Welcome

Hello, Shenme, 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! Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Reference markers, etc.Edit

Hi, in answer to your question about replicating the * † etc. reference markers used in some printed works. It was a decision made many years ago here to use only wikirefs and thereby to standardise the presentation of references, footnotes and endnotes. For more info see Help:Footnotes and endnotes.

With respect to your other ponders on Page:Natural History, Fishes.djvu/231, the Style guide gives information on ellipses and dashes. The strong preference is to use the characters.

For typographical errors that require noting to the reader use {{SIC|wrong spelling|correct spelling}}. The wrong spelling will display with a light grey underline. Hovering the mouse will reveal the correct spelling. e.g. leearn

Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Caption formattingEdit

Hello. Stumbled across your edit summary question, and I tweaked the formatting for the missing image caption at this page. Hope you are enjoying editing Wikisource. Lots of contributors available to help/give suggestions, etc. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I noticed you have been formatting using {{smaller|{{smaller in captions. If it is your intention to make the lettering smaller than {{smaller}}, then we have {{x-smaller}} &c. I used {{smaller block}} in my edit to the page linked to above in order to achieve the single line space you were looking for, among other reasons. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. And thanks for the explanation about block. I had seen something like that done by Jasonanaggie and didn’t know why they’d done that. I’ll look again.
Drat, edit conflict wiped my earlier reply, but that’s exactly what I was asking, about the smaller&smaller. Thanks.
But it’s small bits like this, that make me wish there were suggestions or standards under the index talk page, to allow newbies to conform comfortably. After all, each project/book has its subtle oddities… :-) Shenme (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Each work certainly does have its own oddities! Good insight. The ideal is to match the original as faithfully as possible, keeping in mind we do not have the same limitations found in physical copies of books (where typesetting, etc. is concerned). Much is learned "on the job" here, but there is good guidance to be found. You are always welcome to begin establishing formatting guidelines yourself at the Index talk page. If others come along to edit, it would be good for them to have such guidance so formatting can be uniform throughout the text. Consistency is key. Often, you will find different ways to format the same text. Sometimes there are good technical justifications for certain methods of formatting, and sometimes the choice is merely a matter of opinion as to what formatting is "best" to use... Look/ask around... Find what works, and works for you. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

ValidatingEdit

On Wikisource, we mark pages as "Validated" only when all aspects of the page have been corrected. If a page is missing an image, we mark the page as "Problematic", even though we might make corrections to the text. We work this way so that people who edit images can find those pages the require the addition of an image. If a page is "Validated", we assume the image has already been put into place. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Ahhh… I thought I’d been diverted/elated by finding a separate problem on /37, but I did that goof twice. So, thanks for looking out for mistakes. Shenme (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Index lines with multiple page refsEdit

Thanks for pointing this out. It seems that the line breaks (which I introduced) caused problems with the index formatting. I have reverted them to spaces.--Keith Edkins (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

DMMEdit

Hi, I see you're getting involved in A Dictionary of Music and Musicians. The only style guide I've been following for the past 9 years while slowly working on this is detailed at WS:WikiProject DMM.

To answer some of your questions/ponders on User:Shenme/admmv1:

  • List of contributors is already transcluded at A Dictionary of Music and Musicians/List of Contributors
  • {{larger}} is very rare for me to have used in the Dictionary
  • My intention for populating author pages with the articles is once all article pages are proofread and then transcluded, I will then proofread the last few pages in Vol. 4 (The Catalogue) and then transclude the sections from that into the author pages. The reason for waiting is that I'm still not sure what all the articles will actually be called.
  • We don't use "curly quotes" at enWS by policy
  • For the variations in {{rh}} formatting—this is very minor as these are never seen by the general reader after transclusion. If the same word is at the top of both columns, I haven't bothered typing it twice. However, the option with the page number centred is wrong.
  • Collapse all linebreaks within paragraphs immediately. I use a cleanup script that deals with them in one go.
  • Column breaks are not required to be marked—they are a printer's artefact and aren't reproduced in the electronic medium.
  • Section markers. I see from your notes that you're using the so-called "Easy LST" gadget. I think it's turned on by default. I don't use it because it adds complexities to what Help:Transclude calls Advanced Transclusion. As a result I use the <section begin=XXX />Blah<section end=XXX /> structure rather than strewing double-# markers around.
  • In terms of what to use in a section name, the simple answer is: as much as is necessary to be unique for the page(s) on which an article is found. A more complex answer for DMM is that I've been using enough to make sense for whoever is coming behind me to validate.
  • Smallcaps should be used whenever and only whenever the article prints them. This is pretty much restricted to Christian names and internal references to other articles.
  • On the whole misspellings are rare in the DMM. I have only marked with {{{1}}} those that would change the meaning of a sentence.
  • With respect to scores, I would prefer them all to be Lilypond, but there are a few (in Category:DMM pages with score problems) that are defying me at present and we may have to resort to image files in the end.

