Hello, Dan Polansky, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here. If you need help, see our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). You can discuss or ask questions from the community in general at the Scriptorium. The Community Portal lists tasks you can help with if you wish. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. —Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for starting to clean up Ethics (Aristotle)/Book One. John Vandenberg 02:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I have set up a transcription project at The ethics of Aristotle. If our text is the same, it should simply be a matter of copying the text from Ethics (Aristotle)‎ onto each page. Once that is done, the transcribed pages can then be used instead of the current text. To see how that works, see Index:Jane Eyre.djvu and Jane Eyre. --John Vandenberg (chat) 17:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

email notificationsEdit

Hi, after a proposal to enable email notification, Wikisource is now able to notify you of any changes to pages on your watchlist and/or changes to your talk page. In order to take advantage of these features, you need to enabled them in your preferences. --John Vandenberg (chat) 15:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Source warnings in Shakespeare's playsEdit


Thanks for your comments on my talk page.

Before I added {{Fidelity}} tags to Shakespeare's plays (nearly all of which are unsourced) I consulted with senior editors here. After much discussion, I added the tags. If you know of a more appropriate template (that says "This document is lacking a source" or words to that effect) please let me know! I couldn't find one.


Webbbbbbber 19:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your comments on my talk page (not sure if you're watching it or not).
Also, I replaced {{fidelity}} with {{no source}} for Midsummer Night's Dream, but I noticed that that template seems to be a work in progress. Please let me know when it's "ready for prime time". :-)
Thanks again for your help!
Webbbbbbber 16:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for thinking your {{no source}} template was a work in progress. It just looks so different from the other templates: no cute little graphic; takes up the entire width of the page, rather than just the center; and the text is all squeezed over to a narrow column on the left rather than being centered within the box. However, these are stylistic choices, and if you're done with it, I'll start using it. Thanks!
BTW, I already talked with senior editor's about issues regarding textual transmission: the conclusion was that all we have to do cite the source, and let the editor of the source we use worry about all that. I've noticed that nobody seems to be forthcoming that info, so I may gradually start replacing the plays with PG editions. I should probably talk it over with a few people before embarking on that project!
Webbbbbbber 00:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the changes you made to the {{no source}} template; it looks much nicer than the earlier version, IMHO. I've started going through the plays, and I'm wondering what your thoughts are on Measure for Measure. If you look on the talk page, you will see that a user has complained that it's missing some dialogue. Do you think that a {{no source}} tag is still appropriate, or would you be inclined to use a {{fidelity}} tag in a case like this? I'm leaning toward the {{no source}} tag, but I'm curious what your thoughts are... Webbbbbbber 17:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Done! I've replaced all the {{fidelity}} tags with {{no source}} tags, except for Twelfth Night, which actually does not match the source cited on its talk page. Thanks for your help on this! Webbbbbbber 15:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

CSS classes and the Style GuideEdit

Hi! You asked about the lefttext, prose, etc. CSS classes a while ago. I was just wondering whether you'd found anything useful? I've added a note to the style guide that at least mentions that these things exist, but doesn't really help with how they're meant to be used. Got any ideas?  :-) Thanks. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 09:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Separate main and author namespacesEdit

Hi. I have just deleted the cross-namespace redirects. The main namespace is for works, not redirects to the Author namespace. A work named Locke would be in the main namespace. It would make disambiguation a little tricky otherwise. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What does it harm when Locke redirects to Author:John Locke, to quicken the access to the author's page? After the entry "Locke" will need to be freed for a work named "Locke", the redirect can be removed.
Main namespace is for Works. Author namespace is for Authors. Page namespace is for pages for transcription. Index namespace is for Indices. Each to its own.
But you have not answered my question: what does it harm? Has there previously been any discussion on redirects of this sort? Can you provide a link to it? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Discussion is before my time at WS, though I will see what may be around. The policy being applied is at Wikisource:Deletion policy -- billinghurst (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
What about John stuart mill? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Removed. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Part of a solution is that you can amend your Preferences to automatically include the AUTHOR namespace in your searches. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    Sounds good. Is there a guide on how to do that? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    Umm, err. Dunno, never looked. Fairly Wiki generic. Top right click My Preferences then click on the Search tab and turn on the namespace(s) that you wish to include. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    Seems to do the trick; thanks. One more link for you: Js mill. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

EB1911 Article Link looks good to meEdit

Looks useful. Thanks. -- Bob Burkhardt (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: EB1911 headwordsEdit

My practice has been to lower-case after the first capital. I think this is the way Wikipedia does it most of the time. Britannica may do it both ways, but perhaps mostly with all caps. You can always create a redirect later, or move the page, if whatever practice you choose doesn't work out. I don't recall a discussion on this, but I may have missed it. See EB1911 Style Manual and its talk page. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

EB1911 caps and new entriesEdit

Thanks for fixing the capitalization on the EB1911 entries. When you do new entries, I think it would help me and other editors to avoid duplication of effort if you put a link on the appropriate volume page. If the entry is not ready for prime time, a note in parens afterwards indicating its current state somehow would also be useful. The note can go once an editor brings it up to snuff. But this has not been a big problem for me -- I ran into Cushion which called my attention to your efforts to fix the caps, which again I appreciate, especially since I introduced the problem. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Descent of ManEdit

Please see my note at Talk:The Descent of Man#Speedy deletion discussion and let me know what you think (I have a watch on that page). Thanks. —LarryGilbert (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: EB1911 - titles of nobilityEdit

I have run into this several times, and have decided to put the title in the entry label just because it reads better. It seems to me they are trying to call him "Casimir, Count Pulaski." I am trying to be consistent with what I have done for other entries. For example with 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Platen-Hallermund, August, Graf von my first instinct was to label him August Platen-Hallermund, but seeing what Wikipedia was doing, I decided to throw in the title. One might go to August von Platen-Hallermund as Wikipedia does, but using bits and pieces seems confusing to me, so I use it all. It seems to me I have left it out when the title is just a repetition of the last name. I don't have an example off the top of my head, but it seems to me I have seen cases where the last name was repeated twice in boldface with the title in small caps, and I omitted the title and the repetition of the last name, again just because it read better.

For Pulaski, I haven't seen another throw in the Count. For example Appletons' just calls him "Pulaski, Kazimierz". But my sense is 1911 Britannica favors the label "Casimir, Count Pulaski". It isn't too critical here, but I am trying to stick to a simple rule, the rule being to include the title, with an exception for repeated last names where a repetition in the boldface section is excluded along with the title. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my simple rule is probably introducing more complexity than necessary. Let's use yours. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

As you have raised the same issue on some of my articles, I agree with Bob that the small caps are meant as part of the article title. The unreversed form "John Byrne Leicester Warren De Tabley" would be a nonsense of a name—"John Byrne Leicester Warren, 3rd baron De Tabley" is how you would start a biographical article about him (as Wikipedia does). I can do no better than point you to the classified list of articles where you will find it appears as "De Tabley, John Byrne Leicester Warren, 3rd baron". The more prominent article which commences BEACONSFIELD, BENJAMIN DISRAELI, Earl of is distinguished from the town in the List of Contibutors as "Beaconsfield, Earl of", not "Beaconsfield, B. D."!--Laverock ( Talk ) 12:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
You've got some good points with the classified list of articles and the list of contributors, and also with the name "John Byrne Leicester Warren, 3rd baron De Tabley". However, you probably do not want to use the names as they appear there, or else you would rename "Beaconsfield, Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of" to "Beaconsfield, Earl of", right? The point I have previously made seems to remain: these parts are non-boldfaced, and so appear not to be intended as the full part of the headword.
In any case, if you continue creating articles named with full titles of nobility, I will no longer move them, as your case is quite strong.
For another part of the discussion, see User talk:Bob Burkhardt#EB1911 - titles of nobility, March 2010. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: EB1911 - disambiguating wordsEdit

This seems like a reasonable idea. I'm willing to do it that way. But really you should broach this topic on the talk page for the Style Manual and see who responds. If people are receptive or don't respond, update the Style Manual according to your wishes. I do appreciate you posting comments on my talk page as well since I don't look over the comments on the Style Manual talk page very often, but I think that is the most important place for these discussions. Others I think watch for changes in the Style Manual talk page, and may respond.

I think you should add something about the {{EB1911 Article Link}} template in the Style Manual as well, since apparently you reverted bwpach's attempt to do so. And the policy you have suggested about discarding the small-capped portions (Count, Baron, etc.) in the article title should be there. This latter topic would be a good thing to discuss on the talk page as well. It sounds like bwpach is interested. I wonder how bwpach feels about incorporating the small-caps portions in the article name. That was just something I decided to do in lieu of guidance in the Style Manual. You should discuss your ideas on this topic on that talk page before updating the Style Manual on this topic.

I appreciate your interest in this project.

Bob Burkhardt (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

EB1911 and capital lettersEdit

I don't think I've created any NEW articles with big capitals - I have moved a few existing articles to slightly different names to match the way the names are printed in the Indexes of of Contributors, but when I do that I leave the text of the artcles as they are, pending decision and action on this discussion.--Laverock ( Talk ) 09:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)