Open main menu

User talk:Zoeannl

John RuskinEdit

@Yann: I am starting proofreading some of Ruskin's books. I found a volume of "Fors Clavigera" that you uploaded. Do you think you could upload the whole set, please? Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I don’t remember why I didn’t upload the rest. May be they weren’t available, or… As usual, IA is a mess. There is no indication in the description about which volume it is, and where are the other ones. :( And then this probably needs renaming. I found 16 volumes (0 to 15), but there are duplicates. If you could look at it, and tell me which files are needed, it would be great. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
vol 1&2 and vol 3&4 says "complete in 4 volumes" but doesn't have a date of publishing. vol 1&2 and vol 3&4, published 1886 seems identical. I'd go with the latter two books. What do you think @Yann:? Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
"complete in 4 volumes" ? But [1] is volume 7… It doesn’t make sense. We need to find a complete set before uploading anything. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The copy you have found is an English publisher who published the letters in at least 12 volumes. The U.S. publishers published all of the letters in 4 volumes. I did a quick look through to compare and found no difference between the English and U.S. publications. There doesn't seem to be a complete set of the English volumes on IA so I think this is the best we can do. Better than not having any edition at all. Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 7Edit

Thank you for all the validation work on the OHQ! Gave me a smile to start my day. -Pete (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: Hi Pete, I've been enjoying reading OHQ, and proofreading as I go along, but must admit these tables are hard work. Appendix G was particularly horrible, could you do the transclusion so I can see if I've made a mash up of it? It will boost my fortitude to tackle the rest. Cheers, Zoe Zoeannl (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm happy to help out, and a little embarrassed to see the state I had left them in -- I thought I had put the appendix material in a more readable format than I did. Do you mean Document G in the appendix? I don't see much wrong with it, you've done a really good job; the only thing I can see (and without a little research, I don't know how to fix it) is the extra dots on the "total" lines (and the lines immediately above). I can read up on the relevant templates. Anything else you want me to dig into? I'm happy to work on the remaining un-validated pages, but have been cautious about stepping on your toes! -Pete (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to let you know. I have tried several times to figure out how {{TOCstyle}} works, and I am just stumped. Maybe if I really put my mind to it I could learn it, but the time I've put into it thus far seems like it's for nothing. I am thinking I will just work the data into simpler HTML/wiki tables, which might not mimic the original format as precisely, but will I think at least permit the reader to get the information in the articles. Again, thank you for your help, and I'm sorry I couldn't reciprocate in the way you requested. -Pete (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The author of TOCstyle and I had a long conversation on my talk page that led to its present (incomplete) state. It's archived if you want to have a look. My own notes are a bit obtuse but are on my Proofreader's guide. Unfortunately, during my last hiatus, he seems to have had a blow-up with the mods and disappeared. I have asked for help on a couple of occasions on Scriptorium and there seem to be a few who understand how it works, but no joy getting anything major fixed. I am trying to come up with a resource to encourage proofreaders to work at WS. Tables are a turn off. Usually TOCstyle has very satisfying results... Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
P.S I am a bit stretched atm but do intend to get back to the tables when my stamina is on the ascendant again.
Thank you, your proofreader's guide looks quite useful. I'll take a look, and maybe see if I can redouble my efforts on the TOC style template. I suspect I'll learn some other tricks I've missed out on, as well -- thanks for sharing it.
I wonder if you could expand on your statement that tables are a turn off. Do you mean tables as a general concept (i.e., text grouped in shapes to convey meaning) or are you referring to the HTML table tag? Is your primary concern for proofreaders or readers? Is it the consistency of the display across web browsers? the flexibility of the format for future reuse? Maybe it would be useful to put some commentary on this topic in your guide as well?
In this case (and in many cases where I encounter tables and charts in original texts), my primary motivation is to complete the encompassing text. In that context, I'd like to present the contents of the tables in a way that is accurate, and where the text is searchable (which rules out simply uploading image files). More precision than that is not my main motivation. But, to the extent there are tools that will let me do a better job, I'd like to learn them.
For now, I'm just working on other volumes (Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 3 is getting close!) but I hope to get enough of a handle on the relevant templates to return to Vol. 7 soon. -Pete (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #5Edit

Welcome to the fifth newsletter for the new Growth team!  

The Growth team's objective is to work on software changes that help retain new contributors in mid-size Wikimedia projects.

New projects for discussionEdit

We began the "Personalized first day" project with the welcome survey so that we could gather information about what newcomers are trying to accomplish. The next step is to use that information to create experiences that help the newcomers accomplish their goal – actually personalizing their first day. We asked for community thoughts in the previous newsletter, and after discussing with community members and amongst our team, we are now planning two projects as next steps: "engagement emails" and "newcomer homepage".

  • Engagement emails: this project was first discussed positively by community members here back in September 2018, and the team how has bandwidth to pursue it. The idea is that newcomers who leave the wiki don't get encouraged to return to the wiki and edit. We can engage them through emails that send them the specific information they need to be successful – such as contact from a mentor, the impact of their edits, or task recommendations. Please read over the project page, and comment on its discussion page with any ideas, questions, or concerns. Do you think this is a good idea? Where could we go wrong?
  • Newcomer homepage: we developed the idea for this project after analyzing the data from the welcome survey and EditorJourney datasets. We saw that many newcomers seem to be looking for a place to get started – a place that collects their past work, options for future work, and ways to learn more. We can build this place, and it can connect to the engagement emails. The content of both could be guided by what newcomers say they need during their welcome survey, and contain things like contact from a mentor, impact of their edits, or task recommendations. Please read over the project page, and comment on its discussion page with any ideas, questions, or concerns. Do you think this is a good idea? Where could we go wrong?

Initial reports on newcomer activityEdit

We have published initial reports on each of the team's first two projects. These reports give the basic numbers from each project, and there are many more questions we will continue to answer in future reports. We're excited about these initial findings. They have already helped us define and design parts of our future projects.

  • Welcome survey: the initial report on welcome survey responses is available here. Some of the main findings:
    • Most users respond to the survey, giving it high response rates of 67% and 62% in Czech and Korean Wikipedias, respectively.
    • The survey does not cause newcomers to be less likely to edit.
    • The most common reason for creating an account in Korean Wikipedia is to read articles—not for editing—with 29% of Korean users giving that responses.
    • Large numbers of respondents said they are interested in being contacted to get help with editing: 36% in Czech and 53% in Korean.
  • Understanding first day: the initial report on what newcomers do on their first day is available here. Some of the main findings:
    • Large numbers of users view help or policy pages on their first day: 42% in Czech and 28% in Korean.
    • Large numbers of users view their own User or User Talk page on their first day: 34% in Czech and 39% in Korean.
    • A majority of new users open an editor on their first day – but about a quarter of them do not go on to save an edit during that time.

Help panel deploymentEdit

The help panel was deployed in Czech and Korean Wikipedias on January 10. Over the past four weeks:

  • About 400 newcomers in each wiki have seen the help panel button.
  • About 20% of them open up the help panel.
  • About 50% of those who open it up click on one of the links.
  • About 5% of Czech users ask questions, and about 1% of Korean users ask questions.

We think that the 20% open rate and 50% click rate are strong numbers, showing that a lot of people are looking for help, and many want to help themselves by looking at help pages. The somewhat lower numbers of asking questions (especially in Korean Wikipedia) has caused us to consider new features to allow people to help themselves. We're going to be adding a search bar to the help panel next, which will allow users to type a search that only looks for pages in the Help and Wikipedia namespaces.

How to create a good feedback page?Edit

What is the way to built a good help page? What blocks you when writing an help page? Your replies will help to create better help contents to newcomers, that would be used on Help panel.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot, 14:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC) • Give feedbackSubscribe or unsubscribe.

