User talk:Beeswaxcandle

Beeswaxcandle (talk page)

Note: Please use informative section titles that give some indication of the message.

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{talkback|your username}} on my talk. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archive to 30 November 2012 Archive to 31 May 2013 Archive to 30 November 2013 Archive to 30 November 2014 Archive to 30 November 2015 Archive to 30 November 2016 Archive to 30 November 2018 Archive to 31 December 2020

cf. WS:AN#Bureaucrat,

Any chance you'd be interested in being a `crat? Ideally we'd have three—for redundancy and to spread the load—and right now we're down to a single `crat who has very little time for the project. I'm hoping BD will pick up the ball, and if I could rope another gullible fool into taking it on we'd be up three and Hesperian would have the option to resign without feeling guilty if they'd like to. --Xover (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I endorse this plea. BD2412 T 17:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just had a look at our current stats. 397 active users, 25 sysops, and 2 bureaucrats. I prefer the ratio of sysops to active users to be ca. 10–12. At the moment it's 16. Growing the number of sysops then means more bureaucrats are needed, so that the ratio is similar. I'm UTC+12; Hesperian is UTC+8; I don't know BD's time-zone (guessing between -5 and -8). If that's thought to be a sufficient time-spread, then I'll let my name go forward. If, however, it's decided we need coverage in other time-zones rather than mine, that's okay. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Having a nice 24/7 spread of `crats would be nice, but the reality is that both of our current `crats have either resigned (Mpaa) or indicated that they desire to do so and are mostly staying on out of a sense of duty to the community (Hesperian). If we get you and BD elected we'd be up to two (+ however long we can fairly hope that Hesperian stays on to share of their experience). In other words, right now I'm not so much concerned with the optimum upper limit or spread as by the absolute minimum number we need to be self-sufficient.

Or put another way: if the community wants more timezonely diversified `crats they can darn well go find and recruit them! :) --Xover (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I don't disagree with that sentiment. I'm not averse to the proposal, but I won't be doing a self-nom. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm happy to do the nom'ing! :) --Xover (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if I could get some help with the index for Hokitika (1921). I scanned the photographic plates tipped in after page 8 and uploaded the new PDF, but now the pagination is all messed up, and I'm not sure how to fix it. BTW I've contacted Hokitika Museum to see if we can get higher quality scans of those photos for Commons; if now I'll just upload the bad scanned versions sans caption. Thanks! —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Done. You also need to give consideration on how to transclude this text. Do you see it as a single document? Or as four articles contained within it? I would do the latter, but the transclusion is then a little more complicated to do. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for sorting that! I'll upload placeholder photos to Commons so we can complete the work, and add better scanned versions as we can source them.

I'd be inclined to keep the pamphlet as a single document. It was a conceived as a unit: the three other essays refer to each other and cross-reference, and two were written as supplements to the main Evans piece, presumably to make the whole thing substantial enough to sell as a fund-raising booklet (with the Haast material probably added as filler). So I think the work is best viewed as a single multi-chaptered publication with four authors. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Giantflightlessbirds: I've just realised that I didn't quite say what I meant about transcluding the pamphlet. I agree that it is a unit, but I was thinking about putting each of the articles on a subpage—akin to chapters of a work. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Oh I see! Yes, having them as "chapters" would absolutely make sense. Sorry, new to this. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Transcluded at Hokitika, N.Z. (and subpages). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

In case it helps, I have checklists that I follow to ensure I don't miss a step: User:Hesperian/Notes/Admin closure.

Hesperian 01:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I had a feeling I'd missed something, but couldn't think what it was—updating the dates in the table. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have hacked what enWP have done to get the old toolbar together and gadgetified, and just stole their extra buttons. Can you indicate to me what you would like to see in enWS buttons, and I will look to put them in place. I still have my old code in my common.js, though they are not being picked up, though if it is you and me alone, then I am willing to make our favourites the globals in a complete vested interest approach. :-)

Now that I have it working, I will attune it for local general use, throw in some things that I want, and attend to your wishes. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have populated it with lots of the gumph that I use, still working on getting personal additions working, so those that are problems I can remove. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just turned the gadget on. A little odd to see it again after more than two years without one. The only buttons that I would use from the current set are: nowiki; add hyphenated word; insert a reference. From my common.js I miss the zoom buttons the most. Also, an OCR button would be useful. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Oh of course. <facepalm> They will be somewhere in the proofread scripts. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please block this user, they are being horribly annoying. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm sorry to bother you. I don't know where to write, so I ask you. I would like to be Patrol. What should I do? I'm here regularly, and I'm diligent. Thanks for your help :) Lois131 (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lois131: Thank you for the offer. To patrol effectively, you need to understand our policies, so spend some time reading through the links in the Welcome message on your Talk page. It's also helpful to be aware of the Speedy Delete reasons on WS:CSD. A brief summary of how to patrol and what to look for is on Help:Patrolling. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, I'm still reading and learning. And of course I'm editing and proofreading my favourite texts/books. And if I'm ready for patrolling, where do I write? What should I do? Thanks :) Lois131 (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is no special place other than looking at Recent Changes and seeing what comes up. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Index:The complete works of Count Tolstoy (IA completeworksofc22tols).pdf was not a duplicate. Languageseeker (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I didn't notice the offset in the speedy request on this one. Restored and deleted 21 as the correct duplicate. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi there,

I think when you were demonstrating editing for me you had a tool for removing line breaks – or did I imagine it? We're plodding along here in Hokitika, with a couple of works now transcluded and available in Overdrive to borrow. I've been clearing copyright on a couple of Google Books scans, and found most of our hit list of works already scanned and in IA or Hathi Trust, so have started moving them to Wikisource. We have one keen volunteer and a newbie, and another library interested in scanning works. So some progress is happening. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 03:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Is George Reeves Person. Long time abuser from Illinois area. Just another PITA that occasionally appears here, though typically user pages. You know the type that throw a spanner and we just shut down their haunts, they get bored and typically go away as we don't want to play with them, and they don't get their rocks off. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 11:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Do you know anything more about the author than is on the author page or the front of the publication? Quick search doesn't show much evident for NZ, though quite probably restricting to NZ won't find much life information. Presuming that it is a female author, though not even a guarantee of that. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I see you deleted a lot of these? Do you plan on filing DR at Commons? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Also - (Source site has an apparent NC clause. Shall I keep looking?)

Index:First_Folio_(West_192)

Index:First Folio (West 150).pdf

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest looking for other uploads from the relevant source as well. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have no plans to do anything in respect to this matter. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, the file update you made to Some Account of New Zealand has essentially broken the entire book. Have a look at any transcribed page after page 6 and you'll see the wrong transcriptions are now on the wrong pages. Additionally, one of the images in your new upload is much poorer quality, and the upload has the Google boiler page included. Can we revert to the previous file? Thanks, Supertrinko (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

The fixes are still in progress. Currently waiting for a bot to move the later pages back by seven. Once that's done, the transclusions will be fixed. We never use images from the pdf itself, so I will update those as well. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Perfect, thanks very much for letting me know :) You shouldn't need to update the images, I cropped and uploaded those as separate files. Supertrinko (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Would you mind popping past Special:UserRights/SOyeyele_(WMF) and assigning confirmed rights. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Billinghurst: Uhm. Why? Sam has a grand total of one edit on enWS, and judging by their user page they are unlikely to make further edits beyond possibly a MassMessage or five. Certainly nothing that requires editing over autoconfirmed protection (which they'll get after 4 days / 10 edits anyway). This seems really arbitrary. Xover (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

There was two, now three, regulars who thought otherwise. I think it appropriate to give a known wikimedia user the tick right off, one from the WMF seems an obvious exception to whatever protection autoconfirmed affords the site. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Xover: Special:Abuselog. It is only "confirmed", what is the issue? Not asking for the crown jewels, and I hardly do these things for the halibut. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Billinghurst: Oh, I see. With that context the +confirmed makes sense.

But the flip side is that to me the two relevant filters then look like they are excessively sensitive and apt to generate false positives like this one. I don't have the history that necessitated those filters with those particular (very low) threshold values, nor enough experience with the Abuse Filters facility, to be able to have a very firmly-founded opinion on it; but my takeway is that we might want to do some tuning of those to avoid false positives like this.

