User talk:EncycloPetey/Archives/2012

Betelguese, a trip through hell
Hey EncycloPetey,

I created an article for Betelguese, a trip through hell. If you have time, would you mind reviewing it? Subsequently, I nominated it for DYK during Halloween; it would be neat to feature this during the Halloween week at Wikisource.

Thanks for your help. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The only issues that I see are in the "Publications" section: (1) possessive "its" should have no apostrophe, and (2) the sentence style of that section is somewhat repetitive, with several successive sentences that begin with a prepositional phrase instead of the subject. Varying the sentence structure a bit more would fix that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping with this one. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No need, we use Babel
We now use mw:Extension:Babel, so — billinghurst  sDrewth  02:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
A nice surprise this morning :) To mark it, we use ? - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure about that. It might be better brought to the Scriptorium, though I do recall something within the last year that mentioned en.ws would be adding scripts to our common.js or something that would add non-latin characters. Sorry I cannot be of help on this. - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, I think lang is the template you want. It has all the coding necessary to trigger the webfonts extension. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You had it right
It's Not You!!!

The reason djvu/42 isn't transcluding to the mainspace is that the max-template include size has been exceeded - you should see the auto-cat for such pages being applied at the bottom of the mainspace page in question in the category bar. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But unfortunately, that doesn't get the stuff to transclude! I chose to go with a table, instead.  Prescott's volumes have lengthy tables of contents (to put it mildly); he seems to describe the contents of every page at the outset. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can live with it so can I - just as long as you understand it was the total amount of template usage between djvu/1 thru djvu/41 that maxed-out the post expand include limit that prevented djvu/42 from transcluding as it was layed-out at first in the Page: namespace. Your last edit managed to bring it under the limit (which will most likely be over the limit again when the images are added). See if you can make do by using less templates in that page range overall. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the images are currently marked with a template, and this template will be removed when the images are inserted, won't that reduce the number of templates called?  Otherwise, the best I could do would be to split the Volume I. Contents off as a separate page in the Main namespace. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Forgive the assumption - maybe you are one of the few who uses the internal formatting syntax rather than additional templates to float, center, caption and the like. It was unfair of me to assume otherwise. My mistake. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * p.s. - You have something like 20K to play with - I think a copyright banner should still fit (fingers crossed). I'd use straight HTML for simple stuff such as text weight, centering. etc instead of the templates where it makes sense to. Otherwise, I think you might be right about breaking out the TOC to its own subpage. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I usually prefer to use templates for centering, etc., but there isn't much of that used in those pages. Nearly all of the template calls are for the dotted lines in the table of contents.  Hmm... Would replacing the call for  in each of those dotted TOC page listings reduce the template load significantly?  That is, it would reduce the number of times a template is called in the transcluded material, but would increase the quantity of hard-coded text.  Would this be a net benefit?
 * You had plenty of the other "governed" memory spaces available so I don't see why not. That's pretty much what I've done in the past - some folks don't like this however; mostly because (in theory) editing the Gap template should trickle down to all the other templates that may incorporate it in their template coding. This benefit easily becomes moot when the number of calls incorporating something like gap overtakes the available resources like we have in this instance. At some point, things like Gap should have their own CSS class setup so the only thing the actual template has to handle handle are deviations from a set default width. Go figure. -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, although I got in under the limit for volume I., I'm worried that the contents listing for volume II. may break that limit, so I'm thinking ahead here to possible ways to get in under that, if necessary. Replacing the uses of  would cut the number of individual template calls by nearly half. But, (as you point out) this would require future changes to format problems to be made by hand or by bot, rather than benefitting from a centralized template call where a single template can be corrected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A copyright statement shouldn't be needed on the Volume One page, surely, if it's going to be placed at the bottom of the page for the overall work, yes? My intention is to set up a single master page for the work with a much-abbreviated table of contents and links to all three volumes.  Can the copyright notice be placed there, or does it need to be on each volume? --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure - that works if all the volumes' publication dates fall into the same range used for copyright exclusion(s). -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In this instance, all three volumes were published in 1846, the same year, so it shouldn't be a problem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I did some housekeeping on the Dotted template so you now have about 36K to spare. I'm not sure why you are adding gap manually though....

To me, your input of should be more like...

