Gweduni
Welcome to Wikisource
Hello, Gweduni, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- Help pages, especially for proofreading
- Help:Beginner's guide to Wikisource
- Style guide
- Inclusion policy
- Wikisource:For Wikipedians
You may be interested in participating in
Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{Collaboration/MC}} to your page for current Wikisource projects.
You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.
Have questions? Then please ask them at either
I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username if you're logged in (or IP address if you are not) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.
Again, welcome! Beeswaxcandle (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Uploading scans edit
Please upload scans to Commons and not to Wikisource. Please include file information when uploading to Commons. Locally uploaded files will normally be deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm guessing the above message was in relation to File:Alloway Kirk or Tam o Shanter a tale and man was made to mourn a poem with a skethc of burnss life.pdf, which you uploaded locally here on enWS on 17 March, without any metadata or licensing information. I see the file is in use for Alloway Kirk, or, Tam o' Shanter. A tale and man was made to mourn a poem with a sketch of Burn's' life so I don't want to delete it, but neither can we easily move it to Commons without metadata and licensing information. --Xover (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- The file (and attendant pages) has now been renamed and moved to Commons here: File:Alloway Kirk or Tam o Shanter a tale and man was made to mourn a poem with a sketch of burnss life.pdf. I've also added the missing information and license templates. Generally it is much preferable to get this kind of thing right the first time, and adding the requisite information at the source. --Xover (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- thanks for doing this Gweduni (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- The file (and attendant pages) has now been renamed and moved to Commons here: File:Alloway Kirk or Tam o Shanter a tale and man was made to mourn a poem with a sketch of burnss life.pdf. I've also added the missing information and license templates. Generally it is much preferable to get this kind of thing right the first time, and adding the requisite information at the source. --Xover (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
You have your own projects right now, but the attention of someone that knows 17th century Scots would be appreciated, given that this work isn't Modern English. Ideally a review from someone familiar with printing conventions contemporanous with the original publication would also be useful, given that z in such a publciation is actually a ȝ sometimes..
I found the scans on archive.org a while back..
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, will see if anyone in the team can help out and get back to you! Gweduni (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- @ShakespeareFan00: Two staff at NLS would be interested in helping out: AndrewofWyntoun and Peter Findlay Gweduni (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Gweduni:, @AndrewOfWyntoun:, @Peter Findlay: Feel free then... I would suggest concentrating on getting the text correct, rather than direct formatting (although the existing style could be determined from the pages already proofread to a limited extent).
- Notes.. In the existing efforts on this long-s has been transcribed as s;
Z,z has been transcribed using Ȝ,ȝ (per the note on the talk page), where appropriate.
I am not sure there is any consistent decision on Wikisource about transcription of i,j, u,v (as represented in old works) or use of vv for w (I think I created w as a template). u,v,i,j, should thus be transcribed and proofread as printed, (although use of {{SIC}} if there is a desire to indicate these is suggested.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Notes.. In the existing efforts on this long-s has been transcribed as s;
Transcribing Musical works edit
Not a current project, but something to note for the future:-
I noted that the NLS collection had some early sheet music: https://digital.nls.uk/special-collections-of-printed-music/archive/90406977
Wikisource can potentially transcribe these, assuming you have staff members that can read and translate musical notation, to the Lillypond syntax (https://lilypond.org/manuals.html) used by the Score extension on Wikisource Help:Sheet_music
It's not as straightforward as transcribing text, but it's within feasibility.
An example of a wok with extensive musical transcription was: The_Army_and_Navy_Hymnal/Hymns/Morning_Worship (where the transcribed hymns have a short musical clip of the various tunes included to aid interpretation of the work.)
So far there are few musical works included on Wikisource, and as far as I know not many sites that have made attempts to present archived musical works by transcribing the score into an audio presented form.
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion - sounds like it could be a really interesting project. Will come back to it once this project is running a bit more smoothly!
