User talk:Klarm768

Welcome

Hello, Klarm768, 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
• Community collaboration
• Requested texts

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{CotW}} 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 IP address (or username if you're logged in) 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! —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: Please translate

• Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{CotW}} to your page for current wikisource projects.

You probably mean some page not named "your page." Or do you? How do I know when I am on "my page?" When I find the your page and add the code, whose current wikisource projects will be displayed? I suspect that I am NOT grammar-and-syntax-stupid. Please presume I belong in wiki-as-a-twelfth-language. Klarm768 (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Klarm768: Your user page is User:Klarm768. You can put anything you want there (so long as it isn't illegal/copyrighted). You can add those codes to your user page if you want. You don't need to add those codes if you don't want to. The "current Wikisource projects" are collaborative projects being worked on by the English Wikisource community. They are also displayed on the Main Page under the section "current collaborations". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: Thanks. I hope to get going on my project for which I joined wikisource. I presume that what I've done so far will be findable again, but I get lost from one excursion to the next. I would like to create links from my user page User:Klarm768 but I'm not there yet. I intend to learn how to make mistakes on my own project rather than somebody else's. Klarm768 (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Blackwood's

Two points about the Page namespace: (1) Don't insert header templates or use wiki-headings. We try to replicate the look of the original. (2) Don't insert your signature into the work either. You'll understand better why no once the final work is assembled. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably the best place to start for reference is Help:Beginner's guide to proofreading and the "next" page after it on Typography. They won't cover everything, but will give you a decent sense of what to do, and list some of the more common templates you're likely to need. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Poem formatting

Rather than manually tweaking hundreds of {{gap}} lengths to align things like centred headings and hanging-left quotes (which might not work the same for everyone as proportional fonts can vary in glyph width for different users), you could consider a combination of:

• {{block center}} to align the poem in the middle of the page, but keep it left-aligned relative to itself
• {{overfloat left}} to "hang" the quote mark just past the left margin
• <poem> tags to save you having to use <br/> tags on each line:

{{block center|
{{c|{{sc|Futurity}}}}
<poem>
{{overfloat left|align=right|"}}And, O beloved voices! upon which
Ours passionately call, because erelong
...
</poem>}}

Futurity

"And, O beloved voices! upon which
Ours passionately call, because erelong
...

Also note that the {{block center/s}} and {{block center/e}} to combine these blocks across pages. Hope that can save you some effort! Inductiveload—talk/contribs 11:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

You can also use {{left margin}} for making sure the left edges align, but it doesn't look like {{center}} will work in that case. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 11:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: Labor is lesser concern than esthetics. I can go back and redo if I could discover how to make it look right to me.

Yes, I read quite a bit of the help areas related to this, and perhaps if I were doing all my formatting within WS pages it would be labor-saving. But I start from MS Word text from which it saves labor to do search-&-replace. More importantly to me, I can mentally visualize the results. I was spending too much time experimenting and finding out long afterward that the displayed results were ugly. Hoping to find a fixed-indent-block I never figured out how to get two poems to have the same left indent. That was very distracting and not emulating the page images. My wish-list would be to have create a block indented by xem inside of which hanging indents would indent any overflow by yem when the display format is narrowed. It may exist but I have yet to discover it. The poetry-intensive articles are transducted, but I'd fix them if I knew how.

You can use {{left margin}} to indent several poems the same amount. It's currently unable to "shrink-wrap" the contained text, but I've asked at Template talk:Left margin if we can fix that. That will mean {{center}} will work inside the indented block as you need it to.

You can also use something I just found: {{fqm}} (floating quotation mark), which is a simpler version of overfloat left for quote marks:

"And, O beloved voices! upon which
Ours passionately call, because erelong

Hope that's useful! Inductiveload—talk/contribs 17:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

My bigger headache at this moment is with the blackwoodsmagazi62edinuoft.djvu. Ferrier's article includes the only two defects in the pagelist. (i.e. there are two pages duplicated and two pages missing.) The BLACKWOOD'S MAGAZINE page does have an alternate PROJECT GUTENBERG source but no suitable alternative to the DJVu for whole volume. Hathitrust.org does NOT have Volume 62. I created my MS word from GUTENBERG text and used page-images screen-scavenged from googlebook (https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=iWRHAQAAMAAJ). You are welcome to a copy of my images.

FYI This is one of the more important articles to get right. It contains a sizeable segment redacted from Ferrier's "authoritative" posthumous works in three volumes... This deletion is a fact which is seemingly unknown and about which I have been unable to find an audience. It is a major part of my WS fantasy that I could invite a reader to put two browser windows side-by-side and read the two versions and also be able to click on the page numbers to confirm that these discrepancies are also on the page images. Klarm768 (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: On closer inspection I got my Vol 62 pp. 239-258 page-images from GUTENBERG. I cite the Googlebook as the only url to which I could direct someone to inspect pages. But it's DRM protected.Klarm768 (talk)

It might be possible to paste in the "missing" pages from Google into the file we have. I'll take a look, but if it changes the location of the pages, some text might need moving around in the Page: namespace. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 17:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit: There is no index page for v 62: can you tell me the duplicated/missing pages? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 17:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: Here's what I prepared before discovering the problem:

Klarm768 (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• 1to4=-
  
• 5=Title
  
• 6=-
  
• 7=1
  
• 248=240
  
• 256=250
  
• 774to782=-
  
• />
  

Klarm768 (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

240 & 241 are duplicated.

248 & 249 are missing.

Klarm768 (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, I took pages 248/9 from Google books and inserted them into the file, and deleted 240/1. The page list appears complete now: Index:Blackwood's Magazine volume 062.djvu. There is no OCR layer on those pages, but I think you have the text anyway? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 19:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: Yes, I have the text (proofed perhaps more thoroughly in this article than any other, including auditory proofing more than once). Thanks so much for inserting those pages. I am pleased with the result... published today.Klarm768 (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Change of Trajectory

@Inductiveload: I have finished loading all of the short works of Ferrier. I've learned a lot about how I wish I'd done things differently. I could go back and clean up. But... After Ferrier's death three large volumes were printed in several editions. These are the editions of which I plan on loading, indexing, and creating pages (2 from U. of Toronto) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalwor03ferruoft https://archive.org/details/philosophicalwor02ferruoft https://archive.org/details/philosophicalwor01ferruoft

I would appreciate your advice—strategic and tactical. I want to make transducted segments available as they get done.

(I have not discovered how to remove Ferrier's categorization as no availabe works.) https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:James_Frederick_Ferrier Klarm768 (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I would approach in much the same way as Blackwood's - upload the scans, then proofread and transclude section by section, ideally doing the front matter first so the tables of contents are ready for linking. I'd lay mainspace subpages out like The Works of J. W. von Goethe:

• Philosophical Works of the Late James Frederick Ferrier - Main page with list of volumes and perhaps brief editorialised summaries
  • /Volume 1 - This page contains the transcluded title page and contents of Vol 1
    • /Introduction to the Philosophy of Consciousness - This subpage contains the article, or in this case, a list of parts
      • /Part 1 - Parts of IttPoC (as transcluding all seven parts on one page is probably excessively long and hard to navigate)
      • /Part 2... etc
    • /The Crisis of Modern Speculation

As for "no available works" - that was due to the {{populate}} template. I have removed it. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 03:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: Thanks. A few challenges come to mind for which I would appreciate advice.

1. I have no experience so far with tables and an earlier comment of yours has me dreading such. I will try to read related help pages, but any up front advice would be appreciated. For Ferrier's Institutes of Metaphysic the Table of Contents runs roughly 18 pages with about 40 entries per page. (It was a nightmare in MS Word within which I count myself in the top quartile of proficiency). i.e., That one is a very fine-grained TOC. When you say "tables of contents are ready for linking," should I plan to merely link the 'major' headings? (The other two TOC's have only 'major' headings.)

2. Also in Ferrier's Institutes (his original edition and I believe all subsequent) for each TOC entry there is publisher's-marginalia on the page referenced... sort of a small-font re-iteration of the TOC entry... a header in the margin. I realize that ideally WS works should closely emulate the original. I'm hoping this is a feature which can be neglected... 500 floating blocks seems a high price to pay... unless I master some secret as yet unknown.

3. Ideally, the three "authoritative" volumes would all arise from the latest edition. It's hard to find two decent image files from any single edition. Because Ferrier's 1856 second edition Institutes was still in inventory when he died in 1864, the first posthumous compilation-edition consisted of two volumes (commonly referred to as "Lectures in Greek Philosophy" and "Philosophical Remains" and designated Volume2 and Volume 3). Later editions were mostly in 3 volumes. In my first entry under this heading, I mentioned intent to use '1883 vol_2 Lectures in Greek Philosophy' from UofToronto. But it is missing 20 consecutive pages (from 418=364 to 419=385). The differences between editions tend to be in the "introductory remarks(numbered i, ii, etc)" or in appended documents (in "Institutes"). The Ferrier Works pagination matches as far as I know. Am I fretting ill-advisedly? Should I keep searching for the ideal set even though they come from different sources?Klarm768 (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Adendum: Today I uploaded File:Ferrier's Works Volume 3 "Philosophical Remains" (1883 ed.).djvu. For some reason I cannot create Index:Ferrier's Works Volume 3 "Philosophical Remains" (1883 ed.).djvu. Did I commit a syntax error?... or have my privileges revoked?Klarm768 (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I did manage to get the Index to be created shortly aft that note above, but not by my usual route. I get pararnoid when things don't work the way I expect.Klarm768 (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

First off, don't worry, you're doing good work. Even if you weren't, someone would make contact long long before access is removed.

TOCs are always fiddly. I generally use the {{TOC begin}} template series to help, but there are alternatives. I have done the TOC for Volume 3 as it's pretty short. The TOC for volume 1 is actually not very complex, it's just very long and detailed. I would not bother linking the individual sections, just the main headings (e.g. "/Introduction", "/Section 1/Proposition 1", etc).

As for the sidenotes - we generally do transcribe them, but there are templates that can help. Have a look at Page:Ferrier's Works Volume 1 - Institutes of Metaphysic (1875 ed.).djvu/29 for an example. You need {{sidenotes begin}} and {{sidenotes end}} in the header/footer of the Page: namespace page, but there is nothing extra required in the Main namespace.

For the selection of the edition, that's up to you. There's nothing stopping us having both editions if needed, and if there's no other option, we can insert blank pages into the DjVu as placeholders, and drop in pages from a new scan in future. There's also nothing really wrong with a mix of editions if the other edition has only incomplete scans around. There's certainly nothing wrong with having different sources of the scans. I prefer UofT given a choice because the scans are good quality, OCR well and are usually easy to work with, but if (say) 2 UofT scans and a Google scan produces a more complete work, then that is what should be used! Inductiveload—talk/contribs 14:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, do you have a proofread copy of the V1 TOC in some textual format? Using that I might be able to produce all the TOC pages with a script, rather than a huge slog of repetitive manual formatting. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 14:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: RE: proofread copy of the V1 TOC in some textual format. Well... sort of. Looking it over, I am not so impressed with my MS Word proficiency from 2 years ago. Also I perhaps invented the bold formatting (not sure what I used for proofing source then) but the italics looks pretty reliable. How about I insert the formatting and copy to a .txt format? Should I upload it or paste it somewhere? Klarm768 (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Sound good. Perhaps first save as RTF format and upload that to http://pastebin.com (or a file sharing service of your choice) and I can hopefully make a script handle the formatting as well. If I can't handle that, I'll come back to you! Inductiveload—talk/contribs 17:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: 1) My text needed a lot of proofing. 2) It was from a different edition so I made it to match yours... except no papers supplementary. 3) I went ahead and formatted for WS italics and small caps. 4) Uploaded to pastebin.com entitled V1 TOC in some textual format.txt. 5) I hope it is found useful. Klarm768 (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Klarm768: Thanks, but you need to tell me the pastebin URL, not the title, as I can't find it. Something like https://pastebin.com/xy1zGi2b with a different string at the end. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 22:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: Sorry. No experience with it. https://pastebin.com/eBh3nm2q Klarm768 (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I should be able to work with this quite easily. I was mentally preparing to write a converter to rip though and change RTF markup to wiki, but it's already done! I'll let you know how it goes - I also have a plan to help you with the sidenotes using this data. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 23:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, well, I got it working, but the TOC is so ridiculously long and dense that the Mediawiki software choked on it when the Wikitext passed 2.5MB. I blame {{TOC row 2out-1}}, which uses a verbose method to generate the dot leaders. I'll have a think. In the mean time, there's half a TOC in place, but please don't modify it, as I'll probably need to regenerate it with a different strategy. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 01:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Vols 1 and 2 in progress ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Perhaps I don't understand your question. My short answer is "Yes, all three are in progress." The long answer is that Volume 3 contains the impetus for my whole project. Publishing the first 28 works sets the stage... provides the more-nearly-true reflection of Ferrier and what he accomplished and who he was. Unlike volumes 1 & 2, volume 3 contains the works which originally were published in Blackwood's Magazine. Between those original publications and the Vol_3's posthumous compilations there are hundreds of discrepancies. Most were minor, e.g. capitalization, punctuation, spelling. But there were also brief revisions, such as rewriting a phrase or altering a notation to match a quote from another author. However, there are a few deletions: whole paragraphs erased, even a couple pages from Volume 3 are just gone... no footnote, nothing. And these posthumous Volumes are treated as authoritative. I regard them as scandalous, but seldom does anyone go back to compare side-by-side because it's very tedious. Soon that option will be practical within WikiSource. Then I can do Volumes 1 & 2. Volume 1 is republication of Ferrier's opus The Institutes of Metaphysic. Volume 2 is his Lectures in Greek Philosophy, for which I really wish I could read the original documents. I have read that his wife was ill-disposed toward the preservation of his writings. Klarm768 (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

