User talk:Innotata/Archive1

Active discussions


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

Carl Spitzweg 021-detail.jpg

You may be interested in participating in

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{CotW}} to your page for current wikisource projects.

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

Have questions? Then please ask them at either

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome! -- billinghurst (talk) 06:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

How to show small capsEdit

Hi! Thanks for the little welcome notice. Here's a question that I can't find an answer to at any of the relevant pages: Do you know if I should use this style (<big>):


Or this ({{small-caps}}):

  • Fitzwalter, Robert

for the 1911 Encyclopædia? --Innotata (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I was just looking at the scans, and it adppears: neither. Funny, since nearly every formatted page uses one or the other. Innotata (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I cannot give the definitive answer for what the project has decided about their style; you would need to ask that question at Wikisource talk:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica.
More generally, the trend has been to not only replicate the text of the works, but to also look to replicate the stylistic aspects. Our minimum is the text to replicate, and the stylistic is bonus. Personally I don't link <big> as it makes wikilinks difficult, cf.
  • '''[[w:Robert Fitzwalter|<big>F</big>ITZWALTER, <big>R</big>OBERT]]''' to give FITZWALTER, ROBERT
  • '''{{sc|{{larger|[[w:Robert Fitzwalter|Fitzwalter, Robert]]}}}}''' to give Fitzwalter, Robert
billinghurst (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll add you to my watchlist so we can continue the conversation here.

Hmm, as I noted, the scans for the volumes make it appear it should be:
At least for volume 10. I've got another, related problem. I'm not sure I'll be able to find if the names of all the "Fitz'es" I've been contributing to are FitzName or Fitzname. Some are given with both in recent, online, sources, and there is no way to tell (that I know of) which the editors of the 1911 Encyclopædia had in mind. Until all this is resolved, I am apprehensive of adding new pages from vol. 10. Innotata (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Best advice is type what you see, and keep the formatting consistent and simpler rather than convoluted, as we can apply bots to apply bits and pieces as required.
My procedure would be to look in the body of the article, and if FitzWalter appears, use that, otherwise use Fitzwalter, even if Wikipedia uses FitzWalter. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I was considering those pages for which the only version of the name given in the EB is the heading, for which you can't tell. Innotata (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
And another question: how should I add footnotes from the 1911 Encyclopædia? I have no idea. Innotata (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Generally for footnotes we utilise <ref> and then apply either <references> or {{smallrefs}} at the base. Rather than overpromise and underdeliver, I have asked Bob Burkhardt who has a great interest in this work to come and give authorative help for the project. billinghurst (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes I follow the EB1911 Style Manual and use <ref>...</ref> and at the bottom of the page I catch all the notes with <references/> or {{reflist}}, it doesn't really matter which. I don't use {{smallrefs}}, and didn't know about it until now, but that may be preferable for some people since EB1911 formats the footnotes in a smaller type. In this case I don't think it is very critical. I don't think it conveys any additional information, and the smaller type is harder to read. I will probably try using it, just to see how I like it. The talk page for the Style Manual also has a lot of useful information, and most of the times the templates themselves have good documentation. Thanks for your contributions to this project. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I think I'll do this
{{EB1911 Fine Print|{{Reflist}}
Rest of fine print}}
If you don't mind. For your information, I'm mostly going to be working on leaders of the Magna Carta revolt, and other people with names beginning in Fitz- Innotata (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
And then we can point you at the DNB where we probably have a lots of other Fitz'ys looking for their liberation from those pages.   billinghurst (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. That might also have articles on the non-noble Magna Carta leaders I'm looking for resources on. Innotata (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
add requests here ... Wikisource:WikiProject DNB/Most wanted articles


I've added over there the list from the ODNB of the available barons from the 25 "enforcers": it seems that 19 of them or so may have articles that can be created. There will be a few other barons also. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that the DNB has major monastic chroniclers like Matthew Paris & Roger of Wendover? How can I find out quickly if somebody was included? Once I know this, I'll begin working on the project and posting requests. —innotata (TalkContribs) 19:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Charles has a separate list in the epitome at W:Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/DNBbillinghurst (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
OK —innotata (TalkContribs) 22:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


Hello, Innotata. You have new messages at Billinghurst's talk page.
Message added 21:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

billinghurst sDrewth 21:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied to your request there. Regards, Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Luther/Calvin linksEdit