Looks the same to me in the final rendering - that might just be my particular setup. Your mileage may vary of course. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Huh, that looks like a nice, simple solution. I'm still a little new at what some of the templates do, and so I "borrow" what others have done in recent works.  I probably picked up the code somewhere and just hadn't examined it thoroughly. Thanks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is the way most everyone around here managed to learn the "ins & outs" of Wikisourcee - don't sweat it.


 * In fact, 2.5em is already the column width's default value so you could try just the non-breaking space filler just to prevent the collapse or hiding of that first column...


 * George Orwell III (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

PSM categorization of articles
Thanks for the improvements, changes and additions. — Ineuw talk 23:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! :) As I have time, I intend to do even more in that respect for the subject areas that I know best (biology and paleontology). --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

PSM categories
Hi. You are welcome to the complete list (an .XLS file) of all exiting main namespace article titles and their assigned categories. User:Mpaa was kind to generate and sent me the list yesterday. — Ineuw talk 21:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

At a venture
Hi, no idea if you have the time (or desire), but I would like to nominate you for adminship here. As you're aware we're a fairly small community and the admin tasks are rarely onerous. But you are beginning to walk in areas where the tools would be of use to you. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've seldom needed admin tools, but I wouldn't say no. I'm already an admin on Wiktionary and Wikispecies (and have been for a long time), so I do know the basics of the tools.  If you do decide to nominate me, I'd accept, as this is a rather relaxed community. :)  --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ at WS:ADMINS. Noting acceptance there is optional - as you say we're rather relaxed here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I had wondered & now I know
Hello, E-Petey, thank you for validating behind me and making any corrections as needed. I had wondered about this sort of thing da+ i: + s das and others similar to it. I left it as is but personally I dislike them and use the two dots over the i under "Diereses" as shown under the "Select" option of our editor. So, I will consider these and others like it as wrong from now on. I thank you for answering my question to others (Beeswaxcandle) similar to this not so long ago but got no reply about it. Kindest regards, Maury ( &mdash; William Maury Morris II  Talk 02:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I look at this as a way for people to quickly enter unusual characters, and which can then be later subst'ed by a bot as needed, however I know of no specific policy one way or the other. The templates do require special CSS code, so I personally prefer to avoid them.  We found long ago on Wiktionary that we could work better without them, especially when it came to text searches. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, too I have seen many double -- dashes inside to create a m-dash and I left those as they were thinking somebody knows better than I do about them. However, several months back, about 6-8 months ago. Billinghurst told someone not to use that format. It had something to do with problems when transcluding. Still, people continue to use these and my thinking is they should all be done away with. Validating requires extra time and work to remove these -- time and work that could be used elsewhere on other works. Kindest regards, Maury (&mdash;  William Maury Morris II  Talk 02:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As I say, this sort of replacement could be easily done with a bot, if someone were equal to the task. Unfortunately, I am not. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Nor am I and it's easy enough for me to replace them. But you corrected two that I left "as is", if I recall correctly, so it must be better to replace these over asking someone to please run a bot. I can edit them out as I validate and not worry or forget about asking anyone to run a bot. They are not that frequent. However, if a bot will handle all books then I am all for that! So, who has a bot that can do this? If you know of someone please do ask them to run the bot. It's too bad that a bot is not automatically running to correct pages when they are saved. Kind regards, &mdash; William Maury Morris II  Talk 03:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You can probably leave them as is, and not have to worry about it. I rarely encounter them myself, but do change them when I notice them.  I am not yet familiar enough with the community here to know who might be able to run such a bot, but I do know a number of long-time editors on the English Wiktionary who would be capable of such a feat, provided they had the time and inclination to assist. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I use them because I'm mostly on a windoze laptop with only a small screen, so scrolling up and down to get to the special characters box is a nuisance. If I was able to directly type them (i.e. was using my partner's iMac) then I would do so in preference. Billinghurst has his bot set up with a task to search for these templates and replace with the correct character, if there's a particular work you want done. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I encounter the various ways mentioned above when I am validating other's pages. I myself do not use them and perhaps because I don't use a laptop for posting on wikisource. I have one but I dislike it. Now when I encounter them I don't validate them. I have validated a lot but I often see works that are complete or only partially complete (proofread) that have been transcluded. Apparently, from what I have looked over, people proofread and then transclude the sections they prefer and that's it. Those works still sit unproofread. Perhaps some think it isn't necessary to go further than that. This may be one of the reasons we have to have validation month. BTW, there was recently shown a small but completely validated work when I was going to work on "validation for the month". Kindest regards, Maury (&mdash; William Maury Morris II  Talk 06:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

