User talk:Annalang13

— billinghurst  sDrewth  10:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Transclusion help
I see you are seeking Transclusion help. I too will be able to help after today (once my vacation begins).

It might be helpful to set up a Library of Scotland project page to coordinate efforts, and I can help with that as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi


 * Thank you, that's very generous of you, your help would be appreciated! I've got a few works which are (hopefully) ready for transclusion soon, so if you could let me know when would be good for you next week to help with this, that would be great?


 * Also, a Project Page sounds like a good idea! I'll pass that on to my manager.


 * Thanks, Anna


 * My vacation time has now started. I will be largely free to assist from now through the 11th. The only possible impediment is that I am in the Pacific Time Zone of the United states, so my hours will not often coincide with yours. My early morning is late evening in Scotland.


 * Some example project pages include:
 * WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica
 * WikiProject Jewish Texts
 * WikiProject NARA
 * The general information is laid out at WikiProject, but with group projects there is much freedom to make the project into whatever format is most convenient. The only real limitations are that there should be a reason for the project to exist (easily satisfied in this instance) and that the page name should be in the form"Wikisource:WikiProject projectname", so "Wikisource:WikiProject Library of Scotland" or some abbreviated form of that (as with NARA) would be possible. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

and to note that I am on AEST (+10). Note that something like ping ==> will let us know that someone is looking to get our attention. Or just pop over to WS:Scriptorium/Help where the broader community will see it. — billinghurst  sDrewth  02:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Beeswaxcandle set up WikiProject NLS, though pretty nude at the minute. I have started to categorise index: works with category:WikiProject NLS so we can get some focus. It is great that you are with us, welcome to our community, and we would like you to be able to have your mini-community here and, hopefully with our support, get some great things done. — billinghurst  sDrewth  03:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks


 * I'll check with my manager, but - if this is okay with you! - what I'll plan on doing is starting work later tomorrow so that our time zones coincide and then could we go through transclusion on a few works? I have looked at the 'Beginner's Guide to Transclusion' but I'm still unsure on how to create a page to start the process, and the details of linking between the index and the namespace. Anna
 * Either later (for you) or earlier (for you) should put us in overlapping times. And I see that Billinghurst has also offered to help. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, I think I've actually made a little progress today! I have transcluded The Adventures of Jack Okham and Tom Splicewell at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Adventures_of_Jack_Okham_%26_Tom_Splicewell_(2). I'm not 100% sure I've done everything correctly regarding the links and formatting, so please let me know anything else I should include or anything that needs changing. I'll be around later from 6ish (my time). --Annalang13 (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The essentials of transclusion are correct here. I have made two changes, as you can see here. I have removed the repeat file name and small scan link, which are not necessary, and I have added the authority control template, which allows for data and links to be displayed at the bottom of the page.  If we had more data concerning this particular chapbook, I could expain its purpose better.  Do we not know the author of this one? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! No, I think the information we have on this set of chapbooks at the moment is fairly limited as far as I know, but I will check tomorrow whether we do have author information for these works. When @Beeswaxcandle first sent over some instructions for transclusion, they mentioned that the final step would be to "use a special phrase that will create the links for the text." - I'm not very familiar with the terminology around wikisource but is this something that is done or still needs to be done? --Annalang13 (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the information on Wikidata, once we've got transclusion processes up and running, I'll come back to this and hopefully be able to add more detail to our entries!

I've got query here on author information when transcluding. This work: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_younger_brother,_or,_the_sufferings_of_Saint_Andre, was written by Madame Genlis (Found on Wikidata: d:Q55037230))). We have added an author entry for her on English Wikisource, are there any other steps that we should follow regarding adding authors? And should I add an entry under the French Wikisource entry on Wikidata or is there a different process? Thanks! --Annalang13 (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I have moved the Author page to Author:Stéphanie Félicité de Genlis. We put the name in standard name order, rather than surname first.  The "last initial" parameter uses the first two letters of the surname to link to the author index, and the software will automatically aort by last name using the "firstname" and "lastname" fields.


