User talk:Ineuw/Archives/2013-07-01

Picture posters continued (with part one archived)

Update: I think I found one of two missing pages (well, full-page image files to be more accurate), in that p.330. to p.340 range I mentioned earlier. Its HERE along with that dummy Google disclaimer page alreay included. Hopefully it will go through the same processing as the main file did. I might be wrong about this being one of those two files on the account I don't speak Spanish & the fact its the day <hic> after New Years. George Orwell III (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

After a careful read of your update and studying the .djvu file so that I won't miss your meaning again, <hic> I converted the .pdf image to .png and will upload it to the commons as a temporary "placeholder" and a reminder until the 2nd image is found. (I am always an optimist.) Then, I can replace the two blank pages of the four in the.pdf file and upload it for a new derivation without having to be concerned about the page order and the proofread pages. Is this OK with you?

All I really need at this point is for someone to verify the 5 image files between scan p.330p.329 thru scan page p.340p.338. I know the last one {called "Pan") is the right file for the right position. Then there are suppose to be 2 advert posters for a show and 2 advert posters for a fair. Of these 4, 2 are for the same city of Seville and the remaining 2 are for some other city. I'm too foggy to figure what I(we) actually have and in what order they are suppose to be in and, of course, what and where the missing file goes.

Once all that is nailed down, I don't technically "need" anything else from you or from IA - I can edit the existing DjVu to reflect the true state of things and upload it to Commons without disturbing anybody (thank you placeholders).

The single image file (one of two) I last uploaded was for your benefit (if its really one of the missing ones that is) to create a PNG to upload to Commons. Again - not my problem because I'm dealing with just the .DjVu source file issue. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

As for IA, I managed to establish responding communications with them through email, (posting in the forum is useless), and replacing will not be a problem. As for the "color" posters, it's also my but correctable mistake. The color originals exist as such in the .JP2 files, but I had the Irfanview batch conversion set to grayscale. I still have the original zip file and will replace those uploaded images which should have been in color.

I keep telling people that the poor quality issues with most PDFs are all Google's doing but they insist on repeating hearsay and other nonsense that have no basis in fact. I know the "color" info is in there somewhere and outfits like IA make it possible to recover it with some luck and a bit of skill. We've done enough of these that I trust you to do what is best. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Finally, FYI, this new IA OCR process had an interesting effect on the .JP2 pages. The images are perfectly reproduced but the text pages turned bright red. Go figure.— Ineuw talk 16:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll review the 2 logfile histories tomorrow to see if anything leaps out at me. My head hurts too much right now for that. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Adobe Acrobat ver.11.0.00

George, have you upgraded to Adobe Acrobat Pro (version 11.0.00)? It has some interesting features including removing Gobble, university marks, and the words on the left side, _plus_ that "invisible barcode" that only becomes visible when being edited out. —Maury (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

oops! Sorry, Ineuw. —Maury (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

New user's request

Hi Ineuw, can I direct your attention to WS:RT#New Request? Those of us in the antipodes aren't trusted with this work, so can't do the download -> upload to IA -> transfer to commons -> create index cakewalk for this user. User is obviously keen as has had a go at doing it themself based on a pdf. Thanks in advance. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Land Tenure in Palestine

Hi, I've finished proofreading the article, including the Arabic letters. What's next? How can I make it a standalone article? --Erel Segal (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

First, thanks for completing the Arabic text in the chapter of your interest. We don't see this often.

We don't support stand alone article extracts from works. So, I created the skeleton of the work to give you some idea how it would look in the main namespace. Your chapter appears as Land Tenure in Palestine (Answers to Questions). When completed, it will be chain linked to the previous and next article in the work.

I indicated some of the article title pages as "Art", on the Index:Palestine Exploration Fund - Quarterly Statement for 1894.djvu page, which should be proofread so that a main namespace webpage based on the article title can be created.

The publication lacks a page ordered Table of contents, which I plan to add on the Main page once the article title pages are known. The original is organized in an unorthodox manner, based on the alphabetic order of the author names. The section is also mis-titled as an "Index", while the real index also exists as the "General Index."

All in all, there is a lot of work to be done, and a lot of refinements need to be implemented for ease of navigation and reference. If you can keep contributing towards the completion of this booklet, that would be great. — Ineuw talk 03:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I think the name of the article should be "Land Tenure in Palestine" (without "Answers to Questions"; this is only a sub-title). This is how it is cited in later papers. --Erel Segal (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I made the change and appreciate if you could look over the TOC built from the Authors' index page in page number order. Please let me know of any other changes are required. I am aware that some entries could be removed, but I won't know for sure until I proofread all the article header pages. — Ineuw talk 20:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Author:George H. Perkins

Do we have evidence that the author, who is described as a professor, is the same as the USN naval officer? The article w:George H. Perkins doesn't say anything about a professorial role. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

<hmm> In a little further digging, I see w:George Henry Perkins a naturalist, professor and in Vermont. Rings truer. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I assume that by now you saw my corrections. I was referring to the wrong author.— Ineuw talk 04:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Some bits

I didn't know that we were back to transcluding a whole heap of unproofread pages it is just butt ugly, especially when they sit that way for such a long period. I would much prefer that we transcluded when the proofreading is done, or is shortly going to be done. We have pulled in all volume 69, and yet we have so many with included headers and footers in earlier volumes that need doing. Also, with the edits in vol. 69 I have done some editing [1] and have some suggestions and questions.

• Look to use the {{header}} fields that are available categories, it will make your life easier, especially if you use a {{DEFAULTSORT:}}
• Why all the <noinclude>s top and bottom? If these pages are going to be transcluded elsewhere and you just need those components then you can use <onlyinclude> tag set, and that will only take the bit within
• If you are going to transclude these pages elsewhere, presumably to combine them, then why would you also inhale the {{smallrefs}} template? I would think that you we would either inhale none of them, and set one separately in the combined article; or in the last article of the series have that available.
• {{RunningHeader}} shouldn't be use with two empty components, look to utilise {{float right}} or {{right}} depending on whether you want other text aligned with them or not.

— billinghurst sDrewth 01:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi billinghurst and apologize for the late reply. BTW, thanks for the pointers:

• Will use {{float-right}} from now on, and replace those {{rh}} where there are two empty parameters.
• Will utilize the header parameter for categories, and sort as you indicated. However the Volume categories, as in [[:Category:Popular Science Monthly Volume 69|{{PAGENAME}}]], were never sorted.
• The header layout was your design from over two years ago, and I faithfully replicated it throughout the PSM project without exceptions as it is generated by a VB procedure. It was designed NOT for transclusion, but for the currently inactive frame I want to use.
• As for your main point, I am a bit confused about your surprise regarding the transclusion of incomplete articles. I thought that the issue was resolved in the Scriptorium a long while ago, and that I could continue transcluding the articles with the first page is always proofread. It's not only Volume 69 that has been transcluded but every volume between 1 and 69 so far. I am nearing the end of the volumes, with 87 being the last academic publication. (Beyond that, the publication became "Popular" in style much like it is today, with mostly photos and drawings, which hold little interest for me. Nevertheless, I will intermittently continue to upload the images.

Since I have no wish to upset you or anyone else, I will cease creating main pages but continue to "harvest" the article titles for the (non-existent) Table of contents - simply to know what's in the publication and if I skip this progressive process, it's not known which is a standalone or a multi-part article - and which part. If that's the case, there will be constant corrections (extra work), moving and asking for page deletions.

To note, I am also concerned with the looks of the articles in the main namespace, and am experimenting with an expedited process to remove the "garbage" to make the pages look better until they are proofread. — Ineuw talk 02:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Fell like working on images?

Hi. As you like images, if you want to take a break from PSM, I am bringing this to your attention: Index:How and Why Library. No obligations of any sort :-)--Mpaa (talk) 10:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, the images are already on the commons. I will put this on my "to do" list. — Ineuw talk 20:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ref name/follow on PSM

Hello. Just wondering how you prefer to handle ref name/ref follow on PSM so I can follow the preferred formatting. You can point me to an example if that would be easier. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I use a simple universal method in all my proofreading. Assuming that a reference begins on a page with a .djvu 238, I name the reference as <ref name=D238. Reference names must begin with a letter hence the "D", and if there is no space in the reference name, then they not need be enclosed in quotes. On the next page, it is <ref follow=D238. I never use the page numbers because they are not accurate. They might be missing, duplicated or, skipped. Unfortunately, I can't remember at the moment, where I used it last. — Ineuw talk 13:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No need to point to a link... I follow. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A request for an upload

Hi Ineuw, can I draw your attention to Talk:What is Art? I'm not currently in a position where I can play with files to assist. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

That DjVu was created in 2006 so the quality of its text layer might not be as high as it can be using today's free OCR engines. Let me investigate the b & w PDF to see if its worth re-processing or finding an alternative before we jump on the "blind" advice of a User: who doesn't even know to sign his or her own posts yet. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, just let me know. Otherwise, I gladly oblige.— Ineuw talk 21:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

So far, I like 1899 first edition translated by the same guy as the IA linked 1904 edition but without the 20 to 30 page rambling "Introduction" added by him a bit more.

