User talk:Beeswaxcandle/Archive4

aspect Q
Most of the time, when I load this page, the text appears centralized, but other times it is formatted all on the left. How does it appear to you? (How is it supposed to appear?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's all on the left for me (and in a san-serif font) because I have Layout 1 by default. If you see it centered in a serif font, then you're seeing it with Layout 2. The layout you're presented with is based on the last one you had. See the discussion at WS:S. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Most interesting, thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Publisher of Divorce of Catherine of Aragon
Why does the publisher and city of publication listed at Index:Divorce of Catherine of Aragon.djvu not match the title page? ResScholar (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed I'd done that. The main series which this is a supplement to is the London edition, and I think I just copied that stuff across when I uploaded to Commons. I've fixed it in both places. Thanks for picking it up. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

POTM on Main Page needs updating
POTM on the Main Page needs updating as it's now December and the Index:Association Football and How to Play It (1908) by John Cameron.djvu has not been Proofread. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I already know how to play football - including in the snow. :0) —Maury (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Combining Works
Another question (it's been a while, and I've left you in peace for far too long): I going back through the Swift volumes to add links to the various works mentioned (not all of which have been transcluded or proofread yet) and Wikipedia articles. Some of the references in the history of Swift in Volume 1 are to letters which are quoted, but have very few other hints as to which letter is meant. Other letters are identified by the send or recipient, and sometimes by date, but that can still leave multiple letters to review before finding the correct letter. Because I have a quote, I can easily search each letter to identify the right one, but there hundreds of letters already done, and many more still to be done. I'd like to create a temporary work which combines all of the letters in a volume, such as volume 13, into one large work. This would definitely make searching for the right letter much quicker. Is there a process for creating such temporary compliations? I have great hopes. Susan Susanarb (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Susan, the best way to create temporary pages is in your user space. Then you can try things out and see if they work, &c. A standard naming is User:Susanarb/Sandbox. You can replace the "Sandbox" part with anything that's meaningful to you. I've got a series of these currently called Sandbox1 through to Sandbox5, that I use to try things out in. When I've done with them, I just overwrite with the next thing I need to play with. I've got a couple of others that are intended to be a little more permanent, so I've use more meaningful names such as /Works & /End of page notes. If you just want to use sandbox then click on the redlink in this paragraph and create it. Once you've created it then transclude the whole volume into that page (or at least the pages of interest). Don't worry about the section markers as you don't want those. So from=13 to=484 for Vol. 13 should do it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, especially for creating that link for me. I have seen the Sandbox in various places, but I wasn't sure how to make one for myself, and I did want to be able to leave the info there for a while, so I couldn't use a shared sandbox. This will be perfect. Susan Susanarb (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Mexico of the Mexicans
Beeswaxcandle, in this book that I recently started, Mexico of the Mexicans, there are side notes that I have seen when validating one or more of your books. Therefore you obviously know how to handle these things but I don't. I have done some of them but differently by placing [Them within brackets] at the beginning of the text. I think that either way they can be transcluded. Would you tale a look, please, and let me know what to do with the situation. I like the book a lot but these sidenotes are very annoying as I don't know what to do with them which is why I am doing different. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Beez, how much longer will this take? —Maury (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Nevermind. —Maury (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Maury, it's been a busy weekend with visitors. I would do them as sidenotes per the example on Page:Essentials in Conducting.djvu/22. Then have a look at Essentials in Conducting/Chapter 2 to see how they transclude. Toggle through the three layouts to see how they look. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Beeswaxcandle, I got frustrated and had decided to quit the book when I posted "Nevermind". I looked at both examples you have shown. The first is text running over the image beside it -- that gremlin people have been complaining about that looks so messy. Is it ever going to be fixed? The transcluded portion shows me how easy it is to use sidenotes although the book does not use them as sidenotes so it would be a modification and I have already started on my own version of a modification. If any person were to print out your book or make any kind of file from the transcluded portion then I don't believe it would produce any printable work or file format worth having because of those sidenotes. Therefore transcluded or not that book is of no value in my eyes other than reading the transclusion portion online. I hope all is well in your life and thank you for your reply. Oh! your showing an example is far better than all of the "help" pages I looked at on WS:HELP which was of no help. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Beezwaxcandle, I bring this back to you just in case you too may need it for yourself or for helping others someday. This is how to handle that problem with the book. Viewer 2 is correct as shown by his example. He made a TEMPLATE he calls "insert header". Look at this page including the edit page where it is used Page:Mexico of the Mexicans.djvu/30 —Maury (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks competent
Have a look-see at User:Brettz9/testing/TheGreatestName and it looks as though we have someone competent. I have pointed out Grove's DMM, though you may have better idea where we could have someone feel valued in the work around the site. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer/en-gb
Hello, can you tell me what the purpose and use of this page was? It seems identical to MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer and doesn't seem to show on anyone's contributions that I know of that the latter doesn't cover already. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's needed for those of us who have changed the Language settings to British English. When I did this, the footer disappeared and it took me a while to work out what had happened. Fixing it came out of conversation at Scriptorium/Archives/2013-11. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response! I've got a request for MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer though, that you can also change on the en-gb langcode. Can you modify any urls to change from