 * If you look at her author page, you'll see there is now an image there, and if you open her Author page in the edit window, you'll see that the birthdate and deathdate have been removed, but still show up in the Author page header. This happens because I linked the Author page on Wikidata.  Each individual has just one data item on Wikidata that coordinates the information for all Wikisource and Wikipedia projects. So once a page is linked through Wikidata, the local page pulls information like birth date, death date, image, and links to other sites from the information stored at Wikidata.  None of it needs to be added here, and this is the power of Wikidata.  We neither have to add that information locally, nor keep track of it.  Wikidata manages all the data for us, and the data is shared among all the Wikisources and Wikipedias. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata
I'm not sure which process Beeswaxcandle was referring to. the authority control connects the completed item with the database information at WikiData. Wikisource is a library in the sense that we have the books and we have several means to sort and organize works hosted here. But WikiData is a database project. Think of it as the electronic records catalog. It is where all the various bits of information about a particular item can be placed and organized and interconnected across websites. The authority control pulls information from that record and permits the reader to access the data themselves.

If you take a look at d:Q89628519 you can see an example I set up for our English translation of Hoffman's Nutcracker story. The record contains publication data, but it also links to the copy of the scan on Commons and to the external scan at the Internet Archive and to the record for that edition at Open Library. Addendum: You can see how the data is display here at the bottom of the local page at Nutcracker and Mouse-King. Look at the bottom of the page, and you can see the authority control in action, with links to the two aforementioned sites. As I indicated, that would allow a reader access to the data from those sites, and NLS could be linked similarly.

If the NLS has a publicly accessible set of records for the chapbooks your team has been uploading, then it is possible to have an identifier property created at Wikidata, and insert the identifier for that chapbook into the Wikidata item for that chapbook. This would automatically connect items added here with their corresponding data items at Wikidata. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Transclusion
I hope I am responding to your message in the right way - fairly new to Wikisource so trying to find my way around. If there is a better way, please let me know. Could I start with this one: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Adventures_of_Jack_Okham_%26_Tom_Splicewell_(2).pdf

Yes, does sound a bit alien to me at the moment, but look forward to getting to grips with it!

Thanks, Anna


 * One useful thing to know about is the syntax to link to an Index page using the small scan link template, like this:
 * Adventures of Jack Okham & Tom Splicewell (1).pdf
 * Adventures of Jack Okham & Tom Splicewell (2).pdf
 * This will allow you to organize lists that link to the Index pages without requiring the full URL. Only the portion that follows "Index:" is needed to make the link, and special characters like the ampersand can be typed just as they are.  If there is not yet an Index page, you can make a similar link to the file uploaded to Commons using commons link. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have transcluded https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Adventures_of_Jack_Okham_%26_Tom_Splicewell_(2). I have gone through with EncyloPetey but I just wanted to check if there was anything else I needed to do for this, particularly with a point you mentioned: "Finally, we'll use a special phrase that will create the links for the text."


 * I'll check back in when we start looking at the poetry texts, but if this is suitable for prose works I will pass the process on to the team and we can get started on working through them.


 * Hi Anna, it looks the way I had visualised. The "special phrase" is the pages command that has been used. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Annalang13 (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Index:Melancholy consequences of two sea storms.pdf
I see the first cut is done. If you need some further assistance in transclusion, please ping. We generally try not to push our way in and transclude others work, as that culmination and appearance generally gives that inner thrill, especially after large works. — billinghurst  sDrewth  02:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

and
 * Index:Remarkable account of a shipwreck on an uninhabited island.pdf


 * Thanks for your message! And your comment regarding the group page, definitely a good idea so I've let my manager know.


 * I've replied to EncyloPetey above and hope to go through some of the transclusion with them tomorrow, if I need any further help I'll get in touch. It will definitely be a good feeling to have some of these works 'finished'! :)


 * Anna

Poetry format
Hi

Just wanted to check in re: instructions for poetry formatting.

In your e-mail you'd recommended placing  at the end of every line and  for indents, but I was wondering about the advantages/disadvantages of using  instead? We've had a few queries about this, and I've seen other wiki-users that edit our works using this method of formatting. Happy to do whichever is best, but was just wondering what the difference was in real terms so we can explain to others? When other users have edited our works with should we then change it back?

Thanks! --Annalang13 (talk) 08:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

and em was to enable the second pass person to deal with the block centering. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * While poem tags are fine, the block center method is more reliable for producing a consistent output. For a more detailed explanation see this in my archives. Before I realised the scope and size of the NLS project, I did say to a few people to use poem tags as a first stage of doing poetry, and for a simple poem that's only on one page it works. But once we go over a page break, it gets messy and when the poem is several pages long, then the most practical solution is block center.  My first pass recommendation of using


 * Thanks for getting back to me on this! I've passed this on to the team. Sorry for all the questions, but one final thing:
 * This work https://wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Melancholy_loss_of_the_whale-fishing_ship_Oscar,_of_Aberdeen,_on_Thursday,_April_1,_1813.pdf. I can't tell what's been done, but each paragraph is automatically indenting and it looks slightly different to others. I've tried undoing some of my edits but it hasn't changed anything. Do you know why this might be happening and how to fix it? Thank you! --Annalang13 (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That work has somehow got on to the Multilingual version of Wikisource rather than the English. The way to tell is in the link. Our links all start with "en". The Index: needs to be recreated here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Tag Nesting...
Hi,

I was recently checking through some of the NLS contriubtions, and noted a small issue, namely that in some instances the construction {{{Smaller|{{c|Foo}}}} was being used. This although a minor concern, is 'mis-nesting' because c is DIV based and smaller is SPAN based. The nesting of the template calls, should be the other-way round as it's not possible to put a DIV inside a SPAN per HTML structuring rules, and it those HTML rules to which Wikisource content eventually has to conform, even though the markup used here passes through various back-end processing and rendering.

There is a special page which helps identify issues like this Special:LintErrors with various categories, but I will note that sometimes it is not easy to find where the appropriate tags or template calls have been mis-nested (or in other instances mis-paired.).

I've attempted to resolved some of these minor 'technical' concerns directly, but it would be much appreciated if you could perhaps examine the edits subsequent to yours to identify other examples and instances you might want to make yourself and other contributors aware of.

I will also note that a certain level of complexity is introduced when templates cross "Page:" boundaries, hence the /s and /e variants of certain templates which you have already encountered.

If you have queries please feel free to ask as many questions as you want., either below or on my talk page. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Thanks for pointing this out! I'll pass this on to the validating team and add to our guidance, are there other common examples of codes that need to be in a certain order? I've tried looking for guides online but they're generally way above the level that we're working at.


 * Also, will the presence of this error be flagged at any point in the process by incorrect code appearing, at transclusion for example? Or will it just get added to that page you sent me?


 * Thank you for your help! Annalang13 (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Currently, the 'report' page I noted above is the only way to find these concerns, as they are NOT reported in the page themselves.

There are others, I suggest looking through my  'repair' edits to works you and your team are doing, to find them. Another common one is to try and put a  inside   and simmilar templates. poem uses a DIV internally. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The easiest way to think about the order of templates, is to put the "where on the page is it" ones outside the "what does it look like" ones. So, center goes outside larger or smaller. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Some other comments..
 * Not all DIV vs SPAN based templates are documented as such... If you encounter a situation like the one I mentioned above with other templates, please let the wider Wikisource Community know so the documentation can be updated.
 * rule can be used for horizontal rules, custom rule aso exists for certain fancier ruler types but is more complex to use.
 * gap can be used to insert whitespace, wsp does the same (but not at the start of a line.)
 * A page with missing images shouldn't be marked as proofread or validated..
 * Obvious typos, printers errors should be marked with SIC (see it's documentation)
 * Long-s can be inserted using, but generally many contributors just convert it to short-s when transcribing.
 * Z or z representing Yogh can be noted using YOGH and yogh for upper and lower case respectively.


 * illegible should generally only be used where the text is completely undeterminable, I started a Scriptorum thread recently about what to do when text is missing but nominally determinable ( such as with partly clipped words in scans or obvious typos). A span based template reconstruct now exists for marking these ( using the ⟨⟩ bracket convention that should be known to those viewing such works in an academic/literary analysis context.)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for this guidance! Most of this we are aware of, but we will be mostly be adding in coding at the validation stage as we have lots of different staff working on this at the library at the moment due to the lockdown. We wanted to ensure consistency so have a smaller validating team to input some more of the coding elements around formatting.


 * Some of this we weren't aware of when we started the project, but we now are (e.g. missing images being marked as problematic), so we are going back through to amend some of these but this may take us some time due to the large number of items we are working on!


 * Thanks again! --Annalang13 (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

For longer dashes in text, the longdash is useful. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * There's some more on how to resolve certain of the identified Lint(er) concerns here https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Lint_errorsShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Template:New texts
[Sorry if you feel that we are hammering you, it seems that you have picked up default leadership. Feel happy to point us elsewhere if you wish.]

We encourage when a work is complete and transcluded, for it to be added to Template:New texts, which will add it to the list on the front page. — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Not at all, thanks to all for the feedback, its very useful! I'm happy to be the point of contact and try and pass things onto the team as they appear.


 * I'm going to start looking at section breaks in transclusion later today so will probably be in touch again to check I'm heading in the right direction.


 * Thanks again! --Annalang13 (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Final question today - promise :) As a first draft/attempt, I've transcluded Adventures of John o'Badenyon, in pursuit of happiness which is a poetry text which required splitting into sections.


 * I wasn't sure if the main page should only have links to the subpages or should include the text as well? I've set up subpages and split the three poems into these pages, showing the title page on each. I've attempted to link to previous and next sections, but the links aren't working and I can't spot what I've done wrong - sorry! I hope this is vaguely the right idea on how to transclude this kind of work and the layout that is generally looked for? Please let me know/amend anything that should be done differently and I'll check in tomorrow and go for attempt 2...


 * I managed to create some incorrect pages while doing this, so I removed the code and just left - I hope this is the right process. Hopefully next time I'll be a little slicker!


 * Thanks again --Annalang13 (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * There are several issues to be covered; I have addressed a few: (1) Header information does not require blank lines between each item; the pipe ( | ) at the start of each line keeps everything organized. (2) It isn't necessary to replicate the cover page on every included poem; putting the title page on the primary page for the Chapbook is sufficient. (3) Use Auxiliary Table of Contents to list contents when such a list was not present in the original; this makes it clear to the reader that the list of contents was not present in the original text. (4) It is best to avoid smart quotes in page titles; the difference between regular quotes and smart quotes means that any link requires an exact character match, and it is difficult to type smart quotes. While it is allowed to use smart quotes with the text of a document, it is better practice to avoid them in page titles.


 * I see that you have set up links between the parts of the Chapbook to connect them, but they are not linking. This has happened because the component parts were not named as subpages, but were placed separately.  That is, the link from The Matrimonial Song to The British Tar does not work because it is pointing to Adventures of John o'Badenyon, in pursuit of happiness/The British Tar instead.  If you move the component pieces to have names as subpages, then those links will work (and can be made simpler as well). --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this! I have just started on a second attempt, The roving batchelor so have replicated the layout you've recommended and used the contents layout.


 * I could see the links weren't working but wasn't sure on why, as I said above, so thanks for explaining! I'm not sure what you mean when you say "move the component pieces to have names as subpages", sorry. Do you mean that the subpage links should be in the format: Book/Section ? I've put this format on my second attempt but I haven't created the poems' pages yet, as I wanted to check on how these links should work before I start creating pages.


 * --Annalang13 (talk) 10:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, arranging them as Book/Section would permit the kind of links you've intended. The slash allows the software to interpret the Book/Section to be a subpage of Book . --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Tabular data...
I noted an NLS contributor had added the following page:-

Page:List of all the criminals who have been executed in Glasgow for the last 62 years.pdf/2

As adding tablular data isn't always straight-forward I updated this to use the table syntax, and added an appropriate "table class", (the numbering in the class is the "pageid" for Index:List of all the criminals who have been executed in Glasgow for the last 62 years.pdf,

The use of a "table class", means that the whole table can be quickly formatted without the need to do a number of calls to ts (or inline CSS on each table element.)

I am willing to discuss the approach used in more detail if you encounter other works with tabular based data.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Thanks for this, I haven't come across a table across more than one page yet but I'm sure there will be more - I'll keep this in mind and get in touch if (or maybe when!) I have queries. Thanks!


 * --Annalang13 (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Catch-words..
An edit /style suggestion, if you feel it's useful ( You don't have to use it.)
 * Catchwords should be in the footer.
 * Continues can be used to handle these in some cases..
 * It should be placed in the footer immediately below the body (no intervening blank lines under normal circumstances.)
 * Where there's a nop or a paragraph/block end at the end of the body use instead.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The use of
When you wish to have pages, such as this, deleted, you should not mark the page with, but instead with  , where reason is one of the reasons listed on this page; e. g., G. 4: Redundant, G. 7: Author’s request, M. 1: Process deletion, and M. 2: Unneeded redirects, where these are appropriate. The should only be added to pages which would require a deletion discussion; they would be listed here. Thank you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC).

Categories
In addition to what I've noted before, there is also the appropriateness of Categories. This takes some getting used to because our system doesn't exactly match the system used by libraries, but knowing library cataloging helps.
 * Include categories based on the form of work (novel, poetry, song lyrics), which can include the physical format of publication (pamphlet, letter, ephemera).
 * Include categories based on the language / nationality of origin, but note that these can overlap as subcategories of form (Category:Scottish literature or Category:Scottish poetry).
 * Include categories based on the subject / topic of the work (marriage, dogs, women's rights).
 * Include categories based on the genre (adventure, historical fiction, tragedy)

Note that if the work consists of poetry from Scotland, then including the category "Scottish poetry" eliminates the need for "Poetry" or "Scotland". If a more precise category exists, then it is to be preferred and should not be duplicated with more general ones. Thus, Category:Scotland is primarily for works about Scotland in general, and for works that do not have a more precise category to describe them. Likewise Category:Love poetry eliminates the need for "Love" or "Poetry" as a category.

Also, it is not always necessary to include a category for every possible option listed above. In some instances, two categories or a single well-chosen category is sufficient.

Note also that we have a Category:Scots poems for poems written in the Scots language rather than in English, and we have Category:Texts in Scots for items that are not poems. We have similar categories for works that were translated from an original language, such as Category:Works originally in Scots and Category:Works originally in Greek. If you have need of a category for works that were translated from Scottish Gaelic, we can create that category for you. The English Wikisource is also the repository for works in Scots, Old English, and Middle English. Works published in Gaelic are hosted at a separate Wikisource, but English or Scots translations of such works can be hosted here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for this! I have added these notes to our guidance. At the moment, I'm trying to replicate what we have on the library's catalogue under 'Subjects' as categories for these works - this is also where I'm getting any author information from. Obviously they don't always exactly align, but trying to match as closely as I can.


 * One query, why does 'Scottish Poetry' exist as a category if added by Scottish Poetry - but not when added to the Categories section in the header?


 * Thanks --Annalang13 (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * There are three possible reasons: (1) The category names are case-sensitive.  There is a Category:Scottish poetry, but there is not a Category:Scottish Poetry; Typically only the first word in a category name is capitalized unless the word is always capitalized, such as proper nouns. (2) When adding categories using the header coding, it must always use | categories = Scottish poetry when there is just one category; the parameter name is always in the plural. (3) If you are adding categories using the header coding, then multiple categories should be listed together and separated by a forward slash, as in | categories = Scottish poetry / Marriage to add the two categories Category:Scottish poetry and Category:Marriage.


 * There may be other things happening, but I'd need to see the specific example if these tips do not clear up the issue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Ahh it was capitalisation - thank you!


 * Sorry - yet another question but what is the best way to set up the transclusion pages for a work like this: Index:Sentimental_songster.pdf. There is a table of contents in the last page, so should the links be set up on this page to then link to subpages?


 * --16:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * There are two choices with a work like that. Option 1: Transclude everything to a single page. This is easier to do, but it makes it difficult to point to specific poems unless linking anchors are added. Option 2: Divide the work so that each poem is on a separate page, and put the title page and contents on the primary page. This will require using section dividers on the individual pages.


 * With wither choice you could list the Contents first, and it's generally a good idea to make the Contents prominent. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm going to attempt Option 2, but maybe on a day when I'm feeling particularly alert! In this case, should the links be attached to the existing contents page or should a contents table be added? Thanks --Annalang13 (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * When a contents page exists, it's generally easier and better to use that page for the linking. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Author pages
If you'd like to know how to incorporate images of authors and library records data as I have for Author:John Nicholson Inglefield, it's fairly simple if the author already has an entry at Wikidata.

I found the corresponding Wikidata item, and added a link to our Author page for him. That automatically connects everything and our Author header template, in combination with the authority control template, does the rest. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I think I've now done this for Author:Dougal Graham - is what I've done right? Let me know if I should do something differently.


 * Also, sorry but yet two more questions:


 * With works like this Index:Songs.pdf What is the process for transcluding, as there are multiple works with this title, despite the difference in content?


 * Also, when transcluding works by a well-known author, such as Robert Burns, I'm not sure how best to add our type of works to his author page. For example, should this work be added to Burn's author page, and if so how? Alloway Kirk, or, Tam o' Shanter. A tale and man was made to mourn a poem with a sketch of Burn's' life Also, in several of our poetry collections there are individual poems from Burns, should these be added to his 'poetry' section and how should we manage duplicates in this case? For example, we've got a pamphlet named 'Dainty Davie' but there is already a Burns poem entry with this name.


 * Thank you! --Annalang13 (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, you linked Dougal Graham correctly at Wikidata. Doing this will also allow the people editing over there to incorporate additional data from their end.
 * For the "Songs" collection, you need to select a page title that will be unique. This can be done by adding information specific to that publication, so for example Songs (Brechin 1834). I did something similar for Aeneid (Conington 1866), since there are multiple translations of the Aeneid, and there are two different editions of Conington's translation in existence.
 * I would need to know more specifics to help with the Burns poetry. It sounds as though you're entering the territory where disambiguation of poems of the same name may be required, or where there may be two editions of the same poem. That process is a little more complicated and requires careful thought. And performing the tasks this requires can involve a lot of collateral edits to make it work. I would start a list somewhere of these items for an experienced editor to assist with. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Apparitions...
Check my recent contributions, I "rescued" some uploads that got scrambled on upload.

Some of them are 'proofreadable' now, and I did some basic OCR cleanup on some of them. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

For reference the https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?target=ShakespeareFan00&namespace=106&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&start=&end=&limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions The indexes created on April 25th-29th 2020 are the ones that were 'descrambled', if you want to add them back into your workflow. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

just to confirm these have now been added back into our workflow. Thanks again for the help Gweduni (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I've worked my through a few of these (doing OCR cleanup and initial proofreading), but was going to hold on some until the 'duplicates' discussion elsewhere concluded. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Complications of categorising occupations
Hi. Years ago we started categorising our Author: pages to authors by occupation and it has led to a bit of subsequent issue when people categorise main namespace works. We have a lack of clarity with our category nomenclature that these are author pages. It is on my list of needed fixes, though it is a bit of a significant task so I keep wimping on it.

So when you are categorising, can I ask that you be aware of this, and with something like Heaving of the lead/Lash'd to the helm it is more likely that we would categorise it to "Sailing", rather than "Sailors" (authors' occupation). Apologies for our lack of clarity, and maybe I can find the incentive to get to fixing it. — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Not so 'Smart' quotes...
Index:History of Cinderella, or, The little glass slipper (1).pdf

In this I was currently doing a check for "" vs “ ”, which look very close in some fonts..

Generally Wikisource doesn't have a preference, but consistency across an entire transcluded work is desirable.

Something to note on a very long list of things to watch out for. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Mixed up titles
Hi

I was hoping you'd be able to help me with an issue for these three works below. Their titles have got mixed up and I'm not sure how to fix it, would you please be able to advise? Thank you!

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Stories_of_Bewick_and_Graham.pdf

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Bessy_Bell_%26_Mary_Gray_(2).pdf

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Short_account_of_the_origin_and_progress_of_the_cholera_morbus.pdf

--Annalang13 (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I've corrected the above titles, but I'm not sure how to move the Index titles. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm very busy with work for the next couple of weeks and am not on much right now. You could put in a request at the Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard, just make certain the problem and the required changes are carefully explained.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Index status
Please do not mark indexes such as this one as “validated.” For an index to be marked as “validated,” all pages with constituent parts of the index, (which generally excludes advertisements,) must be marked as “validated.” On this index, none of the pages were so marked. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC).


 * Hi, Apologies, must have done this one in error - I should have marked it as 'Proofread, to be validated'. Thanks for fixing!


 * --Annalang13 (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Deleting pages...
Hey Annalang13,

To delete pages on Wikisource we have a defined process where a contributor may propose a page for deletion at Proposed deletions, and the community may discuss the proposal with the goal of achieving a consensus about what to do with it. This process is consensus-based and has a minimum time for discussions of 1–2 weeks (depends on the reason for the proposal). Once a consensus is reached, if the agreed outcome is to delete the page, an administrator implements the community's consensus (mainly because they have the technical capability to do so).

From this process there are a set of narrowly defined exceptions that allow administrators to unilaterally delete pages immediately, known as the criteria for speedy deletion. These are deliberately narrowly defined and limited in scope, because we do not want administrators to be able to shortcut community consensus. Which means that when you use to suggest speedy deletion of a page, you have to actually specify an applicable criteria for such speedy deletion and sufficient additional information that an admin processing these are able to understand in what way it meets the criteria.

I have noticed that you appear to consistently use when making such requests, regardless of whether the page in question is actually a redirect (see this help page on Wikipedia for details on what we mean by "redirect" here; it's a technical term on Mediawiki-based wikis). Guessing based on the instances I have seen, what you mean is rather that you had created a sub-page that you have later decided was not needed and that the content of the subpage now lives elsewhere? For this purpose you can use CSD§G7 (Author's request; applicable to any page you yourself created) along with an explanation of where the content now lives.

Please also keep in mind that a page can be moved from one page name to another, and that this is generally preferable to copying text between pages. Moving a page to a new name does leave a redirect behind (anyone visiting the old page name will be automatically forwarded to the new page name), and if you think this is unnecessary this would be an appropriate use for CSD§M2.

Admins processing speedy deletion requests will certainly try to guess what you intended, but the detective work can be a bit time consuming and without complete information admins are limited in what they're authorised to do. --Xover (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi


 * Thanks for this! I think I misunderstood one of the other user's comments on deletion above. Yes, generally the only pages I propose for deletion is when I have accidentally set up a subpage under the incorrect name so have then created a correct one. I will update our guidance to use the correct code - thank you.


 * --Annalang13 (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If the issue is just an incorrect name, don't forget that you can simply move the page to the correct name. You'll find a "Move" command in the "More" menu up by the search field. If the old page name is not something that should exist as an alias for the new name, you can add to the old page (above the "#REDIRECT …" stuff preferably, for technical reasons). In that circumstance the situation will be obvious for the processing admin (the page move shows up in the logs) and the M2 code appropriate. --Xover (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Your input is requested at WS:PD#Adventures of Jack Okham & Tom Splicewell (1)
Hi Annalang13,

Your input is requested in the discussion at WS:PD#Adventures of Jack Okham & Tom Splicewell (1). A contributor has proposed that the wikipage Adventures of Jack Okham & Tom Splicewell (1) be deleted because it is a transcription of a different copy of the same edition of the work as Adventures of Jack Okham & Tom Splicewell (2), and the latter is of better technical quality. While we're happy to host multiple editions of the same work, we usually do not host multiple copies of the same edition. If this is a First Folio-type situation where the differences between copies is significant and subject to research then please do present that argument in the discussion.

The discussion will remain open for a minimum of one week, but there is no particular upper limit if there is ongoing discussion or a community member has requested more time (for whatever reason). For example, since these were both transcribed as part of WikiProject NLS, I imagine it may in some circumstance be necessary to wait for the next monthly meeting to gather the necessary input. In such cases please make sure to make a note of what's going on in the deletion discussion and we can adapt timing etc. to make it work for you. --Xover (talk) 04:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)