User talk:EncycloPetey
| EncycloPetey |
Re: fontsEdit
(Sorry for missing your message.) I have been indexing and proofreading many of these old broadsides, which include a number of unusual fonts. For this, and a few others, the font wasn’t quite blackletter, but it was similar, so I used it as such. See also “The Song of the Rebel”, “Manassas”, “Beauregard at Manassas”, and “Battle Song of the ‘Black Horsemen’”. There may be a few more in the future, though. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Deprecated templatesEdit
So in what way should the template be fixed then?
- 99% of what you're doing is correct. The template shouldn't appear in categories. And for short bits of factual text, the template isn't needed. But when large chunks of text are quoted from Wikipedia, we do not have an alternative. For that use, the template is still functional and should be left in place. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Index:As a Man ThinkethEdit
Hi there. Just wondering why you reverted my changes to the index page. I went through every single page to check for defects, plus the Chapter transclusions and am unsure what is still wrong. Regards, Chrisguise (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Chrisguise: I have not edited that Index page. An IP edited the Index; I have not. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- The problem is that the chapter pages do not have a {{Header}} template as required by our Style Guide. It says this in the clean up template that I added. You can look for yourself; the chapter pages have no header templates. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- EncycloPetey: It says “header="1"” in the screenshot; each chapter has a header template, though not called through the template directly, but through the “pages” tag. There is clearly a header; why are you saying there is not? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, each page has a tag-generated header. The do not have header templates. There must be a header template, for multiple reasons. The pages tag is a quick-fix, but is not considered best practice, nor does its use satisfy Style Guide requirements. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- EncycloPetey: I do not use the “pages” tag-generated header, as I want greater flexibility, but your claim is absurd. In the first place, the style guide only states that pages “should” use {{header}}, not that they must. In addition, why would the “header” function of the “pages” tag exist, if not to provide a header? That is what the various bibliographical fields on the “index” page are for: to load the parameters of the automatically generated header. If you wish to change the policy, and disallow the use of the tag-generated header, do so; but do not claim that it is out of order, when it is not. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- The pages-header implementation exists so that bots have the means to auto-generate a "quick-and-dirty" work once the table of contents is completed. I am not seeking to change policy, but am alerting you to the policy. I did not make this policy. It is possible to use the pages tag generated headers, but only as a stop-gap. A completed work should not have them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- EncycloPetey: I have created a thread on the Scriptorium here on the topic. As bots can create pages using the normal “header” template, as I have seen the match-and-split bot do, I do not believe that claim; and I have seen on numerous occasions non-bot users using the “header” function of the “pages” tag. Again, you are not calling to any policy, but merely your claim of policy; you are not seeking to change it, but creating it out of whole cloth; and you certainly have made the so-called “policy.” TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is the first item under "Formatting" on the Style Guide, as I pointed out to you both on your Talk page and in the Scriptorium thread. Above, you referred to this policy, so I know you read it, so you cannot claim I am "creating it out of whole cloth" when clearly it exists and you have read it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- EncycloPetey: I have read the policy; I read it before you even pointed it out to me. My claim is that your claim, that the use of the “header” template is required, is not what the policy states, and that the “header” function of the “pages” tag is an acceptable alternative to the use of the template. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Then you understand neither the meaning of "should" nor "wikt:out of whole cloth". --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- EncycloPetey: From English Wiktionary: “ought to;” and in the usage notes, the word “must,” indicating requirement, is contrasted. And as for “whole cloth”: “Something made completely new, with no history, and not based on anything else.” This is an accurate representation of your claim that the “header” template is required, to the exclusion of the “header” function of the “pages” tag. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- At this point I have to conclude you are arguing for arguing's sake, since I showed you the basis for my claims, yet you persist in asserting that there is no basis. Please limit further discussion to the Scriptorium. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- EncycloPetey: I am arguing with you, yes; I am countering your claims, and claiming that your claimed basis is no basis. But I will limit my discussion, as you wish. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- At this point I have to conclude you are arguing for arguing's sake, since I showed you the basis for my claims, yet you persist in asserting that there is no basis. Please limit further discussion to the Scriptorium. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- EncycloPetey: From English Wiktionary: “ought to;” and in the usage notes, the word “must,” indicating requirement, is contrasted. And as for “whole cloth”: “Something made completely new, with no history, and not based on anything else.” This is an accurate representation of your claim that the “header” template is required, to the exclusion of the “header” function of the “pages” tag. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Then you understand neither the meaning of "should" nor "wikt:out of whole cloth". --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- EncycloPetey: I have read the policy; I read it before you even pointed it out to me. My claim is that your claim, that the use of the “header” template is required, is not what the policy states, and that the “header” function of the “pages” tag is an acceptable alternative to the use of the template. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is the first item under "Formatting" on the Style Guide, as I pointed out to you both on your Talk page and in the Scriptorium thread. Above, you referred to this policy, so I know you read it, so you cannot claim I am "creating it out of whole cloth" when clearly it exists and you have read it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- EncycloPetey: I have created a thread on the Scriptorium here on the topic. As bots can create pages using the normal “header” template, as I have seen the match-and-split bot do, I do not believe that claim; and I have seen on numerous occasions non-bot users using the “header” function of the “pages” tag. Again, you are not calling to any policy, but merely your claim of policy; you are not seeking to change it, but creating it out of whole cloth; and you certainly have made the so-called “policy.” TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- The pages-header implementation exists so that bots have the means to auto-generate a "quick-and-dirty" work once the table of contents is completed. I am not seeking to change policy, but am alerting you to the policy. I did not make this policy. It is possible to use the pages tag generated headers, but only as a stop-gap. A completed work should not have them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- EncycloPetey: I do not use the “pages” tag-generated header, as I want greater flexibility, but your claim is absurd. In the first place, the style guide only states that pages “should” use {{header}}, not that they must. In addition, why would the “header” function of the “pages” tag exist, if not to provide a header? That is what the various bibliographical fields on the “index” page are for: to load the parameters of the automatically generated header. If you wish to change the policy, and disallow the use of the tag-generated header, do so; but do not claim that it is out of order, when it is not. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, each page has a tag-generated header. The do not have header templates. There must be a header template, for multiple reasons. The pages tag is a quick-fix, but is not considered best practice, nor does its use satisfy Style Guide requirements. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- EncycloPetey: It says “header="1"” in the screenshot; each chapter has a header template, though not called through the template directly, but through the “pages” tag. There is clearly a header; why are you saying there is not? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
TE(æ)A,ea.,EncycloPetey I have come across many works that use the type of header that is causing the problem but this is the first time I have seen it flagged up this way. I have fixed the chapter transclusions and removed the maintenance tag. Chrisguise (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- It used to be an occasional issue, but I've noticed it becoming common of late. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I want to upload a book, but I need information.Edit
I wish I could host a book here. I have it photocopied. I'm thinking of scanning your pages and uploading them here to host the book. I don't know if it can. The book is titled: "The Military Campaigns of Dominican Independence." I would like to upload it to share it..
I would like to know what procedure I should follow???
please help. Risantana (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- The Wikisource:Scriptorium is the best place to ask for help. We would need to know when the book was published, who wrote it, who published it, and similar information. It must not be under copyright and we would use the information to determine whether or not it is under copyright. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Versions datesEdit
I have removed these date categories because versions pages don’t have dates. This is because a work can have different versions published during different dates. This is also true for translation versions pages, as the original work can also have gone through multiple editions, published in different years. Also, those categories (and all other such categories) should be deleted; I have emptied several other categories in a similar manner. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- The Version / Translation page is for the work itself, and gets linked to the data item for the work. For Classical texts, all editions we host are English translations, and so have a recent date on them. The best way to categorize the originals is by using the Version / Translation as for the work itself. Other Wikisources do just that, and it's the one page we coordinate with Wikipedia articles on those works via Wikidata. It is precisely because th individual editions will all have varying dates, and for ancient, classical, and medieval works, the dates will NOT be the same as the original work. Hence, but the Version / Translation page into the category. If you have a decision you can point to, where this removal and deletion of categories was discussed, please share. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree up to “hence.” Where there are multiple versions (either translations or versions), the Wikidata reference should point to the translations or versions page. I agree that the modern translations will have modern dates, to correspond to when those works were published. This is also appropriate for copyright reasons. The original works should be connected through the translations/versions page. I agree with all you have said, until this point. However, I do not understand how those points lead to the conclusion to put incorrect date categories on translations pages. Similarly, dates should not be put on translations or versions pages where individual editions of such works have different dates of publication. Dates serve as measures of copyright to a great degree, so they should be accurate representations of the date of publication of specific editions of a work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- Except that is not what Wikidata is doing. If you believe Wikidata is in error, you should let them know. Our Versions / Translations pages are where the primary data item for the work point. Italian Wikisource even goes a step farther and put their pages in a namespace "Opera:" (Work:). I disagree with you about dates. Where there is a Versions / Translations page, the date on that page should be for the first publication, or composition if the work comes initially from a time when publication was not the primary means of distribution. And while dates usually are relevant for copyright, they often are not. The date of a 20th century edition of Shakespeare is only relevant for copyright if the edition includes new notes, illustrations, or the like that merit protection under copyright. For a translation of an ancient Greek drama, it is the date of first publication of that translation that is relevant, not the date of the specific publication of that translation. Even in the Loeb Classics series, many of the translations were published well before they appeared in that series. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- As I said, I agree with your comments about Wikidata. Again, if a translations or versions page exists, that should be (is) the point of connection to the Wikidata item. Of course, if a work is old enough, the date doesn’t really matter for copyright; but in any case an accurate date is important for integrity, identification of sources, and citations. For translations/versions pages, while it may be useful to indicate a date of original publication, that should not be given as a date for the work itself, which would just confuse the other (non-copyright) elements. This is especially true where there is not one date to point to for the version. Beyond merely copyright, it is important to indicate dates accurately, and including a date on the translations/versions page confuses the issue. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- But for Modern Library or Everyman's Library editions, the date of publication may have no meaning whatever. In that instance, knowing the date of original publication of a work is important. Knowing the date of the original does not confuse anything, as far as I am concerned. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- As I said, I agree with your comments about Wikidata. Again, if a translations or versions page exists, that should be (is) the point of connection to the Wikidata item. Of course, if a work is old enough, the date doesn’t really matter for copyright; but in any case an accurate date is important for integrity, identification of sources, and citations. For translations/versions pages, while it may be useful to indicate a date of original publication, that should not be given as a date for the work itself, which would just confuse the other (non-copyright) elements. This is especially true where there is not one date to point to for the version. Beyond merely copyright, it is important to indicate dates accurately, and including a date on the translations/versions page confuses the issue. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- Except that is not what Wikidata is doing. If you believe Wikidata is in error, you should let them know. Our Versions / Translations pages are where the primary data item for the work point. Italian Wikisource even goes a step farther and put their pages in a namespace "Opera:" (Work:). I disagree with you about dates. Where there is a Versions / Translations page, the date on that page should be for the first publication, or composition if the work comes initially from a time when publication was not the primary means of distribution. And while dates usually are relevant for copyright, they often are not. The date of a 20th century edition of Shakespeare is only relevant for copyright if the edition includes new notes, illustrations, or the like that merit protection under copyright. For a translation of an ancient Greek drama, it is the date of first publication of that translation that is relevant, not the date of the specific publication of that translation. Even in the Loeb Classics series, many of the translations were published well before they appeared in that series. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree up to “hence.” Where there are multiple versions (either translations or versions), the Wikidata reference should point to the translations or versions page. I agree that the modern translations will have modern dates, to correspond to when those works were published. This is also appropriate for copyright reasons. The original works should be connected through the translations/versions page. I agree with all you have said, until this point. However, I do not understand how those points lead to the conclusion to put incorrect date categories on translations pages. Similarly, dates should not be put on translations or versions pages where individual editions of such works have different dates of publication. Dates serve as measures of copyright to a great degree, so they should be accurate representations of the date of publication of specific editions of a work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
nothing about the flac files?Edit
I looked up how to start a sound file playing at a certain time (to skip the lv blurb) and it requires javascript. When I uploaded the flac, it was with visions of highlighted read along.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I know nothing about this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
MC listingEdit
The categories list all indexes present that month—including all one-month- and two-month-old proofreading and validation indexes—not just new indexes for the month. Formerly, a bot added them, but it has not worked since November 2022, and I have been filling them in. (On the topic of bots not working, the daily stats haven’t been working for a days now.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Deprecated Center tags..Edit
https://public-paws.wmcloud.org/User:ShakespeareFan00/obsolete.txt
Perhaps you can make a better effort? I need to review the 1000 or so I did anyway, so will be a bit busy for a while. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Temp screenshotEdit
This is tagged as temporary: File:AsAManThinketh - temp screenshot PM.png. Is it still needed? Xover (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- And File:CDWard.jpg and File:CDWard (cropped).jpg (both tagged as temporary, neither showing any usages)? Xover (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- All were indeed needed only temporarily. I have deleted them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Editing HelpEdit
Hello, I have come back on Wikisource after several years. I am not able to get this page in correct manner. Please help and support.-Abhinav619 (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Everything looks fine to me at first glance. You will need to use {{underline}} and might need to put the whole page into {{block center}} to keep it from spreading out too far to the left and right once it's transcluded. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- @EncycloPetey: Thanks for it. Can you also check the footnotes.-Abhinav619 (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I see some footer text at the bottom of the page, but no footnotes. A footnote would be attached to the main text with some sort of symbol or number. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- @EncycloPetey: Thanks for it. Can you also check the footnotes.-Abhinav619 (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- @EncycloPetey:, Sorry footer text only. But it not aligned in one line as can be seen in the original text.-Abhinav619 (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Now it is done. Thank You.-Abhinav619 (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Hello @EncycloPetey:, This document has been proofread. Can you please help with further steps. --Abhinav619 (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have started it here.--Abhinav619 (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not certain what process you're seeking help with. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have started it here.--Abhinav619 (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)