User talk:Beleg Tâl/Archives/2017

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2017, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Index:The pilgrims progress as originally published by John Bunyan ; being a facsimile of the first edition (1878).djvu

Can I ask your assistance in cleaning this up? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

What kind of cleanup is needed besides the assistance requested on WS:S? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Other than the glyph choice and sidenotes issue, there is translcusion, and possibly hyperlinking all the Scriptual references to an appropriate version ( Not sure if Bunyan used the KJV or another translation.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I've posted my opinions on glyphs and sidenotes on the Scriptorium. If you place {{index transcluded|transcluded=no}} that will put the book on the long list of works for me to assist with transclusion. Finally, I would recommend for linking to Scripture that you just link to the book's work page as a whole, e.g. Matthew xx. 3, 5-7, unless the passage itself has its own work page such as Psalm 23 or Luke 1:46-55. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I did a lot of effort on Council of Trent :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you did, and thank you! I've also been making pretty good progress at validating Index:Revelations of divine love (Warrack 1907).djvu :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

General questions about featured texts on the main page

Maybe your page isn't the best place to ask this, I dunno, but I don't want to beat a dead horse if this has been talked about elsewhere or before. But I have seen others say that some of the former featured texts wouldn't qualify by the current standards, and that there are, maybe, not enough editors offering input in featured texts.

Over at wikipedia, I spend a lot of time on their portals, selecting articles and making the portal entries for them. I think it might be possible to somewhere on wikisource set up a page including a set rotation, say maybe 1 to 3 hundred articles, chosen for inclusion as a "featured text of the day". It might even be fairly easy to get a bot to move selections with higher numbers to make space at a specific lower number, if we get, for instance, sequels which could be added to the day following their original. It might also be possible to select a few works for specific dates, with the others being on rotation on dates without selections. The main problem so far as I can see is that maybe the selection process is part of the problem.

It might be fairly easy to set up an additional step in the index proofreading process to specifically deal with formatting issues, which I think may well be the primary issue for some of the featured texts which wouldn't no qualify. This might allow for keeping old featured texts "up to date" a bit more easily, and allow for less necessary discussion of selections.

Getting together a list of sufficient length to start with could probably be done fairly easily if we had individuals working on and maybe nominating pieces of bigger works, like individual poems and articles, short stories, long encyclopedia articles, etc. Britannica I know has several substantive articles which could be used as featured texts without embarassment, and the old Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics does as well. (FWIW, I've never mastered setting up indexes to be able to add the Hastings here myself).

Between them all, I think we might be able to set up a few broad "topics" which could either be presented in alternating fashion or in topic blocks for featured content, which might help the visibility of the main page and the project itself.

Any ideas? John Carter (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Why do you want to increase the frequency of featured texts? The current procedure works well and provides us with enough to keep up with one work per month (or in rare cases, one group of works per month). It would be possible to create a list of already-featured and newly-featured texts and have them rotate, particularly if a few dedicated contributors put in the requisite effort, but I do not see why that would be an improvement over the current system. Instead of a featured text getting a full month's exposure, it would only get a single day's exposure... and since this site is not very large, that is not much exposure at all for a work that is "recognized as among the most complete and highest quality works on Wikisource", to quote Wikisource:Featured texts.

Further to this, the best place to discuss this sort of thing is the Scriptorium, where everyone can give their input. In particular, this topic must be discussed there before such a change could be made. I know there have been a couple of discussions recently regarding community collaborations which are similar in that they are switched out regularly. That being said, I do feel that many of our regular editors would also want a strong, convincing case that such a change would provide practical benefit to the site before investing in the effort to overhaul the featured text system. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, as in at least one previous discussion, from what I have seen elsewhere, one text a month does not give newbies the impression of a lot of activity here, and that perception of inactivity may well hurt. Granted, we wouldn't want too many problem editors here, and more might come on that basis, but, as per at least one editor here who I have recently mentioned elsewhere, I think the cat might already be out of the bag a bit on keeping less than productive editors out. John Carter (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hm. I can see why we would want to appear more active. Note that the "New texts" section is updated regularly with new texts for example. I don't think that showcasing older featured text is the best way to show activity though... a better way to do it would be to increase the frequency to perhaps "feature of the week" though you'd have to ensure that the background activity exists for that. On the other hand, if you wanted to showcase earlier featured works, maybe a little subsection could be added, like "Here is our current featured text! (and here is a randomly selected additional featured text!)." I dunno. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You're right about the rotation of older material issue. I was more or less thinking in terms of my earlier work with wikipedia portals there, and the fact that they get a lot less new featured content, so rotation is more useful there. But a "feature of the week", even if once in a while just one of the sometimes really long encyclopedia articles (the current Britannica's Catholicism article is over 100 pages long in and of itself) or some shorter works, like individual poems or short stories selected for holidays or other events of the week for which they are chosen, might both show more activity and, maybe, a greater diversity of topics. That diversity might itself help to a slight degree. John Carter (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd support a proposal for moving from a monthly to a weekly feature, if enough participation can be gathered to provide that many features. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Which seems to again raise a question others have raised before to me. What is it that makes something of sufficient quality or importance, other than perhaps just a nomination, that it qualifies as a candidate for being "featured"? EncycloPetey has said before that even really short works, if nominated, could be reasonably considered, even, I guess possibly, short one page poems. Now, such short poems might be sometimes appropriate. O Captain! My Captain! might not be a bad choice for the week of Lincoln's birthday, for instance. Are we talking here about having to reach a certain level of quality beyond validated, or something else? Also, I suppose, maybe, to make the selection process a bit easier, might it be possible to request that anyone choosing to nominate a work for featured status also more or less create or draft the subpage for the main page if it is selected, as that might reduce the amount of work of the main page maintainers. John Carter (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

If a work meets the featured text criteria and gathers support at WS:Featured text candidates, that is all that is needed for it to be featured. Changes to the featured text procedure would need to be established by consensus. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Index:The Way of the Holy Cross Martin.djvu

Text is in the system, needs formatting :) The latin portions are linked from la:Liber:The Way of the Holy Cross Martin.djvu ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Index:Lord Lister and Sir Alexander Fleming.jpeg

Scan may be CC, The underlying work might not be, Zachary Cope died in 1974 (by UK terms it would expire in 2044) . ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you get the Wellcome Collections people to submit an OTRS confirmation? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It is CC-BY-4.0. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I know that, but having the OTRS slip would be a better argument at Commons, and indicates to the GLAM source that Wikimedia projects take this issue seriously. Asking them to confirm it would remove all doubts. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know anything about OTRS and have no interest in pursuing this. If you want to contact the people, go for it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The COTW close

I had intended to come to it a week after posting and close it as good to go, but got distracted. Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I've been a little antsy to move on from WS:NARA anyway :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Language templates

Hi, I’m back to Cowie's Printer's pocket-book as I try to build proofreading resources. There are some pages with Non-Latin alphabets; on the Hebrew page {{Hebrew}} was used which was a revelation to me, so much better than the characters on the pull-down menu. I now have the Greek and Celtic alphabets to do and on searching found your comment recommending {{Polytonic}} vs {{Greek}}. The subtleties are beyond me, can you recommend one for this instance? Also any suggestions for the Celtic?

Cheers, Zoe — Zoeannl (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the exact differences between {{polytonic}} and {{greek}}, but in my experience the former has been preferred for polytonic Greek, whereas the latter has been preferred for modern Greek orthography. This distinction refers primarily to the use of diacritic marks, which were officially changed in 1960; see w:Greek diacritics for details. On Wikisource, the vast majority of Greek text is polytonic, hence the preference for {{polytonic}} over {{greek}}. I would also use {{polytonic}} in this case. I do not believe there is any similar template for the Saxon alphabet. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Zoeannl: I'm thinking about how to render the "Saxon alphabet". Several of these glyphs are essentially w:Insular script and/or w:Gaelic type, though unfortunately {{Insular}} doesn't have many of the glyphs in question. According to w:Gaelic type#Gaelic script in Unicode, "Unicode treats the Gaelic script as a font variant of the Latin alphabet. [...] Unicode 5.1 (2008) further added a capital G (Ᵹ) and both capital and lowercase letters D, F, R, S, T, besides "turned insular G", on the basis that Edward Lhuyd used these letters in his 1707 work Archaeologia Britannica as a scientific orthography for Cornish." I've used some of these Cornish letters in the text but what we really need is a way to force it to render in a different font. I am thinking {{lang}} might be the best way to do this. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I've decided that the best thing to do is use regular Latin characters (which is what they are) and label them as lang=ang (i.e. Anglo-Saxon). Currently this doesn't modify the fonts but that's okay. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

So later we can add the font? I found this: http://junicode.sourceforge.net/design.html Zoeannl (talk) 07:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, excellent find! I think this will do nicely :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've updated {{Insular}} to use Junicode. Some of the glyphs don't match up still, but that's okay in a digital transcription. I think it's pretty well ideal the way it is now. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so can you explain how this works for this IT illiterate? Why is there Lang and then all the different specific font templates? I am trying to write a guide for proofreaders, not digital natives; it would be good to be able to learn one template for all non-English alphabets. The documentation for these templates is lacking, IMHO. Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 10:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The {{Lang}} template is not for "non-English". It is needed for only languages that do not use the Latin alphabet that is used by English, French, German, etc. Because we are on en-WS, we use the Latin alphabet, and choose fonts that represent our alphabet well. Because French, German, Spanish, Latin, etc. use the same alphabet that English does, any of those languages will also look just fine with what we do, so they are usually fine with the same font choices, and no special template is used. {{Lang}} comes into play whenever the language to be displayed uses a different alphabet, such as Russian, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, or uses a syllabary instead of an alphabet, like Sanskrit, or uses a writing system that doesn't have an alphabet, such as the Chinese languages. Because they do not use the Latin alphabet, we can't assume that those languages will display correctly on someone else's computer, where they might not even have a font installed that includes the symbols necessary to show that language. The {{Lang}} template, when told what language is being displayed, makes the selection of the best option for displaying the symbols used in that language, and includes a code that tells the browser which font to use for best results. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Page:U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual 2008.djvu/280

Attempted to match up some of the more obvious symbols with Unicode ones..

Would appreciate you resolving a few more of them is possinle. 19:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks , 278, 279 also have missing symbols :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: I've added all the ones I could find in Unicode or Commons. You'll probably need to use images for the rest. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Index:The Redwood 1916.djvu

PD-US, obviously, but will you be adding author pages for the individual contributors, to help confirm the PD-old-70 you placed on it at Commons? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Nope, don't care about that work, and if IA bot put the wrong license on it at Commons I will leave it to the nice Commons people to sort it out. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Also: it was published in the USA before 1923 which makes it PD in both the USA and its country of origin, which means it's hostable at Commons. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the issue of the IA-Bot's default settings is something I am going to have to take up with Commons then. Thanks for the prompt response.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

PD-INGov

I have made some changes in the template in your sandbox. Please check and opine. Hrishikes (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I think "public domain" implies "derivative works are permitted", so I cut that bit - no need to enumerate all the permissions. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Long s , Routanda-r etc..

Are there others?, I am asking as I found a custom version of Junicode that handled long-s much more elegantly than {{ls}} by implementing the long-s bahviour as a font-feature. Assuming you had someone that could patch other fonts in a simmilar fashion (Like Linux Libertine) then ls rr etc would become un-necessary as you could set up a suitable display mode using CSS font-features.

Naturally this would mean that a suitably tweaked font would need to be on the Wikisource servers, and that in other modes the long s would degrade to a normal one etc, but {{long s}} and {{Rotunda r}} only use the archaic form in Page namespace at present anyway.

I was talking with one of the developers of JUnicode on e-mail... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Aside from the capital versions of the above, there is also {{et}} that I know of. I hope that, if you are taking this on, you have a plan to provide for enabling and disabling the display of these archaic forms at will, as was accomplished by User:Inductiveload for the current setup. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

hmm - http://www.yourphotocard.com/Ascanius/Gladsmuir.htm# does it dynamically with scripting to change which font features are enabled, could something like that be done under mediawiki? This would also be for new works as {{ls}} does work at the moment.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hm, interesting. How would this apply on texts where the use of these forms is inconsistent, with 's' in some places and 'ſ' in others? If you're not using templates, I assume the style would apply to the whole page? An example of what I mean:

As the Severeſt Judgment on the World
Whose Practise tis to damn their Liberty
And every hour to wiſh for Slavery
These have debauch'd the quiet of her Mind
Encreas'd her discords & her Ease declin'd

—The Jacobites Hopes, or Perkin rideing in Triumph

Also, I found that Category:Palaeographic letter templates also contains the template {{ye}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes the short vs long s style would apply to the whole page/text. I'm not sure how you'd cope with inconsistent forms, other than hardcoding the long-s versions and rendering without any special cleverness (sigh) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd recommend, in that case, to continue to use {{ls}} and the other templates, but once you have the font component set up you can update the template to use the font-feature instead of swapping code points. In fact, I recently improved {{Insular}} with this exact approach. That way you ensure the following:

• The code point for 's' remains correct
• The user experience remains consistent
• The method User:Inductiveload created will still be possible (and can be expanded as necessary)
• The change in glyph will only occur in accord with the proofreading of our editors <-- and I believe that this is a crucial point that needs to be respected in any solution.

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That is indeed one of the ways of doing it.

And another thing, in it's current form s and all the other special letter aren't compatible with easy to work with in respect of hws/hwe. If all the those template saw was a standard s, it would make some transcriptions less complex. That said if you are willing to come up with a tweak to {{hws}}{{hwe}} that allows them to use "special" letters directly it would be an advantage for many other things as well, like italicised words as well.. Hmm, do you know any template editors?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

What trouble do you have with {{ls}} inside {{hws}}/{{hwe}}? I should work just the way you expect: {{hws|sci{{ls}}|sci{{ls}}{{ls}}ors}} and {{hwe|{{ls}}ors|sci{{ls}}{{ls}}ors}} —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems I need to use a title-param for that.:) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it currently possible to get the automatic long s behaviour in mainspace? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean something like what is suggested at Template:Long s/doc#Main namespace ? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

That's almost exactly what I had mind for a layout 'option', albiet mine was to do the change as a one-line font-features change somewhere. Hmm.. Maybe s is needed after all if only to do the 'classing'. Could the same approach be used for other paleo forms? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Also not to confuse ye with the which can lead to a thorn in the side of people working with certain texts ;) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Something else i Will not (although less relevant on English Wikisource) is u,v i,j behaviour.. This may need a wider disscusion. Up for starting one somewhere appropriate?

@Inductiveload: as they developed the current approach.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any benefit of changing the type-what-you-see approach to u, v, i, j. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

As said it's less of a local issue, more one for latin wikisource as such.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Bunyan

If interested : User:ShakespeareFan00/Sandbox/Bunyan, which is all 250 or so pages of the Facsimile edition.

I completed the text transcribing earlier, so some help in hunting down the last few scan errors I've missed would be appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Not really in my area of interest. —Would it not be better to transclude to mainspace as per usual and just let the scan validator take care of it? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Possibly. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Bunyan (again)

Transcribed most of it: Index:The Pilgrim's Progress, the Holy War, Grace Abounding Chunk3.djvu

I've left the "continuation" for now as I'd like confirmation it's not an addition of the publishers as such. Do you know of an earlier edition that has it? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

A quick Google gives copies of the continuation as early as 1771. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Very much wiling to edit

Thanks for welcoming me!Billingsmell 22:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Index:BabylonianPenitentialPsalms.djvu

Can't find any information about the lifetime of this author via an initial Google Search. PD-US by date, but not necessarily PD elsewhere, so may be an issue on Commons hosting it, unless you can provide more information. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

died 18th day of June, 1927 —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

In relation to my account here.

Would you be prepared to authorise a 7-day "wiki-break" block? https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:ShakespeareFan00&oldid=6722058

This is not due to any recent events, but due to the the fact that whilst editing yesterday, I ended up having a bad migrane. As this has been occurring slightly more often than normal recently, I have concerns that my ability to contribute effectively have been compromised (although not severely.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's wise for you to rely on something like admin blocking for your health, or to control your own editing habits. However, I will do what you ask, noting in so doing that it does not appear to be against WS:BP, and I hope that you feel better soon. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for you note on my talk page. Greenshed (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Border formatting

Hi, can you please take a look at this page? Help required for creating the black circles at border corners. Thanks, Hrishikes (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't aim to reproduce it exactly; what you have is fine. If I really wanted to reproduce the effect though, I would do it like this:

●			●
		Hello world
●			●

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The English Hymnal

Hi, as the other editor with an interest in hymn books and the like I'm seeking your opinion on Index:The English hymnal (1906).djvu. It's missing a lot of pages as well as having several duplicate pages. I've listed both sets on the Talk: page. My own copy is the 1933 edition, so I can't easily interpolate the missing pages from new scans. The only other copies I can find on IA are the words-only edition. My inclination is to simply junk this Index and the few pages done so far in favour of waiting for a better scan in the future. However, if you feel that it's worth keeping this one in the meantime I can at least get rid of the duplicate pages. What do you think? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Another copy of 1906 ed. : http://dli.serc.iisc.ernet.in/cgi-bin/DBscripts/allmetainfo.cgi?barcode=4990010224963 (pdf: http://dli.ernet.in/handle/2015/45181) Hrishikes (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a words-only copy. There are better scans of that available on IA. To replace the above copy we need the music edition. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks like there isn't any real work done on that index so far, so I have no problem junking it. My own practice in such cases has been to simply leave them in "file needs fixing status" until a fix can be done. When I have a chance I can get rid of the duplicates, but I also don't have the means to generate the missing pages.

The words-only version, however, would be a great addition to WS, if it has a decent scan. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle: Fixed the file, pse recheck. Hrishikes (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: where did you find the replacement pages? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

https://www.pgdp.net/projects/projectID42bdfed61d611/001.png and subsequent pages. Hrishikes (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your examples. I am trying to create a page for another article, but don't know how to include only a section of the first and last page since it includes several djvu pages. GinnevraDubois (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@GinnevraDubois: you can do this like so: <pages index="Name of Index.djvu" from=1 to=3 fromsection=s2 tosection=s4 />. This will transclude starting at s2 on page 1 and ending at s4 on page 3. The sections are done the same way that I did in the examples. For more information, have a look at Help:Beginner's guide to transclusion and Help:Transclusion#How to transclude a portion of a page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you and thanks for referring me to the help pages; but I do better with examples. I have spent time (a lot) trying to make sense of those help files and... nope - maybe the reasons being (1) that they are designed for computer savvy people and (2) English is not my first language (but even in my language, those translations help me none) and I am not the only one! I tried to recruit editors from the Gutenberg project in my language and they all went back to it [Gutenberg], claiming they can't make sense of the way wikisource works. All I can say is that examples (and other users like you) had helped me the most in French, English, and Spanish. GinnevraDubois (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@GinnevraDubois: if you send me a link to the page you need help with, I can show you directly how it's done. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You already did but you can take a look and see if there is anything wrong. #REDIRECT Once a Week/Series 1/Volume 5/Jessie Cameron's Bairn - thank you

GinnevraDubois (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@GinnevraDubois: well done, that's exactly right. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

ty. I appreciate your words of encouragement.

GinnevraDubois (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Using colons for indentation

Hi,

I was told that using colons [:::] for indentation is wrong because it's not interpreted by printers. Not having a printer, I cannot confirm this, and if I am wrong, please accept my apologies. — Ineuw talk 19:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't heard this. Since colon-based indents are actually HTML description list items, it would depend on the browser more than the printer I would think. They're standard fare for poems when combined with the <poem> extension, though in my opinion <poem> has its issues too. Far better to use manual line breaks on each line. But colon-indents and poem tags are fine for new users; no need to overwhelm them more than necessary. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. A very good rationale. — Ineuw talk 20:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Author:Svayambhuva

I think the name is problematic. Svāyambhuva is not a name, it is just a patronymic and means son of Svayambhu (i.e., Brahmā). So better to use the full form, Svayambhuva Manu. Hrishikes (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: You know the mythology better than I; go ahead and fix whatever needs fixing :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Featured text/December

This first link in Template:Featured text/December is a versions page. Normally, we feature specific texts, not versions pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: yes, I know, but as we discussed it's the whole collection that's featured, so really all three versions are part of that - but go ahead and tweak it if you see fit. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Just checking to be certain the choices were not accidental. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Index:Twenty-four plates illustrative of Hindoo and European Manners in Bengal.djvu

As you have corrected the French, would you care to mark the pages as proofread, so that I can validate? Hrishikes (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: I'm working on it; if you prefer not to wait for me, you can mark them as proofread and I'll validate. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Done — Hrishikes (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Help:Author pages

Have you seen additional criterion 3 at the top: Where a person has high notability and a list of their works is desired, regardless of copyright restrictions to host the works on Wikisource. This means author pages for notable copyrighted authors are allowed. It runs counter to contraindication 3: no works are likely to be hosted at Wikisource. What is your take? Hrishikes (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

That pretty much sums up the discussions we had recently at WS:PD (particularly this one). If an author has no hostable works, we're likely to delete their page, UNLESS they are highly notable, in which case we'll keep them. The notability threshold is highly subjective, of course, but the bar tends to be pretty high. I think the primary consideration is whether the page is likely to be recreated by users not familiar with our policies and consensus. If in doubt, WS:S (for adding) and WS:PD (for removing) are good places to get consensus. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Status of The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night

You reverted my "announcement" of The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night in Template:New texts because the book is not proofread. However I consider its quality is probably close, if not better, to a proofread text. The text is not OCR, but comes from alternate sources (Wollamshram and Project Gutenberg), the two versions have been compared to fix mistakes in one or the other, and the text has been closely matched with the scan (line by line, although not strictly proofread; but this has helped catching some additional errors). Of course there are still errors, as in most books, but it is not just OCR quality, as I guess most "not proofread" books are. Anyhow, I'm not asking for my edit to be restored, just explaining :) Jellby (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jellby: Thanks for your diligence in ensuring the quality of the text. If you've checked the text on a page against the scan and confirmed that they are the same, you can mark the page as proofread (all proofread texts are held to this standard). Once all the pages are proofread in this way, and images and tables are added (I see there are a few missing), then the text can be considered complete and we can add it to the New Texts list. Thanks again! —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't compare the text word by word, just the ends of the lines (as it made much easier to find the page breaks). As for images and tables, I think all tables are there, but not images because they were often poor quality and even missing in some of the volumes, so I chose to skip them. Jellby (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Page:Original Waltzing Matilda manuscript.jpg/1

Hi. I feel the '/1' should be avoided. Even if allowed by the Extension, it creates complexity for bots dealing with Page->Index->File chain. It would be much easier if we could have '/' only for multi-page Indexes.— Mpaa (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mpaa: that surprises me. I would have thought "/1" would make it easier for bots because it is the same syntax as multipage works. However, I'm not sure how the <pages> function works if the Page pages don't use "/1" syntax to identify the page to transclude. Does it still work? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. At least it does it here: Index:Obituary for Charles Babbage.png.

My problem is that url for images in Page ns: require different parameters in the API if they belong to a multi-page file (e.g. djvu, see [1]) or to a single file, like this case. So it would be nice to say that all pages that have a '/n' in the title belong to a multipage File. Unluckily this is not guaranteed by design. So I think that some logic to understand the file extension will be needed in the end.— Mpaa (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Huh, good to know. Thanks for the explanation. I'll move it back :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Organizing fairy tales

Hi, and thanks again for your encouragment on Gesta Romanorum. I think you've noticed that I've been working on organizing fairy tales, and I'd really like to hear whatever advice you'd care to give me. I started a topic with a longish explanation of what I'm doing on my own talk page, so if you'd care to leave any comment there I'd be grateful. Later I should go ask some other people, or leave a notice on the Scriptorium, but I thought I'd ask you first. Thanks! Mudbringer (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mudbringer: responded on your talk page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for not answering you, but your comment is very helpful. I need to study a good selection of the versions pages and get a better sense of how people are using them. Ironically, a project I just started over the weekend, The Shaving of Shagpat, which I mainly took up because I wanted to clear out a chunk of messy raw OCR text, turned out to have some interesting differences between the first edition and the one already started, so I had to move a bunch of pages and make another versions page. Everything seems to take about four times as long to finish as I'd figured it would! Mudbringer (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Kalevala (Crawford)

You deleted the category itself, but not any of the links to the category. So closing the discussion was a bit premature. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I would take care of it myself, but it's much easier for someone who uses bots to do it. I'd have had to go through them all manually. :P --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, category modifications like that are a huge pain; AWB makes things so much easier :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help.

All of this is very complicated. I am also trying to learn the syntax for the Spanish (and French) wikisource. GinnevraDubois (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikilvres is now Bibliowiki

Wikilivres has now changed its name to Bibliowiki and moved to http://biblio.wiki

Unfortunately, this change means that links to the site, such as the one to The Tale of Little Pig Robinson on the Author:Beatrix Potter page, now just link to the Bibliowiki main page instead of the text where the link was intended to go.

As a Bibliowiki admin, I am asking you, a Wikisource admin, to please do what you can to solve this problem. Thank you. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Simon Peter Hughes: I will initiate the discussions in the appropriate places. Thank you. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Woodie Guthrie and editing sheet music

I was reviewing the song Jackhammer Blues to validate and I noticed something. on the last line of the sheet music, the first note of the second measure, above the word Lord, is written as an F in the original sheet music, instead of a D as it currently exists on the page. I'm nervous about touching the sheet music template since it's something I'm unfarmiliar with, and I dont know if it's a typo included in the original source. --Legofan94 (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legofan94: fixed, and thanks! —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Anthology

How would you define "anthology"? Your edit to Odes of Pindar leaves me wondering, because I certainly wouldn't describe either book as an "anthology". --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: To my understanding an "anthology" is a volume consisting of several different works. If you think a better word is more appropriate that's fine. Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

There isn't an English word that summarizes the contents of these books. Pindar wrote many odes in his lifetime, and published them in several volumes. Of these, only his "Victory Odes" (Epinikia) survive intact, and these are the Odes translated in the two volumes listed. Other volumes I've seen have translated only the Olympian Odes or the Isthmian Odes, which are subsets of the Epinikia. The two volumes here titled The Odes of Pindar both happen to contain the complete surviving works of Pindar, collected in the same set (though slightly different order and numbering) as they were by whatever Byzantine or Alexandrian editor must have set them down. The key point of the page though is that any book entitled The Odes of Pindar could be listed there, even if it were merely a book about the Epinikia (or even the missing Odes) without being a translation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: yes exactly—that is the point of the edit I made. I understand that the page Odes of Pindar is just a list of any works called "Odes of Pindar". With regard to whether Odes of Pindar (Paley) and Odes of Pindar (Turner) are anthologies: in my mind there are two possibilities:

• The Victory Odes are considered a single work. In that case, there needs to be a Translations page called Victory Odes or Epinika or Odes (Pindar) or something. I assume such a page would be somewhere between what is currently at Portal:Odes of Pindar and what is currently at Author:Pindar#Works.
• Alternatively, we consider each of the odes to be a separate work. In that case, everything is more or less fine the way it is. But in that case it is also true that Odes of Pindar (Paley) is a collection or anthology of (the complete extant) works by Pindar, or more precisely a translation of such an anthology (which is still an anthology to my mind), and my edit to Odes of Pindar stands.

Anyway, when I saw the discussion regarding Odes of Pindar I assumed the former option was the case and was really confused by the way the pages were structured (especially the portal), but I realized it made sense if the latter option were the case. So I edited Odes of Pindar to make it clearer that the pages were structured according to the latter option. Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I considered setting up some kind of Translations page, but instead opted for a Portal listing the individual odes for several reasons. One of the key reasons is that there are so many different English names and book titles under which such a page could be located: "(The) Odes of Pindar", "The Extant Odes of Pindar", "The Victory Odes of Pindar", "The Triumph Odes of Pindar", "Epinikia", or even simply "Pindar". Ultimately, I decided that any list on a Translations page would duplicate the list on Author:Pindar because, as I indicated, the Epinikia are his only surviving works. So they'll all be listed on his Author page, and any Translations page would be redundant. Creating a Portal for the individual Odes seemed a more useful venture, especially as the numbering of some of the odes differs among authors who disagree over where one ode ends and another begins. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: That makes sense. Could we then, in accordance with our usual way of doing things, do the following?:

• Move the contents of Author:Pindar#Works to your choice of Victory Odes or Epinika and create redirects for all the other reasonable page names we can think of.
• Replace the contents of Author:Pindar#Works with a single link to that translations page, with perhaps a note on its being the only extant work and perhaps mentioning other non-extant works if known
• I feel like Portal:Odes of Pindar would be better placed as a subpage of the translations page or as a subpage of Author:Pindar (e.g. Author:Pindar/Individual odes, sort of like what was done with Author:Florence Earle Coates/Index of Titles), but I won't push it if you disagree.

That would clear up confusion and would be in accordance with the usual practices for these kinds of works. I'd be happy to assist with setting this up also. Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

RE: Moving. Moving the contents creates other issues. As I mentioned before, although the Epinikia as a collection is the only surviving portion of Pindar's works, some books translate only a portion of his Epinikia, so they wouldn't be properly situated at a location for the Epinikia as a whole. Just as we wouldn't consider Shakespeare's History plays to be equivalent to the body of his plays as a whole, it seems bad form to list, e.g., the Isthmian Odes at a translation page for the whole of the Epinikia. Likewise, authors such as Thoreau and Ambrose Philips translated only select odes. It is thus impossible also to treat the Epinikia as a single work in the way that you have suggested. Doing so would create a kind of page we have never had before, hence my choice of Portal, because the format is more flexible.

Some of the works could be listed at a Translations page for the Epinikia (those that actually translate the Epinikia entirely), but I never created such a page because of (a) unnecessary duplication and (b) too many possible titles. I don't see that such a page would add any utility to WS.

Re: Author subpage: I rejected this idea in part because it would prohibit the inclusion of works about the odes, and books about the groups of odes. It would also mean that, if the English Wikipedia ever did separate the biography of Pindar from the analysis of his Epinikia, we would have a subpage interwiki link to Wikipedia, which seems less than ideal to me. So the decision was made by thinking ahead to changes that are likely to happen at some point (some Wikipedias have a separate page about the Epinikia already, and Commons has a category). --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense. You've convinced me that a Portal is the best approach. I do still think that a Translations page is also necessary, just because that is the way we do things around here. There are lots of works like this, and probably a few on Wikisource already. For example, Catullus' Carmina. If we treat the Epinikia as a single work, we can list partial translations in a separate section. Too many possible titles is a common issue also and we can easily deal with it by creating lots of redirects and disambig pages. Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The disambiguation is part of the wrinkle: almost any title we choose for the Translations page is also the specific title of an English translation, so we end up potentially conflating a dab with a translations list. And it's part of why I didn't go ahead with creating a Translations page like I would normally do.

But the most challenging issue involves connecting to Wikidata. Because of the way WD is set up, then to properly hook into it, we need not only a Translations page for the Epinikia, but one for each of the four sections: the Olympic, Isthmian, Nemean, and Pythian Odes. And each of those translation pages ought to be linked to its corresponding data item on WD. But then we need a Translations page for each individual ode, and need to set up corresponding data items for each ode on Wikidata as a work, as well as individual data items for each separate translation of each ode, which will each have their oen data items linked from the data item for the ode as a work, but marking it as an "edition/translation" of that ode. Doing all of that for just the English Wikisource would be a Herculean task and take lots and lots of time to set up, since creating data items by bot is something I do not have the skill to do. Hence, I have postponed tackling any of that until some future time. Besides, there are still more translations of odes to be put up, and I'd rather use a bot to set all that up after all the English translations are in place, so it only has to be done once. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Fair enough. I'll leave it to you to decide how you want to set that up, when you've got the project in such a place that you're ready to do so. Good luck with the rest of the translations :) Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The City of God

Just a heads up: this (now red) link (which I used a couple of years ago in another wiki) shows that you renamed the whole thing, but when I go to the new equivalent page, I can't help but notice an apparent mistake in the numbering of the chapters, viz., the title says "Chapter 4" when it's actually Chapter 3... and this oversight(?) is reflected in the other chapters as well. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@DanielTom: I've made a request at Wikisource:Bot requests#Decrement chapter numbers to handle the issue. Looks like you're the first to notice the issue since it was added in 2008 :) Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

If you have Linux (I don't), you can do it yourself (being admin) with the help of this script: 1, 2. Hrishikes (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, nice. I've been meaning to set up a Linux server and play around with wiki scripting, but I think there's still a ways to go before I get there. Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Poems of Baudelaire Sturm.djvu

It looks as though an extra page has been inserted/removed from the volume. Odd-numbered pages are showing up on even-numbered file pages, which is not a good sign. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I just pagelisted the volume and didn't see any pages missing. What page do you see that's added/removed? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

On second reading I think I understand you - the book cover is missing which decrements the page numbers. I've never seen this be a problem though. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Didache (Hoole translation)

Thanks for this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you not think "An" should have small caps on the "N" on Page:Didache Hoole.djvu/5? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely should. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française du XIe au XVIe siècle

This is entirely in French. Is there some reason to transcribe it here? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

But it will then have to be transwikied to fr:WS, and and I understand it, the tools to do that are broken, with no immediate prospect for correction. Would it not be simpler to transcribe at fr:WS and avoid the move? ---EncycloPetey (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be transwikied. Why would it have to be transwikied? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

We don't host French works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

But we do host user translations of French works. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but not the French original. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

True. I'm not transcribing the French original. I'm translating it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that's an approach I haven't seen before. Hence, my confusion. As this isn't done very often, I'd recommend lots of big notices explaining the situation to avoid more conversations like this one. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The Mesa Stele

Proofread the three hebrew pages. You've done a magnificent job, but I can't understand why you consistently refrained from using the end characters??? — Ineuw talk 10:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ineuw: Not being familiar with Hebrew characters, I generated the Hebrew text programatically from the Phoenician text that had already been proofread. The Phoenician alphabet doesn't have end characters, and I only learned that Hebrew does have end characters after I had already generated the Hebrew text. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Fascinating. I realized that since they all followed a pattern, it was some kind of generated text, and I was just curious how you went about it. I was happy to help. — Ineuw talk 03:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: I've added links to the relevant Portal (where I added a section on Moabite), as well as to the Wikipedia article on the Stele. On Wikipedia, I added a link back to this paper, and noted excplicitly on the article's Talk page that Compston's article now exists here, and that it isn't yet noted in the Bibliography for the Wikipedia article. So, we may hopefully see more Archaeology and Biblical studies folks around. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)