Archive 1, created January 21, 2010

Welcome edit

moves edit

I'm glad you think what I did at Bot. Reg. was satisfactory. I'm still groping around, finding solutions as problems crop up, the same as you. Are you going to remove the "The" volumes from the "Curtis's" page? Hesperian 11:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

newsflash edit

The Biodiversity Heritage Library has colour scans all the way up to Volume 146! Hesperian 12:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

another thread edit

I apologise for spamming your talk page. It would be remiss of me not to draw your attention to this thread, lest your ears start burning. Hesperian 13:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

inspiration edit

A nice indication of what we are achieving: have a look at Wikipedia:Banksia nobilis, especially the second paragraph of the taxonomy section. If/when you transcribe 4633, let me know and I'll link to it. Hesperian 14:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have disregarded your wise words and linked to Victoriæ from victoriae. Will start a list of such links at Talk:Curtis's Botanical Magazine so we can track them down if they need to be changed later. Hesperian 06:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shakespeare sonnets edit

I've responded to Author_talk:William_Shakespeare#Sonnet_header. John Vandenberg 03:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

tracked edit

Just so you know, I'm tracking your progress here. Or rather, I'm tracking my own inability to keep up with you. Hesperian 03:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool. I am going to steal the design you know ;-) It's very smart. Do you mind if I take a Bot.reg. page, I don't mind which, it may help my layout planning. I have a couple of side projects, all with the main purpose of developing a scheme for Curtis's. I will move Gutenberg's html "West Australia Orchids" over as well, the hard way, unless you know someone who can preserve the formatting in html to wiki. Cygnis insignis 06:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Go for it. I have so much to do I will hardly notice if my Bot. Reg.s get done for me. Transcribing them is currently job number 13 on my list. Wait, scratch that, I did five of them at the library this morning. Transcribing them is currently job number 8 on my list. Hesperian 06:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Curt. Bot. Mag. edit

True, it seems wise to put name in the title. It was much easier without it - more accurate with it. My approach here has been to model works on the original, then deviate from that as required. I found this helped the decision making process, without the need for my editorial input. Hesperian's point about following the current model is a good one, experiment with a page for discussion purposes, but consistency is important in the final version. Any input is welcome to Talk:Curtis's Botanical Magazine, the undertaking is in very early stages. Changes have been introduced as problems arose, there is no stable model or naming convention. If you fancy doing some of Bot.Mag., follow the most recent creations. Then give me your views on the structure. Something else that may help ...

Can I suggest that you start a small work, I found it a helpful process. I did a couple, then asked a very experienced contributor to review it. I now see the merit in the conventions at en:ws, you might invent some new ones in the process. I have a book in mind, it just needs converting from the Gutenberg version. The cover is here, the gutenberg text is here. I can get the original and proof read it for you. Let me know if you want a hand starting it. I will post at en:wp on the help you gave me earlier. Cygnis insignis 14:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right. The more accurate the title, the better. I'll stick with that format. I hope you don't mind me poking around the Curtis's pages. My main goal is to create the text from the pages for my pet project on the 'pedia, although I wouldn't mind branching out when needed. Starting a smaller project sounds like a good idea, but I don't see me spending a great deal of time on Wikisource. I may come to it later, but for now I think I'll just complete the Stylidium entries. --Rkitko 02:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice one–Stylidium fasciculatum. I proof read the title, dedication, and page. Only very minor corrections were needed. I had a look at the index, they are a pain to do, you will find the use of ellipsis [...] in my lazy versions. I'm think regex is the way to go in making indices, but I used find and replace on the 'returns' to add code to each item. I will leave the taxonomy to you, APNI, especially after the ribbing I got from some rouge admins yesterday :o ; but I should be able to help with this:
Professor <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lindley</span> and
Professor L<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">indley</span>
should produce the same result. The font-variant affects only the lower case characters, at least that is my understanding of the code. I also changed the links at the index, the one you modelled it on is for 4 volumes and it needed 'relative links': ../Volume ##/Exempli gratia The notes page was very rushed, feel free to change or add to them. You will find a note in the blather there that explains why there are currently two main pages, The Botanical Magazine and Curtis's Botanical Magazine, an accepted reference for any page is "Botanical Magazine. ####." so I am leaning toward this form of title:
Botanical Magazine 3816 Stylidium fasciculatum
I agree with the view that Æ, accents, &c. should not appear in the titles, I just haven't done it so far. It will make searches go awry, but I have left them in the content. I had never noticed accents before, I am wondering whether they were added by a reader?! The scan is not showing me either way. Sorry to swamp you with info. If anything is clear from the above, it's that I need a lot of feedback for the guidelines. Cheers Cygnis insignis 22:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, the ratings are related to things I haven't done, you were very thorough. Cygnis insignis 23:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, quite a bit of information here! Thanks for the style tips and proofreading everything. I wasn't sure if the font-variant would notice the uppercase L in Lindley. I'm not very familiar with regexes, but I hadn't thought about doing find/replace in a word processor first. I'm not sure what you mean by "leave the taxonomy to you"... Am I supposed to report on the talk page which species this description now relates to? The last printed monograph on the genus by Johannes Mildbraed in 1908 lists this description of Stylidium fasciculatum refers to Stylidium adnatum. As far as I know, that's still current, but I can't seem to find anything printed on this more recently. Juliet Wege is working on revisions for the Flora of Australia series, but that's years away from completion (what a headache that must be!). Well, anyway, let me know what you meant by that so I can avoid the same fate.
Both the current title scheme or the one you propose above seem fine to me. I wondered about the accents myself, but upon viewing the largest scan available, those accents (I assume you were talking about the ones in the title of the 3816 plate) appear to be type and not penciled or inked in.
I appreciate all this feedback. Keep it coming. And also feel free to use me as a sounding board if need be. I'll be sure to put the Curtis's talk page on my watchlist. I'll most likely be puttering in and out of Wikisource, but I'll increase my edits as winter here in the Northern Hemisphere approaches (seems like it's coming fast, too; just last night it was near freezing temperatures. All of my bog plants had to be moved indoors for the evening!). Not much to do once the snow settles in except snuggle up with a quilt and a warm laptop ;-) Cheers, --Rkitko 02:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know, I may have come up with an easy smallish project to begin as per your earlier suggestion, which also ties in with most of my Wikipedia-related edits. Any advice on adding Charles Darwin's Insectivorous Plants to Wikisource? I was thinking of using the Project Gutenberg text [1] while using the text for corrections and style [2]. I assume I should use subpages for the different chapters, the TOC, etc? What do you think? --Rkitko 01:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings edit

Thanks for your observations. I'm back - after being blocked. Please continue to participate in the discussion to delete that alleged Protocols article. Unfortunately, you used a very long time frame. And that weakened your argument. You know, of course, that for the modern Western world, the seminal year was 1920?? --Ludvikus 00:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to hear some more from you. I'm aware of what happened in 1903, 1905, 1906, ..., 1920, ..., but am unaware of what you meant by Ancient Times (I'm paraphrasing you). Could you explain? Peace, --Ludvikus 14:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Discussion moved.

Y'know edit

Hesperian 11:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not finding you at the usual appointed place, I began to think you may have been disappointed, in being no longer appointed, if you know what I mean. Would you care to comment? Hesperian 12:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HofWA edit

Cool. Thanks. Moondyne (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ta edit

Thanks. Regarding this, you are at liberty to mark it validated even if you fix errors; as proofer, I am not.

The OCR I'm working from completely omitted the mdashes. I tried to insert them all, but obviously I forgot some. I think I was rubbish at it at the start, but got better as I went along.

