User talk:Chrisguise

Welcome to Wikisource

Hello, Chrisguise, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

You may be interested in participating in

• Proofread of the Month
• Monthly Challenge
• Requested texts

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{Collaboration/MC}} to your page for current Wikisource projects.

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

Have questions? Then please ask them at either

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

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username if you're logged in (or IP address if you are not) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome! Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Micrographia

Do you have access to the OCR tool? You seem to be creating lots of blank pages where there should be text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I messed up because the first file had a page missing. I found another version that's complete but it has blank pages adjacent the figures so all the pages don't align. The pages without text are the ones that were originally marked as missing an image and problematic. I'll go back and fix them once I've got the index page sorted out.Chrisguise (talk)

I just found this book and wanted to congratulate you on adding it - it's fascinating.

keeps clicking

Peace.salam.shalom (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a bit of a slog because of the poor OCR, variation in spelling and lots of italics, but I think it was worth the effort. Chrisguise (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Long s

Hi, I read your comment on Index_talk:The_Discovery_of_a_World_in_the_Moone,_1638.djvu this talk page. As a proofreader, we aim to reproduce the page as it is printed. Where long s's are concerned, when complete, we can produce a second annotated copy with the long s's replaced by modern s's, converted by bot. This is how this book has been started and should continue. Also please sign your comments with quadruple tildes. Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

As it was me that had been adding {{long s}} in proofreading on this work, I went back and converted all the ones I'd added back to conventional s. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that there's a balance to be struck between reproduction and transcription. While I strive to replicate layout and type size, I err towards transcription since I can't see the point of doing this if we create things that are difficult to read - and making stuff available to read is surely one of the major points of Wikisource. At the end of the day, regardless of what it looks like, the long 's' is just that, an 's'. Chrisguise (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Link to Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography

Hello. After receiving notice of a new link to Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography, I found that it doesn't function perfectly yet. I published the 'Plotinius' article and most else under 'James Frederick Ferrier' where you can find this & basically all his authorship with working links. So why am I approaching you?

• I have been preparing MUCH more of the text of IDUB with hope of publishing eventually.
• Even when I published all the 'Ferrier' stuff I still did not acquire a working understanding of how to remedy links such as yours to function properly.
• I hope that, if you have an interest in such remedy, I can find an ally, a resource in my quest to prepare the way better so that links like yours will work properly.
• It seems to me that there needs to be created a way to distinguish and direct IDUB links explicitly to either Volume 1, 2, or 3 so that they arrive properly.
• It may be that you have interest in some of the other 24000+ IDUB titles and that you would find my queries not too burdensome, etc. Perhaps someday I could even be an aid to you.
• Otherwise, please pardon my intrusion. Klarm768 (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi there. I'm sorry but I can't help solve your problem directly. I have no coding experience and do not even know how to access the code behind 'templates'. I only used your IDUB link template as a result of guessing that it might be there, something that's occasionally worked before with other compendia. My suggestion, if you haven't already considered doing so, would be to copy the structure used for other multi-volume encylopedias (e.g.Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition), 23 vols. This should enable you to set up the hierarchy of pages and produce equivalent templates, since the 'EB9 article link' (and the EB1911 equivalent) achieve what you are trying to (i.e. link automatically to the correct volume). Good luck in your efforts. Regards, Chris Chrisguise (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I received notification of a link made from Author:Algernon Charles Swinburne regarding Contributions to Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography. THANK YOU for solving a mystery. The text signature "A. C. S." occurs only in this single instance in Volume 1. The signature, "A. C. S." does not appear in any list of contributors. I had not been able to assign an Author-identity with confidence. My best guess had been Algernon Charles Swinburne. Can you confirm from what source you learned of Swinburne's contribution to IDUB? Klarm768 (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Hi there. I've been doing some transcriptions of Swinburne's work and modifying his 'author page'. While doing so I found a reference to the IDUB article on page 5 of The Bibliography of Swinburne: A bibliographical list arranged in chronological order of the published writings in verse and prose of Algernon Charles Swinburne (1857-1887) (1887), by George Redway. It is also mentioned several times in Volume 2 of the much more comprehensive two-volume bibliography by Thomas J. Wise (1920). The date given for the work is 1857 (the version of IDUB being transcribed is 1876). Both bibliographies are on 'Internet Archive'. Swinburne also wrote an article on Congreve for the 9th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica; both bibliographies are at pains to point out that the two articles are completely different. Regards, Chrisguise (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Blenheim, a Poem

Please remember to include the {{Authority control}} and a license template on all works hosted at Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Poems upon Several Occasions

If you are going to edit the work, please do so in accordance with the existing style of the work. I am to now go over your work and correct it to the existing style. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC).

I happen to think that the existing style of the work could be improved - in particular, the insistence on using archaic forms of 's' does nobody any favours in terms of trying to read the text. I also think you'll find that the poems render better. Your blanket undoing of my edits has also removed all of the transcription error corrections that I made, so thanks for that.Chrisguise (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Chrisguise,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikisource and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

div and span (part 2)

Hi. If you want to use {{fine}} with <poem>, you need to use {{fine block}}, see this, or you will get Lint Errors.Mpaa (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Chrisguise,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal namespace for non-authors

Hi. If there is no extant evidence that a person wrote works, then it is preferable that people are created over in the Portal: namespace, and tagged with category:people in portal namespace. It is pretty easy to move them to Author: namespace at a later time, and update the template to be used if they are found to have published works. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Moving author pages, not converting to redirects

Hi. Please do not convert long-existing pages into redirects. If you think that a rename is appropriate then the old(er) pge should be moved, and this updates Wikidata, and maintains the history of the pages. Converting a page into a redirect that points to a new version of a page is not the right way to handle things. If you get caught back to front in creating a page, then please ping admins at WS:AN and ask for move of the page over the newly created page. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Chrisguise,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

block and span size templates

Hi. If you are using {{larger}} and similar <span> templates, they need to be kept to inline editing (up to a paragraph). If you are covering text that is more than a paragraph, then we need to use a block template {{larger block}}, or multiple uses of the span templates. If that is what you are doing, then not to worry, just missed some that I stumbled over. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Author variations are prime for redirects

Hi. Pleese do feel free to create redirects for known variations of authors. One of the problems we had in early years was the creation of multiple author pages, so why we moved to liberally creating redirects for married names, etc. If end up having to disambiguate a shorter version, or an abbreviated version, then it isn't a problem to do that later. Also why we ended up with fully expanded author names, it is a lot less disruptive when we disambiguate. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Index:The Poetical Works of Thomas Parnell (1833).djvu

Hi. Noticed that raw pages 119 to 126 of the Index belong in an un-ToC'd set of two appendices and have been untranscluded. Are you able to make those pages fit into the work somewhere? Thanks if you can. If you cannot, then please let me know and I will see what I can work out. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I have done this. Chrisguise (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Removing line-breaks in EB1911

Hi Chrisguise, thanks for edits in EB1911 e.g. Page:EB1911 - Volume 13.djvu/58 but removing line-breaks make proofing harder. I've been converting from Gutenberg which maintains the line-breaks and having them removed makes comparison more difficult. Are you able to keep the line-breaks in future edits? Thanks DivermanAU (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, as part of proofing any page, the first thing I do is run the 'clean up OCR' tool, which takes the line breaks out automatically. Could you explain a bit more about what you are doing? Are you comparing with Gutenberg to move the page on from proof-read to validated or are you checking my proof-reading? In my experience the transcriptions on Gutenberg are not without errors - as surely are my own efforts - even though I understand that they use multiple keying. Regards. Chrisguise (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, I forgot to check back earlier on this discussion. By leaving the line-breaks in-place it make it easier to compare to text from Gutenberg. I usually paste in converted text from Gutenberg and then use the "Show changes" button to do a comparison. That way, occasional errors from Gutenberg can be found and corrected (e.g. Gutenberg sometimes has typos and italics missing). Removing line-breaks makes makes manual proofing more difficult (as the lines don't match up) and it's very difficult to see what changes have been made when using "Compare selected revisions" in Revision history. Also, running your 'clean up OCR' tool has replaced agreed EB1911 standards for curly quotes and apostrophes (“” ’) with straight double and single quotes (" '). An example is your recent edits to [Page:EB1911 - Volume 07.djvu/791]. You also removed spacing in the Page Header which centers the text. Regards, DivermanAU (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Following on from your initial communication on this topic, I have tried to confine myself to either only editing pages already at 'proof-read' status, wherein I assumed it would be OK to remove all the page breaks before changing the status to 'validated', or if I edit 'not proof read' pages I actually read them, rather than compare them to something else that might not be correct. Having done so, I figured removing the page breaks wouldn't matter.

I also change the sometimes various forms used in the page header (or add them if missing) with the EB1911 page header template. If things don't line up then presumably the template needs to be amended.

Regarding the curly quotes, I'd been following the generic guidance in the Help, which says to use straight quotes. I don't know if you've come across it but there is a useful tool to change all straight quotes to curly ones. Details are associated with the 'Once a Week' transcription project (which also insists on using the curly quotes). It seems to work pretty well. The style guide is at Wikisource:Wikiproject Once a Week and the person who maintains it sent me the details (see User_talk:Chrisguise#curly_quotes_in_%22once_a_week%22_&_other_matters.). Regard, Chrisguise (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Curly quotes are the EB1911 standard, see EB1911 Style Manual. Curly apostrophes ’ should also be used in EB1911 to distinguish them from the reversed comma ʽ (sometimes called rough breathing diacritic) in Arabic words in EB1911. Myself and other EB1911 editors prefer leaving the line-breaks in-place (that’s how they were originally scanned) because it makes manually proofing faster and it’s easier to see what changes have been made in an edit (as stated before). Regards, DivermanAU (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I found a problem with the 'clean up OCR' tool you've been using, it converts curly quotes if they are literal “ ” to straight " " but not if html code e.g. (& ldquo;) is been used. This produces inconsistent results where the page has some curly and some straight quotes. e.g. [1]. Please do not use the 'clean up OCR' tool on EB1911 pages. If you are going to mark an EB1911 page as Validated, please read the EB1911 Style manual first (particularly "Quoted text" & "Ranges" sections). As well as converting the quotes back to curly ones, I used ndash (–) for year ranges (and removed a spurious quote mark after 'on the'). DivermanAU (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, please do not add excessive internal links in articles like you have done here Page:EB1911 - Volume 01.djvu/493. Please read the EB1911 Style Manual § Internal Wikisource links (and see the Style Manual Discussion) and remove the excess links from the above page (and any others you have done) thanks. DivermanAU (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Author:William of Newburgh

Hi. Authors with no surname simply have the whole description in the first name field, we don't push the descriptive component into the lastname field. Also to note that where we have sort issues due to surname components like "de", we have a "defaultsort" parameter within [[tl|author}} that we can utilise to set the sorting. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The Love of Books: the Philobiblon of Richard de Bury

I have moved the subpages of this work under the title of the root page, and I have add the table of contents. It is just confusing to readers to start in one title and end up somewhere else with no clarity of reason. Also to generate digital versions of the first and subpages, we need to have the ToC so that the tool knows that the pages below it, and their links. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, can you explain that a bit more - I'm not clear on exactly what I did incorrectly, and wish to avoid doing it again. Regards Chrisguise (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Aeschylus

The primary place to list editions of the Greek plays is the versions page for each play. I've retained a list of transations (for now) on the Author page, but only for the translations that we actually have. But eventually, that too may go, since there seems to be a trend now towards not listing the editions on the Authors pages at all.

Note, Medwin's Prometheus Bound was already listed, and I just added the Agamemnon. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Index pages

Best practice for Index pages: When the value is not a code such as "roman", or a numeric value for a page number, but instead is non-numeric text to be displayed in place of the usual number, then the value ought to be enclosed in quotes. Some character values will still work if the quotes are omitted, but best practice is to use the quotes for any text, including "Adv", "-", or such.

The size of dash for blank pages, images, and the like is purely an aesthetic choice on the part of the initial proofreader. Some editors prefer "-" for blank pages as it minimizes the space taken up in display on the Index. Other editors will use the emdash to keep display size of all pages to roughly the same width, which can help with getting page numbers to line up in neat columns. But there's no reason to replace emdashes with hyphens if the initial editor made the choice to use emdashes. The value is there only on the index page is that page is not transcluded, and serves no real function except in the margin as a page number for transcluded pages (and which can then be linked to with a hashtag). There can be a reason to go the other way: to expand hyphens into emdashes, if there is content on that page, because a hyphen is small and harder to click on; but otherwise, it's purely up to the initial proofreader. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Memoirs

If you upload Volume II or III, let me know and I’ll stop by to proofread a bit. Lemuritus (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I am currently working (intermittently) on Volume 2, which is most easily accessed from the index page of Volume 1.Chrisguise (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Footnotes - The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 5

{{helpme}} I have transcribed some pages of the above, mostly the prefaces to the longer poems. The prefaces are peppered with lengthy footnotes, which are generally manageable as I am familiar with the standard footnote method, for which I use <ref> </ref> and {{smallrefs}}, the footnote continued on one of more of the following pages <ref name=xx>, <ref follow=xx>, and a footnote within a footnote where the nested footnote is on the same page, for which I use {{#tag:ref|TOP LEVEL REFERENCE<ref group="I">NESTED REFERENCE.</ref> TOP LEVEL REFERENCE|group="O"}}{{smallrefs|group="O"}}{{smallrefs|group="I"}}. I may even have done examples (in another book) where the nested footnote is all on one page but the main footnote carries on over more than one. However, I am stuck at present because in the preface to Werner on pages 338 and 339 there is a footnote containing a footnote where both the footnote and the nested footnote continue onto the following page. How do I deal with this and still maintain footnote integrity during transclusion? Regards,Chrisguise (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you'll probably have better luck asking complicated questions like this at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. This kind of stuff gives most people a headache trying to unravel, and there are a limited number of contributors patrolling the {{helpme}} requests.

However, that being said, I've had a stab at this and you can see the results in my sandbox. Did that do roughly what you were trying to accomplish?

I'm not familiar with this work or its notes conventions, so I don't know the significance of the two footnote groups, but you may also wish to consider simplifying when faced with overly complicated schemes: we're already changing things significantly when we move from footnotes in a paged medium to endnotes in a non-paged medium, as well as changing the sigils used as footnote markers, so complicated footnote schemes that are primarily formatting rather than significant meaning may be better to not try to replicate. --Xover (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give it a go. I've also posted the query on Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help in case there's an alternative.Chrisguise (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for Rootabaga Pigeons

Thank you for Rootabaga Pigeons. I've done (validated) just about everything, but one last page stumps me. The original doesn't have a closing double quote in one place, and your text had added one, but in a very strange place. I moved it to a more logical placement, but again, there just isn't a closing double quote in the source. So what to do? Shenme (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation. The text was straightforward but it takes a bit of time to sort the illustrations.
I agree with your comment that the added quote was in the wrong place. I suggest there are two options: either transcribe what is actually printed or mark it as an error (which I think it is) using the SIC template (which I've done). Feel free to disagree when you validate. Regards Chrisguise (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Letter spacing for emphasis

Hi!

In reference to this edit, the {{sp}} template was used to duplicate the letter spacing in the original used for emphasis. As an alternative to italics, spacing was sometimes increased for emphasis (perhaps because it didn't require using italic type matrices sorts, you just spaced out the normal ones). See w:Emphasis_(typography)#Letter-spacing. In my opinion, this is as much a part of the work as italics would have been. Cheers, Inductiveload—talk/contribs 20:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I accept your point in general but I would make two specific ones in return. The document was originally transcluded as one complete piece. Scrolling through it in that form highlighted variations in the way pages had been transcribed (e.g. poetry quotations, footnotes, etc.), so I went through page by page to try and straighten things out. One area of inconsistency related to the type of spacing you refer to, so I needed to decide one way or another whether to format them all, and I decided against. The main reason for doing this was that in most instances, if not all, it didn't seem to me to be for the purposes of emphasis, more as if text had been removed and the rest of the line spread out to make it the appropriate width. Regards, ChrisChrisguise (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

As the person who put in more effort than I did, I defer to your choice. I would still disagree that the spacing was inserted like that for any reason of than emphasis. To me, it seems it appears only where emphasis would fit, not randomly throughout the text. I just though I'd mention it in case you hadn't realised letter-spacing was a typographical method used for emphasis, as well as purely stylistic (e.g. as used on title pages). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 10:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

New texts

Texts should not be listed as "new texts" until they are complete. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I got a bit ahead of myself. Regards, Chrisguise (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Chris

Plus per the instructions on that page, please use a document summary of what is happening with the edit. That summary is pushed out in a few places as information. That page is our open gateway to the main page so documentation through the edit summary is considered important. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Help with images?

Hi, I noticed this. Would you like me to get the hi-res images that are missing and place them on the pages? I know they're just "filler images," but it seems they're standing in the way of getting this work listed under new texts...happy to help if you're not already on it, just let me know. -Pete (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Pete, Thanks for the offer. I got a bit ahead of myself putting 'Paradise Regain'd' on the new works list but have now done the images (mostly fleurons). However, I've never mastered the technique for making images properly black-and-white. If you can, then I'd appreciate it if you could replace the images. I used the fleuron from the 'Persons' page at the beginning of 'Samson Agonistes' (which is in the same volume) on account of it being the sharpest and least curved version in the book. I left the covers as raw images. Regards, ChrisChrisguise (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm a little puzzled. The original scans are not great, I made a greyscale version but I'm not happy with it. How did you get the somewhat higher-resolution versions you uploaded? Was it from the book view on Internet Archive, perhaps? I'm used to using their JP2 files, which are usually the higest-resolution versions they offer; but in this case, it's a slightly smaller resolution than the one you uploaded. -Pete (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, Pete, I never got back to you. The only places I get images for books are either the file on Wikisource (via right click and 'save image as'), Internet Archive (ditto) or Hathi Trust (using either a PDF download of the page or the right click and 'save image as' option. I hadn't realised that higher res images are among the file options on IA.

To manipulate the files I use three different bits of software: 'Image analyser' to do rotation and cropping, plus image manipulation depending on circumstances; 'Irfanview', because it has some useful tools such as a 'find and replace' option - good for getting rid of background colours; and 'Paint3D' for pixel level editing. I eventually managed to get the recommended 'ImageMagic' software to work but Image Analyser has the same functionality with a passable user interface. Command line - who'd have thought it - I don't do enough image manipulation to warrant batch processing, where it might be useful but ...... really?

Having said all that I still can't get to proper black and white in most cases. Regards, Chrisguise (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

curly quotes in "once a week" & other matters

Hi --

Currently the entirety of Once a Week (4 volumes completed, so far) uses curly (smart) quotes, so please stick with that!

Chapter headings use text size "fine".

Further remark: I prefer to use <br /> rather than <poem> when embedding poems in paragraphs because <poem> changes paragraph margins. Not such a big deal, though.

Thanks for working on it, though! I’m particularly glad you’re doing Lord Oakburn’s Daughters because someone just published an academic study of it last year & I was thinking, maybe people who read that will want a digital version of the text, which there isn’t elsewhere. (Pretty nauseating stuff though isn’t it, especially the part with "Pompey")

In case you didn’t notice it, the style guide is at Wikisource:Wikiproject Once a Week (I’ve tried to make it clear, but would appreciate you telling me parts that need further explanation) Levana Taylor (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

P.S. In order to make the two parts of the poem line up with each other when inserting an image in the middle, as with The Bride of an Hour, it’s necessary to specify a width (the same one for each) for the "block center". For some reason the use of the colon (:) for indents overrides the width. For that reason I’ve gone back to using "gap" though it has its drawbacks … Levana Taylor (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

P.P.S. Currently, the way to put a typographic (but not actual) 0.15em space between two adjoining quotes is like so: {{sp|“}}‘ (or, of course, {{sp|“}}’ or {{sp|’}}”). There is a useful script for converting quotes to curly at User:Samwilson/CurlyQuotes.js Levana Taylor (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about quote templates moved to User talk:Xover Levana Taylor (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for causing disruption - I should have read the style guide. I came to this transcription through doing an update to an author page and testing some of the links - I tend to flit from one thing to another! My first point of call when starting a new page, especially if the OCR isn't great, is to run the 'Clean up OCR' tool; one of the things this does is to convert double and single quotes to straight ones.
I'll take a look at your guide.
I've spent a bit of time since your messages trying to work out how to install the CurlyQuotes.js tool. I've copied the whole of the code into my 'global.js' page but nothing has happened. Clearly I'm doing something wrong - can you help me, please?Chrisguise (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Try mw.loader.load('//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Samwilson/CurlyQuotes.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
and then refresh your browser --Levana Taylor (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I have added the suggested code but nothing appears to have happened, despite refreshing and restarting my browser. I was expecting something to appear on the LHS of the screen (under the Wikisource logo) in the same way as the 'Typopgraphy' and 'Page' toolsets that I added to my 'global.js' page do. Does the 'CurlyQuotes' tool reside somewhere else (e.g. in one of the other menus) - I checked a few places but without success.Chrisguise (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It is in the set of tools above the editing box, the quotes right next to "bold" and "italic"! (Took me a while to find it too when I installed it!) Levana Taylor (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks, I shall give it a whirl.Chrisguise (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I have been using the 'CurlyQuotes' tool, and while it isn't infallible, it's a big help, since I can continue to use the 'Clean up OCR' tool and then re-apply the 'curly quotes'. Chrisguise (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

(unindented) I also looked over the guidance you produced, which I have been trying to follow. It's the most thorough and comprehensive that I've come across. My only observation is that there seem to be a number of instances where line spacing is introduced that is wider than that in the text. Regards, Chris Chrisguise (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

By "line spacing wider than in the text," do you mean differing from the way it is printed in the old magazine? That magazine was cramped, filling its pages almost edge-to-edge with small type, and with only a rule as separation between items. Paper was a major part of periodical expenses in those days—wood-pulp paper wasn’t yet in use. There is absolutely no requirement that the digital version of the texts has to be bound by the same restraints. To paraphrase something Billinghurst said, Wikisource is digitizing the words of the authors, not the typesetters’ peculiarities.

Most of the stylistic choices in the style guide were made by me, with some input from Encylopetey; I was revising a basis that was created some years ago by I’m not sure who, Mudbringer for one. I tried to imitate the magazine as much as possible while complying with standard Wikisource formatting and loosening up the tight spacing, and a few other changes to make things look better on the web: for instance, I inset margins for block-quotes whereas the original didn’t, only distinguishing them by smaller type.

Do you have any specific suggestions for improvements? It would probably be possible to do global changes with a bot. Levana Taylor (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Image standards added to style guide

I’ve added to the style guide the way that images are being handled -- the three cases I listed cover 95% of the images in the magazine. Anything else, well, here is an example of an image used as a drop-initial and here is an irregular-shaped image. For even more complicated cases, if you can’t figure out a way, ask me because something like it may have been done already. Levana Taylor (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Prefatory note of Fumifugium is not public domain

Hi. That is a very interesting publication you have added! However, it seems that the prefatory note is not public domain, as it was written in 1976. I suggest to replace it with the original 1772 publication. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for drawing this to my attention. However, as I have no wish to do this text again (too many italicisations, unusual spellings and unusual punctuation, some or all of which will have changed in a different edition), I took the liberty of reading up on the University of Exeter's copyright position, as they are the declared copyright holder. I believe that it is OK to duplicate the introduction based on the information at https://www.exeter.ac.uk/research/openresearch/oa/copyright/ I presume that there will be an appropriate copyright template that could be applied? Regards, ChrisChrisguise (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that is really interesting! I must say I like the university’s attitude. I have asked whether it is sufficient for us at Wikisource:Copyright discussions#Fumifugium: or, the Inconveniencie of the Aer and Smoake of London/Note. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

As a general note, works should ALWAYS have a license tag on them before being listed as "New", as a suitable license is one of the basic requirements of hosting a work here. Several of your recent additions to the New Texts list had no license tag on them at all. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The Works of Virgil (Dryden)/Georgics (Dryden)

Two things: (1) You don't need to put "Dryden" in there twice. (2) If you set this up the way you have, people will not be able to download a copy as an EPUB. You need to make use of {{AuxTOC}}. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I've arranged the page naming to fit in with what is already established. On the author page for Virgil are three entries, one each for the Eclogues (or Pastorals), the Georgics, and the Aeneis. Each one then links to a sub-page which lists various translations. The Aeneis has a Dryden transcription (1697 edition) but this has no index page or images (hence needs migration), the Georgics page lists the Dryden, (I added it in June 2019 - not expecting to be doing the transcription a year later!) but there wasn't anything behind it, and the Dryden was not listed on the Eclogues page until I added it recently.

I have structured the contents to enable the relevant sections to be linked to the E, G and A pages. Likewise, I used the existing Aeneis (Dryden) page as a template, and used the same page referencing so that I could simply replace that content with <pages index= ...... from=X to=Y /> references, rather than creating new pages. I have used this as the template for the Pastorals and am in the process of doing the same for the Georgics.

I did the table of contents in the way I have because I've seen it done on other multi-volume works (and it looks nicer). However, I didn't know about the issue with converting to an ebook (how would I?). If you bear with me while I get everything set up, I'll convert it to the AuxTOC form.

I pinched the contents listing from Early English Books online but it needs rationalising; theirs is from the first edition and some elements of that edition are not in the 3rd (e.g. the errata).Chrisguise (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

caution creating redirects where a wikidata item exists

There was a wikidata item on Ode Upon Liberty history so converting that page to a redirect is problematic—WD items need to be direct and specific. It is not a subject matter that we have managed well as it has so many intricacies and variances. Anyway, recovered the old edition, and moved it its own page, and created a versions page to disambiguate the works. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

After moving pages ...

Hi. After moving pages, please check the WHAT LINKS HERE for the old location, and update the links there to the new location, especially if you are going to overwrite the redirect. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Reminder about subpage titles

Hi, just a reminder that our policy here is to use Arabic numerals in Chapter names and not Roman. So, the first chapter of What Katy Did Next should be What Katy Did Next/Chapter 1 Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I would normally do as you suggest but on this occasion I'm migrating an existing version of 'What Katy Did Next', which is not attached to an Index page, and the chapters of that use roman numerals. Should I move the existing chapters (e.g.from 'I.' to 'Chapter 1') first or carry on as I am? Chrisguise (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't realised that. Finish off, then let me know and I'll move them for you as I can do it with suppression of redirects. Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

OK - will do. Chrisguise (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle: This seems as good a place as any to ask about something that's perplexed me for a while. It seems to me on Wikisource there is a strong preference for suppressing redirects. But redirects can be incredibly useful, often in cases where we can't know what external or even offline links exist. In this case, What Katy Did Next/I. has existed for a dozen years. There's no way to know who may have linked directly to that chapter. It seems very useful to keep a redirect; and if there is a downside, I don't know what it is. Why would we want to suppress? Chris -- hope you don't mind me butting in on your talk page. -Pete (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: There are three possibilities for these scenarios: a) leave a hard redirect; b) use a soft redirect; c) supress the redirect. The decision as to which option to use depends on the likelihood of incoming links. If it's a well-known alternate title, or "what links here" gives links from multiple other works, then the full redirect gets left. If it's a likely target on a work that's been here a while, then we'll use a soft direct, which will be deleted in a few months' time. If it's an unlikely target, or is wrong, or is recent, then we'll supress the redirect. In this particular case, I believe What Katy Did Next/I. to be an unlikely target for an external link, but I'm quite prepared to hear argument in the opposite direction. [Thanks Chris for hosting the discussion.] Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I've finished the migration. Chrisguise (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Integrity of published work

I have moved London (Johnson) to be a subpage of the work in which it was published to maintain its edition content and the integrity of the published work. In cases like this we would have created a redirect from the root level to the subpage, similar to what we do with poetry. So if Johnson's work is here from another source, we would convert the redirect to a {{versions}} page.

Also, for a published work, we only require the copyright tag at the root level of the work. It is considered to apply to the whole work. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Oh, you split the work. In a case like this we have typically put them as subpages of the publication from whence they came. No different to our other curate compiled works. Again redirects are our friends here. EP hs addressed one of the reasons why below, also due to our maintaining our components on editions. Noting some of the guidance at d:Wikidata:WikiProject Books. Yes, it does get complex, and sooooo many edge cases. :-/ — billinghurst sDrewth 15:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest moving them to be subpages, and happy to give a hand as required. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you doing the fix, or am I? — billinghurst sDrewth 01:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Trivia, or the Art of Walking the Streets of London to which is added Dr. Johnson's London

You do realize that anyone wishing to read this as a download will get the title pages, the contents page, and nothing else? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Why? I was rebuked by someone for using a non-standard table of contents (for Dryden's Virgil translation) and was told to use a AuxTOC. I've done that here but apparently that's wrong. What should I be doing? Chrisguise (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The contents are not displayed on the primary page. Only pages linked from the first page will be included in the download. You've placed the contents on secondary pages, and the EPUB will therefore not pull them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Making this change has corrected the problem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Index pages

The dash ( - ) is for marking pages that fall outside of the page numbering system: e.g. end papers or the backs of plates. It is not for marking "this page has no content", that is what the page status of "Without text" is for. Pages that are part of the numbering system should be numbered. Failing to do so makes it harder for people to determine the page number of those pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Trying to understand this page hierarchy

Hi. Why would we transclude pages in this naming hierarchy?

• The Reason of Church-governement Urg'd against Prelaty
• The Reason of Church-governement Urg'd against Prelaty/Book 1 Chapter 1
• The Reason of Church-governement Urg'd against Prelaty/Book 1 Chapter 2
• The Reason of Church-governement Urg'd against Prelaty/Book 1 Chapter 3
• The Reason of Church-governement Urg'd against Prelaty/Book 1 Chapter 4
• The Reason of Church-governement Urg'd against Prelaty/Book 1 Chapter 5
• The Reason of Church-governement Urg'd against Prelaty/Book 1 Chapter 6
• The Reason of Church-governement Urg'd against Prelaty/Book 1 Chapter 7
• The Reason of Church-governement Urg'd against Prelaty/Book 1 Preface
• The Reason of Church-governement Urg'd against Prelaty/Book 2 Chapter 1
• The Reason of Church-governement Urg'd against Prelaty/Book 2 Chapter 2
• The Reason of Church-governement Urg'd against Prelaty/Book 2 Chapter 3
• The Reason of Church-governement Urg'd against Prelaty/Book 2 Conclusion
• The Reason of Church-governement Urg'd against Prelaty/Book 2 Introduction
• The Reason of Church-governement Urg'd against Prelaty/Errata

Where is that sort of hierarchy used, and how predominantly? I would think that we would be better to align with what we have been using, and am here asking what I am missing. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The publication is an essentially an extended pamphlet (Wikipedia calls it an 'essay'), the title page of which describes itself as being in two books. It is laid out as two 'books', and visually there is a transition from Book 1 to Book 2. However, the start of book 2 has no heading (I have called it 'Introduction' since it's the first part, but it could equally have been 'preface', or anything else). There is a conclusion (called 'Conclusion'), which is a conclusion for the whole thing but which is part of Book 2. Half way through, Milton goes off-topic, and then comes back to the subject matter at hand. I don't know what he had in mind but, given the way it is written and subdivided, I chose to treat it as essentially one long article but retained the book and chapter number information in each of the sections (per your list), rather than just starting at '1' and finishing at '22' (or however many there would be). I could have done it just as Book 1 and Book 2, but that would have generated two very long sections, which the Help section advises against. That's why I've done it the way I have. Chrisguise (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

What would you have done? And more to the point, what do you want me to do?Chrisguise (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sybilline Leaves (Coleridge)

Hi. With this work, I would not have created a numbering system for them, I think that they can and should be published under their names. In terms of search, the name is more effective in returning results in full search, or type ahead.

We generally only use a numbered approach where it is how the work is defined, and it makes sense to present that way, eg. chapters in novels, especially as they are not named, and there is less value in the name. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Horace

Thank you so much for completing a set of scan-backed translations of Horace's works. The incompleteness of his works has been a significant hole in classical literature here for far too long here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Let me second that! --Xover (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for taking the time to acknowledge the work I've done on The Satires, Epistles & Art of Poetry of Horace. I uploaded it after looking for a version of Ars Poetica and I came across some comments about John Conington. It's just a pity I didn't pick a volume with a complete set of the Satires, such as the Thomas Creech version of 1715.

Although I didn't upload it, I've been doing some work on The Odes and Carmen Sæculare of Horace, by the same translator. Any help woud be appreciated ..... Chrisguise (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Byron's Works

Good morning! Formatting should be consistent throughout the text for The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero)/Poetry/Volume 3. The poem tag has not been used throughout the rest of the work, but if you seek to substitute it for established formatting with breaks, may I suggest making the change to every other page in the work as well? I welcome any thoughts as to how to make this project better, albeit consistent with regard to formatting. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

To add: I have admittedly not worked on these volumes for quite some time, so maybe I don't have much skin in the game, if that's even the correct way to use the phrase... But there was a standard established, and I simply wanted to bring attention to it. It may take years, but I do hope to have enough brain and staying power to do more work on that volume of works by Byron. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, My apologies if I have irritated you with my contribution. In my defence I would say the following. Firstly, in my experience, whether you use the <br/> option, the <poem> </poem> option or a mixture of the two makes no difference to how the pages appear when transcluded; it's more important that the {{center block/s}} and {{center block/e}} are used consistently, and text sizes, footnotes, etc follow a consistent pattern. Secondly, the <br/> method makes it more difficult to spot transcription errors in the punctuation at the end of lines. I find that in most poetry the OCR does a good job with the text but frequently gets the punctuation wrong (e.g. . or ,. ; or :, and with poor scans ? and !). Finally, I suppose I just try to make best use of the tools that are available to help, and find the <poem> </poem> method much quicker, in the absence of something to automatically put the line breaks it on every line.

I previously did some work on Volume 5, but only on the introductory pieces to some of the poems. I gave up in despair over the complexities of the footnotes! I might go back now that I've more experience and have the example of using two groups of footnotes in 'The Giaour' Regards, Chrisguise (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh gee, I'm not irritated... But if I were to go through and validate at any time, please understand if I adapt some things along the way. I still think formatting consistency is best, even if output is not significantly affected... but that is me. Happy editing, and thanks for your response. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Monody on the Death of Chatterton (1796)

Please do not start making decisions on the source of a work. We allow editions, so unless you know that our specific edition came from a specific work, then they should be left as they are, not forced into a work just because they were published there at one point. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

If you have an edition in a work that you are transcribing, then do its version from index, and transclude it, add {{other versions}} to the top of the page. Then create Monody on the Death of Chatterton as a {{versions}} page and link both versions from that page. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I am transcribing the source 'Poems on Various Ocassions' which this version is from (as it says on the versions page), and if you'd give someone five minutes to do the job they're in the middle of then you wouldn't have to keep pinging me.

Anyway, what's the obsession with keeping unsourced work? You reinstated an unsourced version of the 'Rime of the Ancient Mariner' despite my having replaced it with an indexed version (Sibylline Leaves (1817), the same version.

I though the major point about this site, apart from making stuff available, is that it was a side by side transcription?Chrisguise (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Long s

Hi, may I ask what is the problem with {{ls}}? This template enables long s to be displayed as "ſ" in the page ns and as "s" in the main ns. Current practice is to display it just as "s" in the main ns, but if the practice got changed in future, the template would enable to display the character in its original form. What is more, people can adjust their common.js to have the long s displayed in the main namespace too. However, removing the template makes it impossible. Can it be returned? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. My view is that the use of the long 's' is just an annoyance. They make reading the text far harder on the screen (surely the point of making stuff available in the first place is that people read it); secondly, they make proofreading more difficult and mean that spell checking add-on I use in my browser becomes more of a hindrance than a help; finally the point is to do a transcription not create a reproduction. It's an 's'.

Whilst it might be possible to change settings as you describe, how many casual readers would have the first idea what their 'common.js' is? I'd describe myself as a committed transcriber and it took me a good while to stumble across it.Chrisguise (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

To note that the practice is to ensure that the main namespace produces a normal "s". We allow the transcriber to determine whether they wish to use "s" or "{{long s}}. There are a few examples of where we have retained the long s as it was a decision made as part of the publication to create the work specifically with long s, so in that case we retained them, similarly if we are reproducing orthography in a work. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Tom Brown's School Days (1868, 6th ed)

ALL works hosted on Wikisource should display appropriate licensing information. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Your input is requested at WS:PD

Hi Chrisguise,

Your input is requested at WS:PD#Template:Chart. --Xover (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Category for removal

Hi Chrisguise, I stumbled across this category: "Category:EB1911:People:Cities:Europe:Portugal" that you created (a copy and paste error I assume — I've made a few of those!), how do we delete a category? regards, DivermanAU (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Done — billinghurst sDrewth 14:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced works are not part of works

Please do not move unsourced works to be a part of other works. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm getting fed up of this pointless conversation. All I'm trying to do is to reduce the mountainous pile of unattributed *#"% by linking it to actual texts in line with the stated aims of the site. You've no idea of what the source is for the version I moved, so editing it to match an actual source makes b###er all difference to anything.Chrisguise (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Peleus and Thetis

In the future, please be careful when moving pages. You have caused several broken Wiki-links, which will need to be fixed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC).

Eugene Aram

This has been on my to-do list to deal with for several years, but I've never quite gotten there. Thanks for working on it. I'll try and find time to do some validation. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Nearly finished volume 2. Chrisguise (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

License templates

I added a license template to The Doctrine of Discipline and Divorce, which you recently listed on New Texts.

Per the Copyright policy, works should have a license template, and "it is the responsibility of the contributor to assert compatibility with Wikisource's license". This is the now the fourth time you've been asked to use them, would you please start doing it? BethNaught (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Dramatick Poets

Hi. I have created template:Dramatick Poets link that should make it a little easier to create author page links. It also allows us to more easily identify the works that are or are not linked. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. Chrisguise (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Prometheus Unbound

Hello. Can the template "Incomplete" be removed from Prometheus Unbound; a lyrical drama in four acts with other poems now? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Done it. Chrisguise (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Links to missing images

Hi Chris,

Regarding this edit. Is the page's current state (linking an image that doesn't exist) deliberate, or just a glitch while editing? And if it's deliberate, what's the reasoning behind it? --Xover (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I've fixed the missing file (and the Title link in the footnote). The file link was based on the naming convention I adopted when I uploaded all the other images for vol 1 of this work, but for some reason I failed to upload this one. I was going to fix it when I did the images for volume 3 . . . . Chrisguise (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I was guessing it was roughly that that was the case, but didn't want to go wading in there in case there was some specific reason you wanted it that way. --Xover (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

djvu links?

You have much more experience here than me, so in the spirit of curiousity and with the need of more information I ask this:

What is the problem with {{djvu page link}}?

I realize that it is only useful at the proofing and even then, only when the toc is on the index page, but it is useful there and then.

I read or had it explained to me that it was too complicated. Since then, I try to figure out a way for it to work in the Main. Shifting the numbers and then the process gets broken at the chapter part.... It is an unfixable problem in the world that doesn't depress me to think about! In this way, it is beautiful and rare and I have grown very fond of it.

So, it is no wonder that I cannot determine a reason not to use it, and ask respectfully what is your reasoning to remove it?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with {{djvu page link}} but it seems to me that it doesn't achieve anything when used in a table of contents (ToC). From a ToC the link needs to take you to the chapter content, not just to an individual page. Also, the links work on the page containing the ToC and on the Index page (if the ToC is shown there), but when the page containing the ToC is transcluded, the links are suppressed. The one place where I think {{djvu page link}} is useful is when a book contains a list of illustrations, where a link to an individual page is appropriate.Chrisguise (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes

I noticed your edit Special:Diff/10990680/10991003. Why would you remove 24,000 bytes all at once and change the header? It appears to be correct and removing that information requires a rationale, or editors may assume the edit was disruptive. -- AnotherEditor144 ^{t - c} 17:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I edited it because what was in there was copy and pasted text, not transcluded page transcriptions. I'm simply applying the appropriate guidance per https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Help:Beginner%27s_guide_to_transclusion. Chrisguise (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I suppose it would transcluyde after a few hours anyway. AnotherEditor144 ^{t - c} 21:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Red links for copyrighted works

Please do not add active red links for works that are under copyright. Red links are an implicit invitation to add the work, which cannot be legally done for works still under copyright. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I take your point but I'm not sure where I've done such a thing, and so don't know what needs fixing.Chrisguise (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I've fixed it. You added red links on Venus and Adonis (Shakespeare) as well as Rape of Lucrece (Shakespeare) for the Yale Shakespeare volume that is still under copyright. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

template:page break

Hi. Modern usage of this template would typically be {{page break}} which suppresses the word "page" and allows for the marginal page number. This is an old template that pre-exists the Index: namespace and transcluded works, and was designed for when we need to force page numbering harder/differently, and later adapted for the transcluded form. It would be great when you are transcluding pages that you could utilise this simpler form. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Please stop removing line-breaks, {smallrefs} sizing and header spaces

Can you please not remove line-breaks in EB1911, like you did here Page:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu/17, removing them makes proofing and validating more difficult; it also makes it very difficult to see what changes were made.

Please do not removing spacing from the header template, it is there for a reason to center the article names, also on Page:EB1911 - Volume 15.djvu/529.

Please do not remove sizing from {smallrefs} template, in EB1911 we standardize on 90% i.e. {smallrefs|90%} like on Page:EB1911 - Volume 15.djvu/529. When editing a transcluded EB1911 article and adding {smallrefs|90%}, use {clear} beforehand if there are author initials on the last text line (this prevents the initials dropping down into the refs.); also add {rule} after {clear} if the last paragraph is fine print, thanks.

Please take more care when editing, on Page:EB1911 - Volume 22.djvu/768 you broke the section tag from working properly which resulting in blank text for 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Quilon - I have since fixed this. A check of the Preview would have showed the problem. I really have enough proofing to do without having to fix these issues. regards, DivermanAU (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I just fixed another of your careless edits [2] which you marked as "Proofread" but has a blatant error where the text "{{EB1911 Fine Print|" is visible on the page because you did not terminate the template properly. If you are going to make edits in Wikisource, please take more care, some may see your many bad edits as vandalism. DivermanAU (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

King John

If you're planning to replace the existing text with the First Folio text, then there's little point in moving the unsourced copy prior to replacement. I did check, and the unsourced copy of this play does not match the text of the First Folio. It is a later editorialized edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Re: King Richard: We don't remove words from the title. The title of the play very clearly has the word "King" in it on its first page. The table of contents for the First Folio contains many errors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy delete of Index:Chandos, Ouida.djvu

Hello. It seems that the page Index:Chandos, Ouida volume 3.djvu that you refer to in the speedy delete request at Index:Chandos, Ouida.djvu does not exist. Can you check it and correct the link, please? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Having received no answer I have searched for the redundant index myself and found Index:Chandos, a novel (IA chandosnovel03ouid).pdf. While you wrote "A complete version of the same volume (and from the same 3 volume copy as volumes 1 and 2) has been added to the existing transcription project on Wikisource - see Index:Chandos, Ouida volume 3.djvu", this index has different name and was made from a different copy. However, it contains the pages missing in the file suggested for deletion, so I deleted the file. Thanks very much for noticing this issue. I would just like to ask you to pay more attention when writing the reasons for deletion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. Apologies for any confusion caused, I'll try and do better next time. Regards, ChrisChrisguise (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Paradise Lost

Not sure if you're planning on proofreading Paradise Lost (1674), but I added an index for copy of the actual 1674 text at Index:Paradise_Lost_1674.djvu. Sorry, the pages are not split, but this was the best copy that I could find. If you know of another, let me know and I'll try and get it. Languageseeker (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Addendum, copy B is slightly easier to read, but I couldn't get the IA tool to ingest it. Internet Archive identifier: ParadiseLost1674CopyB Languageseeker (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. I wasn't but I started to have a look at doing so. However, the scan on Commons has a problem in that half of the image of pages numbered 28 and 29 is missing. I looked at sourcing a replacement but the alternative scan you provided a link to appears to have been removed from IA. Chrisguise (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, it was a slight error in the IA id. The correct id is Internet Archive identifier: ParadiseLost1674CopyB. I also created an index for the second copy Index:ParadiseLost1674CopyB.pdf Languageseeker (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, UMich has the complete text of the 1674 edition online with page numbers, so you can copy and paste the text prior to proofreading. [3]. Should make things a bit easier. Languageseeker (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I notice that the text of a number of the double pages have started appearing. I'm about 60% of the way through splitting the file into single page scans, so if you could hold off for a while .... ahould have said something earlier. Chrisguise (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Having spent quite a bit of time on this it turns out that there are a number of pages missing - not completely sure as the page numbering is a little awry in some places, but it could be as many as eight. Chrisguise (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The logo image

While those two images may look similar, they are not the same. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to be a party pooper though, congrats on producing so many texts as you have so quickly! I was just letting you know, I would replace the image myself but Internet Archive appears to be down for maintenance. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixed PseudoSkull (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Although I have done quite a lot of things over the years, I don't necessarily do them that quickly - for instance I've been working on a History of the Royal Society (single volume, c.500 pages) off and on for about two years now. I flit between a number of transcriptions at any one time, so tend to have several works come to completion close together, and then nothing for a while. I also try and clear up some of the stuff that seems to have been left behind, such as texts that get close to completion of proofreading but just need dragging over the finishing line (e.g. Jane Eyre (1st edition)), or works that have been proofread but have not been transcluded (e.g. The Boy Who Knew What The Birds Said). I generally add these to the new works list once done. Chrisguise (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Moving the Alchemist

Please don't make moves like you did with the Alchemist. It is your presumption that it came from that source, yet it says that it was a Gutenberg source, and we wouldn't be making such a decision without a community conversation. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Can I ask what is the problem with the people who run this site (past as well as present)? It appears to me that they have failed, and continue to fail, to uphold its stated aims, since it contains predominantly unsourced text and seems to continue to add more; it is frequently just copied from Gutenberg, which, for the large part, doesn't unequivocally identify its sources and therefore has no 'auditable trail' (irony intentional) to an original; and when someone is prepared to invest the time and effort to migrate the unsourced text of a major work (or indeed any work) to a source, even if it involves some minor editing, there is resistance and a desire to retain unsourced material in preference. Regards. Chrisguise (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Index:The practice of typography; correct composition; a treatise on spelling, abbreviations, the compounding and division of words, the proper use of figures and nummerals by De Vinne, Theodore Low, 1828-1914.djvu

Do you want me to back off, we seem to be running into sutff we are both editing pages at a time? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I've moved on to a chapter later in the book. Chrisguise (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Using px in widths

Hi! Congratulations on yet another work done! Just a little quibble over something that inhibits export readiness and accessibility: when you use px as a unit for something that contains text content, you are making an implicit assumption that everyone will have the same font size as you (by default in most browsers, this is 16px). This is not a safe assumption to make in the general case, as e-readers often have much larger font sizes and also visually-impaired users may have larger fonts too. This means that your px-sized box becomes much too small for the text. However, if you use an equivalent em size, the box would scale in line with the system font size. For an actual example, you can see H:PXWIDTH.

In general, the solution is simple: divide the px width you would use by 16 and use that number of ems: e.g. 400px → 25em. This will look the same on a default browser, but will also work as the font size changes. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 09:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I have a 'pro-forma' template for an AUXTOC in my clipboard manager, which I keep forgetting to edit - I've done it now. Chrisguise (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! ^_^ Inductiveload—talk/contribs 12:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Long esses

Re: The Lamb's Marriage Proclaimed I'm with you on not reproducing long esses on Wikisource. However I would not tend to remove them from projects where other people have done most of the work. Not saying you shouldn't (I don't know), just that's why I didn't! PeterR2 (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner. I dislike the use of the long ess for a number of reasons but generally speaking I don't remove them where they have been used consistently throughout a work. In fact I generally won't do work validation work on texts where people have replicated them. In the case of this work, and a whole load of other National Library of Scotland chapbooks I've worked on recently, there was so much work still to do at the validation stage that I took the long esses out (a simple find and replace) to make the proofreading / correction work easier. Chrisguise (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This voyage is over!

I've fixed up all the Greek I could find. It's all green at Index:The_Periplus_of_Hanno.djvu so . . . ? Shenme (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah, found a paper where someone was suggesting Periplus as a resource for instruction in Ancient Greek. Also, had to fix a couple mistakes at el.wikisource ! Shenme (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

1000 nights + 1

Hi, noticed you also edited this page. I have hit a wall more than once in trying to dab several overlapping version/translation/dab pages for Victorian era adaptations, anyone wrangling the redirects, however brutally, would be making a start on this. Pass along your thoughts if you are interested. Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. I only edited the page because I've been migrating various single, unsourced poems by Alfred Tennyson to an indexed source, which I am transcribing (Poems (1843, in 2 vols.)). After migrating each poem, I follow-up and correct linking pages using the 'What links here? tool. I did notice that there seemed to be a bit of a muddle around the 'Arabian Nights', largely driven by the inconsistent way publications have been titled over the years, despite being derived from a common source. However, given all the other things I'm doing at the moment, I resisted the temptation to start trying to improve the situation! Chrisguise (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

descriptive summary for new texts

Hi. When you are adding works to Template:New texts it would be great if you would be able to add a descriptive summary, as is requested on the instructions for that page. Thanks for your help there. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The Works of H G Wells, chapter headings

Hello. Please don't change the font size of the chapter headings and names. It's a matter of consistency, they're the same size and style throughout the three volumes we've been working on in the last few months. Thank you. Tromaster (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. OK, but I suppose the real question is why they were ever done like that in the first place, since the font size of 'Chapter ...' is the same as the chapter text and the chapter title is slightly smaller. It makes the transcluded chapter headings look rather 'shouty'.Chrisguise (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

prev/next in The History of the Royal Society of London/Chapter 7

Hi. Was the labelling as produced in the visible previous and next purposeful? Couldn't we use the section names? — billinghurst sDrewth 10:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I have been working on this work - on and off - for quite a long time and need to proof read the last 5 pages. However, I've been prevaricating for a while now about how best to break down the work for the AuxTOC and so haven't filled in the details on all the before and afters yet. Chrisguise (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

A Tale

Hello. Are you sure that the title of the Brontë’s work should have lowercase "a" instead of the uppercase "A", as written in you speedy delete request? Looking at Page:The Professor (1857 Volume 1).djvu/5 or at Page:The Professor (1857 Volume 1).djvu/7 I would say it should be uppercase A. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Possibly, but all the chapters in both volumes 1 and 2 (25 in total) have been done with a lower case 'a', so to be consistent I'd go with that. Chrisguise (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Babbage scan

Hi! It looks like you removed duplicated pages from Index:On the economy of machinery and manufactures - Babbage - 1846.djvu. I have shifted the other pages down. In general, please don't change scans out from under active works as it will require an admin to do the page shifts (this is a technical thing, because redirects have to be suppressed or it won't work), and until that's done, the rest of the book will be offset. It would be better to request the removal at WS:LAB, then someone can do the fix and shift the pages at the same time.

Also, if you mark a book as "needs fixing", please always explain why so someone can deal with it (e.g. "pages need shifting by 2 after page removal, starting at position 39, pp. 37-38 to be deleted" would do), otherwise it requires someone to guess what your issue is and that makes mistakes easy if the wrong end of a stick is grasped. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 09:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually it's still broken because the new file is missing page numbered 26. Which pages were actually duplicated originally? Just pages 26/27 (numbered xiv,xv)? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 09:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I only removed the two duplicate pages from the contents, I hadn't spotted the other missing page. There is another scan of the same edition on IA which has the missing page. I can rebuild the file and insert the missing page. Can you confirm that you want me to do this? Chrisguise (talk) 09:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I've just removed the original pages from the old file (with a command like djvm -d bab.djvu 26) and re-uploaded since the quality seems less blurry anyway (looks like you have a c44 compressor turned up pretty high - it's hard to compete with the IA Luratech compressor!). So I think it should just be sorted now. At least it looks all in line to me (which probably means it's subtly wrong somewhere ^_^) Inductiveload—talk/contribs 10:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I hadn't previously been aware of the page you've provided the link to. I've corrected a few other works by changing the scan file and then manually moving the text from the effected pages, albeit on works that hadn't progressed so far as this one. If I come across any others, I'll know what to do. Chrisguise (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem with copying the text between pages is that is makes a confusing mess of the contribution history for the page. Also, it makes a mess of the proofreading status because, for example, you won't be able to validate proofread text that you copied, and others can validate text that you copied, even if they proofread it originally. It's far better to just move the pages without redirects which preserved edit history and proofreading statuses. There are bots for this, so it only takes seconds to do. 09:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Inductiveload—talk/contribs 09:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Can I ask for your assistance with one of the Monthly Challenge works - Index:The future of Africa.djvu. I was going to do the transclusion but it became apparent that there are a number of pages missing from the work (including the ToC page). I have found a complete version of the same edition on IA which I will upload shortly but there will be a need to move pages. Thanks, Chrisguise (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Winnie-the-Pooh images

Please read Your Commons talk page. feydey (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Index:The Seven Pillars of Wisdom.pdf

I solved the side-headers issue... see my recent efforts. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I expect to upload the first batch of images shortly (starting with the initial letters). I'll add a link on the index page when I do.Chrisguise (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The images are NOT out of copyright in the UK though, I checked who the artists were. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hamlet - First Folio

Just a heads-up. Some of the First Folio editions are divided into scenes; some are not. And some of the scenes are numbered differently from other editions (or don't exist in other editions. It's one of the reasons why we divided the Yale Shakespeare by Acts, without separating out the scenes. And the FF has the added issue that you can't always divide the Acts into scenes because not all the plays are divided that way. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done a few of the comedies and histories and have followed whatever was printed (i.e. just division into Acts or into Acts and Scenes). With Hamlet the printer has started by dividing into Acts and Scenes in Act I. but after Act I., Scene III. has abandoned marking the acts and scenes. There are some markings for Act II. too but after that there's nothing. I'm transcluding at the scene level, following the divisions used elsewhere, and which can be identified from the stage directions. Otherwise it would be just one long screed.Chrisguise (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

OK. But keep in mind that, the way you're currently doing the FF that people trying to grab a download will not be able to do so. For the final work to be downloadable, all content must be listed on the work's principal page. That includes every play subpage, and every act/scene subpage. If they aren't listed on the principal page for the FF in a table of contents, then the download won't grab them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Although there is a main page with a table of contents (i.e. Shakespeare - First Folio facsimile (1910)) it clearly isn't complete yet. The content of the 'front matter' sub page (see Front matter) either needs including on the main page (e.g. the title page) or breaking into individual sections (e.g. the individual poems). An AuxTOC section then needs adding to the main page, rather than what's there at the moment. The 'front matter' sub-page also contains the ToC page from the work, which needs removing. The way it's set up at the moment isn't my doing. Chrisguise (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Specific linking in author pages to poems/short stories/etc.

Please prefer a link like this:

[[The Death Bed (Cuney)|The Death Bed]]

over something like

[[Fire!!/The Death Bed]]

I don't think that there's a hard rule for this on Wikisource, however the likelihood is relatively high that any number of the works in Fire!! might have appeared in other collections, or perhaps as individual reprints of themselves. Those collections/reprints may someday get representation on Wikisource, so having a generic link there would prevent us from having to change the data on all the author pages later when a versions page is made. So I at least would prefer it for the sake of the DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) axiom. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. I can't say I agree with you, because:

(1) If I click on a link for a work, I expect to be taken to a copy of that work, not to a page that might contain several versions of it and then have to choose among them. Access to other versions (whether there are actually other copies, or just 'might be one day' ones) can then be had via the 'other versions' link at the top of the work.

(2) If I put a link in a work to the origin of a quotation (such as those perennial favourites, Shakespeare, Paradise Lost and the Bible}, I don't link to a 'versions' page and then let the reader pick one for themselves and wade through the whole work to try and find the line(s) of interest. I link to a specific point in one version.

(3) If I'd named the transcription 'The Death Bed' or 'The Death Bed (Cuney)' instead of 'Fire!!/Flame from the Dark Tower/The Death Bed' then I might agree with you, since - in the unlikely event of further versions - that would require moving things about to create a disambiguation page. But I didn't.

(4) I spend too much time as it is doing stuff on this site without expending even more effort creating pages that probably won't ever get used. For an example of where this gets you, see the 'Folios' section of Hamlet (Shakespeare).

Regards, Chrisguise (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Sections in a Journal of the Plague Year

Hi,

Just curious, when transcluding a Journal of the Plague Year, did you have pages in mind to put in each of the three sections in the auxiliary table of contents? I only ask because (a) I dislike transcluding works all on one page, and (b) having a look through all the pages, I can't seem to see any clearly identifiable sections. If you prefer, I can transclude a single section ("Memoirs of the Plague") and cut sections 2 and 3 from the ToC (at least everything isn't then on the opening page for the work), or I can cut the ToC entirely and put everything on the front page (after transcluding, it should then be easier to search for issues/missing nops etc.).

Thanks (and thanks for helping with many of the other MC transclusions),TeysaKarlov (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Soft redirects such as at Elegy (Swinburne)

It appears you turned the redirect at Elegy (Swinburne) into a soft redirection to Astrophel and Other Poems/Elegy from a hard redirection. Hard redirects are preferred at Wikisource unless they are in the form of a disambiguation page. The soft redirects recently got process-deleted by Xover, which they did along with several other pages in the now non-existent category Category:Soft redirects/March 2021. Note also to the deleter Xover, and CalendulaAsteraceae who also edited, that the redirects to the poems of Astrophel and Other Poems will eventually need to be recreated and disambiguated accordingly. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

North and South (First Edition)

This work will not download for readers because the chapters are not listed on the first page. Downloads only work if the contents are fully listed on the first page of the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Missing images on The Strand

Hi,

Did you forget about Page:The Strand Magazine (Volume 3).djvu/6 and Page:The Strand Magazine (Volume 3).djvu/8, or just haven't got around to them yet? Xover (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I bring it up because the current state puts them into the Category:Pages with missing files maintenance category (which should generally be empty so that we can catch any genuine problems and fix them). Would you be opposed to removing the placeholder filename in the {{img float}} templates? That would leave the templates in place, but not cause the page to land in that maintenance category. Xover (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I've no problem with your suggested change, which I've done. I wasn't planning on doing the images any time soon, as there are lots of them in the whole work. Chrisguise (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Formatting in Index:Hebrew Melodies.djvu

Hi, I'm validating this work and I have a question about the formatting of poem titles.

Where the title is printed on more than one line, sometimes you have preserved it but sometimes you have not. For example, page 42 vs. page 15. How did you choose when to do this? On reflection, how do you think it should be? Ideally I would like to get it in a consistent state before finishing the validation.

Thanks in advance! BethNaught (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for the work you're doing - hopefully I've not made too many errors.

I don't have a specific system for dealing with titles (poems or otherwise). I do split the title to follow the design intent if different parts of it are in different font sizes or formats. For poems, if (unsplit) the total length of the title is less than the length of the longest verse, I tend to leave it on one line. If (unsplit) it is longer than the verses of the poem, I think it sometimes makes the overall layout (when transcluded) look 'off-centre', so I split it, depending on how it looks to me.

I won't die in a ditch over this - if you want to change things to make them all consistent, then feel free.

Regards, Chrisguise (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, it does make sense to me. It's a sensible approach and you've applied it consistently, so I'm happy to leave it as is. BethNaught (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

File:AsAManThinketh - temp screenshot PM.png

Please do not remove cleanup templates until the issue has been corrected The work's chapter pages are still missing header templates, as required by our Style Guide. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

At right is a screenshot of the code for Chapter 1 of As a Man Thinketh as an example. There is no header template on this or any of the other chapters of the work. The header templates need to be added for this work to meet Wikisource standards. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Folio header block image missing

Hi. Just in case it's an oversight (vs. work in progress or similar), Page:Shakespeare - First Folio Faithfully Reproduced, Methuen, 1910.djvu/856 refers to File:Shakespeare - First Folio Faithfully Reproduced, Methuen, 1910 - header block type 3.jpg, which doesn't exist. No worries if you just haven't got around to it yet; I just saw it while processing the backlog in Category:Pages with missing files and figured I'd drop you a note just in case. Xover (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Although I've done most of the images from the work, there are some outstanding, including the one you came across (which is an upside down version of one of the header types already on Commons and used elsewhere in this work). I hope to get round to them soon - currently progressing 'Anthony and Cleopatra'. Chrisguise (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Pastorals Epistles Odes (1748)

Normally, if a work has been proofread and transcribed including long-s, to preserve the original, it is impolite to remove them all. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother normally but the proofreading isn't that good (missing lines, mis-spellings masked by the pointless replication of the long 's') and the use of multiple carriage returns instead of

 

. Plus the larger text items are disproportionately large compared to the basis text size. Chrisguise (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes to the Pindar section because you have altered formatting in a way that does not match the original. The poem is neither centered nor shrunk into the middle of the page, but is left-aligned. You also altered line spacing, among other things, which neither follows the source nor is consistent across pages. Please check against the original. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Validating Index:A study of Ben Jonson (IA studyofbenjonson00swinrich).pdf

Please see Page:A study of Ben Jonson (IA studyofbenjonson00swinrich).pdf/147 in the upper left half corner, is an orphaned format {{fine| that has no closure on the other end. If I try to fix it, the page reverts to needing a Proofread. Maile66 (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. I've fixed the problem. Thanks for doing the validation on this work, and some others I've done (e.g. A Little Country Girl, A Satyr against Hypocrites, A Woman's Estimate of Walt Whitman, etc.) Chrisguise (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

'What pages can I validate, etc.' gadget

cf. WS:S/H#'What pages can I validate, etc.' gadget. It took a bit longer than hoped-for, but I've now rewritten that gadget so it should work with the latest Proofread Page output. Let me know how it works for you. Xover (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Everything seems to be back in order. Thanks for fixing it, it'll certainly help me. Chrisguise (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

First part of Wallenstein, scene XII

Hello. It seems to me that the scene XII is not written in verse and so the <poem> tag should not be used there and the lines should be joined. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

categorising in main namespace

Hi. With categorising in the main namespace there needs to be a little caution. When it is biographies of people, the articles will fall under "category:biographies of ..." not under the occupational categories like category:English poets as the latter categories are set aside for people pages in the Author: namespace. You can see a split under a page like Category:Occupations where I have tried to tidy it up. We still have not worked out the process for people in the Portal: namespace, or I haven't further worked on it. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The Jade Story Book

I just ran across The Jade Story Book and saw the note there regarding the toc. Annoying to deal with all the myriad ways people have constructed tocs over the years. But I wonder, why did you go with "/Chapter 1" etc. instead of simply naming the subpages after the title of the story? I guess I'm trying to figure out whether it was a deliberate choice of one over the other, or just what you happened to pick there and then. Xover (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm not sure I can remember. I know that the general guidance is to use the title of a story for collections of stories (as also with poems) but in this case I probably though using numbers was easier for linking the transcluded stories together (via 'previous' and 'next') following the order they appear in the book, rather than as per the ordering in the TOC. Regards, Chrisguise (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

So not particularly invested in the current page naming if I should go insane and decide to rename them? I probably won't, at least any time soon, but the thought briefly gripped me before sanity reasserted itself. :) Xover (talk) 06:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

No. I had no particular interest in the work. It was on the 'Monthly Challenge' - in the 'to fix' category I think - so I did what I could. Chrisguise (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The She-Gallants

Why? It was already dealt with, why did you make a mess of it? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Why what? Made a mess of what? Chrisguise (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Notes on Democracy -- audio

commons:Category:Notes on Democracy (Mencken, 1926). The book appeared at librivox shortly after yours hit the New Texts. The librivox audio are single channel mp3, these are nicely tagged 2 channel oggs. I should get back to previous commitments, so maybe you could add them to the chapters? I can do it soon, though, unless you don't want them included in your book here. If you don't want them there, tell me.

Also, I need to add the chapter link to each file at commons (I could have done this at upload time!) Great work, nice job. I am glad it is here.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. I have no particular attachment to this text, I just did a small amount of work on it to get it over the line as part of the monthly challenge. If you want to add audio files, then go ahead. Regards. Chrisguise (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

For editing WD from here

Hi. We have the WEF Framework gadget installed here, and it is really useful for batch editing a work or an author here, and can be used for creating items. Makes my life a lot easier, especially as it presents a range of fields to edit and one can do it with the page of data in front of you. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate you taking the time to offer advice which makes life easier, but unfortunately I don't actually understand what you've told me. I've looked on the 'Gadgets' tab in my 'Preferences' for something corresponding to your description of the gadget but can't see anything. Did you mean to include a link in your message? Regards, Chrisguise (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Thanks so much for completing transcription of this work! --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

you don't like wikidata templates?

I am wondering about these changes to Maggie Brown.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi there,

In response to your question, I would say my main problem with the templates, and why I edited the page, is that the output they produce is inconsistent with what appear to be the general rules for formatting author pages (i.e. Title of work in italics, date in brackets, and if work is a part of a larger, such as a poem in a collection of poems, work title in normal font and enclosed in quotation marks.)

Whilst I get the use of Wikidata as a single source of information to feed other wikis, the information in it is, in my limited experience, inconsistently formatted. Editing or adding to it not a nice experience.

I'd also say that the WD templates feel like clever IT solutions by people who like coding, rather than user-friendly tools for simple-minded transcribers like me, and they are very poorly documented.

Regards, Chrisguise (talk) 07:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, for sure, the templates put quotes around whatever wikidata has for the name of the data (not what is in the title property) and the italics are used for the "published in" property. I wrote it to work with articles first, thinking that the same rules would work for both the book and the article.

About inconsistency! Are you complaining that without wikidata, the inconsistency is only in the hundreds of thousands of links appearing at the version and author and portal pages! Your argument assumes a previous consistency that you are returning to which completely does not exist. Also, you just subst: it, so you made a not templated version of what the template was doing.

As far as coding goes, I am pretty simple; resisting the urge to stray beyond the basic calls, not completely "getting" some of the terse code acrobatics that can be employed by the less simple. This person, however, has manually changed links for on thing on several wikis (the biology based subjects span the languages, so 20 link changes is not unthinkable). This human would rather change it just once; and would like English literature buffs to perhaps understand a more global use of wikis than they experience.

One other mistake that you might be making is that you think that computers are complex. That is not true. Computers are the stupidest thing human beings have ever created. Enabled stupidity; they really need to be told each step no matter how insignificant this would seem to a functioning human brain. If you can count to 3 without help, you are smarter than a computer.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so, I was confused about "inconsistency" because I thought my templates reflected a good version of what the normal was here. Today I saw that there had been a change in the formatting; the date no longer appears at the end, and personally, I think it looks awkward to have it in parenthesis where it shows now, but no one asked my opinion. See what Billinghurst did here, well, read the comment on the left.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the reply, which to some extent reinforces my point.

I do think computers are very complex pieces of technology but I also agree they do a very simple thing (i.e. follow rules).

My comment about consistency was not to do with Wikidata, it was to do with whether the output the template produces (in terms of both content and format) is consistent with the general approach adopted on many author pages where 'manual' linking has been used (based on my own experience, pretty much all author pages use manual linking for everything other than major reference works, such as DNB or EB1911).

I'm not a computer programmer (other than dabbling with macros in Excel (before VBA), my only other experience of coding was with Fortran 4 in the early 1980's). As a transcriber I'm not interested in what is going on 'under the bonnet/hood', I just need to know that a 'tool' is available, what it does and how to use it. It would also be good if it works properly in conjunction with other 'tools' and, as in this particular case, whether the output it produces is consistent with the general Wikisource guidance. Chrisguise (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Great Expectations (1st edition)

This is not the first published edition, though it is the first book edition. It is better to identify an edition by year and publisher than by edition number. Edition numbers get complicated, especially with novels whose first publication was serialized, and where US and UK editions were published in the same year. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi. With regard to the naming of the above, and the correspondence with @TeysaKarlov. When naming the work, I followed the example of other first editions such as 'Jane Eyre' and 'Frankenstein'. I have named the transcluded chapters 'Chapter 1', 'Chapter 2', etc. per the guidance, but have titled them using roman numerals in line with the text.

Setting aside whether a work published in multiple parts in a magazine is an 'edition', technically the scan appears to be of the first edition of the book, based on the description given in The First Editions of the Writings of Charles Dickens and their Values: A Bibliography (1913), by John C. Eckel, pp. 91-92 [4]. To what extent, if any, the work was corrected during printing is not stated. This edition also pre-dates the first appearance of the work in America (see First and Early American Editions of the Works of Charles Dickens (1968), by William Glyde Wilkins, pp. 31-32. [5] Chrisguise (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Anon. Letter to Adam Smith

Hi Chrisguise,

very interesting, that you uploaded and proofread A Letter to Adam Smith LL.D. on the Life, Death, and Philosophy of his friend David Hume Esq. I started validating, and tried to make some links (like on this page). Of course I'll continue soon.

Now I have a question. For instance on page 5, reference is made to page 43 (and 59) of "Life, &c." Do you know which page 43 is meant? Our own edition of The Life of David Hume, Esq. has only 35 pages!

Greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. The two references you mention are given as 'Life, etc.', which is the overall work (i.e. 'The Life of David Hume, Esq.'). However, the part of the work written by Hume ('My Own Life') is, as you say, only 35 pages out of the total of 62. The references to p.43 and p.59 are pointing at information in the 'Letter from Adam Smith' which is part of 'The Life of David Hume, Esq.'. For example, the anonymous author refers to the playing of whist (a card game), which Adam Smith mentions in his letter (on page 49 of 'The Life of David Hume, Esq.'). Likewise, the quote used by the anonymous author ("men will, no doubt, judge variously") is directly from Smith's letter (on page 59 of 'The Life of David Hume, Esq.'). Hope that makes sense, Regards, and with thanks for your validation efforts, Chrisguise (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Found it! It's really great.... You also created "The Life," including the letter of Smith! Especially the letter of Smith does interest me a lot. A couple of years ago I've been on a "pilgrimage" to Kirkcaldy (and Edinburgh), so you understand.... Wonderful.... Now I have a nice list of "validating" things again! I'll do my best. Greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Chrisguise (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Tragedy...

Hi Chris,

Not to get all possessive and all, nor suggest the help is not appreciated (it very much is!), but… Maybe chill a bit before diving in when I'm still working on it? It's a text I've been working on for nearly five years. I was in the middle of going through the older bits to bring them in line with the more recently done bits, tidying up and standardising, etc.; and then transcluding everything in a standard way. When you start wading into the middle of that it kinda feels like I have to "clean up" and redo stuff after a second person in addition to cleaning up after myself-from-half-a-decade-ago. And the way I've done things (like the chapter headings) is mostly deliberate. If you think I've messed them up some way (I'm far from infallible!), bring it up on talk somewhere and we'll hash it out. In particular, I've been more concerned with standardising the chapter headings than the fine details of formatting them, because then I can bot-adjust them in one go or change the formatting with CSS. When you jump in and start changing them (regardless of whether one or the other is the "right" way) you kinda throw a wrench into that plan.

Please don't take this as indicating I'm not grateful for the help. I very very much am! It's just a gentle nudge to avoid needlessly stepping on one another's toes too much. 😀 Xover (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry, it's another instance on my part of disappearing down a rabbit hole, having chanced upon the index page while following up links and connections with other things, and then getting drawn in and .... before you know it ...! I see things in the state of progress that this one is in and think that, if I lend some assistance, it can be got over the line in terms of completing the proofread and transclusion, without really thinking about what has been done to get it to where it is in the first place. I should take time to review.

Like you I have things I've been working on for a long time (haven't made 5 years yet, but I only started doing this four years ago). Maybe I wouldn't take so long if I didn't keep getting distracted.

Not sure whether you want me to revert the changes I made. I have used the standard header template for the transclusion and followed your ToC set up. I also believe I've been consistent in applying the font size changes to chapter titles, so automated changes should still work. Just reverting the changes will loose some actual corrections, though (plus see the following observations).

(i) I didn't understand the need to increase the font size of headings beyond what is in the original work. It seems to me to create emphasis where there is none in the original. I just replicate what's in the printed work as best I can; (ii) I've done a reasonable amount of poetry transcription using {{ppoem}} and I've found that if you don't include both the 'start' and 'end' parameters it can lead to problems; (iii) the ppoem format isn't really working for the dialogue sections quoted in the notes. I only came across the {{playscript}} and {{rbstagedir}} templates recently, and this is the first time that I've tried them, but they seem to work reasonably well. Regards, Chrisguise (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Regarding the font size thing, lots of people seem to do this. They see a title that's all capitals and assume its a larger font, when the capitals are just the same as those used in the main body. I probably did it myself before I found a Firefox add-in that allows you to measure features on web pages. Chrisguise (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

No need to revert. As you say, that tends to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I have lots of fixing still to do on this before it's done.

One of those things is the headings, where the triple-xl etc. stuff was done in 2018 and now stood out to me as egregious. For the more recent parts I'd standardised on c+xl for the chapter headings, and c+xl+asc for the subheading. Mainly because I tend to use c+xl as a decent approximation, "close enough", for most texts, and was planning to assess the need for further tweaks in a last pass over it. cf. a recent WS:S discussion (that I'm too lazy to dig up and link just now) I'm toying with the idea of creating some generic "chapter heading" templates that have really basic default formatting, but contains hooks so you can apply an Index stylesheet to them to get the details just right. This particular text was one of my main motivations for that.

The play texts—the ones with speech prefixes—are another bit that is on my todo list to fix. I'm fairly sure I can do it with CSS, in which case I'll get all of them in one fell swoop. But in any case, they're a known issue and I'd just left them for this fixup pass after finishing the transcription.

{{ppoem}} should under no circumstances need explicit start/end params stating the defaults (it should literally do nothing except make the template syntax more complicated). If you run across any instances where that's needed then it's a bug and we should fix it. Ppoem isn't really designed to do play scripts just now, but I'm investigating ways it could be adopted to do so (possibly by giving it a {{pplay}} sister template). It might be too complicated to try to address all the myriad ways play scripts are formatted, but I think a large proportion of cases could probably be handled the same way ppoem does it. {{playscript}}, {{playscript2}}, and {{rbstagedir}} are decent attempts, but they still suffer from a lot of the problems (complicated to use, fragile and prone to breakage, unexpected and non-intuitive behaviours, etc.) that made {{ppoem}} necessary for poems.

In any case… Let me finish honing up the rough edges and polishing it a bit, and then I'll give you a ping. Feedback like the above (heading size etc.) is always useful, even if I might want to find some alternate way to approach it (opinionated and geeky, you know how that goes). And I know there'll be stuff I missed in the Proofreading so a second pair of eyes is always welcome (e.g. I've discovered I have a blind spot for italic emphasis in text, so there's bound to be a bunch of missed italics in there). Xover (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, OK with the not reverting and awaiting your ping.

As I don't have any HTML programming knowledge (or much other programming knowledge for that matter) I can't really comment on the robustness or otherwise of different templates (I just want them to work for me).

I was puzzled by your comment about the 'ppoem' start / end parameters. They are required where the poetry spans more than one page - if you don't it doesn't transclude properly. If you do it as separate blocks on adjacent pages, the width of the text block varies depending on verse length and, as the block is centered by default, the sections of text don't left align on transclusion. Likewise, if you have poetry in a footnote in a poem it seems to be essential to use these parameters (two of my long term projects are Hudibras, by Samuel Butler, and The Dunciad by Alexander Pope - footnotes galore!) Given this, I have defaulted to always using the parameters every time I use {{ppoem}}, with all of the possible combinations in my clipboard manager.

I do find {{ppoem}} much better than <poem>, apart from the overly large - and non-adjustable - indent it uses when wrapping lines.

Regarding the your potential header templates, there are various ones I've come across that may be trying to do as you suggest (don't keep a record) the most recent one is called something like 'pseudoheading'. There's another one I've come across (don't recall the name) where you define the chapter heading and subheading sizes with a 1, 2, etc - and which is another example of inflated heading font sizes). I personally just stick to the simple options given in the 'help' pages. I dislike things where you need to use style sheets, noting comment about HTML programming above. Likewise, things like the truncated version of the header template, where I can't see what's going on 'under the bonnet' in terms of what it displays - or doesn't (not helped by poor help documentation). Chrisguise (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

|start= and |end= for {{ppoem}} are required when its contents span multiple pages, but not when it is used within a single page; that is, when the value you give to those parameters are, respectively, open and close. When you do not give {{ppoem}} these parameters, |start=open and |end=close are the default values it uses, and so specifying them explicitly is redundant. It should never be necessary to explicitly specify |start=open and |end=close. Other values of these two parameters are, obviously, needed when spanning pages.

Yeah, IndexStyles are not for normal people. We'll have to provide some nice cut&paste-able snippets for common scenarios and good user-friendly instructions. For example, tweaking the hanging indent for {{ppoem}} should be possible with that method (and re-usable across texts that use it). Xover (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on ppoem Chrisguise (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Dryden's Aeneis

I see that you moved the location of this work, but did not correct the name. In the place you've transferred it to, the work is uniformly called Æeneis, not Aeneid, so all the pagenames and titles need to be corrected, as well as the internal titles and pagelinks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Not paying sufficient attention. I will fix it. Chrisguise (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

One disambiguation page per page title

Hi. Where an author writes multiple works of the same name, all those titles belong on the general disambiguation page for the page title, rather than split off to a separate author related disambig page. The basic theory is that Wikidata allows one disambiguation page per title, and overtly if the works are different then it becomes irrelevant that they are by the same author. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Along those same lines, we only enter one of either {{similar}} or {{versions}} to a page, never two, or one of each. Similarly on a disambiguation page itself, we would not use the template similar, we have been using a "see also" section. A versions page can use the template similar. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, noted. I was following other instances I'd seen of using both similar and versions, etc. Chrisguise (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I am asking, not criticising. I understand how it comes about about, and often with these hatnotes typically the more becomes the standard when people do replicate others. I am simply trying to gently educate with a little background. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I wasn't taking offence, just acknowledging your point and offering an explanation of why I'd been using both templates in cases when both are valid. Although there's a lot of 'help' documentation on the site, I sometimes find it difficult to find answers to specific questions, so tend to follow what I see others doing, with the attendant risk of copying things that aren't correct. Regards Chrisguise (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Move rather than convert "version" pages to "disambiguation" pages

Hi. Would you please check the wikidata link prior to acting with something like this change. The previous addition of the additional was wrong and there should have been the removal/revert of that previous addition, then a move of the "versions" page.

What has happened is that we ended up with the the wikidata item being incorrectly assigned. If we had moved then the processes at Wikidata will have automatically update the item. Then the newly created redirect will be able to be converted to a disambiguation page and all is then fine. I have fixed up the items (imperfectly). Also when we move things, it should be a reminder to check for the underlying incoming links and update those as required to point to the right place(s).

There are a number of scripts that can be switched on to see some of the background data, if interested, though they do add a bit of noise to the tops of pages. For me as an editor, the additional noise is worth it. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals

I stumbled across this text (excellent work as always, btw!) and noticed the notes regarding the errata etc. I think—and I stress that this is just my opinion—that any "self reference" to Wikisource and how it is made, in this case mentioning the specific templates used, is information for other Wikisource contributors and should go on the talk page. What we put in the notes field in the header should be for our readers, and should avoid all references to technical issues or other "Inside Baseball" stuff. I didn't want to just wade in there and change it, so I figured I'd drop a note on your talk to see if you agree instead. :) Xover (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. If it's in the wrong place feel free to do the necessary. I'm not very familiar with the culture of Wikisource so am not really up with 'how things are done round here'. Regards, Chrisguise (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. This would be my suggestion. Xover (talk) 08:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I quite like the 'Errata' template, but there are other places it doesn't really work, including 'ppoem' (although I think I recall using it successfully inside <poem></poem>). Chrisguise (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not that enthusiastic about it. It veers too far into annotation territory to my liking. For most works I would argue that we should reproduce as printed, without incorporating errata. I'd be hard pressed to come up with an example of a text where I would support incorporating them, and I would in any case argue that {{errata}} is the wrong way to do so. But I'll spare you that rant; it's an issue that would need a discussion on WS:S to settle in any case. Xover (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

no requirement for all front matter

Hi. We can be judicious in our selection of pages, and the use of the cover is not mandated. If you want to change the pages that I transclude or understand why I have done what I have done, then please ask. [I have plenty of experience in this area] If if if if you think that some front matter would do well being added, then often we can add a "/front matter/" page using the previous from the root page. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I can also note the light rule of primogeniture that we have here. If someone has set a style/setup, where it is basically acceptable and within the guidance of the site, then please leave it to the person who introduced the work. Best not to rework someone else's efforts just as you have a different idea. Changing to things like {{dhr}}, etc. is not the sort of thing encouraged just because you prefer it. Some of us don't want superfluous code filling our works. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I don't do it (i.e use {{dhr}}) because I prefer it, I'm trying to comply as best I can with the requirements stated in the help and guidance. The last time I looked the guidance said spacing shouldn't be created by multiple carriage returns.

I also thought the point was to create complete versions of works, rather than to leave out odd bits (like covers or graphics). Chrisguise (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I also note you seem to suffer from the common tendency to over-inflate the font size of title and chapter headings. Chrisguise (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The Complete Poems of Emily Brontë/Unpublished Poems

When you changed the transclusion for this, it broke all of the redirection references. Please fix this. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't know how I missed this, having done the ones for the other sections. All invalid links to 'Unpublished poems' have been fixed. The remaining ones are valid. Chrisguise (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The Souls of Black Folk

Please do not change someone's formatting to a completely different style of formatting without first asking them. In The Souls of Black Folk, each chapter starts with a poem, and some of these cannot use the {{ppoem}} formatting because that template is not flexible enough to do so. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Please also review what billinghurst said above: "I can also note the light rule of primogeniture that we have here. If someone has set a style/setup, where it is basically acceptable and within the guidance of the site, then please leave it to the person who introduced the work. Best not to rework someone else's efforts just as you have a different idea." --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Request

• Low-Life (1750), written anonymously (external scan)

Seems like it would be up your alley. Any interest? PseudoSkull (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

A Changed Man

I notice that there are five pages from Page:A Changed Man (1913).pdf/430 which are blank and are not linked from the index. Should they be linked ? If not, are they needed ? -- Beardo (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

They are redundant and can be deleted. I created them before I realised that there were problems with the scan file. Fixing the file reduced the number of pages from 434 to 426. Chrisguise (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

OK. Will you propose them for deletion, or shall I ? -- Beardo (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I have marked them for deletion. Chrisguise (talk) 09:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Double redirects

It seems that several recent page moves have created double redirects - Special:DoubleRedirects -- Beardo (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies. All the ones I caused are now fixed. Chrisguise (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Index:Diary of a Pilgrimage (1891).pdf

I believe that Xover has made the necessary changes to the pages. Can the note be removed from the index ? -- Beardo (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Done it. Chrisguise (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Moves with subpages best undertaken by an admin

Hi. It is preferred that if there are multiple pages/subpages being moved for a work that they are undertaken by an admin. You can request those moves at WS:AN. The reason that this is preferred is that we have the ready ability to move subpages at the same time, which allows a better control. It also allows us to move without redirects for subpages, as we have found that in many cases that redirects for subpages and their talk pages can be problematic for us. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

OK Chrisguise (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Please consider archiving this talk page

Hi. This talk page is getting very long, and taking time to load. We have User:Wikisource-bot available to do this easily. There are instructions on the page, and numbers of people utilise this to keep their talk pages to a manageable level. Thanks for the consideration. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

With algo = old(2000d), it will archive threads older than 5 years. Is it what you actually want or is a typo? Mpaa (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Philosophical Transactions - Volume 012.djvu

There are four pages at the start, from Page:Philosophical Transactions - Volume 012.djvu/1 to 4, which are blank and are showing on the orphaned pages as having to incoming links. Should those pages be linked from the index ? -- Beardo (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I've not seen blank pages marked as 'empty' before. I changed the <pagelist> to the usual "-" so the pages will probably drop off the orphaned pages list. There aren't any links now according to the transclusion checking tool. Chrisguise (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Cheers - that seems to have solved it. -- Beardo (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Footsteps of Dr. Johnson (Scotland)

The transcluded copy has no table of contents, and no means to navigate from the primary page to any other part of the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Paracelsus

There are a number of pages from Page:Paracelsus (IA b29299731).pdf/235 on that seem to be over scans. I will mark them for speedy delete as redundant. -- Beardo (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Another case where the transcription was started then problems were discovered with the file, correction of which resulted in a reduced number of pages. Chrisguise (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The Music of the Spheres

Please be careful to add correct licensing. 1977 is not 100 years ago. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I know that. I use some default text then go back and adjust it, only you beat me to it. Chrisguise (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Versions clarified on author pages

I appreciate the sentiment to clarify the version on the author page. However, there's a reason that versions pages exist: to clear up that very type of doubt about which source you want to see the work in. I know here on Wikisource we don't tend to have a whole lot of works with more than one available version transcribed, but with most works multiple versions do exist (even if they're just reprints). So, if we were to imagine a scenario where all versions were elaborated on in both author pages and versions pages, we'd have author pages littered full of editions, which would clutter up the author pages. For example, imagine if we had all of this or all of this on author pages. This type of version clarification also would repeat the same long-form data across multiple pages (portal, author, etc.), and repetition should always be cut out of the workflow wherever possible. So that also isn't well aligned with the DRY principle.

So, while there's currently no versions pages for those works, there will be one day, and I'm trying to prepare for the inevitable time when that will happen, as well as I can. Just wanted to explain my logic in purposefully not clarifying what collection works are held in, except in versions pages. (And in this case, Sherman did mention that "the essays in this volume were all printed [in] the Herald Tribune" previously. So we know that at least one other version definitely exists of that specific essay.) PseudoSkull (talk) 07:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh... It turns out Author:Charles John Huffam Dickens's author page is littered with tons of editions. Well that's definitely not right, and it's not quite respecting the principles behind a versions page. So someone should clean that up (but not tonight for me). PseudoSkull (talk) 07:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I suppose my approach is to transcribe works and only create versions pages (and redirects) if there's more than one version, rather than creating them in preparation for some eventuality that may not happen (is someone really going to transcribe multiple versions of Shakespeare's first folio, just because the front matter is differently ordered or incomplete, or there may be in-press corrections?)

I've come across various author pages where there are multiple editions (mostly translations of Greek and Roman authors - see for example Plato and Aristotle. Chrisguise (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

West African Studies

Hi Chrisguise,

Not exactly sure what you did, but it looks like you fixed West African Studies, so thanks. I would be curious to know a little more about how you managed this, if it is not too complicated. Also, can the progress be updated from "create a pagelist", or is there still some issue?

Thanks again, TeysaKarlov (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't claim to have done anything really. I looked to see if I could find a better scan of the work to try to get replacement pages but I just ended up back at IA. I did a search to see whether they had other scans of the same edition and found one which appeared to be complete (which turned out to be the case), and uploaded it in place of the original.

Although it's a bit time consuming I find that I have to spend time checking files before I upload them as so many of them are poor or incomplete.

Regarding your second question, I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. I can only create the pagelist manually, and I'm not aware that the pagelist can be used to edit the image file.

I have some software to edit DJVU files but I've only managed to figure out how to delete pages. If I need to do anything more complicated I have to work with a PDF and then convert it to a DJVU. Chrisguise (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Nop

{{Nop}} is a brute-force template meant to force line breaks that don't normally show up in the transclusion. It doesn't have any effect unless there's a separate paragraph in the middle of prose, but on a second page, where the technology can't break it on its own. {{c}} and most other templates on front matters are block elements, so they produce a line break by default. It also isn't needed at the end of a chapter because that's the end of the transcluded page, so there's nothing to force the transclusion to break from. Plus, even if it weren't, chapters almost universally start with headers, which also produce a line break by default.

I've been noticing you have been adding these all over front matters, and it is a minor problem in each page because it adds in lots of HTML to the transcluded texts that don't have any semantic meaning or utility. I have already heard certain editors' "just in case the situation could change" and "it doesn't hurt anything" arguments for having these on all pages except prose that continues, but I'm not convinced by those arguments, since because of the HTML buildup, and because it also takes contributor time to add it to thousands of pages where it doesn't have any effect. It doesn't sound like much, since it's only 7 characters to type, but every second in this sea of works we have to get transcribe is significant at least to me. I try to cut out every second possible from my workflow.

Since there's no policy or real guideline limiting the use of this template, I'd like to encourage or recommend that this not be done, especially to works I've proofread, to keep the HTML and wiki code clean and use-driven. But no one can enforce it, so it's more a recommendation on my part, mostly for faster proofreading/validation.

Thanks for validating in general though. The typo corrections made by validators will be used to improve my OCR correction and typo detection software in the future. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

House at Pooh Corner

Hi!

It has been very nice to collaborate with you on the index for House at Pooh Corner. Thanks for getting so many of the images in! We are so close to being done, and I am really excited to have it complete for all to read.

This is the first big project I've worked on here on Wikisource, so it has been a very nice experience.

What about this book drew you to it? SDudley (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd speculate that Chrisguise was drawn to this book since it's a popular title released into the public domain this year. SnowyCinema (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@SnowyCinema Thanks. I contributed mainly because it's a cherished childhood memory, and I also read it to my own children when they were younger. I also did work on Winnie-the-Pooh and Now We Are Six.

I've done all I can on this. I can't validate the remaining pages at 'proofread' as I did the proofreading. Chrisguise (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

And I've validated the remaining pages! Thank you once again for the collaboration. Very glad we were able to get this out to people so quickly.

Please let me know if you're interested in any other collaborations. I know I'm interested in transcribing the Oz books that came after L. Frank Baum. Maybe we can circle back to that someday. Best, SDudley (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

You broke the transclusion

When you made this edit you broke the transclusion from this page. Please repair it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Likewise with this edit and possibly others. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at. Transclusions of Homer's Hymn to Castor and Pollux, Homer's Hymn to the Moon, Homer's Hymn to the Sun, Homer's Hymn to the Earth: Mother of All, Homer's Hymn to Minerva and Homer's Hymn to Venus all look OK to me. Chrisguise (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

And the translation of Euripides' Cyclops? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

To fix the issue, you'll need to restore the section labelling you removed / changed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

help transcribing?

Hello! I am interested in transcribing The Royal Book of Oz. Would you be interested in helping me? I'm not great at the formatting, but I could transcribe the raw text as needed, add images, and validate pages. If this is of interest then please let me know. I don't really have any set deadline for doing it by, but rather just curious if someone would be able to help at all. Best, SDudley (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm happy to lend a hand. However, I'm generally working on 20 to 30 works at any given time so I won't be solely devoting my efforts to yours. I tend to flit about, so some things I do quickly, while others take much longer (e.g. of my last two additions to the Wikisource main page, Ode Occasion'd by the Death of Mr. Thomson took less than an hour to complete (v. short work) and Joan of Arc took 3.5 years (I was only really interested in the part of it that was written by Samuel Taylor Coleridge). Chrisguise (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I've had a look at the work and it seems to be in an odd state. All of the chapters are there (see links from Table of Contents). The first 8 or 9 chapters are transcluded from transcribed pages, a number of others have a MATCH link at the top [I've not previously seen this, but if you click it, it should automatically generate and populate the pages for that chapter]. The final chapters don't seem to have this link but do contain the text of the complete chapter. This can be cut and pasted manually into the relevant pages (or you could get whoever did the match and split for the earlier chapters to do it - never done it myself although I think I have the necessary privileges). Chrisguise (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I've contributed to some works where the individual page transcriptions have been generated by the 'match and split' gadgettry. They've mainly been derived from Gutenberg. In my experience, it's often not clear which edition of a work Gutenberg has used, and they're not averse to 'improving' works they transcribe (but do seem to record the changes they make). Also, the detection of the page breaks by the Match and Split software is a bit hit and miss. The practical upshot is that I've generally reverted to regenerating the OCR for each page (of the three options available the Google OCR is by far the best, but it seems to be partially blind to long dashes and some styles of quotation marks).

The other drawback with works generated by 'match and split' is that the pages have not generally had any header and/or footer content (not even empty templates). I don't know whether the software can't do this, or whether whoever has done the work didn't think to do it. Chrisguise (talk) 10:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

As an example of some of these points, take a look at book page 98 (image 110) and use the 'view history' to compare my version with what was there originally. The differences in punctuation alone suggest a different source text. Chrisguise (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm not really certain as to what the "match and split" tech is. I'm still very new to Wikisource. Is there a page I can read on it?

And thanks for whatever you can add. I got the book added to the monthly challenges, so it should hopefully get some more attention over the next few months.

I also noticed you were transcribing The Mystery of the Blue Train, I started to validate the pages and found that I was really enjoying the story. So thanks for the transcription, and I'd be glad to validate future pages as you go along. This is the first of any Christie work I have read. SDudley (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

If you go to 'Help' in the menu at the LHS of the page, there's an item on there called 'match and split'. Chrisguise (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Redirects

Redirects on Versions pages, such as The Stranger (Bierce) are put there on purpose. Please do not replace them with a direct link to a copy inside a specific edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Author:Algernon Charles Swinburne

Hello. I am astonished by your work done on the publications by this author, hats off! Because of the amount of work you have done there I feel obliged to drop you a note that I have slightly standardized his author page by removing the colours and also the links to scans of works that were already proofread, to follow the current practice. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I just used the colour coding to keep track of where I'd got to with things, since I worked on multiple books at any one time, and not continuously. Chrisguise (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The Rhearsal

This should be The Rehearsal, not The Rhearsal. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Problem fixed. Chrisguise (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Complete Poetical Works of John Greenleaf Whittier

When someone has established a style for a work, it is considered polite to follow that style, and rude to plow ahead with a completely different style without even asking. While I appreciate your eagerness to help, what you've done to page vi of the Contents listing will actually make it harder for me to work on the Contents, because in addition to formatting them, I now must first remove the inappropriate formatting you put in. When you make work more difficult for other people, it is not appreciated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I just think of it as doing the job properly with the tools provided. Chrisguise (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. The dotted templates are a coding nightmare, and the previous page did not use those templates. I set up a Style page for the Contents, and was using it on the previous page. You chose to ignore this and go your own way, and to say that your way is doing it "properly" (and mine wasn't) is both extremely rude and woefully ignorant of the conversations that we've been having about the problems that dotted templates cause. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

(1) It seems to me you made a conscious decision to just use a basic table for the ToC, which produces a visually poorer result than the specific ToC templates. Hence my comment, which may have been a bit brusque but I was brassed off, so sorry for that. Still am.

(2) Unless you have some automated way of generating tables from the very poor OCR, the amount of effort to produce the TOC either way appears to me to be much the same.

(3) I don't recall any comms between us about dotted templates and associated problems.

(4) If there are problems with TOC templates, it begs the question why they aren't being fixed or the templates and associated guidance removed from service.

(5) I use the basic TOC templates because they are simple to use and, on the face of it, work. There seems to be another set of ever more complicated templates which are too tiresome to use, and for reasons which are not clear to me either do or don't produce functioning links depending where they're used (e.g. index, page, etc.) And you (and others) apparently want to do everything using CSS style sheets, which is presumably fine for the bunch of coders who look after the site, but it isn't very 'user oriented' for the non-coding numpty (i.e. me) who just wants basic tools to achieve a good quality result.

(6) There seems to be a few basic problems with templates. I was recently lectured on the use of 'nop', Despite its 'in principle' simple job of telling the system 'when transcluding this page, insert a line break before attaching the next one', in any number of circumstances it apparently generates 'too much HTML' (whatever that means). Rather than routinely applying a 'nop', I'm supposed to decide whether to use one depending on what's at the end of the page and whether it's a 'div' or a 'span' or it's a template with a built-in line break. Or I'm supposed to not use it at the end of chapters, or on front matter pages, although having seen the way some people transclude works, that doesn't seem wise. If this si such a problem perhaps a gadget is required to tell you that a 'nop' isn't needed. Chrisguise (talk) 01:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I made an awful mess with Wordsworth

Hello Chrisguise, Wikipedia has the correct information for the first publication of 'My Heart Leaps Up' and other works by Wordsworth (1807) but Wikisource did not. Wikisource was referring to a different, later Wordsworth publication of poems. In trying to correct the situation, I made an awful mess. I read everything suggested, and I am familiar with Billingshurst's guides and to be cautious. I spent hours on it, trying to fix it, then trying to repair the broken links I created. I don't know how to repair my mess.

Would you prefer if I just reverted everything I did? I'm glad to do that if it will make the situation easier to deal with. Please let me know here rather than on your talk page, if you wouldn't mind. I apologize for the mess! FeralOink (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I've done a search for all your edits associated with the two editions of the work. My best guess is that reverting some of your changes would be the thing to do (but note the following).

