User talk:Beleg Tâl/Archives/2018

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2018, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Coverdale Bible(Transcription Project)

I was doing a bit of transcription/heavy editing to OCR, and I noticed you'd done most of what was transcrived before I got there(a handful of pages) was done by you, but you didn't list it under transcription you've done. JustinCB (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I just provided scans to allow for future improvements, but it's not one of my transcription projects. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That's OK, I was just hoping that someone else was actively working on it, but I suppose not. Doesn't it seem strange that all the projects relating to the bible don't have many people working on them? JustinCB (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does... only a couple of our dozen or so translations are even complete. :S I suspect a lot of it is to do with the sheer magnitude of the project. I try to improve our Bible collection where I can, but I don't have the time or patience for transcribing such a massive work. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Hi brother. Can i request from you to restore this page in order to import it to arabic wikisource because when you but your request at village pump there was no user who have importer flag and now i have it so i want to import the previously mentioned page please. Regards--مصعب (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@مصعب: The page was moved to mul:Selections from the Ṣaḥīḥ of al-Buḫārī; you should be able to import it from there. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

imported Thanks--مصعب (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Bible pdfs

Hi. I can see the following files for where I cannot determine why they are uploaded to enWS. I also note that they are slim on required file data in {{information}}

• File:BibleKJV1611-001.pdf
• File:BibleKJV1611-002.pdf
• File:BibleKJV1611-003.pdf
• File:BibleKJV1611-004.pdf
• File:BibleKJV1611-005.pdf
• File:BibleKJV1611-006.pdf
• File:BibleKJV1611-007.pdf
• File:BibleKJV1611-008.pdf
• File:BibleKJV1611-009.pdf
• File:BibleKJV1611-010.pdf
• File:BibleKJV1611-011.pdf
• File:BibleKJV1611-012.pdf
• File:BibleKJV1611-013.pdf
• File:BibleKJV1611-014.pdf
• File:BibleKJV1611-015.pdf
• File:BibleKJV1611-016.pdf
• File:BibleKJV1611-017.pdf
• File:BibleKJV1611-018.pdf
• File:BibleKJV1611-019.pdf
• File:BibleKJV1611-020.pdf
• File:BibleKJV1611-021.pdf
• File:BibleKJV1611-022.pdf
• File:BibleKJV1611-023.pdf
• File:BibleKJV1611-024.pdf

Are you able to provide some advice on these. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

They are the source for Bible (King James Version, 1611). Not uploaded to Commons because {{PD-nonUK}} is apparently a thing. I'll update the info tag next time I've got AWB fired up. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

SealandConstitutions.pdf

Hi. Would you be so kind to use the {{book}} template to provide the publication details for the file; and in the Index: page, I noticed that the year of publication is 1935, presumably an error. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Roman index

You know more about this than me. Are you sure of p.67? John Carter (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Froschammer listing at the beginning of the page? It is definitely a continuation of the list of Froschammer works started on the previous page. I don't see any other reason for them to have formatted it that way except as a "continued from previous page" notice, in which case of course it should not be transcluded when all pages run together in mainspace. I couldn't find a way for it to preserve the formatting on both the Page space and Mainspace, but the way I formatted it should be sufficient. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Dies Irae needs disambiguating

Hello. We now have poem "Dies Irae" by Willoughby Weaving. I will create Dies Irae (Weaving) as a redirect to the poem at Muse in Arms, but will leave to you (if that's okay) the disambiguation of [[Dies Irae]] to include the Weaving poem and the hymn. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Done —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

{{nop}}

The template {{nop}} must be placed on a new line of its own to work properly. It cannot be appended to the end of another line of code. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

It's just an empty div tag, so it should work regardless of its place on a new line--and furthermore it has always worked when I have placed it inline. Do you have any counterexamples? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I would take that issue up with the documentation as stated and with every conversation I've had on the subject. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Take the survey now!

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

Thank you!

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

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John? Munsell

Here you've transcribed "Joel Munsell" as "John Munsell". I'm sure it's an honest mistake, but you seem to have also uploaded the extracted images to Commons under "John". Am I missing something? BethNaught (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope, just a propagated typo. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Index:LunarLandingMIssionSymposium1966 1978075303.pdf

Thanks. Do you know anyone in NASA PR to ask about getting better quality versions of the figures? (The ones in the PDF seem to be photocopies ehich have reproduced poorly :( ) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

No I don't. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Index:Rose 1810 Observations respecting the public expenditure and the influence of the Crown.djvu

Can you give this a second look, BEFORE I make it as ready for validation? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: The tables are kind of all over the place, but I don't see any other major issues upon a quick perusal. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The Canadian Soldiers' Song Book and contributors

Just thinking through how we may best capture an end copyright date with a compiled work and it is a little tricky. If we approach this from a Wikidata perspective, it would seem inappropriate to use contributed to work as they are not specifically "contributors" though their works are included. If there is a Wikidata version for each item, we could get a report run for death dates of authors of works. If here, we can track the authors, by either physically tagging each author as having works, or we can link their works through a template, ie. we can set up something like {{Canadian Soldiers' Song Book link}} (basing it on {{authority/link}}), and then have a listing of the author pages, and then work out how to pull death year from there. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: the best Wikidata approach I know of, is to have wikidata items for each subpage, with "published in" and "author" fields set. If we want to track authors with a template or something that is fine. However, I am satisfied with marking it as PD-1923 and leaving it at that; it's a lot to ask to track down the copyright of every included work otherwise. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

A big project.. but thought I'd mention it in passing..Statutes of the Realm...

In trying to pin down a Misprint in something, I went looking for something called Statutes of the Realm:-

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=Statutes%20of%20the%20Realm;a=srchls;lmt=ft;pn=2

And Hathi Trust has a 'few' volumes, ( albiet a 1963 reprint so I'm not sure about copyright issues on it.)

Assuming it's copyright Okay, Id really like to see someone put scans for the Statutes of the Ream up for transcribing, for much early English Statute law it's regraded as one of the DEFINITIVE sources (given it was complied by a specific official Comission in the UK at some point in the 18th centyrt IIRC.)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: It's published 1810-1825 so not copyright. The best scans I can find are here. These will be easy to retrieve for someone with a HathiTrust membership so I posted a request at WS:S#Statutes of the Realm. I can maybe help with the pagelisting after that and top-level nav, but I have enough backlog of works to proofread that I don't want to start another large project. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Same here. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: @Beleg Tâl: I’ve wandered here, inadvertently and this caught my eye… I would work through this proofreading if it were set up. Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't have Hathi access to set up the scans. Anyone else?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Nor I, and no one responded to my request on the Scriptorium linked above. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

PotM

Remember that the Main Page listing is separate from the PotM template, and needs to be changed too. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The Tale of Peter Rabbit (1916)

Could you please add a defaultsort template to The Tale of Peter Rabbit (1916) so that it's indexed under "Ta" for "Tale" instead of under "Th" for "The"? Thank you. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 05:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Done —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Deleting Index:Beatrix Potter - A Tale of Tom Kitten.djvu

What do you think of deleting Index:Beatrix Potter - A Tale of Tom Kitten.djvu? There's no real difference between this version and Index:Taleoftomkitten00pottuoft.djvu which was complete and what we used to back The Tale of Tom Kitten. You and I were the only contributors to this version, so I figure that unless you have some big objection I would just go about and speedy delete it instead of going through the PD process. Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mukkakukaku: Go ahead and speedy it; I have no objection. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The help you proposed to add Pamphlets translated from the russian (by Leo Tolstoy) a few weeks ago

Hi, I didn't see your message in time, if you can still help me add those works by Tolstoy, I'd love to. I'm a beginner in wikisource, I just added a few things here and there, I'd love to get more involved in adding works by Tolstoy and Weil, as well as adding translations of those precious philosophers. I also have a friend who digitized manually some old books who might contribute as well. The thing I didn't understand was how to import the file for Pamphlets.

Best regards Nazmi September the 12th @Beleg Tâl:

@Nazmifr: I placed some helpful links on your talk page so that you can learn how to add works like this. In particular, see Help:Beginner's guide to adding texts. —— Because this is a difficult work, I created the Index page for you. It is at Index:Pamphlets. Translated from the Russian.djvu. However, I just discovered that someone already uploaded it, at Index:Tolstoy - Pamphlets.djvu. I will need to merge the duplicates. You can proceed with Index:Tolstoy - Pamphlets.djvu as desired. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Author:J. Thomson—not so certain

Looking at Category:Authors-Th has me thinking that the specific redirect that you have created is not the best that we can do for that option. If that is what we have, I believe it should only be the piped visual label, with a full link underneath. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you're getting at, but I don't intend to keep the redirect after the links have been updated. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Of the Imitation of Christ

I happened to see your recent activity at Of the Imitation of Christ and Index:Imitation-of-christ-1901.djvu and poked my head in. After looking around I added some notes at Index talk:Imitation-of-christ-1901.djvu#Drop Initials in image form. Letting the drive-by editor know "how to do it" seems a good thing to me. These notes okay? Shenme (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Deleting Functional_Package_Management_with_Guix/Build_expressions_and_package_descriptions

I talked to the author and he claims that GDFL is compatible with CC-BY-SA with the following quote from the GDFL:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---

RELICENSING

``Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site (or ``MMC Site) means any World Wide Web server that publishes copyrightable works and also provides prominent facilities for anybody to edit those works. A public wiki that anybody can edit is an example of such a server. A ``Massive Multiauthor Collaboration (or ``MMC) contained in the site means any set of copyrightable works thus published on the MMC site.

``CC-BY-SA means the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license published by Creative Commons Corporation, a not-for-profit corporation with a principal place of business in San Francisco, California, as well as future copyleft versions of that license published by that same organization.

``Incorporate means to publish or republish a Document, in whole or in part, as part of another Document.

An MMC is ``eligible for relicensing if it is licensed under this License, and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus incorporated prior to November 1, 2008.

The operator of an MMC Site may republish an MMC contained in the site under CC-BY-SA on the same site at any time before August 1, 2009, provided the MMC is eligible for relicensing. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Do mi kredas ke la dokumento jam estas CC-BY-SA se oni volas. (en. I think the document is already CC-BY-SA if you want it to be)

The author thus does agree to double license the text. Could you please restore the page?--So9q (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@So9q: As it says in the text you provided, we can only relicense a GFDL text that was uploaded before Nov 1 2008. This text was uploaded in 2013, so we are not able to relicense it. Instead, the author must relicense it himself. He can do so by emailing permissions@wikimedia.org with the following text:

I hereby affirm that I, Ludovic Courtès, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ludovic_Courtès_-_Functional_Package_Management_with_Guix.djvu.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice, we seem to both have missed that detail. I will pass it on.--So9q (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Now it has been done and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ludovic_Court%C3%A8s_-_Functional_Package_Management_with_Guix.djvu has been marked as free. Can you undelete the page now?--So9q (talk) 11:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@So9q: Done at Functional Package Management with Guix —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

wikilinks

While I don't disagree with the cleanup you're doing, be advised that WS:ANN is a proposed policy, and WS:MOS allows for links to Wikipedia provided the target of the link is clear from the context of the source.

I do think that the particular work you're cleaning up has abused the overlinking, but it's a shame to lose all that without first copying that content to an Annotated edition, which is allowed for in the guidelines as long as it is clearly identified as an annotated edition and as long we have an unannotated version as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: That's fair, and normally I would try to preserve an annotated version. However, I don't think it's worth preserving in this case. The vast majority of links are just Herr Dühring's Wikipedia page over and over and over, or are copyvio from another edition. Preserving the remainder amidst the cleanup is not worth the effort at all in my opinion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

When printed wrong...?

I was peeking around at Recent Changes and saw you moving things under heads. I then wandered around a bit and peeked at Pastoral_Poems_(Breton);_Selected_Poetry_(Wither);_Pastoral_Poetry_(Browne)/Prelude. (source [1])

Alas straight off I see

Seem unto us with black steams

To pollute the Sun's bright beams,

Eh? Looked around with Google and found multiple places that agreed and others that didn't, having

Seem they not with their black streams

To pollute the sun's bright beams;

What to do when it really seems that editions (and some of those perhaps derivative of a corrupted version) have what really seems the wrong word?

Perhaps a parallel question, can one use {{SIC}} to suggest a possible alternate reading? As in steams Shenme (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Shenme: Our edition must read "steams" because that is what the source says. If you have reason to believe this is a typo, then it is acceptable to use {{SIC}} to indicate that "streams" is correct. However, I searched for both readings and all the older (pre-1800) editions have "steams" so I really do not think it a typo. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Shenme: further to this:

• Every edition that starts the line with "Seem unto us" ends it with "steams". Editions that start the line with "Seem they not" vary between "steams" and "streams". The alternate reading of "streams" would therefore seem to post-date the "seem they not" variant.
• Considering that the previous lines are about "fog" and "vapours", it looks like "streams" was itself originally a typo.

So in the end it's just two variant readings, and I wouldn't mark up either version. But it's interesting to see the history of the change from "steams" to "streams" in some editions. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful! Finding the parallelisms with words 'fog' and 'vapours' is ultimately convincing!

My partner did their dissertation on a particular book held in Assisi, which was composed of a grouping of some manuscripts. The research was not only on its content, but where the book was created, and how it reached Assisi, and also on the provenance of the manuscripts from which these manuscripts were copied. That is, what copies did the originating library copy from?

So deep probing on minuscule variations present, to trace likenesses and divergences from other, known manuscripts. See w:Stemmatics and w:Lectio difficilior potior, among others which pop up when searching on w:Karl Lachmann.

I don't doubt many copied from a divergent copy of this work. And it is hard to resist 'fixing' a word or line that "reads wrongly". But once you point out the divergence in style and theme it becomes obvious 'steams' must be correct! Thank you! Shenme (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

A Song

We had a discussion about long lists like these where the only difference in the title is an article. We agreed as a community that, for longer lists, a separation into pages, e.g. Song & A Song, is justified. Please discuss this before unilaterally overturning the decision of the community. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Sorry. Saw that The Song had already merged into Song. Figured merging Song and A Song was easier than splitting Song and The Song. Went with the easier one. If you want them re-splitted I can resplit them. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

going shopping?

Going shopping?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

In the world we live in, there is "cause" and then "effect". The world of psychology does not seem to grasp that. Please do not participate is this.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: your comments are poetic but they mean nothing to me. Is there something you want to draw my attention to? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)