New land mollusks from Madagascar and Mexico
Thank you for your interest. I got the file from archive.org, so I assumed it would be PD; I'll check the site you mentioned. I was going to mark the pages blank myself, but didn't get around to it. Thank you for doing it (and sorry).--Frglz (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you, but could you point out where I have to go to on the Field Museum's site? The DjVu is from http://archive.org/details/newlandmollusksf443haas --Frglz (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Admin
Congrats Petey, you are now an administrator. Can I ask you to list any other languages and/or access at Administrators please? Cheers, Hesperian 11:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Congratulations EncycloPetey! All along I thought you had once been an administrator here or were still one here using an alias. You're good at what you do. I have been watching and wondering what former administrator you were or had been as you used a new alias! Have a great day! Kindest regards, Maury ( &mdash; William Maury Morris II  Talk 15:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, I've never used an alias nor have I been an administrator here before. I just been pootling along quietly here.  Now, I have been rather active on several sister projects, so I know a lot about templates, page formatting, and other similar issues from years of experience, and that experience has translated well to work on Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Paleontology
This are all the original Paleontology articles. User:Ineuw/Sandbox8.— Ineuw talk 06:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

PSM and Zoology
I understand your anxiety and concern, but please bear with me until I complete my work. I see that you are following me and imagine that you are upset, but I am also sure that Wikisource and you can wait a couple of days, With Mpaa's robot help, the unnecessary Zoology categories will be removed. My work is more database related, and not category related. I am just too tired to explain after spending some 10 hours today on this. I will give you the results of my work and you can regroup and create categories as you wish. I will not create categories but will leave it in your capable hands. — Ineuw talk 07:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

THIS PAGE is the 1st result of my work. It is intended as a demonstration for some proposals regarding Zoology/Animals related categories. To understand what was going on, I was left with no other choice but to create offline data tables to analyze what existed so that I can instantly demonstrate my point in the Scriptorium. I am a strong believer of "seeing is believing". In order to recognize animal related categories, I placed "Zoology" in every one of the pages, and then, using an offline MSAccess database and VB programming, I created spreadsheets to see what was done. You may find a couple of discrepancies due to the time lag between your corrections and the latest file from Mpaa.

In the past years, each time I attempted offline analysis spanning several days, when I returned to WS, changes took place as people added, and/or revised categories and my work was useless. Placing "Zoology" & all other categories temporarily on the pages was the only solution. In the first step 312 articles in the "Zoology" are reduced to 46. and making "Zoology" as the first level "Super" category (using Wikimedia Commons terminology).

At this point and time - it's 04:46am DST, I am tired and need some rest, but will continue later, most likely with a proposal in the Scriptorium. What I am asking of you is just please bear with me. As for the "Zoology" categories to be removed, I now know that User:Mpaa is otherwise occupied for the next few days, (I was going to ask him to use a bot), so I will remove the temporary categories manually.

Finally, I don't question your expertise, and in fact, I am glad that you are here to supervise category assignments. — Ineuw talk 09:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I say again what I said before: The proposed new categories are wrong. I could see that even at a quick look over just some portions of the proposal.  Some oyster articles are labelled "Oysters", while others are not.  Articles on Cnidarians are left in Zoology, instead of being moved to a more appropriate subcategory. An article about beavers is in both Beavers and the parent category of Rodents, which is bad categorizing.  "Mental capacity of the Elephant" is in Elephants, but not in Animal cognition.  "How fungi live in winter" is in Marine life, even though the fungi being discussed are all terrestrial or freshwater fungi.  As I say, that's just at a quick look.  If I looked at more categories, I would probably find more problems. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Epitome of famous American and British Clipper ships
EncycloPetey, would you be so kind as to place this scanned book on Wikisource so that I can edit it? If you prefer not to just say "no" on my talk page so that I will at least know one way or another and can beg someone else. Kindest regards, Maury ( &mdash; William Maury Morris II  Talk 15:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

http://archive.org/details/cu31924020891416

The clipper ship era; an epitome of famous American and British clipper ships, their owners, builders, commanders, and crews, 1843-1869 (1910)

Digitizing sponsor: MSN


 * To be clear: Did you mean (1) upload the DjVu to Commons, and set up an Index file here on Wikisource, or (2) upload the DjVu file here on Wikisource because the copyright is still in effect in the country of publication? --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I saw that the copyright was 1910. I *thought* files are placed on Commons with an Index page created somehow on Wikisource. I don't think that files are supposed to be placed on Wikisource. I'll ask someone else to find out what I am supposed to do. Thank you all the same. Kind regards, Maury ( &mdash; William Maury Morris II  Talk 04:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Commons follows the copyright status according to the country in which it was published in addition to that in the US. This means that sometimes Commons won't host a work even though it is in PD by US standards.  It depends on the status in the country of original publication. As a result, The English Wikisource does sometimes host source files, such as for H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds, which is still under copyright in the UK, and so Commons won't host it.  In this case, I've now looked at the work you asked about, and see that it's a US publication prior to 1923, so it would be fine on Commons.  I guess that looking at that information first might have saved some confusion.  I'll take care of it now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

White space
Hi. I noticed that you add an extra blank at the end of a page in Page ns. I think it is not needed, as automatically added when the page is transcluded. Bye--Mpaa (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The way the software works now, that is true. But there is no guarantee that the software will continue to work that way in future.  We already have a known problem that occurs between transcluded pages in certain circumstances (and I've noticed another), and so it is possible that the behavior of the software will be modified.  As a result, and since it does not harm transclusion, I include a final space when the paragraph flows onto the next page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Then it might be good to raise this concern and the other issues to the Scriptorium so everyone is aware. So far I have never seen this precaution against future compatibility to be mentioned or adopted.--Mpaa (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The precaution has not been adopted as far as I know either, but the original concern has already been in the Scriptorium—I just don't remember the details at the moment except that it involves unwanted space/lines appearing between transcluded pages in a work, and that the problem was a known issue.  The related problem I've noticed occurs when I use  and , and there is a punctuation mark immediately prior to the hyphenated word on the first page of the pair (such as an open parenthesis or bracket).  The software then inserts an unwanted space after the punctuation mark because of the page separation.  It would be possible to cobble a work-around by including the punctuation in the hyphenated-word template, but that's an ugly solution. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

update
From my talk page: &mdash; William Maury Morris II  Talk 02:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * One more thing: You've added as a footer to every page, but I didn't see footnotes anywhere in the work when I was setting it up. You do know that the "references" footer is only required to display footnotes on a page, yes? [ No, I did not know. It has never been mentioned by anyone] Having it in there adds just a little bit of unnecessary size to every created page.  A small amount when you're doing a single page, but it adds up over hundreds or thousands of pages to needless storage space used for something that isn't needed. [Place this information on the proper help page for other editors to be aware] --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I only added after the system prompted me to add . Yes, there is a page with footnotes. There is more than one page with footnotes. They should be easy to find since it would be colored yellow as proofread. At this point, the beginning, I don't know if there are more pages with or not since I just started. Too, I have never seen opposition or complaint by anyone to adding . This has been the situation for many years now. When I have asked others to set up a book for me to edit, was usually added. I only very recently learned to add to add becausen the system prompted me to do so upon adding one and not having . Many times I have validated Billinghurst's works. On one occasion recently, about a month or two, I asked him on his talk page about the fact that he had no because I was used to seeing them. He only wrote, <"Shrug...> and gave no explanation as you have given here. I have no desire to add if it is not needed -- if the system does not prompt me to do so upon saving a page. It benefits me in no way to do so, it is in fact, quite the opposite, -- it is more to be done that isn't editing book pages which is what I like to do. Perhaps can be added to just the pages that require and prompt me to do so while leaving the other pages without ? &mdash; William Maury Morris II  Talk 00:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * UPDATE for EncycloPetey re: I have only started on this book but regardless here are two of the references you never saw:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_Clipper_Ship_Era.djvu/25

