User talk:Beleg Tâl/Archives/2021

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2021, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Share your feedback on the OCR improvements!

Hello! We (the team responsible for the Community Wishlist Survey) have launched the project for OCR improvements. With this project, we aim to improve the experience of using OCR tools on Wikisource. Please refer to our project page, which provides a full summary of the project and the main problem areas that we have identified.

We would love if you could answer the questions below. Your feedback is incredibly important to us and it will directly impact the choices we make. Thank you in advance, and we look forward to reading your feedback! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ambiguity

Just as an "FYI"… I think moving Will was a bad call. As I've mentioned elsewhere, Shakespeare is an exception in almost any context. We don't even have an author page for the one other "William Shakespeare" that wrote anything (and I'll bet you we never will), and even if we did we'd have three, tops, links to it. If [[Author:William Shakespeare|]] doesn't actually link to Shakespeare it's going to surprise everyone, and we're going to end up having to constantly monitor it for inbound links that have to be fixed. --Xover (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Xover: I can definitely sympathize with this perspective. However, we have had this discussion before, and we have always come down on the side of "it doesn't matter that one is notable and the other isn't". And, as a matter of fact, we do have an Author page for Dr. William Shakespeare. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

If that's your reasoning then I definitely disagree. None of those names are actually ambiguous. I thought you were thinking of William Shakespeare Jr. (who would be ambiguous because we don't include the "Jr."), since they actually authored a couple of patents (and could conceivably have written other published material). If the pages you had in mind were other people who just happen to share one of their given names and one of their surnames with Shakespeare then this wasn't just a bad call but a bad call. As EP suggests in the public thread, this should have been discussed first. --Xover (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

{{Indic missing}}

Hi. as you seem to have some expertise with South Asian languages, I was wondering if when you had a spare moment, you could look into the uses of this template with a view to dispersing the relevant items to more specific "problematic language character" categories. {{Hindi missing}} was created recently, with this in mind.

My other question would be, based on other Wikisources usage and likely incidence in older works, which other South Asian languages are likely to need their own templates? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: unfortunately you are mistaken, I have no expertise with South Asian languages at all, except that I sometimes enjoy the detective work of tracking down the occasional unidentified character. However, I believe User:Hrishikes has some expertise on the subject. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Honorifics

Hello. Was the establishment and usage of the {{honorifics}} discussed anywhere? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: nope - it's just a tracking system, not a change in policy. If it helps you as much as it helps myself, so much the better :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, it is not only tracking. It also shows the ugly text box with the message "This Author page uses honorifics in the page title, contrary to Wikisource established practice." Such a message should not be distributed without wider consent. So, if you want to use it only for tracking, the message can be removed from the template and the template can be put somewhere near the bottom of the author pages, where it would be less disturbing to editors. Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: it's no more "ugly" than {{initials}} or {{populate}} or {{incomplete}} etc, but regardless I have posted on WS:S about this new tracking template. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Illustrations of poems....

I have a bias against Flickr, so I did these today commons:Category:Poems of childhood (Field, 1904), which, even if you reject them, the category is a better name, since that book has more than one illustrator.

I make no claim that they are superior, authentic or even good, except that my title image has a white background and the Flickr image has light blue. United States publishers used half-tone for color printing. Too bad about that war, the Brits were using lithography and they were at a peak in that when that war happened. Then the good printing came from Edinburgh, but I ramble.

Given a yea, I will install them if you want. A nay, and I will never mention them again (to you).--RaboKarbakian (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: sure, go nuts, those look like nicer versions of the images anyway —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

wikipedia and wikisource

I was wondering if you could make it work that en.wikipedia finds versions of en.wikisource texts and puts them in its sidebar. I can do this easily, by (if there is no disambiguation page) putting the one copy that is here on the main page, leaving the scan and the index, forever linked together on the version page. But the data structure insists that en.wikipedia search through the versions to find ours and that needs to happen if the information flow is not to be a consideration of the data structure.

So, if the structure is good, it should be very simple (if I understand everyone's logic) to search through versions, find the wikisource version and put it with the other wikilinks in the sidebar. Do you need a day or so to do this?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: your understanding is the same as mine: the Wikipedia page should query Wikidata, and if the Wikidata item also has a sitelink to Wikisource (which should only be the case for Disambig and Versions/Translations pages) it should list it in the sidebar. I believe it does this already. If there is no sitelink to Wikisource, it should see if there is a "has edition or translation" statement that links to an item with a sitelink to Wikisource, and if so it should display that. This would be a good improvement to Wikipedia.

However, I am not sure why you would think I had the ability to make Wikipedia actually do this, much less in a day or so (!). Surely you would have better luck contacting the developers over at Phabricator? And be prepared for it to take a bit longer than a day to actually get implemented too, these kind of changes take time. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I just need to understand this. Wikidata has been spending its time changing links that work (show up in the navigation on other wikimedia projects) to links that don't work (show up on other wikimedia projects) and no one has asked that their data scheme actually be implemented yet? And those same wikidata warriors are actively harrassing other wikipedians but not worried at all about the gutenberg versions that are on those same work pages? And you want me to ask that your (what I consider to be broken and not very clever) data scheme to work? Did I get something wrong (and I really hope that I did) in my assessment of this situation?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Not quite. While Indictiveload has proposed a change to info box book that would enable this to happen, it has not been merged. This change would also need to apply to info box short story and info box poem. Languageseeker (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

So, it is back to [[s:en:Title of Work]] being pasted manually? To get the "Wikisource" into the traditional navigation? And User:Beleg Tâl wants me to go ask for that? I don't want any of that. I would like the traditional linking to work first. I would like not to be asked to represent changes at a bug tracker that I don't want and I promise not to ask any of you to do such either.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I merged the code to the Infobox Short Story and the Infobox Poem templates, but the Infobox Book template is protected by an administrator. Languageseeker (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The so-called "Haka Mate"

I like what you did, and you have done right in your translation. I went in to read the Russian Wikipedia article in the subject and it is not nearly as complete as yours. Incidentally, there is none of the legally required attribution on the Russian article. Perhaps that has to do with the fact that the legislative of the Russian Federation doesn't feel like they need to protect a minorities right to a poem of sorts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:9a2d:c99b:0:45:d16e:c501 (talk)

Biblical apocrypha

Do I recall correctly to you had some passing interest in Biblical apocrypha? While processing WS:CV stuff I ran across M. R. James' The Apocryphal New Testament (1924) whose copyright had expired since its deletion and set up the scaffolding for it (Index:The Apocryphal New Testament (1924).djvu). I've run M&S and cleaned up the stuff that we had, but it's not really my cuppa so the rest is up for grabs for anyone with an interest in the area. It's a somewhat challenging work to proofread so I don't think it'd do well in the Monthly Challenge or similar. Xover (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)