User talk:Hesperian/Archive 16


 * The following text is preserved as an archive of discussions at User talk:Hesperian. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Hesperian. No further edits should be made to this page.

use of sp
Hesperian, please look at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_Aspern_Papers.djvu/225 to see if you prefer the spacing. If not then let me know with a yes or no. Kind Regards, —Maury (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Maury. Nice to hear from you. Yes, I prefer the spacing. Hesperian 04:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hesperian, I am very tired and am going to go to bed but I saw 2 chapters "6" (six) that are not allowed. Sort them please. :0 )

VI Page:The Aspern Papers.djvu/76 VI Page:The Aspern Papers.djvu/198 —Maury (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Maury. This book contains three novellas, each of this is entitled to its own Chapter 6. Hesperian 00:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Aspern Papers, The Modern Warning
✅ - The Aspern Papers, Louisa Pallant, The Modern Warning (1 volume, London & New York: Macmillan & Co., 1888) Happy Holidays Hesperian, Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, thank you so much Maury, I'm stoked! Merry Christmas to you too! Hesperian 10:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Some dimestore psychology for y'all
If you have the courage to stand up for what you believe in, even into the teeth of a power differential, you should be proud of that. Not everyone has the guts to 'speak truth to power'.

I say you should be proud of it. I don't say you should let yourself by defined by it. Sadly, some people make this the basis of their self-esteem, and are thus constantly manufacturing grounds to 'speak truth to power', so as to reassure themselves of their own value. It's really very sad.

What follows for them is a simple two-step recipe. Keep your eyes open and over time this recipe will become oh-so-familiar to you: At this point, one of two things happens. Either power is exercised against you, or it is not. Either way, your self-image gets a boost. You've either rendered true the myth that you were speaking truth into the teeth of a genuine threat, and thus proven your extraordinary courage; or you've taken a power-abuser down a peg or two, and lived to fight another day.
 * 1) Mythologise a power to speak your truth to. Start with someone who has a modicum of influence over you—a boss, a teacher, a principal, a 'crat, a checkuser. Now manufacture an image of them as all-powerful. Exaggerate the extent of their power to harm you. Convince yourself that their power has no limits, checks or balances. You're not 'speaking truth to power' if your boss is too nice to abuse their power over you, so mythologise them as an abuser of power with no moral compass. You're not 'speaking truth to power' if other people will stick up for you, so characterise the community as completely sucked in by this power-abuser. You alone see them for what they really are. Represent yourself as a lone voice—isolated, excluded, ostracized. Or better still, actually isolate yourself. You're not speaking truth to power if there are processes in place to protect you, so mythologise 'the system' as against the little guy—the system exists only to protect and perpetuate itself, and will always come down on the side of the powerful. Congratulations, you have now manufactured a power who is really worth 'speaking truth to'. Wow, you must really be gutsy, and principled, to stand up to that.
 * 2) Manufacture a "truth". This part is very easy. All you need is a point to disagree on. Anything will do. Something will come up soon enough, and if it doesn't you can easily force the matter by being rude. Once you have a disagreement, however minor, use aggressive rhetoric to spin it up into a bigger and more heated dispute. This act of spinning up the disagreement is itself 'speaking truth to power'; and the more heated the dispute gets, the more you show your courage and integrity by continuing in the same antagonizing vein.

Hesperian 13:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambig?
Before I go tromping, seeking a second opinion on The Aborigines of Victoria. I would have just called it a work, and linked the volumes rather than created a disambiguation. Your thoughts? — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is a work. Hesperian 01:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

New Proposal Notification - Replacement of common main-space header template
Announcing the listing of a new formal proposal recently added to the Scriptorium community-discussion page, Proposals section, titled:


 * • Switch header template foundation from table-based to division-based

The proposal entails the replacement of the current Header template familiar to most with a structurally redesigned new Header template. Replacement is a needed first step in series of steps needed to properly address the long time deficiencies behind several issues as well as enhance our mobile device presence.

There should be no significant operational or visual differences between the existing and proposed Header templates under normal usage (i.e. Desktop view). The change is entirely structural -- moving away from the existing HTML all Table make-up to an all Div[ision] based one.