Hesperian 00:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Author:George Grey has multiple links, is this intentional?
  • Are you leaving dashes at line ends? The page has one in the last entry. I thought the typesetter began the next line if the word was hyphenated, so previously ignored their omission.
    • There is also a printers mark at lower right "B" of this page.
Cygnis insignis (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I usually link the first occurrence on each page. I'm not fussed if you remove or add any.

I remove hyphens unless I think it is a hyphenated word i.e. hyphenated even when it falls entirely within a line. You might be right about typesetters not breaking on the hyphen of a hyphenated word; I have no idea; it makes sense though.

I've ignored printers marks in this work. I don't think it adds much. You can insert them if you want.

Hesperian 02:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

whinge edit

I was pretty diligent about proofing the diary, and made rapid progress, but since I got into the dictionary I have gotten slack and slowed right down. When you started validating on the dictionary instead of the diary, you really put a rocket up me, and I thought I had better get cracking. Naturally, Murphy's Law says that I will immediately hit an obstacle.

Pages 40 and 41 were duplicated in the djvu file. I had to remove them from the djvu and reupload it. Then I had to delete the duplicates from the Wikisource pages, and then I had to move each of the last 80 pages in the book two pages forward, to rematch the text with the page scans.

I had been wondering why I hadn't noticed the duplicates before. The presence of duplicate pages should have thrown the page numbers on the index page out of alignment with the page numbers in the scan. It was only after I had performed all those moves that I discovered the reason why. Pages 64 and 65 are missing from the scan, and those two missing pages cancelled out the two duplicates.

So now I have to find (if possible) scans of the two missing pages, encode them into the djvu, upload it, and then move most of those Wikisource pages back where there were before. FFS. :-(

Hesperian 03:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wont duplicate your efforts by trying to find the answer meself, but does this have something to do with ii of the word list being blank? Cygnis insignis (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, that page is genuinely blank; I have checked it against my '78 UWAP facsimile. Many typesetters prefer to start new chapters/sections on a right hand page, hence the blank page before the preface.
Google books hasn't opened its scan. The scan came from Microsoft Live Search Books, which is defunct. I can't find an online scan anywhere else, so it would appear that my facsimile will have to serve. But I won't be going anywhere near a scanner for at least three weeks, so those pages will be missing until then. It would take a superhuman effort by you for those two missing pages to hold you up. ;-) Hesperian 06:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ah yes, the recto. And while I see right through your cunning attempts to induce me to verify your pages:) 1) one has to get back to the meatworld for the next few days, and 2) I decided to start on the in the main part of the diary until you were finished with your bamboozling pagination. Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thankyou for that terminology; once one knows it, one is ashamed not to have known it before.
Roger that. I found another pair of missing pages. :-(
Hesperian 23:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Curtis's edit

"Comments" are not always the best way to communicate; in this case the best way is for me to show you what I would do. All edits are merely illustrative of a proposed approach, so revert whatever you disagree with. Hesperian 11:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cephalotus edit

I transcribed some interesting pages tonight.

This is Robert Brown's journal entry for 2 January 1802:

"Remaind on board. Described a few plants. Mr Good went in search of the pitcher plant wch Messrs Bauer & Westall had found yesterday in flower. He returned with it in the evening."

An interesting timeline is emerging. Something like this:

  1. Labillardiere visits. Doesn't come anywhere near King George's Sound. (1792)
  2. Brown, Bauer, Good and Westall visit. Collect Cephalotus. (1802)
  3. Leschenault visits. Collects Cephalotus. (1803)
  4. Labillardiere publishes Cephalotus, without crediting Leschenault as the collector. (1806)
  5. Everyone, including Brown, is fooled into thinking Labillardiere was first collector.
  6. E. C. Nelson reveals the truth. (1979)

Hesperian 12:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They looked at it longingly as they were blown back out to sea. And no Cephalotus at the archipelago(?).
" "
Oh. That tricky french b- ...
1806(-1807?) Does he credit anyone? Do we know it was based on the Lesch. collctn? I have previously cooked up a couple of other possibilities.
I'll take your word for it, I see his names on other papers re this topic. APNI has a note "in terrâ Van-Leuwin." (for a discussion on the type see J.H.Willis, W. Austral. Naturalist 10 (1965) 1–6) - is this made redundant by your mysterious citation? Cygnis insignis (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. Just found this: but included unacknowledged material from others, including Baudin (Nelson, 1975; Carr & Carr, 1976)Labillardière
Only just found this message; don't know how I missed it before. Possibly I am being too certain about Leschenault. I haven't looked at Nelson yet, nor Carr & Carr (1976). Carr & Carr (1981) state unambiguously that it was Leschenault, but Mabberley (1985) hedges its bets; speaking from memory it says something like "probably based on collections made the following year." i.e. 1803. Hesperian 23:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The edit

I reached my initial goal today. All 14 volumes of "The" now have high resolution uploads, a Commons category, a Commons gallery, PDF and DjVu page scans, a Wikisource index, and a yellow Page: for each plate.

I'm going to take a break from sequential processing of these now, to spend some time on some other things but I have a good solid (and reasonably quick) process in place now, so will be happy to do random volumes on demand. For example, so you want me to do the plates for Volume 58?

Hesperian 03:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pardon me, I forgot to reply. Please name and structure Vol. 58 to accord with your early volumes. I should tidy and move the existing pages to a firm scheme, I have been avoiding doing that, then complete v. 58 as a suggested model for the others. Then I will also try to document a procedure for adding or improving the work, are you interested in adding to that? Cygnis insignis (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The index is now at Index:Curtis's Botanical Magazine, Volume 58 (1831).djvu, and the text pages that you had already transcribed have been moved accordingly. I've deleted the plate pages for now, because I'll post all the plates all at once, as soon as I've uploaded the high-res plate images to Commons. That will happen tomorrow, because the BHL throttles its downloads miserably, so downloading them is likely to take the best part of tonight. Hesperian 04:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I noticed when CommonsDelinker removed the image from Cephalotus, queried that at Siebrand's talk at commons. Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All done. Hesperian 23:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, twice! Its things like that prompt to me to draft a convention and step by step instruction page, double handling and backtracking might suck all the fun out for future contributors. It can not be easy though, I found the guides to contributing to large works a bit perplexing when I first started here. Cygnis insignis (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is great to watch your Curtis's stuff rolling across my watchlist. I think you've made some good decisions here, like the move from /3060 Banksia littoralis to /3060 etc, which I think I may have opposed previously, but now support. Hesperian 22:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we both had a bet either way. There will be less problems I believe, the title of that example would properly be "3060 Banksia littoralis? Shore Banksia.". What about the case in the titles, CBM or Cbm? I'll ask you check the formatting when I've done a bit more, especially handling the page breaks with hyphens and the first word of the next page. You have told shown me before, so I may sort it out without bothering you. I'm enjoy the linking to other pages, the link to Lycidas was interesting because the text at v.15 varied from the presumably original version here. Cygnis insignis (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The missing pages, that you so precisely described, need merging: Index:Charles von Hügel (1903).djvu with Index:Charles von Hügel (1903 memoir).djvu. After reading an earlier comment, I'm now wondering in which direction? It would be shame to lose your author link :) I found another in my recent upload: Ex Libris. You are welcome to 'comment' on two 'Hermione's. I think your ocr had an edge, so unless it would be wiser to somehow merge the two, I would be grateful if you could do that for Hermione's index. Cheers, Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have been offline for nearly two days, due to business in RL, and am a bit bewildered by all the messages and watchlist action in the interim. Hermione will have to wait while I catch up.
Okay, I will move the Page:s over to the new djvu. This is something best left to me because I can do it without leaving behind redirects that would need to be deleted (I think that is an admin-only feature?) The transclusion pages will also need updating, which I may do, or may leave to you, depending on RL considerations.
Was this a request or a mistake?
Hesperian 02:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just uploaded the djvu and pdf for that volume, but haven't converted images or made Commons pages. Whenever you are able, and whatever you feel like fixing, is, of course, fine. Ta, Cygnis insignis (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Roger that. Hesperian 14:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Underway. The original version (and your uploads) had duplicate pages at 34-40. At present I am uploading new PDF and DjVu files, and downloading the plates. But don't expect to see the plates until Thursday. Hesperian 03:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mucked up my download script, and ended up downloading a whole lot of text pages. :-( New ETA for plates is Tuesday afternoon. Hesperian 03:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't get the authors right, let alone upload something correctly on the first, or even second, attempt. I would have made that error, and any other possible screw up, so I'm glad you are doing it. Cheers, Cygnis insignis (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Hesperian 03:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lindley edit

