User talk:Kaldari

Hello, Kaldari, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here. If you need help, see our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). You can discuss or ask questions from the community in general at the Scriptorium. The Community Portal lists tasks you can help with if you wish. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page.

. On a more personal note, I wanted to thank you for helping improve our collection of historically-relevant anarchist, socialist and communist texts, they represent one of the largest "social experiments" ever attempted and changed the face of the world irrevokably, for better and for worse. Keep up the great work, and if you ever need a favour, have a question or would like help, please don't hesitate to ask. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nikolai Gogol} 20:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thought I better point you to the new Winn's Firebrand and see if you wanted to help populate the list. Just follow the format of the current article, copy/paste the details for each separate article :) Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Wyatt} 01:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Zygoballus electus

Hi, nice to see these things turning up, but a couple of points on your recent contrib

• Could you describe the source, or the method, of transcription. I note the citation of the description is given, but how did it get here. A scan is also preferred, if possible.
• I think linking a name, valid or not, is problematic as a redirect, Zygoballus electus. Main space is reserved for titles of works, I'm not sure this qualifies; there is one page for the species at the sisters, but it is concievable that there could be several works with that title. I appreciate this is the first description, and I suppose the redirect could be a disambig to others works with that title; but this is moving beyond our scope - it would be better to link the document with some context at wikipedia and wikispecies.
• You have the title as The Salticidae (Spiders) of Panama/Zygoballus electus, which implies it is a subpage, but there is no parent The Salticidae (Spiders) of Panama

I've given a bit of thought to these matters, so I would interested in what you think. Regards, Cygnis insignis (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback concerning The Salticidae (Spiders) of Panama/Zygoballus electus. I think all the points you raised are helpful. I don't have much experience on WikiSource, so I'm probably dong lots of things wrong :P To answer your first question, I'm copying the text directly from the book. I don't have a scanner, and the book is quite old and delicate so I don't have a good way of scanning it at the moment. How to I indicate this method of transcription in the article? Is there a template for that? I suppose I should at least get the title page scanned so that I can prove it was published without a copyright notice (as many scientific works were at the time). I'm planning on transcribing a lot more material from this book and will be creating a parent page some time soon. Kaldari (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Just note your labour on the talk, simple transcription was a standard practice and doesn't need a template. The text is a section from the work with the title you gave, from a WS pov, and that would also be the full citation; creating the parent provides the context for the rest. Use the notes section of the {{header}} to separate stuff about that section, leaving a 'clean text'.

I didn't really consider the copyright aspect, I came to my own conclusion on taxonomic descriptions after reading some discussion elsewhere - free availability of the formal description is advantageous to all concerned, if not a institutionalised requirement (this is untested opinion). Don't risk damaging your document by scanning it, but be prepared to justify your claim of PD if it is challenged. You might also hunt around to see if a scan with ocr already exists, this allows users to verify the doc and maybe help with completing it. Hope this helps, I've only dealt with 19C descriptions, I'll give it some more thought. Let me know if anything is mysterious here. Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Folger Shakespeare Library

There was a note in the Scriptorium that you were looking for help. I am afraid it was a little vague for anyone to really know how to direct you. The files themselves are actually uploaded to Commons, which is why we don't have an user friendly wizard like they do. If you would explain your goal for what you would like to accomplish on Wikisource; I can give you my advice. I know you are familiar with the project and you seem to have a good variety of contributions. I don't want to guess about what you are struggling with since you know the basics.--BirgitteSB 02:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Life of the Spider

It looks as though you're proofreading these pages, but you're not marking any of them as being proofread. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: You're basically right. I assumed that proofreading had to be done by someone besides the person that created the pages and I wanted to make their job easy, so I was also proofreading it myself as I created the pages. This is the first book I've created, so I'm not totally clear on how the process is supposed to work exactly. Should I just create all the pages with the raw OCRed text and then go back and clean them up (marking them as proofread in the process)? How do most people do it? Kaldari (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

If you proofread the pages, even when creating them, you should mark them as "Proofread". "Unproofread" page status is for pages created mechanically, or without the correction of proofreading and formatting. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks for the tip! Kaldari (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: By the way, I'm confused about the use of ligatures on Wikisource. Wikisource:Style guide/Orthography says ligatures shouldn't be used, but we have templates like Template:Ligature Latin ae lowercase that are widely used and don't seem to be deprecated. Kaldari (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

For English text, Wikisource uses the ligatures æ and œ if the source has them, but does not replicate typographical ligatures such as "fi" or "ct". The ligature templates exist only for the use of those individuals who cannot type those two ligatures on their computer, or who have difficulty adding the character.