Was the original also missing the first few pages, or was this a scanning issue? I appreciate you might not be able to check this in full at the moment.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'll take a look when we're back in the Library. Thanks for pointing this out Gweduni (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Wrong uploads or mis-titles? edit
@Gweduni: The scans uploaded for these identifiers, don't seem to match the title or the claimed NLS ID?
Can you consider looking into this so that the correct scans for the ID's are uploaded, and that the scans that are currently there are renamed and the metadata updated appropriately? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Beeswaxcandle: It seem the upload script used may have tripped up somehow as the scrambled uploads in the list above seems to be systemic in nature.. Is it unscrambleable? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- @ShakespeareFan00: I believe these were all uploaded in error to Commons at the same time and just need deleted. I have a list and was planning to flag for deletion on Commons. Hope to get to it this week Gweduni (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Gweduni: Deletion would be a bit drastic, given that what's present looks salavageable by an administrator at Commons, as I said I think the upload script tripped up (because I've been able to match some of the scans with what they should have been uploaded as, and thus it should be possible for someone to find a technical solution other than deletion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- @ShakespeareFan00: I think they were reuploaded later with the correct files attached, so those records are all duplicates and would need to be deleted Gweduni (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Gweduni: These are NOT duplicates (and some of these certainly have NOT been re-uploaded under corrected filenames), because I checked that when identifying Duplicated files, previously In any case I made an updated list here - Wikisource:WikiProject NLS/Scrambled, from that list it should be possible to ask "file-movers" at Commons to re-align them. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- The list of identical printings was here Wikisource:WikiProject NLS/Duplicates, It was in compiling that, that I came across the issue with the other uploaded images mentioned. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- OK, I'll look into this but might not be for the next couple of weeks, unfortunately Gweduni (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- I "rescued" one file - now at Index:A tale of Three bonnets(NLS104186701).pdf which unless you object I planned to have a go out myself out of interest in the next few days.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, you're very welcome! Gweduni (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Subsequent to the above, I put in some requests at Commons for renames, and a few uploads myself. Everything intended to be uploaded should now have been renamed, and If there's no objections I'll create Index: pages over the course of the week. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for doing this! Please feel free to create the indexes and work on those items. They are all from the "apparitions" collection so lots of ghost stories and similar Gweduni (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for working on these. i've added links to them to our internal spreadsheet but we probably won't get to them for several weeks so please feel free to keep proofreading if you get the time! Gweduni (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
You might find this useful at some point... edit
{{Yogh}} and {{YOGH}} which represent a yogh sound, present in Scots, and which was typically printed as a 'z' in some printed editions. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
- thank you, will keep an eye out for instances of that Gweduni (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Ileggibility vs clipped.... (and reconstructing based on context) edit
Hi, I note that that in Index:Loss of the Comet steam-boat on her passage from Inverness to Glasgow, on Friday the 21st October, 1825.pdf a lot of {{illegible}} tags in the text. This isn't an issue, however in many instances it's potentially possible to add or guess the word which has been removed or clipped in the scans. I've just created a template, {{reconstruct}} which may be of use if you wanted to mark parts which you or other contributors may be able to guess or add given the the context.
It encloses reconstructed portions in ⟨⟩ , a convention which has been noted to have been used in relation to academic analysis of texts, which seemed reasonable to use in this situation. The intention is that this would allow for the existing {{illegible}} template to be used only for text that was completely unreadable, unguessable, as opposed to merely being clipped in the scan, or determinable based on context (or other printings).