Please examine the testcases where the current template is compared to the proposed replacement. Don't forget to also check Mobile Mode from the testcases page -- which is where the differences between current header template & proposed header template will be hard to miss.

For those who are concerned over the possible impact replacement might have on specific works, you can test the replacement on your own by entering edit mode, substituting the header tag   with   and then previewing the work with the change in place. Saving the page with the change in place should not be needed but if you opt to save the page instead of just previewing it, please remember to revert the change soon after your done inspecting the results.

Your questions or comments are welcomed. At the same time I personally urge participants to support this proposed change. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

disambiguation question
Copied from GO3's page: Can you please tell me your thoughts on the creation of a page such as this? I am mainly referring to the practice of using "various authors". I think it is practical, but am open to a better idea... Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally I support merging of "X", "The X", "A X" and "An X" versions pages. If there must be separate pages for "X" and "The X", I don't think I would use a dot point. I would follow the dot point entries with "See also The X." Hesperian 04:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If I understand you correctly, you would use "Sphinx" as the disambiguation page, and have "The Sphinx", etc. all redirect to "Sphinx"? Using Problem as an example,—there are no works on WS actually entitled "Problem", but we have The Problem and A Problem disambiguation/version pages.  Would you suggest using Problem as the disambiguation page—putting all titles under that banner—and making "The Problem" and "A Problem" both redirect to "Problem"?  Under what circumstances might there need to 'be separate pages for "X" and "The X"'?  Sorry if this is obvious... I am almost brain dead.  Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hat-note question
Refer to The Lesson of the Master

I've managed to incorporate all the top "similar" and bottom "version" type of strings within the main navigation-header container before moving the container itself out from under the spell of Dynamic Layouts, but I hesitate to go any further and do the same to things like incomplete.

First of all, all those type of messages/banners are based on one type of table-based box or another and, unfortunately, are now all created & formatted by Module:Message box & Module:Message box/configuration instead of by traditional template &/or sub-template. That makes turning them to all div based a real project even before I get to the Dynamic Layout part. I don't see an issue (other than personal preference) with those box-type of banners rendering below the header but I figure best to solicit your opinion on this before making the next move.