I see you noticed I finished Sketch. That increasingly became a chore towards the end. I started it because so many Swan River species were first published therein. But it soon became clear that Lindley wrote it not for his fellow botanists but for rich dilettante bastards who had caught the gardening fad. It felt I was wasting my time transcribing it. Once again Jupiter Botanicus proves worth the ludicrously high price I paid to own my own copy. If Mabberley will forgive me for splicing together sentences that are actually four pages apart:

"Meanwhile, Lindley wrote popular books with his systems of classification and edited The Gardener's Chronical. The combined effect was to take botany, to pin it down and make it palatable to Victorian England. The plant wealth of the British Empire had to be catalogued and named, Floras had to be written: Science left by the back door. Brown, the 'philosophical' botanist, had been a thorn in their sides.... Yet few quote Lindley or the elder Hooker today, while Brown's memoirs are the starting point for the study of Compositae, Gesneriaceae, Proteaceae and many new families such as Asclepiadaceae and Chrysobalanaceae as well as grasses, orchids, conifers, and Cruciferae."

Two questions arise in my mind, being two sides of a single coin. 1. Is transcribing Lindleyish material a poor investment of my time and energy? 2. Have I become a bloody snob?

Hesperian 14:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wonder the same things. The more frivolous stuff does yield some snippets of history, when they are not gushing florid praise. Curtis's varies greatly through the century. I came across Lindley's curious ways when I was tweaking Victoria Regina. I read a better article on the species history from the Gardener's Chronicle, or whatever it was called, it mentioned the 4 Pl. & 6 p. of blather in the Vol of Curtis's I dragged here today. I failed to find the text to the monograph I referenced elsewhere, but the plates of V.R. I added to commons are a pretty fine example of bot. illstrtn. I also rediscovered Curtis's Botanical Magazine/Volume 74/Companion lurking around, in case you ever need that link. It also contains the index :( Cheers for the validation on Hiigel, I'm sorry to report that there is about one mention of SWA.Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I wonder the same things" You wonder if I have become a bloody snob? Hesperian 00:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I no longer wonder about that ... mate.
Do you recall me quoting a mention of the spat between Smith and Sowerby over English Botany?
Responding to a friend's letter praising Sowerby's illustrations, Smith wrote that only a superficial knowledge was gained from the drawings - of little value unless accompanied by careful reading of the text.
The answer to question 1. is probably. The stuff I've contributed here has been interesting as an exercise, but I am also considering how to make it as useful as possible. Cygnis insignis (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Broken redirects edit

I've deleted a slew of your redirects because they were broken. Just to let you know. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

index edit

I made some uncontroversial fixes to the index. While I was at it, I figured I could safely infer the page numbering structure of the document, and thought I would restructure the index to use it. Rather than mix uncontroversial fixes with changes that you might want to revert, I saved the uncontroversial fixes with edit summary "uncontroversial fixes (controversial changes to follow)" Alas! There is a bug in the Javascript that overwrites the edit summaries of Index: page edits with "/* new index */", so the edit summary was lost. Then, whilst making my controversial changes, I discovered that the index's nominal page numbers don't align with the actual page numbers. This had to be fixed too, and it was too late for me to separate these from my controversial changes, so Alas again! I've left you with an edit you may wish to half-revert. This longwinded rant could have been avoided if only it were possible to annotate an edit with a summary of what was done and why.... Hesperian 01:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm all done with A. v. H. I yellowed that last red page. Your to-do list is

  1. green that last page;
  2. set /Notes to 100%;
  3. set / to 100%; [table of contents?]
  4. add this work to the "Proofread by many users:" list at Wikisource:Transcription Projects;
  5. Wikisource:Featured text candidates?

Hesperian 01:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good one! I moved the artificial page Charles von Hügel/Memoirs and Addresses to 'page 1', but I would not object to its deletion. If you can't see any way of improving it we should put it up as a candidate. Cygnis insignis (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"No detailed history of Charles von Hügels’s life, so unusually varied and full of stirring incident, has been written, and the time for doing so in any complete form has now passed, as many facts and personal data have been lost with his contemporaries."

Re [table of contents?]: if I mark The miscellaneous botanical works of Robert Brown/Volume 1 as complete, does that mean that the entire work is complete, or merely the few pages that transclude onto that root page? Because of the ambiguity, I never progress a page unless all of its subpages have progressed at least that far. Therefore, whilst there was still a yellow page somewhere in the document, I would not promote the root page i.e. your table of contents page. Hesperian 00:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should have put Template:New texts on that to-do list as well. Done; you're now on the main page. Hesperian 02:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is my thinking too; if I had used a sentence instead of a fragment, it would have been to check that that was what you meant by "/". I'm going to take your example as a subtle hint to what you would like to see improved next, I concur if that is the case.
Woo hoo! I helped make it available to its rightful owners, but I don't think my efforts exceeded yours. Should we note the problem with the stray footnote, the one that appeared without a referent? And you never gave an opinion on my suggestion regarding "Banksia rubra", Rosa not Banksia; although I now think that Anatole (or Wiesner) wouldn't have made that error, the Da did make some important collections of R.. Cygnis insignis (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No hint there. Misc is a long term project. Probably years of work. I'll keep at it but I don't know if I would have the gumption to really hit it hard. Too big.
I'm quite sure your efforts exceeded mine... but this is a boring and unedifying thread.
It seems to me they were talking about a Banksia L.f.. The probably saw the name the name on an accession slip or in a manuscript, and assumed it was validly published. Lazy buggers; a Google search is all it takes to check.
Hesperian 06:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Golly you lit my watchlist up with edits this morning. Thanks very much for all that. After proofing misc sections, you may wish to do this. Hesperian 23:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That dude never ceases to amaze me. Hesperian 03:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Once again I must apologise for forgetting / not getting around to something. Your Hermione request suddenly popped back into my head today when I was posting OCR for J. Bot. Lond. 9. Done now. Hesperian 03:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I'll add to list of things I'm forgetting / not getting around to. I see why you uploaded volume 9, it will be a nice addition. He writes good, don't he. Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any reason why you're unvalidating pages?[3] Hesperian 13:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Give me a moment, I will make something up :) Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flecker edit

Hi, I've purged the book you are editing; you should get the OCR right away in the edit window ThomasV (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OCR button edit


The ocr button is now enabled by default. you'll need to update your preferences as it's been disabled for you. sorry for the inconvenience. ThomasV (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nina shared art project edit