You should note that there are already index pages for the 1807 edition at Index:Poems, in two volumes (IA poemsintwovolume01word).pdf and Index:Poems, in two volumes (IA poemsintwovolume00word).pdf, which I uploaded in 2021 but haven't done much with since. I have appropriated some of the pages you created, rather than having to delete them, for the top level Poems, in Two Volumes (Wordsworth, 1807) and volume level Poems, in Two Volumes (Wordsworth, 1807)/Volume 1 transclusions associated with these two index pages. I have also transcribed 'My heart leaps up' (see Poems, in Two Volumes (Wordsworth, 1807)/Volume 2/'My heart leaps up when I behold'), so if you want to link to it from Wikipedia you can. I've added it to the versions page at My Heart Leaps Up.

I've reverted a couple of things to put the 1815 edition back together, at the top level, and reverted the changed links to 'My Heart Leaps Up'. I would suggest putting in a deletion request for the index page you created without an attached file (don't know how you've done that).

As far as I know, there isn't any problem with having a date of first publication in Wikipedia and a later edition in Wikisource, so long as it's noted. In the case of Wordsworth, most of the links are to Wikisource version pages anyway, which (should) clearly state the publication and date where each version is from. I personally strive to find a scan of the first edition of any work I upload - although it's not always possible. Regards, Chrisguise (talk) 01:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Page:The Crowne of all Homers Workes - Chapman (1624).djvu/27

This page is showing as having a lint error in the italics. It is in the ref, but I can't read the original, so don't want to just guess what to change. -- Beardo (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully fixed. Chrisguise (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks good. Cheers. -- Beardo (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The Iliad of Homer (Pope)/front matter

As the Editor's Note is now transcluded on the main page of this work, what should be done about the separate page - have it deleted ? -- Beardo (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, deleted. (And I'm also not convinced having these extra "/front matter" subpages, unless the front matter has a huge amount of extraneous content compared to normal, is a good idea in general...) SnowyCinema (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Beardo@SnowyCinema I would probably have moved it to 'Editor's preface' and then added it as an extra item to the ToC. I prefer the main page to start with the title page or frontispiece (or as close as possible) and not have loads of content before getting to the ToC. Chrisguise (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Chrisguise - didn't you put that Editor's Note onto the main page with this edit ? -- Beardo (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Beardo@SnowyCinema It would seem that I did - must be losing the plot. However, the principle still stands. Maybe it was because it was only one page.... Chrisguise (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

If you feel that you need to recreate it for something else feel free, as long as no pages are transcluded twice. SnowyCinema (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Beardo @SnowyCinema Not planning to. Chrisguise (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

smart quotes

If a work is being proofread using smart quotes, please be sure to use smart quotes in any page you mark as Proofread. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Is this a general admonition or do you have something in mind? Chrisguise (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

When you proofread front matter pages in The Complete Poetical Works of John Greenleaf Whittier, you stripped out smart quotes. All other pages of the work that have been proofread use smart quotes. I do not know how many other works might be affected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

There are lots of problems with smart quotes anyway, including the fact that many environments and keyboards (such as my own) don't support them, and the fact that they increase the margin of error significantly because there are more factors to consider when proofreading, for very little overall gain. To insist on using smart quotes because the rest of the work did would discourage future proofreaders, who refuse to use the things or can't, from participating. Last time I checked, English Wikipedia even disallows them outright in their titles for these reasons. The only exception to this rule I'd make is if we were preparing the Chicago Manual of Style or some similar work on grammar, where they may talk about the specifics of smart-quoting, but in just a regular work like a novel or anthology it's probably more practical to do away with them. We should just convert all the smart to non-smart in any work and have a general standard against their use, except in works where they're explicitly talked about in an academic context.

So, when non-smart is applied to a work that has smart, the smart should just be done away with. We need to decrease the barrier of entry here, and using smart quotes just increases that barrier. It makes it harder for everyone to get anything meaningful done. SnowyCinema (talk) 06:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@SnowyCinema@EncycloPetey Apologies I'll fix them. I tend to habitually run 'Clean up OCR', which converts everything curly to straight.

I dislike the curly versions but I have a tool installed that converts all (well, almost) straight quotation marks to curly, which I have obviously omitted to run on this occasion (not the first time). The tool misses quotation marks that occur immediately after templates. Chrisguise (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@SnowyCinema: I appreciate engaged contributors with clear opinions, but on quote marks we've had the discussion and landed on a conclusion. I was personally very hesitant to change from requiring only straight quotes to permitting curly quotes, for many of the same reasons you list, but in practice it works just fine for most contributors. Provided, of course, that people pay attention to the standards applied for a given work. There is also established guidance that for large projects set up specifically for broad collaboration one should generally prefer straight quotes to reduce the overhead of coordinating consistent quotes. This really isn't very different from all other stylistic issues. Xover (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Does my above comment come across as all patronising and dismissive? I feel like maybe it does, so let me try to rephrase in a way that I don't look like a complete douche: but on quote marks we've actually had a real community discussion followed by an RFC and landed on a conclusion that addressed the policy aspect, unlike a lot of other issues that just kind of evolved over time.. EP below managed to convey the same thing without coming across an idiot, so I've got to mea culpa this one. Sorry. Xover (talk) 07:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@SnowyCinema: We had a lengthy community discussion (several actually) and decisively allow curly quotes now. I held your opinion with regard to smart quotes (and still prefer straight quotes mostly), but since the community decided to allow smart quotes, and that allowance has been incorporated into policy, there is no point in discussing the superiority of one to the exclusion of the other. Policy simply requires that one or the other be consistently applied in a work or series, and explicitly allows either on the project. For the Yale Shakespeare series, we use straight quotes. For The Complete Poetical Works of John Greenleaf Whittier, the editors adding poetry chose to use smart quotes, so smart quotes are to be applied consistently per community agreement. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Elmer Gantry

I noticed you were working on this novel at Index:Elmer Gantry (1927).djvu. Do you mind if I take the project over? I'll want to start it tomorrow or the next day, and estimated completion time (Wikidata items, Commons images, transclusion inclusive) is 6 hours, or 1 day. SnowyCinema (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Feel free. I only did work on it because it was part of the monthly challenge. I originally thought I could steal the transcription at https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300851h.html but had to resort to generating the text for each page because there were the inevitable changes.

It seems somewhat ambitious to do the work at the rate of approximately a page a minute. Chrisguise (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know whether you plan to review the changes that your software has made to the overwritten pages, but a quick review of the emails I'm getting shows that, on the positive side, it has picked up minor errors (predominantly odd commas). On the downside, it seems to be breaking things such as:

• Links, where the name of the work quoted isn't the same as the link
• Removing formatting intended to prevent inappropriate line wrapping (such as in the middle of acronyms), or changing {{...}} which doesn't wrap, to . . . , which I presume does.
• Hyphenating words which aren't hyphenated in the text.
• Centralising text when it is actually right aligned., etc. etc.

Chrisguise (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I did proofread these pages just so you're aware, all of them, following along the same scan as on the Index page—I just did it externally from the ProofreadPage system with some power-user technology I developed (spending many months to craft by the way), because the ProofreadPage system as it exists now is very slow and not conducive to good fast work. This is part of a project I'm currently engaging in, to mentally clock all the things our proofreading system lacks, so that I can suggest/develop specific improvements to it in the future that would make proofreading a lot more worthwhile a task for the average editor.

All of the front matter, except the nops and the half-title, are copied verbatim from what was already there, but the rest was proofread from scratch.

1. I went out of my way to paste in your links before I started proofreading so I'm sad to see that you're upset about this. I probably took a good 30 extra minutes to do this. I did change a few of them to point to work pages rather than version pages since I don't believe that Lewis was thinking of any version of the songs in particular. But if there are examples of links that are flat out incorrect, feel free to let me know which those are and I'll change them, or change them during validation.
2. Point 2 about those specific formatting templates are your decision though I disagree with them personally (since they severely downgrade editing speed, which I consider a severely important factor), but I'll put those templates back to the pages you already proofread since they were your decisions and it is fair to feel bad that they were removed. But if you want them placed on pages that I proofread, I'll leave that up to you, I'm not willing to do this myself, since again I disagree with their implementation, for reasons I may one day write an essay about, as I've done with another issue. (Please don't make me have to write it today, let's just drop it...)
3. If I missed hyphenations, just validate them away or I'll catch them later. Typos are normal proofreader mistakes.
4. Update: Scratch what I said in the last revision about this point. I see you used {{left margin}}, a template I've never heard of, and that actually looks like a great and working solution. I'll be applying this change across the project now.
5. You say etc. etc. so maybe there's more to say. Please remember, if it wasn't already clear before, that the work is fully proofread now (as stated in the edit summaries of all the semiautomated changes) and no longer require the review necessary for just the proofread status, so if there are mistakes you can catch them in validation as well or they can be corrected in the future. Proofreading is not equivalent to absolute perfection, and all proofreaders make minor typos, just part of life. SnowyCinema (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so I meticulously reviewed those pages you proofread before and they're back to what they were. I think next time I run into this situation what I'll do is just import the changes from the Index into my workspace, so that the changes I make are minimal next time. Your feedback is making me realize that there's really no better way. SnowyCinema (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Pericles

When you repurpose existing pages, make sure to update the accompanying Wikidata item to reflect the change. Right now, the Wikidata item is still for an unsourced copy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I made some changes to the index page and added images to Commons, as part of which I picked up the oversight before seeing your message. I added OCLC number to index page but don't know where to put this in Wikidata. Chrisguise (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

There is an OCLC control number (bibliographic) identifier for OCLC links. More importantly, I've added a link to the scan housed at Commons, and added the WD ID to the file on Commons, so that the two items are interconnected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Chrisguise (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Elizabeth Fry (Pitman 1884)/Adverts

Hello chrisguise, wondering if Freeman's Jonrnal in the article is a spelling mistake. Thank you so much for your time. Lotje ツ (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Its a printing error ('u' and 'n' being generally reversible as moveable type), rather than a typo on the part of a transcriber, hence the marking with {{SIC}}. Chrisguise (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Chrisguise. :-) Lotje ツ (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Proofing EB1911

Hi, Chrisguise, you are one of the few editors who have worked on EB1911 in the past that are still active. I was wondering if you'd consider doing more proofing work on EB1911.

I'm working through the EB1911 volumes and I'm currently working through vol. 20. I've found a useful technique to aid proofing by using Earwig's Copyvio Detector and the pages at theodora.com/encyclopedia. As an example, the link below compares a random page in EB1911 vol. 21 against the "Pliocene" article at theodora.com/encyclopedia :

https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikisource&title=Page%3AEB1911+-+Volume+21.djvu%2F880&oldid=&use_engine=0&use_links=0&turnitin=0&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheodora.com%2Fencyclopedia%2Fp2%2Fpliocene.html

It picks up several typo errors in the EB1911 page. Further proofing is still needed, of course, but it's a great help to use the generally very good quality text at theodora.com/encyclopedia (although the numbers often have errors).

Any questions? Let me know. Hope you can do some further proofing in EB1911 with the above technique to help, maybe starting from volume 21? regards, DivermanAU (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

A treasury of war poetry, British and American poems of the world war, 1914-1919/The North Sea

Hello. You have asked the page to be speedied with the rationale "Just created, with incorrect title, no links". Unfortunately, a largely used redirect is still linked to the page. Can you fix it, please? -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Apologies - now sorted. Chrisguise (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Versions pages

It looks like your process for adding the version header is inserting a spurious pipe, making the pages show up in Category:Headers with numerical arguments. Not a big deal, but I wanted to give you a heads-up. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 22:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I'd fixed that. I'll look at it again. Chrisguise (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Rondeau (West)

Why did you revert me on this without explanation? There is a source on the talk page, so No Source is not an appropriate template.--05:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC) Prosfilaes (talk) 05:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I tend to take a stronger line on works without a scan than others do here (hence adding of {{no source}}). However, technically the reference information provided puts the page within the letter of the law (as stated in the template anyway), so I've undone my edit. To strengthen the case, as it were, I have amended the information provided to link to a copy of the bibliography on IA. I've also corrected the publication date quoted. Chrisguise (talk) 10:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Ae Fond Kiss (speedy)

Hi, with the length of time that unsourced version has been hosted here, I suggest it would be better to convert it to a (soft) redirect as it is likely to have external links into it. I'd do it, but I should be in bed. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Chrisguise (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Index:The Poetical Works of William Collins (1830).djvu and Index:Mathematical collections and translations, in two tomes - Salusbury (1661).djvu

I think that something went wrong at some point and there are several blank pages not linked from the index - from Page:The Poetical Works of William Collins (1830).djvu/239 to Page:The Poetical Works of William Collins (1830).djvu/244 - can they be put for speedy delete ? -- Beardo (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. All of the pages you mention can be deleted. They are the result of corrections made to the scan files. Chrisguise (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

OK - noted. Thanks. -- Beardo (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Also Page:Mathematical collections and translations, in two tomes - Salusbury (1661).djvu/705 and Page:Mathematical collections and translations, in two tomes - Salusbury (1661).djvu/706 --

The works of Anna Laetitia Barbauld volume 1.djvu

Hi thanks for the validation. but i see you are changing the left justified to centered poetry. Page:The works of Anna Laetitia Barbauld volume 1.djvu/200. not sure it is worth the trouble. --Slowking4 ‽ digitaleffie's ghost 22:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I don't know what device you use when editing, but on a 17" laptop, centred titles and left block main body looks ridiculous. Hence, I've been changing it as I've been transcluding/validating. Chrisguise (talk) 10:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Sonnet ('Degenerate Douglas! oh, the unworthy Lord!'

Hello again. I see that you created this (without a closing ) at the end) then Sonnet ('Degenerate Douglas! oh, the unworthy Lord!'). I assume that the former can be deleted. -- Beardo (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot to mark it with 'sdelete', which I've now done. Chrisguise (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)