Pentagon PapersEdit

A bunch of the index pages still need to be properly set up as well with the scans possibly fixed. Is there a particular section that interests you? MarkLSteadman (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@MarkLSteadman: I tend to just start at the beginning and work through. Unless there are a lot of tables to slog through, that I might put aside for when I'm up to the challenge. I am interested in the different style of proofreading, is this continuing as Guerillawarfare set it up or has it been superseded? Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Roughly as she did... I mostly finished up the sections she did but lately have been working my way through the primary source scans (e.g. Index:Pentagon-Papers-Part-V-B-3d.djvu) to be able to link to them from the narrative text. These often have tables / formatting etc. The next unstarted section in the narrative is already set up here: Index:Pentagon-Papers-Part IV. B. 3.djvu. MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Let me know if you have any questions. I can take a look at linking the indices back to the main page next week MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #6Edit

18:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Philosophical ReviewEdit

Thank you for noticing my work on the Philosophical Review. I had just finished a 19-volume work, and was searching for another, when I found the Review. I have enjoyed working on it.

I have never liked the look of no spaces around dashes, so I have never followed that rule. However, since you started the work on the Review, I will yield to your expertise, and have stopped work on the Review. You will need to check every page I have completed, as there are a lot of extra spaces you will not like.


Susanarb (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #7Edit

16:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Call for submissions for the Community Growth space at Wikimania 2019Edit

Welcome to a special newsletter from the Growth team! This special newsletter is not about Wikimedia Foundation Growth team projects. Instead, it is a call for submissions for the Community Growth space at Wikimania 2019. We think that many people who receive this newsletter may have something valuable to contribute to this space at Wikimania. We haven't translated the newsletter, because Wikimania's language is English.

Please see below for the message from the organizers of the Community Growth space at Wikimania.


Wikimania 2019 is organized into 19 “spaces”, which are all accepting proposals for sessions. This message comes from the team organizing the Community Growth space.

Since you are interested b Growth team projects, and potentially involved in welcoming newcomers initiatives on your wiki, we would like to invite you to submit a proposal to the Community Growth space because of the actions you’ve done around newcomers on wikis. The deadline for submission is June 1. See below for Community Growth submission topics and session formats. Topics and sessions have to be in English.

In the Community Growth space, we will come together for discussions, presentations, and workshops that address these questions:

  • What is and is not working around attracting and retaining newcomers?
  • How should Wikimedia activities evolve to help communities grow and flourish?
  • How should our technology and culture evolve to help new populations to come online, participate and become community members?

Recommended topics: please see this link for the list for the list of recommended topics. If you do not plan to submit a proposal, you can also suggest additional topics here. If your topic does not fit into our space, remember that there are 18 other spaces that could welcome you sharing your knowledge and perspective.

Types of session. We prefer sessions that are participatory, interactive, promote conversations, and give a voice to parts of our movement that are heard less often. Please see this link for the list of recommended session formats.

Poster submissions. Posters are also a good way to introduce a topic, or show some results of an action. Please consider submitting one!

More information about the Community Growth space, topics, and submission formats is available on the proposal page.

Please submit your proposal. The reviews will happen at the beginning of June.

If you have questions about Wikimania in general, please ask them on the Wikimania wiki.

On behalf of the Community Growth leadership team, Trizek (WMF), 11:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #8Edit

09:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Quotes at Index:Sin and Crime.pdfEdit

I started validating some of the pages on this work but noticed that there were curly quotes in the proofread text. I used TemplateScript to clear the linebreaks after I checked the proofreading, but TS also automatically converts curly quotes to typewriter quotes per the current guideline. There's an ongoing discussion about allowing the use of curly quotes so I'm not sure if you'd prefer them to be kept in? —Nizolan (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nizolan: The OCR had curly quotes so I didn't bother to convert. It seems to be an issue of compatibility with computer fonts? I'm fine with the bot conversions. Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I finished validating and put it up on the main page new texts list. Interesting little pamphlet. —Nizolan (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #9Edit

14:26, 23 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)

Growth team updates #10Edit

18:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

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

Growth team updates #11Edit

15:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Zoeannl".