 * The rest of each url after toolserver.org should replace the ellipsis and enclosed in the fullurl brackets; the fullurl will speed up queries for me and the tools-colon link will hopefully re-point to the wmflabs cluster when they change the MediaWiki address. The change to add CentralAuth is because I want to look at a person's overall contribs and sometimes it's faster than vvv's SUL, I've also left you or the community the option to decide on using Meta's centralauth or the local centralauth depending on how you view Meta. If any of these is too controversial, please tell me, and I'll respectfully gather more opinions on the administrators' noticeboard. :-) Thanks again, TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * My timezone is currently UTC+13, so am only just finding time to be back online properly. I see you've been having a conversation with George about this (and other things), which is where I would have had asked you to head anyway. My technical knowledge is too old to be anything than limited to copy/pasting things that I can understand sufficiently. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah but something is still not quite right. Since you have the /gb "oddity" can you please check all 6 links at the bottom of my contributions page (since I have spaces in my nick) and tell me which ones work and which ones do not. tia. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In order: User's pages—works; User rights—works; WikiSense—403; CentralAuth—works; SUL accounts—404; Global contribs—Not found; Edit Counter—works. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please check them again... I don't believe {{fullurl:tools... will work since the page where that banner is displayed at the bottom is really a subpage of the on-the-fly Special: namespace -- I changed those back to "//toolserver.org..." as before. Hopefully, they all work now (p.s. - the WikiSense url creation works but has some sort of coding error on their side; not ours). Thanks again. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * They all work now. (All don't give something useful, but that's beside the point.) Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * They are above my needs as well (as long as they all work now I can totally forget about 'em). Thanks for pitching in at any rate. I'll wait for the original poster to discover something is amiss on my Talk page I guess. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

December POTM award may not have been deserved
Thanks for awarding me, but in all honesty I don't remember working on this project, unless someone used my identity :-). Just to be sure, I rushed to add the missing paragraph decorations. Wishing you nice holidays and a happy new year.— Ineuw talk 18:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Works of Shortland
Not sure whether you have stumbled over the works of Shortland [//archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%28edward%20shortland%29] before, however, of these three, the Maori religion and mythology, looks like a good (shorter) January work. — billinghurst  sDrewth  07:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Images as Placeholders
Hello, and Happy New Year!

I'm still working on Swift, but now I'm sometimes dipping into Mark Twain (just because he is so funny!). Someone had already done one of the pages: Page:Sketches by Mark Twain.djvu/291. That person had marked it as problematic, and I assume that it was because there is an image at the bottom of the page. I just finished another of the short stories, and it ends with the same image at the bottom of the last page: Page:Sketches by Mark Twain.djvu/63. The image has nothing to do with the story -- I believe that the image is doing nothing but filling space so the end of the page isn't empty.Here's the complete short story that I just finished, with the image at the bottom: Sketches by Mark Twain/Experience of the McWilliamses with Membranous Croup. I think it detracts from the story. Thus, I'm now thinking that the image should go in the footer instead of in the body. What do you think?

Thank you again for helping! Susan Susanarb (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There are two schools of thought here. 1. The text is all that's important; 2. The book should be replicated in most of its nuances. At present the second point of view is dominant, so many publisher's artefacts are being reproduced. When I've left such out, other editors are "correcting" the pages, so I've given in for the time being. In other words, leave the terminators in. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, but I'm not happy about it. I tend to want to read what the author wrote, not what some publisher thought was a cute addition. But I will follow the current policy. :-)


 * Thank you again! Susan Susanarb (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Apologize for butting in. I've taken it upon myself and uploaded a black & white version. I hope it helps somewhat.— Ineuw talk 23:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Index:The Ethics of Urban Leaseholds.djvu
I'm not proofreading this as I've done quite a few recently.

Any chance of setting up a semi-rolling script based on Hespiran's indcies? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've got several more pamphlets ready to go when we've dealt with the few that are outstanding. Also, I don't have the space at the moment to do the necessary management of completed files in and out. My time is limited to a few hours in the evening. (I should have gone to bed an hour ago.) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Page:The organisation of the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers explained.djvu/8
Why the change from a DIV based approach that was working, to the sidenotes problem that was elsewhere noted as problematic?

