User talk:Billinghurst/2012

New poems with common names
I am in the process of adding the poems contained in The Garden of Years and Other Poems by Guy Wetmore Carryl. Several of these poems have names that are already used in Wikisource, so I have disambiguated the poem names with the author’s name. The question is: Should the other poems with the same names become disambiguation pages? Or should a disambiguation hatnote be added to the existing pages? Specifically, the poems that I am adding are:
 * Gloria Mundi (Carryl). (see also Gloria Mundi)
 * The Fog (Carryl). (see also The Fog)
 * Atlantis (Carryl). (see also Atlantis)
 * Derelict (Carryl). (see also Derelict)
 * Paris (Carryl). (see also Paris)
 * Ebb-Tide (Carryl). (see also Ebb-Tide)
 * The Children (Carryl). (see also The Children)
 * •••Life of Riley (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Our approach to disambiguation is that the base name will become the disambiguation page, and we differentiate works after that along the lines that you identified. If a work is a part of a collection, then we would
 * organise the works as subpages to the collection, eg. Mandragora, especially when we have the page scans, maintaining as a collection allows for variations through republication
 * put in redirects from the root level of the main namespace
 * links from the the disambig pages to the works
 * the works that are being disambiguated get tagged with similar
 * — billinghurst  sDrewth  03:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ disambiguation pages

Treating
... everything, and do mean everything (see here ) as if the original author/publisher actually meant to convey to the readers that hopefully were going follow that everything he/she put to print was merely simple text as if spoken-word, using simple-paragraphs with simple-indentation & simple line-breaks, leads to simple mistakes in interpretation as well as in reproduction!

Forgive what must be drone-like parroting by me by now, but I realized I haven't tried illustrating this point that way yet. Note how the uniformity of sub-divisions, the understood hierarchy of one section or clause depending on the provisions &/or clauses found under it, the way layout is key to proper interpretation in the legal sense, and so on, all become "lost" throughout the work when the 'symptom(s)' of the paper publication no longer applies online. I realize works of this nature are not your "thing" but I would hope you can better understand why this is such a Big problem for those of us who are "into" that kind of stuff.— George Orwell III ( talk ) 02:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a nuanced argument here that I think that I am missing. I understand about document hierarchy, and indentation, know it well and deal with it through legislation regularly in a week, and tried to replicate here. I am not sure to what you are arguing or that I am missing in what I have said elsewhere or how I have said conflicts with what you are trying to get me to understand or to reconsider.


 * Take a breath, wipe the fact you were ever exposed to the original as printed before you saw it transcluded first and then consider the following:

Why is the first sub-division in relation to its parent and only its parent and all the same-level sub-divisions as designated by the first-found that follow that scheme [ (2), (3), (4), ... ] Not outdented,
 * 7th [sub]division under Part I ( bold number 7.; i.e. section 7. ) being the parent here;
 * bracketed modern number (1) being the first sub-division found after the parent,


 * 'outdented' being a term used best only for the momment here,

While, at the same time, the next sub-division in relation to its parent, and only to its parent and all the same-level sub-divisions as designated by the first-found that follow that scheme [(b), (c), (d), ...] Are outdented?
 * 1st sub-divsion found [bracketed modern number (1)] being the parent here,
 * bracketed, lower-case letter (a) being the first sub-division found after the parent,


 * What possible other reason is there for such an inconsistant depiction of the parent and its sub-division relationships other than to "save" paper - paper that no longer constrains the content because we're in the digital age. Its a carry over from olden times when standards were dictated by the technology of the day & the empire in control at the moment - the remnants still being applied in the virtual world today out of tradition more so than any useful applicability (or its eventual codification).


 * Discarding the ability to "hide" behind the reality that the majority of entries are of a word-count large enough to force line wrapping more often than not for the moment and looking again at Part I. Section 7....

 7.—(1) The copyright.... (2) In making ....
 * (a) that the ...
 * (b) that the ...
 * (c) that no ...
 * (d) that no ...
 * (e) that persons ...

(3) etc...undefined


 * ... the finished TrAnScLuSiOn version makes (2) and (3) equal in heirarchy to 7. and interpreted as 8. and 9. (1) in effect, becomes the introductory paragraph to 7. in spite of (1) being present because of " .— ". Not trying to make a mountain out of a mole-hill with this & Of course we are well-versed in the order and meaning of such letters & numbers; we fill-in most these "gaps in logical layouts" almost without thinking about it actually. Those "original publishers" know this is part of human nature and common to the brain's processing of visual information during reading - they were counting-on that we, the reader, will do exactly that (for cost savings primarily). Still, the implied intent trying to be conveyed to the reader at its core by the author(s), however, is more akin to...

 7.—
 * (1) The copyright....
 * (2) In making ....
 * (a) that the ...
 * (b) that the ...
 * (c) that no ...
 * (d) that no ...
 * (e) that persons ...
 * (3) etc..
 * ... the eventual codification (based on typical U.S. practice not to mention court opinions affirming as much) would be along the lines of...

 § 107. Special exceptions as respects libraries and archives.
 * (1) The copyright....
 * (2) In making ....
 * (a) that the ...
 * (b) that the ...
 * (c) that no ...
 * (d) that no ...
 * (e) that persons ...
 * (3) etc..
 * ... the addition of 100 to signify originally found under Part I, 7 being 7th sub-division of Part I (or 7th Section.) and (for this example only) the text following 7. (now a Section Title) comes from what we first see as a sidenote if one was not originally written-in there by the original author(s).
 * The last point has varied in application one way or the other over the years but if one didn't exist - its placeholder should not (cannot?) be usurped by a lower-sub-division for it changes the relationships/dependency/hierarchy/etc. as well as, most legislative bodies have come to learn over the many decades, the ability to easily amend or strike existing statute as depicted below....

 § 107. Special exceptions as respects libraries and archives.
 * [Works created prior to the effective date of the Copyright Act, 2067, and the provisions outined within, are also subject to, but not limited by:]
 * (1) The copyright....
 * (2) In making ....
 * (a) that the ...
 * (b) that the ...
 * (c) that no ...
 * (d) that no ...
 * (e) that persons ...
 * (3) The same etc..

Sorry for the "essay" (again). Is at least this one facet (the indentation-as-if-a-paragraph vs. the stepped-up/down-default-margins found in common list-item heirarchy) of the complexities at play here re:presntation, sub-re:sidenotes any clearer? — George Orwell III ( talk ) 07:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

{{rule))

p.s. I would have corrected the few typos/indentation ommissions I immediately saw after applying the nowrap test but apparently you used that second-noinclude-within-the-pagebody-field thing to workaround something and that fix wipes everything at that point for editors like me me who try to edit one of those pages. sorry.


 * Thanks. I corrected a couple with &lt;/div> on the wrong line &hellip; Yep, they are there so as not to replicate the continuation of the sidenote at page lead. I am tempted to omit the sidenotes that are a continuation, as sticking them inside the top &lt;noinclude> makes it pointless. Also to note that I have been trying to look through and see how else one can manage these noincludes now that you have identified that issue.   FWIW we really should do a bugzilla for that issue. — billinghurst  sDrewth  03:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't know if that is warranted yet - nobody as bothered to play beta-tester on this so far. It may just be caused in the way the "second" noinclude is being applied. Much like &lt;div> blah &lt;/div> (inline) and
 * &lt;div>
 * blah
 * &lt;/div> (parsed)
 * produces slightly differing results under certain conditions, so too may be the case here. It may even be something as simple as pre-fixing either (or just one?) of the above with a NOP.... or possibly a need to place the whole thing in a span or something which would become "moot" in its effect for both the Page: namespace's rendering as well as the finished tranclusion to the mainspace. I'd hold off on opening a bug-report until some basics of verification are done first. — George Orwell III ( talk ) 07:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Just saw WS:S. Oh don't take this as me making any sort of ruling, there will always be exceptions, alterations, rational reasons for difference, etc. As a default position, I have heard Cygnis's and others opinions about problematic right margins, and just see more and more issues with screen widths that feel that default left sidenotes is the way to go and seems to be an easy decision.  If someone else does different, I still work on the situation of speak once, and leave alone. I really don't care to have the argument.  I will sidenote to the left, it isn't always perfect, but it seems less imperfect. — billinghurst  sDrewth  04:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Just saw your 'just saw' and for the sake of brevity I will just reiterate the crux of the issue at hand one more time (with a admittedly poor attempt at wit & sarcasm thrown-in) -

''of course, if one treats the designated bullets found on the left-hand-side of any well defined list-item or defined-list document tree as nothing more than monolithic paragraphs of text, ocasionally off-set by other larger or smaller blocks of text, rather than deal with what they really are, were intend to depict when first penned, (ab)used as needed by the publisher profiteer, as well found coded as basic html today because its a waste of 8½ inches of my virtual screen space, one could easily prove that left side notes are the logical choice for a default.... not to mention I only care about blocks of text anyway''

No default side for sidenotes - parallel development (the mainspace utilizing one side or the other but not both) and separate application (each side has its own templates - the mirror opposite of the other - not just one template and one side is merely a parameter). — George Orwell III ( talk ) 07:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will give it some quality time over the weekend rather than a tired and non-capable brain now. — billinghurst  sDrewth  09:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Portals, years and dynamic page lists
In other news, while I haven't really got it working, I have tried to combine two other ideas into this experimental portal. It's based on the Wikinews portals and implements DynamicPageLists to return links relevant to a particular year. I'm hoping to turn it into a template that can be easily subst'ed to form a new portal as required. The main problem is a general lack of content by year (either due to not being categorised into both year and subject/type or being categorised into a sub-category instead). Does this look like something that could work? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh that sort of thing is going to be very sweet, as I look at something like


 * 

category=Obituaries count=5 suppresserrors=true ordermethod=categoryadd addfirstcategorydate=true 


 * I so need to try and get my head into some clear space to think through some of the things with which we want to produce output. — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

All Quiet along the Potomac - review request
Hi, thank you for editing some of my formatting on All Quiet along the Potomac. Obviously, I am new at this. I've referred to your edits on some of the other pages, and believe I may have gotten everything. I know you are busy with other works and guidance, but if you have an opportunity, will you please review my recent effort and see if I am missing anything? I would like to tidy up my previous edits and do things correctly in the future. Page:All_quiet_along_the_Potomac_and_other_poems.djvu/40 Thank you very much, --GreenVelveteen (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I have popped passed a number, and I have been meaning to see whether there is a table of contents for the work. We should be looking to transclude them into the main namespace.  I was going to prod you, though thought that leaving you to continue playing in the page namespace was also useful while you learnt the ropes. Billinghurst (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Stuart Pratt Sherman
Hi. I saw that you created this page Author:Stuart_Sherman. Pls be aware that there is also this page Author:Stuart_P._Sherman already present, in addition to what you redirected. Not familiar yet with merge and redirect on WS otherwise I would act. Moreover too many pages are starting to be involved. Would appreciate if you can take care of this. Thanks --Mpaa (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Stupid question revisited
... continuing a previous discussion from April...

While I've been enjoying djvu-to-PDF and back file conversion once again & all that I can handle here on my workstation since our last (now archived; linked above), it dawned on me that this latest fix from ver. 4.7 to ver 4.7c [cee] in late May might facilitate some movement in the way of finally resolving our transclusion/djvu/export bug issues.

Again, not being an expert nor familiar with the ins and outs of MediaWiki, etc., I thought bringing this to your attention was worthwhile if not just for suggestions on how to convince "the powers that be" that the latest versions need to be installed or we could be depriving ourselves of possible additional benefits as well as long needed solutions. Thanks for your time. — George Orwell III (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Life as as a piece of fluff on the oilpond of WMF. 29905
 * I don't know whether it is the smaller, underlying djvu libary (djvm djvmcvt djvudigital djvudump djvuextract djvumake djvups djvused djvutoxml djvutxt djvuxmlparser) that is relevant or the bigger DjView. We can let them work it out. — billinghurst  sDrewth  02:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. A simple file size comparison from the early March revision to the late May current one should show that there were significant changes made to most of those files listed (ddjvu & djvused being the most relevant to the issue and functionality in question). -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed a slight misunderstanding or maybe it wasn't clear - its the May 26th package thats been refined to fix the PDF creation bug (among a handful of other changes) not the March 6th/9th one (see HERE).

The developer's "git" thingy(?) has been updated as well as the combined main executable download but the wording in the Bugzilla might make that nuance and the desired file versions unclear. (Looks like ver. 3.5.24-8 and 4.8 are days away from being formally released btw) — George Orwell III (talk) 04:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am presuming that they will know which bits they have and update them, whether it be the smaller djvu library or otherwise. What we are wanting them to do is to implement an automated update functionality so that it sits with whichever version is current. Accessing additional functionality may or may not be useful here or to other functions, and I am not certain that the DjVu to PDF component is necessary or used for Proofread Page extension.  If there is a new version then we create the noise by updating the bugzilla to new version. — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sayng that anybody is going to do djvu to pdf conversions specifically per se. Its the manipulation of the hidden text layer -- that myth that there is some difference between an OCR generated text layer or a PDF embedded text layer and so on -- that is desirable to maintain & keep current. Yes, one type of text layer manipulation occurs in a DJVU to PDF conversion. Another type of text-layer manipulation occurs during the "dump" or the "extract" to plain text and THAT is exactly what the Proofread Page extension incorporates. Regardless of the operation in question, its always the same sub-files being applied in various combinations with different parameters/settings producing slightly different outputs as needed. All I'm saying is if they fix one issue, it just might resolve other issues at the same time. Of course the opposite may also be true, but that's not what I've been seeing locally. A refresh of Index:Cousins's Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature.djvu managed to bring through the text layer where the previous OCR routine didn't come up in the Page: namespace for example. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply from Mattisse
I have worked on the following, almost always alone. I haven't an idea what others want to read, as I think my tastes differ immensely from most other editors. Here is a list of ones that I enjoyed and that I did my best with in terms with complying with the rules, but I'm sure they fail in many ways.