Hi Cygnis, Paley has CC-SA'ed her back catalog, and her recent feature film(!). See this commons project for details. I'm trying to help her get the collections (of original drawings and media source files, not the miniaturized versions printed) up on Wikisource... would love help! Sj (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DPRK Law edit

I have found the original at ko:조선민주주의인민공화국 저작권법. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs 12:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This may also be of interest: 조선민주주의인민공화국 저작권법 Kindest regards, -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs 12:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Jewish Manual edit

Thanks for your work on The Jewish Manual! It's my first real transcription project, and it helps to have someone more experienced along so I can see how it should be done ideally. -Eliyak T·C 23:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those linking ideas sound interesting. I think the links should probably be directed to chapter subpages of The Jewish Manual. --Eliyak T·C 01:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That sounds good to me. By the way, I learned to use a different style of anchor, which I think is a bit more intuitive and slightly better from a technical standpoint. See The Jewish Manual#chorissa. --Eliyak T·C

For the titles, I was basing off of Wikisource:Style_guide#Page_titles. --Eliyak T·C 15:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's done! Thanks for your help. I'm going to put it on the new works list. Should it be protected or semi-protected now? --Eliyak T·C 00:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternative welcome message edit

Not sure whether you have seen this {{welcome}} message. It has the updateable sections for [WS:CotW]] amd WS:PotM. billinghurst (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joke edit

I enjoy a joke that I don't get at first. Page:Hermione and her little group of serious thinkers (1923, c1916).djvu/56 contains an outstanding example. :-D Hesperian 00:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source for works of Mao Zedong edit

Thank you for your post regarding source for the works of Mao Zedong. I have attempted to rectify the situation for all the new works and have taken the liberty of posting sources for the older ones as well. If you consider that any more information should be declared, please contact me.

Sincerely yours, Graeculus

coöperate edit

coöperate?!! Hesperian 03:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jawohl! I would pronounce—with some tréma—that trema to be functioning as an umlaut! Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thankyou kindly for the educational hints. I had no diaere-a about the phonological use. Hesperian 00:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikisource:Administrators#Cygnis_insignis edit

I've nominated you for adminship. I guess you have to accept the nomination. Hesperian 01:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Milton poems edit

Are they about the author John Milton? If they are do you reckon that we should add them as links to "Works about" of the author? -- billinghurst (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought about that, or making a new section "Post mortem works". Blake was gently insane, this was a 'channelled' work :o Cygnis insignis (talk) 07:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sysop edit


You are now a sysop here. On the Admin page, could you list yourself under current admins and any other languages you might know? Thanks!—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply also @ Zhaladshar's talk. Thanks to all for their endorsement. Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

US duration of copyright edit

Under US copyright law, if a work was published prior to 1923, it's in the public domain, between 1923-1977 under copyright for 95 years, between 1978-2002 life+70 but not ending prior to 2048, first published after 2002 a flat life+70. [4] is a moderately detailed chart on the subject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much for your considered response to my scouting expedition placed on the Source forum. I was more interested in the coding possibilities for example like a textbox that has a special functionality like a button that enables a user to move or cycle between different versions of the same paragraph. Or even an expandable and collapsible pop-out functionality like some cataloging applications have so people can expand different paragraphs in their view on the one page. I am more interested in inspiring our coders to create new forms to maximize the medium. Am I making my intentions clear? In my expedition so far I have captured the following which are approaching functionality I seek:
B9hummingbirdhoverin'chittychat 06:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jerusalem edit

Jerusalem (Blake) at Wikipedia redirects to Jerusalem The Emanation of the Giant Albion, while Jerusalem (hymn) redirects to And did those feet in ancient time. -- Tseno Maximov (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the note. I assume you see a problem here, so I'll try to answer what I think you are referring to. I'm aware of the problems, but there are some new works going up and I haven't finished pushing things around. We don't have the first work yet, so there was little I could do with. They will be dabs rather than redirects, and don't think we will be using the incipit for the title of the hymn/verse/anthem (Blake/Parry/et al.) - there will be more a lot than one page for the similar - all called 'Jerusalem'. The article (there) seems to be under the incipit because no one can agree what the subject is; the second half of the preface or the song. Suggestions are welcome, Cygnis insignis (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought Jerusalem (hymn) is a better and more suitable title for the hymn than Jerusalem (Blake). There are no two hymns, so no need to disambiguate that. -- Tseno Maximov (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

long overdue edit

Author:Charles von Hügel. Hesperian 04:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks edit

[5] I had to look up what autopatrolled meant. Moondyne (talk) 05:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uh oh edit

Pop quiz: which is Swinburne and which is Hermione?

  • "the vinum dæmonum which now the few only can digest safely and relish ardently would be found medicinal instead of poisonous, palatable instead of loathsome."
  • "But I always feel that the right sort of mind will get good out of everything, and the wrong sort will get harm."

Hesperian 13:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:D I should have warned you about that! I tried looking up the words I was unfamiliar with, I think he made em up! If you read between the lines, where he brown-nosing his contemporaries, you will notice him (ever so gently) disputing the Gilchrist/Rossetti analysis. I wouldn't bother verifying both editions of them; they had an enormous influence on the shaping of the popular view, yet they misrepresent, misquote, and thought to 'fix' his poems - bloody girly-looking fellas they were too! Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

unitalicised numerals redux edit

A long time ago you asked me why I didn't bother unitalicising the numerals in text like

Linn. Syst. Vegetab. p. 79. Sp. Pl. p. 59.

I don't know where and when; we've had so many discussions in so many fora, it probably isn't worth looking for it. But my reply, as I recall, was that I figured the numbers were intended to be in italics, but the required type didn't exist. I also, as I recall, said that I may regret that decision in future. I now do so. My new theory requires a foreground-background switch: it is not that a decision was taken not to italicise the numbers; rather, the numbers are all that is left of the unitaliced background, after one has italised both the title of the work, and any abbreviations! Hesperian 01:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2009 Nobel citation again? edit

2009 Nobel Peace Prize citation ? What happened this time, I thought we had settled the copyright issue by noting that this was specifically exempted from copyright by the Nobel Committee? Tarc (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Titles edit

Hi and thanks for your comments. I understand the searching problem, and perhaps this is an interesting style question. For instance, perhaps you can advise on complex titles such as: 'Of True Greatness. An Epistle to the Right Honourable George Dodington, Esq.' Should such titles with subtitles be shortened to just 'Of True Greatness' or given as the author intended with all the punctuation?

Also what is acceptable when there are vague titles such as 'On The Same', as many titles like this appear in 18th Century collections.

I had a hunt around on the style pages for advice but couldn't find anything definite, (unless you can direct me somewhere?) Another interesting question is that in the edition I am working from, the full-stops are part of the titles, so can we omit them? Georgians (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That example was what stopped in my tracks. The author's intent is paramount, but we want people to find it too. The epistle part could be considered a subtitle, but there is nothing stopping you from creating a 'redirect' from any variation you see published. Lowercase helps with searches too, I try to remember to create those as well.
I had the same problem, I would need to look at the work to give you my view. I will see about uploading some page scans so I can see for myself.
We have some Style guides, Help:Poetry may be helpful, but nothing is set in stone. I suggest you copy anything you think looks sensible and experiment where you think it could be done better. I don't know if you contributed to wikis before, so I'm not sure how detail to go into. You will find a baffling array of help files in "navigation' box at the left of browser's window. I think being as faithful to the edition is important; definitely put what you see into the page, the author's title, but don't bother putting a full stop at the end of our title - the url that is created when we make a page. I emailed someone for a second opinion, what you are doing is the most important thing. We can always fix minor issues later. Cheers Cygnis insignis (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Descriptive account of the panoramic view edit

I cleaned up that other scan and uploaded it. The page images will probably take a while to purge through, but for what it is worth it is done. If you still want to take it to FT, go for it. Hesperian 02:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(P.S. it is astonishing how much space garbage takes up. The new version has a colour frontispiece instead of B&W; and naturally it contains the same text, yet it is less than half a Mb in size, compared to more than 12 Mb for the old one. That's over 11½ Mb of dirt! Hesperian 02:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Oh dear. I hope I've done the right thing. I clicked on the WS link from the other place and came to a search page here as the page here still had an uncapitalised title. Revert me if there was good reason for the variance between the two. Moondyne (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hoping that either of youse will improve my tawdry stub on this work. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Celtic Fairy Tales edit


Thanks a bunch for validating some of the pages in Celtic Fairy Tales. It's nice getting a helping hand on some of those stories.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: modified edit at SBDEL edit

Thanks for informing me of your edit at SBDEL. My interest is in the Template:SBDEL Cite link. My preference would be to have the link as obvious as possible to Wikisource readers who are Wikipedia editors. Most everything on the talk page I think is of interest to Wikisource editors, and so the notice on the citation template, while at the top, is more likely to be overlooked. You have placed it as well as possible though. In Wikipedia articles, I just about always run into Template:A Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature which doesn't take advantage of the link to Wikisource. The SBDEL project seems to be getting fairly mature, enough so that I have much success in moving to a linked template, and I think more frequent use of the linked template would much improve the quality of Wikipedia articles that refer to SBDEL. So the more obvious Template:SBDEL Cite is, the better, from my point of view.

This is an innovation of mine, at least I am not copying a precedent I have seen on another Wikisource project. I did the same thing at EB1911. I do feel tentative about it, but, given how the text sometimes wanders from a reference, to have the source of the reference as readily available as possible seems highly desirable. This makes it as easy as possible for Wikipedia readers to assess an article.

I have put an {{edition}} link on the SBDEL page to increase the visibility of the talk page. But, not being an SBDEL editor really, I am barging in. This is only because I thought I saw an issue that needed handling, and your response is reasonable. Template:SBDEL Cite is my own template, but only because I couldn't find anything at hand. Maybe I am missing something. To me the Wikipedia->Wikisource linking seems a very important part of a Wikisource project on a reference work. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I use the work all the time, it's neat!, so is what you are doing with the template for wikipedia. Linking to Source is great, linking from a 'source' is problematic. I added the internal template to the talk a while back; as with your example of the reader/editors from w:, I wanted it to quickly give a stable link to the work in the Author: namespace. I don't mind myself if you put some 'scaffolding' back, because the building is still under-way. I've done a bit for the work, but I'm the one "barging in" really. I reckon the readers and editors would appreciate the separation of project from the document. Perhaps the other contributor's might consider developing the project in the Wikisource: namespace, it is a lot more flexible. Thanks for the note, do what you think is best. Cygnis insignis (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simple:Wikisource edit

need some help with formatting this... Seabanks (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hofwa edit

Thanks for that. Any idea who Mr. G. M. Whitfield is? What's the best way to search for author pages here? Moondyne (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

George M. Whitfield, early settler at Newcastle; i.e. Toodyay. Prominent in the early chapters of Erickson's Old Toodyay and Newcastle, yet unknown to Henrietta. I have no idea if he has published anything of note. Hesperian 08:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Best way to do a local search of Author field, is to click SEARCH and get to search engine then check the Author box and type word of interest into Search field (I usually use Surname) and then click the search button on the RHS of search field. So here is a Whitfield author search.-- billinghurst (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks and thanks. Mr W. apparently had something to do with a tree grubbing machine. Nice, would love to know more! His family lived at a property called "Knockdominie", which exists today, 4km outside of Toodyay. Moondyne (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suggest that you look for patents, or for advertisements. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whitfield, G. (1886) "Vocabulary no.18, Newcastle" in Curr, E. M., The Australian race 1:324–327.

Hesperian 04:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noted. Moondyne (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Er name's Doreen edit

I hope I'm not stepping on your toes. It was something I was going to do ages ago and am pleased to see it underway. Moondyne (talk) 11:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I 'aven't looked, but I know wot ya mean. Go fer yer life. Bugger the 'istory, this is important! My hesitancy was finding a means to render it, I want a solution to the line numbering, for people who will quote it like 'omer or Ver-jill. Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm getting the fat JP2 files, ta see 'ow I go. Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Global warming edit

Page:William Blake, a critical essay (Swinburne).djvu/64 is a yellow island floating in a sea of green. Can you (or whoever else reads this) sink it for me please. Hesperian 13:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, thanks! I have been leaving this to last, but you appeared to be reading it so I finished the the section. Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slacking for DNB pages edit

When doing DNB mainspace pages, I have hopefully made it fairly formulaic with the template {{DNBset}}. If you can suggest any improvements, you know where to find me. :-) billinghurst (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

seems good. Why would one give different names to the sections? Cygnis insignis (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A good question, and more about providing flexibility in case someone has. Note however, that with Wainewright, we didn't have a fromsection = anyway as the first page isn't section'd, so could (should?) just do tosection = ....
I can see how the functions could be used, just not for this work; this is assuming it operates the way I think it does. If it looks on every page in the range for a section with that name, might be it simpler to just give the instruction to use one and name the field in the form as "|section=Wainewright". I think the tag should have the same thing: section= ... if it doesn't already. Cygnis insignis (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC) It doesn't, I tried before at Blake, William (1757-1827) (DNB00) 00:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure that I understand what you are meaning so ... We need to give a page range, otherwise it will look upon every page in the volume. After that the only necessary component is tosection so it know knows where to stop on the page. As we didn't put a section on the first page, we shouldn't put a fromsection as it will look to start with the section on the last page. So we just need to be mindful of the means that we undertake.
FWIW DNBset also adds contributor and volume data. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I may be confusing what I want with what is possible. You have

<pages index="Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu" from="445" to="447" fromsection="" tosection="Wainewright">

the following also works (in this case)

<pages index="Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu" from="445" to="447" tosection="Wainewright">

does the fromsection= need to be there. I see two ways that it could be working,

  1. . It's looking in all three pages for the named section or it uses the whole page.
  2. . It's starting and ending with sections in the first and last page in the range.

Are you saying you know it is 2.? Unless we are doing something tricky, like creating different pages using multiple sections, we would usually be using a single "section name"; 'from/to' are confusing and redundant in this way. I'm thinking about this in relation to overflowing notes, such as 80 pages with several sections named "text"Cygnis insignis (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fromsection is superfluous in that scenario (and I probably should have deleted it).
Pages works in a combination of ways
  • from= ... to= -> it takes those pages
  • fromsection= ... tosection= -> it will search all pages of a work for first and last sections which on DNB means a BIG search.
  • mix of the above -> it will do the page/name restrictions that you have applied, and I think we are talking intersection rather than union, as the section tags are exclusory.
  • from= ... to=... + fromsection= ... tosection= -> within the range of pages, it will start at fromsection= and include all the way to tosection= (or the end if not found, BTDT).
(Untested) If one uses fromsection= and the first named section is on the third page, then it will start from there as you have told it the range, then narrowed it down further.
Sections. If one person only does the work and follows the same process, then they should label the sections the same for each work (the ideal). We won't be so lucky (and know there is variance), and there will be further variation, so I have allowed for both in the schema. So to your example, if you have repeated the name of a section, and there is no page range overlap then a transclusion would see them as single instances. If there is page/name overlap, then they will be brought together, for better or worse. To how hard it throttles the server, that would be a question for ThomasV. Did I give the answers as you posed the question? -- billinghurst (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

v. 1 edit

Go for it. I was thinking of uploading a whole lot of them, and maybe doing the basic structure of each, so that it is easy to do little bits here and there as they pop into view; e.g. the first footnote of Page:Miscellaneousbot01brow.djvu/30. Hesperian 12:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To escape ... edit

Dig a big hole and cover it with pieces of paper and fountain pens, and then leave tasty morsels leading up to it. When the poem falls through, you run as fast your legs allow!!! Tada, escaped. — Anonymous.

