User talk:Hesperian/Archive 3


 * 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.

Huh?
In this case you linked, a torn bit of paper in between pages 308 and 309 has had either side of it scanned with the pages underneath it showing through. 380 is the real page 308, 381 is the recto of the paper (with p. 309 underneath), 382 is the verso of the paper (with p. 308 underneath), and 383 is the real page 309. I marked blank the pages containing the paper. --虍 (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Page:A Specimen of the Botany of New Holland.djvu/27
I thought I had a handle on how all the convoluted transclusions work here but just proved to myself that I don't. I was trying to fix some minor typos but think I've blanked the page somehow-sorry. And I can't seem to revert myself either. I suspect its something to do with the proofing buttons at the bottom of the edit screen. What should be a simple task is very intimidating. Djanga (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * G'day, great to be talking to you! I don't know what you did there. I reverted the blanking it, re-proofed it and found two errors, and fixed them. Had no problems.
 * I agree, though, that the ProofreadPage extension is exceedingly unfriendly to those unfamiliar with it. There are barriers to entry in this place that are of some concern to me.
 * Hesperian 01:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Owyergoingmateorright? Was passing by after reading Jay's email-well done!  I found 1 more and that seems to have taken.  A clue:  my 1st edits were with IE8 and the one I just did successfully was with FF.  Can you try editing the page yourself (with IE) and tell me if it works for you, because I'm still seeing a blank editing panel with IE.  Djanga (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Something's screwy. I don't use IE, so the only version here is what came pre-installed: IE6. That gives me a functional text box but no image. Thank goodness for FF. Hesperian 01:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On pressing the edit button, I see the image and the text box for a second or so. The latter then disappears to a blank region on the LHS of the screen with just the javascript edit toolbar showing.  Closer investigation indicates shows this error:

Message: Unterminated string constant Line: 15 Char: 21 Code: 0 URI: http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:A_Specimen_of_the_Botany_of_New_Holland.djvu/27&action=edit

Message: Object required Line: 154 Char: 27 Code: 0 URI: http://en.wikisource.org/w/extensions/ProofreadPage/proofread.js?18 Djanga (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Could it be the double space before box.style.cssText in this line in proofread.js?

if(self.TextBoxHeight) box.style.cssText = "height:"+(TextBoxHeight-270)+"px";
 * Djanga (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, JavaScript ain't Fortran. You should tell ThomasV, who wrote the ProofreadPage extension. Hesperian 04:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew that. ;)  Djanga (talk) 07:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

better days

 * I tried and failed to get this right, sorry if I messed up your fixes in the process. Cygnis insignis (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem (that I was seeing) was that MediaWiki doesn't interpret "|-" as starting a new table row unless it is at the start of a line. When a Page: page starts with "|-", the "|-" will be at the start of the line on that page, but when you transclude it, the page template prepends the page with the CSS magic that makes [page] happen. Thus the "|-" is no longer at the start of the line, and MediaWiki treats it as text. The solution was to force a blank line at the start of each page, so that the "|-" is forced onto a new line. Hesperian 00:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Still broken. Formatting poems with transclusions is a problem too; I tried using the header/footer and various means to control the line spacing after, the ":"-type indenting is no good either. Does one of the various poem templates resolve this, or do we use  ?
 * I assume you haven't noticed me removing author links from Hermione, I decided to leave them out—after some serious thinking, you know—fiction is problematic and this is my example. Cygnis insignis (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I hadn't noticed; sorry. I hope you'll understand.
 * As for the other issue, the discussion is so stale, and I've been focussed elsewhere for so long, that I'm having trouble picking up the threads again. Can you point me at the broken page? Hesperian 03:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "this": Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London/Volume 1/Description of the Natives of King George's Sound (Swan River Colony) and adjoining Country
 * Will look later; need something less taxing right now. Hesperian 04:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm curious as to what Stockdale censored He retained the 'anthropological study' (à la National Geographic) as the frontispiece, so perhaps it was some damned French political subversiveness. Cygnis insignis (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The poms did come down very very hard on discussion of revolutionary ideas. But on the other hand, "for the same reason, the two engravings referred to in the exceptionable passages, have been altered" suggests a something visually "indelicate". I wonder if there is any way of finding out. Hesperian 03:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.heretical.com/miscella/baker4.html? Hesperian 03:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Busy
I'll have very little time for Wikisource for at least the next two weeks. Hesperian 03:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

