User talk:Duckmather

Welcome to Wikisource

Hello, Duckmather, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• Help pages, especially for proofreading
• Help:Beginner's guide to Wikisource
• Style guide
• Inclusion policy
• Wikisource:For Wikipedians

You may be interested in participating in

• Proofread of the Month
• Monthly Challenge
• Requested texts

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{Collaboration/MC}} to your page for current Wikisource projects.

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

Have questions? Then please ask them at either

• Wikisource:Scriptorium; or
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username if you're logged in (or IP address if you are not) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome! SnowyCinema (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Taming of the Shrew

The Yale Shakespeare series requires some seriously advanced formatting, even many of our experienced editors here find such a volume challenging. It is also part of a series with an established formatting, so the formatting must match the other volumes in the series. It may not be a good option for a new Wikisource editor. I recommend trying works from the Monthly Challenge first. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Royal Book of Oz

Thanks for your help on this transcription project! I really appreciate all of the help that you've been providing with the bot and your own manual checking. It felt so daunting to do all on my own that I had given up a bit, but I've got some renewed energy to keep working on it since you're helping! Thanks, and do let me know if there is anything I can help with.

Best, SDudley (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Could you please run your SodiumBot again to populate more of The Royal Book of Oz? It really helps me in filling it out. Thanks! @Duckmather SDudley (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@SDudley: I just did it again for chapter 16, chapter 17, and chapter 18; have fun! Duckmather (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! This is extremely helpful. SDudley (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Duckmather Hello! I seem to have caught up to the current state of the automatically processed pages. I'd love to run the match and split myself, but can't seem to figure it out. Would you be able to help teach me so that I can more independently work on future transcriptions? SDudley (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@SDudley: There are two steps, namely "match" and "split". A lot of this is already covered in Help:Match and split, but I'll repeat it here for clarity.

For match: go to the page you want to match-and-split and add ==__MATCH:Page:something.pdf/something__== syntax to the top (but replace the link with the actual link to the first page; make sure it's the right page!). Put categories and stuff like that above the match tag, so the bot doesn't stuff it into the Page namespace. Then go to https://matchandsplit.toolforge.org/ and click on the "Match" tab (you'll need to sign into your Wikimedia account). Type in the language code (in this case "en") and the title of the page; hit the "Run a match job" button and the bot should do its thing. Double check that the match looks right. If there are "no match" tags, this means the bot can't finish the match on its own, so you'll need to re-add the MATCH tag and/or manually finish the match yourself.

For split: go to the https://matchandsplit.toolforge.org/ and click on the "Split" tab. Make sure the page has already been fully matched! (If not, you will need to match it yourself, or the result will look horrendous.) Type in the language code and the title of the page as before; hit the "Run a split job" button and the bot should do its thing again. This will take a while. Double check that the split pages look ok and there are no egregious errors (eg "no match" section headers followed by large blocks of irrelevant content). If so, you can then just proofread all the pages as you would any other.

Hopefully this is useful! Duckmather (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

This was helpful! I think I got it to work for Page:The Royal Book of Oz.djvu/262. However, I don't know how you did it so seamlessly to cover large swaths of the book and to do a more proper split function so that it doesn't leave it like how it ended up there.

For sure a lot faster still than working on it by hand, but I still seem to be missing something. SDudley (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@SDudley: You have to put the match syntax in the main namespace, not the page namespace. Duckmather (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

ok I guess I don't get the difference. What is the main namespace? I am aware of the page namespace. SDudley (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

A page like The Royal Book of Oz is in the main namespace (it has no prefix). A page like Page:The Royal Book of Oz.djvu/262 is in the page namespace (it has the "Page" prefix). The concept should be very intuitive if you've edited any other wiki (eg Wikipedia or Wikidata) before. Duckmather (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

It makes a little bit of sense. But I still don’t fully get it. Do you have any images of how it ought to look or even a video demonstrating? I think making a tutorial like that could be very helpful for including on the page. I’d even be glad to make it once I get the process.