As an aside - can you think of any other hat-note-ish templates that normally appear above the navigation header like Similar should? (I covered similar, other translations and other versions already ). -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Your bot
Hi there, I've been patiently waiting for your bot to upload some raw page scans (especially those in these volumes: Portland, Oregon: Its History and Builders). It's not urgent, and I still have many pages yet to tag with the raw image template. But I did just look, and see that it's been a very long time since the bot was last active. Is there a problem? Is it possible for me to trigger the bot directly? -Pete (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Pete,
 * Sorry, real life is insane for me at the moment; I'm in a perfect storm of urgent demands on my time. Running the bot is not an onerous task, but even quick and easy tasks are hard to fit in right now. I think I can find time to run it on Sunday if not before then.
 * Cheers, Hesperian 00:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * OK! Please don't put yourself out. If you get to it any time in the next few weeks it will make me smile and free up some work I'd like to do illustrating Wikipedia...but if not, it's no biggie! Good luck unstorming. -Pete (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bot is running. Because it hasn't run for so long, it has a lot to do behind the scenes before any uploads can happen. Hesperian 00:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi -- just checking if there's any update? Still hoping for uploads, for instance, at Portland, Oregon: Its History and Builders, volume 2. (By the way, you might be interested in my recent blog post and screencast relating to this, and my related note at WikiProject Oregon on English Wikipedia.) -Pete (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I completed that update back in February, and am currently working up to doing another. Nearly ready but I'm away this weekend so it won't be before next week. The source link at File:Portland, Oregon, its History and Builders volume 2.djvu points to a Internet Archive search query, and therefore does not specify the actual source of the file, so the bot would have passed on by, and will continue to do so until the link is fixed to point at the IA page of the actual source. Hesperian 00:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * More: If you fix that link for me, then next time I run the bot I will keep a close eye on that file and see to it that it is not bypassed for any preventable reason. Hesperian 00:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK -- I didn't realize that was critical to the bot finding the files (though of course it makes sense). I will fix that one, and check up on the other files I've been waiting on. Thanks! -Pete (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you like to let me know what files you're waiting on, and I'll keep an eye on all of them when I run the bot? Hesperian 02:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you -- but I will need to look into it a little. Definitely the remaining 4 of the 5 works by Author:Joseph Gaston, and I'll have to dig a little, because I think there are a few other strays. It looks like IA.org is down for maintenance at the moment, and I have to go out shortly -- so it'll probably be some time tomorrow. I hope I don't have trouble figuring out which copy of a file I uploaded at Commons, since I know IA.org often has multiple scan sets -- but I'll see what I can do when they're back online. One question -- the bot only pulls from IA.org high-res scans, right? Or does it also extract PNGs from PDF files? (Or do you know of another bot or easy way to do that?) -Pete (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it only pulls jp2s from IA.org zips of high-res scan files. Hesperian 02:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, these would be the current three priorities. I just updated their links to archive.org -- I hope the URLs are OK, here is an example of what I did, let me know if you need a link directly to the HTTP directory or something though.
 * Portland, Oregon: Its History and Builders, volume 1
 * Portland, Oregon: Its History and Builders, volume 2
 * Portland, Oregon: Its History and Builders, volume 3
 * I guess I have not yet gotten to uploading and setting up Vols. 2 and 3 of The Centennial History of Oregon, 1811–1912, but I will let you know when those are ready as well. (And I'll be sure to get the IA links right this time from the start!) -Pete (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: Going along nicely... so nicely that I found a way to pull more images that I was giving up on previously, and I now have about a thousand images to review before I start uploading. I'm probably still a few days away, sorry. Hesperian 00:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds great -- thanks for the update! -Pete (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay Pete, you should be good to go with Portland v 1 images now. Hesperian 20:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note! I see some of the new uploads, but not all. For instance, this one. Could it be because that page was marked as "proofread"? Does the bot ignore them if marked that way? That was an error, but is true of several pages. (Sadly, they're among the pages I'm most eager to put to use on Wikipedia etc.!) I can correct them all if needed. -Pete (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeahnah, I didn't upload that one because the fellow really needed to brush his hair.
 * But seriously I have no idea and will try to get to the bottom of it.
 * (And no, the proofreading status of the page doesn't matter.)
 * Hesperian 00:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha! Little known fact, Mr. Scott was a Pacific Northwest pioneer of the mohawk hairstyle. Doing an in-page search on the vol. 1 link above on the text "Upload an image to replace this placeholder" might be the easiest way to find the ones that were missed. (Related question -- is creating pages for the and "raw image" links necessary to trigger the bot? I assume it is, but hope I'm doing more work than I need to.) -Pete (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The bot will only upload images for pages that are tagged with missing image or raw image. I think that's what you're asking? Hesperian 00:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes.That's what I thought, but good to have confirmation -- thanks. Do let me know if there's anything else I need to do for the images that were tagged, but not uploaded. And thanks again for making it so much easier to unlock all these quality scans for wiki use! -Pete (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Violà. It is done. Hesperian 22:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

So, all that went very well -- thanks again! I'm curious why this one got missed: File:Lewis & Dryden's marine history of the Pacific Northwest.djvu Is it because there's a direct link to the DJVU file, rather than a link to the folder on the archive.org server? -Pete (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I'll see if I can diagnose it. Yes it might be because of the direct link, but if so then that is an opportunity for me to improve my URL matching, as my script doesn't directly visit the source URL e.g. "http://www.archive.org/download/cihm_16505/cihm_16505.djvu". Rather it tries to parse the URL and extract the Internet Archive id from it e.g. "cihm_16505", and then constructs and visits the base url e.g. "https://archive.org/details/cihm_16505". Hesperian 00:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks, that makes sense. I'm realizing that I've been pretty inconsistent about "source" links on my uploads...I'll have to review that some time! -Pete (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

raw image
Ok, I understand now. I will fix when not on mobile device. (I can move files on commons.) Pete (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's okay, I fixed it. I was just dealing with some images that had been uploaded over the top of mine at Wikisource, still described by the original raw page scan template, yet used as restored images. In such a case I think it's appropriate for me to simply push them back to raw. It took me a little while to realise that yours were different — moved to Commons with new descriptions, but the same titles. In that case I should just move on Commons. Sorry. Hesperian 08:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