WA Blue Book
Gday Hesp. Not sure whether this limited time membership is of interest if you are grabbing access to Western Australia Blue Book 1895 (see page) -- billinghurst (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * G'day. Nah, I can't foresee any use for it. If I could upload it to Wikisource on the other hand.... Hesperian 13:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

nom
I guess you have to accept the nomination.
 * I guess I do ... now. Cheers mate, Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Proofreadpage header template
ThomasV asked me if I would update MediaWiki:Proofreadpage header template on en.ws, as we use a greenish colour. To have a trial we add header=1 into a transclusion, ie. .

Anyway, header uses classes from MediaWiki:Common.css, eg. class=headertemplate and I was thinking that it would be best to amend the MWtemplate with classes, however, that is beyond this gherkin. Did you want to have a go? Or should we call in the heavy troops? -- billinghurst (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be too scared to edit the css files. Best ask Jack. Hesperian 04:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That would make us (chicken)2. Jack has gone AWOL, must be all the bothersome CSS questions that I keep asking him. Oh well, I will just create him a TO DO list, and put some tight timelines in place for him.-- billinghurst (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I take issue with your maths. It seems to me that we are 2(chicken). (Get it? Too chicken! Yuk yuk.) Hesperian 11:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Though we can both be right if chicken=2, which is very cyclic as then we are still 2chicken2. billinghurst (talk) hunting for chook.ogg
 * Bah! You forgot the other root! (zero) Hesperian 13:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Crowing before dawn at me having egg all over my face, with such a small yolk. Peck peck peck! May all your ovoids be pale and float. billinghurst (talk)
 * Jeez; I make one paltry joke and look what happens....

Hi, guys. Ya, I've gotten really busy. Mostly it's off wiki stuff, but there's the drama wiki; you know, the one over there ←:) I'll look at this tomorrow morning (evening for me as I post this). And the table question, too (that looked messy). CSS is not nasty stuff. C++ class hierarchies can be much more daunting than selector specificity issues. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I've had a look-see. Idea is to refactor MediaWiki:Proofreadpage header template to use the look of Template:Header and maybe shove the code in that direction, too? I rather like the div-based structure of the MW page...
 * Promise; I'll check back in the morning ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's quite different, now. I have a test invocation at User:Jack Merridew/sandbox. All of the styling is in MediaWiki:Common.css and if the color is changd, the other template changes, too. Someone check the look in the retarded browser, ok? Especially the version stuck in 2001. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

unchewed cud spills
The answer to your question is that I couldn't recall the best solution and the line numbers accord with the index, not the original plates. I've hit a wall with titling again, but there is, fortunately, only one edition of the work in question. I'm still split on the pros and cons of subpaging of works; laying a 400 page work under one title is ungainly, but one advantage would be the ability to deeplink citations - Gardening by Candlelight p.345 - even before it exists. Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

And speaking of Numbers: 1. Blake's quote varies from any other I can find, and 2. I seem to be the only one to transcribe it as Numbers_XI.Ch_29.v Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there is a solution somewhere, but IIRC there was a problem of conflicts with "[page]" once transcluded. The inability to deeplink is a big con, but I think the pros have it.... especially since you and I seem to be the only people who much care about linking. I take the view that no literate Englishman of that era would dream of quoting (or paraphrasing) any other version... but perhaps I am editorialising too much there. As always, feel free to revert if I do anything that doesn't fit your vision for the document. Unlike that other place, I think it is usually a good idea here to claim, and acknowledge, ownership. Hesperian 01:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think Blake would have trusted the Bible to quote Moses, he would have simply asked him. I would stick the line numbering on the right (out the way of page links), if I bother to link the index; this is possibly a better arrangement for the reader's navigation/orientation. I would not claim that ... Cygnis insignis (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * :-D Hesperian 07:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Stab stab stab. I am a linker.  I am interested in the discussion of linkings, and how we establish and plan for these in significant works. I have been doing plenty of links in this month's PotM both intra-work, and interwiki (there isn't much intra-WS). I had a different attempts with a variety of works, and would love to see a concerted effort to simplify. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good for you! Welcome to the club! For me, the ability to navigate between works is the single most exciting thing about Wikisource. Here, James Edward Smith claims that the flowers of Brodiaea prove that Liliaceae tepals are sepals rather than petals. Here, Richard Salisbury says "What crap; you've misinterpreted the flower." Here, Smith responds, "Yes, I confess I did... and so did you. Nah nah nah nah nah." It is the ability of a reader to click through from one document to the next, to compare claims and counter-claims, and thus to see for themselves the emergence of the narrative given in Brodiaea—that is what makes this Wiki really great. Most of us, I contend, are missing this point. That is probably because most of us are working on fiction, and linking literary allusions can be problematic. Hesperian 03:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Linking to fiction is not a problem, as is any unambiguous reference, where it was obviously the authors intent. For works about fiction it is great! What Marquis/Hermione was referring to is more elusive, or it spoils the joke, or denies the 'reader' a smug feeling that 'Hermione' only satirises others—you know, them,—by distractingly 'footnoting' the highbrow reference. which spoils the bigger joke. I think the point to made regarding links is that we should increase the accessibility of library, with internal links (inline), rather than refer to the sisters. I reckon there should be more incoming links than outgoing for a collection of verifiable material. Inline linking to the other place is editorialising, another form of annotation, something that people have incorrectly adapted from that other place. By my reading, the ethos was to never do it here, this was vociferously opposed by several advocates and a compromise emerged that allowed annotations in alternate versions to the 'clean text'. This mutated further and, depending on one's reading of FT criteria, is now almost compulsory; I'm sure new editors think that this is case. The solution of doing this at books, or 'versity, was ignored. I'm not entirely comfortable with the linking of the current feature, for example, nor with querying that in this space (at this time). I also know of some really foul examples; uncited POV stubs (even subpages!) at 'pedia using the source page as portal, but I don't own it and I can't ask for a reference. Though most links are harmless enough, and many do it, this will become problematic for Source. I suppose the onus would be on me to create the clean text, but it would be better if this was held to be the canonical text, the primary source would become the alternate. The site has grown up enough, it doesn't need to mention the 'big sister' at every opportunity; libraries contain encyclopaedias ... and so on. Cygnis insignis (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. Hesperian 07:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fiction? I don't grok ... Oh, that is the make-believe. Blah!
 * If there is an article about a work at WP, then we have a template to add in the note, and v.v., that job done. If there is a historical reference to a person in WP, link ... job done.  Interlinking of a compiled ref work, and a link to the obit that they quote, and the links in the obit to the books that they wrote, and to the author page, now that is proper linking. :-)  We have disambiguation, versions, similar to assist and they show all the other components that are necessary.  That said, I do love that we can provide ref material for WP et al, like DNB, and your work for Wikispecies. Primary sources, and foundation material is bewdiful.-- billinghurst (talk) 07:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If either of you feel like a diversion, have a go at transcribing "The Tyger" from the original; there is a copy here—Page:The Tyger BM a 1794.jpg—or select another at The Tyger. No cheating now, you can do no worse than the Gilchrist/Rossetti mash-up in the first standard edition. Cygnis insignis (talk) 10:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

An idea
Cygnis's comment about the difficulty of deeplinking into subpaged documents got me started on a grand scheme.

First, you create a template for each document, stored at a standardised location in the document subspace; e.g. /Pagelinks. The task of the template is to use the page-subpage mapping for the document to create the necessary link, given a particular page to link to. I started mocking up such a template, for A Study in Scarlet; it looked like this: A Study in Scarlet Invoking this with should yield p. 44 (though I haven't tested it). But you wouldn't invoke it directly. Instead you would create a template, which you invoke whenever you want to deeplink a page: see Doyle,. The task of would be to check for the existence of , and invoke it if it exists, else create a basic link of the form " p. 240 ".

I investigated this just long enough to start to appreciate some of the issues, such as the problem of pages that span multiple subpages. Then I stopped. I could be convinced to pursue it if you thought it worth the effort.

Hesperian 01:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 'a study in scarlet, eh?' - that this example is apropos of the initiative should not go unnoticed! You've sprouted the wheat amidst the chaff and drool, let's see what you make of this regurgitated rumination. Does the invocation remain (will it fix itself) or is it replaced by its construct, one of the basic links? Could this have the advantage of maintaining external links, like those from the sisters, even if the work (or the index!) is reorganised? What would the consequences of a move be?  I'm assuming your plan for the subpage /Pagelinks is that they be auto-generated by a script determining how the index is currently invoked to its Title/subpages, avoiding multiple uses of the same Page:space and so on, but will it build deeplinks to works that are underconstruction? I don't know the appropriate parlance, but I'm trying to establish is what would be 'static' (needing updates or purging) and what would 'active' (resolves without intervention). I'm guessing that the latter would be best if stable, perhaps even an automatic feature of the software!, but I would also guess that a bot could manage the static links from other works and the index. Can you clarify the last problem, "pages that span multiple subpages"? — Cygnis insignis (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 *  'a study in scarlet, eh?' - that this example is apropos of the initiative should not go unnoticed!
 * I can only assume you are telling me "That head of yours should be for use as well as ornament."
 * Does the invocation remain (will it fix itself) or is it replaced by its construct, one of the basic links?
 * My view is, don't subst it. It remains, and therefore it will reflect changes to the target template.
 * Could this have the advantage of maintaining external links, like those from the sisters, even if the work (or the index!) is reorganised?
 * No; you can't construct an external link that invokes a template; the only way to ensure external links continue to work is to leave a redirect behind.
 * What would the consequences of a move be?
 * If you leave a redirect from the old template location to the new template location, all links will continue to work.
 * I'm assuming your plan for the subpage /Pagelinks is that they be auto-generated by a script determining how the index is currently invoked to its Title/subpages, avoiding multiple uses of the same Page:space and so on, but will it build deeplinks to works that are underconstruction?
 * I didn't get that far. At present I was imagining a user crafting a link template with loving care; and, if necessary, updating it as and when structural changes occur. There is no reason why one couldn't build a link template for a work that didn't exist yet, or one that was under construction; but there wouldn't be much point creating one for a work that doesn't exist yet, because any links that are created in the interim would automagically get corrected when you eventually get around to creating the link template.
 * I don't know the appropriate parlance, but I'm trying to establish is what would be 'static' (needing updates or purging) and what would 'active' (resolves without intervention).
 * What I envisage is a template that acts as a portal through which all incoming links pass. Thus the internal structure of the document is rendered transparent to the documents that link to it. If you change the document structure, you simply update the portal, and everything else "resolves without intervention".
 * Can you clarify the last problem, "pages that span multiple subpages"?
 * The problem is how to link the page number in this quote:
 * "Mr Smith has given an ingenious solution in his Ingenious Solutions, p. 45."
 * if page 45 contains the end of Chapter 5 and the start of Chapter 6. Do we want to link to "Ingenious Solutions/Chapter 5#45" or "Ingenious Solutions/Chapter 6#45". That depends upon which part of page 45 contains the ingenious solution referred to. How does the template know? It doesn't.
 * There is, of course, a more banal solution, which is simply to create redirects from Ingenious Solutions/Page 1, Ingenious Solutions/Page 2, Ingenious Solutions/Page 3, etcetera. This solves all the same problems, and suffers from the same drawback. Additional advantages are that it would also work for incoming external links; and structural changes would for the most part simply require the repair of double redirects, which is something that bots routinely do. The additional disadvantage is the boring task of creating all those redirects in the first place... but maybe a bot could be trained to do it.
 * Hesperian 07:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Quirks
Have a look at what happened when I added a TOC - something I did? A new feature? ... a bug? Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the fact that it has all shifted to the right? I'd say the TOC layout is the correct one, since the cover images are all dodgy at the moment. e.g. see the image at Index:An introduction to physiological and systematical botany (1st edition).djvu. I submit that adding a TOC might fix that bug.
 * Poor old Thomas has copped a hammering from me since the most recent update; all minor issues, but irritating nonetheless.
 * Hesperian 13:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ThomasV made changes to ProofreadPage at the last update, and the Index: component, to enable simplification of the information. The new structure was supposedly to allow a simpler build of data, The recommendation was to just put the relevant page number of the File: and the file type into those two fields.  I did put an early update into H:SIDE to hopefully reflect the changes.
 * I have done updates to the two index pages to reflect the advice that was given, feel free to revert them if you prefer the earlier look. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah; very good. Thanks for the info. Hesperian 00:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a shame, though, that one can no longer illustrate an index page with a nice, clean, restored, high res, title page or cover page image; but is forced to use the crappy one in the DjVu file... or is there another way? Hesperian 02:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Useful answers, but not to me question. When you look at the TOC's corresponding numbers in the index, .djvu/14 - /17 TOC, the progress indicator (the colour-coding) disappears. Cygnis insignis (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see. I thought that the answer was here but null edits have failed to fix it. This needs to be reported to Thomas. Hesperian 02:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * User talk:ThomasV. Hesperian 02:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That solution worked for that issue, I wondered whether they were related. Thanks, Cygnis insignis (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, different issue being discussed. Hmm, yes, I see that it has also happened at Notes.... Weird, I will try and catch TV in IRC tonight and have the discussion. billinghurst (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ThomasV said that it was an unexpected and unplanned buglet feature. billinghurst (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll incorporate that spin in my recommendation to use the works contents page in the ToC field. The post at the scriptorium is using plain links, which I reckon is likely to be a waste of time; the value to the index relies on resolving the pagination of incomplete indexes and for a novice to find the piece they are looking for. The work's actual ToC can be improved in one place, getting that right is more useful. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Descriptive account of the panoramic view
@Both of youse, what about Descriptive account of the panoramic view, &c. of King George's Sound, and the adjacent country for an FT. Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah but. I found a much cleaner scan at http://nla.gov.au/nla.aus-f1761, and on my long list of things to do is to download it, clean it up, insert the missing plate and upload it over our present scan. Maybe best to do that first? Hesperian 06:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * [Ewes baa]What a perfectionist. It looks good to me, however, your wish overrules me facile approach.
 * Number two on the to-do list is Author:Thomas Pettigrew, author of "the historic cornerstone of the study in English" of Egyptian mummies. Hesperian 06:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, at least I can do author pages. We could look to have this up for COTW. -- billinghurst (talk) 08:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

facsimile
I'm thinking out loud here, apologies for cluttering up your page again. I succeeded in converting a jp2 (raw) to png and sticking into Facsimile of the original outlines before colouring of the Songs of Innocence and of Experience/Title page. I don't know whether to bother completing it, but teaching myself how to semi-automate the steps involved would be useful for others things. People would probably be more interested in the final coloured versions, however, if I discover that it is often cited in the scholarship I might persist. I was more interested in the introduction by Ellis, who compared Rossetti's editing of Blake's verses to the Bowdlerization of the bard. Btw, you can probably ignore the great wads of Blakeana being piled into your stack - I still haven't quite figured out what to do with it all. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats on the extra feather in your bow. Scripts are stubborn. Sure, I could ignore the Blakeana. But next time I run the script it will be there. I could ignore it again, but next time I run the script it will be there. I must either do what the script tells me, or I must tell the script to ignore Blakeana. I prefer to do what I am told. The non-negotiability of it is what makes it fun. I confess that the prospect of doing Blake nearly had me giving up on stalking you... yet now I am enjoying being exposed to something different, learning something new. Hesperian 12:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL! Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This sums up the present incarnation of the great naming conventions debate: "To art, that is best which is most beautiful; to science, that is best which is most accurate; to morality, that is best which is most virtuous. Change or quibble upon the simple and generally accepted significance of these three words, "beautiful," "accurate," "virtuous" and you may easily (if you please, or think it worth while) demonstrate that the aim of all three is radically one and the same; but if any man be correct in thinking this exercise of the mind worth the expenditure of his time, that time must indeed be worth very little." Hesperian 13:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * One term stands out for me in this context, for an article that appears in a document whose scope is everything. I prefer to do what policy tells me. The non-negotiability ... Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2009 (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.