User talk:DavidPorter65

Outlier59 (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Bible (Douay-Rheims)
Good to hear you're interested in working on Bible (Douay-Rheims)! You said you're completely new to Wikisource, so you might want to take some time to explore what's happening with Bible and Bible-related texts here on Wikisource now. Look at Bible, Talk:Bible (discussion about the "Bible" page), Portal:The Bible, Portal talk:The Bible, Category:Bible. That'll give you some idea what Biblical material we have here -- some well along in progress, some far from complete. Click on links and poke around! When you read Discussion/Talk pages, take note of when comments were made, because some might be a decade old and no longer pertinent.

Things changed a few years back here on Wikisource. It used to be that texts could be added directly to Namespace with no specific source information. Now, what happens is that a scan of a book is used to create an Index File, which has a scan of the book pages and the text from each page scan. After the Index File text has been transcribed (proofed/validated), the text is "transcluded" to Namespace.

It's possible for Wikisource to host text for Bible (Douay-Rheims) without a scan of the book, but it's best to have a scan here. Do you know where a scan of the book is available online?

User:Beleg Tâl and User:EncycloPetey have recently worked on Bible, so they might be able to help with questions. Outlier59 (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, if there are going to be more than a couple of this working on the Bible, it might be a good time to revive WS:WikiProject Bible. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The IA has a copy of the first edition of the Douay-Rheims in three parts, Part I, Part II, Part III. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Outlier59 Thanks for your advice. Is it ok for me just to go to the existing Bible (Douay-Rheims) page and do what I like with it? Is there some kind of moderator? What I'd actually like to do is provide the Orginal Douay Rheims. The Challenor revision is already fully set up at Project Gutenburg. But nowhere on the internet is there a freely available text of the Original version, so I think it'd be important to have and I'm willing to get the job started. DavidPorter65 (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

EncycloPetey Those pages look perfect to use, don't they? I'd like to see if I can get the Douay Rheims wikisource page to have this version, rather than the challenor revision which is already available at Project Gutenburg. Nowhere on the internet is there an open source text version of this. DavidPorter65 (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you need help getting those files moved to Commons and the Index pages set up, just let me know. I'd be happy to help if you need it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

You might want to take a pause
Your eagerness to add Bible (Douay-Rheims Original) to Wikisource is obvious, but you might want to review a few things before spending a lot of time working on this text.
 * 1) You should not proofread pages in Namespace, as you did at Bible (Douay-Rheims Original)/Preface. Proof the Index file pages. Later, transfer them to Namespace. Don't forget to use a header in Namespace.
 * 2) Make sure you've got a good source document in the Index File before doing further work. The source document you're using for this Bible version has a website stamp in the lower left corner on each page. Do you consider this website a reliable source? Is that website possibly trying to advertise or spread a fake documnet? These are things to think about.

Take time to look at things here on Wikisource before doing edits in Namespace. Meanwhile, feel free to proofread the pages in Index:Bible (Douay Rheims NT, 1582).djvu! -- Outlier59 (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to add to this, the changes I made this morning to Bible (Douay-Rheims Original) this morning are the correct way to add the text to Wikisource. Follow that example, ask for help if necessary, and be sure to check against Help:Contents frequently, and you'll do well here :)
 * PS watermarks on scans aren't a problem regardless of the organization in question. In this case, the Fatima Movement has no reason to spread a fake document, as their intention is the same as the DR Bible: "for the better vnderstanding of the text, and specially for the discouery of the Corrvptions of diuers late translations, and for cleering the Controversies in religion, of these daies." —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Outlier59 Thank you for your good advice. But what is meant by "Don't forget to use a header in Namespace." DavidPorter65 (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Do I have to record the text exact? e.g. I'd like to put a "u" where there's a "v", and a "j" where there's an "i" etc. Also, I'd like to modernise the spellings, e.g. bookes, daies etc. What are the rules on that? If I don't like the rules, how strict are they? Also, to what extent do I have to try to reproduce the formatting of the text page? DavidPorter65 (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A good guide for this is Help:Beginner's guide to typography. Remember that the purpose of Wikisource is to faithfully reproduce published works. To answer your questions specifically:
 * The text does need to be reproduced exactly. Spelling of words must be left alone, and even typos in the source must be reproduced (you can use the SIC template for typos).
 * This also includes images; you can put image missing where there is an image so that someone will add the image later. If you do this, make sure to mark the page as "problematic".
 * Special characters like 'ſ' can be kept if it's not too hard - replacing 'ſ' with 's' is fine so long as it's done consistently throughout the work. I think that u/v and i/j are easy enough to reproduce and should be left in.
 * The rules can sometimes be bent, but in that case it would be best to have consensus among editors that it's a good idea to bend the rules in this case. The consensus among editors currently is what's outlined in the help page I linked above. Asking for the opinion of others on the Talk page is also encouraged.
 * Formatting is a bit looser. Some formatting is easy and if you don't put it in, someone else will fix it later. This includes italics, bold,, right-, centre-, and left-justified text. Drop initials are also easy (use dropinitial) as are verse numbers (use verse). On the other hand, complex formatting such as text columns are discouraged, and most complex formatting is treated essentially as "if you can do it, great; otherwise don't worry about it".
 * If you really want to have a version of the DRB with modern spelling, the best advice I can give you is to start by finding a source scan that has the modern spelling already. We can then use that source to provide our transcription. Perhaps this one? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this advice. I didn't want to do any of that, but I understand why it's important and I realise I must stick to this. I have another question. Sometimes there's a word where I'm not completely sure what it is — I think I know what it probably is, but I'm just not sure. I'd like to have a template for this. Something a bit weaker than undefined. Something that just flags it as possibly needing a second opinion, do you know what I mean? DavidPorter65 (talk) 08:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * When I come across this scenario, it depends on how bad the word is. If I have a good idea of what the word is, I'll just put it in, and let the person who validates the page deal with it. Sometimes if I can find another copy of the text somewhere (either a scan or a transcription) I'll use that as a basis of reconstruction. If I can't figure it out, I can use the second parameter of illegible: to indicate my best guess. As far as I know there really isn't anything in between. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Another question. At the bottom of the text of each page, indented right, there is the first word of the next page (sometimes first two words). How should I mark these off? I could just leave them out… but I'd rather do things properly, so how to template them so that they are not transcluded? DavidPorter65 (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This is done by putting the text in the footer field. If you don't see a footer field, you can enable "Show header and footer fields" at Special:Preferences. Text in the footer field will not be included when the text is transcluded to mainspace. To have it be right-aligned, use right. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Bible (Douay Rheims OT1, 1582).djvu
Check Index talk:Bible (Douay Rheims OT1, 1609).djvu. -- Outlier59 (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * File has been moved. — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

billinghurst Thank you for moving changing the page name (ie moving) the Douay Rheims OT1 where it should have been 1609, not created properly. I think you must have done this with a script, so if it's not too much trouble, could you do the same for OT? it's currently https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Bible_(Douay_Rheims_OT2,_1582).djvu, but it should be 1610.

Headers and footers
Thanks for your contributions to The Manual of Indulgences. The ... thing that goes on every page to create the page header should go in the header text field. The thing that goes on the bottom of pages which have footnotes and causes the footnotes to be displayed should go in the footer text field. This helps to ensure that when the work is done and the Wiki software stitches together the pages of the text to create a single web document, it's able to include the right stuff. If you don't see those text fields, try enabling "Show header and footer fields toggle the visibility of the noinclude header and footer sections when editing in the Page namespace" here. Prosody (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Deleted Douay Rheims 1635
So I just got an email saying you deleted my project [] Could you explain why you did this, is it some kind of policy? I'd like to know why specifically, because I'm working on some other things and I'd like to avoid this scenario happening again. Or if I understand it must happen to my other projects, I can do something about it, I don't want to lose my work. Also, the discussion page had a lot of really useful links for me, and I'd like a copy of that back, can this be done? DavidPorter65 (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Update: just found a second page, and your comment is "Talk page of deleted content", I'm not sure what this might mean?
 * I deleted an Index: namespace page where there was no file at Commons. You have created an Index page for a similar file at a different name, so this should not affect anything. If you want to create a project page, they would be named something like Wikisource:WikiProject Douay Rheims Bible and be sitting in our Wikisource: namespace. In short nothing that I have done has affected your transcription work, and I considered it too minor to bother you about it. — billinghurst  sDrewth  07:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)