Audubon and His Journals

Mehalah: a story of the salt marshes (1920)

In the Roar of the Sea

Arminell, a social romance

A Book of the Cevennes

Haiti: Her History and Her Detractors - me and another editor

Alaska Days with John Muir

A Thousand-Mile Walk To The Gulf

Travels with a Donkey in the Cevennes

A Book of the Riviera

The Amateur Emigrant

The Silverado Squatters

John James Audubon (Burroughs)/Frontal matter - sorry, I can't seem to get this integrated into the rest of the formatted text, but the rest is there.

A Book of Dartmoor


 * I would like to know how to fix this one as I love reading it: Index:Stickeen-John Muir.djvu


 * I a working on Index:The cruise of the Corwin.djvu but can't set up the pages as chapter numbers as you suggested, so I don't know whether I will bother and may just read it without making it into a text work.

Thank you greatly for your interest.

Respectfully, Mattisse (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Award and autopatrolled
Thank you for the proofread award I just found in my user page, and thank you for trusting me with autopatrolled status. Zaran (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for the proofreading award! Nice to know my work is appreciated =) I enjoyed getting a taste of Victor Hugo's work, too. -Pete (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * [Budding in: The work was an unexpected treat for me too... I wasn't familiar with it before. I'll be buying my own copy now so I don't have to read it piecemeal! Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)]
 * As i'm french, i already knew this work well. However, it was fun to see how Hugo's writing renders in English. Zaran (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe I can ask you then... I just came from Barnes & Noble bookstore, and they don't have Ninety-Three in stock... Not being familiar with any translation other than the one here (if there even are more than one... I haven't yet checked)—do you recommend any particular translation/translator for the book? or for Hugo's work in general? I figure if I have to get a copy online, I'd have more choices anyhow...?  Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As you can guess, I read French books directly in French, so I'm not an expert of English translations of Hugo's book. From one I can tell, the translation here is quite good (I have read several pages with the French and English texts side-by-side). If you want to read it, I can create an epub version of this translation (I'm actually working on a script to export wikisource texts to epub). Zaran (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it... but I prefer reading the old-fashioned way whenever possible—and with pen in hand! Not anti-technology (obviously, since I'm here), I just prefer hard copy :) Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

As I was proofreading...
"Punch is an English periodical; you must be an Englishman to understand the allusions. The humour is essentially and almost exclusively English; it would never attain any great popularity in other English-speaking nations, in spite of its undoubted claim to be the first comic journal in the world." Isn't that funny!? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and its naming from "Punch and Judy". Reflective anarchy, oh wait I am talking to an American, you won't understand  — billinghurst  sDrewth  21:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 'You' really need to get another smiley... The only reason I used it this time is because using :) after a colon is problematic! And you're right, by the way—although not so much because I'm an American, but because I am me! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Too harsh on yourself, so many Americans don't understand irony, very dry humour, nor playfully sardonic/anarchic. Of course, it could just be me that is weird. — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not harsh... realistic. I do try!—but prefer the position of spectator in the "sport" though... (I'm boring myself already) :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ideally
"This is a community with a shared approach... not one that more seems to reflect one person's ideals or the lowest common denominator approach. I would like to find a less divisive approach but that requires a different approach."
 * Billinghurst, people have been searching for that approach since the dawn of mankind, and it is itself an ideal is it not?.... Human nature being what it is, we can only continue doing what we are doing... always keeping in mind that there is an ideal... We just won't attain it till we die.  Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We can strive for peace or we can live at war. The former takes two, the second just needs one. One person can have their ideal, it is called their website. We have a community, we have a shared effort &hellip; I should stop striving? — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * [Don't be afraid to just tell me to "shut up" (seriously!)—I adjust more quickly that way! I think I need to proofread something more benign for a time—like See Spot Run. But that's probably not in the public domain yet... I'm open to suggestions! Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)]
 * Of course not! What we are doing is striving...  But even "peace" has a different meaning for everyone ( and not everyone wants it, frankly and different ideas as to how is best achieved).  What is "ideal" is different for everyone.  You can't separate a man from his ideals.  They are with him in his every action, thought, edit, and upload!  That is as it should be.  Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Proofreading options. Category:Index Proofread or look at Special:IndexPages, and move works to Validated.  It is what I look to do when I wish to wander and feel that I have advanced some works to completed status. — billinghurst  sDrewth  02:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Author:Edward Tregear
Hi. The en:wiki page for this author has the full name Edward Robert Tregear. Wouldn't it be cleaner to rename the page on WS with the same name as Wikipedia? Not so many links to be fixed as I added the first work just now. Bye --Mpaa (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally I do move to the expanded name, and I have ✅ so on this occasion. We would usually leave the redirect in place, and the links to the original, and only update if we need to disambiguate. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Toltec Pedagogy
You are very quick, I decided to finish first the translation (only today) and then go back and insert pictures, it is onging. Thanks--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, we do try to not promote works to proofread status until they are actually complete. It is one practice in which we see the need for a consistency. — billinghurst  sDrewth  20:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood, thanks for the input, I am somewhat of a novice and learning the ropes. Will remember that, BTW, all pictures are already inserted.--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Soft redirect of NTSB
Hi! I notice one of your bots did this [//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:National_Transportation_Safety_Board&diff=3465742&oldid=3269643 edit]

But Portal:NTSB redirects to Portal:National Transportation Safety Board, and the content of the page was never moved to Portal:NTSB WhisperToMe (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep and it was definitely back to front, and I grabbed those that were at which who knows why it was still on there for a portal, and I missed it among all the author page changes. Thanks for the pickup. — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Noinclude LF issue
Hi,

I'm the last person who can keep up with all the bells and whistles going on lately surrounding the footer insertion of extra line feeds at first then the sunsequent fix that moved it to the pagetext box. I didn't how or where else to put this other here since your memory might the most likely to recall prior events so that what I'm driving at makes sense.

Hopefully you'll recall that there was an issue with certain version of Internet Explorer and the use of additional noincludes causing content to get clipped when saved awhile back. A bugzilla was opened on this and went unaddressed for quite a few weeks.