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_Clipper_Ship_Era.djvu/27

&mdash; William Maury Morris II  Talk 02:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, I thanked you for setting the book up but I also thank you for all that you have taught me in between. They are the kind of things other administrators should have both employed in setting up books and mentioned to all editors long ago. They chat enough on Scriptorium that these things could have been mentioned but perhaps some did not know themselves. Kind regards, &mdash; William Maury Morris II  Talk 03:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please do the Contents and Illustrations pages for The Clipper Ship Era but do not validate the pages presently marked yellow. &mdash; William Maury Morris II  Talk 09:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Finishing off Nov PotM
Hi, I anticipate being sideswiped by RL 28 Nov through 3 Dec. Could you please look after finishing off the November PotM and swapping over to the December? Usually from this point in November onwards as works are finished instead of replacing them in Proofread of the Month/Coding we double up the references for those that are left. This means that works will appear twice in each day. To swap to December the two templates PotM and ((tl|Collaboration}} need updating. The doc pages for both are reasonably good, but if you get stuck Billinghurst knows these templates far better than I do. I can do the awards when I'm able to return. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to give it a shot. However, that would mean that if Vanity Fair should fall through as a nomination, because we can't get the problematic Source file corrected, then I'd be left with just the two works I nominated myself, and I'd feel more than a little awkward about that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's OK, we'll make the call on which work before I disappear. Ineuw will let us know if it's a go well before then. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * And in addition to that, the latest MW software update seems to have stymied all the OCR text layers for newly imported DjVu files. If that issue can't be corrected in time, then we'll have to work on something uploaded prior to the update. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

/*The Moonstone*/

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:The_Moonstone.djvu EncycloPetey, is this the correct url? I wish to know because I have started editing there. I also see that every page has which I think it was you who taught me not to use them unless nedded on a page. Kind regards, Maury (&mdash; William Maury Morris II  Talk 17:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the correct location. And yes, there is an unnecessary "references" on every page.  It looks as though someone back in 2008 ran a bot to automatically create all the pages, but didn't correct the Index page contents first.  As a result, we now have all those extra "references". --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Beeswaxcandle has now stated that "The Moonstone" I have asked about above is no longer an option because we already have a full version. But I wonder, what about the images? There are very good illustrations in "The Moonstone" book. I have already edited several pages of that book today. I decided I needed to be more flexible with the overall situation and went to work today. Question: When someone does as you have stated then can't we just remove "references" from the Index page and add "references" to each page where we might need references while we proofread? Would that create a problem in some way? Perhaps with transclusion? Kindest regards, Maury ( &mdash; William Maury Morris II  Talk 19:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Indexes: Setting up footer field -- overuse of unneeded "references" = bandwidth overuse?
EncycloPetey, if it is very important as you've suggested to me, and as I stated, references in the footer field of an Index "seems to be a standard procedure." I always see it when I validate another's pages. However, if it is not supposed to be then it should be announced to all who upload and create such Indexes. With you having more authority and knowledge about this, including as an administrator, I would hope that you make such an announcement so that it does not continue. If it is not very important, as though we have and always will have unlimited bandwidth, then I would think "silence is golden". The following is yet another where references in the Index footer field is not needed. Kindest regards, Maury ( &mdash; William Maury Morris II  Talk 08:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Authors_daughter_v1.djvu
 * That's one reason that I suggested we have a guide to working on Index pages. Beeswaxcandle was started a draft in one of his sandoxes, and this information will be included within that.  Once we've ironed out the draft, it will be rolled out as a Help page on the subject. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information on what Beeswaxcandle is working on. I have been seeing what you first told me about on "references" just about everywhere I wander. The unneeded use of it must be massive! My guess is that people who have added unneeded "references" as footers will continue to do the same without looking at any help pages. It's new to me so because of you I know to watch out for this. Thank you for all you've taught me. —Maury (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The software used to add the references tag in the footer (in fact, it was quite annoying in that it sometimes replaced the tag even after it had been deleted in previous edits). Since TPT's recent update, this has stopped.  It might be a habit now ,with some users, to add the tag manually but, if they did not bother to remove it before the update, they might not bother to add it now.
 * FYI Help:Index pages has been around for a few months now. It is intended as a guide to working on them, even if it isn't finished yet. It could use improvement, of course. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Heidelberg Catechism
Hi, would you mind looking at my proofreading of the Heidelberg Catechism to see if I'm on the right track as far as formatting goes? Thanks. --Jfhutson (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, at first I was using headers for "Question #" and "Answer," but that makes each question and answer a new section instead of being in the same section as the question. How can I have the same font size for "Answer" and the "Question #" without making answers separate sections? --Jfhutson (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've made modifications to page 3. If you use  for the chapter and verse, then you won't need to use a line break.  Now, whether this will work for the entire document depends on how much of it will be transcluded into a single page.  Too many templates transcluded on a single page can cause problems, so if that happens, we might need to use more CSS and fewer templates.  It just depends on the size of the chunks that are transcluded in the final page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it looks great! I'm still not sure how to make it so that when it is transcluded there can be a menu from which each question can be accessed. --Jfhutson (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Normally, we work to replicate published works, not to create original forms. You can always create a separate table of contents, linked to the correct page, if some sort of option is needed.  But, as I say, creating original sorts of works is not normally done here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Confirmation vs Nomination
Hi, the discussion for Kathleen is a Confirmation discussion. See the italicised paragraphs at WS:ADMINS. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I didn't catch that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

includeonly causes ref text to not transclude...
...in this case. See transclusion here. There are at least two other instances where I have copied your formatting, so I await your solution with bated breath :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's in the User namespace. Have you tried it in the Main namespace yet?  The includeonly tag usually limits text to appearing only when it is transcluded into the Main namespace. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. I first superceded the same transclusion (  ) over one of the text chapter pages in the Main (as a show-preview) to see how it transcluded.  Same results.  I'll try again though... Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Same again. Keeping in mind that this reference spans 3 pages... Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way... no hurry. The 'bated breath' comment was in jest, but I am not funny! Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There was some talk that the most recent update affected the function of noinclude; includeonly may have been similarly affected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah... so should I use the 'method' I used originally, or is there another option? Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'l take a look tomorrow afternoon or evening, and see what I can do. This process is still working elsewhere, so it may be a ref-tag limitation rather than a bug. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what's happening, but my guess is that it has something to do with the fact that it's inside a ref tag. We might have to do this the way you set it up before, with comments to explain to future proofreaders why it looks that way. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I found an instance of a 3-page reference done (before this work was a PotM) which worked, so I copied the formatting to the case in the 'Mysticism' chapter. There is a paragraph-rendering issue, however, in the 'Mysticism' chapter ref, and I laid the problem out on the Talk page for the work if you want to take a look.  Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Tom Jones scans
Hi, I've just been reading through Talk:The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling in an attempt to work out where we're at with this work (mainly because it's come up on a list of 100 classic novels everyone ought to read). I've found a Vol VI 1749 scan on IA here and Vol V here. Unfortunately, they're google scans, but they might suit your purposes. Do you want me to see if I can find the other vols? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If we can find all parts of the 1749 edition, I'd be ecstatic. My previous attempts to locate an original edition all failed, but of course, new things are being uploaded all the time.  This wouldn't replace the work I've been doing, because I'm purposely adding lots of explanatory links and images that were not present in any edition; the partial version I've worked on should be kept (and finished), thoiugh it might perhaps need to be moved to a different page name if we can get a full original edition.  I'm hoping to make more Tom Jones progress over my Christmas vacation, but things like that have fallen through for me before.  It will be finished; it's just a question of when. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, here's Vol I, Vol II, & Vol IV. I can't get at Vol III, but that's probably because I'm trying from NZ rather than the US. You may have better luck. My gsearch criteria are: "Tom Jones" 1749 "University of Michigan". Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * With your criteria, Vol III popped right up. Looks like we've got PDFs for the whole work now. I suppose the next step is getting them into the IA for DjVu conversion and a text layer, right? I've not yet tried to work with anything that wasn't already in DjVu format. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Yes, the best thing is to put those four into IA for DjVu. There's a help page at Help:Internet Archive where Ineuw's just updated the notes on Deriving if you need help with that process. My data limit's going to be a bit tight this month otherwise I'd do it for you. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles belonging to Zoology & Ornithology and Botany
Hi. I placed several articles in Category:PSM uncategorized articles that belong to the above mentioned topics. When you have the chance, could you please categorize them? Thanks.— Ineuw talk 01:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)