EncycloPetey

EncycloPetey

(Archives index, Last archive)

Guidance?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

On page labels

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)

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)

Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation! — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Linting...

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)

{{nop}} in TOCs

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

Help with Microscopical Researches -- two books in one edition

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)

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)

Thanks! TiagoLubiana (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Dont delete my stuff

please @Encyclopetey: Maskedfisher709 (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey, I did nothing wrong. Maskedfisher709 (talk) 01:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Maskedfisher709: You created empty pages with no content. Please do not create empty pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

There not empty, also Wiki means collaboration with others, please VFD if you want @EncycloPetey: Maskedfisher709 (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

We do not waste time discussing the deletion of empty pages. They qualify for speedy deletion, and no discussion is necessary. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes discussion is very important here. @EncycloPetey: Maskedfisher709 (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

How can I help then?

@EncycloPetey Maskedfisher709 (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Could you please pay more attention and not waste my time in the future

There was no need for this and my edits included several unambiguous fixes which you did not realize because you did not even look at what I did: https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page%3AO._Henry_Memorial_Award_Prize_Stories_for_1919.pdf%2F9&diff=14307312&oldid=14307311 —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I did look at what you did. None of those changes were necessary, and most were ill-advised. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

You say that, and yet: https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page%3AO._Henry_Memorial_Award_Prize_Stories_for_1919.pdf%2F9&diff=14307313&oldid=14307312. And none of them were "ill-advised". Having semantically correct tables and using CSS properly are not bad things. Please do tell me why removing {{nop}} was a good idea. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

And yet, in the edit of mine you linked, I corrected the display title as well as the link. In your edit, you had changed the display title without changing the link. If you are truly worried about wasting your time, then why are you here? --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

You evidently didn't read what I wrote, which shows how you are a time-wasting, non-serious person. You have previously abused admin privileges here and have shown poor judgement and this is another example to throw on the pile. It's sad that you choose to be this kind of person. I'm here to ask you to pay more attention and not waste my time in the future, in case that somehow wasn't clear from the exact words that I wrote above. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Please do not replace a CSS-supported table with a set of kludgy templates that ought to be retired, then complain that your time was wasted, then abuse the person. When you choose to make massive edits that no one asked for, and use templates whose use several tech-savvy admins have strongly argued against, it is not other people who are somehow vicariously responsible for your wasted time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Your complaint was "You didn't fix everything, therefore, it's good for me to undo all of the fixes you made and introduce other problems". Brilliant. If you think certain templates should be deleted, then propose them for deletion. Until then, don't whine about someone using them and helping you fix the problems that you brought up at the Scriptorium or expect someone else to know that a third party evidently complained about something but didn't fix it some time ago. I would love to know what you think is "abuse" here, but I don't expect you to give an actual response to this, just like you didn't give actual responses to what I wrote before. Anyway, have a nice life. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem I asked for help with was: "this is working in place a; why isn't it working in place b?" I did not ask your your abuse. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for your feedback. Have a nice life. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Broken moves

Your disambiguatory moves have left many bad links here, please fix them. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me. I have fixed all the linked that refer to Ibsen's play. The one link referring to Grieg's music, I am unsure how to direct, as do not have it on Wikisource. I have therefore left it pointing to the disambiguation page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Author:David Laing & Author:William Dunbar

Obviously, you shouldn't've violated 3rr, should've actually discussed the points I was raising, and should never just entirely blank content instead of quickly moving it into the right place. (No, it doesn't save any time: It just leads to messes like this.)

That all said, unpleasant as this has been, absolutely, thanks for working on Dunbar's poems and apologies for any sourness it causes that the supplement belongs in some form on the work's main page, even if there's a reason to create a separate area for its specific 1835 form. — LlywelynII 17:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Please do not disperse comments on this issue any further. We've already got conversations going in multiple locations. Adding further locations will not help matters. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)