A reference problem
Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 29.djvu/540 There is something wrong with this page's references (nested) and I have no clue how to repair it. Ineuw (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In transclusion do you mean? Is it okay now? Hesperian 01:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed your reply. It's OK now, TY. Ineuw (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My fault you missed it. I had the flood flag on, so my reply wouldn't have come up on your watchlist unless you were viewing bot edits. You won't see this reply for the same reason! Oh well, one more day of flooding and I'm done for a while. Hesperian 03:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Won't be missed with a ping…this message brought to you by your friendly neighborhood talk page stalker. -Pete (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

use of space again

 * Hesperian, I am adding e.g.  to your book again. Scream if you don't want it this time. —Maury (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Maury. Thanks again for your validations. By all means feel free to let your validations reflect a little your personal style/flair/preferences. You rock! Hesperian 03:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

TemplateScript
I know that you are quite an adequate coder, unlike oneself who wears his incompetence as a badge of (dis)honour. Anyway, at my plaintive whining Pathoschild has done some updating of TemplateScript to add some of the components that make it a little more useful here, eg. wrapping highlighted text. I just need to master the three windows again, port #cleanup, and then I will have my hefty set of scripts migrated. Just FYI. — billinghurst  sDrewth  15:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * G'day mate. I have put off porting mine for so long now that I guess I probably won't do it until I have nt choice. Hesperian 15:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Aha, I am not doing it by free time choice or twiddly thumb syndrome; in monobook it is so broken for that I cannot get it to load 1 in 10. No cleanup sux! — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hesperian. I edited your common.js and your works.js to update you to the latest version of TemplateScript. You were using a much older version called regex menu framework, so you should notice a lot of improvements. A few of the big changes:

TemplateScript passes an  argument to your custom scripts to handle common code for you (see TemplateScript for documentation and examples). Here's a representative sample of changes I made to your scripts:

Let me know if anything breaks. :) — Pathoschild 00:09, 01 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, thanks heaps . If anything breaks I'll dive in and figure it out and fix it myself. It's the least I can do after all your help.
 * Also thanks a gazillion for your scripts. They make a monumental contribution to productivity on the site. I should think they are involved in a majority of edits these days. I don't know how often you get thanked but really no thanks are enough.
 * Hesperian 01:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words. :D — Pathoschild 02:40, 01 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Report on political entity campaign financial disclosures for 2007 Kosovo elections.pdf
Hello, I just wanted to notify you that a file you are connected with (either an edit to a page or the index) is nominated for deletion. I did not start this request, but did want to notify you about it in case you have information to add. Thanks, The Haz talk 17:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Report on political entity campaign financial disclosures for 2007 Kosovo elections.pdf
 * Deletion request entry

The Tragic Muse
The Tragic Muse v.1 ✅ courtesy of -> Hover Over Image.



