Template:Lang blockEdit

Hi! This edit by you had resulted into auto-conversion of two-liners into one-liners in the Sanskrit shlokas of Bhagavad-Gita (Besant 4th). So I have reverted it and the situation is back to normal. Hrishikes (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Which specfic pages? Lang block merely wraps a lang call at the moment, It should be re-written to do a proper block level call instead of merely wrapping {{lang}} with the inline yes/no hack. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
All pages, throughout the work, having Sanskrit verses. Hrishikes (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Index:The Letters Of Queen Victoria Vol. 3, 1907.djvuEdit

Thanks for finding that some pages in that scan were missing! Would it be appropriate if I just attempt to find another scan of this edition (there seem to be several), check for the same pages, and upload it in place of the faulty file on Wikimedia? Or is there a better way? --22:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Xover: Djvu patching is your area, any thoughts?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@Tar-ba-gan: There appear to be decent quality scans of the UK edition at Internet Archive identifier : lettersofqueenvi01victuoft, Internet Archive identifier : lettersofqueenvi02victuoft, and Internet Archive identifier : lettersofqueenvi03victuoft from which I can generate new DjVus and upload over the existing ones. Both Benson (1862–1925) and Viscount Esher (1852–1930) died more than 70 years ago so this is now public domain in both the UK and US. However, the UK and US editions appear to have wildly differing pagination (~500 vs. ~750 pp.). Do you have a preference as to which edition we use?
In either case, given a preferred scan that has a few pages that are missing or out of order, and an alternate scan that contains the missing pages, I can relatively easily use the pages from the latter to patch the former. It involves a bit of manual technical fiddling and keeping track of which page goes where at the same time the modifications change the page indexes, but isn't otherwise difficult. But I'd need someone familiar with the work to specify which pages go where in fairly great detail, especially if we're not just talking about straight reordering or insertion of a small number of numbered pages (where the printed page numbers make it obvious what needs doing).
PS. It is really important that one does not start creating Page: pages before the scan is verified. The necessary fixes may change the effective pagination, and shifting existing Page: pages is a tedious manual job. A small number of them is no problem, but the more there are the worse the job gets: imagine moving several hundred pages one by one and manually, with multiple clicks and page loads needed for each move. --Xover (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for being there to help! I do not really have a preference as to British/American editions (I picked American editions solely for better scan quality).
There are only 2 pages missing (618, 619). They are Index pages (alphabetical index of subjects/persons in the book), between Church of England at the bottom of p. 617 and Consort, Prince, continued, on p. 620.
The British edition (such as this) has the missing text starting midpage on page 485 and finishing early on p. 487. I have not been able to locate a non-faulty scan of American edition.
I am not going to touch the file (my chief interest in historical texts is in Vol. II which does not seem to have the same fault). --Tar-ba-gan (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@Tar-ba-gan: Ok, since there was some uncertainty over editions and completeness, I've uploaded all three volumes with new names, and set up indexes for them.
I've used the 1908 UK version, which I believe is a second printing of the 1907 edition, but as it's not noted in the work I can't be entirely sure about that. In any case, if you could check that these appear to be complete and otherwise acceptable, and if the previous copies are no longer needed then please indicate whether you are ok with these being deleted (no point having indexes for scans with errors sitting around if we have complete scans). --Xover (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading the whole set! It was a great thing to do! You can certainly delete Vol 3 of 1907 entirely but I need some time to make use of texts I formatted for Vol 2 of 1907. Best wishes, --Tar-ba-gan (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
@Xover: Thanks again for uploading the 1908 edition! It seems generally to have less problems compared to the 1907 edition I had uploaded. You can certainly delete both volumes. I made a request for deletion of subpages on Wikimedia already but I might be starting from the wrong end --Tar-ba-gan (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Author:Eileen PowerEdit

Thanks for creating the Author page - might I very politely ask that next time I be left to do it? I was working out the index and was then going to create the author page - I know Wikisource is for anyone to edit and add to, but I'd really like to get to grips with how to do things (especially the very simply things!) but it's hard to do that if everyone always does it for you. Cheers AndrewOfWyntoun (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@AndrewOfWyntoun: - Duly noted. I also note https://archive.org/details/nationallibraryofscotland which could be a very useful resource, if the licensing used for the scans of pre 1870 works were compatible with Commons and Wikisource. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: Thanks - and that's not to say that I don't appreciate all the help you've given me (us) to date - I'm just a bit more ready to try and make mistakes! You know, I was never quite sure about the status of the NLS scans on Archive.org in terms of re-use, and whether or not Gweduni has plans for them further down the line. The printed material I work with at the Library normally uses CC BY 4.0 licensing, so I'm not as familiar with other types. For the moment I'll keep poaching interesting things which are out of copyright/uploaded by American libraries, but there are definitely things in the NLS collections which I'd personally like to see more easily accessible, such as the Gaelic collections. AndrewOfWyntoun (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
@AndrewOfWyntoun: FYI, a wider discussion on CC-BY-NC issue has been opened at Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#File:Archaeologia_Britannica.pdf, where you are, of course, welcome to contribute. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Uploading text to Latin wikisourceEdit

Hello, I was hoping to bother you for some advice. There's a text here: https://wellcomelibrary.org/item/b2851872x#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&z=-0.9447%2C-0.175%2C2.8895%2C2.0772 which I'd like to upload to Latin wikisource. When I download the PDF file there is a licence/copyright page appended to the start by the Wellcome Library. Is it necessary to remove this before uploading the file to commons, even though it lists the copyright status as public domain? I had been reading about removing the usual Google Books copyright notice, and thought this might apply here too... Thanks! AndrewOfWyntoun (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It depends, there are mixed views about removing 'cover sheets'. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
@AndrewOfWyntoun: It varies, but other works have been uploaded to commons with the cover sheets intact, (even though they are not generally transcribed of course.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: Great, thanks for the info! AndrewOfWyntoun (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: So... I think I've managed to upload the text correctly https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Liber:Disputatio_medica_inauguralis_de_merocele,_vel_hernia_crurali.pdf. I was having trouble using the URL2Commons function, so just uploaded the PDFs to commons manually. I then added the index page at the Latin wikisource. I've noticed two things which I was hoping you could clear up, if you don't mind. 1 - Regarding the author page https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Scriptor:James_Barry, there is a message requesting it to be linked to wikidata, which I already did https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1294046 - is there something I've not done right or is it just serious lag? 2 - I notice that when I'm on a page of the work I've uploaded that if I click the OCR button then no text appears - is this because I've uploaded PDFs(?) or is the functionality just a little different on Latin wikisource? I don't actually mind typing the pages out, the text is very legible and it means I get to dust off the cobwebs a little, but I'm also aware the likelihood is I've just done something not quite right... AndrewOfWyntoun (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Some functionality differs between Wikisource, The OCR code at Latin Wikisource may not have been updated when the one here was. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

We sent you an e-mailEdit

Hello ShakespeareFan00,

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.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Index:The National Geographic Magazine Vol 16 1905.djvuEdit

Dear ShakespeareFan00, could you please take a look at the subject? I am still ignorant about how to check whether the file is complete and no pages are missing. TIA, --Tar-ba-gan (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

OCR needs to be redone?Edit

With respect to diff with summary OCR may need to be redone, what is it about the OCR that you don't like? I'm working on OCR generation, so if you have specific issues with it, please let me know. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 09:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: The generated text layer in the scan the comment related to was very poor. If you are working on getting good OCR for this, proceed :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Other than the occasional noise at the end of lines, do you have any specific comments about it? "Very poor" is difficult to action. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 09:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't, so please ignore the summary. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Deletion requests at CommonsEdit

Please refrain from putting such requests without proper logic. I have started the Statues of the Realm uploads per your request only. Now you are proposing deletion for 1963 reprints. See the language of the license: "It was published prior to 1970". 1963 is prior to 1970, isn't it? As for the 1902 volume, the scanning department has no right to put copyright restriction on PD works; that would amount to copyfraud. And for the defective Vol 4, Part 1, that is cause for file fixing, not for jumping to the deletion arena. Anyway, I have fixed the 1882 volume. I'll look into other volumes, i.e., the ones where you have clearly specified the defects. Hrishikes (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: The issue is that in the UK , the 1963 scans (and the 1802 ex Southampton University scans) would have a separate 'sweat of the brow' copyright. I am fully expecting Commons to reject that argument (And I would expect you've commented along those lines), for both of these, but filed the DR, so that logic was on record.
I left a note on your talk page concerning the scans of other volumes... I suggested that where I'd marked theam as needing a source repair, the PDF was sourced directly from the Google URL source given at IA. (The volumes obtained directly, don't have the issues identified, concerning duplciated or as many missing pages, suggesting that the errors occured in processing the PDF at IA possibly.)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: "Sweat of the brow" is a settled issue at Commons: see c:Template:PD-scan. It is the position of the WMF and Commons that we do not recognise it, due to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., and no file should be nominated for deletion based on a claim of "sweat of the brow" copyright. --Xover (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Short TitleEdit

About the item A Collection of Charters and Statutes relating to the East India Company/53Geo3 c155. The Act has a short title, allotted by Short Titles Act 1896 (see Page:The Public General Statutes of the United Kingdom 1896 (59 & 60 Victoria).pdf/79). Should not it be preferred to legal citation as page title? Hrishikes (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think the One in the collection is abridged compared to the Full Act, so.. I leave it to your discretion... Yes for the FULL Act the page title should be the Legal short title. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Experimentation - please use sandboxesEdit

Hi, would you mind experimenting in a sandbox? Template:Left sidenote/sandbox already exists, and you can create Template:Left sidenote/sandbox/styles.css if you want. If you're not pretty sure what you're doing is going to work, please don't pollute the template history with experimentation. So far 10 out of 13 edits at Template:Left sidenote/styles.css are today's experimentation. Also, it can break all connected mainspace pages during the experimental period. Also when making edits to "public" templates, edit messages explaining what you're trying to achieve are appreciated. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 09:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Noted,, moved experimental code to a sandbox. See: [[1]]

Wikt linksEdit

Hello ShakespeareFan00, in this edit comment you ask for a way to "put in Wikt links to this without breaking the text flow". Is this ([[wikt:this|this]]) what you're looking for? --Andreas (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes but it was more to do with application of the annotation policy here than about the specfic technical means. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Index:Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management.djvuEdit

For some pages (such as this one), you used “?” in place of a Greek letter, which I believe is “φ.” Would you be able to go through and change these characters? There were also a large number of proofreading errors, but I don’t believe that those survived validation. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC).

Do you have a list of affected pages, as the symbol you mentioned may only have appeared on that page specfically.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The symbol appears on a number of pages in the chapter but some instances of “?” refer to other missing symbols, so a fully automated substitution would not be feasible. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC).
    • I have checked through the other chapters; only this one uses that symbol in this way. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC).

A Treatise of the Covenant of GraceEdit

You mention templates no longer needed. I think this is only the second book I have set up from scratch, and I just tried to follow what I was reading on Wikisource. I've no idea how I got the "Authority Control" or the box about public domain. I think I just filled out a template as best I could which was what some Wikisource page told me to do. I've looked back through my browser history and can't work out what I'd been reading or in exactly what order I did things. Sorry! --PeterR2 (talk) 10:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)