And there was no problem implied as such. It just didn't make sense with the available context, and I saw no request on-wiki that would explain it, so I wanted to figure out what the reasoning was. Worst case, as with now, I'd learn something. *shrug* Xover (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Xover: I modified one filter, and I left the other, as it is a rare event with a way out per this request. I look at output from filters one, two or three times a day, and tweak them as required to minimise FPs. Our filters are well-tended and those that dissuade or prevent action are minimal. I am always happy to explain my actions, and I cannot think that I would ask for any rights change for an arbitrary reason. I don't do arbitrary. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi there,

Thanks for the useful presentation this past weekend at WikiCon. I think I missed this part of your Adam seems to remember a tool you talked about that removed the background of a drawing or sketch, possibly automatically. Would you be able to share what this might have been? Thanks. HughLilly (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

@HughLilly: I use IrfanView. It's a free download for Windows or Linux. Unfortunately not available for MacOS. To pull up the Paint dialog, press F12. The tool is the Color Replacer [sic]. Have fun, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Unrelated to Wikisource. May I email you? Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Of course. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Question. Do the LilyPond transcriptions not have the sound files generated at the end of the scores anymore? Do I remember correctly that they used to? Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

LilyPond got turned off in July last year and has only recently been allowed again. While it wasn't available any scores that had vorbis=1 in the opening tag caused documents to fail to render. So, we commented out most of the vorbis statements. Now, that it's working again, it is safe to reinstate them. You may find that some scores fail because of technical problems. Let me know and I'll see what can be done to fix them. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Thanks. I was just going to play around with a file (in preview mode only) sometime in the near future to see how something "translates", but it is for personal purposes only, so I don't want to bother anyone with it :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

You plan to do the pageslist yourself? Thanks :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Hope that you are well, and not overly hampered by A's restrictions. If there is a new measure for closing, would you be so kind to have that reflected in Wikisource:Restricted access policy. I don't have an issue with the time period, just wish to manage expectations. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

First, thank you for explaining what you changed in the most recent move log. I looked at it and looked at it. Then again and some more. Now, I have a question. Is the little line that has a dedicated key on most english keyboards a dash or a hyphen? LaTeX thinks it is a minus sign, which is, lord knows, fine by me. Thank you for your time (and talk space)in settling my somewhat stupified state.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The key on the keyboard produces a hyphen. Technically a minus-sign is a different character, but the hyphen is generally used in general texts. There are two forms of dashes: the en-dash (–), used to separate ranges; and the em-dash (—), used to indicate a break in thought. It is our policy that page names only use a hyphen, even when an en-dash is correct, which is what I was adjusting, as I accidentally used the en-dash before and after the pipe, instead of after only. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much. My list of little lines that have meanings just went from 3 to 5 in number. And yes, there is a lot wrong with LaTeX, it is good that the <math /> space allows so many wrongs and such untidinesss. This "knowing" of the hyphen key, that you shared with me just now -- I feel greatly settled and gently amused by that in the Recent Changes. May you have such a good day (or night) for this as I am now!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I see that you are reverting my usages of {{scan}} because "don't link to scans when they are fully validated" Is this a hard rule? My idea was to use scan to distinguish texts that are scan-backed from non-scan backed. Do you know where I can find the rules governing the usage of {{scan}} ?Languageseeker (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

The backend arcana of Index: and Page: spaces should (mostly) be transparent to the normal reader. Putting a link to the Index: page on a work indicates that there is more to be done to complete it. Complete works don't need this. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Languageseeker: Also, all scan-backed pages automatically get a link to the relevant Index: page through the "Source" page tab at the top of the page. To the degree we have a need to technically differentiate further (which I am not necessarily convinced of) we need to look at other methods; and a principle for any template-based tagging would be that we tag the pages that are a "problem"—the non-scan-backed ones—and not the ones that are actually up to current standards. Xover (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Xover: Ok, I see that the ultimate goal is to present clean links on pages. However, I think that it's also helpful to easily visually distinguish scan-backed texts from non-scanned-backed texts. Would either of you support adding a template to tag non-scanned backed version, say with perhaps this icon . Maybe call it, {{noscan}}? Languageseeker (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Once idea I had is to use the wikidata not proofread / proofread / validated icons (we could even pull them from wikidata). MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

That might not be a bad idea and save quite a bit of time. It would be nice to be able to look ahead at the link on the Author/Portal/Version ns and see if it is from a transcluded text and, if so, the status of the entire Index, and then automatically add an icon. Languageseeker (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Definitely NOT on the Author pages. Keep them as simple as possible: do we host such and such a work? That's all they're meant to indicate. The mainspace is where the indication of status lives. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

FYI, I find that scan image confusing now that we also have "Ready for Export" (i.e. that book implies good for e-book rather than having scans), but that is another whole topic... MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I did. I found at least two songbooks and uploaded them here and added the needs score template.

I tried to proof the words, but I did not and still do not know what form would be best for the software and and person applying the software to the words would be.

It is easier for me to believe that a person would be not musical, yet interested in music than a person being interested in math but not mathy. The subjects are similar, very similar from what little I know of music and its notation, but they don't map onto the world and its inhabitant the same way.

And further, I have an aversion to GUILE, Lisp and my first online experience with scripting language howtos was something like "Script-fu in one Unfun". I was going to install lilypond and when I saw it required guile, I considered removing my eyeballs so they could roll in a bigger circle. I used to think it was the curly brackets, but I am here and templates require three on each side, so it isn't that. Maybe it is a learned bias, although, some of my snobberies are there to keep me from doing too much.

So, this is a rant, and it is mostly about how undeserving of ranting I am. 55 needs math templates and the person isn't proofing the pages, just smacking the template on them. But I can't rant because I basically did that also.

The image software has a script-fu server running at all times. I remember a kindly person hinting about the file chooser also.

So, no need to reply, I am unloading, in an I'm sorry sort of way.

And in other conversations https://dev.w3.org/html5/html-author/charref says that &hyphen == &dash and I say that I appreciate that you use hyphen as its name since there is a whole dash family. I downloaded that page and sent it to my ereader and none of it displayed. None!!!

Thank you for your time and participation in this sad, sorry sorry sorry rant.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with formatting at Index:The_English_Dancing_Master-John_Playford-1651.pdf. I'm still pretty inexperienced here and your fixes let me figure out what to do. I've copied your formatting methods on subsequent pages of the TOC; you saved me a lot of trial and error. HLHJ (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Beeswaxcandle. I need help here:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_Federalist,_on_the_new_Constitution.djvu/487

I have played around with the spacing in the last section but can't get it right. I don't understand coding and just copy what others have done, but that means there's a lot I'm doing wrong. I'd like to align the page numbers so they are right-justified.

I see that you have done this page, so you know how to do this:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Lewis_Carroll_-_Alice%27s_Adventures_in_Wonderland.djvu/19

Would you please do enough lines so I can then copy what you've done and finish it? -- Valjean (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Valjean: Like you, I've learnt from copying what others have done. This is best done as a table. I've done the first page completely and started the second. As I don't know what the names of the pages will be when they're transcluded, I haven't done any links. If you have any questions about why I done particular things, please drop me a note here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Wow! That looks great. Thanks so much. I notice there are three errors (pp. 24, 25, pp. 39, 40, and p. 61 got lost). -- Valjean (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

The narrow width of the side by side view means that content longer than the word "Page" at the head of the column gets squished. However, when transcluded at full width of screen (or viewed in preview), everything will look fine. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see what you mean, but that means that it looks wrong at 100% but right at 90%. The lost p. 61 is still a problem. -- Valjean (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

On this page

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_Federalist,_on_the_new_Constitution.djvu/488

It doesn't look right until I'm down to 50%. There's got to be a way for it to look right at 100%. -- Valjean (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I've forced the width of the last column on that page by setting a dummy row in the header. When it gets to pairs of three digits, we'll need to look at that again and make sure it's still the correct width. wrt the "61" at the bottom of /487, that's a binder's mark indicating that fascicle 61 starts here. It's part of how books used to be produced and makes sure that all the sections are in the right order. As such it's irrelevant to producing books on the web, and by policy we omit all of these. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

That fixed it. I think there are several pages with those fascicle numbers. I'll find and remove them. -- Valjean (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I tried forcing the width of the last column on this page

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_Federalist,_on_the_new_Constitution.djvu/487

but it still only looks right at 90%. -- Valjean (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Because /487 is the first page of the table, we need to set the parameters when initiating it. These will carry through to all the pages after transcluding. The later pages just need to look okay in the Page: namespace, which is why the parameters are set in the header field. I've tweaked it, see how it works for you now. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

So that info in the header field doesn't need to be repeated on each page? -- Valjean (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Technically, no it's not needed, but I recommend you do as it helps you see when a line is out of whack. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Another issue... I think there's too much space between the heading (INDEX) and the body here. I'm not sure how to fix that. -- Valjean (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is something that will sort itself out when transclusion happens. What you're seeing is the empty table row from the header box. In most tables of contents that I've dealt with there is a repeated word "Pages" at the top of every page that fills in that gap and makes it less obvious. This one is the exception. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

The "page" word is only used once, on the first Index page. Shouldn't we fix this on all the next pages? There's too big of a gap. I'm hesitant to proceed further until this is resolved. -- Valjean (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've transcluded the three pages done so far to User:Beeswaxcandle/Sandbox. As you can see there is no gap at the page changes. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

That looks quite different than the individual pages we edit. So what is it that readers will see? Will they read it as the individual pages we edit or as a long transcluded version? If it's the transcluded version, then we're wasting editing effort on headers and footers since they won't show in the transcluded version. Help me understand this. -- Valjean (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have tried your transclusion trick here: User:Valjean/The Federalist, but it lacks the small links on the left side. Why is that? -- Valjean (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Now I've tried it on a Sandbox page, and it works. Weird. User:Valjean/Sandbox -- Valjean (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

The page links only show in particular namespaces. The arcana of which I leave to the tech-nerds. The readers of the work in the mainspace will see the long transcluded version. Anyone who clicks on the small page links in the left margin will see the page as it is in the Page: namespace. The reason for doing the headers/footers in the Page: namespace is as an aid to navigation. Other editors here go to great lengths to match them exactly. My personal view is to replicate the content in an approximate form. However, I've found that battles are reduced if I strike a middle ground. However, there are some things, like table tags and some templates that must be in the header/footer fields to allow for correct representation in the mainspace. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any idea why I can't edit my user page? It seems to be transcluded and what should be the edit tab says this: "view on meta.wikimedia.org". Clicking that tab does take me here. -- Valjean (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

wrt to editing your user page: It looks like you've set up a global user page at some time. I don't remember where the settings for this live. Probably on meta. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I'll check my preferences there. -- Valjean (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

You've kindly suggested as I'm new to enWS that a small proofreading or validation task would be good as a first step. My interests include: NZ Women (biographies and other material esp in relation to suffrage),Children's literature, NZ law. Thanks Noracrentiss (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Noracrentiss: A validation task that would be useful is to go through some of the laws listed at Portal:Royal Society of New Zealand. Validation is being a second pair of eyes on the text. Did the proofreader (me) get all the spellings and punctuation correct? There's no need to worry about the layout for these, as that's already dealt with. To get to the scans to verify against, click on the "Source" button along the top above the page header. That will take you to the Index: page. From there you can click on any yellow page in the pagelist and then verify the text side-by-side with the scan. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Beeswaxcandle: I have reviewed the Royal Society of New Zealand Act and "Validated" all but 4 pages where I corrected some minor typos. I left these pages as unvalidated as I assume someone will need to check that my corrections are in fact correct. I forgot to put a note about what I had changed on the first page but think I remembered to do it on the other 3 pages. I wasn't sure if this is the correct procedure. so will hold off doing any more validation until I get confirmation (or otherwise) about whether or not I'm on the right track. (And as an aside, my reason for choosing this particular Act to do first is that when I worked for MORST (MBIE's predecessor), I was involved in "shepherding" this actual Act through Parliament. )

@Noracrentiss: It's fine to mark corrected pages as Validated—particularly if the corrections are minor. It's only when I've had to make major changes, like a complete re-do that I leave it as Proofread. Your aside is a big part of what makes doing this stuff so interesting. I'm working on tracking down some material on NZ suffrage. I was hoping to find some materials via Eliza & the White Camellia that was published for the 125th anniversary of 1893, (Eliza was my great-great-grandmother.) but there's no bibliography. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the change to my rights! I've been dabbling for awhile and still having fun. Have an easy day! The Eloquent Peasant.

Hi, you leaved me a note about The Lady of the Camellias requesting chapter split, soo I did, I would also like to know how I could reduce the text width like for example in the French version: https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/La_Dame_aux_cam%C3%A9lias/I ? Thanks.

@BluePrawn: My preference is to allow readers to select their desired layout rather than force it on them, so I am not the one to ask how to force it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I can understand your point of view, it's true that different people can have different taste, but it's not true that if someone prefer the other layout he/she can get it, there's no css switcher on wikisource to select different layout, the maximum someone can do is reduce the browser window width, and then the text will still stay very close to the left menu which is disturbing to read the content, and the text will not be justified. Most people probably prefer justified text in books, because I've never seen even a single book where the text is not justified. I also think that we have several centuries of experience about how to make a good layout for novel books, they almost always have about something similar because this is what is the easier to read for everyone ; if really a lot of reader would like different layout for books we would find in book shops a lot of different kind of book presentation. But I still share your opinion about not force a presentation, in the example I gave the width of the text is expressed in fixed pixel in the css instead of percentage of the window, which is personally what I prefer, but for the one I helped on the English wikisource it would still be nice to add some padding on the left and right which would not force anything while the reader will still be able to resize his window to change the width of the text. Anyway it's only a small detail and a minor issue, still thanks for your answer :)

The West Coast Task Force project page is growing, as we now have a paid person at Grey District Library scanning regularly, and have received a little grant money. Lots more works being added to Wikisource over the next few months. Thank you for all your support of the project, and feel free to formally add yourself to the team if you'd like to contribute regularly. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, a page I've transcribed has hyphenated word that contains "ſ" (diſ-cover’d). I've tried to use the {{ls}} template with the {{hws}}, but it breaks the span title because it itself cannot contain spans. Is there any way around this issue? Alnaling (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

You can pass something in the "title" parameter (e.g. discover'd) to populate the tool tip. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Alnaling (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Kia ora,

The Committee of Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand Incorporated have developed a draft strategy for 2022 -2025. Feedback from members of the Wikimedia User Group of Aotearoa New Zealand that are New Zealanders or residents of Pacific islands without an established chapter is encouraged. The draft strategy can be read and commented on at this Google docs link  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XoqMupo_5TlLs_6xuMU-3KU5_Lzks8unwFRo4QuDVM4/edit?usp=sharing  or in the discussion page of the Wikimedia User Group of Aotearoa New Zealand by adding a New Topic. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_User_Group_of_Aotearoa_New_Zealand  The feedback round closes at midnight Sunday 9 October 2022. Einebillion (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Mystified as to the purpose of your change and comment, though it's not particularly a problem. The Greek is part of the quotation from the Bible. Quotations from the Bible (and from other books) are what is italicized in Matthew Henry. The Greek letters are slanted in the page image. Therefore I don't see a problem with them being italicized. This is what I've done before on other pages. Matthew Henry frequently has bilingual quotations - e.g. a Latin and its English equivalent, both in italics. PeterR2 (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Standard print convention is that words and phrases that are normally italicised are put into roman if they occur in an italicised section of text. i.e. they're always the opposite of the surrounding text. This was the intent of my comment. However, here at enWS we don't normally italicise Greek anyway. Instead we use the marking templates. These both mark the text as being in the language and use a special Greek font that is more readable than the Greek letters in the standard fonts. Italicising characters that are not standard Roman glyphs doesn't really make sense. The purpose of italicising is to provide emphasis. The fact that a different alphabet is being used is already emphasis enough. In Henry's work, the Greek just looks italicised because that's the nature of the font the publisher has used. There are similar issues in Cyrillic and Hebrew (and Indic) texts. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Dear Beeswaxcandle,

My name is Ghozi. I’m co-ordinator of Program Committee for ESEAP 2022: Reconnect.

Thank you for submitting a proposal for the conference. Program Committee decided to accept your proposal for the program .

We have placed you in the Workshop Tech and Platform: Wikisource. Please find the details regarding your session below.

1) Workshop Tech and Platform: Wikisource (60 mins)

Moderator - TBC

- Opening - (5 mins)

- Beeswaxcandle (40 mins)

- QA - (10 mins)

- Closing - (5 mins)

Please let us know if you’re okay with this arrangement. After we got your confirmation, we may need your email and CC you in a new thread with everyone involved in this session, so everyone can discuss the session more.

Thank you, stay healhty and have a good day.

Best regards,

Ghozi Septiandri

On behalf of the Program Committee

ESEAP 2022: Reconnect GhoziSeptiandri (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello Beeswaxcandle,

I saw your name in the list of participants :)

Let me know which media/medium you are comfortable talking more about your session.