—Maury (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Goodness, that was quick! Thank you very much! Hesperian 12:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't so quick when validating. The WS "watchlist" shows some mistakes that I corrected. I had not planned on asking this but since I have done at least a couple of your works, could you please validate a few of mine in "Memoirs of a Huguenot Family"? That book goes back to 1500 France and is about my Fontaine & Maury ancestry. You remember what it is like as you posted you validated other's works and nobody returned the favor. I refer to your post in Scriptorium. I don't have as many pages to validate as you do and I can work on v.2 and v.3 for you. Or will people with projects never have works that are validated? Several people finish works and lack only validations. For me it seems some works will never be completed if we have to have validations or the validation rule has to change. I could do without that rule. It doesn't work well as we discussed in Scriptorium. Well, Cheers! we knocked v.1 out and I have done some on v.2 and v.3 I hope that you hovered over the above image to see the text used from v.1 - Ai'n't I creative? :0) —Maury (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * My sincere apologies, Hesperian. I should not have asked you to validate, nor should I ask anyone else for help. I have been here on Wikisource I just wanted to get things done but I have learned just as you learned. I myself have been here so long I am addicted and I want to stop. I no longer care about validations on that book. After-all, I own a copy of the book. I don't care about any validations any longer, mine or anyone elses -- to heck with it. I need to retire from wikisource if I can. As stated, it is addictive. I will try to find something to keep me occupied, perhaps clean the house again. :) You have been a good friend in my viewpoint and I really do appreciate it. You are a good man and I wish you and all others here the best in life. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Morning Maury. I understand about the feeling of addiction, and the sense that one's passion has carried one too far, to the point where being here can feel unhealthy and even unenjoyable. I experienced that many years ago at Wikipedia — driven to contribute, driven to check my watchlist, to make sure that I never miss an important edit or discussion, so driven that it wasn't actually fun any more. But I survived it and eventually found a healthy balance.
 * Part of the balance for me is to recognise no obligations. Wikisource is a hobby, not a chore. I contribute what I want, when I want, and I don't do anything I don't want to do. As such, I expect no-one to undertake chores on my behalf. I have found that this selfish attitude has not prevented me from helping my fellow Wikisourcerers along, as very often the things I want to do are precisely those things that benefit others.
 * Several years ago, I undertook to help out my friends Cygnis insignis and Moondyne, by validating their works. I wrote a script to produce a timestamped list of pages proofread by them, and I regularly validated off that list. Yesterday I resurrected that script and pointed it at you. For your information you have a little over 2000 proofread pages awaiting validation. The oldest of these dated back to 2010, but I validated some of these oldest pages, and now the oldest goes back to November 2011. I have done this because it piqued my interest and I wanted to do it. I will continue to validate off this list while the project continues to interest me.
 * Rock on!
 * Hesperian 00:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You understand me very well. One of the things that got to me is that I have validated many user's works and I now know that I expected a return favor that wasn't happening. I did not initially expect a return favor but that did grow into a more conscience awareness because I had been thinking we all help each other here on Wikisource. Wikipedia is different than Wikisource. There are no validations, no relying upon other persons to assist, no need for others to assist. If they add something good then that's fine with me. But here on Wikisource we have to rely upon others to assist if just validating. I have never liked having to have anyone to assist me in work in real life or here. Still, it exists and thus my frustration after years of work here. I think I have that feeling of needing others to validate under control now by accepting an attitude that I strongly dislike; one that says, "I don't care any more" but yet that care is still within me. I am just trying not to care which is NOT my way in real life. I am the opposite of not caring about people and their needs. Too, I apply the real me to Wikisource itself. I have felt it is a "brotherhood" type of thing or as another person wrote in Scriptorium, "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". My thoughts are everyone working together. It's not difficult to spot works that need validating. Every time a persons places a book in "New Works", just look at what is there and go assist if reasonable -- or if someone assists another then that person should assist in return. Because I have not seen a lot of this I started feeling that everyone is out for himself -- greed, selfishness. Not even a "thank you" that we can click on when looking at which person helped (private or not private). You are the exception to that and probably why I came to you. Thanks for everything. It is good manners (or not) amongst any people in any situation. —Maury (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I think people usually choose their mode of giving. Within that mode, they are generous; outside it, they appear selfish. In real life, I give hundreds of hours of time every year to a certain charity organisation, but I resent charity door-knockers and never give them a cent, no matter how worthy the cause. My brother would give me the shirt off his back but he doesn't like to drive an hour to come see me. Here on Wikisource, I'll happily invest my time in providing a raw image service for the community, but I don't want to validate a book if the content doesn't interest me. Personally I don't find that words like "greed" and "selfishness" get me any closer to understanding all this. Hesperian 10:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about the door-knockers plus the phone callers and worse, computer calls. I also help with charities I feel are valid charities. I am the opposite of your brother, I visit my friends after I telephone them. My families are close-nit. We have always visited each other and especially on holidays. Replace greed and selfishness with whatever suits, I used them from what I had been feeling. I don't care about those feelings at this point. If it is everyone for himself so be it because I cannot change that. I'll continue doing what I have been doing, working on my books and validating pages of others works. —Maury (talk) 10:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding my script:

It's hard to write a script to find pages proofread by you that are awaiting validation. It's much easier to find pages that are proofread, awaiting validation, last edited by you. This is of course mostly the same thing. You have 2054 such pages.

I started working my way through the list, but soon found myself validating pages in a "File to fix" index. Not very helpful.

So I filtered for pages belonging only to "Not-Proofread" and "Proofread" indices. There were still about 2000 pages.

Again I started working my way through the list, but found myself validating pages in indices where most pages hadn't even been created yet. You have dropped in, proofread one or two or half a dozen pages of a book, and then moved on; and there I was dropping in to validate those one or two or half a dozen pages. Again, not very helpful.

So I filtered for pages belonging only to "Proofread" indices. Surprise surprise! You only have about 100 such pages. I've validated a few dribs and drabs, and there is now only one fully proofread index awaiting validation, containing pages proofread by you and awaiting validation. That index is Index:Southern Historical Society Papers volume 40.djvu, and it contains 105 pages that you proofread and that haven't been validated yet.

To put this 105 number in perspective, my number is 10617. I think maybe the community is doing a better job of validating your texts than you realise.

Hesperian 12:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Dropped in - did a few pages and left- I suppose you mean something like what I just finished. Your The Real Thing and Other Tales (New York & London: Macmillan & Co., 1893) but there were no more proofreads, well, two are left. Your "The Muse" v.1 was completely validated virtually non-stop in approx one 1/2 days by me. It is true that I go from one work to another in trying to give several people a bit of help in reference to validations. "Memoirs of a Huguenot Family" is what I would like to have validated. There are several pages there that have been proofread and not validated. SHSP 40 isn't something I even care about. It remains there for anyone to work on. There are about 40 volumes on WS, placed here by AdamBMorgan to be done. I am validating "Confederate Veteran" now, volume 3, proofread by someone else. —Maury (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I have also left WMM a note about the gadget for viewing per work which pages on a work they can move from proofread to validated. — billinghurst  sDrewth  03:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Future header redesign
Hi again,

I've become enamored with your approach to header info that places title, ''pub. location, publisher & year and then the author'' all on their own separate lines (ex. ) as a baseline for the long needed redesign of the mainspace header. I've already opened a discussion about the possible addition/removal/relocation of input parameters (including Publisher, etc.) for the template.

What I'd appreciate from you is your thoughts on how individuals such as editor, illustrator, translator and the like should appear after the author entry. Keep in mind the current approach for previous and next will most likely be isolated to their own table row beneath the rendering of these parameters in the future rather than in series with that table cell found currently. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My concern is that especially when we have long titles like that, then have longer headers, it doesn't flow well through to mobile form mobile view of example — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree, especially if you shrink the width of your desktop browser's window to something akin to an "average" tablet or iPhone, the "locked" 20% on both the left and the right - currently reserved for the previous and next fields - forces the 'premature' line wrapping in mobile view (well that is what I believe you're referring to). That 40% total of reserved space always happens even without the presence of prev. or next entries and the reason why I believe "navigation" needs to become separate from "info" in essence by residing below that 'info cell' on its own "row" . -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If we could gather the metadata, or some of the lesser metadata, for a work into a collapsible section in the mobile view, and label it as such that might be a possibility. I have not explored how to format/handle the mobile output differently from the desktop.— billinghurst  sDrewth  01:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I see no other way to manage every possible combination of all the parameters applied per any given work without some sort of collapsing navBox type of layout for at least mobile view's headers -- there is already a notable "space" between page top and content start in mobile view without our most basic header placed in between that gap - never mind a "bloated" one. Without some sort of information and rendering "management" (like the collapsing/tabifying portions of the data being retained/presented), there would just be too much clutter for any of it to be useful to Mobile folks. I just haven't come up with anything that is not a 'total departure' from the current header-per-namespace design, layout and premise; That's why more eyes and effort is needed here no matter which way the redesign goes. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hesperian, can you also check the export format to .epub, it is failing with, and I haven't the time to explore currently.— billinghurst  sDrewth  00:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys, nice to hear from you George. I've used up my Wikisource time today on 'crat stuff, and really should get some work done now. Sorry, I won't be able to contribute to this discussion until maybe this time tomorrow. Please do feel free to continue this here in my absence. Hesperian 02:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting this because I'm getting more and more "complaints" about WS from phablet/phone users. .

To illustrate the separation of info retained by the header and the continued ability to prev/next navigate redesign that I tried to explain earlier in the above, I've come up with mock-up, proof of concept to help move things along at Template:Haader

Prev & Next behaves much like they do in the current header's desktop view except they reside in their own "block" below the info-retaining portion. If you view it on your tablet or smartphone (or even min-width mobile view), you'll see why making this change makes for a better layout. -- 04:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi George,

Finally getting back to you. I'm glad you like the layout I've been using. My motive was primarily to include in the header what was needed to unambiguously identify the work i.e. distinguish it from other versions. Secondarily, to make it look nice.

I do have strong feelings about certain points e.g. all citation/bibliography styles italicise the title and not the author, so why the hell are we italicising the author and not the title?

Although it wouldn't be appropriate for our headers to be formatted overall as bibliography entries, I think we might adopt a standard bibliography style for the basic elements. For example, if the Chicago style bibliographic entry is


 * Julius von Sachs, History of Botany, trans. Henry E. F. Garnsey, rev. Isaac Bayley Balfour (Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1890).

then our header layout might be

I see what Billinghurst is saying about long titles not flowing well through to mobile form, but I don't see that as grounds for omitting information that is critical to attribution and/or disambiguation. By all means collapse extraneous metadata, but I think we have always to display full attribution, plus anything that disambiguates the edition. -- Hesperian 03:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Noting difference between root page and subpages, further that we are still going to need to have a parameter that enables forcing of subpages to display like root pages, eg. journals. Those using mobile devices may be used to expanding collapsed sections, so collapsed sections may just be the modern way. Wikidata, yes. Maybe this is ultimately configurable by users and we can gadgetify css components so they can choose what to display, and as per previous dot point to what to hide
 * At this point in time (with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight of course), I find myself in total agreement with your point about the importance of version/edition differentiation being a part of the main (& translation) space header information. Regardless, the advances on Wikidata alone practically necessitate the inclusion of this key data in order for both projects to move forward while remaining 'in unison' by any measure. Its a shame we haven't incorporated location and publisher earlier but this revamp would be the time to adopt such redesign(s) in this aspect; much along the lines as you've described. Plus the year parameter would "better" reflect version/edition as a result as well. I'm also in favor of aligning italicization (among any other yet-to-be-discussed changes) that mirrors common practices &/or established standards as mentioned. Where I might not be on the same page with Hesperian's comments above is on the point about always .. display[ing] full attribution. To be clear, I'm of like mind & principle when it comes to providing template parameters for any and all agreed upon bits of information and the retention of such input by the template but feel -- at the minimum -- "mobile" display of such information in those instances where citation/attribution/etc. are unavoidably lengthy becomes problematic. Add to that the possibility of additional notes and/or [eventually] plain-sister pointers and all we've managed to do is clutter-up the entire opening 'viewport' on most small screen devices. In short -- all I'm suggesting is that we consider alternatives to the current layout approach for the finished rendering at some point sooner rather than later during this 'redesign'. Advances afforded to us with the advent of css3 and html5 may allow us new ways to present the header banner that is still familiar to long time contributors yet 'sleek' enough to avoid whatever the future of both mobile and desktop views might have in store for us at the same time. For example, even a banner that fully opens to all critical facets and info at first then "collapses" to just a, b & c after 5 seconds or so seems like one avenue to pursue; tabifying aspects of data retention and display is another. And I'm sure when this discussion "opens up", other folks will chime in with similar ideas. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that my dot points become
 * All metadata available, not necessarily displayed (at all times)
 * Formatting, no issue, whichever way.
 * Display. I have not a concern about long-term viewers per se as things evolve, though, the original display is the primary/pertinent information, and navigability and usefulness should always be our guiding light. They come for the work, the metadata is reference/identifying data, not the content. They will have the expectation that the display will be better, and are less interested in the technology, methodology, ... and are more interested in the result.
 * — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

My thinking is The location, publisher, etc, are provided to the header for metadata purposes but not automatically displayed. What is displayed and what is not may be device-dependent or otherwise context-dependent. If we need disambiguating information to be displayed, we specify it in a disambiguator parameter.
 * Step one

The location, publisher, etc, are provided to the header for metadata purposes but not automatically displayed. If you want disambiguating information to be displayed, you can provide |disambiguator=edition where "edition" is a magic word telling the header to construct and display edition information for disambiguation purposes. You can still use an explicit disambiguator instead of a magic word if necessary; for example on The Time Machine (Holt text): |disambiguator="Holt text"
 * Step two

Metadata provided by Wikidata. We only use parameters to provide display hints such as advising that the edition disambiguates and therefore should be displayed.
 * Step three

Metadata provided by Wikidata, and Wikidata required to figure out when disambiguation is required? Header parameters exist only to override or tweak wikidata decisions, and are rarely used.
 * Step four

Thoughts? Hesperian 07:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm liking what both of you have laid out overall but am still stuck on a point or two. Concerning Billinghurst's point on the need to have certain sub-pages "display" as top or root level pages: this goes toward an existing concern of mine when it comes to the current placement & usage of the section= parameter. For me, this parameter is more about 'where we are' navigation-wise within a work than an identifier (or a label?) per 'journal entry' whether associated with a contributor or not and feel it's better that it reside with the yet-to-be-relocated prev/next navigation scheme than the "metadata" portion of the existing header for this reason. I understand this view might not be a popular one in those instances with a contributor but there has to be a better way to present the attribution while keeping the notion of "navigation" (even if means in the end adding contributor= atop the prev/section/next portion in the revamped layout). On Hesp's point about 'edition' display only when there is need to disambiguate the work in question from another: I'm inclined to think that info should be the part of the metadata make-up that is always displayed regardless; even when no such other disabig-triggering work exists (forget about if en.WS happens to also host such a work if it did exist). Maybe I'm overstating the importance of exacting publisher, location, &/or year inclusion because that, along with title and author, is what I consider an edition to be comprised of -- maybe my definition of edition is contrary to others. In general, I just don't see how else Authority Control like entities (including Wikidata) can effectively differentiate between editions of a work without tracking publisher &/or location in addition to year, title & author so I'm in favor always "showing" as many of those five params as possible mostly for that reason. I hope that made sense; thoughts? -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirect of Lovelace paper
Hi, sorry if this isn't the right place for this discussion - I'm new and I wasn't sure.

You recently deleted a redirect page (Scientific Memoirs/3/Sketch of the Analytical Engine invented by Charles Babbage, Esq redirecting to Scientific Memoirs/3/Sketch of the Analytical Engine invented by Charles Babbage, Esq., note the full stop at the end). I should have put my rationale in its talk page, but the reason I did it is because I wanted to link to the page on Twitter to publicise it, and found that I couldn't, because the full stop at the end of the page name got stripped off.

You can see this in action: https://twitter.com/Kastrel/status/664416007046451201

I'm not familiar enough with Wikisource to know if one can change the original name of the page to delete the full stop, or even if it's appropriate to do so, but it would be nice to be able to link to it successfully and the redirect page seemed like a simple, unobtrusive way to do this. --Kastrel (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Kastrel,
 * Fair enough, I have restored.
 * As a rule there is no reason to have redirects sitting in work subspace (i.e. subpages that are redirects). But yours is obviously a special case.
 * Hesperian 00:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The above text is preserved as an archive of discussions at User talk:Hesperian. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Hesperian. No further edits should be made to this page.