Index talk:Federalist, Dawson edition, 1863.djvu

Proposed/de facto standards for this work:
 * Retain all ligatures
 * Use — for mdashes
 * Use only dropinitial for chapter beginnings
 * Include internal links, as well as links to wiktionary (for words unclear to a high school student) and wikipedia (for helpful background info)
 * Don't repeat a link within one paper, but it's ok to repeat links appearing in consecutive papers.


 * Be aware of capitalization and punctuation&mdash;many words need to be capitalized, many commas added, and some commas changed to semicolons or colons (or vice versa).

Feel free to propose additional standards and/or changes to these. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 05:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Update: — is deprecated: use raw &mdash; or &amp;mdash; instead. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Links needed
Some places to add links/notes:
 * 499 Provide links to other numbers: "The tendency of the Legislative authority to absorb every other, has been fully displayed and illustrated by examples in some preceding numbers."

On the missing pages
There's an edition on Google Books here. I threw the missing pages from that edition up here and here (those red links do go somewhere). The pages surrounding them are identical with what we're working on. While I feel keenly that the mixing of editions is an abomination before god, the apparent lack of any differences and our want moderates that. If there aren't any objections, they can be added to the pagelist, and, if/when the toc-index-thing ever gets finished and anchored to main namespace, whoever does that will just have to remember to include them. Prosody (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * likewise cii and ciii Prosody (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this the same version you folks are working on? George Orwell III (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, they appear to be identical. —Spangineer (háblame) 20:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a few difference between the IA scans we're using (I), the Google scans I'm using as supplement (II), and the Google scans George Orwell III provided (III). I has cover, blank verso, blank page, illustration of Hamilton, dedication, advertisement, etc. II has cover, blank verso, blank page, title page, publisher's notice, dedication, advertisement, etc., III has cover, blank verso, four blank pages, illustration of Hamilton, title page, publisher's notice, dedication, advertisement, etc. Otherwise seemingly identically. I guess they're separate runs of one edition. If one of them lacks missing/blurred pages we might consider substituting it in. Prosody (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive my inexpierence here -- so problem NOT solved??? George Orwell III (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you term a problem. :-) The three scans are virtually identical in every other respect: for example look at page 290 in I, II, III. We can continue supplementing our current scan with pages from another, or we can check if one of the two other scans is perfect and switch to using it. Either one should result in a good digital representation of the edition, the second one is better in principle I guess, but requires more work and may not even bear fruit. IMO for four pages it's not worth the bother. Prosody (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Gotcha & Thanks. George Orwell III (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

← I uploaded a djvu conversion of the GoogleBooks PDF of the Dawson edition to WikiSource using the same name as the one first uploaded to Commons. All the pages mapped over the exisiting ones without the need for any moves & after a minor edit to the pages-index to account for the 2 previously missing pages. The thumbnail's of the scanned pages. are now slowly being dropped in after I cycled through the pages manually once. Only cxli {p.143), a pretty important table, seems not to have converted --but it's page placeholder did at least so it can be substituted as the other "problematics" were.

The original is still at Commons, so reverting my edit to the Index page and a deletion of the .djvu from WikiSource should restore the previous state (2 fuzzy w/ 2 missing) if this is not acceptable for final replacement (by replacing the Commons hosted djvu with this Wikisource hosted one). George Orwell III (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm.... Anyone? George Orwell III (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing this. The several pages that proofed look fine, so I don't have an issue with uploading the new version on top of the old one on Commons.  —Spangineer (háblame) 11:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Waiting another day before swapping the djvus can't hurt. I'd feel better if Prosody chimed in though -- not to mention we still need a stand-alone cxli {p.143) to Subst: in. George Orwell III (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Lack of a text layer is a little annoying, but given that we only have ~30 pages to go, I'll just extract it from the old djvu and put it up manually sometime later. Prosody (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK the move to Commons was done & everything still looks OK here -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

M'Lean->McLean
Just noticed from the introductory section that a publisher frequently mentioned towards the end of the text as "M'Lean" is, in fact, "McLean" with a stylized c. In retrospect that probably should have been obvious, but oh well. I intend to get around to replacing the instances of M'Lean, but I leave this note here for others if I don't. Prosody (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

ToC formatting
Use |style="padding-left:xem;"| for left margin.

I. nothing

1. 1em

A. 2em

3em

a. 4em

A. 5em

a. 6em

i. 7em

i. 8em

A. 9em

a. 10em

1. 11em

Prosody (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC) (revised 15:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC), again 17:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC))


 * I'd love to pitch in when time allows but it seems as though most of the existing proofreads contain additional &lt;noinclude>s which, for a good number of IE users, are somehow "moved down" and "behave" as the deafult non-included footer normally would upon any attempted edit -- completely dumping all the content appearing afterwards from the editing window even before a preview or show diff. is tried. George Orwell III (talk) 05:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's pretty surprising. Thanks. I've followed your lead on the few pages you haven't touched and will continue the practice for the rest. Prosody (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that 3rd+ noinclude thing is a real pain in the ass sometimes. Anyway, it looks "OK" (see Sandbox & ignore the redlinks as they apparently need to be in the Index: namespace not Wikisource: ) so far but there was no real point in going with wiki-coding over plain-old-HTML with this sort of multi-padded rows, spread 3-columns wide on top column cell splits eventually occuring over the page-breaks in my humble opinion. I had to remove that for page 109 too (showed 169 in scan)... it kept breaking the interlink upon transclusion.
 * Other than the 2 fuzzy scans, which got double transcluded for now, what's going to happen with the 2 completely missing pages? George Orwell III (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice of proposal for new structure
FYI to folks interested in the Federalist: I've made a structure recommendation at Talk:The_Federalist_Papers. If there's no objection, I'll probably perform the necessary tasks next week. —Spangineer (háblame) 23:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)