Hello, Library Guy, 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:

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.

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! Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Javascript for initializing PagesEdit

{{helpme}} When I create a page using the ">" tab while transcribing a DJVU document, as I am now doing with Henry Villard's Memoirs, the Javascript does not seem to get the footer formatted right: the last line terminates with "<noinclude></div></noinclude>". The result is that the last line in a displayed page of text has an unneeded and unsightly CR, which fortunately doesn't appear when the page text is transcluded. A fix to this problem is to have the Javascript add a CR so that "</div></noinclude>" appears as the last line, right after a line which terminates with "<noinclude>". See Page:Memoirs of Henry Villard, volume 1.djvu/256, which exhibits this problem. How do I introduce this fix into the Javascript?

A page which is created without Javascript does not have this problem. For an example see Page:Memoirs of Henry Villard, volume 1.djvu/257.

Library Guy (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't answer the javascript part of your question, but this problem is solved by removing the mid-paragraph line-breaks and ensuring that the last character of the page is not a space. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be better to just fix the Javascript. The mid-paragraph line-breaks are handy for helping keep track of the correspondence between the transcribed text and the original. But thanks for your thoughts. I have wondered what motivated people to remove the line-breaks. Library Guy (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Help:Formatting conventions tells us to "remove end-of-line hyphens and line breaks" as a best practice. Our objective is to provide a transcription of the content rather than an imitation of the printed page. Leaving the line-breaks in can also cause transclusion problems. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I applaud the philosophy, but I think the line-breaks aid in the transcription process since one must constantly move back and forth between image and transcription. For other reasons though, you are right, the page breaks are inconvenient and cause problems. But after everything, I think it would be best to fix the Javascript, just to provide a further level to promote correct functioning. Library Guy (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it would be best to fix the javascript/code for this quirk but doing so introduces some other quirk if memory serves me right. You see the real problem is the brain behind this entire ProofReading scheme has left the project, leaving us with a patch-work of fixes built on top of what amounts to a flawed foundation to begin with. Plus the Wiki mark-up - designed for the Wikipedia-type of collaborative article that is constantly in flux more so than Wikisource's goal of faithful reproduction of basically fixed content - is constantly getting in the way of the most basic of HTML expected behaviour around here (like the opening & closing tags of a block-level DIV element always residing at the start of their own line(s) --> which would be exactly the same result as what you're asking for here but is done by default most everywhere else on the planet save the wiki-world). So unless you can tell us how straighten-out this fabulous disaster for us, there is not much chance anyone else will anytime soon. Sorry. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Well right now the software is doing it two ways. When a page is created without Javascript, as in one of my examples above, the DIV element goes on its own line, almost exactly (aside from an intervening linefeed) as the fix I am describing for the Javascript. So if you are worried about glitches introduced by my fix, the possibility is already there. I would say just for sanity of maintaining code, it would be good just to do it one way, and putting the DIV element on a new line seems to provide the best result. It will make the disaster easier to keep track of if its various software elements behave consistently. Library Guy (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
First - I'm total agreement with you in principle & in practice. Again - not trying to be argumentative or anything like that with you here, but the reality is just not that simple at this point in the collective history of the ProofReading extention's development in time. Trust me when I say we've "done it" many ways (including your's) once or twice before and the current one is the least worst given the circumstances and realities at hand. The maintenance alone afterwards needed in just removing/adjusting the {{Nop}} template would be just one example of the issues that would arise if anything in that "footer" layout were to suddenly change.

It's not the way I would have done it - that much is certain - but I got here far to late to do anything about it other than accept the realities & wait for somebody who knows what they are doing to come along an overhaul the entire thing once and for all. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I have worked as a software engineer, and I do know what I am doing. Most software does not get overhauled once and for all, but should be changed cautiously. The transclusion, which is probably the most important part, is not going to be affected, because the line feed would come after the <noinclude> tag. I can see a footer, as it is displayed on a particular page, might be affected, but it would probably be a very exotic thing. I see two benefits:
  1. Making all software components affecting page creation yield the same result will ease maintenance. There is no sense in having the creation process without Javascript yielding a different result than that with, and in this case, I think the creation process without does the right thing, except I would get rid of a linefeed in the without case.
  2. The work around of getting rid of all the within-paragraph linefeeds in the source text I think is detrimental because it makes proofreading more difficult, and changing the Javascript code so it yields the same result as the non-Javascript code will make it so this work around is no longer necessary. But any editor who can't break their habit of removing the within-paragraph linefeeds will not notice any difference.
I have just observed the software at work for my particular case where the default footer is empty. There must be some dependencies on how the index page specifies the default footer, and I would just change things so both creation processes incorporate the footer text the same way. The change is not going to break any existing pages, because it only affects page creation. There may be some exotic footer codings which are affected, but I can't see anything dire happening. It is a very small change in a preferred direction.
Library Guy (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Putting a CR followed by &nbsp; in the footer does the job, but <br/>&nbsp; doesn't. Library Guy (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
My issues seem to be resolved by the latest release of the editing software for the Page: environment. I have been working with it for a few days, and I notice now no special footer kludge is needed to get the pages to format reasonably. The new non-Javascript interface is interesting as well, though it would be handy to have the special characters accessible. They aren't now (except the default ones), but in an earlier release they were. Well lately I don't have much occasion to work without Javascript, though I may go without it sometime in the future. Library Guy (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Question for Bob BurkhardtEdit

Out of sheer curiosity and after reading your user page and what it connects to, I believe you are an intelligent person. I thought you were perhaps a new person.

Why do you not do the pages of a book properly including formatting the pages? You have many works started and yet left marked as "Proofread" and also transcluded.

BTW, that statement of yours, "The white flower is a Queen Anne's Lace" is interesting because in the South you will find the white lace flower called a "chigger bush" even though it is known as Queen Anne's Lace. One who knows will not touch those pretty flowers laced with chiggers. It may be fine in Massachusetts but don't trust them in the south.

Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Maury, Your validation edits have puzzled me as well. If you could give me specific examples of edits of mine which puzzle you that would make my job of explaining things easier. I have no recollection of anything I have written on Queen Anne's Lace, but perhaps you are referring to an encyclopedia article I posted; but I do so many, it would help to know which one. In my proofreading, I like to leave the line breaks on a page because I think they make going between the original and the transcription a lot easier when a typo needs correcting. The "smart quotes" I also think are the next step after the dumb ones. I think they make things more intelligible, and going back to the dumb ones puzzles me. Library Guy (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I am not a new editor and have worked on Wikisource about four years, though not with this new account. See User:Bob Burkhardt. Library Guy (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Bob. I already know that you aren't a new editor but I did not when I first saw posting as "Library Guy". So much for aliases. It caused me to explore. I have edited and validated some of your works in the past. I have been here 6 years+ so I am not new here either. The Queen Anne's Lace is located on your personal website with a lot of other information and images. There was a photo that I recall of a small flower pot with some kind of pine tree in the center if I recall correctly. I roamed around that website reading. As for the smart quotes, I have read (I think Beeswaxcandle or Billinghurst) mentioned that we should use straight quotes. I am not positive on who made that post. Regardless, when a page is formatted, which I always do, the smart quotes are automatically changed to straight quotes. I have nothing to do with that process and do not know who created it. I almost always format a page because they are supposed to be formatted. I do that out of years of habit. I prefer the smart quotes too as well as the indentations we don't do with books. We drop down a line instead of indentations. In any case, I stopped proofreading and validating your works so you are safe with what you prefer to do. Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Maury, This "formatting" option you mention can't be required, because I "proofread" and "validate" pages all the time without it. Some PSM editors also favor the straight quotes. I think it is a matter of taste. In reading one can tell more immediately whether one is at the start or end of a quote. Well I suppose that is true also with straight quotes because of their position. I guess they appeal to me because they look like what is seen in the original manuscript. Thanks for telling me where you read about Queen Anne's Lace. That's good to know about its problems in the south. Chiggers are a pain. Library Guy (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Bob, all I can state is that when I format any page the smart quotes become straight quotes. I have no choice with that and it has always been that way. The text I see in your works appear (to me) as unformatted so I formatted some of them. I formatted enough that I didn't go very far because I did not want to do a lot of formatting which is what I do before I validate a page. I have stated that I too prefer smart quotes as well as indentations.

I must say I do like your artwork and having loved tennis most of my life I related to your excellent drawing of Tracy Austin of the "Palos Verdes Peninsula" the best. That art goes back to May 12, 1996 which is my birth month and day but not year. Long ago, I did some silkscreen works of tennis players, Indian Chiefs with war bonnets, &c. &c. Photography and various arts such as silkscreen, sculpture, pottery, and many more are some of my earliest hobbies. Even in the works I do here on en.ws are typically heavily laden with illustrations hearkening back to my youth. There isn't much that I dislike except perhaps for a long-winded book that is all text. I let a screen reader read those to me or an audio book which I tinker with creating using pro voice files. Oh, "chiggers" - they are maddening! A lady's fingernail polish covered over them will kill them. —Maury (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Transclusion problemEdit

{{helpme}} I am trying to generate a file called School Management by transcluding a section out of a book, but the beginning is not right, and I wonder what I am doing wrong. The transclusion starts with a section of a page, and that is the part that doesn't work. Any ideas? Library Guy (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm perplexed as well. I've tried a bunch of things and get the same results (or worse). Give it some more time - somebody else will see this sooner or later. I will keep an eye on it as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Library Guy (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah ha - a combination of things (I think). The end of the "03 Dock" article needed the same section "end" to close off the last 2 lines on p.98 properly. You used a single Center template that spanned across that new proper end of "03 Dock" and the begining of "management" on p.98 - which freaked out tranclusion a bit - and finally (& most weirdly), p.99 has no paragraph breaks on it and that prevented the insertion of the embedded 99 from appearing in the mainspace when transcluded. A faux opening and closing paragraph tag in the non-included header(s) and footer(s) solved that. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds complex. I restored 03 Dock to its original length. The three other transclusions I did from this chapter (including that first one which didn't work until your repairs - thank you) are meant to be extracts from the chapter for separate presentation (as separate works of Christopher Dock), but I meant to keep the original chapter intact rather than taking those sections out. Again, many thanks. Library Guy (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

PSM and similar linksEdit

Hi, and thanks for adding the {{similar}} links to the Popular Science Monthly articles. I only ask that please add them on the Notes line of the header. Thanks in advance.— Ineuw talk 08:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your sensible advice, re: "Icebergs and Fog in the North Atlantic" in Popular Science Monthly, 22 (March 1883). I may try it elsewhere as well. Library Guy (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Automated import of openly licensed scholarly articlesEdit

Hello Library Guy,

We are putting together a proposal about the automated import of openly licensed scholarly articles, and since you are an active Wikisourceror, we'd appreciate yourcomments on the Scriptorium. For convenience, I'm copying our proposal here:

The idea of systematically importing openly licensed scholarly articles into Wikisource has popped up from time to time. For instance, it formed the core of WikiProject Academic Papers and is mentioned in the Wikisource vision. However, the Wikiproject relied on human power, never reached its full potential, and eventually became inactive. The vision has yet to materialise.
We plan to bridge the gap through automation. We are a subset of WikiProject Open Access (user:Daniel Mietchen, user:Maximilanklein, user:MattSenate), and we have funding from the Open Society Foundations via Wikimedia Deutschland to demo suitable workflows at Wikimania (see project page).
Specifically, we plan to import Open Access journal articles into Wikisource when they are cited on Wikipedia. The import would be performed by a group of bots intended to make reference handling more interoperable across Wikimedia sites. Their main tasks are:
  • (on Wikipedia) signalling which references are openly licensed, and link them to the full text on Wikisource, the media on Commons and the metadata on Wikidata;
  • (on Commons) importing images and other media associated with the source article;
  • (on Wikisource) importing the full text of the source article and embedding the media in there;
  • (on Wikidata) handling the metadata associated with the source article, and signalling that the full text is on Wikisource and the media on Commons.
These Open Access imports on Wikisource will be linked to and from other Wikimedia sister sites. Our first priority though will be linking from English Wikipedia, focusing on the most cited Open Access papers, and the top-100 medical articles.
In order to move forward with this, we need
  • General community approval
  • Community feedback on workflows and scrutiny on our test imports in specific.
  • Bot permission. For more technical information read our bot spec on Github.

Maximilianklein (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

NIE notesEdit

Hello, I noticed that you've been by by far the most active in editing The New International Encyclopædia, and thought you might be possibly interested in a few thoughts I had in my brief (hopefully to eventually continue) foray into transcribing a few pages of this work I found personally interesting. Notes from a brief foray into NIE transcribing; djr13 (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI on this topic I have subsequently had an interesting discussion with Abjiklam about diacritic particularities. Do you know if dot-over-macron and macron-over-dot carry any real symbolic/lingual difference or are purely stylistic typography? If so please weigh in! Thanks, djr13 (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

hi, nice work. hope you don’t mind if i move your work to the side by side page view, with a transclusion to the article. i.e. Page:EB1911_-_Volume_04.djvu/18. the transcription at the article is so pre-2010. also it’s considered best practice to delete the hard line breaks and let the paragraphs flow. (this makes italics easier, btw). cheers Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 19:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the transclusion. I don't consider eliminating the line breaks good practice; I think it makes the articles harder to proofread. You're right, it does make the italics easier. Library Guy (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"Crusades," in Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed., 1911)Edit

hi, i went and transcluded again. i couldn't figure how to keep the TOC in there. revert if you prefer. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 00:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The TOC is almost a nuisance now. Used to be large articles were broken up so less capable editing software could handle them. Paging accomplishes about the same thing now, although I think differences in software are less of a problem. Thank you for transcluding. Library Guy (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: editEdit

Re: [1]: They are titles of whole books of poems, not single poems. They just happen to have quotation marks in the titles. Should they not then be italicized as being books despite? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I will revert. Library Guy (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Being unaware of the rules in this particular case, I thought I'd ask just in case. Just thought they shouldn't appear to be as single poems. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't have a complete set of scans yet, were you planning on looking for these? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This what archive.org found on a very quick scan - https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Baynes%2C+Thomas+Spencer%2C+1823-1887%22

There are links to all of them on the EB9 talk page. I have been uploading them when I need them, but I plan to make a more concerted effort and complete the collection in the near future. It is just a matter of uploading: the links show we know where they all are. Volume 1 should get done today. Library Guy (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I have completed uploading all of the volumes to Wikisource and written stub scan indexes. Library Guy (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC) The text layers seem to be missing on some of the DJVUs, although the full OCR text is always available at archive.org. Library Guy (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

New Proposal Notification - Replacement of common main-space header templateEdit

Announcing the listing of a new formal proposal recently added to the Scriptorium community-discussion page, Proposals section, titled:

Switch header template foundation from table-based to division-based

The proposal entails the replacement of the current Header template familiar to most with a structurally redesigned new Header template. Replacement is a needed first step in series of steps needed to properly address the long time deficiencies behind several issues as well as enhance our mobile device presence.

There should be no significant operational or visual differences between the existing and proposed Header templates under normal usage (i.e. Desktop view). The change is entirely structural -- moving away from the existing HTML all Table make-up to an all Div[ision] based one.

Please examine the testcases where the current template is compared to the proposed replacement. Don't forget to also check Mobile Mode from the testcases page -- which is where the differences between current header template & proposed header template will be hard to miss.

For those who are concerned over the possible impact replacement might have on specific works, you can test the replacement on your own by entering edit mode, substituting the header tag {{header with {{header/sandbox and then previewing the work with the change in place. Saving the page with the change in place should not be needed but if you opt to save the page instead of just previewing it, please remember to revert the change soon after your done inspecting the results.

Your questions or comments are welcomed. At the same time I personally urge participants to support this proposed change. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

NIE realizationEdit

Hello again! An eternity has passed, yet just now I realized a painful error. Hopefully it will be easy to fix, though it would require looking back and fixing earlier edits. The mistake? We should have created a template to handle these problematic diacritics. And by "handle" I mean, at the very least, put the problematic unicode sequences into a single place that we can transclude from and improve on as-needed. See also: Help:Templates#Character formatting; Diacritic templatesdjr13 (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Perhaps you can provide examples of templates and their usage as you work through this, and/or examples of problem articles and what the problem is. Library Guy (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have mentioned, I'm referring to an earlier conversation: #NIE notes and related threads elsewhere. We were discussing the use of complicated combining diacritic marks due to unicode's coverage of precomposed marks being, officially, permanently incomplete. The above is just my realization that we probably shouldn't be putting these complicated unicode symbols (at least given the current pathetic state of unicode support in most browsers and fonts) raw into transcriptions. Or at least, if we do, we should wrap them in a template to ease maintenance in case in the future we decide on a better method for presenting these characters. This might be a simple {{complex unicode}} wrapper that's simply a {{{1}}} passthrough (making it merely an interim enabler for "what links here") or a perhaps a proper expansion of Wikisource's collection of diacritic templates. djr13 (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I think I get the idea. Sounds good. Anything developed can be mentioned in the header notes for the pronunciation key page, and of course used in the body. Well the pronunciation keys are certainly a work in progress for me, and I will apply this idea elsewhere. I wish we all could have done it right from the first, but such is life. I have become adapted to the NSRW key, and the multicharacters are not as difficult to use as I'd feared. They sometimes look odd in the Courier font of the page as it is being edited, but appear OK when the page is previewed or saved. But wrapping them in a template would make more sense. Library Guy (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

EB1911 v. 26 index page problemEdit

Index:EB1911 - Volume 26.djvu is giving an error (“Error: Numeric value expected”) which I cannot figure out how to fix. It may have something to do with a problem with the commons file it is based on. Anyway, the error prevents any meaningful editing of pages. I have not tried to upload a new DJVU file yet. Library Guy (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

See Wikisource:Scriptorium#Error:_Numeric_value_expected--Mpaa (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the referral. Library Guy (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

A note to myself and whoever else is interested: a search on "Numeric value expected" yields the index files that are failing; a search on "Invalid interval error" yields the transclusions that are failing because of bad index files. The transclusions can be fixed by using {{page}} instead of the XML "pages" element to transclude. Library Guy (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


As you seem to be the one person tirelessly working on this. . . I'll mention that it's odd we don't yet have listed any articles on the city of Sacramento. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That is odd. Would be nice to have the capital among the cities that get articles for each state. I think for California it was the relative sizes, and their change over time, that fascinated me, but I will consider doing some Sacramento articles. This survey of the U.S. in encyclopedias is one of my projects. Company is always welcome. Currently I'm going through the states alphabetically, at a minimum installing their NSRW articles, but also trying to do a survey of significant cities. I'm currently on Indiana, but I backtrack occasionally. Library Guy (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the important work you are doing! My own personal project is Ancient Greek drama. Currently, there are known plays for which we lack even a single English translation, and we have no general book on the topic. When I started, we had fewer plays still, and none of the 1911 EB articles on Greek dramatists. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


Kindly refrain from using glyphs to “enclose” text. I agree that they are more elegant than an ordinary double quote, but we are an English Wiki with US/UK keyboards and we are not looking for making life difficult for others. On the other hand, sincere thanks for you contributions to the PSM project regardless under which username used.— Ineuw talk 03:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The older texts use a variety of "glyphs" (ligatures, diareses, etc. etc.) which are not on many keyboards, that's why there are those pulldown menus of special characters which appear every time you edit. The "glyphs" you mention are more run of the mill than most, being standard ASCII. There are many people besides myself who favor them, and they make the texts look more attractive. You are the only one I have heard from who doesn't favor them. Think about incorporating them in your routine, or at least not giving other people who do use them a hard time over your eccentricities. Thanks for your contributions to PSM, but please loosen your grip on the project a bit and allow others to contribute as they see fit. Library Guy (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for your formatting of the "Annapolis" entry in the EB9!

If you plan to contribute more, however, it would save time if you didn't make us have to follow behind to adjust your formatting. I haven't had time to write a style guide, but you've doubtless noticed that the EB11 is a well-meaning mess of different ad hoc dabs. We very consciously aren't doing that. We're dabbing by following the EB9's own policy for disambiguating entries: numerals. Instead of forcing people to guess whether an editor used Annapolis (Maryland), Annapolis, Maryland, Annapolis (MD), Annapolis (USA), &c., &c.,

  • there is a dab page at the basic name, as with Baden
  • the pages themselves are dabbed by numbers so they are always easy to find
  • redirects are created from the alternate names for users or google searches looking for other formats

If you don't feel like making those pages or redirects yourself, that's fine. The work you're doing is great enough. Just leave me a note on my talk page and I'll get around to it, same as the guys who'll eventually have to move your edits over to the scanned volumes. But kindly don't wreck the formatting of the index pages along the way.

Also note that you can't use the #Wikipedia field for articles with commas (the template won't include the closing comma). Instead, you simply format the link in the #Other_projects field and leave #Wikipedia blank. Thanks again for the entry, though. — LlywelynII 12:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess you edit for multitudes? Even though I founded the EB9 project, I guess I am only a single editor. You have some nice ideas, but I find some pretty ill-conceived. It would help if you co-operated on this project instead of just hijacking it. Library Guy (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

World FactbookEdit

Hi, Can you also take a look at Index:CIA World Factbook(1982).djvu and the linked title (incomplete)?

Thanks in advance. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I looked at it. Seems like a reasonable start, but of course it is very incomplete, and doesn't have New Zealand (my most recent interest) that I can see. So far, so good I'd say. I expect the {{Factbook link}} template I just wrote could be (without much difficulty) extended to accommodate it when the 82 factbook is more mature. The title chosen seem reasonable, and it seems like an interesting work. The shortcut I just chose could be made more specific as well (CIA04 and CIA82) at some point. You are interested in more specific feedback/ideas? Library Guy (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't be unreasonable to move the 04 factbook to a title more compatible with yours, i.e. "The World Factbook (2004)". Library Guy (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
What is problematic about Page:CIA World Factbook(1982).djvu/116? Library Guy (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it was that at the time i was needing to check for {{nop}}- Going to give this another look if you are willing to help assemble it.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I have projects of my own that are behind. I'm willing to consult and perhaps do a minor contribution. Your project actually looks in pretty good shape. Apparently there's a lot there from the little I inspected, and like you say it is just a matter of assembly. The big job is uploading the maps? I appreciated your help on The Swiss Family Robinson (Kingston), but preparing and uploading the illustrations in that was a real bear, and I don't want to get involved in that in this project. But it is a good opportunity for you to learn to handle that part of the project. I mostly use ribbet.com to prepare my illustrations. Adobe Photoshop or Elements is very good, and even Microsoft Paint works OK, if you have access to them. I take it you know how to use {{nop}} by now. I don't think I would mark pages "problematic" when it is just a problem with your understanding. If they are proofread, they can be flagged that way, and you can go off and get help on formatting you need. Really the main job is the proofreading, and that's what the state of the page refers to. I think it would be possible to get a page to the "validated" stage, but still have some formatting details that might need attending to, like the use of {{nop}} etc. A figure or table data missing is another thing. But if it is just formatting the table, I will often mark the page as "proofread" if I have checked the table data, but maybe leave a note or a {{missing table}} marker so I remember to come back later and format the table. Library Guy (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I also have a project backlog.. I will however consider marking page as proogread even though the images are missing, I typically do a noinclude wrapper. Don't have the bandwidth to do a really massive image extraction ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
A missing image is kind of a toss up for me. For myself I wouldn't mark it as proofread until the image was present, but I can see doing as you propose as well, and just marking it as missing. Certainly ribbet.com probably won't work well at low bandwidth, but if you have patience 56K can do OK if you have local image processing software like Paint. I worked in 56K/dialup mode for a long time and did a lot of image work. A project like The World Factbook shouldn't prove too daunting. But just marking the pages as proofread and noting the missing images for now seems a reasonable way to close out your current phase. Maybe people will drop in and upload maps from time to time. I also found that the images from DJVU and PDF files that archive.org provided were pretty lousy compared to the JPG scans they use in their on-line browser, and generally the latter are what I use, but at 56K I had to really develop some strategies for downloading the images I wanted since the default method preloaded my browser with a lot of images I didn't need. But certainly DJVU and PDF extractions are a reasonable temporary fix. Library Guy (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
An interface (toolabs?) that was able to pull down a los res scan, allow a region select, and then did the extract from te IS hi-re scans would be rather useful. I'm suprised no one's suggested this for basic image tweaks at commons either.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
You have an interesting interface idea. Also, I appreciate the acknowledgments you've given me via the "thank" mechanism for the work I have done, but it is really I who owe you thanks for the interesting project. You seem to have done all the arduous things, and I am just tying up loose ends, although there is enough there I felt I wanted to pace myself by just doing one country per session. It is interesting working on a semi-modern text and touring through the various countries. I have been taking the opportunity to clean up the '04 image information as well and making sure the countries have portals and categories as I go through them. I have also found that for this publication at archive.org, the DJVU images seem to be as high quality as the scans at archive.org, which is unusual in my experience, however the quality from both sources isn't that great. Library Guy (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps an OCR errorEdit

Hi, I was puzzled by a plant name mentioned at The_New_Student's_Reference_Work/Viburnum, "The lamestinus, a native of southern Europe". I don't know if there is any way that I could check this myself, so I'm asking you to please check. Should that be "laurustinus"? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I imagine laurustinus was meant, but the original says "lamestinus." I put a note on the article. My Google search on "lamestinus" throws back six items, four of which are derived from NSRW, another is the garbled name of the ship "Lamestinas", and another is "laurestinus" garbled. For this article, you can check yourself by clicking on the page number to the left in the margin. That brings up the whole page, with the transcribed text to the left and the page image to the right. With the encyclopedias, it sometimes helps to get an enlarged version of the image, and that can be obtained by clicking the "image" tab at the top. Library Guy (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks muchEdit

Thank you for your help with formatting at We Stand with Ahmed - and We Hope He'll Join Us for Astronomy Night.

Much appreciated,

-- Cirt (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

New user needing EB1911 guidanceEdit

Hi. Bellerophon5685 (talkcontribs) has been undertaking EB1911 work for a little while, and they are working with an unknown source directly to the main namespace. I have pointed them in direction of the EB1911 project and linked to a scan for vol. 28, though an experienced hand in the peculiarities of EB1911 might do well giving a hand. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I can help if Bellerophon5685 is interested. Pointing Bellerophon5685 to the EB1911 project which has pointers to samples seems like the best approach. Library Guy (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this? I've uploaded the figure images at Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

What do you want from me? I enjoyed working on the World Factbook, and the Practical Designer is kind of interesting. Traffic signs don't interest me that much. Library Guy (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. Know anyone else that does images? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Not really. Maybe you can check out some illustrated works at Wikisource and see who's uploading the images at Commons. Thanks for your help on Rural Hours. I look forward to working on the 1990 Factbook when I'm through with the Designer. Library Guy (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Symbol missing templateEdit

There is {{Symbol missing}} when you can't figure out what to put in a spot. It leaves the page categorized so it can be found by other people. In this case, the COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER E has been in Unicode since 2002.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Author pagesEdit

Hi. Over the past couple of years, with the advent of wikidata and its capabilities, we have updated the means for constructing author pages. There is no requirement to add wikilinks locally, nor to add images. If you know the wikipedia page exists you can create the author page basics, once saved following the "search Wikidata" link, and add the "author:page name" link in the Wikisource interwiki space. I believe that this information is reflected on the information about creating author pages. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Mary Baker EddyEdit

I'm validating pages you worked on, and I ran across something I've never seen before. On Page:The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy.djvu/57, you have coded ## part1 ## and ## part2 ## on that page. I have no idea what that means, since on the original image, I see nothing that is a break. Can you clarify, please? Maile66 (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad Scriptorium was able to help. I never see the pound signs, and only work with section tags (see the end of the "Wiki markup" menu). In this case, these are very helpful in allowing me to insert illustrations gracefully when I go to transclude. Library Guy (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Mixed Appletons'Edit

Hi. Just looking at Template:Appletons' Volumes and there we have a mixture of editions in the volumes. Is there not a complete set of the one edition available? Mixing the editions like that isn't going to give us a neat capacity to transcribe and produce a cogent set. :-(   — billinghurst sDrewth 14:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I would have liked to, but my recollection is a set all from one year was not available, at least from archive.org. I think I finally just tried to get the latest year available for each volume. The years build on each other, and when multiple editions for a year are available, I note any differences if I know about them for a particular person. So the Wikisource transcription tries to find cogency by tracing the changes in the article for a particular person through the lifetime of the effort. This is mostly necessary for living persons. If an earlier bio had less info, this isn't noted, but often an earlier version will have a bit of additional info because the editors often deleted info at the beginning so more current news could be included later without radically changing the type layout. I think it is a workable approach since the lifetime of ACAB wasn't terribly long. Library Guy (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Just letting you know that this page already exists under the correct name of Cyclopedia of Painting/Index. -Einstein95 (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Library Guy (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

images and scansEdit

Hi. I have been working on the images for two of 'your' books. I know that ownership is not the tradition on wikimedia projects but respectfully working with people, some ownership should be acknowledged. Truly, I was working on the images already -- it was not a case of "oh those have got to go" at all. I ran into one where you had done some additional color adjustments on. I used that image to start my presentation about my problems with some of the scans. All from the California scans, perhaps those ending with ala.

The presentation is at the commons commons:File talk:SFR color - onager.jpg

If there is a good way to fix it or adjust for it, I have not yet found it. I would really like to know what the problem is with these. Been thinking and thinking about them. Is it the scanner? Is it a broken color profile somewhere changing things at some point along the chain from there to here? Is it a trap for a sound mind to become unsound in? And more!!

Also, I have occasionally uploaded over your files and wondered if mine were actually an improvement.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I like your color adjustments. My work on color is pretty hit or miss. I think the original scans in this case were too strange in their colors to ignore, but I really was not always that successful in improving them. I hadn't noticed The Swiss Family Robinson (Kingston), but I did run across your work on Rural Hours. There I thought the scans had reasonable colors, and I made no attempt to adjust the colors, but your improvements I think get closer to the original vibrancy of the illustrations. Thank you. I have trouble getting something reasonable with maps on NIE, CNE, EB9, EB11, and the color illustrations can be challenging on the first two. The originals are always pretty drab, mostly due to the age of the printing I think. Library Guy (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Rural Hours are great images. I think she captured the look of the birds in the sunlight which is entirely different than how they look in the overcast or stuffed in the display cabinet. But (I think but do not know) there is some chemical drift among the ink. The same thing that turns the buff paper pink is turning some of the blacks and purples green. I am not (yet) sure of a definitive way to adjust for that.
Those map images I looked at seem to be having the "pink drift" also. That pink is from acidic paper, if what I learned from the scrapbookers is true. Also, perhaps, the song "Little Pink Houses" is also as much about this pink drift and the 21st century middle class as it is about actually having lived in those houses. I am taking a little break from plants and birds, and maps are neither!
I can go on and on about old scans tho'. I saw a great photograph on the commons, of a bird; looked at it full-sized and decided that the horrible softness was due to it being a scan of one of those older matte finishes that was kind of pebbly -- and I was so wrong. It was a high ISO setting which I cannot readily remember what that means except for what I saw. Perhaps the greatest wrongs are simply due to what was being thought about previously by the observer.
It would be nice if a way could be determined to get layered xcfs here or at least into some easily accessed versioning system.
You've got great (some of my) taste in books!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Looking at that work, we haven't transcluded the pages

All look reasonable to include in some form. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. These are all now transcluded. Library Guy (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Polytonic versus Greek templateEdit

Hi - nice work in proofing EB1911. I just thought I'd mention there was a discussion a while back here Template talk:Greek about Greek templates. Although the "Polytonic" and "Greek" templates are similar, Polytonic produces more reliable (i.e. a more authentic to EB1911) representation of those fonts. When using the "Greek" template, I found it depends on which fonts are installed on the PC, Polytonic did a better job when viewing Greek text on different PCs. The "Polytonic fonts" template has fewer fonts, only those that do a good job of displaying Ancient Greek. Regards. DivermanAU (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes I will most likely move over to polytonic. Just mental inertia. Library Guy (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I have just finished proofreading the index from this work that you had created, if you would like to validate it. In addition, if you would like to create some images, the plates from this work still need to be created, if you’re interested. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC).

Nice job on the index. I don't have much patience with the indexes, and I'll leave it to someone else to validate. The images of your work are nice, but I already have enough work in this vein. RaboKarbakian did some nice color corrections on The Swiss Family Robinson (Kingston) and Rural Hours and might be interested in your project. Library Guy (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

EB1911 untranscluded pagesEdit

Hi. Just running a check on volume 5 shows numbers of pages untranscluded, some in the middle of articles. If you could have a look, that would be great;l if unable, then please ping me and I will see what I can work out. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

and similar in volume 8 [[2]. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I looked into it. The reason seems to be articles that don't use transclusion, for which transcluded versions need to be substituted. These occur many places on the EB1911 project, and I deal with them occasionally as I run into them, but I'm concentrating on PALAEOGRAPHY and TUNICATA these days. The transcription is the main priority for me, and transcluded is the best, but as long as the article provides good information, I can live with it. I think in vol. 8, Laverock mechanically transcribed the whole volume using Gutenberg, but must have skipped transcluding the ones which had already been handled without transclusion. If we're lucky he only skipped the ones that were marked with tq=75%. I can go after Calvin at some point. Hopefully the existing Wikisource material was copied into the Page: transcriptions. If not, I will weigh which version is higher quality. I've seen pretty wretched material on the Pages and in the non-transcluded articles, more often in the non-transcluded articles, since many times people just dumped stuff there, but occasionally so-called proofread Pages can be pretty wretched. I guess your utility isn't going to catch partially transcluded Pages? Library Guy (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Page checker is designed to look at whether a page is transcluded or not (binary check), it isn't possible to check the amount. It was set to check for "Ooops" scenarios and it has been useful for that purpose.

For what you want, we have to check the individual pages within EB1911. That should be possible by other means by running a check of the pages for the pages transclusion syntax. It would iterating through the text, though we can presumably get a bot job running for that. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

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

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

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

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

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

Changing section tags - reminderEdit

Hi Library Guy, just a reminder that when changing section tags on pages like this Page:EB1911 - Volume 15.djvu/635 that you update the relevant article(s). Your edit to that page on 22 July broke the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Jüterbog article, which I've now fixed. Nice work on converting to transclusion on other articles. regards, DivermanAU (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for catching this. Visions of Buckminster Fuller's Jitterbug must have led me astray. I also moved your nicely-done fig. 5 to Page:EB1911 - Volume 15.djvu/635 from the previous page. This must be a Gutenberg artifact? In this case it was easy to find a space for it on the correct page, which is not always true. Thanks for doing this article; it took other pressing concerns to keep me from doing it. Library Guy (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Line breaksEdit

Umm... why are you adding them? This isn't poetry, can you please not? BethNaught (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

For me, line breaks (not added, they were in the original OCR right?) make it easier to proofread. Globbing stuff makes italics and some other things easier, but proofing is job one. When I have to find a place in my proofread text corresponding to the page image, it is easier when the line breaks are there. I find especially punctuation gets handled more accurately. But you are exceptionally good at proofing and apparently like it globbed, which is a mystery to me. I found no problems in the page of yours I proofread. I hope the style sheets do not encourage globbing. Gutenberg doesn't glob stuff, and the current style on EB1911 seems to be to leave the line breaks. Certainly it is my style in the things I am proofing. Perhaps line breaks are especially useful in dense text like EB1911? I guess it requires a certain style which is not familiar to you. In Wikipedia everything gets globbed, but proofreading isn't really an issue there. Wikisource is not Wikipedia. In Evangeline, I remember I needed to go through and tweak some things which weren't getting formatted right. If you are used to a few habits for proofing with retained line breaks, globbing isn't necessary at all. I certainly didn't create any problems for the page of yours I validated; what's the big deal for you? Library Guy (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

In my discussion above, I forgot a really substantial problem, which is a problem with the wiki software I think (maybe there's a work around?). The problem I have when people glob my stuff is I can't tell what changes they've made. And perhaps this is the same problem you have when I unglob your stuff? The wiki software needs work here I think, but maybe there's a way to get around the default differencing technology used to compare versions (do I need to look harder at my Preferences?). I know in UNIX it is not a problem. Library Guy (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

On my personal preferences, perhaps I might be more efficient if I left them in; I don't know, as I've always followed the norm of removing them (TemplateScript makes this, and several other fixes, very easy), and I've just got used to keeping my place on two "pages" at the same time.
As has previously been pointed out to you, removing line breaks is the recommended best practice in our help pages, e.g. Help:Beginner's guide to typography and Help:Formatting conventions. I know you disagree with this, and as usual on Wikisource, editors have latitude to deviate from such guidelines. I don't object to you keeping line breaks on works you proofread, or on collaborations where that is the convention.
However, when you validating an already-proofread text, the norm is that we should respect the formatting of the original contributor, unless there is a good reason not to. I don't see how readding the line breaks fits that, for three reasons:
  1. It's against the "official" recommendations.
  2. It takes up time; you have to scan through the page looking for the end of each line, then go through a second time to proofread. (I assume this is how it works, as if you did it in one pass you wouldn't get the benefit of the line breaks. Perhaps this investment is worth it for you though.)
  3. It makes a "dirty diff". You're checking my work, but your work also needs to be checkable. With both methods, a full proofread is needed to answer the question "did they miss any errors?". However, changing as little as possible makes it much easier to check "did they add in any errors?". Additionally, it seems to me, the more changes you make, the higher the likelihood of accidental damage to the text.
The last of these is particularly important to me. It has happened with other works (not you with Evangeline!) that validators have added more mistakes to my texts than they fixed. Therefore I like clean diffs to check that hasn't happened. Conversely, if I can easily see any mistakes I made, it lets me know if I've got sloppy, or if there's a systemic problem with my work that I can fix. BethNaught (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Your last paragraph is on point, but I don't really want to redraft. I'm not aware of any workaround! BethNaught (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

You are right, it does take more time to restore the line breaks, but it makes me more deliberate in comparing the text to the original page image, and when the text is globbed I find it's easy to forget the connection to the page image when validating. I can relate to your concern about people introducing problems when they validate. The globbers tend to paste words together if they are not careful. I will look and see if there is a preferences option. If there's not, there should be. I can't see that it would be that difficult to handle. Like I said, in Linux/UNIX it is not a big deal to get better differencing information in these situations, and it shouldn't be in Wikisource. Library Guy (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC) For my part, as an unglobber, I occasionally find myself clipping a word or entire lines; nothing that I've committed I hope. Library Guy (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

So I checked my preferences, and there seems to be no workaround. To me it seems like a deficiency in the wiki software. The regular behavior should be to show text differences regardless of changes in format. This seems just a Wikisource issue. Globbing seems a natural in Wikipedia, so the issue never comes up, but we see here that editors can have preferences either way. I find it much easier and more effective to proofread text with line breaks against a printed page, and as a reader who wants to make a quick check against the source, I find line breaks facilitate things. Library Guy (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC) With that last remark I should concede though, that probably, as a reader, I end up making my quick check from globbed text, so the line breaks don't seem so necessary there. Library Guy (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Another check I made was to re-enter my edit, but change a word this time, and the wiki software did not flag the word change when I did "show changes." It really ought to flag the word change, as well as show the globbing or unglobbing. Library Guy (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying earlier—I appreciate your thoughtful responses—I just had some IRL stuff come up that drained my bandwidth.
Your last point is very interesting. It's the mirror of the issue I encounter when I go to validate a work that was proofread with line breaks. If I remove them, it doesn't show me the difference in individual words either.
While mulling this over, I remembered that VisualEditor has a visual diff tool. You can enable it as a beta feature, or to use it on a single diff page you can append &visualdiff&diffmode=visual to the URL. For example, your edit that I complained about looks like this, showing that no errors were introduced. You can see the replacement of spaces by line breaks, but it's inline of the displayed paragraph.
I enabled the beta feature to give it a go. It doesn't require the visual editor beta feature (which is possibly a good thing as I have no idea how well the ProofreadPage extension is supported by VE at the moment), and it seems to remember the last diff mode you used when you navigate to a new diff. I'll be leaving it enabled in case of future such events; unfortunately it doesn't work for checking your work in the source editor before you save.
This is an interesting tool; it's useful for checking others, but not for checking yourself before you save (in source mode). Also Wikisource can sometimes rely on markup, for example {{hwe}} and {{hws}}, so neither diff gives you everything you need. BethNaught (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I just use the non-visual editor since its what I'm used to, and somehow I've gotten the idea that the visual editor is more friendly to globbing than to my favored style of editing. Isn't it the same in Wikisource and Wikipedia? I think the two platforms have different needs. The feature you discuss sounds interesting, and I will try it out at some point. Library Guy (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

We sent you an e-mailEdit

Hello Library Guy,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hebrew diacriticsEdit

Hi, just thought I'd mention I have found a great tool for adding Hebrew diacritics; see this webpage https://www.lexilogos.com/keyboard/hebrew.htm which allows easy creating/editing of Hebrew text including diacritics. I recently edited this page Page:EB1911 - Volume 16.djvu/535, copied the existing Hebrew text and and added diacritics. I use the high-res scans e.g. https://archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabri16chisrich#page/515/mode/1up to see which diacritics to use. I check transliteration using transliterate.com. regards, DivermanAU (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see them used on EB1911, but maybe you are referring to other projects? Library Guy (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Definitely used in EB1911 (not every Hebrew word has diacritics though). On the page I mentioned above, an example is סֵפֶר קָרְבָּנִים‎ which transliterates as "sēper qārbānîm". Without diacritics ספר קרבנים‎ transliterates as "spr qrbnym". Easier to see on the high-res scan at archive.org when zoomed in.—DivermanAU (talk) 04:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
OK. I guess I've been ignoring them. Just the basic characters give me trouble. Thank you for going over the Hebrew on Leviticus. I try to grab something off of Wikipedia when I can. My recollection is the Wikipedia stuff has had diacritics and the EB1911 target has not, but obviously this is not the case with Leviticus and Priest, two articles I have worked on. Thanks for letting me know about the tool. I definitely need help as far as Hebrew is concerned. Library Guy (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hyphenation templatesEdit

Hi, not sure if you're aware, but the {{hws}} and {{hwe}} templates are no longer needed in ordinary circumstances. (There are still cases involving footnotes that span pages that do necessitate them.) I removed one here, just wanted to explain why. Let me know if there's something I've missed, and there's a reason to include them. -Pete (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

No I wasn't aware of this. Thanks for letting me know. Library Guy (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: I tried to improve the documentation for these templates to make it clear which cases are now handled automatically. I imagine boldface is handled OK as well, but I didn't stick my neck out on that one. Library Guy (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Democracy in AmericaEdit

Please remember to always add a suitable license template to any work we host. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the editor who did add the license. I will be more careful in the future. Library Guy (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Nearly 5000 pages of Epub! o_OEdit

I think this is probably the biggest Epub Wikisource has ever produced: somewhere from ~5000 to ~7000 pages depending on screen/font size! https://i.ibb.co/sCjrhhf/2021-04-06-180202-953x1153-screenshot.png Good going! Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. It was a winter project. I find Schurz's papers are interesting just for the way they were assembled: not just his own stuff but letters he got from others. And the index which provides summaries of his major speeches is a good supplement to the table of contents which summarizes the letter contents. I'm sure I will continue to learn from it as I integrate it into other Wikisource material. From reading a recent Henry Adams biography I think this must be relatively small compared to the papers of major figures like former presidents, like John Adams and John Quincy Adams. Library Guy (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Please would you follow the local disambiguation style, which is based on dates of life. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Deprecated PD-1923 and PD/1923Edit

Hi. The community migrated these two templates to

as we have moved beyond 1923 in terms of the 95 years of copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Thanks for your efforts to educate me on the author pages. I seem to be doing a lot of them lately. It has been awhile since I have done it this intensely. I like using a plain "About" to head the section of information on works about the author. I notice you like to have the name of the author as part of the section title. Having a standard label, as in "Works," I find makes it easier to clue in my software as well as being easier to type, and who the subject is I think is obvious. Library Guy (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

No issue. Things change around us and if we are not looking at the discussions, then they can slip through. Otherwise aligning to guidance for author pages. Typically I am on maintenance duty to get years of life, etc. on the pages and interlinked to WD. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

line breaksEdit

removing soft line breaks is important for the last paragraph on each page. (it breaks the transclusion of the paragraph). in addition, italics and bold do not continue to the next line. so you are making more work adding more typographic code. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 21:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Slowking4: Thanks for your response. Removing line breaks is not necessary for the last paragraph. Having line breaks does not break the transclusion. In Page: mode, the formatting in the last paragraph can be disturbed if there is something in the footer and you don't precede the footer material with a line break. This is the reason for putting a blank line before {{smallrefs}} etc. in the footer. Proofreading I see as the primary task on Wikisource, and that means comparing the electronic text with the printed text (not just running a spell checker), and having the line breaks, to my mind, facilitates this immensely. The extra formatting work needed for line breaks is minimal. Library Guy (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

As an example of how line breaks don't impede successful transclusion, see 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Spoonbill. The last paragraph of p. 733 preserves all the line breaks, and the transcluded article displays fine. Page 733 displays fine as well, but if the blank line is removed in the footer, the display of the last paragraph gets messed up. Library Guy (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)