When it comes to page names, or to text in other languages, the rules may differ. Some editors chose not to replicate any ligatures in pagenames (to make them easier to type and link to), and other languages have differing rules that may include additional ligatures.

It may help to realize that the ligature information on that Help page was drafted in 2011, and has been little updated since that time. The Style Guide itself says: "Special characters such as accents and ligatures should be used wherever they appear in the original document, if reasonably easy to accomplish. This can be achieved by using the special character menu shown below the editing form; or typography templates which may help avoid confusion between special and alphabetical characters". --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

If you are serious about proof-reading...

Don't use the edit box default font!

I use the Bedstead font from here: https://bjh21.me.uk/bedstead/

and a custom CSS rule in my userspace common.css :

.mw-editfont-monospace {
 font-family: 'Bedstead',  monospace; 
 /*  */
}

And set the Editor Area font to monospace in Preferences.

I've found that with this, I've been able to find a LOT more scan errors as the font is designed that easily confused charcters like 0,0,I,i,L,l,1,| amongst others are sufficiently different.

Also you can put hyphenated words over a page break as {{hws}}{{hwe}} pairs, See the documentation for those templates :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Proofreading...

Excellent, you are shaprer eyed than I am.. Thanks for even checking your own earlier efforts as well:) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

And don't be afraid to re-validate entire works if needed. I've certainly had second and third passes on stuff I've been convinced I'd removed all errors from the first time round (sigh). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: There's one page of the appendix that I can't validate (since no one else has proofread it): Page:The Life of the Spider.djvu/387. Would you be able to validate it for me? Kaldari (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Index:The Naturalisation of the Supernatural.pdf

Can you compile a list of pages in this that you think need re-examining? I've been going through it myself though so there shouldn't be that many. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

RFC

Hey, thanks for starting the curly quotes RFC. I didn't mean to drop the ball on there! When we last discussed, it seemed to spark a whole new wave of opining...I was sort of waiting for that to die down, and then I got distracted. Anyway, I'm glad you didn't let my distraction slow you down. Nicely done. -Pete (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:validated

When will you be starting the planned experiment? Only two works are currently tagged. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I'm slowly working on writing the bot. Thanks for reminding me, though! Kaldari (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

When transcluding from the backlog ...

When transcluding works that have been finished though left, I will generally still add the to template:new texts. I feel that they have still earnt their momentary time in the sun. Why I have generally left them to the end of the month is so that as I am adding these texts and rolling off others works, they will quickly roll into the Wikisource:Works/2019. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

HotCat.disambig_category

Hi. I cannot get the category disambiguation sub-category presentation component for HotCat working. I have created the requisite local settings page MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js/local defaults and the requisite category, yet I cannot get the sub-choice component working here like it does at Commons.

Interestingly I cannot get it to work at enwiki either for the settings in place. So I am not sure whether it is broken there too, or it is related to my calling the script from my global.js. Are you able to advise? Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I'll try to take a look this week. Kaldari (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: It seems to be working for me. I think the problem is that since you are loading HotCat from Commons, it is also loading the local defaults from Commons (rather than from Wikisource). If you load it as a local gadget rather than from your global.js, it should work. Kaldari (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Reading the instruction at c:Help:Gadget-HotCat#Using the Commons version of HotCat on another wiki it indicates that the local file is read and applied. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, based on the local gadget. So what I am then wanting is a means for loading a local defaults when global is utilised. K, thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I have mentioned at c:MediaWiki talk:Gadget-HotCat.js that it would be useful to be able to call a wikis local defaults from a personal common.js page. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately, it's just not set up to do that currently. Kaldari (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I do have it working now, and I will have to work out which change did it, and what caching is playing with my mind. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

CotW

Thanks for moving the {{CotW}} forward. I just don't have time to dedicate to Wikisource this year. Perhaps when the winter holidays come, I can work a bit. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Just noticed The Life of the Spider on the front page. Nice to see your work recognized. Hope you've been well! I'm intrigued by the comment above about CotW, I've always felt the research demonstrating their efficacy is not well enough appreciated. Let me know if that's something you want to pursue. -Pete (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)