The DIV based approach of sn-paragraph was working as designed, and when transcluded was nicely laid out.

The conversion back to sidenotes on some pages means the layout on the transcluded version is now inconsistent :(

Not happy. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by a "DIV based approach". I just found pages in which a template developed for legislation was inconsistently used. There are too many parameters in it for a simple use and I elected to swap to something I have used before. When I look at the mainspace now, I'm not happy either. I should have used the old sidenote templates instead of the outside ones. They are still behaving (see History of England (Froude)/Chapter 27 for an example) through all three Layouts. Outside only seems to behave with Layout 2. I'll go back through tomorrow and swap them over. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The current generation of sidenote templates use an HTML span, sn-paragraph use nested HTML DIV's which are styled

independently. But as you say, you need something you can actually understand.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Also - Page:The organisation of the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers explained.djvu/24, here the table matched what was in the page... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * When I validate I scan the page for layout issues, but then I work in the edit box. Your multiplicity of table templates with various arcane parameters meant that it was unreadable to me and I elected to reset the table. I also knew that whatever I did I would need to copy and then modify it for the one on page /30, so I had to understand it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, So td was not understandable despite them being the same codes as ts? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I noted it wasn't documented. I'll look into this further.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Sn-paragraph/sandbox
Logic check requested. This is my approach to doing sidenotes (using DIV's vs spans), I've added a noclip param to handle the issue of a page where there are no sidenotes on the original page, but where the margin alteration should occur on the transcluded versions.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I can't help you with this. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

nop
Beeswaxcandle, I placed nop at the very bottom -- in the "footer". Isn't that okay? I need to know. I have seen many people do that when validating pages. You added another nop a short while ago on that page. —Maury (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Maury, an end of page nop to show a paragraph break needs to be in the "body". Anything in the footer (or header) doesn't come through to the Mainspace. The only situation I can think of to put a nop in the footer is when a table is continued over a page break. Have fun, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I will place them in the body from now on. However, when I am validating I often see a lot of material in the footer from nop, to page number,, smallrefs, fine block/e <-- and often I see the start of things in the Header such as fine block/s --> and so on. I will put nop in the body as you say. Kindest regards and God Bless. —Maury (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

footer
Beeswaxcandle, moments ago you allowed. God Bless, —Maury (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * references = ? Alternatively, could just use the image [[File:White mensural minim.svg]]? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Both much better suggestions than my original thoughts. Thank you. AuFCL (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Identifying Authors
Please help! (I know you will – you always have, and thank you.) I’ve run into an odd situation in the The Works of the Rev. Jonathan Swift. I’ve already asked you about the editors, but now I’m finding issues about the authors too. In prior volumes, there have been works written by Swift in someone else’s name. Now, I’m finding the opposite: for example, Song by a Person of Quality was indirectly identified as being written by the Earl of Peterborough, Charles Mordaunt. At first, I thought that it was Swift writing the poem as if he were Mordaunt. I finally decided to attribute it to Mordaunt.

I’ve done quite a few more poems now in Volume 17. Today, by chance, I picked up a volume of works by Alexander Pope. Included in the book are a number of poems such as Macer, Umbra, and Sandys’ Ghost. Those are all odd titles, so of course I recognized that I had just proofread them: Macer; Umbra; and Sandys's Ghost (yes, it’s spelled differently). But there is nothing in the Swift Volumes to even hint that Pope wrote the poems.

Then there is the slightly different situation of Epigram on Handel and Bononcini. I wanted to provide a link to Wikipedia for Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee. I expected to be directed to Lewis Carroll. Instead, it seems that a man named John Byrom is responsible for a longer epigram than is attributed to Swift. There is a sentence that states, "Although Byrom is clearly the author of the epigram, the last two lines have also been attributed to Jonathan Swift and Alexander Pope."

Hence my questions: (1) Do you agree that I should attribute Song by a Person of Quality to Charles Mordaunt alone? (2) Should I attribute Macer, Umbra, and Sandys’s Ghost to Pope or Swift, or both? (3) I don’t have a perfect list of the works written by Swift, Pope, John Arbuthnot, John Gay, or others who were friends with Swift and may have written pieces included in these volumes. How do I decide who the author of each work is? Should I put a note on each that I suspect could have been written by someone else of the possibility? (Right now, that is every work in Volume 17.) (4) Should I attribute the Epigram on Handel and Bononcini to all three potential authors? (5) Am I worrying unnecessarily about this? (No, I didn’t think so. Unfortunately, these are not unique examples in Volume 17, so I'll use your guidance many times.)

