User talk:CalendulaAsteraceae/Archive 2

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 29 December 2021, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Long-standing pages

Hi. I am not going to delete redundant long-standing pages, especially if they are not Wikidata'd. Best to just turn them into redirects, as we have no idea what was linking to that page from external, and we don't want linkrot to viable pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense; I'll bear that in mind in the future. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Dated soft redirects

Hi. Just so you know, dated soft redirects are effectively already tagged for deletion; it just doesn't happen until at least three months later. That's what the dated categories are for. In any case, there's no need to manually tag these for deletion. Xover (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Xover: Okay, thank you, that makes sense! Out of curiosity, what's the schedule for doing that? I ask because there's a year's worth of dated soft redirects at this point. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk | contribs) 18:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Whenever an admin thinks of it and has time, essentially. It used to be handled by bot, but these dats it’s just a low priority manual task. We may be particularly backlogged just now but it’s usually pretty low volume. Xover (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Cool, that makes sense! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk | contribs) 19:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of soft redirects

Hello. I have noticed that you nominated more than 170 soft redirect pages for deletion. The reason was that they were soft redirects and that they were not linked. However, soft redirects should never be linked. Whenever somebody finds a link to a soft redirect, they should redirect the link to the proper target. The main reason why soft redirects are being left behind a page that has moved is the fear that some external non-Wikisource or even non-Wikimedia internet pages may contain links to the page, and because we are not able to check existence of such external links, we can create a soft redirect. I personally do not consider such a mass deletion useful and would like to ask you if you could re-consider the nomination for speedy delete and remove the sdelete templates. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Yep, I'll do that. Thanks for pointing out the issue! Probably should have thought of it sooner (see also the previous section). —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 15:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

RE: She and Allan

I created the DjVu page by mistake. I prefer using PDF files due to wider accessibility, but I find myself cross-referencing DjVu pages with PDF pages due to how Wikisource's transcription software handles each format. --Idrisz19 (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Good to know, thank you! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 15:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: discussion started here. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 15:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The Most Ancient Lives of Saint Patrick/The Life and Acts of St. Patrick

I just wanted to let you know - I really appreciate your assistance with this one. I'm going to revert a bunch of your changes to make it easier on my find-and-replace script, but it isn't personal, and I appreciate your contributions nonetheless :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 19:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society

Please make the template adaptable to both djvu and pdf. I am converting only the very large files (500 mb or thereabouts) to djvu. Otherwise I am keeping the pdf so that the images are of good resolution and extractable from the file. So the template needs to accommodate both formats. Thanks. Hrishikes (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: Done {{Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland volumes}} —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 22:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828)

Re: your suggestion of splitting this. At present this work of several thousand pages spread over 6 volumes is progressing at between 2 and 5 pages a week, with work ongoing on all 6 volumes a chapter at a time (due to my personal preference to be reading from different parts of the Bible over time). I did not start this project, but am currently the only person working on it; other people, notably User:Heyzeuss who started it, have worked on it in the past. I have been involved for nearly 5 years. I got involved because the online version from CCEL currently used in various apps and websites needs proof-reading but the source edition (possibly editions!) is unknown. This 1828-ish one is available online and seems to be a good reprint of the first (quarto) edition in modern spelling (London, 1811) which is stated by Matthew Henry's biographer J B Williams to be the best edition, but is not completely available online; in any case some typos in the London edition have been corrected in the American edition. To save a huge amount of retyping, I use, as a basis for my proof-reading, the text from Hathi Trust's copy of the actual 1828 edition (Towar and Hogan), from whose plates almost every page of the one at Wikisource (Barrington and Haswell) was evidently reprinted. Each page is read through with the Barrington and Haswell image at Wikisource, correcting italics, formatting, and errors of spelling and punctuation; still a lot less work than using Wikisource's OCR which is of lower quality. It will not be finished in my lifetime if it continues at the present rate, so in my opinion its final form is somewhat irrelevant at the present stage.PeterR2 (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @PeterR2: The reason I suggested splitting An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828)/Genesis is that there are so many pages transcluded on the page that the template include size is exceeded, and the last two pages and the references aren't transcluded properly (see here). I don't know what structure would make sense there, since I haven't worked on this project, but it would be good to figure something out so people can read all of the work in mainspace. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 17:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Yikes, the limit is exceeded just for Genesis according to Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded ! Genesis is 211 pages. I haven't investigated thoroughly but it may be that not many of the sections on the different books of the Bible are that long, though Psalms will be much longer (approx. 440 pages), and Isaiah, and Jeremiah (nearly 300 pages each). PeterR2 (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

That's a lot of pages! Maybe it would work to split those longer books into chapters? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 20:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I barely understand how the structure of an individual work in Wikisource works. The main contents page at An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828) shows the individual chapters but they are just tags within the individual book. I have no idea even as to how the break between Genesis and Exodus is meant to work, given that the end of one is on the same page image as the beginning of the next - see Page:An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828) vol 1.djvu/263. Imagine having to do the same thing for each of the 1189 individual chapters in the Bible. PeterR2 (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

You can use the section tags to just transclude part of a page! I've gone ahead and done that for Genesis and Exodus. Since the work already has chapter tags, I could do the same thing to transclude the chapters on their own subpages as well. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 20:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828)/Genesis/Chapter 16 : ) —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 22:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all you've done on this. I'm not working on Genesis right now so it's great to have someone else sort this out. -PeterR2 (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 02:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@CalendulaAsteraceae: @ShakespeareFan00: Re the "template include size" thing, every time I create a page, a tag for references is automatically set up in the footer. However pages with references (footnotes) are very rare indeed. Should this be turned off? Should the otherwise empty footers have this tag removed by some automated process? Or doesn't it matter? -- PeterR2 (talk) 09:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@PeterR2: It doesn't matter. If there aren't references, the references tag won't show up. If there are references but no reference tag, they'll show up at the bottom of the page, and you can add a tag if you want to put them somewhere else. Help:Footnotes and endnotes has more information about this. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 22:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Night Before Christmas and other things

I have been wanting to drop in to tell you what a great admirer of your "righting" of things here. Putting authors into the author list, in particular.

The problem with The Night Before Christmas is this: Page:Arthur Rackham, a bibliography.pdf/86, the book was published in the UK so it needs to be shown that it was published in the US within the same month or wait until 2027. The ad I found was for A Christmas Carol. My 'proofs' are pretty shaky.

The other thing is Index:Puck of Pook's Hill.djvu, it is great that (I think you are finding djvu that are already here and starting the indexes) you found this. I had no idea it was here. That being said, and that you did not upload it, I really hate this version. There is a 1913 version that is better, while not being the 1906 version. If one day I ask that it (the index) be deleted, will that be a problem for you?

I spent a few months moving things around here and putting things on wikidata. It was great for getting to know the site, so I am thinking you are getting to know this site pretty well lately. And, thanks for improving the license on those images!!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: Thank you!

Yes, if that edition of The Night Before Christmas was published in 1931, as opposed to 1915, that's a different story, and you might want to mention that this is your concern at WS:CV#The Night Before Christmas, illustrated, no copyright notice. Good luck with that!

I have no plans to work on Index:Puck of Pook's Hill.djvu, since the version which already had pages in mainspace is Index:Puck of Pook's Hill (Kipling, Millar).djvu, illustrated by H. R. Millar. Out of curiosity, what's the difference between the 1906 and 1913 editions? (Is this the 1913 edition you mean?) —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 01:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes! That is the one! The first Rackham version was published in 1906 but at IA the earliest with the illustrations is that one. Everything I have seen from Dover makes me remember how difficult it is to pick a good place to black point on. In image work, it can be like a magic that makes all of the colors brand new or it can settle what is there into a black porridge (not the best description but the day is really early here....)

There was a miracle at the copyright discussions. I put that edition there in the case that the miracle might repeat itself. See: Wikisource:Copyright_discussions#USA_publication,_no_copyright_notice. And, at commons, there is a very interesting thing about Poland. commons:Category:Arthur Rackham - Poe's Tales of Mystery and Imagination from 1937 Page:Arthur Rackham, a bibliography.pdf/92, PD in USA in 2033. Some Pole had uploaded a bunch of ARs illustrations to en.wiki before the 2009 start date, heh. There is some "rule of the least" at commons.

Finding the stuff in a bibliography which crosses the dates has been more interesting than I thought. In truth, I got involved with this whole thing due to really really liking this one image.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Curly quotes

Hello. I would like to ask you not to change the style of quotes (curly x straight) in the transcribed works without any apparent reason. If a work uses curly quotes and it is transcribed to Wikisource with curly quotes, then the curly quotes should stay there. Thanks. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The reason I was changing the quote style is because that's what's recommended in the style guide—and what Google OCR, which I was using, produces—but since the work is short and it's easy to consistently use curly quotes, I'm not wedded to this. Sorry for any problems this caused! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 20:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

That is OK, these were not really problems. However, the style guide states something different: "Use a consistent style of quotation marks ("straight" or “curly”) within a given work." It recommends straight quotes only for works with "a large number of contributing editors" where it would be difficult to reach consistency. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

However, the style guide permits other works to use straight quotes—not just those with a large number of contributors. The key is to be consistent. I don't have the ability to directly type curly quotes on my main contributing PC, and so never use them. And my cleanup script removes any that have appeared in OCR. As a result, I don't do validations on works where curly quotes have been used, unless I can do so without using the cleanup script. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

{{Pages}}?

Trying to deprecate it, Keep going!  :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, there's kind of a lot even excluding everything in Category:Pages needing conversion, but I'm making progress. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Transclusion change

Why did you make this edit? The two revisions seem to be identical in their appearance. Is there some problem with direct MediaWiki transclusion from the Page namespace? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Direct transclusion works fine, but the <pages/> tag is preferred in namespaces that allow it. So, it's better to use <pages/> for new projects, but going back and switching old projects to use it isn't that important, it's just a thing I personally care about. (Not gonna make a big project of it until I'm done with {{page}}, though.) However, transclusion using the <pages/> tag does have the advantage of automatically putting page numbers with links to the pages on the left. Here's the before and after of one page I converted, which demonstrates that. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Nice, thanks. https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Help%3ATransclusion&type=revision&diff=11950969&oldid=11949977 —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The change you are making is not working in some situations, for example The Reminiscences of Carl Schurz (book)/Volume Two/Chapter 1. It leaves strange breaks in the text at the page boundaries. It is a good change to make but needs to be done differently in this case anyway, as User:Inductiveload showed me. I have fixed the item noted, and will fix the others that need it for the volumes of that work. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll look out for that going forward. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 20:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)