Not sure what you are actually trying to do, but maybe {{ref}} and {{note}} is a workaround.

Good advice! - not surprised the author wanted to remain anonymous.

the problem is a poem inside a footnote in a poem. I used a table because I suppose the first instance of <poem> is tripped by the </poem> inside the <ref>. Will a template help with that? Cygnis insignis (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here , thank Pathoschild for the link. billinghurst (talk) 07:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I'll try to get my head around that sometime. I still can't avoid the first line break. Cygnis insignis (talk) 08:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Index: solution actioned edit

I prostrated myself in from of a sysop in Mediawiki and said that I would do what ever was necessary to get the fix in place. I think that the threat of sleeping with them worked! Thomas says that the fix seems to be propagating out through our pages. billinghurst (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then everybody will be, in one sense, much relieved. Thanks for the diplomatic brinkmanship. Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thomas said to null edit the affected templates. I have done {{hws}}, {{hwe}}, {{rh}} and {{smaller}} billinghurst (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
and purge the index files.
Just noticed the indexes, thanks, I will try and think of the obscure templates I have used :\ Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
and with that bed. Knackered! billinghurst (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

reply edit

hey, I replied at my talk page, just letting you know in case you hadn't seen it. Cheers. Suicidalhamster (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: redirects edit

I'm not sure why you restored them? They're part of a larger work and were soft redirects since April, and as far as I'm aware, we're not in the habit of redirecting to sections of a larger work. The soft redirects were deleted as per our policy, and all incoming links to the articles should've been corrected by User:TalBot. Jude (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Babbage edit

Yes, as your edit summary suggests, the volume field should be two digits, 02 in that case. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{blankline}} considered harmful edit

Figuring out the best way to force blank lines and/or paragraph breaks on page boundaries has been a long and winding road. Judging from your contribs, you've been on the same hike.

When I discovered {{blankline}} I thought the problem was solved. But then, after using it a gazillion times, I noticed (or did someone tell me?) that putting it at the top of a page causes misalignment of the page number during transclusion; i.e. the page number is inserted above the blank line, whereas the page text appears below; and it looks completely wrong.

The solution is to insert {{blankline}} at the bottom of the preceding page... but on reflection it hardly seems worthwhile. {{blankline}} has this clever implementation that causes the blank line to occur in the mainspace, but be suppressed in the page: space. I find myself wondering why I should care if a page: page has a trailing carriage return. It seems to me that posting {{blankline}} all over the place is asking the servers to do heavy lifting to no purpose.

And really, at a conceptual level {{blankline}} doesn't do what I want. I don't need a way to insert a blank line. I already know how to do that: hit carriage return; twice if necessary. What I need is a way is a way of stopping Mediawiki from stripping trailing whitespace when it transcludes page content.

I think I was closer to the mark when I was inserting "<nowiki></nowiki>" at the bottom of pages. But {{nop}} is quicker, and costs virtually nothing. So I think from now on I'll do that.

Considering I'm touching a lot of your pages these days, is that okay with you?

Hesperian 02:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I seem to be making a lot of silly errors this morning. Amongst them was setting Page:Facsimile of the original outlines before colouring of The songs of innocence and of experience executed by William Blake.djvu/41 and Page:Facsimile of the original outlines before colouring of The songs of innocence and of experience executed by William Blake.djvu/43 to "Without text" when I meant to validate them. I've pushed them back to proofed. You may wish to validate them, since now I can't and you can. Hesperian 00:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(and /15 is another one that I can't green. Hesperian 00:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]

The City of Dreadful Night edit

I guess Banjo Patterson was an aficionado: surely the title of The City of Dreadful Thirst is no coincidence. Hesperian 14:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems so, I'd never heard of it - I'm not a big fan of the Banj. Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The very blacks about the town that used to cadge for grub,
They made an organised attack and tried to loot the pub.

Laugh? I nearly did! Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accusation edit

I moved User:Sherurcij/MainPageRedesign from User:Sherurcin/MainPageRedesign. I have assumed it was a forgotten subpage so the last edit blanked the page to stop it appearing in the what links here. I also notice you are marking Page:space as proofread; my understanding is that this is done when the page is fully checked and corrected, but you do not appear to have even attempted this. Are you using some other interpretation of 'proofread' or are you attempting to make a point about something you loathe. Cygnis insignis (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about with the Page namespace, I've proofread, validated and corrected hundreds of them - and while I'm a vocal critic of those who insist on them, I'm hardly the type of person who sabotages projects. In the last month alone, I have done nearly 150 pages, and added the works Lundy's Lane Battle, Training for Citizenship, When You Go Home Take This Book With You, Some Muslim Laws and Beliefs and Jesus: as God; as a Man, all from the PAGE namespace, all proofread accurately, the random stray comma or semi-colon notwithstanding. It's not the first unkind assertion you've made towards me in the past couple months as I recall, so I am getting a bit defensive and would like you to explain your accusation. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle. 04:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no accusation. I suppose the last sentence could end with a question mark, but I'm pretty sure I'm uninterested in your answer. The last two articles you mentioned had almost no corrections to the ocr, despite being only a few pages long there were obvious inaccuracies in the uncorrected text layer; usable, perhaps postable, but not proofread.. Another observation: you copied an ocr text layer of 10 page bio without correcting obvious mistakes and failed to notice there were two pages missing. You mark these things as 'proofread', yet it seems unlikely that you even read it. Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Considering every single one of my pages was then Validated by another user with no changes other than removing blankspace which does not show on the final copy anyways...I'm more than a tad insulted that you'd suggest I somehow fixed up an entire page of text...without even reading it. I don't waste my time removing blankspace that doesn't appear on the final copy when transcluded anyways - though I don't mind that validaters do so -- but I do find it quite obnoxious and bad-faith for a fellow editor to accuse me of sabotaging Wikisource, or proofreading pages without even reading them, especially when it's clear I do a substantially larger amount of work, even just within the PAGE namespace which I personally believe is over-rated, than he does. So to sumarise, you suggest that because there is whitespace left in the behind the scenes formatting which does not even show in the transcluded work? For heaven's sake, I have WIKILINKS in the last two works - the ones you accuse me of "not even reading", how the fuck do you think Wikilinks get put on a page if I'm just randomly "sabotaging" WS? Then you have the gall to suggest that while I am proofreading PAGES, I am somehow cheating or sabotaging the project because I don't notice pages are missing from the book? What the fuck? I check that the words are spelled correctly, that there are no "subst- -antial" wordbreaks because of linebreaks in the original book, that no paragraphs are cut off, or text missing from a crappy contrast setting on the scanner, re-type those sections poorly OCRed...and you're pissy because I don't check if there are missing pages? I am proofreading Page 1, then I am proofreading Page 2, then if I find myself proofreading Page 4, I don't honestly give a shit whether Page 3 is missing - the pages I am proofreading have all been correct - reviewing a large swath of my 150 pages proofread over the past month, I couldn't find a single error more substantial than a missed comma. You sir, most definitely owe me an apology. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle. 16:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure where the conversation is going, and I am not sure whether the conversation has been entered into with the desired consequences identified, or an exit strategy. I hope that we can have an amicable end, and at least an expression of desired outcomes. billinghurst (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[ec] I had preferred not to get involved here, but since I'm being talked about, I guess I'll chip in and point out that I did do a bit more than just remove whitespace. On Page:Satires and profanities -microform- (1884).djvu/97 I removed a spurious "I" and corrected "whea" to "when". On /98 I corrected "oi" to "of", "m" to "in". On /99, I removed a spurious "•"; on /100, a spurious "."; on /101, a spurious "^"; and sorted out the hyphenation at the end of the page. They are just a few things I can see in the diffs, which are hard to read because I also removed trailing spaces and intra-paragraph line breaks (which I do not expect anyone to remove when proofing). Add to those the spacing issues around punctuation—not just semicolons but hyphens, question-marks, etc—and the end result was I did feel that validating those pages took a bit more effort than they ought to have done. And when I moved on to validating a chapter of the same book proofed by Cygnis, the burden became noticably lighter, though to some extent that can be explained by the fact that Cygnis and I have been collaborating closely for a long time and therefore tend to do things the same way. I had a look at the raw OCR of one of those pages, and it isn't correct to say that nothing has been corrected; the OCR has definitely been cleaned up and many errors corrected.