Best,

Ghozi GhoziSeptiandri (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ghozi, Timing looks to be fine, although a QA session seems to be superfluous in an active workshop setting and I expect to be answering questions throughout. What do you need from me in terms of "discussion" of the session? The only two venues to contact me are on this talk page or via the email this user function. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello Beeswaxcandle,

No need to worry about the QA part. This details above is a draft. We will build the session based on what you need. You can add more speakers if someone reaches you after the submission to join the panel. There're a lot of new names related to Wikisource from the list of participant, we can send an invitation to join this panel.

After the official announce tomorrow, we plan to have a chat together (organizer, moderator and speaker/s) next week. We can do that here :) if you want. GhoziSeptiandri (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to Workshop Tech and Platform: Wikisource!

Thanks for your passion, effort, and support to build the program for the ESEAP 2022: Reconnect. Please see the updated draft for this session below.

Workshop Tech and Platform: Wikisource
Moderator: Satdeep Gill (WMF)
- Opening (5 mins)
- Beeswaxcandle (NZL) (40 mins) (from submission)
- QA (10 mins)
- Closing (5 mins)

Note:
1) If you have a presentation file please send the file here. Or you can upload it into commons and send the link here before 15 November 2022.
2) We will ask participant to not take any picture for privacy policy.
3) Please write your short bio for the moderator to introduce the speaker.
4) You may want to wear something iconic from your origin country such as a national costume or trademark (flag, toy, flower, animal, etc) at the Friday Night Social Event.
5) This session is not streamed.

Feel free to let us know if you have any questions regarding the program. See you in Sydney next week :)

Thanks again and have a good day.

Best regards, Ghozi Septiandri On behalf of the Program Committee ESEAP 2022: Reconnect GhoziSeptiandri (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I fail to see how converting the incorrectly formatted contents pages into correct TOC format, with accurate layout and formatting constitutes 'uglification'. Chrisguise (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's not "incorrectly formatted". It's a simple, elegant table. It is not required to reproduce dot-leaders here—particularly where the page number is not the link. The dot-leader templates are problematic in their implementation and I ceased using them in late March 2013. Additionally, dot-leaders have neither a practical nor an ornamental function in an e-presentation of a book. We are not confined to the printed page here and far too much time is spend by some editors in attempting to reproduce the artefacts of the printers' workarounds to make things fit within the boundaries of a piece of paper, or to look good on that same size of paper. Does it look good on a small phone screen and on a 15″ laptop screen? If so, that's all we need to do. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

This book is stalled at pg. I have been wanting to ask you to consider doing it, well, since I learned that you are the goto person for this. It is not the usual song book, it is bird song put to notes: File:Field book of wild birds and their music (IA fieldbookofwildb00math).pdf.

Probably you know this, but a word of warning is due. Birds that vocalize are called "song birds". So this is not just a book of beautiful tweets and shrills. For example, my favorite when I saw it because even without knowing how to read music, I knew it to be true is the Flicker, pg 23/79 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AField_book_of_wild_birds_and_their_music_(IA_fieldbookofwildb00math).pdf&page=79

Also, while flipping around for that, I noticed what is probably a very dorky song about a cuckoo and a cherry tree, but most of it is bird song!

When I found this, it was my first hands-on with half-tone images. I have recovered from the indignation and the appalled and can dig out what I did or redo them (the plates). Also, I will proof them and not put indentations in it and I might be able to get some help to proof it (which will be better than me, for sure!) -- however much or little you would like me to do, you being the resident artist and me being the fan and the wanna be and wanna have and the music illiterate.

I really did not want to bother you, I know you have a backlog of your own projects and probably those for others as well, but recent encouragement has come my way that perhaps you are bored and maybe will be open to this new book. Ever hopefully--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I know I have a similar project for NZ bird song coming my way, which I would prefer to work on as a proof of concept before tackling something the size of this work. I'm also trying to clean off some of my long outstanding projects before getting involved in some new ones. Let's see how the NZ one goes before we jump into this one. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Let me know when the NZ book is here and ready to go!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have attempted to reproduce the tables for the vocab on Page:Fairytales•Tregear•1891.pdf/10, but they are obviously short of the mark. When you have a moment, would you please sort them out on that page? Then I will be able to use that formatting at the end of each chapter where the vocab tables appear. Oronsay (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Oronsay: I've done what I do with these. What I've done in each column is find the widest word and then put a {{gap}} at the end of it to force the next column to start across a bit more. For the definitions, I've just set as a single column rather than messing around with balancing, which means we don't need to worry about the centre line. Because the font is smaller on the printed page, I've also reduced it to 92%—which is a distinguishable size without getting too small for the general reader. The next standard size down is 83% (or smaller), but I don't think we need to do that in this book. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much. I will be able to work through the pages that I've already done and update with this formatting advice. Takes me back to typing school in the 1970s where we had to count the longest word in each column and then work out the tabs to set. Oronsay (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

How so are these “multiples”? They are separate works, which I finished at around the same time. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The point of the New Texts template is to showcase on the Main page the variety of works that we host and are actively working on. When the same title appears four times, in this case, as a block it diminishes that purpose. It also has the effect of pushing works off the Main page even more quickly than already happens. Additionally, two of the works had the same author, which is listed in the instructions as something to never have in the active part template at the same time. The four works looked like a series, so I chose the oldest one to remain active. I would also add that, if I hadn't adjusted the list, one of the others would have. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think I found the full name of E P Dumerque (I believe he was Edward Perry Dumerque) who was a contributor to the Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute. I left a message on the name's Discussion page with some possible linking sources. It's not 100% certain that this is the same person and I wasn't quite sure what I should do with my contention that this is the full name. Can you advise? Thanks very much Noracrentiss (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Kia ora, I let Emerson at Papers Past know about the project and he reckons there's opportunity to help each other. If you're interested message me an email address and I'll put you in touch! Avocadobabygirl (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Why did you revert me there? This work was never included in new works. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

New texts is for texts that are new, i.e. recently completed. That work was completed in July 2019, which is not new. I was initially alerted by the Handel work, which I knew I had worked on many years ago as part of PotM. Some editors choose not to put their completed works in the new texts area—and that's okay—it's not intended to be a complete catalogue. That's covered by Category:Index Validated. If you want the works to be in the new texts list, then they should be interpolated into the appropriate month in the archives. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I consider that the omission to include a pity. I don’t see any issue with inserting a work in "New Texts" which was never inserted before, even if it wasn't completed right now. Yann (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your Welcome. I am active in it.Wikisource. Here I'll help this University Project. --Susanna Giaccai (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can you please tell me how to make link to wikidata ad to Wikipedia. In fr:wikisource {{Hwp|Basilique Santa Maria Novella|Santa Maria Novella}} and to Wikidata {{Annotation QID|Q3606185|fresques de la Scala}}, Thanks Susanna Giaccai (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you have modified pages 584 and 585. Without section this page has no more content. M-le-mot-dit (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorted by deleting for the time being. Incorrectly named as there were multiple meetings of the various societies that make up the Institute. Once the Wellington Philosophical Society subpage of Volume 40 is created after proofreading all the pages of it, then it (and the next article) will have their place. Also, it is incorrect to apply a license template to subpages where it is not different to the parent page. CC-by doesn't apply to pre-1927 works. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, that's consistent. A new article will be created when more pages are proofread. M-le-mot-dit (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Was this of interest: - https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies It's a Biographical directory for prominent people from New Zealand? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, but I've been using it for several years to work out who some of the Authors in the Transactions are. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

You created the author page with the y spelling but the portal had the i spelling. On Goodreads, I see a couple of covers with the i spelling. Do you know if the y spelling was actually used ? -- Beardo (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, on looking back at my source it looks like a typo on my part. Thanks for picking it up. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Cheers. So should the y version just be deleted ? Or should it be left as a soft redirect ? -- Beardo (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's on the borderline in terms of time, so a soft direct for a couple of months is best. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've identified this person in wikidata Aleksandr Voyeykov but he already has a different english author page Author:Aleksandr Ivanovich Woeikoff as well as this one. Author:Alexander Wojeikof I'm not sure what to do now to link the two author pages to the Wikidata entry. I've updated the wikidata entry to add information to the "also known as" values. Can you let me know how to progress? Do the two author pages need merging? Einebillion (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, they need merging with a redirect, but I'm not sure in which direction, or if indeed a new page that combines the two. @Billinghurst: can you assist with (or advise on) this? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is a merge gadget at WD that you can set up to use. Typically that will merge to the oldest item, and that is suitable. I'll get it done. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

oh, just locally. I have merged to the longer name, though Russian names have such variability when Anglicised and interpreted. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

If I found a missing page in the following example: https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:A_curious_herbal_volume_1_blackwell.djvu/63&action=edit&redlink=1

If I have the replacement page, how do I upload it since the file is in the djvu or pdf format? It will be troublesome to modify the file and upload it again. Wikisource seems do not provide a guide for this. Any help is very much appreciated. Thank you. Cerevisae (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Drop a message at the Scan Lab and the team there will be able to assist you with this. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Noted, thanks ! Cerevisae (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

How did you determine that this is the same edition as our text? The LibriVox page doesn't seem to give any edition information at all (well, or I am blind, which is probably equally likely). Xover (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

On the LV page on the left there is a link to the "Online text" used. The PG page at that link indicates that it was the John Murray 1927 edition that was the basis of the American reprint that was read from. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ah. Elementary, apparently. :)

But are you sure that's the text they used for this particular reading? I've seen LibriVox link to a random Gutenberg text in that link on enough occasions that I am very sceptical of it absent other evidence. I don't follow LibriVox enough to be categorical either way, of course, but… Xover (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'm sure because I was one of the readers and that's the text I used. I'm only linking to LibriVox recordings that I've done or been involved with. My solos are all based on our own texts as derived from IA or HathiTrust, but I don't have control over the editions chosen by others for group work. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh, excellent. Good to know. Xover (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I found some online scans of the four volumes - they were under Philip Miller's name, but were shown as edited by Thomas Martyn on the title page. Hope that this is what you were looking for!

• HaithiTrust: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100790561
• BHL: Search results - four volumes - the scans are held on the "Biblioteca del Real Jardín Botánico de Madrid" digital library, I found you could download the individual volumes, but they were large and took a while to download (for example, Vol I Part I was 312 MB and took about 10-15 minutes to download - they may be better quality scans)
• Internet Archive: only Vol II, Part II

A nice description from the UK Royal Collection Trust David Nind (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wonderful, thank you. I'll see what we can do with the Madrid scans. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Beeswaxcandle, thanks for keying me into WS:STYLE and use of ''italics'' instead of {{emtext}} (I'm a new editor, but saw the latter used in another Wikisource work so I mistook it as a convention).

I noticed in this edit of The Urantia Book you removed some double blank lines. In this text, variable sizes between paragraphs have meaning (I'm very familiar with this text). Would it not best to preserve that intent, since WS:STYLE#Formatting mentions it as allowable? Should we use {{DoubleHeightRow}}? Brad606 (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ah. I didn't notice the distinction between the two paragraph settings on that page and just assumed. Sorry about that. Yes, the double blank lines is correct. I don't like the {{DoubleHeightRow}} template for various reasons and so would prefer just the double return. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Good deal, thanks! Will look at your recent contribs for examples of best practices. Cheers Brad606 (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've come across a problem with volume 6 of DNB (fully validated and transcluded) and didn't want to undo anything unnecessarily (e.g. changing status of pages to 'problematic' and removing 'fully validated' status) before consulting someone. In the scan, pages 411 and 412 are out of order, consequently the transcluded article is assembled incorrectly. I could fix this in the transclusion, but fixing the scan would be the better option.

Apologies if you're not the right person to ask for an opinion; I couldn't find a central contact point for the DNB project and I've come across you in recent DNB edits. Chrisguise (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've nearly finished Index:Sophocles' King Oedipus.pdf. This is a key English translation and publication by Irish dramatist W. B. Yeats. This is the translation that was made into an art film with a young William Shatner in the chorus, which in turn was the film that inspired Tom Lehrer's song "Oedipus Rex". But I will need assistance stitching together the musical portions (pp. 55 to 61). If you can assist with this, so that the pages are Proofread, it would be much appreciated.

Things to note:

1. There are five Choruses, each of which spans more than one page. I do not know whether our score tags can handle page-spanning pieces, and would not be surprised if we had to "move" musical portions to condense each Chorus to a single page. I haven't had to do this before. On the plus side, there is a single melody line and (mostly) single vocal text line for each Chorus. But this isn't a situation I've dealt with before, so I don't know how we would accomplish this best.
2. I have never before had to deal with a key signature or time signature change mid-piece, so rather than try to kludge them together, I transcribed each separately. I put each melody line and each vocal line on separate lines to match the line breaks in the original for ease of proofreading / troubleshooting.
3. The "Second Chorus" (pp.67 to 68) is the only piece with simultaneous vocal text, though only a few words in total. I could not find an example of how to do this that made sense, since the rhythm also differs between the two "words" that are simultaneous, so the few second line words have been placed into the footer. I need help inserting the parallel words into those three situations.
4. The prefatory material suggests a particular range/timbre for each voice, so if it can be done without much grief, I'd like to be able to set a different sound for each of the different sections (Leader, 2nd Voice, 3rd Voice, All). These changes happen mid-piece, sometimes more than once, and I do not know if this can even be done. But indicating the change of "voice" to the listener by invoking a different instrumental sound would be useful to do. If this can be done, I would also need information about what options exist. if it cannot be done, that's fine. But: even if it can be done, I'd like to know what timbre/instrument options exist before you go to the trouble. There may not be meaningful or sonorous options, in which case, it would not be worth the trouble.

I have finished all but the last two pages of score, but expect to have that done either today or tomorrow. The first three Choruses are fully transcribed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm away from my usual haunts at present, so will need to delay looking at this properly for another few days, but on a quick glance, it looks easily solvable. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Gentle nudge as reminder, since it looks as though you are back. These scores are the only parts holding up the completion of this work, newly in the public domain. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Scores sorted. Pagination has to be played with to make transclusion practicable. I've done the simultaneous text as a second lyric line. I've never needed to change the sound part way through a piece. The only way I can think of doing it in Lilypond is to use voices on the same staff, which then has flow on effects making lyrics awkward to deal with. The available sounds are the standard general MIDI ones as listed here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've completed the work, but could not figure out the syntax for specifying a sound from the MIDI listings. I looked at other examples of scores on Wikisource that do this, but they are all multi-voice and so the syntax could not simply be copied. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Use \set Staff.midiInstrument = "cello" (for example) in the initial set of commands where the clef, time-signature, &c. are set. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

FYI, I created {{elsewhere score}} for a more visible notice in the Page namespace. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just wondering if there is any typeface that can match "His Highness the Rajah of Sarawak" on this page Page:A SEA Dyak Dictionary in alphabetical parts, with examples and quotations shewing the use and meaning of words.pdf/3. Regards. Cerevisae (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I use the blackletter template {{bl}} for this. I've had a go at the page for you to have a look at the way I approach Title pages. I couldn't get the {{justify}} template to behave for me, so haven't replicated that. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help! Cerevisae (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I 've been looking into some past discussions and precedents on this discrepancy, and I could only find one discussion from 2020 about how to deal with this spacing convention. It seems like most people do n't like replicating this with a physical space character, and say that we probably should n't leave them like this because they did n't have semantic meaning.

Despite the clear views of Xover and Inductiveload against using a space, there doesn't seem to be any official policy or even guideline around this. And that discussion was no attempt at making such a policy. Maybe there should be one, though. I'm no expert in typesetting, but I don't like the spaces. I'd rather stay on the side of consistency and not respect that spacing convention, which is why I didn't. PseudoSkull (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also was this really not a typo? It looks glaringly like a mistake every time I see this in a text. PseudoSkull (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Their use can vary by work. In many prose works, collapsing the space has no effect on the text, and is fine. But in some works with dialogue, the space is intentional and required. I can think of two such categories where it should be preserved: (1) The spacing is used to present a dialectical form of English. Such situations can be spotted where some character's dialogue includes the spaces, but other character's dialogue does not, or where lots of additional contractions appear, and it is clear that the additional apostrophes and additional spacing is intentional. (2) Poetical works where replacing text like 't was with 'twas would change the rhythm of the lines. The former is a two-syllable, two-word foot with stress on the second word; but the latter is a single stressed syllable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

"… ’t was …" and "… ’twas …" is probably mostly going to be deliberate, I think, and in something supposed to be speech-y (i.e. a character's speech, in play or prose, or in poetry) needs to be preserved. But "… did n’t …" and "… could n’t …" and similar are mostly going to be an artefact of printing that can be silently corrected. But the bottom line is that it's going to require judgement in each case, and possibly also discussions with other contributors if you're lucky enough that someone else is interested enough in the text to want to help out. I don't think this can have a bright-line policy beyond "… must be assessed case by case …", nor even rules of thumb for specific variants. Maybe a discussion in the style guide somewhere to help people with the assessment could work though. Xover (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, that doesn't look like a typo; and in any case, {{SIC}} should generally not be used for missing punctuation like this. Xover (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

30 has an inconsistent hyphenation with 240 for the word "gunshot". People processing a full text in bulk may notice this as an error, which is why Gutenberg silently corrects these, so that's why I've been marking these as inconsistent on all texts I've done, no matter how far apart the inconsistencies were from one another. It's one of the ways I have been trying to catch up with Gutenberg's technology in my own work. PseudoSkull (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

We don't "silently correct" text by policy. And some of PG's policies are just weird. This particular book is a collection of short stories that Fuller published in various places over several years—along with some stories published for the first time. I expect some variation in orthography as a result. Arcane templates are usually removed by me on sight. This particular one has two negatives for me: a) annotation of the text; b) a tool tip. If I find an egregious typo, I mark it with {{sic}} and almost never use {{SIC}}. I leave a few of the latter in when others have used them, but it has to be a major problem.

With respect to the spacing, the period of publication was when n't contractions were moving out of dialect and into common speech. Publishers were attempting to appease purists and modernists at the same time. In this particular text I see it as representing the speech pattern of Old Lady Pratt, whereas the grandchildren are more likely to elide the two in their speech pattern.

By the way, the reason I'm even looking at this book is that I've just initiated a project over on LibriVox to record a spoken word version. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, hey, by the way, I don't mean to come off as negative with you—thank you for taking the time to validate this, and to provide a free audiobook no less! That's a huge effort, and I hope it goes well for you. Feel free to link the audiobook files when you're done. I'll also fix the transclusion soon, to reflect it being a short story collection (due to my previous error to do this).

I did a few other works by Anna Fuller by the way, but I stopped with her when I discovered that one of them repeated vignettes from other works, and within themselves. The coding logic of it therefore got complicated for me. I believe the work in question was One of the Pilgrims.

Let's agree to disagree on {{hinc}} for now. I thought it necessary to mark it, in fact I thought of it as an added spice of technical artistry, something most editors wouldn't do, but that I have the means to. Every time there are hyphenation inconsistencies in a work I do, I get a list of them that the processing program I use automatically finds, and that I check up on manually. One reason I do this is because it's also the source of a common Wikisource proofreading typo as well, where a word is supposed to be hyphenated, but the OCR doesn't fix this because "–" is at the end of a line so not treated like a real hyphen. So, another reason I mark the real ones with {{hinc}} is to remind me (and potentially other editors) that the inconsistency is legitimate, and that it's not due to an incorrect insertion or deletion of a hyphen by OCR proofreading.

Another rationale is that in print, it was nearly impossible for typists and editors to catch all these variations, in any book. After all, there was no Find and Replace. But, since we have digital processing tools, it's not only possible but can be easy for us today. So I would almost consider the inconsistencies under the purview of "technical limitations of print", and not legitimate use of a variation, but it's impossible to prove its legitimacy, so I just wanted to mark it as "inconsistent" rather than as a typo. I always think to myself, "gee, they must have fired their intern and went with somebody else," every time for example the word "Phœbe" is changed to "Phoebe" after Chapter 6 in a novel (and that I would unambiguously consider a typo).

I thought marking it would be nice, but I didn't expect people would find it intrusive. One UX compromise might be for a tooltip not to be displayed in certain instances, such as when the inconsistencies appear hundreds of pages apart, but accept the tooltip version if they appear in the same chapter or section or especially page. The idea is that it could be marked just so people, or programs, know it's there. Although in this instance, it's fair to say that, since Fuller's work is a short story collection with subworks taken from various sources, this might be a grey area.

Anyway, thanks for considering what I had to say about it, and good luck. SnowyCinema (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't see your responses as negative, rather you're doing what I do when I see that someone is validating my texts. "Is there anything that they're finding that I can take on board to improve my proofreading?" Or, for you, the algorithms. (And I agree that I would probably keep Phœbe consistent.) One of my ongoing contributions here is the Stratemeyer Syndicate books. Their methods of writing, editing, and publishing were "conveyor belt", which resulted in some pretty bad production values on some of the books—even the more popular ones. But, then, their general target audience of 8 to 14 y.o. wasn't particularly discriminating. As a result I end up having to make these sorts of calls regularly.

Because of this experience I also think about who the likely reader is for our texts. If it's a technical work like Manual of the New Zealand Flora, then I'm focused much more on authorial intent and would be more inclined to allow for editing inconsistencies. But if it's a bit of "read once" light fiction, it's not worth worrying too much about.

w.r.t. the tooltips, my e-reader underlines the text at that point but doesn't indicate why, so for me emphasis is added and I have to decide what it means. This interrupts my reading flow, which is either frustrating or just annoying depending on my mood. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah, interesting! I have yet to see some particularly egregious typographical laziness in early 20th century work—I thought that was exclusive to the latter half of the century and beyond. Lol. Well, anyway, I'll try and think of a less intrusive solution to this, and I'll let you know if I have any ideas. SnowyCinema (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@SnowyCinema: I've found typographical laziness in early works by female authors. For example, the first edition of Ethan Frome was well-edited up to about the halfway point, and after that it's full of editorial laziness. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@SnowyCinema: Did you know that we know who the compositors were for the 1623 First Folio of Shakespeare? We know because the people involved had idiosyncrasies like those discussed here, so we can identify where those occur and assign the plays to a compositor (often down to the individual page). In fact, there are multiple people who have made their careers and academic reputation on just such studies, and there are entire massive monographs published on the topic. That they fired their intern after chapter 6 is actually significant information.

That being said, I agree with Beeswaxcandle: how seriously (strictly) to take this depends somewhat on the text. For one-penny pulps the leeway for laziness (pick a style, stick to it) is much greater (counter-example: Lovecraft), getting increasingly strict on a scale that terminates at scholarly monographs and transcriptions of the actual First Folio. But when we're at the First Folio, the Folger maintains a catalogue of surviving copies with enough detail to distinguish individual copies (in one case they identified the multiple sources for a Frankenstein copy) based on both physical characteristics (stains etc.) and quirks of the changing compositors.

PS. {{SIC}} has always been slightly controversial as an annotation, and several editors insist on using {{sic}} instead for all typos. I personally think we should consolidate the two and explicitly allow {{SIC}} as a permissible annotation, but, in any case, any new template mimicking {{SIC}} (vs. {{sic}}) has the policy presumption against it. I am not at all sure I would support visually tagging inconsistent hyphenation (or any other mere inconsistency) as a sufficient reason for such annotation. Xover (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Xover: Gee, we really consider that annotation? I never thought a tooltip would count as an annotation, since it can't be seen unless you hover over it, and doesn't get included in the copy-paste text. But the fact that you can't see it on mobile devices when you hover over it makes me hate smartphones even more is unfortunate and I agree that that's really annoying...

My personal philosophy on SIC is to use it when they have a typo that's either 1. unambiguously recognizable as a typo (even in the context of their own time period, eliminating the form simply from being obsolete or archaic), or 2. if it's a typo, and inconsistent with other parts of the text using the same word. Which is where hyphenation inconsistencies come in. Since, I think inconsistencies are more recognizable to me as erroneous, especially if it occurs on the same chapter or page. I admit it might seem a lot more like fussing over nooks and crannies if we're talking about the inconsistencies being hundreds of pages and ten chapters apart from one another (but I still think they should be somehow noted in any case, at least for editors who might try to change them). But if they're on the same page or in the same chapter, this is something that people would immediately notice if they had any kind of eye for detail while reading, so I think at least this should be noted. If you have 5 "gunshots" and 1 "gun-shot" on a single page (which I've actually seen happen before), then the 1 "gun-shot" was clearly wrong anyway.

I think our technology to mark typos is a beautiful thing personally, and perhaps to your surprise, I'd even go far as to say it's one of my favorite parts of the project. (I'm the type of person who loves intricate detail, that's probably why.) Because it's just one more thing that sets us apart from other projects like Gutenberg, and it gives readers one more bit of contextual understanding. So I would be against removing our technology for marking inconsistencies and typos, since without them it'd be harder to actually get this understanding. And it (to me) seems very unintrusive, because instead of removing the typo outright, we opt to remain true to the original text while leaving in a note that doesn't actually alter the text in any way (which is why I am skeptical to the degree of "annotation" that it is). And since what can and can't be considered a typo is I'm sure the subject of many a heated debate even among scholars, it's easier to remove the typo marking template, which just notes a typo, than to remove a typo correction, which is harder for a proofreader to spot in the first place.

Maybe a solution for the "mobile devices" problem is to disable the tooltip specifically in exports and on mobile views, since they don't really work right in those cases. And all you see is a bit of underlining. That should be possible to do with CSS/Lua...I think. (Or maybe we can just complain to Apple, Amazon, and Google. I'm sure they'd listen to us.) SnowyCinema (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Comment The other idea I had for noting these "inconsistencies" and typoes is with a template that's placed on the page but not necessarily visible outside the wikitext editor. But, we can make a module for the Header template and/or Index that includes a collapsible "Errata" template that lists all the typos (hey, and it's also kind of an homage to the old texts we love so much, since they also used to do this). It's apparently harder and more resource-intensive to get Lua to actually go and read wiki pages than it is to collect data from Wikidata, but still technically possible. So it's not the solution I'd prefer over just tooltipping them, although it'd be pretty cool if it could actually be done. SnowyCinema (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you again for the welcome. I was encouraged by it, and I made a new index for The Giant Horse of Oz. SDudley (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am strongly considering Tristan und Isolde as a project in the next couple of months, but this is one work where the music (no it's not the full score) would add tremendously to the value of the work if it were also done, both because of the "Tristan chord" and the turning point this opera was to the history of Western Music. Are the music pages at the end of this particular edition be something you'd be willing to tackle, if I did set this up? It's definitely beyond my limited skill. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, they look to be something I can do in terms of type-setting. There's nothing too complex in it as it's a straightforward piano score. I think the only thing I've not done before is the Ossia at the bottom of the second page. The sound version would requires a different treatment because of the repeated stringendo instructions. From the Adagio part way through the first page through to the end, there is a gradual step-wise acceleration. This means that the sound file will need to be generated off-site, uploaded to Commons as a separate file and then linked—rather than using the automatic play file associated with the score. Let me know when you've uploaded the Index: and I'll slot it into my WS schedule. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can set up the Index today or tomorrow. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Index:Tristan und Isolde (Met Opera).djvu, with the music on pages 37 to 40. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Work has been completed by myslef and another editor (Wainuiomartian) on finding the full first name of authors the Contributors to Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute The vast majority have been completed but we would like help with two questions:

H. M. Christie is Henry Maynard Christie. However the article is actually authored by his wife Cordelia Christie as evidenced in the printed version (See Author Discussion). Our question is how to record the author correctly

H P Macklin This is Hubert Patrick Macklin and has been expanded. But this was an alias of his real name, Patrick McGlynn - is there a way (or a need?) to add the alias?

Thanks for your help!

~~~ Noracrentiss (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you both doing these and I very much appreciate the work you've put into it.

I've moved H. M. Christie to Author:Cordelia Christie and left the redirect active. The WD item should be linked to the new place.

Macklin is not as straightforward. Did he author anything under McGlynn? If he did, then that needs to be the page with redirects from the alias. However, if he only wrote under Macklin, then the page can stay there with a note (in the header field) stating his real name and create a redirect from that name. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is not clear to me that the "binder's mark—these are not relevant to a digital version" is a sufficient or agreed upon reason for this number to be removed. There are other pages e.g. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_story_of_the_flute_(IA_storyofflute1914fitz).djvu/105 which indeed include the number. As far as I can tell, faithful recreations of the texts are more important than the consideration of whether it is a "digital version" and nowhere I can see has this declaration been made clear anywhere in this specific text. Shootmanng (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nothing placed in the footer in the Page: namespace is taken through into the transclusion in the Mainspace, which is where the digital version of the text sits. A binder's mark is not a part of the text, rather it is an artefact of the publishing on paper process. Thus as a house style it was decided many years ago that we wouldn't reproduce binder's marks and I remove them on sight. The fact that they are turning up in various works here is indicative that we haven't written the Help pages usefully. I'll get onto that now. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Understood, thanks for taking the time to reply. Shootmanng (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are a very few (extremely rare) circumstances where I have transcribed binding marks with informational value. True, they do not get transcluded into Mainspace, but in one series I've worked on, the binder's mark on page 1 was the only place in the books that the individual volume number in the series appeared. In that situation, it carries significant information we otherwise would not have, and a pointer to the Page namespace can be used to verify the volume number. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sure, but as it's extremely rare, I think it's best dealt with as an exception to the convention. I've put a section into Help:Formatting conventions (rather than the Style Guide). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, it's rare enough that I don't object at all to what you've done. But as you indicated you "remove them on sight", I wanted to be sure you were aware of the rare instances where they are meaningful. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are the tables on Wikisource:Administrators/Archives keyed to the next expiration of confirmation dates? I am guessing that's why they go into 2025. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, 1 year into the future. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

That makes sense, thanks. BD2412 T 02:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are a number of pages appearing in the orphaned pages list, including Page:Adventures of Kimble Bent.djvu/1. I haven't got to grips with how the indexes work, so I don't know what needs doing. -- Beardo (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure why these pages have flagged when they are patently linked to the related Index. It's not as if I normally transclude such pages to the mainspace. I suggest waiting to see what happens in the next refresh. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Odd - when I last looked, that page I linked was showing as not linked from anything. Some quirk of the system, I suppose. -- Beardo (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello! In 2013 you put a header on a short story. I went ahead and added the pdf of said short story. I linked it in the discussion page for the file, but it is also at File:The Ninth Skeleton (1928).pdf if needed. Would you be able to help teach me how to best notate on the page? I'm unsure of how to and would like to learn. Best, SDudley (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey Beeswaxcandle! So I noticed you added a standardized template to NWS Wichita Area Forecast Discussion on April 24, 2024. If I may ask, could you let me know what an issue with it is? I’m fairly new to Wikisource, so knowing what is wrong on that article can help me not repeat the mistake going forward. Cheers! WeatherWriter (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Every line seems to begin with a space, which is what's forcing that blue box around the text and making the text monospaced. Take those out. Then get rid of the end of line breaks within paragraphs. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done! Could you recheck the text to see if it was done correctly? Just to note, the original text came in that weird spaced format, where a paragraph took up 13-ish lines instead of 4 like it does now. If I got the spacing issue solved, going forward, I will go ahead and break-up the original U.S. government format to make it Wikisource format instead. But if there is something else wrong, please let me know! WeatherWriter (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

As part of work with Christchurch Libraries, I've created a list of some relevant works for Wikisource: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/AoWPAL_2024/Library This will eventually be mreged with the West Coast project but should stay under Wikipedian at Large for now. I'm a bit rusty, and have just uploaded the first book but immediately got an Invalid Interval error on the Index page. Could you possibly take a look and see what obvious mistake I might have made? https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Reminiscences_of_Earliest_Canterbury_1915.pdf Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately this is happening a bit lately. There appears to be some flakiness in the links between Commons and us when first setting up some files. Others are reporting that it seems to settle after a few hours. I've tried my usual double hard purging of the caches, but still showing for the moment. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah thank you. I'll not worry then and check back the next day before I point people to new uploads. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, and thanks again for your kind welcome! I'm having a little trouble finding what I'm looking for in the help pages. I found the book I wanted to transcribe for Wikisource already existed on Wikimedia Commons, and used that. The proofreading and formatting is nearly done (just some validation left), but over the last couple of weeks, as I've become better acquainted with Wikisource, I've become increasingly convinced that the title of the file, and consequently the index page and all of the individual pages, are less than ideal. The book is called Base-Ball Ballads, and there don't seem to be any other works by this title, or any files on Commons besides the book, and the illustrations from it that I recently uploaded. So ideally, that would be the title on Wikisource—I think. But instead, the title is "Base-ball ballads (IA baseballballads00rice)".

So my questions are: can I change the title to just "Base-Ball Ballads" (with proper capitalization, and without "(IA baseballballads00rice)")? If so, should I move the file on Commons, then come to Wikisource and move the index page, and all of the individual pages separately? Or is there a shortcut for doing this? What will I break if I attempt to do this? I assume that in future, it would be better to move the source text before adding it to Wikisource—but being new to Wikisource, I wasn't sure I should do that, or what typical naming conventions here were. I just wanted to get started on something, since the process was so different than editing articles on Wikipedia, and I thought I would absorb the material better by learning as I went. I didn't even realize that the text was already available until I was trying to figure out how to import it from Internet Archive. I apologize if this is all too complicated to expect an answer for, but thanks in advance for any advice you can give me! P Aculeius (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for delay in replying—RL is getting in the way a lot at present. The title in the Mainspace here should be "Base-ball Ballads". The Index and the pages are the back-end and the title there is not important. We've got Indexes with much more arcane names, but they come through to the Mainspace with sensible titles. The links from the Mainspace to the Index: and Page: namespaces will behave once the transclusion is done. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah, okay! Then I just need to wait for the rest of the pages to be validated before moving to mainspace. Well, there might be another issue, but I think I know how to deal with it—I just need someone to tell me if I understand the situation correctly, and I don't want to keep posting on the Scriptorium ATM, as I feel like I'm becoming a bit of a nuisance not understanding how to do things right!

As I was transcribing the book, I saw a lot of archaic slang—words no longer in widespread use, or used with meanings that readers probably wouldn't expect, as well as lots of allusions to 19th and early 20th century ballplayers who (unlike Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, or Christy Mathewson, also mentioned numerous times) are no longer familiar even to many fans of baseball history. I looked for guidance on annotating these things, and after some searching found the {{user annotation}} template and documentation, and using that provided annotations in the footer, all marked as user annotations. However, when I asked about illustrations (for another project) at the Scriptorium, I was linked to a policy page that appears to say that no annotations should be added to a work until an unannotated version has been published, and then only as a separate annotated version.

Confusing matters more, one guideline appears to say that annotations in the header don't count—I assume that this means "header or footer", as I can't recall ever seeing annotations in a header, while elsewhere in the help topics "header" is used to mean "header and footer"—while another page seems to say that annotations are acceptable on Wikisource, without mentioning separate editions, and somewhere I found guidance saying that terms could be linked, e.g. to Wiktionary (although in this case, the slang terms often lack the correct definitions there). I had been linking the names of the ballplayers to their articles in Wikipedia, with brief descriptions of them or why they were mentioned in the poems, in the footer annotations.

Just when I was about to start deleting the annotations I'd spent a lot of time on—actually as much time as typing the original text of the poems—on the theory that I could retrieve them from the page history for a separate annotated edition later, I realized that the guidance about annotations on different policy pages and help topics was contradictory and confusing, and it would be better to make sure I needed to delete them before doing so. Can you offer any advice concerning the different guidelines—if indeed they are contradictory—and what I should do with the annotations that I made? P Aculeius (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's no need to wait for complete validation before transcluding sections/chapters or a work. Most of my work here is yet to be validated.

With respect to the annotations, you can do them—provided there is an unannotated copy in the Mainspace and that the annotated version is clearly marked as such. The guideline on annotations in the header is about the notes field in the header template that is on every Mainspace page.

For the links to to Wikipedia, these are acceptable provided that they are not interpretative. If the people mentioned have authored anything, then the link should be to their Author: page rather than to Wikipedia—even if we don't host what they've written. The best template to use is {{wdl}}, that way the link degrades gracefully through the possibilities. For Wiktionary, the policy is "occasional links" … "for obscure words".

What to do with your extensive footnotes? Unfortunately, they'll need to come out for the Mainspace transclusion. However, I would create a user subpage and save them there. That way they're easily retrieved for an annotated version. Alternatively, add the information to their Wikipedia pages that you're linking to. Hope all this helps. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm, when you say "save them to a user subpage", do you mean in situ, as a duplicate of the proofread pages or the whole index (that would seem like the easiest way, though I'm not sure how to do that—creating subpages is easy enough, but I don't know whether it's possible to duplicate the whole index/set of pages) or do you mean cutting and pasting just the annotations, one-by-one, which would be a much more laborious process? Certainly doable, but even so, then I will have to research how to create a second index page for the annotated version—and that brings me back to the first question, because if that can be done, then it should be possible to duplicate the index as it currently stands (even if moved to a user subpage), then scrub the annotations from the first version to transclude into mainspace. P Aculeius (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure how the annotated versions of other works were done, so I'll turn to @Xover: to see if they can help. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I decided to bite the bullet, and made a sandbox to store the annotations, then moved them from the text to my sandbox. Restoring them one-by-one to make an annotated text will be annoying, but probably not that hard, and shouldn't take more than a day or two. Once I know what I'm doing, that is! P Aculeius (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Annotated versions are technically permitted but I strongly recommend against creating one. The fundamental reason is that we do not have tools that support annotated texts within our policy framework (given the restrictions we should have flat out prohibited them instead IMO), which means almost any attempt at one will be problematic in some way. As best I can tell we haven't created any new annotated texts in almost a decade for this reason (some non-policy-compliant texts have popped up but that's through lack of enforcement).

For anyone wanting to pursue annotations it will involve various forms of selective transclusion: tagging things in the Page: namespace such that it can be selectively transcluded into the annotated text's mainspace page without being visible in the main transcluded text. I think there are a couple of different templates for this sitting around, but all examples of their use were pretty terrible so I don't want to recommend them. Xover (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reverts, but you seem to have hit a 'glitch', possibly in the linter, in that the pages you reverted are showing up as having fostered content, which was why the headers been moved into the main body. If you have a more stable way of solving the reported 'fostered content' please explain it to me, so I don't have to waste my time, fixing tiems that according to your reasoning were 'pointless' or not broken. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I haven't a clue what you mean by "fostered content" or for that matter "linter". The pages in question were transcluding correctly and efficiently into the Mainspace before your edits and therefore fiddling with them is pointless. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The "linter" is a technical check built into MediaWiki that checks for various issues that may cause problems and which merits closer scrutiny by a human being. The checks are highly technical, and have been roundly criticised as being of rather poor utility. You can see the functionality in action on Special:LintErrors. Nothing flagged by the linter should be assumed to be something that must be "fixed", and certainly not urgently. It should, however, be checked by a human at some point and a decision made on whether or not it is something that needs some form of change (typically based on its potential to cause problems in the future). ShakespeareFan keeps running into trouble here because they have a tendency to treat the issues reported by the linter as 1) urgent, and 2) a backlog that should be reduced to 0. Neither of which is true, and so they tend to get rather harshly frustrated pushback from other contributors (not all of it deserved).

"Fostered content" is a concept from the HTML standards, applicable mostly to tables. The most common example is when a table cell is placed outside a table row. Table cells are required to be within a table row, so such cells are considered "orphan" elements. So to deal with these the standard specifies a "fostering algorithm" (i.e. make certain assumptions about where the cell was intended to be), and thus such content is considered "fostered content". Elements that are fostered can be a problem even if it currently looks ok, so instances of it should be checked. The problem is that the way we do multi-page transclusions we often have a table cell and other content that spans several wikipages. That is, in the Page: namespace we have HTML fragments not complete HTML pages, that do not get turned into complete HTML pages until the content is transcluded. This alone causes a lot of false positives. In addition, our use of the header and footer field (and other noinclude-shenanigans), makes this difficult for tools like the linter because only Proofread Page really knows about these tricks. In some scenarios this causes yet more false positives. Xover (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Following up on User talk:Ineuw#Legacy toolbar…

As mentioned, my goal is to be able to retire that Gadget to reduce the amount of code we need to deal with, and that has to be loaded on every page load, etc.

Could you go into more detail about the "screen real-estate" issue? The 2010 toolbar consumes the full width of the editing text box + the scan image. Even if the toolbar isn't there, those two components will still take up the same amount of horizontal space. So horizontally I don't see how it makes any difference. Vertically it does sit above the text box and scan image, while the 2006 toolbar lives (IIRC) inside the text box. The 2010 toolbar also has a lot more functions that will tend to make it taller, especially if its subsections are expanded (the built-in character picker is particularly egregious here). But even considering those two factors it's not really a lot of pixels difference between the two vertically, especially compared to all the other UI elements involved.

The inconsistent position of the charinsert character picker sounds more like a bug, so when I have time I'll look into that and will probably have some questions for you then. Xover (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the linter was reporting some misnested tags in User talk:Beeswaxcandle/Archive6. Whilst these are almost certainly not your fault, their removal helps speed up improvments to the parser as it no longer has to deal with certain edge cases. Much appreciate if you could consider making appropriate repairs to this and other pages in your User and User talk: spaces. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have considered and discovered that I have no interest whatsoever in doing so. Is the page broken? No. Therefore nothing to be done. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I went through my archives (I had to find them first) looking for a link to that google book of renewals. I did not find that but I did find this which made me smile when I saw it, and then again when you deleted that bad page name for me today (and I got my speedy mixed up with my sdelete, oops).

Today, looking for that rapid validation violation I found "don't indent" and other such gems. The rapid validation was truly earned and any decree to smarten up (rather than dumb down) I will always be grateful of. I looked again at your work and was struck, again, by its beauty and HONEST TO GOD, I would have immediately validated it all over again, given the chance.

Honestly, I don't know if that link will make you upset again or not -- it made me smile, so I take the chance.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

User:Calebjbaker

This had shown up as having empty running headers? I'm not sure why. Can you take a look? No changes needed {if at all at this stage.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

There was one of the 18 uses on the page that was empty. I've chucked a space character into it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply