User talk:Pathore

Welcome

Welcome

Hello, Pathore, 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
• 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.

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! Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

per cent.

That's not a typo. That's how it used to be spelled, as an abbreviation of Latin per centum. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

So it was abbreviated with an included period in some texts? I've seen "per cent" as two words, but not with a period after the "cent" before. Pathore (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I've seen it that way in several Victorian-age texts that we've edited here. For example, see the footnote on this page, which was part of a PotM a while back. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been on Wikisource that long. Is {{sic}} appropriate for this, then? According to the documentation, the {{sic}} template only appears in edit view, as a note to other editors that the indicated text matches the source, even if it looks odd. After all, "per cent." in the middle of a sentence does look wrong to a modern reader (and spurious periods are not an uncommon OCR error) but it is a faithful transcription of the original. Pathore (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The {{sic}} should be used when there is an apparent error that a future editor is likely to try to correct, but where either the correct text is unknown or the error is not really an error. It could be used in this instance, and there is editorial license allowed in such cases. The template after all does not alter the display of the text, but appears only in the edit window. For text that truly is in error, and where the correction is known, it is possible to use {{SIC}} instead. That template would not be appropriate here, since the text is not an error but an obsolete form of the phrase. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Curious

Hi Pathore, I see that on Page:NIOSH Hazard review of Carbonless Copy Paper.pdf/19 you used "noinclude" in the body, rather than in the header. I've generally put stuff like that in the header before, but never considered putting it in the body. Is there a reason to do one or the other, or is it an unimportant detail/personal preference? Thanks, -Pete (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Those are different things. The headers (and footers) are never included when the pages are transcluded together for the final work, so <noinclude></noinclude> is useless in those boxes. The page bodies are processed as with any other Wiki page. The details get technical, but I will try to explain:

I've used partial transclusion to allow a table that spans pages in the original work to end up as a single table on Wikisource. Since transclusion is processed before wikitables are parsed, I've wrapped some bits of wikitable syntax in <noinclude></noinclude> so that the tables will display properly on the individual pages, but should render as a single table when the pages are put together. Look at the Table of Contents on the index page to see this in action. The TOC is transcluded from pages 10, 11, 12, and 13. It is the most complex because I've duplicated the layout of the original. A simpler example is the list of tables on pages 14 and 15, although there I've arranged for a single table cell to be pasted together from parts on each of two pages. The Abbreviations table is split cleanly on rows across pages 17, 18, and 19. Looking at all three and at Wikipedia's help page for partial transclusion should make it all make sense, I hope.

Now that I think about it, I suppose that those bits of table formatting could technically have gone in the header and footer boxes, but I don't think of those as places to put bits of wikimarkup that are associated with the actual page text. In another view it's a sort of future-proofing: ensure that everything logically part of the page body goes in the "body" box and there can be no worries about a future version of the software somehow trying to parse the header and footer separately. I'll try to answer any other questions about this you have, although I'm still somewhat new to Wikisource. Pathore (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Index:NIOSH Hazard review of Carbonless Copy Paper.pdf

The text 'half' is proofread, want to take on the tables? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time right now, but I'll do it some time soon. That big table starting on page 76 looks ... involved. Pathore (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Done @ShakespeareFan00: The big tables are ready for proofreading. Pathore (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Commons

I was skimming back over the Scriptorium discussion about the Eddington book, and saw your comment about possibly needing something renamed over at Commons... FYI, I'm a file mover there, so if you give me a poke about something (might get a faster responsea there) I can do it. Thanks for the TOC, btw, I'm actually 'enjoying' reading this work, and like I mentioned it's pretty fast to proof, the OCR is very good. I'm intending to run through the first read of the rest of it over the next couple of days. Revent (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)