Before more widespread deployment I'd like a second opinion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: Thanks for coming up with this template. Sorry I've not been able to respond to some of your messages - I have all of Thursday afternoon blocked out to work on this project and will try to give you a fuller answer then. We have set up some shared standards with Beeswaxcandle and I'll put these on the project page Gweduni (talk) 10:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: This looks great - very happy to go ahead and use from now on. Will share with the team. Gweduni (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Not entirely serious.... edit
Thought you might enjoy the first of some quasi-folk lyrics I wrote a few days ago:- User:ShakespeareFan00/Filk
No response needed or expected. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- I love this! Do you mind if I include in report to senior management and maybe tweet it out? Gweduni (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Provided it remains pusedo-anonymous (ie attributed my user name only), that it's accepted it's Creative Commons. Sure :).. I
will also note that in places I don't think it scans lyrically, and you are welcome to 'tweak', provided the tweaked version is posted somewhere. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'm preparing a Twitter thread which will hopefully go out some time next week - will include your work under the conditions outlined above :) Gweduni (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Also it doesn't at present have an particular melody, but if you do make a recording (Creative Commons licensing noted), Please put that recording on Wikimedia Commons. (LOL)
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- The second set of lyrics was inspired by certain events in the news currently, but mapped back onto the genre of works you'd been uploading ;). Again I didn't have a specfic tune, but I had in mind a fairly slow tune when I wrote them
In respect of the "Scrambled" naming of some uploads... edit
As a number of these can be rescued with some file moves at Commons, I made some requests on my own inative since you indicated that it may be a ehile before you could get to this. c:Special:Contributions/ShakespeareFan00
As the scans themselves are OKAY (the issue being with meta-data, which I've been re-aligning manually) and were not linked here as Index yet, I implemented my own solution. ( Duplicate names that would otherwise have resulted has had the NLS id appended to the file-name rather than the (1),(2),(3) being used otherwise. I hope this keeps track of the editions, and was a reasonable response. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think I've now got most of the file meta-data matching the scans (and uploaded some files to match the meta-data for stuff that for whatever reasons wasn't.) I'll try and collate the relevant files shortly. It's mostly Apparitions related items...
I also attempted a short (not entirely serious) Filk poem, User:ShakespeareFan00/Filk#The_Bogle_o'_the_cards..=, in response. :lol: ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
OCR... edit
Under the heading Development (in beta) on Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets there's an option for Google OCR.
It adds another rainbow OCR to the editing toolbar's, and does the OCR using Google's OCR technology, Generally for some older works I've found this to be more reliable than some other engines, and for some reason it's able to pick up long-s (whereas other engines read long-s as f. You might want to see if this helps speed up your digitisation and transcription efforts. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- thank you - tried this out at the results were a lot better than the Tesseract OCR. Will do a bit more testing but we may move over to it. Do you know if Google harvest / use any of the OCR when it's run through the tool? Gweduni (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure on that...ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- In any case if you wanted to use the Google OCR technology outside of Wikisource , (such as for other parts of the NLS collection.) you'd have to ask the NLS to talk Google on a more official basis as I understand it. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- no probs, thanks for the info. amazing what it's able to do with the long f/s! Gweduni (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- @ShakespeareFan00: we've been testing out Google OCR and would love to move over to it instead of Tesseract. Advice on https://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Google_OCR says it "should not be used where [Tesseract] OCR can be used instead, as there is a limit to the number of requests we can make against Google's services". Do you think the long s issue is strong enough a reason for us to use Google OCR? I added a topic to the discussion but not heard back yet. Gweduni (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure. Ideally having Tesseract recognise long-s reliably (if it doesn't already) would be good as well.
- Tesseract has a Github - https://github.com/naptha/tesseract.js#tesseractjs and I would suggest asking about older ligature recognition there as well. Tesseract is Apache licensed, so you might be able to convince someone to come up with a semi-'custom' recogniser, based on stuff that's already been proofread. Long s isn't the only 'old' printing convention I've come across, things like ae, oe do as well, as do ct,fi,ff,ll,st etc. So an OCR that can cope with older printing would be awesome :) ( I'm just glad it isn't blackletter/Fraktur/Gothic script)
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Agree would be great if Tesseract could recognise the long-s reliable, and other coventions like you mentioned. Will hold off for now and see if I ge ta response on the talk page. Gweduni (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Also in looking through the Tesseract documentation, there was a set of training data for Middle English, so building a dataset for Scots might not be implausible, if suggested to the Tesseract developers. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's difficult to train OCR for long-s, mostly because it looks so very like an "f", and low-quality printing makes it worse if the f crossbar is damaged. I'm not saying it can't be done, perhaps it will work extremely well with the right training data. Neural nets should be able to deal with it, but as always, training them without under- or over-fitting is a bit of a battle.