TOC Vol_1 3rd ed. "Institutes of Metaphysic" (just because 'Change of Trajectory' needs subdividing)

@Inductiveload: I was pleased that the pre-formatted TOC could be useful. My text was from 2nd edition. TOC wordings and pagination differed. I needed to basically do a scratch-from-OCR-proofing... in order to feel comfortable that it would match this edition... even then eyes-on every line and formatting is still never perfect. I wish I could do auditory proofing within WS as well. I will not edit-touch the TOC until you say. Thanks for going to this degree of involvement. Klarm768 (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem - I'd rather no-one had to waste time manually formatting that TOC if they can be doing something more fun. Not least as if you had manually formatted using those templates, you'd have to start over now it turns out there are technical limitations on the length of the generated code!

What do you use for audio playback of text? It should be possible to download text from a Wikisource page and read it out somehow, but I'm not that familiar with TTS systems. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 21:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

{{ping|Inductiveload} MS Word uses Windows "Narrator". It amazes me how many OCR errors slip by me with visual-only proofing, e.g. "be" for "he" and vice versa. On the other hand, I fail to discover many capitalization/spelling/punctuation discrepancies when using auditory-only. (I wish it could read as if it were a person dictating for transcription.) Auditory had been my primary method because it involves comprehension much more than the visual only method. Within the the past 4 months I obsessively proof everything both ways when using MS Word... and I've heard all these works in the past 4 months. Klarm768 (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Have you tried a Text-to-Speech plugin for your browser? I just got good results with https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-text-to-speech/ for Firefox which can use both the HTML5 voices (sounds a bit rough) or Google (sounds lovely). Google Chrome probably has even better ones, as the Chrome HTML5 voices are the Google ones.

It's a little bit slow, and it doesn't read the markup very well, or, as you say, capitals. I might one day have a go at converting markup to dictation-form. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 23:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

{{ping|Inductiveload} Thanks. [Alas! My life is rather isolated. Once I was on the bleeding edge (my server had a 40meg SCSI drive, a meg of RAM, and arcnet network).] Just now acquired a Chrome extension (TTSReaderX) and am very impressed. Numerous excellent voices and speeds. Who knows what else I'm missing. Klarm768 (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Naming sections within Ferrier's Works Volume 3 "Philosophical Remains" (1883 ed.).djvu

@Inductiveload: It will be a while before I transclude the first segment... but some naming convention could be shared to keep each segment recognizable as belonging together and/or distinguishable from those belonging to another edition. Any best practice advice? Klarm768 (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

All the sections should be subpages of the volume page. In this case: Philosophical Works of the Late James Frederick Ferrier/Volume 3 (which is the 1875 1883 edition). If we ever get another edition transcribed, that can be replaced by a {{versions}} page, and the subpage tree can be moved to something like Philosophical Works of the Late James Frederick Ferrier, 2nd ed./Volume 3. If you know you will be transcribing multiple editions, you could move the pages to fit that scheme now, but generally we don't bother disambiguating until we really have two versions (it's pretty rare to have multiple editions, as it's not a very attractive proposition to proofreaders to do all the work over again, and many editions don't have groundbreaking differences). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 21:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: Perhaps I misunderstand to what you refer, but I am working from Ferrier's Works Volume 3 "Philosophical Remains" (1883 ed.).djvu which says 1883 "New Edition" ... I think 1st ed. was 1866. 2nd was 1875. 3rd was 1881. Basically, I gather that my the concerns are unnecessary... all offsprings' DNA evidence irrevocably points to file&index from which they are transcluded... i.e as herein named. Klarm768 (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to confuse, 1875 is our Volume 1. As you say, this Volume 3 is 1883. You can put more details about this specific edition in the notes field of the header of Philosophical Works of the Late James Frederick Ferrier/Volume 3. Basically, for a scan-backed work, the mainspace top-level page that transcludes it is bound to some specific edition (i.e. a single incarnation of the text as published).

In the case of multiple editions, we use {{versions}} on a page which relates to the work (which has multiple editions). Each edition has its own mainspace page, and as you say, is associated with a scan of that specific edition. In the case of a work with only one edition, the mainspace page represents the work too, but only because maintaining a separate page for it would be unwieldy when 99% of them would be almost empty.

I don't know what the general consensus is on proactively creating {{versions}} pages for works when further proofread editions are not forthcoming. As far as I am aware, there is some uncertainty about how the work/edition ontology is handled both here and at Wikidata, but it's an area of ongoing development.

In summary, don't worry about it too much, you won't be able to "mix up" editions within a single mainspace subtree without a very deliberate attempt to do so, and we will be able to deal sensibly with other editions in future should they appear. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 01:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: I have the pages completed for the first title in Volume 3. My attempt at transclusion resulted in Error: No such index. Does the TOC have something to do with this? Creating 1883 Vol 3 001-258 An Introduction to the Philosophy of Consciousness {{header | title = An Introduction to the Philosophy of Consciousness | author = James Frederick Ferrier | translator = | section = | previous = | next = | year = 1883 | notes = Philosophical Remains, Philosophical Works of the Late James Frederick Ferrier (1883 ed., Vol. 3). (E. L. Lushington, & A. Grant, Eds.) Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons. }} <pages index="Ferrier's Works Volume 3 "Philosophical Remains" (1883 ed.).djvu" from="11" to="268" /> Klarm768 (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I have seen this. It's because of the quotes in the file name confusing the <pages/> tag - it thinks you put "Ferrier's Works Volume 3 " as the index name. Escape the quotes like this:

<pages index="Ferrier's Works Volume 3 &quot;Philosophical Remains&quot; (1883 ed.).djvu" include=7 />

I try to avoid any "special" characters in page titles for this reason, though really only quotes and maybe ampersand, braces, pipes (|) and square brackets have any potential to upset the parser, and them probably only in unusual situations. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 12:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: Thanks for your reply/help. It makes me crazy when I'm paralyzed like this. The naming thing goes all the way back to uploading, right? Renaming is not a practical choice at this point, right? This is the mental state I wanted to prevent by establishing a naming convention. I've learned something that will stick with me.

Also... Please tell me about include=7 in your pages index line. Does that point to something I need to know about? I've always pointed to the literal pages of the image file. Klarm768 (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Re. renaming: it can be done - but you'd have to move the file at Commons, the Index page and all Page: pages. It's not so hard, but there's no real damage except remembering to escape the quotes in the wikitext, so I'm inclined to leave it. If it does cause any problems, we can deal with it later.

Re include=7, that just means the same as from=7 to=7. You can also use it for disjoint page ranges: include="2-5,9". More details at Help:Transclusion#Using_the_.3Cpages.2F.3E_function. There's no harm in using "from" and "to" exclusively if you prefer that. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 13:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Volume 3 Index Problem

@Inductiveload: (I would try to honor your days off if I knew when they occur.) I have created an error, but I seem to be blind as to cause or remediation. My outer objective is to create individual spaces (documents) with which to populate the Vol_3 TOC (your creation of which I much appreciate). I thought that would be easier to keep straight if I could "see" finer-grained contents in the index.To that purpose I edited the pagelist within THE INDEX. Initially I was pleased with the result and was proceeding post haste until I prepared to create the space for Lecture on Imagination, 1847. For some reason many of the page numbers displayed are not what I expect to see. They should be sequential (and in fact they are when clicked) but they display thus 515 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536. I've attempted to stare-down that pagelist several times, but so far it refuses to obey. I would appreciate assistance with this... even if nobody else would ever discover it. Klarm768 (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC) 

I have no idea why that wasn't working. It seems to have been fixed by also adding the next page in the page list. No idea why it was needed.

With respect to the naming for the Volume 3 works, why have you placed the chapters in the mainspace as separate "top level" titles, rather than under the "Title/Volume" subpage system? They used to be something like "Philosophical Works of the Late James Frederick Ferrier/Volume 3/Introduction to the Philosophy of Consciousness", but you have used "Vol 3 1883 pp 1-258 An Introduction to the Philosophy of Consciousness". This isn't really a suitable way to lay it out, as firstly it doesn't say what it's Volume 3 of and secondly, it's not keeping parts of the same book in the same subpage tree.

Works at WS are normally arranged as subpages representing either a single book or a series of volumes. The point of using subpages is too keep material from the same book together. Also, there is a place for the "Volume 3" front matter (i.e. Philosophical Works of the Late James Frederick Ferrier/Volume 3). It also allows searching within a series or volume. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 15:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: As far as the naming for the Volume 3 works, I basically do not grasp the Title/Volume subpage system. I should have taken the effort to describe why a naming convention is important to me. I want to name things making allowance for the way that the books evolved/devolved. So now I start over:

There are three large volumes printed posthumously. While Ferrier was living, his Institutes were printed; Ed_1 (1854) and then Ed_2 (1856) with corrections/amendations. Today The Institutes is commonly referred to as 'Volume I whether its edition was printed alone or in combination. After his death the "Lectures on Greek Philosophy" and "Philosophical Remains" were printed (today commonly so-called Volume II & III). Within these two posthumous anthologies, one will find that "Greek Philosophy" is ascribed as the 'First Volume' and "Philosophical Remains" as the 'Second Volume'—whereupon reader confusion—hence the LARGE hand-written question-mark above the title of the TOC which you created. There are at least 3 editions of these "first" & "second" volumes which are today commonly known as Volume II and Volume III. With each edition there were edits/amendations. My preference would be to use only the 1888 edition, since it should contain all the words in the earlier editions. As to that 1888 edition, I so far have only discovered the "Greek Lectures" (aka Volume II, aka the First Volume); and it is available only as a Google PDF. From that issue, I am currently beginning to assemble pages into THE INDEX.

To sort the ingredients in descending order of useful discrimination: #1—YEAR OF PUBLICATION (later = better); #2—MAIN-CONTENT TITLE (i.e.Institutes..., ...Greek..., ..Remains); #3—VOLUME# BY COMMON USAGE (I,II,III or 1,2,3); #4—LITERAL TITLE (i.e. Philosophical Works of the Late James F...&c.); #5—LITERAL_EDITION# (since the three volumes' edition #s are never in sync for any year's publication). How about something like this: Works_of_JF_Ferrier/Common_Content_Title_+_Common_Vol#/Publication_Year :—e.g. Works of JF Ferrier/Institutes of Metaphysic, aka Volume I/1883 Edition. Do you find it conceivable that such a schema can work with your notions? I wouldn't mind rebuilding the Philosophical_Remains_Volume_III segments if this would help... Then maybe I'll come to understand the Title/Volume subpage system. Klarm768 (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The point of the Title/Volume/Section system is to avoid spreading parts of a single work (single or multiple volumes) around in the mainspace, but rather have them "contained" under a single parent page. This is helpful because, at least:

• It's organisationally "tidier" to not spread a single work out amongst many mainspace pages
• There's a clear "entry point" to the work, i.e. the top level page. This is where Author: page, Portal: pages and links from other
• Pages can be moved or otherwise maintained along with all their subpages more easily than a set of isolated top level pages
• You can search within a given page and its subpages, which you can't do when the chapters are all top level pages. For example, search for "philosophy prefix:Blackwood's Magazine" to find pages containing "philosophy", but only in any edition of Blackwood's. The same will apply here.
• You can use relative linking from a subpage to a child, sibling or parent page [[../]], [[/child]], [[../sibling]] without having to repeat the title of the parent page (good for maintainability)

Now, I think the problem you might be having is to try to shoehorn all your bibliographical data into a title. A Wikisource page title only has to uniquely identify that (sub)page on the Wiki and position the page under the right parent. It doesn't have to contain the author, date or edition, unless that's needed to disambiguate between two different editions hosted at WS. Chapter subpages also don't need their page ranges in the title. All this information can be added in the header notes as needed, along with editorialising of the nuances like you detailed above. Author and Portal pages can be used for organisation of disjoint works into collections. See Author:Florence Earle Coates for an excellently maintained Author page.

For this work, I'd recommend that you detail the nuances of the volume naming for this work on the top level parent page for the whole series, for all editions, at Philosophical Works of the Late James Frederick Ferrier. Then, since the volume number is a bit cryptic in this case, maybe just use the name, and add the year and/or edition if you expect to add more than one edition of the same volume

• Philosophical Works of the Late James Frederick Ferrier
  • Philosophical Works of the Late James Frederick Ferrier/Institutes of Metaphysic (188X)
    • Philosophical Works of the Late James Frederick Ferrier/Institutes of Metaphysic (188X)/Introduction
    • ....

For the original Institutes, they're not part of Philosophical Works of the Late James Frederick Ferrier, they are a separate top level work. You can still reference them from the "Philosophical Works" series as "prior art".

• Institutes of Metaphysic
  • Institutes of Metaphysics/Introduction
  • ....

This all quite a screed, but really, most of the naming is not that important, except that all the content of a physical book or set should be descendants of a single parent page. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 09:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Volume 3: Back-up!! I'm so lost.

@Inductiveload: I went to undo my revision of your TOC of Ferrier's Works Volume 3 "Philosophical Remains" (1883 ed.) But I lost my nerve. Please reset it back where you had it. I don't understand enough to do it. I don't understand the meaning and relation between "top level page" "Author: page," "Portal:page". Please delete my improperly created Volume 3 top level pages. There's too much of the above post which I don't understand. I would like to just go back to creating pages but I suspect I screwed up in naming the uploaded volume II file and its index. Klarm768 (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. I have not restored to how it was - I have used the volume names and years to hopefully make it easier to explain how these works fit together. The top level pages have been moved to subpages, and with the links in the TOC updated, everything should continue to work. Hopefully what I have done will make sense, and will fit with what you expect of the work?

Volume 2's PDF appears to all be in order, and I have made a place for it in the mainspace at Philosophical Works of the Late James Frederick Ferrier/Lectures on Greek Philosophy (1888), with the front matter. You don't need to create separate mainspace pages for TOCs, they normally just go on the main page of the work they refer to.

I'd like the take the opportunity to say how impressed I am with the extent of your proofreading of these works. I'm sorry if I've made it hard for you, I'm just trying to get it so that your hard work can be shown off to best effect as a cohesive piece of Wikisource. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 23:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: Thank you. Such encouragement is especially valuable to me right now. Perhaps the proofing of which I am most proud is in Lectures on Greek Philosophy... which pages I am doing now. I was very nearly a Greek major 45 years ago and the pronunciations still roll off my tongue and definitions refresh with usefulness. For any reader without such background it must be painful. If it were Chinese characters I could never arrive at a cogent thought. Overall the typesetters did an amazing job with the Greek. It's hard for me not to correct their errors, e.g. the last line of page 71 Thank you for all your help. Klarm768 (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Starting a new page with a new paragraph

Just a heads up, adding a new line at the beginning of the page doesn't produce the desired effect. You either want to add a {{nop}} at the end of the previous page, or a <br /> at the beginning of the first page. I think most people use {{nop}} and I'm not sure if there are any weird problems with <br />, one of your edits IIRC was the first time I encountered that, but it seems to work. Prosody (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Greek text

In pages like this one, I've noticed that you're putting the Greek text in bold and italics. However, the Greek is neither bolded nor italicized in the original. It looks a little like it's italicized, but it's not. That's just the standard 19th-century font for Greek, and italicizing languages like Greek just makes them harder to read in a modern electronic format. Bolding has a similar effect, since it makes the diacritics less pronounced and harder to distinguish. Greek text is seldom actually bolded; the apparent change in style is the result of the shift from a Latin-style font to a Greek one in the text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Do you read Greek? Klarm768 (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I've been the editor here primarily doing Ancient Greek drama. I'm not fluent reading it, but the writing is no challenge for me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I tried it sans bold, sans italic, bold alone, italic alone. If I were reading Sophocles, perhaps I would prefer it plain. In Ferrier's works the Greek is seldom more than a phrase surrounded by English text, and therein I think the plain characters looked anemic. There are 400 paired entries to reverse in the volume I just completed. Perhaps you can write a script to delete them all. I hope you would agree that it should be all or none. I have neither the skills nor will to accomplish it. Klarm768 (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't write scripts, as I don't have the skills either. I would agree that working back through 400 entries would be a lot of work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Volume 1 TOC

Hi, I have done the Volume 1 TOC, which is in action at Philosophical Works of the Late James Frederick Ferrier/Institutes of Metaphysic (1875). I have reluctantly given up on being able to achieve the dot leaders, as the code that's needed to produce each row like that is too verbose to repeat so many times without upsetting the Mediawiki software. Sorry about that.

I have linked the Propositions, and the "extra" sections, but not the individual points as I think that's just a lot of work to place the {{anchor}}s throughout the work just for a slightly more clickable TOC. I am done now with auto-generated TOC content, so feel free to edit all the pages as you see fit. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 03:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: Certainly I would never have been able to address the TOC of any of these works on my own. I can see how much better they make the end-products. Thanks for persevering in spite of my quirkiness. I haven't yet come to grasp what linking is about although I suspect I'm using it all the time. Volume 1 is going to be more work than the other two combined. Without your help, I could never have figured out how to even get close. Klarm768 (talk) 08:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Linking is just using [[square brackets]] to make a clickable link. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 10:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Volume 1 Other

@Inductiveload: I just ran a first-draft of Sec_3 Prop_11. See it here. From this experiment, I conclude that side-note-final-production-appearance MUST take precedence over individual-page-appearance. In the side-notes, I have not discovered a way to center content or use {{rule}}. Using spacing looks bad in final production. Your advice is needed RE: adopting a volume-wide-policy. Klarm768 (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the "Prop XI" sidenotes can actually be skipped, as they are page-based reminders of what Proposition is currently being read. A bit like Running Headers, they don't add anything to the find work in the main namespace. Therefore, I think they can safely be put in the "header" field and not transcluded to the mainspace, which will simplify things a little (plus take the pressure off for getting formatting exactly right). Eg: this page. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 10:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I also started using "x-smaller" font in side-notes because ran out of room on individual pages. After transclusion, space is less an issue and that font looks too small. I will switch to "smaller" instead. Furthermore I propose presuming you concur unless you say otherwise. I will start with end of Prop_11 where you can review for an opinion. I am hoping this might spare you one call-back. Klarm768 (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I collided with what you were doing. When I tried copying the side-note to the header it still showed up in situ and I presumed it would also show up in transclusion... everything's an experiment for me still. Klarm768 (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

{{smaller}} looks like the right choice to me.

Sometimes, it takes a few minutes for the mainspace pages to update after changing the transcluded pages. If you see older page content in the mainspace, it's often that. It's to do with how the Wikisource server caches the pages. There are settings in your preferences under "Gadgets" to add control to enable a forcible "purge" of the cached pages, which should update content to the newest version. It looks like all the "Prop XI." sidenotes have now been omitted from the mainspace. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 13:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I decided against Prop.#-side-notes-in-the-header. On certain pages there is another note immediately following the Prop#. In that case, the two notes became superimposed. The only users who will see my ugly Prop#headerline will be there to edit or perhaps to inspect the original image content. Klarm768 (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: As you have noticed, I am working backward through Vol_1. I mistakenly presumed I understood out how to properly populate "previous" and "next." When I got to Sec_3 Prop_1 mistakes were made. I'll try to read help pages... but I currently don't understand and may have left some wreckage on the highway. Klarm768 (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see any wreckage, all looks OK to me! For a link to a "sibling" or "cousin" page of a subpage (i.e. a page with a "/" in the title), you do them like this, using "relative" linking. This avoids having to repeat the shared parts of the link title (and this will work even if the pages are all moved as a unit to a different parent page). Imagine we are on page "Work/Section 1/Prop 1":

[[../]]                    <-- the parent page: this points to Work/Section 1
[[../../]]                 <-- the grandparent page: this points to Work
[[../Prop 2/]]              <-- a sibling: this points to Work/Section 1/Prop 2
[[../../Section 2/Prop 5/]] <-- a cousin (child of parent's sibling): this points to Work/Section 2/Prop5
[[/Subprop 1/]]             <-- a child: this points to Work/Section 1/Prop 1/Subprop 1

As for any link, you can use a "pipe" ("|") to provide a different visible link text, which might be needed depending on how deep you are in the subpage hierarchy and where you are linking to.

In your case, to traverse from Section 3/Proposition 1 to Section 2/Proposition 8, you needed the following link: [[../../Section 2/Proposition 8|Section 2, Proposition 8]]. That is to say:

• ../: go up to parent (Section 3)
• ../: go to parent's parent (the main work)
• /Section 2: go back down to Section 2
• /Proposition 8: go down to Section 2/Proposition 8

and use the given link text. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 15:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: I tripped on a snag. A better solution may be available. Right here (transition from pages 156 to 157 in Sec_1 Prop_6) I would rather not leave a gap due to new-line-break as I simulate a hanging-indent extending across a page break... complicated by Font-size-other-than-default and Hyphenated-page-break-word. Otherwise very pleased with my progress and very thankful for your TOC contribution.Klarm768 (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Many "block" templates, {{hanging indent}} included, have "/s" and "/e" parts which can be used to split across page boundaries. See Template:Hanging_indent#Spanning_multiple_pages for details. The same technique works for {{block center}}. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: I have finished creating pages. I edited and tested all the "previous" and "next" fields. Are there other measures which you recommend?

I intended to work on the hanging indent problem and discovered that you repaired it. Even with the help page and your note, I never would have accomplished what you did. The use of header and footer areas surprised me.

I can readily imagine how much poorer my whole project would have turned out without your structure and rescues. Thank you.

(I intend to clean up my poetry-article methodology.... but maybe not right away.) Klarm768 (talk) 12:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Tying It Together

@Inductiveload: My Ferrier stuff has grown more complicated since last we "spoke." Let me know when you are available for consultation.

• I discovered a previously untapped resource... from which I have extracted many non-duplicate Ferrier compositions. Total-word-count is not large, but Ferrier-Work-total-count basically doubled. "Ferrier's Works" will need re-organizing. I doubt finding any more such discoveries. "Articles" from single 3_volume publication? Klarm768 (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Addendum- (SINCE YESTERDAY'S NOTE) Once upon a time... you wrote "You could also make a interposer mainspace page..." I had hoped that I could learn what that was in the help pages, but I believe it may be only found in your private dictionary. You explained something about it but that was when most of the explanation went over my head. Since yesterday I believe I have discovered the translation. See if this qualifies as an "interposer": (1875).

• (1876) Biographical Contributions to The Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography, 1876 ed. as found on Ferrier's page. Whether I still miss the translation, I am very pleased with how it works. It is gratifying when one solves one's difficulties without help, but I never would have managed this without all the times you have helped. I hope you are having a very restful and satisfying season. Klarm768 (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Needing to get you to align to existing styles

It looks as though the community has not been giving you good guidance on the existing community standard, nor it would seem adequately patrolling your contributions to the main namespace to align with the existing standards we have been using for biographical works. I don't have the opportunity to do much at the moment, though will get to parts of this over the next few days. Some points though.

1. We use standard case, not a string of capitals for works and subpages, unless it requires full capitals
2. Author contributions go on author pages; we reserve the main namespace for the published works themselves, not our curating constructs.
3. {{header}} template with biographical works should retain the parent work in the title, and the article name in the section; and noting that we have relative links to allow for more seamless navigation through a work (more in Wikisource:Style guide).

To assist with standardising and simply making things easier, we make use of templates to list works, and the like. I will construct some for the works in place, though I will need to have a look at the work first to better understand the intricacies of what will be needed. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Thank you for your input. I Although I have spent quite a few hours in the wikisource pages, I've only been here a couple months. Much of the vocabulary still stumps me. As far as the items you listed above, they are a blur... no pictures precipitate from the descriptions. I think I could comply with the preferred usage if I could follow a link to a page in which I have demonstrated the flaw... If I could then read a description, I believe my specimens might evolve quickly to belong to a proper wikisource species. Klarm768 (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: I think that I am figuring out how to make use of notifications... so I, perhaps, am accomplishing at least part of what I sought in the previous comment by observing the changes being applied. You note above helps with the 'why.' Klarm768 (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I have lots of questions. I fear wearing-out-my-welcome. Without a 'degree-planner' guiding, I'm probably making a lot of poor choices.

1. Right now I'm investigating The Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography 1876 ed. as a possible long-term project. (There is a wikipedia page about the earlier edition, and I don't know whether that would be a place to start.)

2. The 1876 ed. list of contributors varies volume-to-volume (and unfortunately a few descriptions and identifiers vary as well). They are often not arranged alphabetically.

3. My composite spreadsheet currently indicates 232 unique contributors. Many of them already exist as wikisource Authors. Many of them are DNB contributors. Some of them are subjects of DNB. Some are Wikipedia subjects. Some are clearly discoverable online but have no wiki identity. Some have proved not-yet-discoverable except in that 1876 ed. list of contributors; i.e., no death date, no birth date. Then there's one whom I may have found in the 1881 UK Census...

I don't know how to calculate the cost because I don't know how to efficiently approach the project. "Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won't you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it?" Klarm768 (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:Ferrier's listings were altered to comply with wikisource norms... uglier, inconsistent, and full of dead-end links;
but at least the list is no longer empty as when I started two months ago
and at least the picture was not changed back to some 18th Century music critic like it had been for many years.
But it was totally compliant with wikisource standards before I messed it up. Klarm768 (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Apologies, life and time critical tasks gets in the way of contributions at times, and some responses. WS:S and WS:Scriptorium/Help are truly the best places to ask questions and you will not outdo a welcome. We do try to be a helpful community. In fact we try to get in early and assist as you learn to edit, rather than having to recover. We should be patrolling your edits and offering advice. Often it is easier to answer questions one by one rather than try and have a string of answers after a string of questions, so it is not problem to just put them out there.

Re contributors and identifying them, if they are readily identifiable then we do so, and we have done many as you have seen. If less known then put research and identified info on the author talk page, and we can work from there. We have plenty of tracking categories for authors and able to find those needing work. My people research skills in the Anglo-world are pretty good, and I did many of the DNB contribs.

Don't fuss any mistakes made, or differences from style that have been made, it is completely manageable. Where you see I have updated, so if that makes sense and that you can follow. With some of the works added, I have converted the author pages to a template form, and this makes it easier to do, and easier to update.

Re IDUB, the thing to remember is that we work on editions of works, not the creative idea of a work. So that means we can have multiple copies of the same work if they are different editions/versions. With IDUB it seems that you are working on the 1876 edition and we can set up for that. There are numerous examples of biographical works around, and the DNB seems pretty good comparatively for IDUB. I will try to do some preparatory work to assist, though does take a little time to understand a work to give the best advice, and obviously in among a range of tasks. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Hello. I have spent the past 18 months making a careful inventory of IDUB Contributors/Signatories and Contributions/Segments. Now I need to choose how best to proceed.

The list of Signatories is partly identifiable in the "List of Contributors" in each Volume. I could create a number of new Author-pages from information retrieved along the way. I do not know whether or to what degree of certainty disambiguation of Signatories is permitted within Wikisource. For example, if contributions are signed "E. F. R." and "E. F., R." but only "E. F., R." appears in a "List of Contributors," is there a proper method for ascribing both signatures to one Author/Signatory? Or should one remain unidentifiable?

I have a created titles for each segment of the 3 Volumes. I know now that they need to be compliant with community standards. I could submit the list (part or whole) if audit/review is a good idea.

I observe today that there is a problem with a link from Author:Plotinus but I do not know how to remedy it. I am rusty at Wikisource and I don't understand the templates being used to link to IDUB, but I want to understand and use best practices and apply best remedies before I start publishing more pages.

Would you advise me on sound strategic approach and where to invest my efforts next? Klarm768 (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

No requirement for volumes, no need to replicate that artefact, we can just build a straight list; I have moved the article.

With regard to contributors, it is a bit of a hack. Poke your eyes into the Wikisource:DNB. We have the author page template template:DNB contributor and then we have the article footers template:DNB footer initials. If they have variations in use, I would have to think about how we would cater for that, though not tonight, tooooo late for that thinking. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Empty pages

Wikisource supports published texts. "Works" that consist of nothing but a title in the header, with no actual content, are habitually deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Thanks. I've been away from Wikisource authoring for a few months and stumbling on how to proceed. I uploaded a PDF to wikicommons but can't remember what to do to turn it into a "work". Your help is welcomed.Klarm768 (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I would need more information to assist. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Filenamed "Is James Frederick Ferrier More-Likely-Than-Not the Author of Jean Paul.pdf" I can't remember how to predict what happens with brackets in place of quotation marks.Klarm768 (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The file is identified as an original work. Original works are generally not hosted on Wikisource. See Wikisource:WWI: "must have been published in a medium that includes peer review or editorial controls". --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Conversation moved from Scriptorium

@Ineuw: I have a feeling that printing this had nothing to do wanting to see "a page or two." Spreadsheets don't "parse" as pages. My current interpretation of your words is that the spreadsheet-relevant-to-a-couple-pages-of-IDUB is what you wanted to see. I hate building tables in Wikisource. I created a screenshot of the spreadsheet corresponding to the but don't know how to display it here. I'll go try to learn whether I can. Klarm768 (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I was referring to tables of Indexes and Contents in a spreadsheet, which can be converted into a wiki table. — Ineuw (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Imperial Dictionary Table design corrected and simplified

@Klarm768: Please look at this and examine both the structure and the data. Some pointers:

1. Section codes and anchors begin with a character. I moved the last character in front of the number.
2. The column Volume3b is not necessary. This information should be part of the header and not repeated in every row. — Ineuw (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

IDUB Contributors

@Ineuw: RE: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Contributors_to_the_Imperial_Dictionary_of_Universal_Biography

I would like to enroll as "Authors" any IDUB contributors whose names do not yet so exist. I seek to define a complete, clean, reliable list, whose membership deserve designation Category:Contributors_to_the_Imperial_Dictionary_of_Universal_Biography .

In January 2018 there seem to have been numerous members "added Category:Contributors to the Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography using HotCat" which for the most part have more complete naming than the IDUB "Lists of Contributors." Thus the source of these names seems to have reliability worthy of respect but the origin is a mystery to me. Billinghurst seems to have been involved but I'm not sure to what extent.

On the other hand I also find these names among "Contributors to the Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography" whose contributions are NOT found in IDUB.

• Author:Henry Glassford Bell
• Author:Alexander Herzen
• Author:Norman Macleod
• Author:John Gorham Palfrey
• Author:Digby Pilot Starkey ("Digby P. Starkey" appears in "List of Contributors" for Volumes 1 & 2 but no signature is discoverable in text)
• Author:Hugh Stowell (There is a Volume 3 listed "Rev. Canon Stowell, Manchester" but no "Hugh.")

It is conceivable that they all do deserve membership... possibly contributing under these "orphan" signatures:

• S. C.
• B. C.
• D.
• T. I.
• A. C. S.
• T. B., C.
• E.
• R.
• W. C.
• D. R.
• F.
• R.
• H. B—y.
• G.
• H.

I would appreciate advice/guidance assigning IDUB designation and any other remarks relevant to my defining a complete, clean, reliable list. 10:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Index pages

You cannot use a "?" for a page number on an index page. It breaks the software. It is not necessary to "name" every image; simple identifying image pages with "Image", "Img", or "Plate" is sufficient. There function like page numbers when the work is transcluded. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, page labels like "GLADSTONE" are much too long. When the work is transcluded, this will appear in the margin as the page number, and will overlap into the text. Page labels whould always be kept short, seldom more than 4 or 5 characters long. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Links in Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography

Hi. I do admire your extensive work at the Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography! I just wanted to ask if you could consider adding links when the dictionary entry refers to another entry, such as when SINA-IBN refers to Avicenna, although the link would be red in this stage. Another kind of links to consider are links to author pages from the authors’ initials at the end of some entries, as it is being done e. g. in our transcriptions of Britannica articles. What do you think? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the kind comment. The short answer is "YES!" I have been picturing exactly what you describe since I began this project. The links which you would wish for will require a destination "Title". I estimate another year to finish the final text-proof-reading. My current TOC list requires 22,682 unique titles, which is a challenge of its own. Of those titles, 1,062 are re-directs. Then within the text perhaps another 2000 IDUB-references are made... e.g See Fiamingo, Il.... or q.v. ... I want to get the destination titles perfect before I even begin adding such links... otherwise repairs will be worse than the original links. Do you agree? Klarm768 (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: I'm seldom work in this environment.. confused whether I should have pinged... Klarm768 (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, no problem :-) Keep up the good work, I am looking forward to the final result! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: It appears that the Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography is being taken over by other parties. My involvement is seemingly not worthy of participation. For now I will abandon the final proof-reading... likewise hundreds of hours toward the TOC and links you mention. I don't understand but I can only gather that I am now irrelevant. Klarm768 (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, it’s a pity. WS is a collaborative project and so it necessarily sometimes happens that a contributor does not manage to make things in their way and has to make make compromises or sometimes their opinion can be voted out completely. My only advice is not to get discouraged by that. And if you feel really strong about something, you can ask for more opinions at Scriptorium too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: When I first started (2018) I received lots of help... which someone else dismissed from further assistance. Since then you have been practically the only encouraging voice.

but too late... I AM discouraged... treated as worthless. If the boss doesn't care to explain why you're fired, can talking to the community lead anywhere except cancellation? 10:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Although all the pages are categorized as "proof read" I find errors on almost every page in my "final" pass. Klarm768 (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: Since my most recent note here I have "proof read" again every page. In addition, I have applied re-direct links to the author signatures for which I have sound reasons for linking. I do not care to track down and redirect all the qv type of redirects. (Thank you for your advice to my question about the orphan-signature R.) I have many hundreds of hours invested in the fields for Table of Contents. I do not possess the knowledge of how to compile all those entries and transclude all the pages from the TOC. I'm sure it will require significant preparation effort. I would like someone to take that task... You seem to be the closest thing I have to a "fan." Would you be interested? Klarm768 (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You have my deep respect for such a huge amount of work! I apologize that I cannot help as I have a lot of other work ahead and I would not have enough time for that all. I am really sorry. However, I am sure you will find willing contributors if you ask at WS:Scriptorium. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes... I'm sure that someone's been assigned... who never bothers to converse... whose hundred of edits each require my repair... I will never turn my 25,747 TOC entries over to that person... He can build it himself. Klarm768 (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)