It might be best for us to agree that Sherujic edits in good faith but might have been just a tad careless that day, and move on.

Hesperian 01:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like I missed errors even when proofreading back what I'd proofread. I suppose it's evidence we're all just human, and the reason we have a difference between "proofread" and "validated". Some people notice things different than other people, as Hesperian suggests, for example the first thing I always tend to correct is the "br- -oken" words in an OCRed text; yet trailing spaces are almost always ignored as mentioned. He may never notice the broken words, but always notice the whitespace, it's the reason we the damned "Proofread" and "Validated" stages. Neither are indications of any level of perfection, only that multiple users have tried to fix the page as best they can. Anyways, I'd still like an apology - but I do apologise if I was overly defensive and gruff myself in my response to your accusations.Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle. 06:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

re:Images edit


Don't know if you plan to add the images to the work, but I added this to commons anyway. I wondered if they were signatures below the engravings. Cygnis insignis (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Btw, what's up with the spelling of Catharine? Is that just this work? Cygnis insignis (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I already uploaded the images to commons. As for the spelling of Catharine it must just be the work because wikipedia has it spelled correctly. Don't know about that. --Xxagile (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, yes there are signatures below the pictures. I just put it in the caption like here. I don't know if that is the correct way to handle signatures though.--Xxagile (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The text is the important thing, but adding the (authors?) signatures as an image might be nice. We can add alt text to images too, I've been trying this lately.There is a faint note regarding the engraving as well. The whole book is pretty lush from a design pov, I'd be tempted [distracted] into including some of that in main-space. Don't let me distract you with this stuff, take it or leave it :-) Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't worry, I'm prone to distractions myself. :) I will see about adding the signatures. No big hardship as there aren't many pictures. Would you be willing to format a page for me so I can see what you had in mind for the alt text? Might be interesting seeing as I am snowed in with nothing to do for the next few days.--Xxagile (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was going to offer if you were inclined to include everything. I grabbed a fatter file at the online flipbook and converted to B&W, I already have the signature for the image at right so I'll do that in a moment. Cygnis insignis (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added the full page to the category at commons, and found the subject of the image also had a category :-) Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This format looks a lot cleaner and I'd prefer to use it. This does bring up some issues. The author's are currently linked to their author pages. Change that to the only link for the "work" or link from "biography"? Do individual works still need to have their own page? Other than that, works for me. --Xxagile (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[Rethread discussion] I would create a subpage for each author and link the name in the contents page, this avoids excessively fragmenting the work and having to dab titles for the "Biographical Notices". Each work could duplicated under its own title, or with redirects and links that target the page number. The Female Prose Writers of America: With Portraits, Biographical Notices, and Specimens of their Writings/Catherine M Sedgwick#31 targets the work "Magnetism Among The Shakers", I'm about to create that page - let me know if you want it deleted or moved. Cygnis insignis (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks nice. You can delete that biographical notice page. We don't need it anymore. I'll just use Catharine's as the Example and move forward from there. :) Thanks for all of your help. Let me know if there's anything I can do for you. --Xxagile (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My pleasure. Shall I leave the images to you, I don't mind doing them every now and then.

What can you do? You are doing it! ... contributing verifiable and editable works  :-) Cygnis insignis (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm fine doing images. Thanks, Xxagile (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made the notice page a redirect, but I'll delete such things if you prefer it tidier. Cygnis insignis (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect is fine. --Xxagile (talk) 04:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Motorway Code edit

Nope, the text is finished as far as I can tell and ready to be proofread. I'm not entirely sure on how the side-by-side proofreading process is meant to work. I assumed that the first person transcribed the text (i.e. corrected the OCR), the second person checked it and marked it proofread and a third person checked it again and marked it verified. Is that correct, or does the first person both correct the OCR and then mark it proofread? Copio (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, so when I'm happy the page is finished I should tag it "Yellow", correct? Then someone else will check it and tag it "Green". I'll go and do that now. Copio (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The book of record of the time capsule of cupaloy edit

Concerned about the copyright status of this. Page 9 says "Copyright 1938", but the Internet Archive page says "visible notice of copyright; stated date is 1922." That's clearly a bogus rationale. We need to figure out whether this is really PD before any more effort gets invested in it. Hesperian 03:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can you propose a solution? edit

Hi Cyg. If you have a better solution to how I can identify pages that are not to be transcluded, then I am eager to your improved solution. I am trying to transclude all validated pages into works in the main namespace, and this methodology allows to have pages excluded from the database search results. We have hundreds of pages that are sitting in the Page: namespace hidden from primary view that need to be promoted. After I have dealt with validated pages I am wishing to move onto Proofread pages, so the task is significant, and a solution needs to be found.

I see that I have two options

  • Tag the pages with a hidden maintenance category like Category:Not to transclude
  • Transclude all validated pages, even when the major contributor does not think them worthy

While your words about the category may be very correct, they are not particularly helpful, and I invite you to be part of the solution. Thanks. billinghurst (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I invite you to be part of the solution" ... I am weary of your patronising replies. Consider your responses to everything that I post anywhere, your characterisations, your implication that I am being disruptive and stonewalling until the "purity of perfection" is attained, your use of 'you', and your repetition of an empty reply "this is a wiki". How is this conducive to an outcome, other than annoyingly placing words in my mouth until I go away and leave you to implement novel solutions across the site without my critique.
The pages, though validated, may not be transcluded for a very good reason: it creates an incomplete page that only provides frustration to the user. I'm not aware of Dobell creating a title A memoir of James Thompson, nor should we be saying we have it when pretty clearly we do not (yet). That we can do something is quite different to whether we should.
The solution is obvious, Category:Not transcluded avoids the implication and removes the need for a ten-gallon disclaimer. Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry to keep on butting in, but I'm desperate for this to be hosed down.

Billinghurst, we've already seen that you two have philosophical differences on the extent to which it is okay to be unfaithful in the copying of a work, in pursuit of the readers' benefit. It is the same issue here: when it comes to page transclusion, there are pages that you would omit as offering nothing to the reader, but which Cygnis would include for the sake of the integrity of the work. From Cygnis' perspective, in labelling such pages "not to transclude", you are imposing your philosophical position on his efforts.

Cygnis, though it might not look like it to you, I'm certain that Billinghurst's (and my) efforts here are intended as uncontroversial routine maintenance; that this issue was unintended and unforeseen; and that Billinghurst would fix it if he could.

In the spirit of reconciliation, I would prefer to offer a compromise rather than appearing to endorse one side, but I really cannot see a better solution than to move the category to "Not transcluded", as Cygnis proposes. This would eliminate any smell of ideology from the category name, whilst still allowing Billinghurst to carry on with maintenance. Billinghurst, I beg of you to set aside the tone with which the proposal was offered, and assess it on its merits.

Hesperian 07:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't see your solution proposed over here about categories. It seemed that conversation was taking place on my page, I overlooked here. I have been focusing other tasks, not so much the Validated today. I am totally comfortable to have the category as Not Transcluded and I have undertaken the conversion, for me this has never been about the name but the purpose. I had thought that I had expressed that clearly, obviously not.
I apologise if you felt that I patronised you. I will admit to frustration at being presented with the problem, and no indication to the solution. I am always interested in others' ideas to a solution, and I had felt a little stonewalled on this matter. I definitely do not consider you disruptive. I have been seeing rhetorical statements with elements of dismissive flourishes, and I have been trying not to react to or bear down on them. Similarly where global encompassing statements are made which seem to your opinions, stated without some of the evidence-base that I am interested in seeing. For example, I aware of issues about typesetting and readability that run contra to statements of full page width of text, that said, I lack any artistic genes, and will admit to not being a genius at display.
I do see that we have a differing ethos about completion. To me it seems that your preference is to have complete works; whereas, while I would prefer complete perfect works, I would rather see a partial work, than none at all. For me at WS I see an incomplete work as an invitation and as an opportunity to participate.
I come to WS as a researcher, interested in the biographical detail, interlinking of works and people, especially where there is an interlinking of primary research materials. To have the intimation that where I am linking is akin committing a heresy of writing in library books is a little confronting, especially where my endeavour is NPOV. I am proud of List of Carthusians, 1800–1879 and I see linking as an integral part and adding value to the work; providing source material for WP is a goal, linking to and from IMNSHO strengthens both sites. I also believe in light linking, and where of direct relevance, and happy for you to undo any where you think I have POV.
If the statement about it being a wiki is problematic, yes, it was more mantra, but it was more a reflection to be the words with which I was gently wopped about the head in my early days here.
In closing, I have taken lots of time with this response; I am truly not wanting to be inflammatory; I do not go out of my way to upset people; it is always my intention to be collaborative, and I truly want to work with you for a better site and getting works out there. Sure, I value my own opinion, though I do try to listen and understand the other person's opinion. I also see that there is a lot of janitorial type duties around here, and many that others simply do not care for, or not notice, so I try to do them without fuss. Where I step on a toe or two, please do come and talk to me about it and can we at least start with AGF, as there is no kudos for the janitorial. I will now crawl back to my corner and pull my rock back over my head. billinghurst (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Irish Biography edit

Hi, I had mostly completed Page:A Compendium of Irish Biography.djvu/124. Can you restore it and move it to Page:A Compendium of Irish Biography.djvu/146? Thanks. Wknight94 (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just working toward it now, let me know if there was any other work done or I screwed up. Nice choice. Cygnis insignis (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Whoops, I see what you mean. Will get that one too. 15:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't suppress redirects so you'll want to delete Page:A Compendium of Irish Biography.djvu/123. Thank you. Wknight94 (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Cygnis insignis (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jane Eyre edit

I correct the punctuation according to the punctuation used in the page scan; although I do make slight errors. These errors are quickly corrected once I notice them.

I think the indent done on Chapter XXVII. was really good; I like the layout now; however I think that some people may have trouble reading the text if it spanned across the entire page. Plus I think most people prefer the text just in the center, it makes it easier to read. Angelprincess72 (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries then, I thought you may have been referring to a later edition, the changes were apparently plausible corrections.

I applied the div class styling found in an earlier chapter; this stuff is in the early stages of development, and you have remarked upon an important consideration, but I recommend the use of indented-page instead. I don't consider this a major issue, but if you are interested I can point you to some further discussion.

Let me know if you want to match and split the text, as shown by the page history. Cheers, Cygnis insignis (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheers edit

oops, thanks. I've noticed that the more effort I put into layout, the less actual proofing I do. I must make an effort to double check such pages before promoting. Hesperian 13:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

tu quoque ;-) The ocr handled the numbers pretty poorly, I was attuned to this when I noticed the contents at the index.

Thought for the day: I use the indices for two quite separate purposes. Firstly to assist anyone (meself usually) in building the work, two or three improvements are made during this stage, then secondly as an 'index card' for our 'catalogue'. I'm thinking the second use does not require the table of contents, etc., if they are contained in the work.

BTW, have you noticed the indexes being linked from the sidebar as "Random book". Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Author:Nina Paley edit

You seem to have done some early work about this author with the contributor. There has been nothing much since, and we seem to be hosting works that are not declared to be in the public domain. Mind following up? billinghurst (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is required from Paley? Cygnis insignis (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not to worry, nothing to do, my stupid, they have been licenced at Commons. billinghurst (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll behave, promise edit

Thank you. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isaac Crewdson edit

I've made a WP article as per your suggestion. Would you care to make a small (or large) edit. My plan is to put this forward for Did you know with joint authorship. I plan to put the book in the hook ... which is nice publicity. OK? Victuallers (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How have you been handling things like Page:The life of Matthew Flinders.djvu/96 edit

Seeking your opinion on how you would handle a work like Page:The life of Matthew Flinders.djvu/96. Unsure whether to just have the image, to have the image and text, to have the image and text, but hide the text from view, or to have the image, and put the text on the talk page. Your thoughts? There are a number of pages like this including a few family trees, so with those I just commented the text and pasted it to the talk page. billinghurst sDrewth 00:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

my 2c: The tablet is an image in the original document, so it should be an image here; but we should provide the engraved text in the alt-text for the benefit of the unsighted. The caption is text in the original document, so it should be text here. Hesperian 05:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur, it's an image in this work and the caption can be digitised. I don't know how thoroughly tested alt-text is, it is doesn't appear to logged in users if they use the navigational pop-up tool. The only similar example I have proofread is a facsimile of a title page, this was included in a transcription in the same work so an alt-text was redundant. I would link a transcription through the caption if it appears in this work, but I was not able to find it. A link to the original would be red, so not much help there (yet). Cygnis insignis (talk)
There are also pages of handwritten letters, and these will presumably be too bulky as alternate text. billinghurst sDrewth 05:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another solution would be to make a new work that digitises those pages, then link that. Cygnis insignis (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Subverting the software's constraint on users, that which prevents them validating their own work, does not sit well with me. What the criteria are, and who, amongst equals, is considered eligible to do this has not been made available. It seems I need anticipate 'strawmen' around here, so I will add this is not a slight against Gutenberg; like other sites they have produced very useful digital conversions that nevertheless do not our meet our standards of text integrity. There is a great deal of labour saved by using their texts, but there needs to be more caution and checking because the errors are more difficult to detect than an ocr layer - it is likely that we will perpetuate any major or minor errors and the meaning of Validated becomes diluted and less useful. Cygnis insignis (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]