- However, you can also post-process the text by leveraging the fact that "f" and "s" very rarely occur in the same place in words. E.g. "felf", "mafs", "procefs" are all unambiguous ſ->f mistakes. I collected a list of manual corrections I've had in a local script for a while: User:Inductiveload/Sandbox/long-s replacements. It's by no means complete, and it could make a rare hyper-corrections. But it certainly makes a big dent in the pages I tried it on. Note the corrections in that list correct to "s", not "ſ". I think it's certainly at least plausible that you could get better results (i.e. fewer manual corrections needed) that way than training Tesseract to distinguish f/ſ.
- It should be possible to generate such a list from a wordlist too and find the complete set of all possible places an f is unambiguously wrong. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 15:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- So it turned out to be fairly easy to generate a list of possible hypercorrections and in English, there are under 1000: User:Inductiveload/Sandbox/long-s hypercorrections. This means that if you apply the regex correction
/f\B/s/g(or ſ) to a word, and the result is not in that list, it is highly likely that it is a long-s, not an f. If the result is in that list, it could go either way, but you might judge, e.g., "bluster" to be more likely than "blufter", even if "blufter" is allegedly a word (I have never seen it, and it's not in Wiktionary). - From a Scots wordlist (~8k words) I found online, there are only 56 possible hypercorrections (e.g. fain/sain).Inductiveload—talk/contribs 16:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- that's really good to know, thanks for putting all the time and effort into researching it. The Google OCR works ok for now for us, and I don't think we have staff resource to look into anything else right now, but really good to know there is a possible approach there which we can use for this in future. Gweduni (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Works on Commons, from IA and other sources which have links to Scotland... edit
Much appreciated if you could monitor on Commons for things like File:An address to the inhabitants of Great Britain (IA addresstoinhabit00mtfr).pdf
which may be duplicates of works you already uploaded as part of your own efforts. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
is there a straightforward way of doing that? Gweduni (talk) 10:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Other than looking through what's been uploaded, and comparing title pages , I'm not aware of an automated method.
- Would suggest asking on the Wikisource:Scriptorium or at the Commons Village pump c:Commons:Village Pump for assistance. I'm also not sure of a fast way of automating the checks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Also there seems to be a massive effort to 'mirror' public domain works from IA to Commons, If there are works (with a Scottish connection naturally) you aware exist at IA, it might be worth considering providing a list of the IA identifers for them to the Commons contributors undertaking the 'mirroring'. Of course any such works must be in the 'public domain' in the US ( You will of course know which are PD in Scotland!)
- Additionally, as your project team are 'active' librarians and archivists, your team may wish to help improve the metadata for relevant works. Again asking for assistance at c:Commons:Village Pump is recommended. Commons works differently to Wikisource, but there are users and admins that would be more than willing to aid efforts you would consider in this area ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Gweduni: In respect of 'reviewing' items at Commons, I started to make a list of works with a Scottish connection in my Userspace User:ShakespeareFan00/Scotland feel free to add and amend items, as required. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- thanks for sharing all this, will defintely look into it when I get a moment (currently focused on getting the team back into the Library once lockdown eases). If i find any items I will add to your page. Cheers Gweduni (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Gweduni: You might consider reviewing the following categories at Commons :-
c:Category:Books_in_the_Library_of_Congress c:Category:Books from the Library of Congress
In terms of items at Internet Archive itself. (Sorry for the Long URL - [1] may be of interest. This isn't all books with a Scottish connection at IA, and there may be some false positives in the results. It's also limited to pre 1870 (because 1870 is the last year something can generally be assumed to be potentially public domain, without more detailed information.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Suprised to see this was uploaded to Wikisource, rather than Commons, I've tagged it for speedy deletion, because the IA page says you (being the NLS) licensed it as CC-BY-NC, and thus the scans are not immediately compatible with the licensing model used here, even if the underlying work would be long into the public domain. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- On the other hand - if you are in a position to reconsider the licensing on the items that are part of the collection at https://archive.org/details/nationallibraryofscotland?and%5B%5D=mediatype%3A%22texts%22&and%5B%5D=collection%3A%22nationallibraryofscotland%22&sort=date then that's at least 1000 other works for potential transcription ( Obviously discounting anything still in copyright due to date.).ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- As I understand it, the claim of CC-BY-NC of public domain work (and a 1707 is obviously public domain) is probably not valid in countries which do not recognise "sweat-of-the-brow" copyright. Sweat-of-the-brow is when you can "create" a fresh copyright claim by the mere act of putting in effort to copy, digitise or otherwise propagate the work, even though you didn't add anything creatively.
- The US is such a country where sweat-of-the brow is not recognised, and therefore, I think this particular scan would be PD in the US (as well as, obviously, the original work itself).
- The UK has a much less clear position, and there are various cases about it, some including the NPG and the WMF itself (which AFAIK was never settled as such), but nothing recent that regards scanned works, but rather either very old cases and/or regarding reproduction of information/listings than photographic reproductions. The most recent guidance (not law) I know of, from the UK Intellectual Property Office, dating from late 2015 is:
Are digitised copies of older images protected by copyright?
Simply creating a copy of an image won’t result in a new copyright in the new item. However, there is a degree of uncertainty regarding whether copyright can exist in digitised copies of older images for which copyright has expired. Some people argue that a new copyright may arise in such copies if specialist skills have been used to optimise detail, and/or the original image has been touched up to remove blemishes, stains or creases.
However, according to the Court of Justice of the European Union which has effect in UK law, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’. Given this criteria, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as ‘original’. This is because there will generally be minimal scope for a creator to exercise free and creative choices if their aim is simply to make a faithful reproduction of an existing work.
- So, by my understanding, it is unlikely (to use the IPO's own word) that the NLS's use of CC-BY-NC is valid on these scans, as they have no copyright of their own to claim. That said, it is very common for institutions to attempt to claim such copyright. Uncharitably, this could be called w:copyfraud, but I think it's probably rooted in a mixture of favourable interpretations of various sweat-of-the-brows judgements (such as w:Cummins v Bond, 1927) and a desire to licence their digital collections as a revenue generator while still providing free-as-in-beer public access, which is good enough for nearly all purposes, without allowing third parties to "take" the collection wholesale and profit from it somehow instead of the original institution (I don't agree with that view, but I can see where it comes from). As far as I know, there is no settled case law to prove it either way in the UK.
- If we take a "copyright maximalist" position on these scans and respect the CC-BY-NC in the country of origin, then enWS may well be the correct place for it, as the US considers it PD in fairly uncertain terms, and enWS openly welcomes non-US works that are PD only in the US. However, assuming the same logic holds that Commons used for the NPG case, Commons probably would take them (see commons:Template:Copyright claims), but I'd still ask first.
- This all assumes the NLS is not willing to re-license these works based on the IPO's statement that CC-BY-NC (or indeed any copyright claim by the NLS) is likely not valid, and that "we" want to "nab" the files anyway. IMO, the least confrontational way would be ask the NLS politely to reconsider the use of an NC licence in view of the 2015 IPO statement. Notably, these works were added to the Internet Archive in 2011, several years before the above IPO guidance was issued.
- @ShakespeareFan00: I do not think a speedy is appropriate since 1) the mere presence of a claim of an NC licence doesn't mean the work is actually licensed in that way, and 2) if it does in the UK, it probably doesn't apply in the US (and at enWS) and 3) since there is an ongoing collaboration with the NLS at enWS, there may be scope for a dialogue. I will refer the work to
WS:CVWS:PD (had a "moment" and referred it to PD instead!) for wider discussion (and kindly invite participants here and at the NLS to contribute to that). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 17:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)- not sure why this was uploaded, certainly not part of our chapbooks project. Not sure what else I can contribute I'm afraid! Gweduni (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- It was uploaded from a different collection on IA by a random contributor, but the scan was made by the NLS. The issue arises because the NLS is asserting copyright in the scan itself, even if the original work is long out of copyright, by claiming to license the scans under the Creative Commons Non Commercial licence (
National Library of Scotland holds full rights in this digital resource and agrees to license the resource under the Creative Commons License: Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK: Scotland
). On the one hand, CC licences with -NC terms are not compatible with Wikisource or Wikimedia Commons policy; but on the other hand, neither do we recognise the so-called "sweat of the brow" doctrine that is the basis for claiming that copyright.The issue ends up on your talk page because we're keen to maintain a good relationship with the NLS and just overruling the claim of copyright seems apt to be perceived as… unfriendly. We're hoping you can help us figure out a path forward that does not jeopardise our relationship with the NLS.For example, as I wrote in the linked copyright discussion, the -NC licence was applied in 2008 and was not necessarily particularly deeply considered (a lot has happened since then). Perhaps the NLS could be persuaded to drop its copyright claim on the scans (and hence the -NC licence)? --Xover (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- It was uploaded from a different collection on IA by a random contributor, but the scan was made by the NLS. The issue arises because the NLS is asserting copyright in the scan itself, even if the original work is long out of copyright, by claiming to license the scans under the Creative Commons Non Commercial licence (
- not sure why this was uploaded, certainly not part of our chapbooks project. Not sure what else I can contribute I'm afraid! Gweduni (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Scan quality concern.. Clipped pages, Would suggest a re-scan when an opportunity presents itself.ShakespeareFan00 (talk)
In relation to your new role at the University of Edinburgh? edit
- Do you have plans to assist in opening up any of the University of Edinburgh collections? I also seem to recall the University of Edinburgh doing a LOT of work on Text to Speech... 16:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- I note 9 items here - https://archive.org/details/universityofedinburgh which copyright permitting could also be on Commons :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- @ShakespeareFan00:, apologies for not getting back to you before - missed this message. Yes. very keen to push on with this at Ed Uni. Hoping to get a Wikisourceror intern over the summer, who will pick up a lot of this.... may get in touch for a chat nearer the time if that suits? Gweduni (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
You may already be aware of this but.... edit
w:Wikipedia:University_of_Edinburgh/Wikisource.
If a scheme like that implemented for the NLS in respect of utilising existing digital collections, could be done for items in the University of Edinburgh Library... ( especially pre 1850 titles.) so much the better.
Page:Annals of Duddingston and Portobello.pdf/32 edit
Generally on Wikisource text indents like those here (which aren't significant) aren't transcribed.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @ShakespeareFan00: - thanks, that will save me some time. Planning to work on proofreading this a page or two a day for the next year. Gweduni (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- @ShakespeareFan00: should I retain ti/s for the initial indentation?
- What do you mean by 'initial' here? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Query absence of pp. 50 in the scans ( at the end of Chapter II), I'm assuming a blank scan omitted, but I've had missing page situations with Google scans previously? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- there's a physical copy in my local library so I'll compare against it when I'm next in there (and take a photo and insert, if that's possible) Gweduni (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm noting the copyright notice on the cover sheet. Do you plan on posting an appropriate confirmation of release/permission to the permissions queue for Commons? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- I see your point, although that cover sheet is outdated. All content on that site (where I got the images) is released on CC BY (see https://openbooks.is.ed.ac.uk/)) Gweduni (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)