Next, hopefully you'll remember that there was a mini-brainstorming event of sorts to address several outstanding/open WS issues a week to ten days before the 1.18 rollout. They took up that bugzilla and supposedly "fixed" the issue by forcing browsers to do a read ahead or something along those lines (above my pay grade to be honest).

Days later, I followed up on that group's efforts per some of your update posts on WS:S but I never got around to finding one of those pages with multiple noincludes to see if anything had actually changed before the 'days of upgrade' came along and the footer problem became apparent.

My point with all of this is that it is possible the problem with extra line feeds might not originate with the 1.18 upgrade itself but with the "brainstorming" group's multiple noinclude under IE fix, applied before/along with the 1.18 upgrade. I thought it best to mention it to someone (you again; sorry) who can further the above to the appropriate places that are involved in a crafting a solution in case it is related.... -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Different fix. The IE fix is 26881 with the code fix at mw:Special:Code/MediaWiki/98422 and if I read the code page right, it is yet to be implemented. 26028 has been implemented though diff Revision Log — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you say 'it is so...'; I believe it. Sorry for the intrusion & thanks for your time (again!) -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Spell-checker
Hi. Just a wild thought. I was wondering if anyone has ever evaluated the possibility/complexity/benefit to add a spell-checker as part of the proof-reading environment. Spellchecking off-line is of little help (at least to me) but with the page beside to check immediately wether the suggestion is right or wrong would help. --Mpaa (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be a little concerned about the implicit message that we would have with a spellchecker available, especially with the variety of US <-> UK <-> Oz spellings, and whether we are wanting a correction, or just an indication of the word not being in the dictionary supplied. Modern browsers have spellcheckers available as a add-on/plugin which would be a useful means for an aware person to indicates words of concern, though doesn't help when the word is spelled correctly but just not the word from the text. — billinghurst  sDrewth  22:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Pardon but I've previously looked into the possibility of a spellchecker add-on elsewhere. The short answer is that a spell-checker (one that can serve English in all its national variants if need be) would be possible if the DjVu-to-XML and parser (also available in DjVuLibre) were operational/functional again. Currently, the Page namespace depends on a plain old text dump that basically ignores the column, paragraph, line, word and other meta/mapping detail-types among some other possible shortcuts that could lead to easier proofreading & validation if developed fully. I was schooled to understand that making a flexible spell checker routine part of the Page: namespace without the benefits of XML and a customized WS document type definition file (.DTD) would not be worthwhile even as an attempt (I have no reason to doubt that evaluation if it matters). -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Out of my knowledge base. BTW George, I do believe that they updated the base linux builds and that now includes djvulibre, not that I am sure where that gets us specifically. — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, just repeating what has been explained to me... not very much I'm afraid. The root of the problem even before getting to the lack of XML and .dtd for WS use & utilization lies with the original setup. We strip all that format and/or mapping info present in a DjVu's text layer more often than it is not because we were never concerned with scripting the control characters to be wikified in the process - making for one long run on sentence via a basic plain-text dump if saved w/o any editing on our part.
 * I'm wondering if we change the current detail default from "PAGE" to "PARA" (an existing DjVuTXT setting) and script in to recognize any paragraph breaks as an extra line-feed (or whatever term that equates to wikicode's paragraph break if you prefer here) instead of ignoring them as we currently do would at least make formatting a bit more simple... but this is just a fantasy of mine - someone with real knowlege would need to verify if any of that is even possible. The XML thing soounds 100x better moving forward but I'm afraid it could break everything already created the current way. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

"tysop" "typos" " AU " " All " that we could have applied to a work. I would see that we could have this at something like &#91&#91Index:Workname.djvu/corrections]] which could just iterate per page of the work, probably at a click. We would need something that is simpler rather than more complex, and definitely without coding, something that can iterate the lines of a page to do the work. — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have used one for quite a while, and would recommend using it. I agree that adding one to wikisource is not a good idea. Firefox requires getting an add-on; I grabbed the "English (Australian) Dictionary", which I think contains both AM and UK spelling, a good UK dictionary would have both. The Mozilla build for Macs uses the native dictionary (again, I haven't confirmed this), which does have alternate spelling. I've 'taught' the dictionary along the way, and this is a reason to avoid making it an on-site option. What they don't do well is give suggestions for OCR errors, and this is one of many reasons I use a text editor for the OCR layer (I grab the raw file from the site when I create a new index). The OCR keeps making the same errors, when I find these a few times I apply it to the rest of the file; this requires some caution, because my spell-checker won't highlight the erroneous correction when I replace the page's text. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 06:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Like my edit summary said, I should write a essay on this. One of the many reasons I favour an external editor over changing the text layer is the liability factor, if I screw up I pay the cost. Another is that the PPE software does things like collapsing the empty lines between paragraphs, et al., adding to the number of keystrokes per page. Yet another is that everyone know how to do 'search and replace', having boffins doing this by hacking the djvu file will go wrong (sorry, but this almost certain, Murphy's Law). There are some common errors with OCR, and I would cautiously add them to the clean-up script, but many are specific to each index, because it depends on many factors: which OCR program, how that was tweaked, the type of text, the font, the formatting, etc. One needs a lot of experience to see how it can go wrong. Tip of the day: you can fix the spacing around many of the quote marks by searching on \r"_ (the underscore represents a space here). CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy enough if upon Page creation, chapter headers, paragraphs, section breaks, etc. were retained in the dump never mind the ability to spell check on the fly. Without keeping that basic mapping/formating found in the OCR'd file all the way to Page: creation, the idea of a "built-in" effective spell-checker is pretty much impossible to achieve. I wouldn't worry about anything like that materializing anytime soon.
 * I can't say I see the logic of correcting (the spelling in) the dumped text file over correcting the actual embedded text layer of the DjVu but if that approach is working for you on your end - more power to you. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * After reading all your comments, I realised I raised something already discussed and also with technical implications on implementation.Just to put my thoughts in the right context, I am following what CI does, i.e. completely working the whole text off line in a text editor and then put things back when I proofread single pages, exactly for the same reason (that you are most probably able to fix at once several errors for the whole text). But I use this method when I work on a whole book. What I meant here is not a magic button that fix everything in one shot automatically, but at least something that can highlight the most common mistakes when you go page-by-page (e.g. tbe instead of the, wliile insted of while), which I usually take care of with CI approach but that I cannot easily detect/handle if I work on single pages. You can object that I can add these words in the clean-up script, but errors are particular for each and every text and the script would need continue adaptation. I'll try the browser dictionary to see if it will accomplish what I meant when I posted this. --Mpaa (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I started using browser dictionary (ABC Spellbound add-on on Firefox) and found it useful. It underlines words it cannot match, highlighting what deserves special attention. A good help. Thanks for the tip. --Mpaa (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (via his bot) has a means to fix typos from an OCR scan, and he basically has a library of errors for the type of works that he reproduces. Maybe with the help of some similar schema, and utilising Pathoschild's gadget, and some of the clean-up scripting of Hesperian, there is a product.  As I see it, if we were able to have an editable  text-based file per work where we have per line of the file we have something like

(trim trailing LF, replaced: → using AWB)
billinghurst/sDrewth, am I doing anything wrong to have the above appended to pages I work on? I am not sure what is taking place. Is there anything *I* can do to fix the situation--perhaps something I'm not doing? Thank you, &mdash; William Maury Morris II  Talk 18:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, you are not doing things wrong, and if you were, I would be politely saying something on your talk page. If you follow the link in the edit summary you will see the explanation. In short there was a programming error introduced to Wikisource and rather than stop people editing until the problem is fixed I am quietly tidying up afterwards.

Blank Line in Main Namespace.
After I have finished proofreading a page, and the next, and view it in the main namespace, there appears to be a blank line between all the pages, where there shouldn't be one. I'm a bit confused as I did not insert or  in the pages where there shouldn't be one. It's occurred on this chapter, and the rest. Thanks. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * User:SDrewthbot/trim trailing LF. I didn't get a run done last night, so I will endeavour to do so tonight. — billinghurst  sDrewth  21:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for running SDrewthbot through the chapters Face-grin.svg. I'm just so curious as to how you managed to fixed the chapters. Thanks again. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Black magic! &hellip; It ran through the Page: pages and removed the extra line feed, and that fixes the chapters. The bot is able to work around the introduced problem with ProofreadPage, where we as users are unable. — billinghurst  sDrewth  21:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then your bot is definitely magical and unique. If I see it again I will have to request your bot to fix it; though I really don't want to add another job to SDrewthbot's probably sky-high list of requests and jobs. Poor bot already works round the clock. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)--Angelprincess72 (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

PSM pages in maintenance
Hi. I am currently helping with PSM. I need an opinion without generating a lot of discussion. Do you think this is sorted out now Scriptorium/Archives/2011-08? And this kind of pages can be deleted as there is an appropriate structure in place? I saw Hesperian saying: revert pending consensus; discussion ongoing at scriptorium but I was not able to figure out the final decision. --Mpaa (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC) To answer the second question &hellip; the discussed pages as they stand, I would see could/would be redirects to the same text within the PSM hierarchy/subpages framework.
 * No, it was sort of left hanging, though the pages exist as original transcluded, though the text/pages should not be seen to be at their final resting place.


 * "My reasoning &hellip; I am biased as I am a framework person. So let me answer in how this could be progressed with a good outcome (from my biased PoV). My personal belief is that we should not be including/transcluding snippets of articles in isolation, especially out of context / without apparent purpose / without authors — the articles hang nowhere. For the example pages given at the beginning of that conversation, I believe that had we proofed and transcluded all the pages within that POPULAR MISCELLANY section, had it under that framework name within the hierarchy, it would have been perfectly alright & in line with the project's direction. The snippets isolated and highlighted don't sit well with me.  To get to the specific components of the articles, we can put anchors on the pages and then put in links from portals, etc.  Similar result, different presentation and in line with the publication."
 * If that doesn't give clarity, then let us continue the discussion as I may have missed the nuance in your questions. — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that those "snippets" pages are/will be useless once the framework where they belong is in place, as you say (if I got you correctly). So my approach would be to tag them for deletion as soon as the proper article in the PSM framework is proofread. But I saw the whole discussion and I do not want to step on anyone's toes. And as it is still hanging there, what is the next step then? --Mpaa (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest turning them into redirects with anchors. # REDIRECT &#91;&#91;.../Popular Miscellany#Name of the page]] — billinghurst  sDrewth  14:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by User:Ineuw on User:StateOfAvon's pages
Please don't assume that I ignored this issue, but I needed time for the opportunity to present a justifiable rationale: I suggest that StateOfAvon's incomplete contributions should be moved to subpages of his user page and without any main namespace redirects because his use of the full article titles conflict with the redirects we need. There is a PSM redirect system implemented by Hesperian, and this cannot be interrupted by incomplete work. — Ineuw talk 03:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Authoritative comment always welcomed. :-) — billinghurst  sDrewth  03:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean we can go ahead and proceed accordingly? :-) — Ineuw talk 04:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your guiding the project, and I would expect that you would know is better for the respective pages. I would look to maintain as many unambiguous and valuable titles as redirects as that will be useful from the portal links, but that is your call. — billinghurst  sDrewth  04:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, I know both the project and followed StateOfAvon's work, since I recommended him to create sub pages. I will contact Mpaa and discuss it with hime when he return. ty.— Ineuw talk 04:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I started acting as indicated above and created redirects to anchors in relevant point in PSM structure. --Mpaa (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Re:SDrewthbot requested to run through and fix the Line Feed thingy
I have already made this on svws and daws once. But, you can feel free to see if there is anything I have missed. -- Lavallen (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have done it, is there a further need? If you borrowed the criteria or did similar, then I am happy, in fact it was only to make things easier. — billinghurst  sDrewth  07:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not know if any pages older than Oct 17 still has this bug. Oct 17 is the oldest date I have found. -- Lavallen (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * First dud page seen at enWS was 16 Oct 23:13, so that equates. — billinghurst  sDrewth  09:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

AWB at ru.ws
See ru:Викитека:Форум. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Separators
Billinghurst, is automatically centered upon transcription into the Main? I get it how I want it on the Index:page, but I don't like how it looks once transcribed. Any ideas/suggestions? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * too late for my brain to decipher html. George? — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Beats me at the moment too. What about closing the the block-center right before it and opening another one right after it again? -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking back at the template's Talk page, I had forgotten that I inquired about the same (or similar) issue back in February, and Letter-spacing was then recommended... George, I'll try your suggestion as well and compare it with letter-spacing results. But once I get back... Thanks to you both, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This is another one that is caused by extraneous calls for additional divs ( calls -->  along with  ) within an existing main div or table  that for some reason is set to a default class (in this case "tiInherit") when the template(s) should be relying on a paragraph tag to control alignment under that main div or table instead in these cases.
 * I find skipping to avoid its built in design to call  (thus dropping the class enforced but un-needed additional div) and wrapping  in a paragraph tag instead allows the mainspace to render more like the original format than the other way. The line I used was...

&lt;p style="text-align:left;">·&lt;/p>
 * Note that the gap is reduced to 1.9em from 2.1 and the 9th dot is added manually instead of being part of the loop template. Hope that will do & I'm sure it can simplified even further with some effort. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the work! I'm going to have to go over your response above with a fine-tooth comb, but my brain can't handle it right now (burned out)! :)  But I promise to give it the consideration it deserves when I'm thinking more alertly and critically! :)  Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, good deal... and it renders well in the Main too... But in what way does that formatting differ from letter-spacing formatting?:

·


 * Letter spacing, as used here on en.WS via a template (typically),affects line height so if you highlight both for say a copy and paste, you'll see the difference more clearly. Using the paragraph tag allows you to use it inline if need be. In your case it falls between two sections (two paragraphs) of text so it really doesn't matter which one you use - the extra spacing up & down doesn't matter.
 * Perfecto! Thanks again :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And quick question: What does "& # 160;" render? Thanks! (And sorry Billinghurst for taking up space here!) Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Its actually the same as & nbsp; and is what the Gap template ultimately translates as a hard space. George Orwell III (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And the technical reason is that the means we use to apply gap is that if we had the &lt;span> empty then nothing would display. So this way the non-displaying character is of a set width. To find out which character is behind a code, I usually run a search at http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/search.htm . And you are correct, we probably can have such conversations in which broader knowledge is being shared may be useful in a shared forum. — billinghurst  sDrewth  21:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent Work
billinghurst, I saw you working tonight/this morning and I was impressed with your swiftness. You are the best administrator that I have ever seen and you keep WS clean. You are an excellent worker! My respects, Maury. (&mdash; William Maury Morris II  Talk 10:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi! & Thanks!
Hi! And Thanks very much for the welcome message you left me in August. After signing-up I had retreated back to the English Wikipedia because my initial explorations here told me that I cannot bring Government Works from India to WS because of the existing laws and policies. Re-visiting today, and following the likns in your note I find that a solution may be workable in the not so distant future. So thanks again. VivekM (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I_went_to_Heaven
Hi. I wasn't really sure on what to do with this newly created page. Might be up for deletion, as there is a work which covers this. But proofreading is not completed yet. I proofread this particular page and linked it to the on-going work but I guess this page will be delete in the long term. I leave up to you how to tag/proceed with this. Bye --Mpaa (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done a variety of things to the work in the main namespace. We would keep it, if it duplicates the same work, we would do a versions page. — billinghurst  sDrewth  20:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Mpaa (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

m- dash
Billingsworth, or whomever,

Why is it that we connect the m dash between words (Products—Her..........Population—Political) when it makes the text look bad? Often it would look better if the m dash were not connected to words such as Products — Her Population — Political. Thank you to whomever is willing to help.&mdash; William Maury Morris II  Talk 17:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

All I can say is that we try to follow the book's example on here, so if its word-word we put word-word. But I always separate them. - Tannertsf (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Close help please
In [//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource%3AProposed_deletions&action=historysubmit&diff=3529991&oldid=3529980 this edit] I closed a delete discussion, I got most of the clean up done, but now I have a problem Category:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology still has 5 author categories in it. I am not sure but think it related to DGRG initials. Can you take a look and see what the best next move is? Feel free to make what ever changes you believe are indicated. Jeepday (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the template, and removed the categories from those that were manually added. Removed sub-cats, not touched the overarching cat. — billinghurst  sDrewth  02:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I did not see those categories in the template was focusing on the "DGRG initials/doc". I deleted the overall category, housekeeping done :) Jeepday (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Questions

 * 1) Volume 29 of the EB1911 has no text layer (if that's the right term). Can that be fixed? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No text layer in the files. We will either need to find an alternative or to ask IA to process those files for djvu text.  I need to remember how to check for the original processing log to see if I can at least identify the issue.
 * Thanks. I might actually have an improvised solution, for my purposes at least.  It would be helpful to have the Contributor pages transcribed/transcluded at least (they are currently being added by hand, it seems).  No need to jump through any hoops with IA unless it is a fairly easy thing for you to do.  Much of V. 29 seems to be "end matter" anyway... Some stuff would be useful to transcribe, but other stuff perhaps not yet, if at all... Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Question: If I were to "abandon" my WS account at some point—never to use it again, then another person could theoretically come along and "usurp" my account name and use it as their own? Is there a way that this could be prevented?...like "retiring" a sports jersey number or something?  Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You have a [//toolserver.org/~quentinv57/tools/sulinfo.php?username=Londonjackbooks&showblocks=1 unified account], it cannot be usurped, and that name is now reserved for your login. Plus with the current system, someone cannot make an account that is a close approximation of it. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. Not that anyone would want to assume my "identity" anyway! ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

RunningHeader
Billinghurst, I asked that the 52 Southern Historical Society Papers be placed on WikiSource. It was set up and you did some examples so that I could follow them. You used RunningHeader in this manner  which I have been doing as per your example at the very beginning.

In the following example we see a shorter way which I figure is just as good as what you originally did but is it better in some way other than being shorter than what I had? Why should it be changed to the shorter version?

The correction, if it be a correction, can be seen here. But to what purpose? http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Southern_Historical_Society_Papers_volume_01.djvu/227

I can use either method and am used to what you, billinghurst, originally showed me from the beginning. However, I can change to the 2nd method if that has anymore value. In the example, the RunningHeader is the only thing that was changed. It has happened more than once and I would like to know if I should change from what you showed me. Respectfully, &mdash; William Maury Morris II  Talk 17:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * rh = RunningHeader, the reason that I use the expanded form is 1) it is more self-explanatory; 2) I have some code to insert it, so I don't have to type it manually. Similarly, we can set up header self-insertion from the Index: page of works, or Inductiveload has a javascript application that you can utilise. — billinghurst  sDrewth  22:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I will use the shorter version. Thank you for the explanation. &mdash; William Maury Morris II  Talk 23:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you like I can set you up with a little script that gives you a click ability (on the left hand sidebar) to add the template to header section. To use it you would just need to turn on the REGEX gadget in your preferences. — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

editing my user talk page
I think deleting things from my user talk page is high handed, especially without discussion. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was asked by LBJ to do so by private email. If you want any of your bits back I am happy to do so, the request was around that section and asking in public was going to bring attention to the detail. — billinghurst  sDrewth  22:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please restore the material. I can be contacted by private email as well. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Partially restored. See email for further detail. — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My request to Billinghurst only involved the last two posts in the section (written by me), Bob, and did not include any of your comments. Apologies for catching you unawares.  I trust Billinghurst has explained the situation sufficiently.  Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the restoration and the email. This seems like a reasonable solution from my perspective. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sisters
Would you take a look at Proposed_deletions, any thoughts on what to do to move towards closure on it? Jeepday (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For it looks like it should be  as it exists widely elsewhere through WMF.  So if we delete it may just confuse people, such a deprecate will guide people to use another and we can tidy usage that persists. — billinghurst  sDrewth  14:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Stedman's Genius and other essays
I just tonight noticed your addition of the scan link next to Stedman's work! I guess I owe you a belated "Thanks"... and apparently to another over at Commons as well for the addition of the text there... I had forgotten about the work, having added it to the author page just prior to a crazy-busy time! But I am anxious to get started on it :) I just this weekend gave a copy of Stedman's (as editor) An American Anthology as a gift, so he was on my brain :)  Thanks... even though you may not have realized it would have been appreciated when you made the edit :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"It is to laugh." Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

copyvio
Could you please see | my answere to your question about possible copyvio. Thanks HAKmasnakic (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * sorry link was not correctHAKmasnakic (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverting a validation
Hi, just wondering what the reason for [ this revert] was. Beeswaxcandle's validation looks perfectly legit to me. What's going on? Angr 23:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * NFI. I was patrolling, though sometimes the refresh changes layout with the Resource Loader in that a link moves at the last moment, and may have been asleep in charge of a keyboard.  I reverted. — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem! "NFI"? No fuckin' idea? Angr 07:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe, or maybe "feasible". — billinghurst  sDrewth  08:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No Fine Ideas
Billinghurst, why does "small-caps" not work in a list as seen on this url? And what's wrong with your feet--more than two? &mdash; William Maury Morris II Talk 09:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Page:Confederate_Military_History_-_1899_-_Volume_3.djvu/711

&mdash; William Maury Morris II Talk 09:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Our rendition of small-caps just applies the formatting, and the css code can only convert standard case text to small-caps. When you have capitals and apply small-caps, they are still capitals, so you need to have them as lower case letters to get it to work. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help. In the old publications surnames and other words are often larger text on purpose to be seen easily. On Wikisource (WS) editors make them small lettering thereby not matching the original text. Why is that done? Why isn't the format of the original text retained? I myself had No Fine Ideas as to how to format that list as you have. Now I do. Thank you for your Nice Fine Inspiration. &mdash; William Maury Morris II Talk 17:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Bot account request
Hi. I would like to get a bot account to help Ineuw with PSM page creation. Can I get one and if so,how? Thanks --Mpaa (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Me too, I want a Schazzz-bot account. &mdash; William Maury Morris II Talk 22:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Bots — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Image vertical or horizontal on page?
Billinghurst, I am working on a book that has a fair number of images. Often the are vertical images where one would have to turn the image to see what is really involved regarding details. Should we keep the image in the same direction of the book page or work the image so that it can easily be seen and enlarged. My example of a cleaned image is here—

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Mexico,_California_and_Arizona_-_1900.djvu/301

&mdash; William Maury Morris II Talk 04:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would always have the images rotated to be viewable in "normal" perspective. All the obvious reasons about web vs. typeset of & image width in a book, whitespace, ability to rotate, intent &hellip;.


 * Thank you! I had to ask before I ended up doing them wrong. &mdash; William Maury Morris II Talk 05:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no wrong, just preference. In the end if you wanted to have them all one way, while I may disagree, if you have done the whole work and it was purposeful, then so be it. — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * For online my preference is to have the images (cleaned first!) so that I can view them without turning my head towards my right or left shoulder and still not be able to see the details of the image. In the real world we turn the book to see the image. In the virtual world, click on the image and it gets larger, click again and it get even larger. The final image is very large and the details are easily seen. Now, that is for "online". Someone who wants to print a book would only have a smaller image printed as per the url example I have shown. If the image were kept as is then a book could be printed with better images. So, I am not so sure it is a matter of preference—or preference for whom, the editor or the printer? WS is connected to a printing company that will print out pages, or entire books that we select, as you probably know. That company keeps a portion of the printing costs. It also (supposedly) donates money from these printings back to Wiki areas including wiki areas in many other nations as seen when reading about the printing options. So there is another factor. I myself place finished works in .PDF files. I have no need to print them and it costs mucho dinero for paper and ink. But other people prefer soft cover and hard cover books they can carry around. I would love to see an artist color those images. I would buy my own editing as a book like that! They could have wiki space in a totally different wiki area. Wiki books could make a fortune selling books with colored images via it's partnership with that printing company and the portion of money donated back to wiki areas. After all, it's a color world! -- Maury. ( &mdash; William Maury Morris II  Talk 20:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not know if it is possible but if InductiveLoad is in a creative mode with his javaScripts and css cascading style sheets, bed-knobs and broom-sticks, it would be a major option if the images remain online as then are shown in the book and yet create something so that the online user/editor/administrator/visitor could rotate any image to see the full image properly. The full image can easily be seen larger just by looking at the already option of "image" but can that possibly be rotated with a javascript, or whatever, as InductiveLoad created colored pages for =Eye Strain= recently? I believe it can be done by someone who has the knowledge and is willing to experiment. It would make online vertical images far better to view and yet would remain as they are for the printers. Thus both viewers and printers would have the best of both worlds — virtual and printing reality.&mdash; William Maury Morris II Talk 21:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the welcome. Carminowe of Hendra (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to "Your help me" (tables)
I did some research on my own and figured out how to include tables in a page. Once I finish Perry v. Schwarzenegger, I will work on San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist., which has the tables. I will post questions to Scriptorium in the future. Thanks, Dlarmore (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

JVbot
JVbot was restarted a few days ago. Sorry it went down when someone unplugged my computer. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC) We keep missing each other on IRC .. ;-)
 * Excellent news. Indeed we do, you seem to be keeping human hours that involve having a life. Shame! — billinghurst  sDrewth  04:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Volume information for EB1911
Please see Wikisource talk:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Alpha collection
What is an "alpha collection"? I assume(?) that it has to do with a collection of volumes that are sorted alphabetically/numerically, etc? Like a multi-vol. dictionary, encyclopedia set, etc. (i.e., "alpha")? Also, to bring the conversation over here, I plan on working some with WS magazine pages (like The Century Magazine), and I want to be sure—before I add/change things ad nauseum—that I'm not making a mess of things that someone else will have to clean up later. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, alpha was just short for alphabetical. For serials, I think that the work that has been done by Ineuw on PSM has stepped through the sorts of issues that come up.


 * You forgot a signature in your comment [//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource_talk:WikiProject_1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica&diff=0&oldid=3518829#Volume_information_for_EB1911 here]. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did too, I'll fix. In cases like that, we encourage another party to add unsigned against it. — billinghurst  sDrewth  04:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You "did too?" Did I somewhere?  Thanks for the unsigned tip.  Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh... And hey—I resemble that remark... Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Two?" you mean? Ugh, I'll stop now... Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the welcome, I understand what you are saying. I appreciate for the notice. I will be back shortly --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The Oxford book of Italian verse
Hello Billinghurst, I've started to transcribe the notes about the authors in the book (pages 534-565). I've created the first author's page (The Oxford book of Italian verse/San Francesco d'Assisi), but I'm not sure: What should I do according to you? Soon, Erasmo Barresi (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If I create a page for each author, every page would contain too little text
 * If I put all authors' notes in a page, it would contain too much text
 * In the book authors aren't subdivided (for example by century), so every subdivision we could use would alter the structure of the volume
 * Hmm, no easy answer. Personally I like for books to have logical breaks, and sometimes these don't become obvious until a good part of the work is undertaken. Each of three ways that you mentioned have all been used to display books here.  I don't fuss about smaller transclusions if the pages are going to be easily and readily referenced, either from an Author: ns page, alternatively from a wiki, so sometimes if the work has many internal (cross-)references.  If not going to be referenced that way, then we can do longer pages, and look to have anchors put through the work, and this works well if there is an index.  Sometimes I just work off the Table of Contents, and if that seems to work, then I fly with it. As the major contributor, you do get to set the standard for the work. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Cricket
Started on the cultural-partners list when I was lamenting the lack of old editions of Wisden here. That said, I can't find them anywhere, so perhaps even the very old editions are still under copyright. But then that got me to the severe lack of cricket books altogether here :-). Lankiveil (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC).
 * Considering how much has been written about the subject it is a shame. See Category:Cricket. May be the folks at w:WP:CRIC could be revved up a bit. Moondyne (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Useful (easier? more likely?) to lead, and grab followers, than the reverse. — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a few other promising looking cricket books on archive.org, this one looks particularly interesting. Of note is that the WG Grace book was catalogued under "Americana" (!).  Lankiveil (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC).
 * At archive.org, Americana has a non-specific meaning IMNSHO. You probably noticed that Inductiveload and I changed the scan, the other had duplicate pages.  As a pointer, that is a UToronto scan, and in our experience they are the better quality scans, and we would generally use Google when other lookups fail, they were very hit and miss with quality and getting all pages.  I am presuming that you are wanting the other set up, that I can do. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The model in that Philadelphian book appears to be George Bromhead which is still redlinked at enWP. Moondyne (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * At Index:A "Bawl" for American Cricket.djvu. Those in the west can play, those in the east are retiring. — billinghurst  sDrewth  14:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome and the tips
As the header says, thanks for the welcome (on my Talk page) and the tips (on the talk page for Adler's grammar). Thanks also for the quick changes that you have made on our projects. Nikolaos (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Most welcome. We try to be a supportive and wish to be a helpful community. Best spot for general help is Scriptorium, though happy to take questions. — billinghurst  sDrewth  14:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

1922 works subpages
Billinghurst, I'm sorry, I didn't know moving the year would cause problems with these dynamic page lists; I wasn't sure what I was going to do: just clear out this large category by shifting the years to different places, or look for a general way to reduce clutter, if possible, by coordinating the "year =" of the header template in a better way on sub-pages.

Your examples of dynamic lists somehow allowed me to see to the heart of the problem and gave me an idea: do you suppose we could change the header template to automatically place works from 1922, for example, that are subpages, to a new category:  "1922 works subpages". Then you could use your dynamic lists by entering in this new category instead of the main "1922 works" one.

I can see a problem though beyond what programming problems might present, if there is a great demand for lists that present works from both main space and subpages, AND these dynamic lists don't have an "OR" function. It might not be possible for example, to do a combined list with categories "Obituaries" and ("1922 works" or "1922 works subpages") in case there is main page (that is, not a subpage) that is an obituary. And I don't know how if by using two separate lists with both 1922 works categories in sequence, you could mesh them together into one well-formatted list.

You seem to have spoken more with the best programmers here, so that is why I am asking you first, in case you know a quick answer to the possible difficulties with my idea. And maybe you have an interest in preserving these categories while reducing clutter as well and can help me try to solve it. ResScholar (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, so let me understand. From your review of Category:1922 works there was an issue that it was too full, or overly burdened with the subpage works.  So your thought is that we try to separate the subpage works from the root level works. From my check there is no means to know whether something is a subpage from the API, so we are left with other means.  I have been trying to identify better means to display category aspects, so if you can explain what you see as the desired outputs, we can look to what we want.  I have also been trying to identify how we can more easily display
 * All Obits
 * 1922 Obits
 * Obits per work, eg. Times
 * Other works ...
 * basically without having to generate manual pages when we have subpages. So your inputs there would be great. — billinghurst  sDrewth  02:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You said you couldn't tell a subpage from the API, but I was able to find some good variables that do through APING my betters in Wikimedia template programming.
 * As for these displays you want, maybe if we originated a special newspaper header, we could assign multiple categories automatically when the header detects when a certain page is down on either a root directory, a subdirectory or a sub-sub directory. These displays could be gathered and displayed in the category lists.
 * I looked up dynamic page lists at the Wikimedia website. They don't have an "AND" "OR" function, but a bootleg version does, so maybe in the future it will be available.  I tried meshing together two lists, too.  It leaves a hairline gap, but it works.
 * Now that I know it's possible, I think YYYY works subpages is good idea, because without it, it defeats the purpose of having a "= year" entry on the subpages; when users employ that field, it obscures the work in the YYYY category it belongs to. Oo oo, ResScholar (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC) correction -> 02:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Go to Category:1922 works subpages to see two works categorized by the new template. It's on hold in case it conflicts with a long range solution of the problems you have brought up. ResScholar (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Blank lines in references.
In references that have paragraphs, I have been trying to add blank lines, but when I save it, they don't show up. Paragraphs show a single letter space rather than a whole line space, like on this page. I have also tried ,  and  but they don't work either; as well as trying the normal "miss a line" technique but it still won't work. Is there any way to overcome this or do we just leave it like that? but then the whole reference will just be one huge paragraph, instead of smaller paragraphs. Thanks. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * either 2x &lt;br/> or a &lt;p>. mw:Extension:Cite is a bit of a hack with a number of aspects. :-(  — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Billinghurst. I stuck with using , because its quick and simple, and now the references look so much more better. Thanks again :)--Angelprincess72 (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Custom CSS for a project
Any way to include custom CSS for my project to style a great number of various tables? I want to use the same background color for all of them but I might change the color in the future and it would be rather bad to have to do it on 100 pages or more. Please advise.

Sergius g (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally we look to replicate what is in a work, rather than to impose our own colour scheme, see Style guide. There are already default table classes within mediawiki wikis, and you can read more about those at w:Help:Tables, though usually something like class="prettytable" is sufficient.  If you did want to look to have a level of uniformity for a work, then you can create a template that can be plug into your table, eg. in a page called &x91;&#91;Template:TableFormatWorkXYZ]] you could have something like style="your style formatting...", or sub-components of style like colour schemes.  As stated earlier we generally haven't tended to do much in that regard as we replicate the look of the work. If you need some guidance, do some basic formatting for tables, and then we can fine-tune in situ rather just talk. — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sergius g, following this post, I had a look at what you are doing. May I ask if there is any special reason why you are handling footnotes with anchors/returns instead of using the and  as otherwise they page break after the title before table, d'oh!
 * asked Tpt about the attribution page, and how to edit, and to correct a typo
 * epubreader (reasonable in browser app for FF)