Thank you for your help, as always! Susan Susanarb (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Susan, I think that you should keep Swift as the author for anything in this set of volumes that doesn't provide hints or clues to alternate authorship. This is really to maintain the integrity of what is supposed to be a collected works of Swift. However, I would use the notes field in the Header template to add a brief note about possible alternatives (with links to the evidence). If the evidence is more complex than a brief note, then the optimal thing to do is to add material to the relevant Wikipedia article (with Reliable Sources) and then link to that from the Wikipedia field of the Header template. Should the optimal not be possible because it's original research, then use the poem's Talk page to explain. If you have a spare moment, have a look at the excellent response by Hesperian to Billinghurst's question about how to manage a complex work. Couched in fine prose is the philosophy of be pragmatic without damaging the text. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and thanks to Hesperian. I'm off on my search for the elegant solution which does not exist. Susan Susanarb (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Editor Bar
Beez, 1/2 of my editor bar, the beginning, is gone which is fine by me, but will you please restore the the 2nd half--where "zoom in", "zoom out", plus "expand page width" options for editing be restored. It has been like this about 2-3 weeks now. Please —Maury (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've changed your optional buttons into the new way of doing them. However, I don't know how to sort out the standard buttons for you. I see that George has done some tweaking for you in another area of your common.js. Hopefully, between us we've sorted it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for being on top of that. I like to run a tight ship on confirmations, but there is that one thing that is out of my control. To find it done for me before I've even woken up on the first of the month is jolly pleasing. :-) Hesperian 00:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * and now I'm even more chuffed to visit this page and find you citing my sillyness in the most complimentary terms. :-) Hesperian 00:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

AuFCL points out the fact that Ineuw voted twice. Leave it alone? Strike and re-close? Hesperian 09:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * He picked up his double-vote on my confirmation, but left the other 3. I've just struck them in the archive as that appears to have been his intention. There is still a clear pass on all three in accordance with enWS policy, so I see no issue. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Rest assured, both of you, I was not impugning the validity of the voting process; merely trying to make light of the fact I do not wish to be intimidated into not voting on the strength of other's opinions. (And in saying that I sincerely hope I have misjudged the intent of those who expressed or implied such views.) AuFCL (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

hi
Thanks for your welcome message. I hadn't planned on contributing, and just dropped in to look at those biblical verses (for musical reasons). Maybe I'll be tempted back! Tony1 (talk) 07:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

icon-icon-i-a, My grandma and your grandma...sittin' by the fire. ..
Beeswaxcandle, where is the icon for "Proofread of the Month" for July? I like to collect them like some people collect stamps and I did contribute to it in July. —Maury (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. I haven't had the mind space up until now. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Beez. What filled up your "mind space"? —Maury (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Updating the materials for a national training programme after implementation of a new edition of the classification took most of my creativity. By the time the evening came round all I wanted to do was simple proofreading and there kept being messy tables needing attention, which swallowed the rest. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Heavy! BTW, moments ago after reading your statement about mind space and my wanting to "collect" these icons I thought of something unusual. There is a fellow on WikiPedis (a place that gets all of the attention while WikiSource doesn't) using an alias of VirginiaHistorian that did an excellent page on stamps. A friend here who collects, recently sent me a quarter minted in San Francisco that has more silver in it. It has George Washington and Shenandoah on the back. He also sent a link showing this coin that have more silver and some tat have these coins in gold. I myself collect small ornate boxes and old cigar boxes, etc. because of their illustrations. These things suddenly came together in my thinking coupled with your statement and I thought of the following. These icons, in full, look like pretty "return addresses" to me. These are all public domain. We all could create return-type icons by printing them out and placing them (extra) on envelopes we send out and thus advertise WikiSource. We could send anything public domain and/or just these iconic rectangular images and text we have earned through our work on envelopes to advertise WikiSource and/or wikis in general for all wikis on WikiSource. I do not mean anything "official" for postage but rather like one uses such return address labels. These would travel the world and in time could become collectors items and with more time could become valuable as collectors items. Some people collect famous human body parts and some do that for the extraction of DNA, including Einstein's brain and eyeballs, but that's beyond my desires. Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge". People will collect many strange or unusual things. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

nominating a book
Beeswaxcandle, this book, Woman Triumphant covers women throughout all of history and is well-illustrated. There are more than one person who worked on it and it is heavily linked to wikipedia by Kathleen and me, and perhaps others. How would I place this (somewhere) as a possible "Proofread of the Month"? I do not recall ever asking about or doing this but this book is so well-worth that risk. It is informative to the extreme and should be read by everyone for the sake of knowing and understanding women's plights, and advancing throughout all of history and in many nations. Many of the quality images, especially at the beginning and middle, show and tell of things I have never heard of or even seen any image about these events. It is a fully completed book. Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Maury, as this book is already completed I wonder if you mean that it should be listed for consideration as a Featured Text.

Yes, sir, that is exactly what I meant. It has great historical value on "Women". I do believe I saw somewhere here on WikiSource that there should be more works by or about "Women" This is an excellent book for exactly that. It is also heavily linked to wikipedia articles for even more detailed information. That, I think, is mostly Kathleen5.wright's work. I myself would use this book to teach a college course and I do have a Ph.D. so I know about education as taught in (3) three universities even though it probably doesn't seem so here with my lack of knowledge of codes, &c. But I learned what I know about computers and html by hand and codes here on my own. There were no courses in computer technology as with today. We used slide-rules for calculations in chemistry and physics classes when there were no computers. I did not know we could nominate our own (done with other's work). That sounds a tad bombastic. Thank you for the feedback. —Maury (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If this is the case, then feel free to nominate it there. If I've misunderstood you, please let me know. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

To transclude or not?
Thought I would bug you instead of adding yet another post to the Scriptorium... The image/poem on this page looks like it is taped in to the text, and not necessarily part of the original. I have a 1902 edition which does not include the image. Both texts at IA are scans of the same text (one in color, one in B&W), and I can't find another 1900 edition online to compare whether the image is present in other editions. What are your thoughts? to transclude or not to transclude? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely a paste-in. The font is wrong for Doubleday and McClure, the border is wrong for this book, it's in the wrong place in the work, and the poem was published in the collection The Shoes of Happiness (1913). I would proofread it (to keep the completists happy), but not transclude it as a part of the book. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For now, at least, I have declared that the "page does not need to be proofread." I'll leave it to the 'completists' to complete if they are not happy... unless I get to it myself eventually. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

And, should I consider the text on this page to be part of the illustration and transclude the entire original image as is? Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would do it as a single image and put the text in the alt= parameter so that it can searched and picked up by ScreenReaders. My own preference for the painting would be to leave it in sepia rather than flatten it to B&W. For example, the fires in the background are a bit lost and there's more movement in the sky than in the original (see File:Jean-François Millet - L'Homme à la houe.jpg). All aesthetic rather than necessarily practical, but ... Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I have kept the whole image sepia, and added alt text.  Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Button fun
Just to recap.... in your User prefs,

Editing tab: 
 * Editor section.
 * - unchecked
 * - checked
 * - unchecked

Gadgets tab,
 * Proofreading tools section
 * - unchecked
 * - unchecked
 * Interface section
 * - unchecked

Leave your common.js as it currently is!!!! then clear your cache, purge your cache, beat your cache & murder your cache. Report back here afterwards & then I'll stop pestering you too. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I still had "show edit toolbar" checked. The CharInsert is now in the useful place. Thanks. The problem now is that the enhanced toolbar at three lines takes up too much space. I need to work out how to move the "proofread" tools into my main section and then dump the "advanced", "special characters" and "proofread" drop-downs. I'm part-way there, I think. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hehe, just be glad we're not dealing with VisualEditor - that monster practically takes over the edit window leaving you 4 or 5 lines to work with! Anyway, stick with your plan, keep trying various ways to rejigger the toolbar [time permitting of course] and collectively we might find a better way to handle all this toolbar nonsense. I've already trimmed some of the more esoteric character sets via your common.css btw. Also, those collapsible toolbar menus remember their last state - so unless you close them before you save your edit, they be open again upon your next edit. This is why I prefer to use the CharInsert bar, User menu for a couple of the more common template or character inserts instead.  In the meantime, also drop User:Pathoschild a line and ask him to "look-over/re-do" your Common.js' RegEx components per his offer in WS:S -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I migrated Beeswaxcandle's regex scripts to TemplateScript as requested. Some of the Page-related functionality seems pretty generic, so it could probably be turned into a gadget and further reduce the amount of code in User:Beeswaxcandle/common.js. — Pathoschild 03:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have the identical space issue as you. When you resolved removing the unnecessary tools from the edit toolbar, please let me know so that I can implement the solutions. — Ineuw talk 06:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Treat yourself to a 26" or larger LCD monitor. I too once pointlessly scrolled up, down and around even with a 19" 'tube'. Going 'wide' earlier this year helped cut down on both the eye strain & the scrolling - though I sorely miss keeping my coffee semi-heated by placing it on the back end, over-hang of the various old tube monitors I've had before all this new 'flatness' I have now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds nice, but a 26" monitor on my lap sounds a bit much. I've got a pair of 22" wide-screens on my desk at work (which are great), but for some reason work wants me to use them for purposes other than enWS. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Think you're on the right track with your last few changes but think you need THIS change to go through & be rolled out before tinkering any further along those lines will make any sense. Looks like Helder.wiki is 3 steps ahead of everybody! -- George Orwell III (talk)
 * Is this code for the advanced or the old toolbar? Can you please clarify — Ineuw talk 14:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Ineuw talk, the changes I was referring to were dealing with removing all the drop down tabs in the advanced editor (WikiEditor) and just placing the needed buttons across the visible toolbar. Those were a few edits back however. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Will reply on GO3, talk page at User talk:George Orwell III — Ineuw talk 00:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

toogleLayout -> toggleLayout
FYI: I submitted a patch to fix that typo in the function name: 156266. However, in both cases you won't be able to use the function on your scripts because it is a local function used internally by the ProofreadPage script. Helder 12:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean ?  -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Copying GPL2 code to WMF wikis
Since the scripts in the ProofreadPage extension are under GPL (not CC-BY-SA or public domain), I'm not sure they can be copied to WMF wikis like this. Helder 12:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Vertical screen space and screen size
Hi WBC. If you are using Firefox, there are aeveral extensions which provide the extra vertical space by eliminating something on the top. Currently, I am having success with the "Hide Caption Bar Title Plus 2.8.6. which also provides for compresing the tabs and bookmark toolbar height. It has some drawbacks but it helps and it's better than using full screen mode, in that you can choose what to see.

In response to GO3: (screen) size doesn't matter. I also work with 22" LCD set at 1408 x 792 pixels and still have the same issue of seeing the "Charinsert" bar. . . . while giving up on seeing the

My Wiki editor is set to 12 lines and line height in the enhanced editor is greater than in the old editor. I Also work on a 13" Macbook screen but the scaling issue and the number of visible lines without scrolling is the same.

What I find difficult to convey is that the programmers who design the text editors may do some editing, but not sufficient amount to relate to us who proofread thousand of lines of text where we seek minimal screen movement for the repetitive tasks. — Ineuw talk 00:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Protection/thanks
Regarding your 27 August 2014 entry [//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Beeswaxcandle&page=User%3AAuFCL here]: much appreciated ("your blood is worth bottling.") I was in fact debating asking for this very action, but was wondering if it might be considered much too much to ask; so a most heartfelt "thank you." AuFCL (talk) 07:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No problems. I have an internal guideline for doing this—three times and it's protected. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sound policy. Not sure what I have done to attract the ire of 46.118/16 (either regional politics or pharmaceuticals) but perhaps searching for a reason is itself a pointless exercise. Your actions appreciated regardless. AuFCL (talk) 08:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Links for Incorrect Citations
Good evening! I've run into another situation where I'm not sure which would be the preferred option. On this page, the editor includes a few quotes from Swift’s Journal to Stella. (I'm just going to shrug my shoulders at the fact that the quotes are not exactly the same as what is found in the Journal entries in another volume.) The first quotation is from Journal Letter 8, although the words appear in the Nov. 8th entry, not in the Nov. 1st entry. If I had separated the Journal entries by day rather than by letter (he usually included about two weeks’ worth in each letter), this would have been a problem. The next quote is the problem, though. The quote that is attributed to Nov. 8 doesn't appear in the letter covering Oct. 31 to Nov. 11. So, what should I do? Link the quote to the Letter 8, the one that covers Nov. 8, or link to the letter where the quote actually appears (I haven’t found it yet, but I will).

Hoping that this is the worst of the problems you face for the rest of the month, I thank you once again for your help. Susan Susanarb (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Susan, my inclination in this situation is to link to where the text actually is rather than to where the editor thinks it is. This way we don't end up causing the casual reader to hunt around for something that isn't there. Something that would help linking to Stella is to put anchors in at the beginning of each date in the letters. Then you can link directly to the anchor. I'm doing this with the Ante-Nicene Christian Library. See Chapter 29 of the Dialogue with Trypho for a random example of how it works in the mainspace. Then go to Page:Ante-Nicene Christian Library Vol 2.djvu/136 to see how I've done it in the Page namespace. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you -- I had hoped that you would say this! I’ve used anchors a couple of times, so I will start using them for the Journals too. Susan Susanarb (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Running header script
Beeswaxcandle, is it possible to port User:Inductiveload/Running header.js into the new TemplateScript library? Refer. Moondyne (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough js to put it into the TemplateScript library. I disabled it because I wasn't sure how importing the script would go with the enhanced toolbar. I've had a go at creating a button and linking it. Have a try now and see how it goes. If it works there are implications for doing what Ineuw wants for his toolbar. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 'hyphword' and 'runhead' buttons have appeared but neither do anything. Moondyne (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the button scripts so that hyphword is identical to mine, which is working. If we can get it to work for you as well, then we're closer to sorting runhead. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No detectable change from above. Moondyne (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So, when there's an hws template on the previous page, the hyphword button is not generating an hwe at the beginning of the nest page? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Confirming yes, that does work. I wasn't aware of what it needed.  Runhead, no. Moondyne (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I managed to get part of the runhead scripts to work on my js. Unfortunately, only the bit that blanks the current rh template. I'll ponder some more, but I think I'm at the end of my current javascript knowledge. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * can you help here? Thx. — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Would this replace the 'add header' script (from the Hesperian page tools), or is it a separate script? — Pathoschild 13:20, 06 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Fwiw, the script in question was given at the top - User:Inductiveload/Running header.js -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep, but before I port it into TemplateScript I need to know which of these is preferred:
 * replace the existing add  script from Hesperian's page tools;
 * or merge it with the existing script;
 * or add it as a separate tool entirely.
 * Is there someone familiar with both scripts who can clarify how they're related or how they compare? Do they each have their own separate features that would need to be merged together? — Pathoschild 12:55, 09 September 2014 (UTC)


 * From my perspective, this is a separate tool. I happily use Hesperian's script for what I need and don't want to lose that. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Strange numbers
Hi. I placed the years to indicate the last time they were worked on. User:Mpaa just emailed me the list of the books queued for validation. I prepared the list as: Current order | previous order | Year and month last edited


 * 1) 32 2010-01 Index:Myth, Ritual, and Religion (Volume 1).djvu

but if it's a problem the I won't touch it. Please let me know — Ineuw talk 23:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Umm, that's the last time the Index was worked on, rather than the last time a Page was worked on within that Index. Also, remember that the four Indices in "Running" are transcluded to WS:PotM. Put yourself behind the eyes of a new editor who ends up on that page. What will they see when looking for something to work on? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

A La California
(NOT DONE -- Chapters are not fully transcluded. I don't know how to transclude the blasted things! Someone else did some of them. To Hades with them. —Maury (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I entered your territory without a visa
I acted on the wrong assumptions and didn't read the heading of the Validations page. I will also remove the PSM volumes on the bottom because I don't believe that they have any priority for validation. I am just glad that they are in readable condition for those who access it from the web.

A question: What is the exact purpose of the list in Queued to be validated? User:Mpaa was kind enough to extract the last edit date of the books listed. Are you interested in me replacing the current list? with this one? — Ineuw talk 19:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's certainly not my territory, I'm just looking after it because no-one else has. The Queued list is use primarily to feed into the 4 works in Running and at Validation Month. Anyone can add a work to the queue and I just pick them out with an eye to maintaining a balance of subject matter and length. The list in your Sandbox doesn't look right. The dates on the Swift volumes are all from before Susan joined the project. I think that April 2013 was when Hesperian uploaded them. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

disambiguation
Hello. Is it okay to have a disambiguation page for variant translations? ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. However, we have a special type for translations. Change the disambiguation template to translations. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice, thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Dummy spit at C:
At c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, I have again vented my spleen. I am closer and closer to the point of just not recommending/requiring uploads at Commons due to administrator actions. Bad culturally, but that would be due to lack of respect and consideration. — billinghurst  sDrewth  03:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nominating a PD template for deletion, deleting it a week later, then tagging every file with that template as "no license", all of which then turn up on a backlog 8 days later as not fixed, so they get deleted, all without consultation. I want to proofread and validate, not be a file administrator, which I've spent considerable time doing today. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have made specific comment to the deleter that 1963 legislation is now out of crown copyright, and suggested a tag that could be used if the work is undeleted. — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As an aside to this I will note, I'd put a proposal on the Scriptorium that 'undercut' deletion should be prohibited.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I will also add that it seems to be a small number of people with an agenda that normally cause problems in repsect of this,

including commons admins that close down discussions as 'stale' or rants, Sigh :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

My sincere apologies
Sorry, Beez, I goofed somehow. I don't want garbage on WS either! Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Add another row to the Firefox browser
Hi. I recently discovered a very neat addon to eliminate another row (the menu bar) from the top of the Firefox browser and I was thinking of you, since we share some of the editing issues relating to vertical screen space. This is the addon (Personal menu}. It took me a few days to get used to it, but by now, I forgot about the menu bar. I am usig FF 33.0 where the menu bar can be hidden. Also, I have a collection on Mozilla, geared toward easing proofreading: Ineuw's collection Firefox addons for proofreading. I hope this helps. — Ineuw talk 05:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Am I just set in my ways
Looking at the revisitation of the early style root pages for a work The Development of Navies During the Last Half-Century doesn't have me excited. Is it just me, or does it lack something compared to our more recent approach to display? — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, changed to transclusions. I haven't been keeping a close eye on the PotM other than recording who's been working on it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * K. I wasn't going stomping in where you watching. Nor I recently, I came across stuff while patrolling, and that identified some backend mechanics where someone who had been working on biographical entries was applying the sectional component to chapters, and it was adding unnecessary complexity, and some slight difficulty. Thanks for the fix. — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The Red and the Black (1916) spelling
Thanks for sticking with the project to get The red and the black proofread. We started about one year ago when I was new to enWS and more naive about scope and level of commitment. At the time, I didn't realize how much time it can take to validate a set of pages for a work of moderate size. Alas, we make progress. Please excuse my pace. Your speed at proofreading far out strips my efficiency at validating.

I would like your input on a matter that keeps popping up. There are what appear to me as typographical errors ("essentialy" and "inuendoes") which I hope are not archaic spellings. If you have a moment, look at page 119 and page 120. See if you agree with using the SIC or if they should be left undisturbed. I value your judgement. -- DutchTreat (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Site notice and Nov 2013 validations
I have boldly put in a site notice to push validation month, especially to those who visit with an IP address. It will be interesting to see whether it has an impact on users who edit. I am thinking that I will vary the text once of twice this month (just because!) and was wondering whether you have some stats on how many works we fully validated last year, as I think that if we can wrap some of those stats into narratives about contributing (I did an analysis a few years ago when we had our first one). I am going to prod Phe to see if we can work out how many pages we validated on daily bases for Novembers versus other months. Thanks. — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Proofread of the Month/validation works/Archive has the lists of the works we validated from the template rotation. No. of editors involved 2011: 28; 2012: 22; 2013: 28. In 2012 we validated ca. 4500 pages. I don't have page numbers for other years. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Links in Poetry
Good morning, afternoon, or evening!

I will soon be finished proofreading the Jonathan Swift volumes, and then will start adding links to those volumes I proofread before I learned how to add links. One thing that has been troubling me has been whether or not I should add links in poems, essays, or other prose works. I have no problem adding links to Wikipedia to letters and histories, but somehow, it doesn't seem right in poetry. The author probably assumed his readers would know the references, and would not want to interrupt the flow of a poem by suggestions that the reader immediately look up who Diomede (who, interestingly, is not the same as Diomedes) or what Pegasus was. But, these days, many readers will not know who Diomede or what Pegasus was, so shouldn’t we provide a little help so that the readers’ comprehension is as great as possible? And if we don't add links to poetry, what about essays or prose? Since meter or rhyme aren’t involved, it seems that interruptions for links to explanations would be less intrusive, but these are still works of literature. Maybe it is not acceptable to mess up literature with what amounts to editorial comments.

I have found that, as I’ve been reading these works, I’ve been grateful for the editors notes explaning who people are. Sometimes it’s downright necessary. For example, I've seen times when Robert Harley was called both Mr. Harley and Lord Oxford in the same paragraph, without any indication that both referred to the same man. But, too often, there is no indication that "war" means the War of Spanish Succession, or that "king" could refer to King James II, King William III, King George I, or King George II, depending upon when the piece was written. Yes, I was able to determine which king was intended, but wouldn't it be easier to know immediately which king is meant? Or, when a political tract refers to the "bubble," do most people recognize that what is meant is the South Sea Company investment collapse of 1720? Or that constant references to the Drapier should make readers think, not of cloth and curtains, but of whether halfpence should be made of silver or copper in Ireland?

I've thus come to the decision to add as many links to Wikipedia or Wikisource as I can wherever I think that references might aid a reader’s comprehension. However, I will stop, and remove links I’ve already added, if there is a common policy that no links be added to poetry, essays, short stories, sermons, political tracts, or any other kind of literature that is not primarily historical in nature. Please let me know what you think. (And I’m sorry for the length of this entry, but I thought you deserved a short diversion in the manner of Jonathan Swift.) Susan  Susanarb (talk) 03:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Stumped
Hi Bees, hope this finds you & your's well...

I'm having a hell of a time trying to figure out what template exactly is placing pages like Page:The Army and Navy Hymnal.djvu/33 (any page in that work really) into Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls - mostly because I'm not sure that's best way to transcribe a music-based work in the first place. Can you take a look when you have some free time & the will? TIA. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My best guess is that it's something in Music/header as Hymn/header is based on it. Quite why there is a separate one for hymns I don't know. Lilypond has the ability to deal with all of this stuff within the score and it would probably be the better solution. I'll have a play with this particular hymn in the next couple of days and see what I can come up with. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)