• See... http://books.google.com/books?id=0SYVAAAAYAAJ&oe=UTF-8

Plus the 1904 IA linked edition has a couple of pages where strange gray blocks overlap the text column. I might be able to wash those out in the PDF though. Unless I find problems with the linked GooBoo 1st edition (or if somebody objects) - I'm going to go with cleaning up and converting the GooBoo 1st edition PDF from scratch. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.— Ineuw talk 22:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Done - Index:What is art - 1899.djvu -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I am proofreading some pages already.— Ineuw talk 02:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Note - I don't know what the deal is with the Author page for the translator - better follow-up with Billinghurst 'cause I don't think any couple should be named as a single Author: entry (but I've been wrong before). - George Orwell III (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Google Books

Ineuw, anytime you need anything in Google Books - part or entire book, and cannot find someone to get it for you just e-mail me and I will gladly help. Kindest regards friend, —Maury (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind offer.— Ineuw talk 20:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Adjustment to Template:PSMEditorsTable

Hi, regarding Template:PSMEditorsTable for The Popular Science Monthly Project: I have yet to find a page where the title doesn't have a dot at the end, and I would like to adjust the template to reflect this. My attempt, however, did not have the desired result. I hope you can help me out, thank you for your assistance. Maxime.Debosschere (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

There are variations of the PSM templates to meet all changes LISTED HERE. Also, at the end of the templates' documentation there are links to the variations. This template is available with and without the dot as Template:PSMEditorsTable and Template:PSMEditorsTable2.— Ineuw talk 18:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

When you get a chance

can you finish off this fix?

• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help#Need_help_overwriting_file_on_Commons

Thanks for your time in advance. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Consider it done, it's my pleasure.— Ineuw talk 21:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you please check if I uploaded it properly? There is an unfamiliar template used and it doesn't transclude properly as far as I can tell. — Ineuw talk 22:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Your attempt dies right around where mine did but the system managed to keep 45M out of the 60M or so of the total file size in your case. Mine just went to the "usual" Wikimedia Error screen. Are you saying there is something weird in a template here on WS or on Commons? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't notice that the upload was partial, but I did see that the file was smaller than the original. I thought that it was trimmed for some reason. I will do upload it again. I was referring to the template on the commons. There seems to be something missing or it's a bug.— Ineuw talk 00:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Success. The third attempt succeeded. Please verify if my exuberance is warranted. The problem was in the initial download from WS to my desktop.— Ineuw talk 04:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, third time was a charm. Everything is A-O.K. now; the Index: pagelist mapped everything like I hoped it would too. You have my grateful thanks once again. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks !!

Wow, thanks for taking on the table of contents on my latest project…I've been dreading this page! Much appreciated, I look forward to learning from what you come up with… -Pete (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

yw - I'll try to do all of the TOC.— Ineuw talk

Strange code

Hi. I'm still new to Wikisource, and I noticed some code that I don't understand (see here). Could you tell me what is the meaning of ## B37 ##? Thank you. Abjiklam (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. When an article ends on the same page as another begins, each segment needs to be identified by unique section codes for transclusion to the main namespace so that they are properly matched to the articles. Rather than waste time with dreaming up a section codes, I always use the Djvu page number (37 in this case), preceded by the letter "E" for "End" section of an article, and "B" for Begin section of the following article. It's fast and always accurate. For example: See the beginning of this article and view its code in edit view and then, see This page in edit view.— Ineuw talk 21:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. Abjiklam (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup script

I've checked in preferences -- that was my first thought too, that perhaps something hackish had been promoted to an actual feature. But it's not there. I've got my fingers crossed, but for the time being I've run out of patience for doing it manually…I'll probably check back in a week or so and see if anybody has posted a solution. Many thanks for following up! -Pete (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Admittedly, I would also like to cleanup the text within Wikisource rather than resort to outside tools. — Ineuw talk 16:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Look for clean-up here. You'll find what is needed.--Mpaa (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

{{colors}}

Hello.

I know you made [edit] a long time ago (23rd June, 2012), but believe it or not the extra new-line between </includeonly> and the following <noinclude> appear to be included every time the template is used. This has me between a rock and a hard place, as pages like Page:Shakespeare - First Folio Faithfully Reproduced, Methuen, 1910.djvu/69 (transcluded into The Merry Wives of Windsor - see "Actus Secundus. Scæna Prima.") misbehave when the new-line is present; and user pages such as your own and User:Zyephyrus have been constructed to actually utilise the new-line.

On balance I consider the extra line ought to be removed, so that things like this will work again, but I'd like your thoughts before restoring the template.

Umm, that last paragraph ought to have looked like the next one (but certainly won't―until the template is changed):

On balance I consider the extra line ought to be removed, so that things like this will work again, but I'd like your thoughts before restoring the template.

I shall send a similar message to Zyephyrus, and point him here.

Regards, — Ineuw talk 23:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Beginners Guide

While I'm sure that the comparison chart you created has an important function, and some suitable home here, I'm not sure that the beginner{'}}s guide page in the best place for it. A beginner's guide should be kept as simple, clean, and short as possible. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I had no idea where to put it after looking for a Help page referencing font styles and sizes. Let me know, or just delete it.— Ineuw talk 21:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be deleted, as it's certainly a useful thing to have somewhere, but you're right that I can't seem to find a more appropriate location. I may have to start a new Help page on the subject, but I'll look around a little more first. Some of our Help pages are so easy to find, and that's a problem in itself. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I kept a duplicate HERE, just in case. One page I thought would be proper is the Help:Font size templates which is shared by the various font templates’ documentation.— Ineuw talk 21:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop validating invalid pages

copied from udser talk page

Hi. Could you kindly stop validating pages such as this: Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 57.djvu/288 and others in the same article. In addition to the missing paragraph at the top of the page, how can one justify validating the image size and quality? — Ineuw talk 08:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

What missing paragraph? The paragraph is there; it's simly been repositioned below the image so that the image does not intrude in the middle of the paragraph. Some editors consider this a fair and fluid change (while others prefer to rigidly follow the original format). If your concern is the size and quality of the image, then why not simply resize the image, and ask someone to improve the image file? The image is actually a separate file, and is not part of the text validating process. If the image file exists, it exists. Proofreading and validation only check that the image file exists, not that it meets some abstract quality standard. If you disagree, then start a discussion in the Scriptorium. I've never seen anything on any Help or Style Guide page that suggests that validation is help up simply because an image is of less than ideal quality. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Purely on the topic of moving text, I was under the impression that our approach in Page: namespace is to represent the page as accurately as possible, and if that means breaking a paragraph with an image, then so be it... but when it comes to transcluding into mainspace, editors are largely free to do what they think best to ensure an attractive transclusion. Hesperian 02:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not something I've ever seen stated, either in the Style Guide or Help pages, although I know some editors who adhere to that idea. The Style Guide does say "avoid unnecessary complexity that makes the text difficult to edit or read," and moving an image out of a paragraph in transclusion without moving it in the Page namespace would be a rather complex feat of editing, to my mind at least. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

<shrug> I thought it was the community's view, but perhaps it is merely mine. (Sorry Ineuw, I'll get off your talk page now.) Hesperian 04:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay and I will respond to everyone, it’s just that today, things got very hectic at my end. Thanks for your patience. — Ineuw talk 05:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

My response

In this particular case, there were other issues with this article. First, User:Bob Burkhardt uploaded his own low resolution duplicate images because he didn't realize that all images between Volumes 1 and 87 were already on the commons. We resolved this issue, but the images’ layout sizes were also wrong. User:EncycloPetey failed to mention that the image was 600 pixels wide (as were all images in the article) which nearly covered the whole page. Please see this older version of the page in question

Otherwise, I completely agree with Hesperian that everything should be placed in their original position when proofreading.

Our goal is to replicate the original as faithfully as it's possible. If we don't accept this concept, then the same argument can be made to all other typographic and format enhancements. We can omit italics, use a regular single hyphen instead of an em dash, eliminate dropped initials, small caps, tables, etc. . . . and still retain the meaning, as does the plain text of Project Gutenberg.

It took me a long while to accept this concept, but came to realize that the rule of faithfulness eases the process of validation, covers all issues within the limits of our working environment which no one can argue with and engage in long meaningless disputes.— Ineuw talk 09:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)