My intent was to take advantage of the opportunity to link to works by Calvin and Luther that are hosted here. We could instead link the actual words Luther and Calvin; would you prefer that? —Spangineerwp (háblame) 21:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

To reiterate: Lutherism and Clavinism are more well known than many terms in the work, so this seems like overlinking; it is strange to click "Calvinism" and get "Jean Calvin". —innotata 21:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Right. That's why I'm not linking w:Calvinism. I'm linking the Author page, because all the works that John Calvin wrote are not well known. For your second point, as I said before, I think it's perfectly reasonable to link to Author:John Calvin when his name (Calvin) is mentioned later in the text (I made the change at Page:Lectures_on_Modern_History.djvu/182). —Spangineerwp (háblame) 21:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Houston Where 17 RailroadsEdit

I tried something with the header:,_Where_Seventeen_Railroads_Meet_the_Sea.djvu/8&diff=1903433&oldid=1902025 - Do you like this way of dealing with the header? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good enough; I can't improve it meself. The initial "T" also needs to be added; perhaps you should ask at the Scriptorium or somewhat for a better extraction. —innotata 01:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll go ask the Scriptorium! WhisperToMe (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I think I got the "T" put in well. If so, then maybe it can be marked as fully proofread. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


Did I create Prepared remarks of Archivist of the United States David S. Ferriero, “Losing Our Memory,” as part of the Provost’s Lecture Series, Duke University correctly? Joe Chill (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't see anything very wrong. How is this a work of the US government? —innotata 19:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought that stuff from The National Archives were in the public domain. Joe Chill (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Joe Chill (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
"In general, all government records are in the public domain and may be freely used." Joe Chill (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Not everything in the National Archives is PD. I think you had best ask elsewhere for information on this work's copyright; I don't think it is a work of the government, as a lecture given by a government employee presumably not part of his duties, but I don't know very much about copyright. —innotata
Not many people know very much about copyright. Since the government controls copyright, you'd think they would want to make it clearer. I got the sentence in the quotations from the official website. It's really stupid that it only says generally. I don't know how to find copyright information for each record and the site is no help. Joe Chill (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I think I know more about copyright than you, but not enough to do anything except suggest you ask somewhere like the Scriptorium. —innotata 20:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:New texts/2010/06Edit

Thanks for your edit, to Template:New texts/2010/06. Did you notice the new changes I worked on making so that there is a record with subpages by year/month? This was initially based upon a suggestion from Billinghurst. I have recently worked to implement that recommendation. See Template_talk:New_texts#Coding_changes.2C_history_of_works_added. What do you think of the setup? Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Page linkEdit

I see no reason not to follow the link given, the page number in that section in mainspace, what is the reason to link the Page: namespace instead, as suggested in your summary here? Cygnis insignis (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand: this is done in plenty of other texts, and it seems logical to link illustrations there. —innotata 16:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Is it not more logical to link the content in the same way the editor did, I don't understand your 'seems' and unfortunate precedence as logical. What is logical about linking the workspace, which shows one image out of the context and a poor quality djvu version of the same, the purpose is to display and link in mainspace. If it is logical to link that content, in that way, would it not be logical to link the toc page numbers to our workspace. People have done the latter, but when this misconception of main and page namespaces was pointed out they stopped doing it. In anticipation of a response that the page namespace is linked from the numbering at left in main, the purpose is to fix or verify what is being displayed in main-space. I hope this clarifies what was confounded by any misguided precedents you have seen. I asked because you may have had a reason, the reasons others gave was they can, they didn't have one for why they should. Cygnis insignis (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Again, I don't quite understand. —innotata 15:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm always thinking out loud, so thanks for the second opinion; I think I agree, but I went for fuller details because I realise many of the titles are already ambiguous - we have two quite different versions of The Ass in the Lion's Skin by Jacobs. Regards, Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to give the names of books or periodicals new texts are published in. We have plenty of texts with the same name, and these have been given without parenthesis. —innotata 15:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

D. A. CohenEdit

Is this change right ? You created the author page with Donald as name but I'm unsure if the error was in the author page name or in the links. Phe (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. —innotata 17:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


I have just been running through some maintenance stuff and thought that I would drop a line to you about {{header}}. The author parameter is automatically wikilink'd so if you discover that parameter filled, then you can just undo the code. Plus we generally only need to add the category of the year to the top level of the work if the chapters are the same work, and at that level we can use the year parameter. Rgds — billinghurst sDrewth 00:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Innotata/Archive1".