implemented to ensure certain "mistakes" never reach the database at all. ( As mentioned elsewhere it should be possible to amend the edit/save UI so it won't save pages with undefined templates, This should catch many of the examples the other contributor's been able to identify.)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I no longer see the scanned text on the right side of my screen Edit

I really appreciate all your help, and I hope I'm doing everything correctly because I really enjoy proofreading. One problem that has surfaced today is that I no longer see the scanned copy on the right. Is there a button to refresh this information? Or has the rest of the book just not been scanned? The book is Tom Swift and His Photo Telephone.

Thanks again, Maggie Mkjames100 (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mkjames100: It's frustrating when that happens. Usually what needs to happen is that the cache needs to be purged for the particular index. You can do that by going to the Index: page and clicking the recycle image in the top right corner. Because doing so will take you off to Commons, I generally try to remember to do it in a separate browser tab so that I don't have to try to navigate back again. It's alright for me at the moment, so maybe you just need to close everything down and restart.
I'm glad you're enjoying proofreading. You're doing fine with those little tweaks I suggested. I'm making a few other changes as I validate, but don't worry about those for the time being. When we've finished the book, let's pause for a review of things. I've also been transcluding the chapters to the mainspace. You don't need to think about that process yet, but it does give you a chance to see how the finished product looks to the reader. Please feel free to ask me anything as we go. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Poor Validations Edit

I generated this query recently,, as you had raised concerns about the level of edit quality of another contributor.

It doesn't necessarily list everything ever edited by them, but it might help identify pages that would need to be reviewed.

I was in the process of reviewing (and if necessary) re-proofing some of my older efforts, when I got somewhat fed-up with playing "hunt the quirk" again, and so am considering an extended absence until some core issues are resolved. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: OK, but I'm not that interested in berating people for things they did years (or even months) ago. I'm much more interested in helping editors improve their current work. If someone is validating pages I've worked on in the last month (at the outside), then I'm interested to see what I can learn from their validations and apply to my ongoing proofreading. Longer ago than a couple of months? It's too long ago to affect my style now.

How does this apply to you? You may well have made some poor proofreading decisions in 2012 when doing the Cutter's guide (to pick a work at random). That was five years ago. There's no point me auditing your work from then. Your skills have now progressed to the point that you can now see that they were poor and you have learnt how to fix those pages (and simplify things at the same time). Now, what can you do to prevent this type of problem from creeping into new works? What have you learnt today/yesterday/this week that you can apply to make sure that proofread pages are even closer to the ideal? And when it all gets too much and you're dreaming in templates, then turn off the computer and go and exercise or cook something or read a physical book while savouring the feel of the pages beneath your fingers. The last of which I'm about to do. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am STILL re-reading old material, though. At least until I got called on poor validation technique in early 2013. This means I'll also re-read some work nominally "validated" by others, and on which I can report I've not been finding issues. I also note that in my my back efforts there seem to be some works that are in partially validated state or proofread only that have been that way for just under a decade now, However given this is a relatively small project, that's expected. I'd of course like to know if there are still typos I'm missing, but I will assume you have a long watchlist as well.

On a side note, do you have a check or guidance list for known mistakes? Like the typo words list I was at one point compiling, or clearly bad syntax like {[ or {{{ entered instead of a {{ (I recall doing a sweep for the former very recently.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

acting simultaneously Edit

I clearly wasn't paying attention to relative time and created author pages, then you did. I pushed them one way, and you may wish to change, anyway, I will leave it with you. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

?locked out Edit

/* Somehow I, William Maury Morris II, have been locked out. Please look into this and restore my account */

Beez, please look into the password change. Somehow it was changed and then I changed it to ZEB.........., But that did not work either. -- William Maury Morris II

PS Thank you for the kind note about my wife on my AOL account.


Maury, I can't see that you are locked or blocked. Theoretically you should be able to get a password reset from the login page. The link should come to the email address that you have linked to your account. If you've already tried that, have you checked your email spam folder? I find that some Wikimedia emails end up there. If that still doesn't work, let me know and we'll see what else we can try. @Brother Officer: Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like there is success, I see an edit from 22 Aug. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • There was a success after several failures but I kept trying and got a success then didn’t recall it after I tinkered with volume 6 and then I forgot the change I made and was back to locked out again. The code that was sent to me did not let me back in. I tried moments ago and once again it was a success and here am I once again. I have used the same log in for years. I think I must be getting too old in the memory cells. I’ll write the new log in down this time. Thank you for your reply and statements. It’s good to be back! —William Maury Morris IITalk 13:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Beeswaxcandle,

Do you notice an issue with the wiki editor? It turned to a very terminal like feel since yesterday. Any idea what is going on? -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MOS Edit

I see nothing in the WS:MOS that (a) prohibits the use of dates for disambiguation of editions, (b) prohibits relative links, or (c) mandates Arabic numbering. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation is pointless when there is no other hosted edition to differentiate from; relative links are fine, but they don't work on the transclusion on the Index page and show as redlinks; I thought the Arabic numeral expectation was in the MOS. It's in the talk page for WS:Naming conventions, but this never got completed. However, it's still a convention here so that the format of titles is standardised to make wikilinking straightforward. I'll now go back to more congenial tasks. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(a) All three of Douglass' autobiographies went through multiple editions, often with significant changes, such as the addition of illustrations. We have two editions of his third autobiography ready for transcription, and it would be much easier to place the work in hand at a disambiguated location now, rather than have to move the whole thing later. It promotes stability of linking from external sites. (b) Sounds like a Phabricator request, to me. (c) I most often opt for Arabic numbering myself, but there are works (such as the present one) where I find Roman numerals make everything else function much more smoothly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(b) isn't a Phabricator problem. It's simply that when using relative linking, wikiware is looking to link to a subpage of whichever page the link is on. This means that a transcluded TOC to an Index: is trying to link to subpages of the Index. Therefore they appear as redlinks. By making the link explicit in the TOC in the Page: namespace we avoid this problem. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(b) is a Phabricator problem because we have no means of specifying the base href for the links. If we could override the page location with another location in the Index namespace, telling the wikiware the correct starting point for the relative links, then relative links wouldn't have this issue. It's a Wikisource-specific problem, because of our use of the Index namespace. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stanza spacing opinion sought Edit

Hello, Beeswaxcandle. Since you validated, I was wondering if I could get your opinion as to how stanza breaks should be handled with this poem. For the whole work, I used two line spaces for stanza breaks, but this poem may need to be handled differently? In my opinion: one line space before the two-line instances, and two line spaces after the two-line instances. Thoughts? At your leisure, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So treating it as a sort of refrain? That works for me. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding a new book to wikisource Edit

I am new to Wikisource and I am interested to know how to add a book to Wikisource for Proofreading & Validation. The scanned copy of the book I am interested is available in and I do not see any copyright violations as well.

Can you suggest me how to add that book to Wikisource? Scanned link -

Also it would be great if you could tell me how the sources, which are Validated completely, are transformed into a readable book with chapters and links?

Cyarenkatnikh (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cyarenkatnikh: OK, several different things here. First off, all of the Boy Travellers books are out of copyright so any of them are fine to bring in.
Next, you need to upload the .djvu file to Commons. At the bottom of my page User:Beeswaxcandle/Works you'll find a link that shortcuts the uploading process a little. Open that link in a new browser tab, click the "log in" link in the pink bar at the top, then authorise Commons to talk to Internet Archive on your behalf. The page will reload with a green bar in place of the pink bar. In the first box put "boytravellersinf01knox" and in the second box put "Boy Travellers in the Far East Part 3" and click "Get metadata". Fill in the fields to the best of your ability. Then click the "upload" button at the bottom of the input window. This will upload the .djvu file.
Once the file has uploaded, then you'll need to create the related Index: page. It has the same name as the file, so Index:Boy Travellers in the Far East Part 3.djvu (you can use this link to create it). Again fill in the metadata fields as best you can (some of them you can copy from either of the two Boy Travellers books we've already got here). Make sure to select djvu in the Scans field (this is important for linking back to Commons). You won't be able to do the pagelist initially, that's fine. It's best done a little later anyway. Also, leave the Table of Contents field blank for the time being. For the Summary field I usually use "New Work", then click "Publish changes" and the Index will become available.
The Pagelist command is explained in Help:Index pages#Parameters. Once you've done the pagelist you'll know which pages have the Table of Contents (TOC) and then you can "transclude" the relevant pages as in the linked example on the same Help: page.
Now, in terms of transcluding books into the Mainspace, you don't have to wait until the pages are Validated. However, all the pages for a chapter or section should be in Proofread status. The simpler explanation of how to transclude is at Help:Beginner's guide to transclusion. My own preference is to use the "Manual header" technique rather than the automatic technique described in the first section of that Help: page. We try to start with the Main page for a work. It will have the Title page and the TOC on it at least. It will also have the work's categories and license. There must be a header template on this page. For the chapters, these are put onto subpages that have the same name as the work's main page and are followed by a / and then the Chapter with an Arabic number. For example, The Boy Travellers in the Far East, Part 3/Chapter 6. Even if a work uses Roman numerals for the chapters we change them to Arabic. This is to make linking between works consistent.
There's a lot of information here. Take your time, ask questions and if you need me to tweak anything for you, let me know. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing apostrophes in Fighting in Cuban Waters and Boys of the Fort Edit

Hi, sorry to bother you, but I've stumbled across a couple of books you started, and have been validated, and have numerous missing apostrophes. I've done a lot of such corrections and the past, but I'd rather not take the time to work on them just now. What I often do in cases like this is go to edit the first chapter, plug in the last page in the pages tag and click preview. Then all you have to do is search in the browser for space-d-space or space-ve-space and so forth, and then it's easy to open up the page view and do the corrections. (Sorry if you've already thought of that ...) All the best, Mudbringer (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Found another one: For the Liberty of TexasMudbringer (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Boys of the Fort" fixed.— Mpaa (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did what I could find on all of them.— Mpaa (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mpaa: not sure what you fixed, but I meant corrections like these: Special:RecentChangesLinked/Index:Boys_of_the_Fort.djvu. It's a bit more complicated than I was thinking at first, with eye dialect like 'most for almost missing apostrophes too. Mudbringer (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like I underestimated the change. I was following your suggestion above.— Mpaa (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Music question Edit

Is there ever a time that a musical note is notated (if that's the correct word) but not played? For example, the second "g" in the following:


If so, how would one "program" coding to make the note "play" silent? Apologies if I'm not clear. Also, I would like to try transcribing Chopin's Nocturne to Wikisource using a file from IA. Being that it contains no lyrics, is that something WS would include? If so, would you recommend LilyPond or ABC? I played with ABC in a sandbox, and it plays somewhat ok (I did some tweaking by ear), but even strict transcription does not render the same output as the file image at IA. Any comments/recommendations welcomed... I don't wish to take up your time on this, especially if you don't think the music is WS material. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the tied second g should not sound again, but merely lengthen the dotted crotchet (quarter note). I don't know ABC, so can only recommend Lilypond. I find that it does a reasonable job of turning a transcription into a audible file. However, what Lilypond does very well is the score output. I have no problems with enWS having some scores—particularly if there is a reason associated with another transcription project. Here's I would do the first phrase in Lilypond:
I would comment, as a pianist, that the particular edition you've found is over-edited. Chopin did not put all those fingerings in, for example. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. That is good to know. By fingerings, are you referring to the smaller-sized notes that "trill" along? If you happen to know of any music sheets online or elsewhere that could be transcribed here that are more faithful to Chopin's original composition/intent, I would be grateful. As well as any links to a more faithful performance (sound or video) for comparison purposes. I will take a look at Lilypond. ABC seemed "easier" but for the issue with notation rendering. As usual, I have a selfish motivation for wanting to add the piece here, having written lyrics to the music, and wanting to ultimately produce a music sheet (not here at WS, obviously) with both words and music that I could copy albeit only in preview/edit mode. A Christmas gift for a family member. I have already done so with the ABC version in my sandbox, but I am not happy with notation output, which is why I have come to you. Thanks for any help. No issues if you can't. Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, btw, for the LilyPond preview. I have been building upon it slowly. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By fingerings I mean the little numbers printed above the notes. They indicate which finger to use to play the note. These are rarely done by a composer except in pedagogical works and are added by the various editors. This page [3] at IMSLP has some recordings of the E♭ major Nocturne listed in the first half of the page. In the second half are some scores that have been scanned. The clearest is the second from the bottom of the page, but some of the editorial bits mean that copyright is legitimately claimed. There is a first edition scan of the complete Nocturnes on this page (the first of the Scores). This is Chopin's original approved publication of the Nocturnes (1833) and is the closest to what you need. I've attempted some answers to your questions on your sandbox. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Since the Kistner version is public domain, am I able to then save/upload the pdf file to IA from the IMSLP site? Thank you for answering some of my questions. Another quick one: Is there a LilyPond equivalent to <!-- -->? I will pose subsequent questions to the Help:Sheet music discussion page, unless there is a more appropriate place. Thank you so much for your time. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, you can upload the Kistner to IA. You could also upload it to Commons and then use it as an Index. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good, will do. A Matthew Arnold quote comes to mind that "poetry is so difficult!" —Not poetry, but music! :) Thanks for your help! Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll hold off on playing in the sandbox... I didn't realize you were helping out! Thank you! I'll have a look at what you have done. I have been all over the LilyPond help site, but I just could not make heads nor tails... grace notes or smaller notes... what the 8 is for... dotted lines... etc. :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep going, I'm about to go out to a concert and won't get back to thinking about this for several hours. However, it may well be that the cadenza solution may have to be used to get the bar to break partway through. I've only managed to get in 8 of the figures, when 12 are needed. [The problem with the Lilypond documentation is that one has to know a reasonable amount of music theory to find the information needed. I've got ca. 45 years experience of reading and playing music.] Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Enjoy the concert :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Each morning, I wake up to find welcome adjustments/additions to the sheet music. Feels a bit like the elves and the shoemaker :) Sort of. Thank you.

I made a few changes since your last edit (forgive incorrect music language usage!)—all subject to your approval:

  1. adjusted natural, etc. marking in two places to match original image [4] [5]
  2. added cadenzas because bar placement was off in last couple bars [6]
  3. more marking adjustments to match original image [7]
  4. added scale durations [8]
  5. another tweak to match original image (in bar 9) [9]

So, have I been ordering notes wrong? Ex:

<c a f> is correct, and <f a c> is wrong? Do you go from top to bottom order on the scale? Many thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've adjusted the cadenza so that it covers the whole bar. This does away with the need for scaling durations.
In terms of ordering notes in a chord, there is no wrong way. Because I changed the first in each of the two series, I then had to change the others to make the relative notes work. For treble clef chords I mostly go from the top to the bottom. This puts the melody note as the first. When we come to do the bass clef chords for the accompaniment, we'll mostly do bottom to top so that the bass line is more obvious when reading the raw Lilypond text. It will also reduce the number of octave leaps needed. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good. Thank you. I had added scaling durations for sound purposes. Not necessary for transcription, but for my listening pleasure :) There was also the matter of a missing natural mark (if I remember) in one of the set of small grouped notes... I'll check for it again. Not to be picky, but listening to the sound file, one of the high notes in bar 22 sounds "off", yet the image matches the original. Otherwise, aside from what is probably unavoidable sound-rendering-wise in bars 16 & 24, all sounds and looks good to me. Please let me know when you are happy with the treble clef portion. I'll then copy it for my purposes, and set to working on the bass clef portion as well. I have uploaded the Kistner file to Commons. Is it the case that one can not split a score between two index pages? Thanks again, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, OK. That bar is marked "senza tempo" (without time), so the sound version can be played with anyway you like to make it sound good. In this edition the three times that high d is there the flat is missing. In my other editions, it's there so looks like a typo on the part of the publisher. However, just like texts, I don't think we should amend it in this edition. Yup, bars 16 & 24 we're pretty much stuck with because midi is fitting the notes in exactly where they come against the beat. I suspect that as we add the bass clef line we'll find a few more things for the treble line. In terms of splitting the score across two pages, it's a nuisance to do but it is possible. I'm going to suggest creating the final sound file off line and then uploading that separately to Commons. The link would then be in the Notes field of the Header. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for getting started on the bass clef. I have made some note/marking adjustments based on original image rendering. I have also restructured the sectioning of the sandbox and included a new "Talk" section directly under the Nocturne so I can ask questions/make comments there from now on rather than here at your Talk page. Are you okay with me continuing to add to the bass clef? Things may be busy in RL this month upcoming and beyond, but I would still like to contribute :) As an aside, I have begun writing a biography on the "poetic life" of Florence Earle Coates. It has been a long time coming, but I feel I now have sufficient info to tackle it. Chopin's nocturne "sounds" much like Coates' poetry reads to me (I particularly like Brigitte Engerer's playing of the Nocturne), and I have always associated it with her poems. I came to find later that Mrs. Coates was apparently quite proficient at playing Chopin's works in particular. That served as confirmation for me :) Thanks for all, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course I'm happy for you to continue on with the bass clef. I had some spare time before the onslaught of RL strikes and I wanted to get you started. I also wanted to experiment a little to see if we could put the pedalling into a different voice—it works!—so that we could focus on the notes. Your fixes for bars 2 and 6 have shown me something I hadn't noticed before: musically these two bars are the same. The bass line is identical and the second half of the treble is also the same. The first half of bar 6 is a florid version of the first half of bar 2. Looking ahead, bars 14 & 22 are also the same as these two. I must study Chopin's musical language a bit more. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A Season's Greeting and a thank you for your help with the Nocturne. A printed copy of the melody (with lyrics added) was a gift for my daughter (who loves the nocturne), and hearing her sing it was a "gift" to me :) I will continue adding to the bass clef soon. Merry Christmas! Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Beeswaxcandle. I pinged you over at my sandbox, but sometimes the ping fails to notify. If you got it, good to go—in which case you are not ready to respond yet :) Finished with adding notes for the whole Nocturne, and I left details on what I have done about pedal markings in the "Talk" section. Only thing to mention is that I will need to fix some sections/notes of the piece where I (early on) made changes for correcting sound errors due to notation errors in the original (noted in the "Notes & to do" section). Once we have matched the original, I will create a separate copy with corrections to the original for the purpose of creating a good sound file. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just noticed your work. Thank you!Looking at the small notes in bar 32, I noticed that the 9th grouping of notes is marked incorrectly due to the "repeat unfold" formatting. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just made an edit to my page, and it occurred to me that you may have been working on it. I hope there wasn't an edit conflict. If so, I apologize. I am going to start making some corrections as noted in my notes section, but only if you are finished for now. Please let me know if so. I don't want to mess up anything you might be working on. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries. I'm doing something else for a while. The issue with the 9th set of notes in the Cadenza is not important as the right note is still there. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Last bother for the night. No action required. The transcription should now match the original, unless I have overlooked some details. I have created a second Nocturne section (with corrections to original notation) for a sound file version. A favor: If you need to make changes to the original version, can you please do so in stages (bar by bar) making note of which bar/clef changes were made in the Summary notes? That way I can replicate any changes for the sound file version as well. Sorry if this is a pain! Thanks for your help! Let me know when you think it is ready for the Mainspace :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strength Edit

Give me strength <deskthunk> hold one's tongue <desk thunk> give me strength (repeat) — billinghurst sDrewth 14:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hawaiki The Original Home of the Maori Edit

Due to the colon in the title, should this page be moved to Hawaiki: The Original Home of the Maori? -Einstein95 (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Colons are special characters in the Wiki software—indicating a namespace. They can't be used in the File: and Index: namespaces. Therefore, for consistency, I always avoid using them in titles. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sousa's novels Edit

Thanks for getting The Fifth String validated so quickly! I have also started Sousa's second novel "Pipetown Sandy" (transcription project) (for younger readers), and already uploaded all the images. I have no plans to work on the book at any time in the forseeable future, so if it interests you, then by all means take the reigns. Again, thanks! --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problems. I only knew Sousa as a composer, so was interested in his other exploits. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Likewise. It turns out The Fifth String was even made into a silent film in 1913, but Commons has no copy and only the Italian Wikipedia has an article on the subject. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File pages with no files Edit

Thank you for deleting these pages. If you’re interested, there are another two or three dozen on Special:UncategorizedFiles at the lower half of the page (if you click it to show 250 at a time). If not, I’ll tag some more later today. Cheers again. Green Giant (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, but because of the list refresh overnight we can't see it for a few days. I've left one (non-SH) as it has links that need sorting out. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cheers. Saved me some time. Green Giant (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Footnote within footnote Edit

renders well in the Main, yet the transcribed source page looks funky. Did not render like this back when. Not to worry? Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look pretty similar to me. If it's OK in Mainspace, then I don't really worry about how it looks in Pagespace. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you a calm and appropriate response... Edit

As the title says, thank you for having the patience to deal with various matters in a clam and appropriate way, and as you declined to act on one matter, any other requests of the same nature have been struck out also. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trying not to be high maintenance, but Edit

another question. Last year I wrote lyrics to Chopin's Nocturne Op 9 No 2. In my sandbox, I set the lyrics (in "la-la-la" form) to the Lily Pond sheet music, substituting my lyrics for the "la-la" lyrics in edit/preview mode and copied/saved the page images to create a pdf file of sheet music. Ideally, I would like to upload the piece to IA for PD use. My concerns:

  1. Can I freely use Lily Pond-generated sheet music images for PD use? and if so,
  2. I would like to seek your permission to place the work in PD—being a primary contributor to the project;
  3. and can I give credit to you,—and should I note Lily Pond generation—in the description portion of the file at IA?
  4. Anything I might be missing?

Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. Yes, as it's the output rather than the technique that is PD;
  2. No problems from my perspective;
  3. The score needs header and footer fields before uploading to a separate site. One of the standard footers includes something along the lines of "generated by Lilypond v2.16.2". One of the header fields is Arranger. This could be used to say "Transcribed by Wikisource", which to me is preferable to using our nom de plumes over there. This is consistent with our Translation namespace, and with what our eBook downloads say. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good. I took a look at the LilyPond website and have been fiddling for a while trying several variations, but I can't seem to apply the following to the score. I tried placing header info before the score, after the score, within, outside, &c. Sometimes I get error readings, other times it "goes thru" but the fields don't appear. I am not sure how this works. Please feel free to correct any errors in header fields (or offer suggestions). All at your leisure. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  \header {
    title = "NOCTURNE."
    subtitle = "After Chopin Nocturne Op 9 No 2"
    poet = "Poet"
    composer = "Frédéric Chopin"
    arranger = "Transcribed by Wikisource"
    tagline = "generated by Lilypond v2.16.2"
    copyright = "Public domain"
Over at Lilypond, it mentions that by default only "piece" and "opus" text fields are printed in a score (those will render when I try). It mentions something about changing the default, but when I try to copy/paste their method, I get error readings (like use \layout vs. \paper &c.; or, \book not recognized &c.). Not sure what should be used with WS formatting. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
UPDATE: I think I've got it. It was the "vorbis" that was throwing me... How does this look to you? Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks fine to me. For some reason I had assumed you were already using raw mode. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great! Thank you. I came to figure out vorbis v. raw through trial and error as I copied, cut & pasted things. I think Lilypond help pages assume similarly of its visitors. :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That code is just evil AND you speak in tongues. No way I am ever going near that code! — billinghurst sDrewth 10:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither am I so inclined... Funny what a little inspiration, purpose, determination, and lots of invaluable help can do! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For your help Edit


Lyre award

For your past, present and future patience and help. The first recipient of the LJB Lyre Award ;)
Thank you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Please also note update to previous section)

Is this a direct competition to my elephant stamp award? [long not given!] — billinghurst sDrewth 10:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Had to find an example... With bar even! No competition.—Yours is much more prestigious.Note my wink above... I have always been disinclined to display such "Wikilove" in general. Sincere words usually suffice. And sometimes poetry. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Beeswaxcandle, Is that (for reference) a "Staccatissimo" marking above the a note (bass clef) toward the end of bar 31 (bar before the small notes)? or just a smudge of sorts? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. I've just checked my other editions and they're done the same way. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I'll fix it. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The marking is appearing below the note instead of above it. Is that acceptable? or is there a way to adjust it? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To force position of an articulation use ^ for above or _ for below rather than - for "I don't mind". Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great. Thanks Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Edinburgh Evening Courant/1852/Public Lecture (2nd November 1852) attribution to author — direct or as reported Edit

What are your thoughts about newspaper articles of a lecture being represented as verbatim the author's work, per this link. I am equivocating on which way to handle it. It isn't the lecture, though it is close; it is a newspaper article, though anonymous. We could leave alone, or we could use related author. We could directly attribute on author's page, or we can attribute as "as reported". (hand waving in weighing up fashion) Generally uncertain, seeking other opinion. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it were only the lecture itself, then I'd be inclined to leave it as Ferrier's work. However, the surrounding reportage puts it very much in the hands of the reporter—who either had superb shorthand, a phenomenal memory, or access to a copy of Ferrier's notes. The last is the most likely, which tips the balance back to him as principal author of the piece—particularly as there was some distance in time between delivery and reportage (delivered on Friday and not reported until Tuesday). Sometimes the practice was to submit the copy to the lecturer to look through before publishing. So, on balance, a direct attribution is probably OK. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Pages with score rendering errors Edit

Would you mind having a look at the pages showing up with score errors and seeing if there is an easy fix. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Think I figured a couple out... maybe. Correct me if I'm wrong: [10] [11] Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that is the fix required for those two and one other. The Lilypond documentation is wrong. Thanks LJB for fixing the help page.
I've no idea what the User's sandbox is doing mainly because I don't have a scan of the score to work from. I've ignored that page each time I've cleared this category. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories Edit

Do we have author categories? Like Category:Florence Earle Coates? I was under the impression we didn't since that is the purpose of an author page; I was going to give guidance on it, but wanted to be sure. @EncycloPetey: I just noticed you in RC... I thought I remembered you mention somewhere a couple or more years back that we didn't create them. Am I wrong? Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. We categorise per Help:Categorization. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. BTW, there are some edits [12] that I saw in RC the last few minutes I'm not sure about. They seem questionable, but I don't know. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help Edit

Hello, I'm new to Wikisource and I would like some info. I need to know where exactly I should put the source URL of the document I recently added; I can't see any proper place. Thanks. - Alumnum (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alumnum: The source information for your document goes on the Talk: page, the link for which is labelled "discussion". There is a special template {{textinfo}} that you should use. Just fill out the relevant fields and leave the other blank. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I've just done this. - Alumnum (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey Edit

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey Edit

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey Edit

WMF Surveys, 00:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Typos in original Edit

Hello Beeswaxcandle, I am pretty much a newbe in Wikisource. I created this entry, and I have a question about it: what do we do when there is a typo of clear error in the original text? The original text says " pocketed $500 million the South" but what the author meant to say is " pocketed $500 million [from] the South". What are the rules when putting a text into Wikisource? Do we transcribe the original text verbatim and leave it at that, or do we also add in brackets the occasional word that was erroneously excluded? I looked for guidance in the Wikisource rules, but I could not find anything addressing this point. Thank you. (talk) user:Al83tito 17:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Beeswaxcandle, I see now that the guidance is to submit questions to the Wikisource Helpdesk, so I have moved my question there. Thank you. (talk) user:Al83tito 04:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestion Edit

May I suggest you make the block on Special:CentralAuth/Belchicks permanent? The user is a cross-wiki sock and troll and part of a much larger problem. See here: DisuseKid. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with the further evidence. Indefed. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Beeswaxcandle: If you haven't started to work on the images, I would like to contribute them, if it's OK with you. — Ineuw talk 04:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ineuw: That's fine. I'm occupied with multiple other things and would be unlikely to get to them for a couple of years. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. I will do the images, already downloaded and converted the .jp2 files. Hmmmm, a couple of years? Wish you success. — Ineuw talk 10:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About a week after the initial post, my desktop died (not a thousand, just one death). The CPU failed after 12 years of faithful service. I am still not up and running, possibly for another week, because of being adamant about doing things my way, namely assembling my comp and waiting for a new motherboard. In the meanwhile, I am tapping away on a thoroughly despised keyboard of an 11 year old Macbook, configured with Linux Mint to get something done. But my commitment stands. — Ineuw talk 03:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just in case you are interested I began to upload and insert the images into volume 1.Ineuw 09:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Edit

I’m finished with the Swift 19-volume set. Over the last 5 years (my anniversary was two days ago) I have touched each of the 8600 pages at least twice, and many of them several times, as I learned how to create legible text out of codes. While I learned a lot from the Wikisource Help pages, I couldn’t have completed the volumes without the help of Greek and Latin experts, someone who created a beautiful piece of sheet music (at the end of volume 16), and several (many?) persons who helped with columns and margins and other fancy page layouts. My biggest thanks, though, are reserved for Beeswaxcandle (talk), Hesperian, billinghurst sDrewth, —Maury (talk), and EncycloPetey (talk) – all of you have been incredible with your help and encouragement!

I’m not sure what I’ll tackle next. It may be something fun (are any of Mark Twain’s works waiting?) or other early 18th century works (I might as well continue to use the huge data base of links to people and works of the era). For today, though, I am sending Swift out to the future, hoping that people will once again remember him for more than Gulliver.
Susanarb (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cinque_Ports_Act_1821 Edit

The approach here is experimental, but I'd like a second opinion before using the same approach on the other 2 items with side-titles of this form. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You do realise, don't you, that I'm of a similar opinion to Billinghurst with respect to these overly complex templates. As a casual reader, I haven't got a clue what the little arrows all over the place mean. As an experienced wikisourceror I can work it out, but I can't instantly tell which down-arrow matches which up-arrow. Simplify further. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well then the relevant template is unsalvagable as far as I'm concerned and 10 years of effort has been wasted entirly... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless there's some change in approach, I will consider certainly consider replacing usages of cl-act-paragrpah with other "Broken" templates, with the net loss to Wikisource. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:It's also no help to say "Simplfiy it" if there NO hints on possible approaches are given... 21:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth I put a version in my sandbox space as - User:ShakespeareFan00/statute-p which I am breaking up into smaller templates, However, I am not motivated to continue to do that if the entire approach is wrong.. (And in any case the split up version leads to a lot more calls to handle each template which is a performance hit.) The template logic when split up does not seem as complex, so unless I am misunderstanding something I have this concern that the original was being judged for complexity purely on size, this is not a good omen. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(e/c) Complexity of a template is not about size ({{ts}} is not exactly small—or simple); it's about ease of use and understanding. That said, the key is "how does the transcluded text look in mainspace?" I don't care if something looks ugly in the Page: namespace—provided it looks good to the reader in mainspace. For the cl-act "family" of templates, I question the need to wrap every paragraph in a template with what appear to be arcane parameters to do layout things that are solved within our pre-existing methods. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are well founded in questioning that approach, The only reason I was doing it that way was for compatibility with not breaking existing renderings. If we cna be permitted to definitively break things ;) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You expressed a concern about the arrows? Would making the headings explict text linsk work better? Page:Cinque Ports Act 1821(ukpga 18210076 en).pdf/2, I've not changed the up arrows over to something like [top] but could do... Your thoughts? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. That's definitely not better. A possible solution would be to replace the arrows with numbers that match in both the heading and the text (where there is more than one item in the paragraph header). Another possibility is to place the subsequent headers for a paragraph in-line at the appropriate spot, with a font change. Another possibility is to do this act as a long table with all the marginal notes in their own cells and the actual text in rowspan cells. Again, what will look best in the mainspace? What will best help readers understand the text and the notes in their context when they see the Act displayed in the mainspace? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No approach is ideal, and none will be until Mediawiki has PROPER support for 'side-titles', in a meaningful way. I don't see that happening given that Mediawiki developments recently seem to have focused on laregely Wikipedia issues.

Another test: User:ShakespeareFan00/distress_act use 3 templates {{statute/s}} {{statute/e}} and the {{cl-act-title/sandbox}} but it's hardly a complex example, and is of course desktop only.

  • The table approach would look ugly where the nominal marginal isn't at a convenient point in the text flow, and I'm not sure how you'd ensure the marginals lined appropriately, unless you made every single text line a table row, which will overload the parser limits rather quickly..
  • Inlining with a font change would not necessarily be understandable.

So far the approaches are the Sidenotes approach ( which breaks on long sidenotes which are close together) and won't necessarily work on mobiles, The marginnote approach which won't necessarily work on mobile, or the combine and link approach, which so far you have expressed as being cryptic (I would say the same about the line font chnage method.) I think somebody else needs review current approaches to make ONE decision on how to handle sidetitles, (or as I've said now repeatedly) FIX the existing sidenotes so they asdjut automatically for overlaps, (perhaps borrowing some coding tricks from the marginnote templates approach), Before certain contributors declared the template too complex I had versions of cl-act-title and cl-act-pargraph using that approach working, and was seeking further feedback, Because of apparent hostily of certain contributors to complex code you have potentially lost out on something that WAS almost working (However nearly there isn't good enough.) Quite a few of the sidetitled works I'd considered are in effect stalled because no-one has the time or technical competence to resolve it once and for all ( This is of course always going to be a recurrent problem on a project that can't pay people to find long-term technical solutions.)

An aside, in respect of template {{ts}}, I will observe that it's a nice template, I use it quit extensive myself, and not always for tables. However, it's limited in that to add new codes, the switch statment in the template has to be changed. It's a shame that the decoding logic and the code/expansion pairs couldn't somehow be sperated so new codes were easier to add.. (I have simmilar concerns about {{p}} tag)

However, at least some use of {{cl-act-title}} which were probably not applicable got cleaned up, and few more lint errors were resolved. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I owe you an apology, re-reading what I wrote I must have been in a need of a break. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:ShakespeareFan00/sanenull Edit

A template like this shouldn't really be needed, but I found I was having some problems with null, blank and empty parameters being handled ever so slightly differently, in nested templates. If anything this should probably by a parser function so you can type {{#sane:expr| string to use if null, empty or blank }} so that it's easier to code certain more complex templates with less code than currently.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page:Ruffhead - The Statutes at Large - vol 3.djvu/51 Edit

Experimentally, I went back to something simpler here.. This doesn't use cl-act-paragraph at all. However, so that I'm not constantly re-doing stuff, I am going to ask that you impose ONE consistent approach across the entirety of English Wiksource (currently the work has three due to various experimental approaches), so I am not going back and forth, when stuff breaks and delete all the non-conformant or experimental templates. You and others have said the cl-act-paragraph template is too complex, please choose and document ONE viable replacement and deletes the ones that don't work so they can't be used "by mistake". ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And reverted back again because {{marginNote}} and {{di}} are not apparently compatible. Is it too much to ask that templates DO NOT interact in inexplicable ways? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An apology Edit

Based on some comments elsewhere it seems you and some other people are owed an apology. I seem to have expressed a higher than acceptable level of volatility recently, and this isn't something I think should have occured. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lilypond help Edit

Here. As a test, I was trying to copy something I already had (and which should work). However, it never ceases to bring in some odd errors which are quite intriguing (for example, "unexpected '}'"). Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! 19:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We need to use raw mode to get the music variables to work. There were two missing }. You'll see I've turned the tagline off as it just messes up short examples. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thanks! That must have been what was causing the erroneous "unexpected '}'" message too. 13:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Somthing I found from way-back Edit

User talk: ShakespeareFan00/Archive1#Problem_with_a_reference_to_a_statute- The query at the time was a citation that was clearly wrong. Did you still want me to dig a little deeper to see which monarch was actually meant?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And based on some diging on Hathi Trust ( Statutes of the Realm) I think the Forude reference is to the relevant chapters in 4HenVII. not 2Hen as printed in the book. :) Sorry to respond on this after a very long time. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hymnal Lyrics Edit

Quick question, Can search engines see inside comments? I hadn't been removing the lyrics below, merely commenting them.

Ideally as they are an 'annotation' for convenience, they should have a suitable template? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Search engines (including the native enWS one) are only looking at what's transcluded to and viewable in the mainspace. Because the lyrics are being marked as noinclude, they're not being transcluded. The whole point of comments is that they are only seen when editing. The lyrics within the scores are part of the image and are therefore not searchable. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. , Is there a 'collapse' template that keeps the content, but hides it for a user but in a way search can still see it? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That I don't know. I would have assumed that text within a collapse was findable, but I think you'll need to experiment. The quickest way would be to find a mainspace page where {{collapsed section}} is already used, then pick a phrase about half-way through then do a search for that phrase. If it's found, then it works. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The_Debs_Decision for me {{collapsed section}} 's behaviour doesn't match the documentation, it's displaying the nominally collapsed for me regardless.. Was something tweaked in the underlying code recently?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fugue (Prout) Edit

Please call my attention back to this work when it nears completion. I'd love to help validate this work and see it featured. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clara Gottschalk m. Robert Peterson Edit

For Index:Notes of a Pianist.djvu

  • 1880 US census

Robt. Peterson 67
Clara Peterson 42
Aimee Peterson 6
Louis Peterson 4
Loucha Gottschalk 46

so she is born c.1838 Louisiana, d. 1910 New Jersey

he is Robert Evans Peterson, b. 12 Nov 1812, Philadelphia; d. 1894 (according to Allibone's). Should have a VIAF.

billinghurst sDrewth 04:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even better when you finally dig up a family tree

Robert Evans Peterson
Robert Evans Peterson
Spouse: Clara Gottschalk
Father: George Peterson
Mother: Jane Burr EVANS
Children: Louis Moreau G
Birth: 12 Nov 1812 Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Death: 30 Oct 1894 Asbury Park, Monmouth, New Jersey, USA
Residence: 1870 Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

seems Clara was his third wife, and the second was her younger (-4yr) sister Blanche.

The Sikhs Edit

The page images are displaced by a few pages from the preview text. BD2412 T 15:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Something's wrong with the djvu conversion process in the iaupload tool. I had forgotten it does that. It's to do with some extra pages the process inserts into the print images, but not the text content. I see Mpaa has now fixed it. Last time I ran into this I ended up proofreading the book backwards. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I actually have a series of 19th century magazines that are available on Google Books that I would like to upload here. Is there a tutorial somewhere for how to do this? Cheers! BD2412 T 21:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BD2412: I think the instructions you're looking for are here: Help:Beginner's guide to adding texts -Pete (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but I need to get to the first step. How do I turn a public domain book available on Google Books into a scan to be uploaded? BD2412 T 23:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Google Books makes it very annoying, but it's not too hard once you know where to look. When you're looking at a book page on Google Books, look in the upper left for a button that says "read eBook." Hover over that without clicking, and you'll see a link to download the PDF. Download that, and then upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Does that help? -Pete (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that does it. BD2412 T 00:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh good! That took me a while to figure out whenever they changed their interface, but I had forgotten how irritating it can be until you figure it out. -Pete (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies to Beeswaxcandle, but this discussion is already here, so I guess it makes sense to continue it here. I have uploaded the following 25 PDF versions of the annual compilations of The Green Bag magazine from 1889 through 1913:

I can't figure out the step of converting them to DJVU files. Some of the links on the guidance page are in other languages. One apparently requires setting up a different kind of "environment" on the computer. Is there no automated thing these can be plugged into to provide a DJVU output? BD2412 T 01:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy to move the discussion elsewhere if it's bugging you BWC, just say the word. As for PDFs and DJVU: I don't know why DJVU is preferred, so I'm not sure how important it is. I've uploaded many PDFs and transcribed them here; the process (creating an Index: page, etc.) is the same for both kinds of file. However, if it's important to convert to'll depend what operating system you're using. I mostly use Ubuntu Linux, which seems to have reasonably good options for DJVU. If you're using that, this page seems promising, with two options. If not...maybe try googling "convert PDF to DJVU" and see what you can find? (One option that might work is, if you upload them to Internet Archive, I think it will automatically generate DJVU files. Not certain, but I think it does that.) -Pete (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uploading pdf's to Internet Archive no longer causes djvu files to be generated—which is why we need to use the converter in the iaupload tool. djvu is preferred to pdf principally because it's open source rather than proprietary. The file sizes are often smaller as well. The Proofread of the Month templates require that djvu files are used. If you (@BD2412:) don't intend that The Green Bag would be part of a PotM, then don't worry about converting them to djvu and just go ahead and transcribe them via the pdf files. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't imagine that these would make good POTM candidates, so I will go ahead with them as PDFs. Thanks for the guidance! BD2412 T 11:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

a where to crop? Edit

I had a problem at gutenberg, I think, because I used a template for plate pages. The real signatures are inconsistent, mine were consistent. They were a pain to clean though and automating it helped.

I was told way back when to crop the words off and perhaps erase the numbers. It was about using the images for other things. I went through more than a few images where I renovated one of the library stamps because I had the time while working on them to appreciate the library that kept them.

Your crop was a good choice, but even then, for loss of information, I like having what they called it built into the name when the name gets cropped off. When it matters. It matters for plates.

I have many opinions and none of them are my own, really, except for the naming part. I was thinking about all of the unidentified images there.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but this is like the middle of a conversation that I don't know where it started. Before I can comment further I'll need some context. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, a conversation from 2014. I thought I had seen some reverting of an image I uploaded into one of your old projects but I can't find it now.
My questions, however, persist. Page:The Botany of the Antarctic Voyage (Plates).djvu/17 I cropped the Plate NN from the top of the image and put it in text on the page.

The first is the crop that the commons likes. The second is the crop for the page which has an image where only the species name has been cropped. The third is the other crop that the commons likes.

You were fixing some of the plate names in the main work at the same time I thought I saw a problem with my crop of this image.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I created that image I very deliberately left in the various bits of text that belong to the image as printed. Leaving those out of a botanical illustration is similar to not referencing a source in an academic paper. If the text in these images needs to be searchable, then it should be done as alt-text. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting, because the species name is the more important item to the taxonomy people, and that is the thing that is being cropped. They did not mention not cropping information, but they also were not the people providing the guidelines for commons images. I always make a nice "Plate" version for the plant people, at least almost always. I don't have any problem with your requirements but that your ideas are new to me about this might be worth noting. Or not. If you are being snarky, it worked. :) --RaboKarbakian (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't cropped the species name. IRL I spend a lot of time with taxonomic botanists and that would be criminal in their opinion. The primary image of a plant/animal/alga/whatever must be the scientific one with all the paraphernalia that standardly goes with such. Any other versions of the image are derivative and should not (must not) override the primary one, particularly when it is being replicated in situ in the work in which it was originally published. Derivative images should be saved/uploaded under another name. The only "snark" would be in the direction of the mindless over at Commons. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Snark is this maybe then? Wanting to be able to read it is a concern. Gutenberg, and me also, eventually, wants to make documents light-weight for memory limited electronic devices. I am not sure how useful these books are for ereaders, however as they are more like scholarly references and not a field guide. But, the images should be field guide worthy.
The problem that I have encountered, in my quest for perfection, is in determining the baseline...--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No snark there, that was simply me fixing my own error. I'd copy/pasted the standard layout and neglected to update the details.

In this work I was not thinking of eReaders as I assumed that it was unlikely to be used on such. Of course, technology has moved on since 2014 and the work would be good on a tablet. My very strong preference is that the third image from the gallery above (with all text as printed in special fonts) is the one that should be on this particular page of this work. The other two are derivative and can be used elsewhere (with attribution). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just saw your directory of uploads. I am sorry that I just now looked. You provided links, text, maybe there is a javascript thingie that will make the browsers scrollbar glow. Name change of the full sized plates to the publication name "Botany of", and the cropped versions get the "Flora" name and get used in the wikisource version, so they can be read easily?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I waited until the first of the month, that you might return then. It was a difficult wait, but that is my problem. Today, I rolled my changes back. I am going to continue to upload my work. When you wiki again, we can talk or you can whatever. Sorry for the intrusion. (I was here because the names of those files in the gallery are going to change.)--RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

versions and plates Edit

I am going to ask that the names be changed on the files that you were working with at Flora Antarctica. I want to keep your version.

Honestly. When my versions are replaced, and they should and will be, I would like them to keep mine with "it".

I just did the opposite of what I proposed here. Page:The Botany of the Antarctic Voyage (Plates).djvu/7 I changed the name, moved the whole page around. That is how I would like to do this, only after they change the names at commons.

Also, I put the fancy (with its own pixel margins) plate at wikidata, and started to fit it into there where it accompanies a first description of a plant.

One more thing. Do you think that the mark is too dark?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really don't understand what it is that you are asking me. I have so many other projects on hand at present that I am unlikely to return to Flora Antarctica at any point in the next decade. If all you are doing is removing the fake background from the images, then upload the revised image over the one that I uploaded. If you are creating derived images, then they need a new name. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm really glad you have been managing the Project of the Month here. You handled me, and my different mindsets (taxonomy, books, graphic arts) very well. There is a lot to juggle now, with three wiki two of which might be reflected on all of the other wiki. I am glad you were here.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, I just discovered something that I think you were trying to tell me about the plates. We are using two different navigations and have two different Plate pages going. I have been linking the Tab to mine, and that your original choice of [[../]] works with my navigation as well as yours -- it just so simply shows how much easier you are to work with compared to working with me.
I am here thanking you for your foresight and wondering if you can sense any problems from the duo navigation.
As it has been a while, see The Botany of the Antarctic Voyage/Part I/Plate I compared to The Botany of the Antarctic Voyage/Plate I --RaboKarbakian (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(DMM) Ok to fix minor oddity in list of contributors? Edit

Please see User:Shenme/admmv1#List_of_contributors_2. A simple typo, but that’s my suspicion - you’d know. Shenme (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(DMM) Odd page column spread - double width score Edit

Am I reading page 16 correctly? That it has a score in middle of page extending across both columns. And that column 1 top text continues with column 2 top text. And that the bottom column 1 text continues with bottom column 2, such that the break is in "… it would appear to …".

I hadn’t seen a double-width score before. I wonder what other surprises? Images of hand-written scores? :-) Shenme (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what you're seeing. I can't recall any hand-written scores in the DMM, thankfully. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another oddity, vol 4 p. 45. Syntagma then Schütz? It does have a horizontal bar break before the out-of-order bits. How often are topics tacked on at the end of an alphabetical section? Shenme (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, I knew about that. It's because this particular copy is a late printing, so the publishers have amended a few plates at the end of some of the letter sections to slip in a few articles—rather than leaving them all to the Appendix. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(DMM) Small ambitions and when to remove 'Problematic' ? Edit

DMM vol 4 p. 29 had a very small, simple score missing near to end of page. I’ve add a Lilypond score for that, with small caveats:

% Original had beams perfectly horizontal, whereas here
% the beams slope upwards from left to right.
% Is continuing staff after bar line needed?

Is this good enough to move from Problematic to Proofread status? Shenme (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it looks fine to me. The rise on the beam looks good. The continuing staff is an artefact of the what the typesetter had available, so it isn't needed. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(DMM) How to know/judge when "typo" within score? Edit

vol 4 p. 30 first score at top has me very confused. What are the chances there is a ’typo’ within the score?

In the original, top staff second bar begins with 3 notes vertically. *What* is that middle note doing there? Is it part of a chord with the top note? Is it a separate voice from the top and bottom voices in that staff?

Should I reproduce that note by hook or by crook? Wow.

(BTW: I’m leaving notes about deviations/caveats within each score. I wouldn’t want to reviewers to miss the misses!) Shenme (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a chord with the D. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dynasties and section titles Edit

On vol 4 page 63 there are mentions of three different people all named Taskin. I have no idea how best to approach the names to specify in <section>s. I'm hoping you know or have a good "source of truth".

The French WP article w:fr:Pascal-Joseph_Taskin mentions:

  • Pascal-Joseph Taskin, born 1723
  • Henri-Joseph (Pascal) Taskin, aka Pascal Taskin II, born 1750
  • Henry Joseph Taskin, born 1779

which on page 62 and page 63 are mentioned as:

  • TASKIN, Pascal (born 1723)
  • PASCAL Joseph (born 1750)
  • HENRI Joseph (born 1779)

The English article mentions

... his nephew Pascal Joseph Taskin II (1750–1829) ...


... Pascal Joseph II ...

Suggestions? Shenme (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article will be transcluded as one, so just call the section "Taskin". Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(DMM) Within edition links Edit

In vol 4 page 77 there is an instance where two terms are 'linked', in this case

[See Node; and Partial Tones.]

I see the definition of Node on vol 2 page 461, so I believe that should be linkable.

Again on vol 2 page 461 (just above Node) I see an example of a link

[See [[../Matins/]].]

Using this search I can see instances of links addressed multiple ways.

Oooo, aaah, in Wikisource:WikiProject_DMM#Formatting_requirements there is

Internal links are in the format Beethoven. Often the text will be in small-caps, so add {{sc}} to either the piped text or around the link.

Is that still true? So that my ref Node would become


Are the section names collected together somewhere? Shenme (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, errr, but that gets me
whereas the section is actually in vol 2 ? How does this work? Later added indirections? All this magic dazzles me! Shenme (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The pattern [[../Node|{{sc|Node}}]] is using "relative linking". See this section of the Style Guide for an explanation. The parent in the Page namespace doesn't make sense, but once it's transcluded into the mainspace it works beautifully. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:sic Edit

Hello and thanks again for your welcome-message on my talk page! I am currently proofreading "The Mysterious affair at Styles" and am not sure whether I understood the use of the sic-template correctly. I've just added it twice in this page and would like to ask you to check it, please. Thanks in advance, AnnaS. (talk) 07:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They're fine, but I'm not sure that either of those words need tagging. "inuendoes" is a valid alternate spelling in that period and "isn't" is a common English contraction. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot! Yes, inuendoes is valid for that period, but I changed it from "innuendoes" from the first proofreading to "inuendoes" and thought it would be easier for future editors if I entered the template. The second "Sic" refers to the full stop instead of the question mark: the orginal doesn't use the question mark. Sorry that I did not point that out more clearly. --AnnaS. (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]