User talk:JamAKiska

Hello, JamAKiska, 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! — billinghurst sDrewth 14:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you have an interest in the Dictionary of National Biography, then please stop past our Wikisource:WikiProject DNB page. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. On the DNB pages, hyphens used to break up words to fit the column format should be removed. This and other matters on how to treat the text can be found in Wikisource:WikiProject DNB/Style Manual, in Part A. Charles Matthews (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Removed and the word parts joined, was the intention. I have been through and edited Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 28.djvu/183. I also saw that you took some effort with the printer's binding annotations at the base of the page. We usually just delete them as we are not purist. If you wish to reproduce them we, would normally do that in the footer.

While talking header and footer, I am wondering whether you are seeing them. I recently did a note User talk:Daytrivia#The Mysterious Header button which explains this a little. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

In relation to a few cases of DNB disambiguation that have come up: I have tried to avoid "tacit" disambiguation where we would have two names, one of which is the initial part of another. Hence Gurney, Joseph John (DNB00)‎ implies that Gurney, Joseph (1804-1879) (DNB00)‎ needs further dates in the title. I feel this is more "secure": the reader is less likely to spend time looking at Gurney, Joseph (DNB00)‎ in error for the other one, if the dates are in the title. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I share your concern. Conversationally, I would refer to either individual as "Joseph Gurney" and would rely on context clues to help distinguish them for the audience. Within the DNB framework, (using the written form) the entire name shall be included in the link as with Grenville, Richard Temple Plantagenet Campbell Nugent Brydges Chandos (DNB00) (extremely rare exceptions noted). Following this specific guidance, neither you nor I would confuse "Gurney, Joseph John" for "Gurney, Joseph". Dates are mandatory (in the title link) only when articles have been written about two or more people with identical names, such as Milton, John (fl.1770)

Back to (y)our concern … If I were the reader looking for "Joseph Gurney (1744–1815)" and the only link available was "Gurney, Joseph (1804-1879)," my expectations would decline and possibly end my search at that point. If the page were labeled "Gurney, Joseph" instead, I would follow the link. Once on that page, I might discover additional hints to lead me to the desired material. In this case, the right link found at the top of the "Gurney, Joseph" page would take me to "Gurney, Joseph John". As currently constructed there are no clues to easily locate material on "Joseph Gurney (1744–1815)," as the redirect material found on Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 23.djvu/371 has not been included yet. If a new reader ("Newbie") stumbled to the TOC page, by chance, they would find additional clues to the desired material.

From my humble perspective, I see two options that would enhance the probability of success for this reader, either include a "disambiguation note" on the "Gurney, Joseph" page redirecting their search to the desired material, or add the connecting redirect page that includes material the original authors and editers felt important to share in the bound edition. Several volumes have already incorporated this latter approach using the redirect pages to "test the waters."

Along this tangent, it would also help readers locate material within a biography (especially lengthy articles) if notes at the top of the page indicated these supplemental biographies were included, as an example, see: Gurney, Thomas.

As an indicator of project completeness (accessibility), these redirect pages might be an interesting item to track statistically.JamAKiska (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've asked User:Arch dude to comment here, as the early writer of the manual material on disambiguation. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have opinions on everything. Some of my opinions might even be good ones. First issue: I think it is useful to add the dates to the "Guerney, Joseph" title.Y This does no harm and it can do some good. Second issue: sub-articles. Please see the new section that I will add below. We have discussed this before in a different context. -Arch dude (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest that the {{disambiguation}} page Joseph Gurney be prepared and list the relevant links to the DNB articles with {{DNB link}} and add any other relevant Joseph Gurney specific articles. For each page on the disambiguation page, I would be adding {{similar}} to the top. I would also consider creating Gurney, Joseph as a redirect to the other page. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

• So the precedent we are setting, as written by Arch dude, is the following...Henceforth, dates are mandatory for purposes of distinguishing DNB biographies when there are two or more people with identical names, be they written as articles or sub-articles. JamAKiska (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Upon further reflection, providing dates for Joseph Gurney may help clarify for the researcher to distinguish from Joseph John Gurney, which has been done extensively throughout.JamAKiska (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Many DNB biographies include "sub-articles" on a related person. We have not agreed on how to help the reader find these sub-articles. I think we need to first identify the problem or problems we are trying to solve.