Where I’m getting lost is the main page space. When looking at its history there seems to be no indication of someone placing that stuff on the page. Sorry to ask for so much clarity, but the instructions are confusing me. SDudley (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Duckmather I gave it another try on The Royal Book of Oz/Chapter XVIII, but could not get it to go. I can't tell if this is because of text already being on the page or not. That seems to be the proper place to put it, and I think I am running the match properly, but it isn't going. SDudley (talk) 03:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Match and Split

The text you are loading into the Page namespace is quite seriously different from the text of the scan. Look for example at all of the linked Biblical passages in Page:04.BCOT.KD.PoeticalBooks.vol.4.Writings.djvu/34. Match and split should only be done when the texts closely match, not when the two texts are radically different from each other. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I also see pages like Page:04.BCOT.KD.PoeticalBooks.vol.4.Writings.djvu/579 that are missing chunks of sentences, and none of the in-text Hebrew has the vowel markings from the original. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Group Messaging Encryption

Why is this the title for the article? That's not the title of the article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: That was the title of the page onwiki (which I had assumed was a short form of the title of the article). If you want, I can move the page to the actual title and ask to get rid of the resulting redirect. Duckmather (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Which wiki? I am still confused. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: English Wikisource, duh. By the way, I just boldly moved the page to its correct title, Efficient and Secure Group Messaging Encryption. Duckmather (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act

I saw that you were doing a match-and-split to a separate index. That index is for the bill, not the law as enacted. For that, we already have an index here (starting on p. 272). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, please put the license template and categories at the bottom, instead of at the top of the page. It will help other editors if content is placed consistently in works, and placed in the locations where they are displayed. The license is always displayed at the bottom,. with the categories below it. So it is best practice to place the templates and categorization at the bottom as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Thank you for noticing! Now that I think of it, I'm actually thinking of making the base title into a versions page that lists the bill version vs. the enacted version (and transcluding + proofreading from the enacted index as is for the enacted version, but matching-and-splitting for the bill version). Duckmather (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Problematic

I see you marked this page as problematic but you did not elaborate. What is the problem that requires unusual action? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: There's a table in the text. I just haven't gotten around to adding it yet. Duckmather (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

A table doesn't make the page problematic. Problematic pages are missing the scan page, have a tear or damage resulting in lost text, or need an image file process. If the issue is simply that table formatting hasn't been applied, then the page is just "not proofread". --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey Are you sure Wikisource's current documentation agrees with this? In the problem templates section of Help:Beginner's guide to proofreading#Templates, it seems to indicate marking pages problematic when they are missing "something". I believe this practice is at least typical in the MC, and I find it more helpful than having the pages marked not proofread. Maybe that is just me. Regards, TeysaKarlov (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

It appears not to be current. That advice was added in 2012 by AdamBMorgan, who last edited here in 2015. The advice appears to be outdated with regard to tables (which are formatting), but is correct for the other templates (which apply to content). --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Em and pline

Hi @Duckmather,

I am not sure why you changed "{{em}}"'s to ":"'s in Index:Slavery, a poem.pdf, as the left indent provided by each should be identical, but the ":"'s do not work properly with {{pline|or}} (they do not align right properly). Was there some benefit to ":"'s that I was missing, and was the right alignment issue somehow not visible on the device you were using? At any rate, I have switched back to "{{em}}"'s.

Regards, TeysaKarlov (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@TeysaKarlov: Color me mystified. I think the reason I was trying to do it was because I wanted all indentation to use the ":" symbol for consistency, because I thought the two were equivalent; I didn't know that they weren't. (A quick look at the web developer tools in Firefox suggests that when I add a ":" symbol, the Poem extension wraps it in a

<span class="mw-poem-indented" style="display: inline-block; margin-inline-start: 1em;">

tag.) In any case, the {{em}} tag is fine for now.

Maybe the Poem extension has something wrong with it instead. I've also thought about creating a variant of {{pline}} that uses a div tag (since Help:Poetry says that putting a span tag inside a poem will cause a lint error) but I'm not sure how useful that would actually be.

Duckmather (talk) Duckmather (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Duckmather I don't think I can be of much help identifying the root cause of the issue, although it may not effect both poem and ppoem (I haven't tested both). At any rate, I probably wouldn't go creating a new template just to fix this "issue", as the workaround is simple enough, and if pline was causing lint errors, ShakespeareFan or Beardo would probably be all over it. Regards, TeysaKarlov (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Library of Congress Classification

If you believe that the previous contributors' work on the fully validated work is seriously flawed, then it is best to discuss the issue. Completely replacing the work of previous contributors without some technical need or requirement in a policy or guidelines is generally considered rude and unnecessary.

Your changes also removed the transcluded front page, decoupling the page from its source, and introduced errors that were not present before. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: If I'm not mistaken, the usual practice is to use {{AuxTOC}} if there's no TOC to begin with. Duckmather (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The specific {{AuxTOC}} template is one option. Using a table with an aux-value class is also possible. That is what the administrators who set up the table did. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Previous/next sections of Headers

Hi @Duckmather,

I am not sure if you were aware of the issue, but when you transcluded some of the final sections of Microscopical Researches, some of the header template links were broken. Where you had e.g. <nowiki>[[../Remarks|Remarks]]</wiki> the link was not working, and was fixed by switching to <nowiki>[[../Remarks/]]</wiki>. I am not sure why your previous/next links were broken though, as both styles should constitute valid syntax (hence why I ask if you were aware that the links were red, and not connected to the pages in question).

As a separate note, if a work has multiple authors, then please update the author section of each transcluded page to identify its actual author, e.g. Schwann or Schleiden in this case.

And as an aside, many pages in Microscopical Researches had not been properly proofread (e.g. the headers of the individual pages had not been moved out of the page bodies, etc.), and I prefer fixing these before marking a work as proofread. I think it is mostly okay now though, besides some minor cleanup.

Regards, TeysaKarlov (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I was thinking, and the header red links might just have been a cache issue on Wikisource's end. Perhaps all was okay there. TeysaKarlov (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@TeysaKarlov: some quick thoughts:

• I have no idea why the nowiki tags appear. It might just be an artifact of the source or visual editors? You can get rid of them.
• The text looks mostly ok. The most problematic part of the text is the list of figures, which I am still mystified about how to format (I'm personally torn between using a HTML ordered list vs using a table).
• The red links are a cache thing, I'm pretty sure. Purge the page and the links should turn blue.

Duckmather (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Proofing 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica

Hi Duckmather, you are one of the few editors who have worked on EB1911 in the past that are still active, thanks for your past edits. I was wondering if you'd consider doing more proofing work on EB1911.

I'm working through the EB1911 volumes and I'm currently working through vol. 20. I've found a useful technique to aid proofing by using Earwig's Copyvio Detector and the pages at theodora.com/encyclopedia. As an example, the link below compares a random page in EB1911 vol. 21 against the "Pliocene" article at theodora.com/encyclopedia :

https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikisource&title=Page%3AEB1911+-+Volume+21.djvu%2F880&oldid=&use_engine=0&use_links=0&turnitin=0&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheodora.com%2Fencyclopedia%2Fp2%2Fpliocene.html

It picks up several typo errors in the EB1911 page. Further proofing is still needed, of course, but it's a great help to use the generally very good quality text at theodora.com/encyclopedia (although the numbers often have errors).

Any questions? Let me know. Hope you can do some further proofing in EB1911 with the above technique to help, maybe starting from volume 21 or 22? regards, DivermanAU (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@DivermanAU: Your idea of using copyvios.toolforge.org to proofread is intriguing (I had never thought of using that before; I'm mainly familiar with using it on enwiki, for which it was designed).

Personally, I tend to proofread by retyping out the entire page and then diffing it against the OCR (or, if I'm validating, against the proofread version). This does produce pretty decent results, although to be honest oftentimes I make more errors than the OCR does. Duckmather (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The truth about china and japan

It appears, from the TOC, that the subpages don't exist. Is that normal? — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 21:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alien333: I created the root page (The Truth about China and Japan) first and the subpages next. It's normal for, when a root page is first created, all its subpages to be redlinks. But if you ever notice I missed a subpage, you can just create it yourself. Duckmather (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, so=ry, I got confused by the table of other books by the same author. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 08:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

HTML listing

It is preferrable to use templates rather than HTML tags is situations [Page:Out from the Heart.pdf/64 like this]. However, I am not fluent in the options for such lists. I suggest asking TE(æ)A,ea. (talk • contribs), whom I have seen format such lists in the past, for advice. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I would have used {{*!/s}} and its friends had they supported the ability to change the numbering from plain numbers to Roman numerals, so I went with raw HTML tags instead. (I might actually add this feature someday, it seems fairly simple to do; to be safe I'll see if I can try it in a template sandbox first.) But thank you for the message anyways. Duckmather (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and as an aside: I'll explain I decided to use a numbered list in the first place, instead of a table as the IP editor had done it initially. The table seemed unreasonably complex, and since it didn't really make much sense for the items to be perfectly lined up with each other, {{multicol}} jumped out at me as the obvious solution. Duckmather (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)