Vulgar Errors edit

This was a redirect to Pseudodoxia Epidemica An Alphabetical Table which you deleted. Should the redirect page be deleted as well ? -- Beardo (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it should. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Livy edit

About my my corrections in your translation of Titus Livy (by the way, heartfelt congratulations for the magnificent work), I attach the file which correctly shows that the real name is Caius Furius Pacilius. Please, therefore, correct the passage: Pacilius and not Pacilus. Thank you so much!!!!!! Tandem reverto in domum (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's a Latin edition, not the English translation that we are hosting. The English translation uses a different spelling than the Latin text. We are hosting the English translation made by Spillan (and others), and that translation uses the spelling Pacilus, as you can see here in this scan. What spelling is used in a completely different edition of the work is irrelevant for our purposes. Consider for example that Titus Livius is usually called "Livy" in English. We do not mix information from different editions, so we would not alter an English edition based on spellings in a different edition published in Latin. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ok. Thanks Tandem reverto in domum (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Category:Index pages of works about Toki Pona edit

Sorry, my mistake. In that case, you'll also want to delete Category:Index - esperanto. I made the category because I was copying everything from Category:Esperanto language that also seemed relevant to Category:Toki Pona language. --Spenĉjo (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

You will also want to delete Category:Index - toki pona won't you ? -- Beardo (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Image... edit

There was? I don't recall seeing that at the time; in fact I made a note then that it was a unilateral change but got sidetracked and forgot about it (which was why I changed it back now). If there was a discussion I must have entirely missed it, and links would be appreciated. A quick search now failed to turn up anything. Xover (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I never loved the image change. Sure, George Eliot was a great author, well-respected, etc., but it still seems quite preferential for a general-purpose template. Someone's favorite author might be Tennyson or Blake or Wells or Wollstonecraft. The old image was more neutral in that respect, since it doesn't appear to depict any known individual in particular. SnowyCinema (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It was a discussion held across multiple pages. I know at least three people were contacted individually, including me, for input. We didn't choose the image for "favorite" status, but for aesthetic and representational reasons. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
What was it supposed to represent? A welcome template for Wikisource should represent books in general (our old welcome template image), or perhaps the concept of an archive, or perhaps the transcription process (the Main Page image), not portraits of specific authors. A new vote should be held. SnowyCinema (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you want to start a vote of some kind, you can certainly do so. Personally, I prefer an actual English-language author to an imaginary random guy from a painting. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Maybe a different ambiguous image would be more agreeable among our editors. While many of our actives being Western bibliophiles would understand George Eliot's work as common knowledge, she may not be immediately recognizable to potential editors from certain other backgrounds (cultural, educational, age, etc.) who may perceive the image as a random old portrait of a young woman. So the aesthetic wouldn't resonate with everyone. SnowyCinema (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm pretty sure it's supposed to represent "a woman", and be "representative of women in literature". That is, it was picked motivated by a desire to increase the representation of women in history. Or so the candidates proposed (1, 2, 3) suggest. Which isn't a bad motivation per se, but it's a choice of priorities for this context with which not everyone will necessarily agree (I don't, for one). Xover (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
So three people, on various obscure pages where the community at large is not involved, and you consider that a consensus on which you would revert? Xover (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Guidance? edit

Hi, following up on this, since this is probably more about me learning something than about making a decision.

Here's my thinking.

Per this discussion (and your urging especially), I decided it's about time I start putting in some effort into processing a backlog, and learn a bit more about Wikisource practices. I've kept pretty focused on Works with no license template, but also trying to keep in mind the "no source" backlog and address that one as best I can where they overlap.

When we started with that, there were I believe almost 1600 pages in the backlog. I noticed the "Florida roads legislation" pages at the time, and made a comment to the contributors, but focused my efforts on lower-hanging fruit.

Now, we are at about 350 pages in the backlog. The 20 pages currently in the backlog (and the hundreds linked on the portal page) now constitute a more significant chunk of the "problem" expressed by the backlog's existence. It's relatively trivial to add either {{PD-GovEdict}} or a more bespoke Florida template to these pages, which would clear them out of this backlog; but they would still have no source linked.

As such they do not currently align with Wikisource's verifiability standards. Finding and linking the sources would take a great deal of effort, and having pinged the people who seemed to have worked on this rather esoteric content in the past several months ago, I see no indication that anybody is interested in doing that work.

So I see these possibilities:

  1. Do nothing
  2. Delete the pages
  3. Add PD banners to the pages, and don't worry about the lack of scans/links
  4. Find a way to get that extensive work done, to more thoroughly fix the problem.

I believe that it's worthwhile to keep Wikisource well organized to encourage search engine indexing, so #1 seems less than ideal. Whether or not that's your line of reasoning, you've also expressed concern about the lack of copyright information on pages.

What do you think is the best path forward? I don't necessarily need a complete solution from you, but hoping for some guidance on how to best encourage community deliberation to move things in a better direction without unnecessary turbulence. -Pete (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

A good start would be to search for backing scans, either yourself, or asking for help. If backing scans can be located, the verifiability problem is at least partially resolved. If no one can locate scans, and the pages are therefore not verifiable, we then have a basis for possible deletion, since we were unable to verify the contents of those pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I take it you find my efforts on those two insufficient. Can you tell me what I missed? -Pete (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Did you look for copies of the source? Your deletion proposal made no mention of any efforts to find a source copy. Did you ask for help (assuming that because these are state legislative documents, they might be hard to track down)? Again, the proposal made no mention of any effort to locate sources. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes. I believe I searched at archive.org and a basic Google search, and a basic (non-expert) attempt at the Fla. secretary of state's site. I already requested help in two different venues, months ago, as I linked in my Scriptorium post yesterday, and when you assumed I hadn't yesterday I pointed it out again. So...I guess I'll just again say yes? I'm open to specific suggestions about how I could make such requests better, but I don't think repeatedly asking me whether I sought help really gets us anywhere -Pete (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I do hear you, that mentioning my own efforts explicitly would have been helpful in the nom. -Pete (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

On page labels edit

Hi, I saw you changed labels in some indexes and I wanted to ask why you removed the "Title" and other specific names.

Help:Index pages does say: "Preliminary sections of a work that are not part of the sequences or ranges of numbering as depicted in the original printed work should be named: "Half-title", "Title", "Contents", etc" — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you count the pages, those pages fit the numbering scheme. Labels like "Title" and "Dedication" can be used temporarily when proofreading, or in works where the numbering of the front matter does not work, but the ideal is to provide the actual page numbers, so that someone reading the work will be able to locate pages using the universal system that libraries use. On Index:Poems Larcom.djvu, look at page viii, which is labelled as such on the page. Count backwards, and all the pages fit a numbering scheme beginning at i. Note also that we don't label pages with a dash ( - ) unless they are not part of the numbered sequence. A dash does not indicate a blank page, but rather a page that is not part of the numbered sequence of pages. Contrast all of this with the situation at Index:Man Who Laughs (Estes and Lauriat 1869) v1.djvu, where the Title page and Colophon are clearly not part of the sequence, since both pages occur prior to page i. In that situation, invented labels are unavoidable, since the numbering does not encompass those pages. The key phrase you've overlooked in the Help page guideance is "Preliminary sections of a work that are not part of the sequences or ranges of numbering..." --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation! — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Linting... edit

You left a concern on my talk page,

Reducing what I think the Linter concern was down to a simple test case:-

 '''<span>''' Some content'''</span>'''

which shows up as being misnested, due to where the bold markup tags are..

I think it's trying to render :

<b><span></b>Some Content<b></span></b>

I am wondering if what was intended is :

<b><span><b>Some Content</b></span></b>

which is clearly malformed.

What is being output is:

<b><span></span></b>Some content<b></b>

Perhaps you can look into this in more depth with a view to coming up with a stable repair? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

{{nop}} in TOCs edit

According to some help page, there are supposed to be {{nop}}'s at the end of TOC pages, but a few months ago I stopped adding them because it works just fine without. As far as I understand, it isn't needed. What does it do ? (asking because I saw you do it, I'd assumed it was the usual case of not up to date documentation) Thanks, — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The {{nop}} forces a line break at the end of the page. So it's necessary when whatever is on the next page should start on a new line. There is a separate table-version {{nopt}} for use in cross-page tables. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I know what {{nop}} does, but putting it in TOCs seems unnecessary to me as it works just fine without, for example in Poems (Freston). — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
It depends on the specifics of the templates involved. Note that, if a template is changed, it might affect the need for a new line. On Poems (Freston), the templates used are a shortcut for creating tables, and table syntax on the wiki requires certain elements to be placed at the start of a new line. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
(At least with the {{TOC row}}'s, it seems to not do much.) Thanks for the help. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Help with Microscopical Researches -- two books in one edition edit

Hi! I saw you helped in the https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Microscopical_Researches_Into_the_Accordance_in_the_Structure_and_Growth_of_Animals_and_Plants page and thought you maybe can help me to solve a conundrum :)

This book edition has two back-to-back translations, the main work by T. Schwann and a previous treaties by M. Schleiden, Contributions to Phytogenesis from page 229 to the end.

What would be the best way of bringing these on WikiSource? Should I split the pages for both works, but refer to the same source/index?

Thanks for the time! TiagoLubiana (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's certainly a possible way to do it. Just transcribe the whole volume, but transclude them as two separate works, since they're not related. Or, if the split is clean enough you could also do it the way I did Pindar and Anacreon: which had a title page that I linked to the two works from its main page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! TiagoLubiana (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply