Hello, Midnightdreary, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here. If you need help, see our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). You can discuss or ask questions from the community in general at the Scriptorium. The Community Portal lists tasks you can help with if you wish. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. —Benn Newman (AMDG) 01:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

'See also' sections


Hello Midnightdreary. I've removed the 'see also' section you added to Poe's The Raven, since all editorial notes must be in the {{header}} template's 'notes' parameter. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 05:10:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on "See also" sections. I was tentative while I was adding it because I had a feeling it wasn't the right way to go. Now I know for sure... thanks again! --Midnightdreary 05:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
You're welcome. Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:29:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)



I see you doing a lot of work on w:James Russell Lowell today, and thought I'd point out that he was the w:Second cousin of this week's Collaboration of the Week - come help us collect the documents and writings of another famous Lowell from the same family this week - just follow my signature! :) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Percival Lowell 22:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Page name disparity with title


Thanks for the contribution. At the page Gloria Mundi, the title that you use in the header is different from the page name. If this is purposeful, it would be worth noting the difference within the Notes or on the talk page. Thanks. -- billinghurst (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's not - just an error in my lackadaisical copy-and-paste job! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply



Hi. You might like to have a look at Tamerlane and other poems (1884). You changed some of the navigational stuff I was doing, I put a description of what I did and why on Talk. I think it the simplest solution, could you let me know your thoughts. Cygnis insignis (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I looked. I responded there. Don't know what you mean. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
What you did is one way of doing [it], placing each version on the author page and in the categories, but my interim arrangement had the link to all the [current] versions. The 1884 version was made less accessible as a consequence. The discussion has revealed new details, the link to that is Talk:Tamerlane. Cygnis insignis (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC) [corrections 11:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)]Reply
I am having trouble seeing anything that I've done which might have made the 1884 version harder to access. Could you please provide a "diff" link? From what I've seen, all I've done that had impact on these versions of "Tamerlane" are fix a capitalization error in a link (which resulted in a redirect to the page I directly linked it to), added (not removed) categories, fix wording (with no links), and link the 1827 Tamerlane and Other Poems index directly to the 1827 version of "Tamerlane." I don't see what was not appropriate or what was harmful. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
You added the categories to the versions, but removed them from the versions page (here). You showed two versions at the author page, and removed the link under 'poems' on the versions page (here). 'Not appropriate' or 'harmful' are your words, not mine, your intention is not being questioned. Perhaps your view is that only the original edition and Tamerlane (1845) should be included, not all versions; I'm not suggesting that this 'wrong', I'm trying to outline the consequences of that. My intention was to demonstrate the model that makes the user aware of the options by only including the versions page at the author page and the categories. Combined with the discussion at this section's title, I don't know how to make it any clearer than this. Since posting here, I have been informed that the 1827 is in fact Shepherd's 1884 version of the same; these are not identical, the variations are listed at Tamerlane and other poems (1884)#13. Cygnis insignis (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm still all kinds of confused. Both those links you show are me adding - not removing. My understanding is to link to disambig pages as sparingly as possible. If you're concerned other versions can't easily be found, add "other versions" links to the pages, just like everyone else does. I didn't realize we were reinventing the wheel here. It's all pretty standard. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I corrected the link, the summary was "Removed categories; format heading a bit". If we have a versions page, why exclude it? Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Right. A disambig page should not have categories other than the disambig category. Then each version of the work has a link to the versions page at the top. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Why should a versions page not have categories? Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
That's just how it's done. My guess is that, since the page is just a jumping off point to other pages, it is not technically a work in its own right (it was neither published in 1827 nor 1884, so it would not be categorized as such). See Category:Disambiguation pages. I'd be surprised if you found one that works differently. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
By the way, this WS:STYLE#Disambiguation_pages also says that we just need to put the other versions link on each of the versions. I think once that's done, you'll find that it accomplishes what you want it to. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The 'standard practice' was to have one page changing to whatever source the user has, then reverted by another who source is different. The guideline says to put the similar tag on each, I don't see a problem with that, it doesn't mention categories. If a user puts Tamerlane in a search, they arrive at the versions page. There is no reason not to give the same direct path to versions from the categories and the author page. The former would not necessarily list the versions together, and make them much larger, the latter would have to list every version of a poem. Bear in mind that this is not the same as the other place, which has one article w:Tamerlane (poem). An advantage is the patch it provides to Al Aaraaf, Tamerlane and Minor Poems, which purports to be a table of contents. Cygnis insignis (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I have no idea what your first sentence means. No, the guideline doesn't explicitly mention the categories concern, but it seems that the well-established practice is not to include them. I'm not trying to go against the grain here, that's all. Are you talking about the author page now too? I can't keep up but, no, I don't see a problem linking multiple versions from the author page, as I have done before (Tamerlane has two version, it lists the Valley of Unrest twice, and The Haunted Palace in its earlier version as well). I'm supposed to "bear in mind" some other place? What place? Where? --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The author page, and a link for another document's ambiguous reference to a text. This is mentioned in my first post at Tamerlane's talk. I don't see many effective collations of versions in the Author:namespace, it is much simpler to link each of them. The other place is given in the link: wikipedia has one page for the poem, this site has many. Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I still don't get ya. Much simpler to link each what from where? I thought the author page was linking them? What the hell is an "effective collation"? --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Let's end the discussion here and keep it all together at Talk:Tamerlane so others can participate. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

table of contents


Pages like Graham's Magazine are problematic and misleading, we don't have the versions listed there. It appears you create these pages to mention the fact of an early publication, however, the purpose of mainspace pages is to display content, or contextual links, or indeed the absence of original content as redlinks. I've tried a few times to illuminate the problems of having one tale or poem linked from multiple 'tables of content', but once again:

  • We do not have pages of 'Graham's Magazine'.
  • We do have Tales, 1846. London: Wiley and Putnam.


Unless you see a better way of doing things, I plan to continue unlinking these type of pages and request that you don't make any more.

BTW: I reckon you would be interested in parts of The Raven; with literary and historical commentary, if you haven't seen it before, Cygnis insignis (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think I had intended to put up all the Graham's versions when I first created it or, more likely, to use it as a nice complement to the Graham's article at Wikipedia (for a time, I was hoping to bring it up to GA quality). I'm not good with these sorts of table of content pages so whatever is needed to fix it... otherwise, I'm sure it's okay to delete entirely. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Addendum: I realize that I had made that page shortly after purchasing a couple years' worth of copies of Graham's for my personal library, so it's likely I had a vague idea of actually transcribing those issues. Also, "it appears you create these pages" - feel free to remind me what other pages are like this that I have created. I don't recall any. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Consider these suggested changes to something you are currently working on, how it may save you some effort and allow other to verify, improve, and expand on your contributions. I noticed you busily adding some poems, so I grabbed a scan of the book. I would be happy to set up a scan index for any work if requested. I made some changes using this scan, changing the page for the 'book' and one poem.

The comment continues "... to mention the fact". This comes down to how we handle the title and the work. The difference between this version and the earlier one is the title and page numbers of the source, there is also a tab at the top that links to the scan index. The page was previously factual and provided a means of the navigating to the content, but is was not a transcription of part of the work. The actual table of contents is in a comment out, a transcription rather than a newly created and factual list of titles

Other pages of the book contain poems, these also have titles! If the intent is to add "On a Book of Sea-Mosses" to Wikisource then using that as the title in the header template is only somewhat problematic, though unlkely to be ambiguous. My changes to that page include adding page numbers (context), restored the title (content), and allow anyone to check I got it right or fix it if I didn't. A different approach would be to begin transcribing the book, each part - its poems, preface, dedication, table of contents, titles - can be complete and useful even if the whole book is not complete. It has immediate and future benefits in building a library, here is an example: I recently made a link from Poe's reference in "Eureka" to "Murders in the Rue Morgue, page 133", I realised this must be a page number in Tales - if the current Wikisource practices had not been applied to that book I could not have (easily) made that link. Earlier Wikisource practices accomplished a lot, but they have become unworkable as the site expands. If the title becomes a subpage of its 'parent' title, Poems (Fields)/On a Book of Sea-Mosses, there are numerous advantages to all concerned.

I think the key points are these,
  • Add the poem or the book. The latter is preferable, even if incomplete.
  • Don't omit content, don't substitute it with new content.
  • Obtain a scan where possible, or ask me do it.
  • Please consider using subpages. The title is the edition.
I don't wish to distract you from your contributions, but I hope some coherent guidelines can emerge from our discussion. Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Can you provide a link to these policies? I have trouble understanding why there are small battles over formatting or page naming but it would be easier to see where the standards are stated. For example, I didn't realize that scanned works were required or even preferred. As for "allowing others" to fix things, I always provide a link to my source if it's available on Google books; I assumed that was enough. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
We are pretty light with policies and guidelines, the ones I can link are the ones I have changed; I would encourage you have a say on how they are shaped. Moving scans here allows users to easily check and fix things, but giving that link is 'enough'. Formatting is nice, it helps the reader, titles are important for lots of reasons; the standards are what works for users against what doesn't.


I tried emulating the formatting for the Sea-Mosses poem on Fair Wind but failed horribly. Is there a page that shows some of the templating cues, formatting characters, etc?
Those are also being developed, I'm planning a help page on formatting poetry. Help:Editing and Wikisource:Style guide gives some clues, trial and error is how I found solutions. Use templates like you use the poems tags: {{smaller|some text}} makes some text, make multiple lines a centered block with {{center}}. You might like to put {{float center|<poem> at the start and </poem>}} at the end. I use a trick that merges two tables together, I can try to show you how if you like the result.
It also occurs to me that the text is already there - how does that happen? Does that mean I've been wasting time typing all this stuff in myself? --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
The 'text layer' is added when the page is first edited, this is generated by ocr. Yes, you have :( Cygnis insignis (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
That's okay, I guess I enjoy trying it old school; at least I got to enjoy the poems! I'll try to read up on those links and get a better idea for this system so thank you for giving them. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
No worries, will have a look. I finished updating Eureka: A Prose Poem, by the way, and found a couple of missing bits. Let me know if you can think of anything that deserves the effort and I'll prepare an page scan index for it. Cygnis insignis (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
So... {{Gap}} has a width parameter, with <br/> I can do away with the poem tag. If the verse is more than one page long I replace {{Float center}} with table headers and footers (virtually the same thing) so I can control the line spacing. If you use the [+] button you will see the noinclude sections. I put all the table headers and footers in these except at the beginning and end of the poem, this pulls it all together when it is transcluded.

I'm still trying to come up with a simple way to explain this, its easy when you have done it before :P Cygnis insignis (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm having trouble figuring it out; mostly I'm just copying and pasting based on what I've seen you do, but I'm definitely not catching the subtle differences. I'm impressed with what I have been able to do though! Hopefully it'll make more sense over time. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
brrr - morbid and effective! Anyway ... The method works well when the formatting is complicated, best of all when a poem is quoted in regular formatted text. By the way, we now have a | year = parameter you can use in the header - it adds a category automatically. Cygnis insignis (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Reply