I assume we are trying to help a reader find the sub-article given the name of its subject. If so, then we must ask how the reader would usually try to do this. If the reader uses a google search, then we probably do not need to do anything. If the reader tries to use the Wikisource search bar, and the user knows that many biograpnies use the "Lastname, Firstname" convention, then a redirect will help.

But what should the redirect target be? We can redirect to the parent article, but this can be confusing when the sub-article is at the end of a long parent article. We can redirect to an anchor at the start of the subarticle, but this is (somewhat) confusing because the header of the parent article is not displayed. I think we should consider a third option: an explanatory "redirect" page. This would be a page that explains the situation and gives links to the parent and to the subarticle, as follows.

The [[Dictionary of National Biography]] a [[Bloggs, Joe (DNB00)#Schmedlap, Harvey (fl.1200)|sub-article about Schmedlap, Harvey (fl.1200)]] is contained in the article about [[Bloggs, Joe (DNB00)|Bloggs, Joe]].

This of course would be generated by a template: {{DNB subarticle|Schmedlap, Harvey (fl.1200)|Bloggs, Joe}} and by an anchor tag in the Joe Bloggs article.

Related questions:

• since the DNB TOC pages are navigation constructs not intended to reproduce any part of the original, we are free to add references to the sub-articles in the correct alphabetical locations. Should we?
• The name of the sub-article may "ambiguate" an existing DNB article. Should this force a rename of that article?

Comments? -Arch dude (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Let's go with two examples as they illustrate the depth of the problem. "Joseph Gurney (1744–1815)" is listed separately as a sub-article of "Thomas Gurney" between two full articles on page 363 of volume 23. This situation appears to be the norm from my limited DNB experience thus far and is covered completely by your solution outlined above.

My WS search for Walter Hungerford only produced the two full-articles, while that for Joseph Gurney produced the page, currently named, "Joseph Gurney Disambiguation."

A more challenging situation awaits with six generations of Walter Hungerfords in volume 28. Unlike, Joseph, outside the two main articles, neither "Sir Walter (d. 1516)" nor "Sir Walter (1532–1596)" are mentioned. The researcher would have to read the article on Lord Hungerford of Heytesbury to find one sub-article on his own son, and an earlier passage that is clearly written for a geneologist in the 2nd line with link to the full article on Robert Hungerford that contains the 2nd sub-article on "Sir Walter (d. 1516)". Walter Hungerford will need to be modified, though it contains the key points for the reader. The best one in terms of completeness is one initiated by Charles on John Hughes, as it captures the full range of options, as best I can tell.

• In following your correct assumption from the 2nd paragraph there is only one possible answer...

• Since the link structures differ between an article and sub-article, technically they can be treated separately. However, the researcher would find it easier to distinguish them if the dates were included. Which is why there is also only one answer to this question...JamAKiska (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

As a follow-on clarifying question... what do we include within the category of sub-article? Vol. 22 page 2 article on Glover, George contains a qv to a William Peake, also an engraver. Only the surname is mentioned in his father's article "Sir Robert Peake". William's brother Robert is discussed in greater length. The link I constructed for this situation was to the article on the father (under 1 page in length). I suspect this topic is closely aligned with that of "blind links," discussed separately.JamAKiska (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

To speak first to definition of "sub-article": I believe that sub-articles are listed in the volume index page as separate entries; and that the person concerned is always then given in small caps in the main article. We are of course not in an advanced state with the volume index pages, having done only a few percent, where the volume ToCs are about 35% there as complete lists.

This does add another question: when we have the volume index page, it should be wikified, and the sub-article's link should also lead somewhere.

Of the solutions on offer, I would not want to exclude the anchor point within the article, however that is managed in conjunction with transclusion. The scope to link from outside to the sub-article will prove useful in referencing (internal to WS or otherwise). Charles Matthews (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Been done, all you have to do is add Template:documentation to whatever template page—between noinclude tags—and it is automatically added (transcluded). Note noinclude tags are written as ,<noinclude></noinclude>. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I don't know anything about complex templates, User:Charles Matthews may be able to help you. See also Wikisource:WikiProject DNB. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have just finished two templates on Wikipedia to link to DNB01 ("cite DNBSupp" and "DNBSupp"). Two of the demonstration links are to Busher, Leonard (DNB01) and Bucknill, John Charles (DNB01) neither of them have header formats and header parameters similar to those used on DNB00. I would like to change the header on DNB01 so that it is the same as that for DNB. I asked Charles Matthews about this on his Wikipedia talk page and he suggested I spoke to you. What do you think? -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll give kathleen wright5 a heads up and so we can have a public conversation I suggest we move the conversation to Template talk:DNB01 -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Template talk:DNB01Thanks Philip.

The displayed header resembles what {{DNB00}} currently produces, using the Data Fields found in both DNB00 and DNB01 templates:

article,previous,next,...

{{DNB01}} needs to be modified to generate this header format; with one adjustment...when the wikipedia title is entered on the wikipedia data field, there should only be one wiki link displayed.

The Supplement Navigation pages have been renamed to simplify the entry parameters in the logic statements of this template. As there are three volumes to the 1901 Supplement, the page titles do not contain a leading zero. JamAKiska (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

That would be good to do for the 2nd and 3rd volumes as a minimum.JamAKiska (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am aware that others are available. By comparison, these files stacked up fairly well to what we are currently working with, especially the 1st volume. Charles indicated he's help fill in any holes from his location.JamAKiska (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

That sounds like a great idea. JamAKiska (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

The purpose of {{talkback}} is to keep a discussion on the same page. As you started the discussion on my talk page, you can keep adding your comments there. In this scenario, you don't need to use {{talkback}} at all. In this scenario, it is me who would use {{talkback}}.

But, that said, this isn't something to be stressed about. ;-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

The duplicate Volume II & III are an improvement in terms of readability.JamAKiska (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Today in attempting to proofread I am seeing a totally black image when trying to edit instead of book scan. Just curious if you have heard of this problem before? Thanks. Daytrivia (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

When I have experienced that situation, it has been temporary in nature. Have not had time to isolate the situation yet. Try reloading the page a few times, if the system is running smoothly (if not patience is the key :^). You might want to check your browser settings as well. JamAKiska (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks much. Patience must be it. Better now. Daytrivia (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Reloading the page seems to work…even in the edit mode. The exception discovered to date is Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 23.djvu/282. JamAKiska (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The same thing is happening with me when I try to edit Page:Socialism in this Country.djvu/1, it's only one page. I'm using Firefox 3.6.12 --kathleen wright5 (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I can see your article in the read mode only using chrome. The image gets shy in the remaining view options. I went ahead and edited it, there may be a stray character or two... JamAKiska (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

When I tried to see the image it said - Error generating thumbnail. Error creating thumbnail: terminate called after throwing an instance of 'DJVU ::GException' pnmtojpeg: EOF/ read error reading magic number Do you know what this means? --kathleen wright5 (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I get the same message on my browser as well. Might be a good idea to post the question either at commons or Meta-Wiki if it were time sensitive. JamAKiska (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

As I am lazy and often need to have certain text to both be the anchor and to display, I created this template a while back. Hope that it is helpful. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank-you…I am sure it will come in handy later this week. I have my reservations on that "laziness" description. JamAKiska (talk) 10:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

03:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Your disambiguation page [1] is a very nice touch. Thank you. Daytrivia (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi and thanks for your contributions to the Dictionary. I've just reverted your changes to a couple of pages in Volume 4 because the changes left the pages inconsistent with the way the surrounding pages have been done. I keep meaning to write up the way I've been doing the pages so that other people can join in, but I seem to end up proofreading more pages instead. At the same time I don't own the Dictionary, so please don't think that I don't appreciate help with what has turned out to be a much bigger task than I thought it would be when I started in July 2009. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

missed the crucial that you had uploaded a new file — billinghurst sDrewth 14:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

As a frequent contributor, I believe you qualify to get the admin tools (page deletion, blocking of miscreants, rollback tool, etc.). If you would like, I will be happy to nominate you at WS:ADMIN. --Eliyak T·C 16:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

See WS:ADMIN#JamAKiska. ;-) You can comment there, if you like. --Eliyak T·C 19:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

We can feed factors into {{disambiguation}} to take WP links, notes etc. I played at Benedict Canfield. Noting that a couple of us have been doing refining (fiddling?) on the template and how it presents. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Did not initially notice the wiki link in that location…Wow! BC presentation looks sharp.…JamAKiska (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations.--BirgitteSB 08:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Congrats from here too. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I added your name to the list on WS:ADMINS. If you know any other languages, please add them there.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 15:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Something to consider. You can delete those pages that are not transcluded, as the text layer will be available then. Plus rather than trying to copy and paste text, you can actually move the Page: ns pages to where they need to be and retain the histories. If you have extra pages in the newer edition (which is usual), then you start at the end, and creep your way forward, and update the page transclusions as you proceed. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Let’s see…starting with djvu 215->207. JamAKiska (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have had a play at Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 28.djvu/445 as when we transclude it is more likely to be a linear list than with the page columns, accordingly I have join series of rows together, though the dot leaders to the page numbers are now ugly. If we wish to maintain the dot leaders, there is a specific template that has been designed to undertake such a task. Wanted to make sure that the alternate presentation is suitable before doing more of the pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I made a change here, but if your watchlist only shows the last edit you wont see it. You could get the double column to appear in the Page:ns, but making it work in 'main namespace' is more trouble than its worth and I think it serves the reader to liberate the list from a 'constraint of the printed page'. There is also an overflowing note trick, a better solution will be implemented (soonish), but let me know if you want the script that does it with one click. Demo [2]

While I'm here. I noticed you subpaged the memoir of G. Smith (which I think is a good idea, especially for this section), though it is part of the 1901 supplement, not the original series. Did you intend to do that? cygnis insignis 17:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks much better, am still learning the formatting ropes…If I encounter a situation that requires this fix, I’ll leave a note (so far this has been a rare occurrence)…otherwise will wait for the ‘better solution’ as I gain confidence with template interaction with various namespaces. If you could take a peak at the volume index pages (volumes 23 and 28 need a review)…(time permitting) we are still grappling with the optimum "look".

The subpage idea follows the wishes expressed at that time. Queen Victoria’s biography was to be the final entry for the era (1901 Supplement). The compromise was the memoir by Sidney Lee. As George Smith founded the DNB, the subpage in that location seemed to be a good fit. JamAKiska (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's rare in the DNB, but other editors thought overflowing notes were impressive or something; I've done an annotation that was three times longer than the section of text it supported! Dropping me a note is fine, it just takes a second with Hesperian's neat script; I had a bit to do with this interim solution. I strongly recommend the 'cleanup' script, a real time-saver, but that might turn up in another form too. I'll have a look at those volumes in the next couple of days, I've given some thought and views on the indices before

Then I see your reason for doing it that way, and it makes sense with the current arrangement of the work; I asked because I wanted to add that preface somewhere. I'm a big fan of this project, an outstanding example of what is possible here and a significant benefit to wikipedia's missing content. cygnis insignis 20:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, see if this location is a good fit for the preface. Could also put another link to the G.S. memoir as well. No doubt, effective communication is the key to good teamwork. There are many significant lessons contained in these pages for a wide variety of people. Perseverance through stormy times shows up repeatedly in these biographies. JamAKiska (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Put in a request for the above link…let’s see what happens… Think positive…JamAKiska (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Created "Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Prefatory Note," subsequently renamed by you, but had to adjust the original format to prevent the "overflow" section from displaying twice. Tried various approaches none of which provided the current "user friendly," though less efficient, display. Will search for alternatives that improve the storage efficiency. JamAKiska (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I found this from the 'what links', why is the title "Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/* 1901 Supplement Volumes (Navigation pages) */ Prefatory Note to 1901 Supplement"? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 08:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Great question…wanted to adjust content before tidying, simplified title this morning, original title due to link from 1901 Supplemental page. JamAKiska (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

2 Solutions so far…have not tried the new "ref follow" …Using the LST processes the overflow footnote a second time through smaller div. (which needs to be in place for djvu page to display correctly) so added an inverse smaller w/LST statement. Could not get the section links to function as I had hoped allowing a follow-on page to carry original section title, so used another LST to preclude insertion of both the "rule" and "overflow" sections on djvu 15. No link is available to djvu 16 using this technique. The path that is easier to understand (visualize) would be to replace the LST statement on djvu 14 with the "list part II" surrounded by "include only" statements. See Darwin pp. 99-100 Surrounding the rule and overflow sections with "no include" allows links to all four pages…So far this 2nd path is preferred as it is more reader and learner friendly…JamAKiska (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

3rd option uses transclusion statements around the reference tags. JamAKiska (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Have a squiz at Greaves, Edward (DNB00) and see what you think about that trial to import the errata. If you think that it will be feasible, maybe have a play with the formatting (if you think necessary), and then I will look to convert to a template so we can do it easily. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

NICE…Looks good as is…and it provides the extent of changes to the reader. Keep the link to errata for verification ? Line and column numbers align with original 2-column format. JamAKiska (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

This format does not break up the text (smoother text flow) as sidenotes and {{SIC}} templates tend to do, especially for lengthy insertions…AND the inserted section links do not change the appearance of the Errata page presentation. JamAKiska (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I will put the link to the page into the page break component, as it is about the only place that it can easily be put. I need to do an actual #lst as a <pages> transclusion breaks. :-/ It means that we will need to be particular with our placement of the section breaks in the errata, which will be a little slowing of the process, however, for the benefit it probably makes it worth that effort and assiduity. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

For the moment I am going to be lazy and presume (though it will be incorrect) that erratum for a person will not span pages, and configure it that way. When we identify that an erratum spans 2 pages or, heaven forbid, 3 pages, then we can update and add complexity to the template at that stage, and look at the effect and any such pecularities. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

{{DNB errata}} though one could argue that it should be DNB erratum, though I went for alignment. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wouldn’t the follow-on page of errata transclude like other pages ? Add section links to that follow on material like here. JamAKiska (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

In short no, so I have added a page2 which is untested for the moment. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I will take the discussion to the project page — billinghurst sDrewth 14:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

THANKS (following comments apply to testing {{DNB errata}} When I initially left in the optional page 2 as a blank, it blocked all but the column headers, though was not using quotations around section links. JamAKiska (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for fixing "lateral links" here [3] I must have been near the Twilight Zone or something. Anyway your astute observation and repair are appreciated and remind me to pay more attention in the future. Daytrivia (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your breaking sections with some of your edits. I have been in and fixed and if you need more spacing, then we need to do it with wikicode, not <br /> which will not work where you are placing it. Which section tags are you using? Are you using ##"name name" ## or <section begin="name name" /><section end="name name" />? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Done Editing with the latter and allowing it to collapse to the former…then compacting until table aligns with top of page.

Was it your intention for xxiii to go to volume 13 ? All else looks great… JamAKiska (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The new and old type section edits are not behaving nicely in conjunction with wkitables, I am going to need to change things. <deskthunk>. Can I ask that you leave it for a while, and I will fix up the template differently, and where we will need to put section markers maybe too. So the pages don't look ugly I will null the template. Fixed the link.— billinghurst sDrewth 03:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a great plan going forward. Volume 28 was prepped like 23. I’ll need to redo Suppl. Vol. II as it was structured with original tools. I’ll get the supplements to the point of volume 23 some time tomorrow. JamAKiska (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I fixed my template, and the data for first of page of errata for vol. 23

• Test cases at Template:DNB_errata/testcases
• The fix of sections is easier than I first envisaged, rather than put in &br /> where you have, try adding an html comment <!-- --> as I did at Page:Dictionary of National Biography. Errata (1904).djvu/151. I will run my bot through your recent contributions in Errata to make that change. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

found six pages with section marks /61, /152, /153, /171, /172, & /173. All done. If there are others, please let me know. You should be right to go back into Errata now. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The DNB errata template is in use for all articles in volumes 23 & 28, and all written articles in Supplemental volumes I & II, and some in volume 8. Was going to prep errata for volume 1 today. JamAKiska (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please see Wikisource talk:WikiProject DNB#Page numbering for volume 33 -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The page numbering system also appears to be related to the upgrade. See 1.6.1 at top and join in with Wikisource:Scriptorium#Discussion: Problems with Mediawiki upgrade should you experience other challenges in your editing. JamAKiska (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your response on my WP talkpage to my question here about including a translation of The Gateless Gate at wikisource. I have already started putting that together here at The Gateless Gate. Does that look ok so far? Thanks for any feedback/comments/concerns/etc! :) WikiDao ☯ 23:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

... what to do with the Author (DNB) found on the current Broken Redirect list, figure I should ask you if I can delete it or what the proper fix would be. TIA. — George Orwell III (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Adjusted link to DNB author page. I’m sure I’ll get feedback if that was not the intent of that link…;^) (…and I’ll pass along any lessons learned)…JamAKiska (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The vast majority of our works are published as subpages, and DNB is a peculiarity to that (and there is some interesting to history to that decision). When working on our works that involve subpages we need to have a bit of a different approach. Need to be very aware when setting tables of contents as you don't put in subpages you can be doing things that are not intended, and also sometimes forcing the links from the page namespace early, or at least being mindful of the process. I made some edits to Page:Darwin Journal of Researches.djvu/15 and have moved the chapters to subpages (and note the relative links used). I would heartily recommend working from the top level and setting the top pages before setting into the chapters, as that gives you greater opportunity for review and sense-making. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the safety net…will follow that lead in subsequent edits…much lighter without those links…JamAKiska (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am about to move this to Commons. It is in the public domain both its home country (> death + 70) and the US (pre-1923 publication). This means it can be at Commons, which is more universal place, and we can still call it here in exactly the same manner. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Created Volume II in commons but now unsure of how to create WS index page? JamAKiska (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

No different. Having the file at Commons means that it behaves the same way as a file loaded locally, though in this case it can be used locally by EVERY wiki, hence Commons. The difference is that you have to go their to manage it. Here the files just need to be pre1923 (US copyright); whereas Commons requires US and local. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Finally discovered interwiki link to access Vol - II scans…thanks for an in-depth tutorial;^) JamAKiska (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Am I missing something? The default position should be to upload to Commons, not to Wikisource. We should only upload to Wikisource when the work fails the home country (non-US) copyright test, eg. still in copyright in the home country. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

And the follow-up :^). JamAKiska (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

At this point in time, I have just uploaded it as is. What I probably should do is pull it back down, check it, trim it so that it aligns with our other copy, then reupload it. Then once that is done, I can move it over the top of the existing version at we should be right to go for fixing those problematic pages. Billinghurst (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Volume has clear images of all pages to include the index on the back end. Seemed to me that trimming the lead two pages should align images with existing edits. The final four pages surpass the last index page. This adjustment should go a long way to smoothing up the final edits on this volume. JamAKiska (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm just starting volume 20, as part of a plan to finish letter F (as it happens). But it turns out to be one of the more problematical volumes, what with the duplications in the page range 20 to 30. I see from the Progress page that you have something in mind for a replacement; but that will obviously require adjustments of page ranges for transclusion eventually. So I thought I wouldn't continue (after today) to add to the work needed to clean up this volume, unless you aren't too concerned. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is an AI replacement volume available that contains good images of all pages except for pages 95, 96 & 97 which contain partial images. It would help expedite the process if you could validate those three pages using the current images prior to replacement of this volume. Text quality of replacement should mirror volume 28 once replaced. JamAKiska (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK, I have validated the pages. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Adjusting to new configuration…in work…JamAKiska (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You mailed me a djvu file. I should explain that I haven't uploaded a file like this in the past. It doesn't mean I can't help you out, but we should discuss this some more. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Had more success later in the day with the upload of volume 20 (am still adjusting to new configuration on my end, should complete the page adjustments for this volume later today. JamAKiska (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Volume 20 djvu file replaced, links on navigation page adjusted as required. JamAKiska (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Your admin confirmation has been unsuccessful due to inactivity, and I have asked for your admin rights to be removed. Thanks for contributing here; if you return you may ask for your admin rights back.

Hesperian 00:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply