Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in , although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.
Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
Thank ye kindly for the update, please feel free to stalk any of my stuff and make similar improvements...or let me know if there are tips I'm missing.(Q: When does a Lemur go “roarrrr”? A: When it is learning a new language!)
I was not so much interested in "accomodating works without a clear author", but instead "increasing the sum of human knowledge" and increasing the database potential. I did go read the Proposed Deletion on the template (I reference it at the bottom of the template right now), but it seems it just got deleted because it "never got off the ground" thirteen years ago…figured it's worth another shot. Lemuritus (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I am just trying to create a single example page, to stimulate the conversation - I'm not creating any except Publisher:Way and Williams Publishers, which is a very minor printing house with a very limited selection. I won't create any more publishers until the community's discussed it; I am just testing the waters as it seems they were allowed to be tested in 2006 and 2010 before going inactive and being deleted…except I hope to be a little more thorough and successful now that it’s 2020. Lemuritus (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I’ll move it to Portal for now…though would appreciate help with the project as an ongoing thing. Wikisource has a lot of material, but it is ####ing difficult to find works by theme or anything. Lemuritus (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Indeed the "Categories" are absolutely rubbish on Wikisource, they should work just like on other projects but for some reason they don’t. Having more auto-included categories might be a start (So anything listed on Portal:Kyrgyzstan gets an automatic Category:Kyrgyzstan added, but even the Portals are an ugly mishmash where some too strictly follow LOC guidelines and others don't even pretend to know what they are. Sign me up for any intensive hardcore discussion on resolving the categorization/portal/publishers issues. It seems that’s more important than adding new works, at least to my eye. Lemuritus (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Since I can't bug the Scriptorium/Help with every question I have; is The Caravan in the Deserts really the best way to display a poem? I can’t even view the poem, and I'm guessing most casual readers directed here from Google/theAuthorPage would click away not realising there’s a small hidden link to the actual poem, etc. Or is that page not following guidelines? Because if that’s official, that’s…disappointing. Lemuritus (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
That's one reason that, for short works, I display everything on the primary page. If I don't, then I make sure there's a clear table of Contents or clear link in the body of the page. Other editors here believe that only the title page or book cover belongs on the primary page for the work, and those editors put everything else on subsidiary pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@RaboKarbakian: It's not a typo. That spelling is the one used in the title of the first edition. There are many spellings for his name. The Bard himself used many spellings in his own lifetime. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
It occurred to me that I have been here before with this exact same problem. I really dislike the way that it is done here. While I give you another couple of years to agree with me about it, I might forget and approach you again with this. Sorry? --RaboKarbakian (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
It never hurts to ask. But you can also verify from the scan that supports the work that the spelling is the one used throughout the work. One of the central tenets on Wikisource is that we don't editorialize works; we present the work as it was published. Charles and Mary Lamb chose to use the spelling "Shakspeare", so that is what we present. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
While that could be done, there is no need. We do not need to disambiguate because the primary page and the unsourced edition have different spellings for the title. The ultimate goal would be to replace / remove the unsourced edition altogether. Once our 1831 sourced edition is complete, we can simply delete the unsourced edition and convert it to a redirect. In general, we only maintain unsourced editions until a sourced edition can replace them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
The advantage that the unsourced version has over the sourced (and in progress) version is it doesn't have images. I personally do not consider that to be an advantage, but many do. Deleting them would make wikidata easier, but who needs easier? Keeping it would make your versions "list" make more sense as would be lists of more than one.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Chinese emperors are another exception and are called in accordance with history-recording convention(s) and English translating convention. For Ming and Qing emperors, the convention is "the Era_name + Emperor(=Di)" like the Author:Xianfeng Emperor (because almost each emperor has one era name); for other dynasties "Emperor(=Di) + (Temple_Name or Posthumous_Name) + of Dynsasty_Name"), eg Author:Emperor Wen of Han (Han Wu Di, lit: "Han Civil Emperor"). The "Emperor/Di" is not only a title but a constituent part of the conventional name, for there is no such thing as "Civil of Han"/"Mighty of Han" (Author:Wen of Han/Author:Wu of Han are very errors). Wen/Civil here is a descriptor not a personal name like given names Kublai and Elizbeth. Please check Wikipedia naming of the Chinese emperors. Thank you :) ---Wenku-bot (talk)
I have responded on your talk page. Even the regnal names of kings and queens is often not the personal name, nor are the official names of popes, but as a rule, we do not include titles in Author page names. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Featured text candidates
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Of all the mentioned candidates, which is most in need of review? The timing for A History of Japanese Literature seems a good reason, and I'm interested in their art, but 'haikai'? Is that singular for 'haiku'? No, more broad w:haikai. Yikes! For me bridging across centuries of English spellings is mind-bending ; dealing with trial spellings/transliterations of Japanese might twist too far! :-) Shenme (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Aside: how interested are you in linking obscurities to Wikipedia articles? That is, looking at page 360 of "A History of Japanese Literature (Aston)" we see reference to a famous novel "Hakkenden". w:Nansō Satomi Hakkenden! When correspondence is obvious, is linking desirable? (After 15 pages (pp 345-360) I've found no errors!) Shenme (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Linking to WP articles is not something I generally do except in headers. There are two schools of thought here about linking to WP. On the one hand, some editors link every word that has a WP article. On the other hand, editors believe in the sanctity of the text and abhor all "annotation" of texts. I fall in between, but more towards the sanctity of text end of things. It becomes distracting to read a text which is heavily linked, and reading on a mobile device becomes frustrating if every time you scroll to a new page, you run the risk of hitting a link. I will occasionally link to WP articles, or link particularly obscure words to Wiktionary. The only two places where I will do a lot of linking are (a) in a bibliography, where I link to Authors (locally, if I can) and works that are mentioned, and (b) in annotations that are present in the work, and which can be enhanced further by such linking. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The following line should pick up where the previous line left off. That is why a "Gap" (in ems) is used. Using {{float right}} causes two problems: (1) the next line will be waaaayy to the right, especially on wider screens (try using a wide screen and you'll see this problem straightaway), and (2) it will float the text beyond the line number. In the Yale Shakespeare series, only the stage directions should typically be floated to the right. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
My little experiment (residual errors)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I've reviewed about 145pp, finding about 12 errors of any worth. So, roughly, after a wonderful original scan and two stages of review, there were still errors at about one out of 12 pages. Many were just punctuation goofs, but the dropped word and the "fine" -> "line" were rewarding.
I was keeping track by chapter, thus:
Book the First p 1 - 13 11pp 1 error
Book the Second p 15 - 49 35pp 4 errors (w 1 in headers)
Book the Third
ch. 1 p 53 - 57 5pp 0 errors
ch. 2 p 58 - 62 5pp 1 errors
ch. 3 p 63 - 91 29pp 3 errors
ch. 4 p 92 - 103 10pp 0 errors
ch. 5 p 104 - 117 14pp 0 errors
Book the Sixth
Ch. 8 p 345 - 380 36pp 4 errors
Again, I think the original scan being so good _must_ have greatly helped achieving this level of goodness. I think I'll stop for now. Shenme (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: It's all a matter of having the time and the right environment. Today, I had the time and began proofreading, but then the neighbor started running his lawnmower, chainsaw, and leaf-blower for an hour, while his daughter screamed for attention at the top of her voice the whole time. So I had the time, but the environment was not conducive to proofreading. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The source file should be corrected before proofreading. Else, all the pages will be off by one when the file is corrected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, am I missing something -- is there a purpose to {{nop}} in a case like this (where the page is only transcluded as the end of a mainspace section, and/or where the following page begins with a template like {{c}} that will force a new line anyway)? -Pete (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
There is no guarantee that future transclusions will not make use of this text in combination with some other. The {{nop}} ensures that the next text transcluded on the page will start on a new line; whether a paragraph or a table, or some bit of syntax that requires that it start on a new line. The {{nop}} is a proactive measure against those possibilities. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I believe Chris is saying here that the templates had previously appeared to be redundant for reasons like I stated when I opened this section. But that your reasoning is now clear. -Pete (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
removed .xyz from blacklist
Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. There are numbers of examples of reasonable domains that are .xyz (and yes there are many examples of unreasonable domains). I have increased the required edit count in the global abuse filter to apply that TLD domain. You can see results in abuselog global-175. Happy to further amend AF to not upset the integrity of a legit top level domain. — billinghurstsDrewth15:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
That's fine. I added the limitation when we were getting a wave of spam. It's entirely possible the spammer / spambot is no longer active, but I couldn't determine a way to block the Indonesian spam at the time in any other way. The spam links were all being directed to different stated targets, and each from a new account, and the .xyz was the only commonality in the links. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
(ec) I am presuming that there are edits that have got through, and we aren't jumping at shadows. I am not seeing in AF log. When there is trash that gets through, then just flag them to me, we can amend and test the filters through the abuse system. Happy to give a light tutorial if you wish. There two global filters in place to catch this TLD trash: global-162 which is focused on ns:0 and ns:2, and global-175 all ns. — billinghurstsDrewth15:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
[edit conflict] I made my edit in response to several that got through advertising slots gambling in Indonesia. They were coming through one after another fairly quickly. After deleting them from the User namespace, I blocked the .xyz, and one more came through during the time I was editing the blacklist. Here is one of the pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Now situsslotterpercaya.xyz is caught by blacklists: [global] \b(?:agen|situs)slot\w+\.xyz and text renditions of "Joker123" are now caught in global-119. I spread the love around. — billinghurstsDrewth16:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Am I delusional or didn't we already have this discussion last year? The mentioned community discussion hasn't really been active in at least a month, and is on whether to redirect these template pages, not which public domain cutoff date to use, which isn't really in dispute. At any rate, what's the logic in having the year be Jan 1 1924, of all things? It's not Jan 1 1923, which was the cutoff for the longest time; nor is it Jan 1 1925, which is the current correct date. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
There is an open discussion, and 1925 is not the correct year for countries that require 95 years. Works published in 1925 may be 95 years or may be 94 years ago, depending on the date of publication, since we are currently in 2020.
Yes, and that is why the template says works must be published before January 1, 1925. This is actually a requirement in the US, where works enter the public domain at the beginning of the calendar year following their 95th publication anniversary. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude, but looking over the discussions from last month as well as last year, you seem to be literally the only person contesting this particular thing. If I am wrong by all means correct me. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Please check the History of this template. Billinghurst, acting as admin, has been reverting premature changes as well while the discussion is still open. The current wording was in place the last time he reverted. Again, if you believe some change is warranted, please participate in the discussion in the Scriptorium. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
overarching Comment@Phillipedison1891: With regards to the reversion, changes to long-held and long-used templates should be through consensus of the community, not unilaterally by anyone, especially not someone from outside the community undertaking it following a conversation at Commons.—why I reverted. My understanding for copyright expiry is it is the new year turn over, 95 at the end of the year, PMD-70 at the start of the year following, so effectively the same strike of midnight 95+/70+. And as EP says WS:S is truly best that conversation, clarification, questions all take place at the section. No special requirements, it is a conversation, and your questions are likely held by others. It just needs attention and attraction from the zillion of other tasks, and it is not effectively holding up anything, it is just the name. — billinghurstsDrewth04:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
May 2020
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
Regarding this. Could you specify (on talk) the issues you're seeing so the IP editor has a chance of actually fixing them?
I really don't think the IP editor is being resistant or is trying to avoid following our policies and practices. From all appearances they were just so focussed on the technical musical notation stuff that 1) the problems elsewhere simply didn't register, and, because of that, 2) really didn't understand what you meant when you brought those problems up (they seem to have thought you were attacking their work on the actual musical notes, which I don't think you were particularly concerned about in this instance?). Or put another way, it looks to me like what you're perceiving as antagonism and recalcitrance on their part is really exasperation with what they perceive as hostility and antagonism on your part. But from where I am sitting it looks like a pretty literal example of two people talking past each other!
I'm hoping that if you shift focus to the positive angle (what you want them to do to resolve the concerns), instead of the negative angle (what they did wrong previously), we can still turn this around to a collaborative and collegial way to resolve the issues. It wouldn't hurt to throw in a couple of "I'm sorry if this came across as …, I just meant …" in order to give them too a chance reassess their approach. --Xover (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
No, I checked the notes as well, but the notes looked fine. The time signature, composer, lyricist, title, dynamics, etc. were all missing. This isn't a scan-backed copy, so removing the image leaves a further proofreader without access to the image in order to make comparison. This is different from the English Hymnal or the Army and Navy Hymnal where the IP has been proofreading within a scan.
Procedurally, the issue was sent to WS:AN, and should therefore be resolved and closed by an admin. Until the proofreading has been completed, some indication needs to remain in place to permit proofreading. If the IP isn't seeing the differences, that's fine; someone else can do it later. It was the IP who told us we're not working to any deadline here. Wikisource has always indicated its sources and provided proofread status for scan-backed works. Our procedures for doing so on works not backed by a scan is more higgledy-piggledy, but we still want a second person to validate, yes? How would you indicate the location of the source image and invite proofreading? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not certain I've picked up on what your concern(s?) is. Given there was a ton of (textual) stuff missing when this issue first came up, I had assumed that those things were your main concerns. But am I then correct in thinking that the various specific issues now appear to have been addressed since then? That would jive with my assessment when I looked at the page earlier today (but I turn into a blithering idiot at the first hint anything musical, so I don't necessarily trust my own assessment there). But if there are still specific issues, those were the ones I was asking you to enumerate so they can be fixed.In any case, provided I've understood correctly, your main concern now is the replacement of an image with Lilypond markup in a non-scan-backed work? i.e. something that would be an issue in any work that is not scan-backed? That wasn't an aspect I'd considered. My immediate thought is that including the image as a thumbnail alongside the Lilypond score, or possibly even on the talk page (ala the {{textinfo}} templates), would be sufficient. I am personally of the opinion that we should require scan-backing for all works, or at least for all newly added works, but so long as we accept non-scan-backed works at all, we will have to live with some compromises. But I may not have thought that through sufficiently. Maybe this is the sort of case where we need to tag the Lilypond in some way to make clear it hasn't necessarily been validated? The current message says does not match the source… maybe that should be changed to "may not match" or something? I.e. something that points at the issue of principle (using Lilypond on non-scan-backed works) rather than suggesting whoever wrote the Lilypond code has done shoddy work? --Xover (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
There are still specific differences in the text, but the main concern has always been the replacement of the source image with a Lilypond copy that does not match the source image. If this were a scan-backed work, then this issue wouldn't exist. Since the matter is now at WS:AN, I'm open to suggestions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. We don't have any guidance for this situation anywhere, do we? Now that you explain it I see the issue, but since I'm in the "mandatory scan-backing for everything" camp, the finer points of how to deal with issues like this on non-scan-backed works are probably beyond me. Maybe we need to ask the community (WS:S) for a principle on how to deal with these? Beeswax would probably have some good thoughts on it, and possibly some others who work on scores.For the bit that's at AN… I really don't think the IP picked up on this particular concern. Heck, I didn't even pick up on it until you explained it here. In which case, it's scant wonder they were getting frustrated and misreading your messages as some kind of attack on them. … Hmm. … If you agree that asking the community is the way to for the Lilypond issue, what do you think about just closing the AN thread referencing that as the path forward? The content issues aren't really a matter for the admins to decide, and the behaviour stuff never really rose to the level of needing admin intervention. Since nobody much else seems to be chiming in at AN, I think I'm sufficiently uninvolved to be able to make such a close. --Xover (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I've closed the thread at AN. Do you want to open the thread at WS:S or do you want me to do it? You can probably articulate the issue much better than me, but I can do it (and you can correct any mistakes) if you're concerned about antagonising the IP again. --Xover (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
PS. I suggest just leaving off the warning message on that particular work for now (rather than reverting the IP yet again). There's no particular hurry to have it there, and after a community discussion it will hopefully be clear what the proper course is. --Xover (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
If you can open the thread, that would be helpful. For the past few days, I'm only able to be on for a few minutes at a time mostly, because RL is keeping me busy. Otherwise, I'll open the thread in a day or two. But a neutral voice launching the discussion is also welcome. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello EncycloPetey/Archives/2020,
Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.
The DGRBM formatting was a mess when I began editing. Even the article naming and Index pages are in need of a total overhaul, since the original creator of the system numbered within headwords, and not just according to the original. That is, where a name had subheadings under the entry, those were numbered as separate articles by the person who originally set everything up. I have been correcting those as and when I create articles, but must of that has yet to be corrected. So there is a lot of cleanup to be done, and many things that could be done better. I'm open to any suggestions for improvement if someone is also willing to undertake the Sisyphean task of making it happen. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay, hear that. After moving all the DNB pages, and updating, I have truly found that having a customised, while based on {{header}}, has worked well for subsequent processing. Plus after getting as far as I have with TIWW I have reflected that I would have been better to have leveraged a customised header, especially if I want to have useful fields to grab for WD. I will put it on the list. — billinghurstsDrewth21:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment @Phillipedison1891: With regards to the reversion, changes to long-held and long-used templates should be through consensus of the community, not unilaterally by anyone, especially not someone from outside the community undertaking it following a conversation at Commons.—why I reverted. My understanding for copyright expiry is it is the new year turn over, 95 at the end of the year, PMD-70 at the start of the year following, so effectively the same strike of midnight 95+/70+. And as EP says WS:S is truly best that conversation, clarification, questions all take place at the section. No special requirements, it is a conversation, and your questions are likely held by others. It just needs attention and attraction from the zillion of other tasks, and it is not effectively holding up anything, it is just the name. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 107.190.33.254 01:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)