User talk:Captain Nemo

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, 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:

Please consider putting a brief description of yourself on your user page. If you are already a contributor to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia, please mention this on your user page so we know how to contact you. Also, mention which languages you understand if English is not your first language.

In any case, I hope you enjoy donating your time to grow the Wikisource library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) 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! John Vandenberg (chat) 03:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

On Talk:The Mutineers of the Bounty I have requested more information about the edition that you have contributed. This in part so that we can check the copyright status of the translation right now, and also to assist people who later come to our text and inquire about its provenance. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

email notifications[edit]

Hi, after a proposal to enable email notification, Wikisource is now able to notify you of any changes to pages on your watchlist and/or changes to your talk page. In order to take advantage of these features, you need to enabled them in your preferences. --John Vandenberg (chat) 14:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the help on the Tolstoi texts, they're a pet project of mine and I'm glad to have you onboard helping! Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nostradamus‎. 14:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Tolstoy's short stories are too often overlooked, they're wonderful morality tales that don't require the time commitment of his lengthy novels. Even among the novels, Murat is probably my favourite - War and Peace just got lucky and is the one everybody can name (but few read). His essays are my favourite however, he presents such a unique face to Christianity and morality as to thoroughly delight me. If you need help finding any of the texts just ask -- I've spent over $100 on Author:Leo Tolstoy, having museums and libraries around the world send me copies of original unpublished manuscripts and the like - so I'm more than willing to invest some work in further improving the collection! Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nostradamus‎. 17:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


I noticed you contributing some texts, such as The Sealed Room, the source of each transcript is required. The edition would also be helpful, especially if the page is changed or rearranged. The current practice at this site is to use page scans for transcripts, are you aware of the options available for that? Cygnis insignis (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You may find a situation where two title pages link to one version of a text. You can make use of {{Versions}} and {{Disambiguation}} in this situation, subpaging to the book it is extracted from helps too. Cygnis insignis (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
A couple of things you may want to check when doing match and split. I don't know what your source of transcript is, but are you accounting for the variation in editions? Another problem you might encounter is that transcript may have been changed or imperfect, edit history here may show that, and these variations may also be difficult to detect. Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • nice, at lot neater, I'll roll that out to all of them. Cheers for checking my stuff. Cygnis insignis (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Lines are joined where there is a page break, so when the paragraph ends on one page we preserve the return:
 ... a new paragraph begins on the next page.

Cygnis insignis (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, cool. It may be have been my cleanup tool elsewhere, but I noted it here. Cygnis insignis (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
My favourite in the series, the FT Celtic Tales is also good; they are cross-referenced in the notes too. I'll try finish checking it before you validate any more. I rushed it out and applied the fixes I read them in mainspace, still a bit sloppy and unfinished. Cheers, Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Poking head in to say hello[edit]

Gday. You've been doing some really nice work. Congrats on picking up on some of our peculiarities so quickly. You have seen some of my muddy footprints through some of the work today, with some changes you are quite welcome to protest about if they don't suit, especially where I did a class="indented-page" rather than class=prose. One thing that I did note was your use of {{smallrefs}} in the Page: namespace, which should be unnecessary, as we have <references/> in the footers (though you can replace that with {{smallrefs}}). One just needs to remember to then put some reference collector onto the end of the main namespace page so it picks it up (eg.). Is Doyle a passion? — billinghurst sDrewth 10:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on the completion of the work. As a favour, when adding to {{new texts}}, we ask that a descriptive subject line referring to the title be used on the edit summary. Background: it displays on the main page, yet we like to keep it open for editing, hence we have light protection though consequently it is highly monitored page and having detail is most helpful. Again congrats. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

'Deccan tales'[edit]

One work you contributed to, Old Deccan Days, was added to new texts on the main page. I think I may have added Jacob's work already, or parts of it, but if you had a favourite you could add while it is newly validated. Regards, Cygnis insignis (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hänsel and Grethel[edit]

I made some changes and put an outline in place, shall we go with that for the time being? We have different sources, two translations, of the tales, so I started to separate these - rather than replace one with the other. Most of these are incorrectly linked as meta-titles, we have pages that give bibliographic details for pages that are not from that source. There is no 'book' Hansel and Grethel here yet, it is sections of texts in works with other titles. Ignoring this fact has greatly complicated this site, I hope you agree that the solution I applied goes some way to unravelling this mess. cygnis insignis 09:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent work!!! Should we have volumes in the titles, though? Say, why Grimm's Household Tales, Volume 1/The Frog-King, or Iron Henry and not Grimm's Household Tales/The Frog-King, or Iron Henry??? I'd much prefer the later. Also, do we need to have refrence to german page in header, there is already a German interwiki, no? What do you think? Captain Nemo (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The other option would be Grimm's Household Tales/Volume 1/The Frog-King, or Iron Henry, which will be useful if it if moved, but I see no reason to omit that detail. Jacob's, for example, cites the volume it appears in, the page numbering accords with that arrangement too, volume 2 starts 87. "The Poor Man and the Rich Man " page 1. There is no need to make a decision, so we shouldn't. A subpage doesn't need to repeat the meta details of the whole work, I added the german version because it is given as the source. All that other 'interwiki' link does is bury it amongst the general links in the sidebar, it ought to be that all published versions in other languages should be linked, it is directly related to the text and more relevant than other wikimedia sites, not less?! cygnis insignis 12:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
A subpage doesn't need to repeat the meta details of the whole work - completely agree! And the same, I believe, is true for pages as well. A person looking for a particular tale will type in the search box either the name of the work or name of the tale but never Grimm's Household Tales, Volume 1/Yet Another Tale. As for hyperlinking the citations it has absolutely nothing to do with the page names, no? It's just what's before and after pipe! But as I said before, if you're very keen on having comma volume number, no worries; for me only quality of the content is really important.Captain Nemo (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The names and titles have everything to do with actual publication, a reference might be general to precise. The same author may give, "like one of Grimm's tales", "Grimms tale of the Frog King", or "Source: 'The Frog-King, or Iron Henry' (Hunt, vol 2. 1884)'. A reader wants the same, they get what we have via meta-title. I think you have seen how this provides some advantages, how this resolves emergent problems becomes more evident. I'm not 'really keen' on a comma, the subpage will be convenient when someone adds a 20C translation, but providing the volume number can only be useful - it explains the pagination is one thing. We used to exclude stuff here, then 'wiki up' new content to substitute that. The evidence of scans has shown that the stuff we were copy/pasting was largely … inadequate. No matter how 'obvious' it may seem, the fact is the 'copies were created in two volumes; any decision to edit or republish is a can of worms, and diametrically opposed to the scope of a library, so I avoid it like the plague.

I should grab the other incomplete translation, or created the versions page with a redlink, it would have been simpler than what I did. As it is, the ref to "K. M. 14" I just made links to a book that was not even written - the passive solution would be to show it is not one thing, and put the full citation next to the link. Thanks for tweaking the notes, I changed my mind several times on Jacob's volumes, it is getting muchcloser to something we can roll out over the two volumes. cygnis insignis 11:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. On question of German originals - you're right, it's very important. In fact, maybe it's a good idea to have a special field, say original , in the header template, so that links can be provided in the uniform way for all translated works, what do you think?Captain Nemo (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I made a related comment when I thanked you for the new index. I think that is a good idea, a template could produce the same result in the notes. Or were you thinking of adding it to the display of title, author, translator, year and section? We also have {{Translations}} around, yet another approach. I envisage something is essentially a citation of the source, maybe with some prev/next navigation. We should, for example, be able to click a completed w:Template:Cite book for use at that place, copy pasting into forms for a single fact is a pain. cygnis insignis 15:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for this: I was very clumsily trying to merge everything to the top-level / entry point / disambig for Cinderella and see where things stand. I had been thinking about this example for ages, because of problems with title and author; this is not due to some insignificant factor, it is because it is so popular and will be frequently searched name. I had thought as I glanced at your edit that you were separating out Grimm from Perrault, and I had planned to discuss that somewhere, though I now see that you showing the 'actual source'. Splitting to two versions would be problematic, we would have to make an arbitrary decision, what I was thinking is 'versions' links iw:ws 'versions', the fr: link is similar, and specific to specific - I will go along with what you did! BTW, how do we know which Grimm version (year) Hunt's was derived from? cygnis insignis 11:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
No worries. Hunt translation: I thought it was 1857, for some reason, but you've made me doubt. The only hard evidence I have is the tales list, it's definitely from 1857, see [1]. Oh, and the notes section is for sure from 1857.Captain Nemo (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I had the same idea, perhaps its says 'final edition' somewhere. cygnis insignis 09:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sleeping Beauty[edit]

Lang's version is also very close, it was my guess is that Welsh plagiarised it for the 1901 publctn. I ran them through a text comparison, the results were minor changes or none at all, the first lines are usually different. I suppose it was possible that Lang used Welsh's transl., but I see no evidence of that. Like this volume, I suppose I should get the Blue book so people can build on what we have done. cygnis insignis 11:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

John Stuart Mill in PSM[edit]

Hi. Thanks for the correction about the multiple article list. I understood what’s wrong. Now, must clean up my mess elsewhere because this error was propagated in other entries in Wikisource. :-)

BTW, let me know if you are interested in the subject, I can proofread the whole article in the coming weeks and let you know when complete, so that it can be validated. - Ineuw (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


Hey. I finished validating the Welsh volume, but someone else needs to do this. cygnis insignis 10:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Captain Nemo, ONLY ONE E in running header = not MASQUEÉ I tell you this only so that you do not keep using two of them as seen when I was validating. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Pagelist and orphans[edit]


I don't know where you picked up the idea its ok to exclude a position or a range of positions from being assigned a page label, symbol or number in the pagelist tag command-line, but I wish you'd refrain from doing so from now on.

Every time you do, you create an orphaned page (or pages) that needs to be addressed since orphaned pages are automatically tracked. Its even worse when positions/pages are left out of the accounting and the Page: never gets "created" as well.

Every position that exists in a source file should have some sort of assignment associated with it in the pagelist tag. You can include, exclude, skip, etc. from the finished Pages in the final transclusion to the mainspace to achieve the same results (or you can physically delete unwanted pages from the source file before you upload it) - but omitting or skipping source file poistions is no longer an acceptable practice if it ever was.

Thanks for your attention in this matter. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, would you mind giving an example of me doing above. I dont quite get what you are about. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC).
When you start a pagelist by leaving out the positions before the ones with content that actually should be transcribed ( like in pagelist from=5 to=... found in this Index: Nothing assigned to position 1 thru position 4 ? in other words). Later on you leave out positions that exist but also don't get any sort of designation assigned to them by the pagelist as well. These are all now Orphaned pages.
Folks care more about being able to account for and or convert positions-to-pages & vise versa on the fly (or with Bots/templates/etc.) than care about how many the little boxes are being displayed on the bottom on any given Index: page - that is why its a little odd to see somebody doing it nowadays. The Index: & Page: namespaces are facilitators for transcription & proofreading puposes; not for "presentation" purposes (the mainspace is for WS visitors). -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Will avoid doing so. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC).

Moving works with subpages[edit]

Hi. When a whole work (root and subpages) needs to be moved I would like to suggest that you request an administrator to do it. As admins we can simultaneously move subpages as well, which just makes it all neater with the relative links that we use in chapters. I fixed up Cook's book, and will scan through for any link errors. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep, will do a request next time. Thank you! Captain Nemo (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC).

The Russian Review Volume 1[edit]

Here is the Index:The Russian Review Volume 1.djvu of your project. If this Index:Andreyev - The Giant (The Russian Review, 1916).djvu is part of the new version, then please insert a {{delete}} notice for the admins. The images were already uploaded to the commons and their location is noted in the Index talk page. Happy proofreading. — Ineuw talk 23:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you a lot!!! Andreyev's story is from the different volume. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC).

Bryusov's originals and namespace "Translation:"[edit]

Оригиналы Брюсова я сделал. Modern Russian Poetry/"Radiant Ranks of Seraphim" я связал с ru:Чьих-то ликов вереницы (Брюсов) (из сборника "Στεφανος" 1906 года), хотя переводчик переводил с варианта этого стихотворения из сборника "Пути и перепутья" 1908 года.

Ещё у меня будет вопрос: какие правила английской Викитеки действуют в пространстве имён "Translation:"? Оно явно создано не давно, т.к. я раньше не замечал его здесь... -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Local errors[edit]

Hi Captain, I fixed the local errors in the authority control (revision history: "GND fix"). You put them back. --Kolja21 (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Same in Author:Edwin Muir, Author:José P. Rizal etc. --Kolja21 (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry, I dont quite understand the issue. In all three cases mentioned you have just added //authority control// template which I edited to add correct(!) VIAF. The correct VIAF then populates GND. It might be that in some cases there are multiple VIAF corresponding to the same author, thus providing different GND. In such cases I try to identify the main VIAF cluster and use it. If this is the case thenone way to resolve it is to report it at Wikipedia, it will be reported to VIAF and they will merge the clusters. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk).

Thanks for the fast feedback. "GND fix" meant the GND was wrong. The w:Integrated Authority File (GND), like the LCCN, is the original authority file. VIAF is just (a helpful but incomplete and sometimes outdated) collection of this data.
wrong: Author:José P. Rizal, GND 177174145 (just a placeholder, not connected with this individual person)
correct: Author:José P. Rizal, GND 118601407
The numbers are stored at Wikidata and added automatically. The advantage: If they change (duplicates, errors etc.) we only need to correct them once. BTW: I came to Wikisource because the names have shown up at the maintenance list d:Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P227. Cheers --Kolja21 (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
If you have a problem with a bad GND, kindly delete ONLY the GND and not everything leaving us with with no params and a clean {{authority control}} template to deal with (breaks functionality of certain gadgets; screws up dynamic page list generation). The only params that can honestly be tracked by us are the ones in "English" (VIAF, LCCN & ISNI basically) and honestly that is all we'd like to retain locally. Hopefully one or more of those will match what Wikidata has -- if not today then some day in the near future. All the other non-English based sources, including GND, are not of primary concern. If one of those is outdated or wrong - just delete that single source and we'll inherit what Wikidata has instead. In short, when you "blank" what we've added manually - you screw up our internal tracking at the expense of our additional efforts to reconcile all the authorities at the same time. Kindly stop the practice. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Well first I think I'm not the only users who has problems with errors and secord (see above) why using Wikidata and store local duplicates? There are about 50 Wikipedias and a couple of more projects like Wikisource using authority data. Do you think it is wise to make 50+ changes instead of 1? But of cause I'm not a regular user at Wikisource so if you want I only correct the basic errors and leave the maintenance of the 475944 VIAF and 281617 GND inditifiers (d:Wikidata:Database reports/Popular properties) to you. --Kolja21 (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd rather you concern yourself with the authority you are fluent in (German - GND) and delete any local entries that do not meet your investigations concerning that GND entry. If the VIAF, LCCN or ISNI local entries are "wrong" however, we ask that you respect the current practice & please add/replace/fix those local entries locally - not delete any of them.

Either way the point is not to delete all the manual added entries here. ONE DAY, when Wikidata has some time under its belt and has been thouroughly vetted, it will be OK to remove all the local entries here too - that day is just not today. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Forget about the GND - it has nothing to do with language. You can read "Montesquieu (1689-1755)"? Brilliant. So you can read English, French, German, Spanish, Italian and a lot of more languages. (I work for WP since 2004 and done edits on 262 project sites. And of cause I also correct VIAFs and LCCNs.) The point is, if you making errors at Wikisource they will reflect on Wikidata and Wikidata will spread them to dozens of Wikipedias. So it is not enough to correct authority errors at Wikidata. We have to go back to the source. Otherwise the error will be back a few weeks later. --Kolja21 (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I tried to explain - nobody here cares about anything other than what we've input manually because that is what what we were doing years before adding wikisource to wikidata was even an idea never mind implemented. Readers care even less when authorities are non-English. So while your credentials are impressive, they hold absolutely no sway here nor upon current established practices. And I just checked - everything you've touched in the past 2 months or so has been (re)adjusted by someone else afterwards so it seems you aren't helping matters much if at all.

At this point I don't know what else to say on this - either fix the 2 or 3 authorities that we've already mined & added locally to match what wikidata has or delete those authorities that still conflict with wikidata; just don't delete all of them. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Captain Nemo/The Borzoi 1920/Bibliography[edit]

The above page was placed into the main ns, and there is no evident parent page, nor source. So rather than delete it, I have moved it until it can be worked out what should happen with this work. If it is going to be in the main ns, it needs the parent work and organisation. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Global account[edit]

Hi Captain Nemo! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, DerHexer (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Biographical articles[edit]

@Captain Nemo: Be that as it may, your changing the category "mathematicians" to "mathematics" in George Boole's biography is wrong. The article is not about mathematics. If you feel it helps, then add that category as well, but don't remove other correct categories. Ineuw (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Authority control[edit]

Hey Captain Nemo, Just curious as to why you chose to use add local copies of the authority control data for Author:John Morgan (Physician). Thanks, The Haz talk 20:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

DMM Project[edit]

Welcome to the WikiProject DMM. It's nice to have someone else paying it some attention. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia link in header[edit]

I see that you removed the WP link from the header at Author:Frank Barbour Wynn. I understand and agree with this completely. However, the reason I left the WP link was because it was auto-populated when I created the page (I didn't enter it) and assumed that I probably shouldn't be deleting it. Is this going to be changed soon? I'm just thinking about the recent conversation re: authority control and people still wanting local data for some reason. Thanks, The Haz talk 14:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrong page moving[edit]

Приветствую, Captain Nemo!

Пишу на русском, т.к. судя по вашим правкам в русской Викитеке, русский язык вы знаете (и даже похоже на то, что он для вас родной).

Вы провели переименование страницы Author:H. R. James в страницу Author:Henry Rosher James неправильным способом: вы создали новую страницу, скопировав в неё содержимое исходной, а исходную заменили на редирект. В итоге, у страницы с новым именем потерялась история правок, которые были сделаны в исходной версии страницы, что является нарушением лицензии CC-BY-SA по которой функционируют проекты Wikimedia. Правильным способом было бы: переименовать страницу Author:H. R. James в Author:Henry Rosher James (пункт More->Move в меню справа сверху), в итоге правки версии страницы со старым именем автоматически перешли бы на страницу с новым именем, а вместо страницы со старым именем автоматически создался бы редирект (без предыдущей истории правок). В данном случае эта потеря правок, конечно, не сильно критична, т.к. вклад участника User:Aphillipsmusique, создавшего страницу, не очень велик, но в каком-то другом случае (допустим если бы в исходной странице было бы штук 50 правок и они потерялись бы) это уже было бы серьёзным нарушением. Так что, пожалуйста, учтите это на будущее. --Nigmont (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The same (briefly) in English (for common users of the en-wikisource who do not know Russian but would want to understand this discussion):

You moved the page Author:H. R. James to Author:Henry Rosher James in a wrong way: you merely created a new page with content copy-pasted from the old page, then you replaced the content of the old page with redirection to the new page. After this renaming, the edit history of the old page became lost, because it's unnattached to the new page. It is not allowed to do in this way, because it's a violation of CC-BY-SA license which is used as a base principle in all the Wikimedia projects (including the en-wikisource). You should use the standard technique - to apply More->Move (at the upper right corner) to the page being renamed, this would keep all the history re-attached to the page having the new name. Please take this in account for your future work. --Nigmont (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Did my best to preserve history.--Mpaa (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Mpaa, thank you for your help! --Nigmont (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Ancient authors[edit]

You don't need to add Category:Ancient authors if the author is already in a subcategory such as Category:Ancient playwrights. Such categories are nested within the larger category, and so will be taken care of that way. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)