When transcluding articles, I've set up a special version of the header template called {{DMM}}. Documentation is there on what the fields mean.

That's probably enough to be going on with. I'm watching this page, so feel free to ask me further questions here (or ask for clarifications where I've been too brief in my comments). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


Thank you for your attention. My motivation comes from wishing others avoid the confused search for simple truths, or worse for the project, the need to repair their wrong assumptions. I took up fun here at another project with no style guidelines, and now I see the post-processors undoing various attempts at fidelity. And they’re even jamming in curlies. Confounding that…
A combined master list of contributors all in one page is exactly the kind of greasing the ways that is appreciated by the passing editor. But then, it should be easily locatable/identifiable by that occasional editor.
As a non-expert in most everything, I bring few biases and, more wonderfully, many confusions. Thus I will come up stupid questions which answers might help others. For instance, in the attributions, should the initials be formatted by their sometimes appearance as "R.H.M.B." or, as I suspect, as "R. H. M. B.", and always the latter, for readability. In fact, I’d want to make it so easy for newcomers/occasionals that I’d want to have a list somewhere for the editors like:
{{right|[ [[Author:Addison_F._Andrews|A. F. A.]] ]}}
{{right|[ [[Author:Carl_Armbruster|C. A.]] ]}}
{{right|[ [[Author:David_Baptie|D. B.]] ]}}
usw. so they could just copy-n-paste. Make it so brains are used little for ’how to’ and more for the text.
Being stupid, insane, and sometimes energetic can be useful to others, if directed well. Let’s hope the energy holds out - the rest is incurable. Shenme (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
My intention was to put spaces between all the initials in the contributor attributions, regardless of how any individual article might display them. Consistency is important here. Having said that, it's quite likely that I've missed a few and left them unspaced. And I'm happy for the Esq. to be moved out of the links for E. D. et al.
I'm a firm believer when training/mentoring that the only stupid questions are the ones that aren't asked. Having lived and breathed DMM for 9 years means that at times I'm too close to the details to see the inconsistencies. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

pianoforteEdit

Best place is to look elsewhere in the same work to see what the editor has done: A Dictionary of Music and Musicians/Pianoforte --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, well in doing that I had found the other variations, "Piano-Forte" and "Piano-forte", though in vol 3, and perhaps in a topic referencing the revolutionary ’new’ instrument. I opted for the much more numerous version minus hyphen. I restrict search to just ’page’ and add intitle:"A Dictionary of …" and the keywords searched for. In another project this was useful as the terminology was rather idiosyncratic. Shenme (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

I thank you for notifying me of the error in the Preface to the bee treatise. I do not know why the {{bl}} does not call correctly in the transclusion; I hope that someone who has more knowledge on the matter would go through the index pages and correct the errors. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC).

@TE(æ)A,ea.: your attempt to use a single {{bl}} template across multiple pages is not going to work. Attempting to use <noinclude> on the closing braces is clever but will not fool the parser. You will need to simply split the text into two sections, ending one instance of {{bl}} at the end of one page and opening a new one at the start of the next page. See my fixes on page 43 and page 44. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

the scoreEdit

You did a nice job, at a quick glance. You should move it into place. If I move it into place, it will give the appearance that I know how to use the software and I don't want to leave a wrong message like that.

One of my biggest fears, since becoming involved with the world of software and its people and culture is that I show up unable to do what I have claimed or even guessed I could do. Asking me to move that is asking me to add fire to the stack of kindling which are my worse fears.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

links that work in some places....Edit

Introduction

I don't know if linking this way is helpful here, but it was really helpful with the Plates in the Botany of the Antarctic where separate publications were linked together.

I can provide a better example if you need it.

You are very thorough, especially compared to me. :) --RaboKarbakian (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Antony and CleopatraEdit

The title should display simply as "Antony and Cleopatra". The additional "(1921) Yale" in the pagename is to distinguish it from other works of the same or similar title, but is not part of the title itself and should not be displayed in the header. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


If you can do everything else, it's a simple matter for someone to come in afterwards and set up sections and such.

Both Xover and I are familiar with the series format standards for this work. Just notify one of us when you reach the end of an Act in the play, and we can set up the formatting. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I am just dropping in to do basic grunt-work, fleeing the world of people for the world of words. The concentration required here is... diverting. Shenme (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Very nicely done!Edit

Thank you for transcribing the table on this page. Something I wanted to do, but I didn't have the patience. Much more valuable in this format, though -- nicely done! (I think the image can be removed now, no?) -Pete (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, re: your edit summary here: Yes, a searchable/translatable/generally machine-readable caption is ideal. My process with images is: (1) Upload a high resolution, faithful version, loosely cropped (which permits a reuser to make their own edits if they like); then, (2) upload a tighter crop, eliminating the caption and unnecessary white space, and making other edits (straightening, converting to greyscale, removing moire, adjusting levels etc.) to the same file page. With this work, I'm trying to get step (1) done for all files before I make a dedicated effort to do (2); so in the meantime, I suggest putting the captions in by text at Wikisource, and eventually they will not be redundant when the Commons files have been fixed. -Pete (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Your questionEdit

In answer to your question The American Cyclopædia (1879)/Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von is an old page which has text transcribed directly into the mainspace. We no longer transcribe text directly into the mainspace, we now transclude text from the page namespace into the mainspace instead. The text now in the mainspace needs to be migrated into the page namespace page Page:The American Cyclopædia (1879) Volume VIII.djvu/73 and the relevant following pages and then transcluded back into the mainspace. In short: first proofread page 73 and the relevant following pages, and then transclude it to The American Cyclopædia (1879)/Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. (And bear in mind that a lot of articles are still completely missing from the mainspace). James500 (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

In answer to your other questions, the page Page:The American Cyclopædia (1879) Volume VIII.djvu/11 is perfectly fine, and just needs to be transcluded into the mainspace. The American Cyclopædia (1879)/Volume VIII: Glasgow - Hortense is a contents page we created ourselves because the volume lacks one. That contents page is presently incomplete, and the missing items (such as the list of contributors on page 11) need to be added as red links or blue links. James500 (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@James500: umm... ?
Is that correct? If so, could this understanding be put someplace others as confused as I could find for enlightenment? Shenme (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, that is basically how it works. You might find Help:Transclusion useful. James500 (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if either of you are aware of the Help:Match and split tools? When we have transcriptions of full works (to whatever degree they have been proofread), this process may be used to spread those transcriptions out, page by page, and permit one-page-at-a-time proofreading. This is the process I used to generate the individual pages, for instance, for The Afro-American Press and Its Editors, and a number of other works. It's imperfect, but it does permit building on past efforts to clean up OCR, rather than starting from scratch. -Pete (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

hi, i have taken the liberty to migrate your Goethe article to page space. i added the section tags to each page i.e. [1] and then used the transclusion code to stitch the pages together in article space, i.e. [2] there is more help about sections at Help:Labeled section transclusion and Help:Transclusion#How_to_transclude_a_portion_of_a_page. this is advanced topics, so it's ok to be confused. please leave me a note if you have further questions. cheers. Slowking4Rama's revenge 22:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Memories of OregonEdit

Hi, just wanted to let you know... our efforts at Index:History of Oregon volume 1.djvu have continued, but more slowly without your help. You are missed...though I realize you are doing excellent work elsewhere! -Pete (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: Yes, well it got somewhat oppressive/depressing. Getting away for awhile helps one process what it is that bothers. It crystalized later that this was a book somewhat like "Who's Who", but rather "Who was Who". How do you sell a book? Find an audience. Only a generation later, a book about immediate forebears could sell. Hence, along with the 'history' part of the book, we have every list that ever had peoples' names written on it. "Hey, let's get that book cuz it might be about uncle Elias (the old coot)!" "Hey, it says he got gold in California! Let's dig under his old shack and find his hidden gold!"
Then there were the revelations not sweet. The (real) author actually did explain well the infernal combination of abolitionists and slave-state emigrants who wrote into law that there be no slaves, but then no African-Americans either. The abolitionists hated slavery (yay) but had no love for former slaves (?!). The slave-state emigrants wanted no competition with cheap labor. This last showed up repeatedly later regarding Mexicans, Asians, Southern Europeans, etc. Again, the author did quite well laying this out while still not (directly) insulting the buying audience.
Similarly the author ventured to include much material about the ME missionaries that was non-complimentary. Since most (all?) of those individuals were dead, then no worries? There was at least one insight that I will not forget, and that I will be passing on to others. At one point he described an interaction between the upright missionaries and some 'acquaintances' from a few years before. The down-and-out mountaineers came into the promised land starving, but were turned away from the homes of the missionaries. Supposedly because they inadvertently showed up on a Sunday, when homes were 'closed'.
In describing the interactions and conversations, the author in passing explained the unkindly behavior of those Christian men with a phrase that lit me up. The missionaries exhibited "exclusive sentiments". They could be most Christian, but only to those who were part of their group. They who probably knew most of the Bible could not remember the numerous passages that would indite their hearts. But that has been true too much, too long. Hence that one two-word phrase made the book worthwhile for me.
Perhaps in opposition, by checking "Recent Changes" I noticed Index:The Afro-American Press.djvu. After working on that for awhile and hoping for glimpses of a different reality, it became grating also. It really was a "Who's Who" with the focus on a very narrow group. Again, perhaps a focus on a particular audience means book sales? Instead of insights into the times and efforts, rather than quotes from the works themselves, it seemed filled with self-congratulatory back-patting. Almost a book of "who's a real person" lists. And all the honorary degrees!
The repeated "all we need do is be men" statements freaked me out. I did see a few comments that the accumulation of property would be key. When you can't blend in, your community must have 'heft' to be reckoned as a power. So the book does give a small number of reflections, but far too few.
(factoid: In the US the immigrant group whose second-generation has the highest number of advanced degrees is Nigerian-Americans, at around half(!). But that reflects the mother culture, and how they achieved power in that society and then were able to emigrate.)
A friend insists that books of the 1800's were just "like that". I have read too many sciencey books from that period that were mostly opinion, without the underpinnings we take for granted these days. I love the language of those times, but the content sucks often enough.
I'll likely be unwinding and returning to prior projects, after I finish touching up an old project Treaty of Wanghia. Little did I know that this treaty (and at least one other) are also duplicated (twice!) within United States Statutes at Large. So I've been working on the duplications to add more reflections to a bit of stridency at Duplications of texts, USA treaties, between individual projects and within United States Statutes at Large.
All in all, I'd rather work on silly things like Index:Chinese Fairy Book (Richard Wilhelm).djvu, a strange strained oldish translation from some kind of Chinese of that time into an English of that time. And along with problems in publishing. Shenme (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for the thorough explanation. I'm really interested in both works, and it's rare to get such a carefully thought-out perspective on either one. I am inclined to agree with your perspective for the most part...maybe without exception. "Exclusive sentiments" among Christian missionaries is indeed a vivid turn of phrase, that says a lot about the zeitgeist. But speaking for myself, I have a few other thoughts, and some context (I'm not sure how much of the context you know, so my apologies if I'm telling you stuff that's obvious in some cases).

  • I have a major interest in Frances Fuller Victor, for several reasons. She is considered the "Mother of Oregon History," so much so that her name is inscribed in the Oregon State Capitol. I have an abiding curiosity about the reasons for that, and how well deserved they are.
  • It seems, above all, that she brought from the east coast some ideas that were very current, about the significance of first-person reports in recording history. She worked hard to gather such reports, at a time when others were not doing so. She was diligent in providing and evaluating and contextualizing her sources, at a time when other Oregon historians were not. Much of her work was timely in that way, and if she hadn't done it, it wouldn't have been done.
  • I'm also fascinated by the prominence of the Marcus Whitman controversy, and her role in it. This work is where it all started, though her views evolved after its publication.
  • Another Wikisource editor -- an academic historian -- helped me understand that there are important, then-unsettled historiography questions deeply embedded in they way Victor's work was received at the time, and since. I need to track down that conversation, and I'll link it here when I do.
  • As for social (in)justice, I am often impressed by her perspective, but occasionally disappointed; she could be sensitive to social injustice in some ways, but crass and racist in others. Of course the times were quite different...but reading her work, and contemporaneous responses to it, helps me understand those differences. I find her views on women's rights interesting; she seems to have been a woman unafraid to chart her own course, to have an early marriage annulled, and to pursue her own career rather than chasing her second husband around the world; and with books like The Women's War with Whisky she fully embraced the temperance movement. But she did not strongly align herself with the woman suffrage movement that was strong and active in Portland during her day. My sense is that she had some distaste for, or at least ambivalence about, strong social advocacy, and preferred to choose and fight her own battles rather than join in whatever was popular. I'm sure there's been much written on the subject that I haven't gotten to yet.
  • Regarding the "Who Was Who" issue, I assume you're talking about stuff like the footnote on this page. Yes, there is quite a lot of it, and I agree it's tedious to proofread. (For what it's worth, I have no expectation that you, or anyone, would do more of that than you like...I'm fine with you skipping sections that bore you, and I'd gladly come back and fill them in if necessary.) Surely, your point about marketing fed into her inclusion of the "muster rolls" -- fully a third of the book's contents -- in The Early Indian Wars of Oregon, which was financed by the state. But, in my view it all occurred in a context of doing good intellectual work. Later Oregon histories like those of Joseph Gaston seem even more blatant in that regard. They appear to me to have followed a model of one volume of pretty good history, and then 2-3 volumes full of purple prose about city fathers. I've often wondered if his works were "pay-to-play." But your theory (about book sales) does seem plausible, and might be all the explanation that's necessary.
  • I agree that The Afro-American Press and Its Editors is disappointing in that respect. I was originally attracted to its incredible collection of woodcuts, and I'm hopeful that many can find a home illustrating Wikipedia articles. (More on that below.) But yes, it would be nice if there was a bit more critical thinking, and/or exploration of content, in the text.
  • Even given these flaws in the works, I am motivated to work them to completion (i.e., at least fully "proofread" state, if not "validated") because I would like them to exist in a complete and easy-to-read state online. I'd like to be able to have discussions like this with more people...but that means more people would need to read the books! So, I guess that's the main thing feeding my obsession.

Both of these books, and much of my effort here at Wikisource, have some connection to the Newspapers on Wikipedia campaign, something I've worked on for several years -- an effort to get basic information about local newspapers onto Wikipedia (and thereby, into Google and Bing search result panels). I'm currently seeking funding for another phase of this campaign, and in this phase we will focus on black-owned newspapers...partly because of my discovery of this book, and partly because they seem to be under-represented on Wikipedia. So that's also part of what has motivated my efforts.

Thanks for all your work on them, and thanks for sharing your thoughts. The Chinese Fairy Book looks pretty cool, I'll give that a look too. I had noticed your "duplication" thread at the Scriptorium, but I haven't delved into it. The work here never ends......... -Pete (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I found the discussion I mentioned above, it was with User:Nizolan, an intellectual history grad student. See here. Fascinating stuff. -Pete (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Matthew HenryEdit

Thanks for the work you've done this month on An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828). With regard to your comment on "and row the same way as they look" - compare Dictionary of Proverbs (bottom of first column, top of second). --PeterR2 (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your help with Matthew Henry. That's really greatǃ Heyzeuss (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


The obsolete phrase "to rid ground" or "to rid way" or "to rid space" is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "to cover ground, to move ahead, to make progress." They mention this as a specific phrase, but also for the verb on its own they mention a "now rare" meaning of "To accomplish or get through (work of any kind); to clear off or away." Matthew Henry uses the same phrase in Ezekiel 1:9,12, half way down the right column. And no, I wasn't familiar with this phrase either! --PeterR2 (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


With regard to damaged type, notably punctuation at the end of a line, I have been using scans at HathiTrust of the First American edition published by Towar and Hogan, from which the Barrington and Haswell edition here on Wikisource was reprinted. The pages containing actual commentary appear to be identical.PeterR2 (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


You asked about "v. 20" on Page:An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828) vol 3.djvu/210. This refers to John 5:20, which has similar wording to John 3:35. It is confusing because, in Henry's commentary on Psalms, he also uses notation like this to refer to another psalm, whereas in other books he would use "ch.", like this, "ch. v. 20". In Britain we do not refer to the individual psalms as chapters, although some Americans do this (doesn't necessarily mean it's considered correct usage in America, I don't know that).PeterR2 (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@PeterR2: re: "John iii. 35.—v. 20." I had seen elsewhere people refer to 'chapter' as right/wrong. I wouldn't know, and it was new to me that the Psalms can be divided into 5 books (a possibility, as I think this MH section will need to be divided for display).
The thing is that the psalms have always been individual items (and some have been in this order for a very long time - see Acts 13:33) whereas division of the other books into chapters and verses is much more recent (chapters in the mediaeval period and verses in the reformation period), though in some places, e.g. of a poetic nature, for instance Lamentations, and perhaps the verses in Proverbs, some of the divisions are fairly obvious; whereas in others they're very arbitrary.PeterR2 (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
What was actually getting me was the "—". I was trying to figure out how "John iii. 35.—v. 20." would work as a range. Later I found places where at least 3 different cites would be mentioned in the form "place.—place.—place." which sort of made it clear these were *not* range references, but 'this' one, 'that' one, and 'another' one. Is this a correct interpretation?
Yes, it looks odd to me too, but that seems to be the only possible interpretation given the way it's used. I've been working mostly in Genesis up to now and don't remember seeing it there, nor what you described as "mid dots". PeterR2 (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
With regard to formatting oddities, it would be interesting to see the original 1710 edition, or the 1721 edition (the first edition that covered the whole Bible - which Matthew Henry himself did not complete). According to JISC's Library Hub Discover website, both are on GALE ECCO (Eighteenth Century Collections Online), but one has to belong to an academic institution with a subscription in order to access this. The final volume (Epistles and Revelation) of the 1721 edition is uploaded at Google Books. PeterR2 (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I've trapped myself over at KJV Psalms because, when I was suspicious of a line at MH, and wanted to check against KJV, the Psalms were bare of all comments, like the sidenotes. I'm getting near done with the Psalms, (ex. p. Page:KJV 1769 Oxford Edition, vol. 1.djvu/551, Page:KJV 1769 Oxford Edition, vol. 1.djvu/577) but each page is up to ~60 minutes to do. Bonus is that so far I've found 3 textual errors. Later I'll have to consult experts because marginal note display is weird around here, like on mobile devices. Shenme (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Hehe I'd wondered where you'd gone, but hadn't looked. I've been trying to validate the pages in Psalms that you proofread, but couldn't keep up with how fast you were going (very pleased though!), so you going elsewhere is giving me a chance to start catching up a bit. I've not had to work with margins - my Wikisource skills are very basic.PeterR2 (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


Shenme, would you be able to check and validate Page:An_Exposition_of_the_Old_and_New_Testament_(1828)_vol_3.djvu/204, please? It's the only page in a sequence from the beginning of Psalms that I can't validate, because I (rather than you) did the main proofreading on this particular page. --PeterR2 (talk) 09:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, will do 'tomorrow'. Appointments first... Shenme (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


Regarding "cael-" versus "coel-", these spellings seem to be interchangeable in different editions of the same passages of Latin authors, but I did a search and discovered that in fact the printer of this edition of Matthew Henry uses a double-storey "a" in "ae" even in italics, so I think we can safely go with "oe" when there is no "handle" on top. As a result I've corrected what I'd already validated on the preface to Proverbs, and when I get to the relevant page in Psalm 8 will put it as "oe" (which was your preference anyway). :) --PeterR2 (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


About "to us-ward" - the reference is to the KJV translation of 2 Peter 3:9, one of three places in which the KJV uses this construction, in both NT instances following Tyndale's 1525 NT, though Wycliffe's translation in the 1300s didn't use such wording in these passages. The KJV also has several examples of both "to you-ward" and "to God-ward". --PeterR2 (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Shenme, I think you had some ideas about the splitting of An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828) into books of the Bible. However there are already namespaces (at least I think that's the right terminology) such as An_Exposition_of_the_Old_and_New_Testament_(1828)/Genesis and An_Exposition_of_the_Old_and_New_Testament_(1828)/Exodus linked from the main page at An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828). Do you have any suggestions for a way of making the beginning and end of these tidier? Because the end of Genesis is on the same page as the beginning of Exodus in the printed book, there is currently a bit of Exodus in the Genesis page and a bit of Genesis in the Exodus page. -- PeterR2 (talk) 09:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Dotted TOC lineEdit

Hello Shenme! Thanks for all the help with the books I am trying to put on wikisource.

I have two questions:

1. Shall I add entry-width 100% to all the lines? This is in connection to your edit here where you say there is a problem with smaller screens. Or would you recommend more changes? I would love everything to look perfectly on all kinds of screens of course.

Tar-ba-gan, I added that parameter to the one line whose entry text was longest. Only a couple more are 'long' and the rest shouldn't have problems anywhere. I just bugged me that text of long lines wrap around before they need to. When I use {{Dotted TOC line}} I use that parameter and more on all lines, but don't _need_ to, except for the long lines. I'd say just on that one line. Shenme (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

2. These refs are really quite confusing. I have the idea that they are best managed once the text of a chapter is done. Will just copy all the refs into the chapter text. Do you think this is a good idea?

I think that it is key that most of the footnote lines have very little information in each. For instance footnote 201 on p. 173, which in the footnotes chapter has (p. 443):
201. IV, 25, p. 267 ff.
Not much there. Volume IV of what? In order to understand it you have to go backwards up the list of footnotes, back to the _previous_ footnotes page (p. 442), back all the way to footnote 184:
157, 184. Al-Chazari I, 1-67, pp. 1-29.
Um, what's "Al-Chazari". Farther up we find:
150, 178. Al-Chazari, I, 67, ed. Hirschfeld, Leipzig, 1887, p. 29, 24.
That's everything in the footnotes, and we still don't know what "Al-Chazari" is.
Footnote 201 says p. 157, initial footnote 178 mentions p. 150. This is the book chapter on Judah Halevi. Turns out "Al-Chazari" is a story(?)[3] by Judah Helevi.
I thought this might have been in the Bibliography, but doesn't seem to be. I did find (though not in the Bibliography or Notes) references to "Kusari" and "Cusari" - could this be, as I suspect, the same book? BTW Project Gutenberg has the whole of A History of Mediaeval Jewish Philosophy in one page, so it's easy to search through the entire book for a particular word. --PeterR2 (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Even if we filled in all the missing information, copying from previous entries into footnote 201, it still wouldn't have enough information for a 'real' footnote ref to insert into page 157? And that would be "altering the source text" that so many frown upon here?
201. Al-Chazari, IV, 25, p. 267 ff., ed. Hirschfeld, Leipzig, 1887.
Few footnotes have information that *explains* the text, that helps the reader. The footnotes are info for researchers and those researchers are going to have to look at the whole footnotes section anyway to make sense of it all.


Proposed solution:
You've created a section for footnotes, p. 439-448: A History of Mediaeval Jewish Philosophy/Notes. I'm thinking that rather than have traditional in-text footnotes - <ref>s - we instead do just what the author wanted: link to the footnotes section! I could make each footnote entry have an anchor, so that one could link to A History of Mediaeval Jewish Philosophy/Notes#201 from p. 157. That would look like [201] (perhaps could be made nicer). The reader could click over to the footnotes section, search backwards if needed, then return to the text using the browser back button.
And we could do that now! That is, finish the pages in the footnotes section, with anchors, then finish creating the /Notes page with the transcluded pages, and poof! each footnote is usable from Page: now or mainspace later. Yay!?
So... not refs - links! Sound interesting? Shenme (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
In my enthusiasm, I've created A History of Mediaeval Jewish Philosophy/Notes, filled in one of the footnotes pages with anchors, and made links of the 3 footnote refs on p. 150. Try it out and let me know what you think. Shenme (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

TIA, --Tar-ba-gan (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your solution! I have never seen that before. I have to try it out elsewhere myself as well. Best regards, --Tar-ba-gan (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
@Tar-ba-gan: So... reading documentation I came across Help:Footnotes_and_endnotes#Endnotes_with_anchors, which has been there since 2012! On the one hand, I'm not crazy. On the other hand, I'm not original. Ah well... :-) Shenme (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Shenme: It is great you found that piece of instruction. I am glad to see all these contributions you have made to the formatting and linking. I feel humbled. I hope you do not mind if I return to that text next month. --Tar-ba-gan (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)