User talk:Koavf

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, Koavf, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here.

Please take a glance at our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). Most questions and discussions about the community are in the Scriptorium.

The Community Portal lists tasks you can help with if you wish. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for deletion[edit]

If you use {{delete}}, you have to make an entry on the deletions page, as I did here. If you think that it should be a speedy deletion, use {{sdelete}}.--Longfellow (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Repeat of above request[edit]

Hi, adding {{delete}} means that you need to log a proposal at Proposed deletions explaining why there's a problem. If however you mean that the article/category/page meets one of the speedy deletion criteria, then please use {{sdelete|reason}}. It makes it easier to understand what you mean. Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

We already use HotCat from Commons[edit]

Just so that you are aware, we already utilise the HotCat from Commons in our gadgets, and directly so it updates. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah Good to know. Thanks. I didn't know where it was localized, etc.--I just looked in Special:Preferences and if the gadget wasn't there, I imported it from Commons. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
It is there, along with a few others (though it does need a tidy), and we look to steal use others' gadgets wherever possible. If you do have any suggestions for better sorting or explaining our gadgets, then that feedback would be most welcome. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Huh I don't see it at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets... As you can tell from my contribs, talk, page, etc. I'm not that accustomed to how things work on en.ws, but I've always wanted to be a productive member here: it's a really great idea and resource. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Third from top. I have just prepended it with HotCat, as presumably the label may attract those specifically looking for it. Re partipication, if we know your poison, then surely someone can suggest a work. An easier place to start is Wikisource:Proofread of the Month where we usually take a work from scratch through to completion (if we can). As it is active, it is a great way to see how others edit, and see where they have good shortcuts. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Added. I've always thought it bizarre that there aren't vast digital archives that have been imported here: legal documents, patents, public domain literature, etc. It seems like there must be databases upon databases out there to be scripted over to here--is there something obvious that I'm missing? —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The purpose that we have is to look to bring verifiable text. In earlier days, lots of texts have come gutenberg, verified by them, though still not perfect, and without images. They can still come over, but numbers alone isn't the focus of many. We have been bringing works in what we believe is a more structured means and we are looking to a more validated format. Image to Commons, then proofread and validated from the image. We have also looked to do other sorts of works, DNB, PSM, often which can be used in support of WP articles; extracting quality images, store at Commons, display in the works, but to also have available across WMF. There is plenty more there, it probably is more quietly appearing.<shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 11:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources I may be dense, but it seems like (e.g.) several governments will have reliably proofread texts stored electronically that could be ported over here with relative easy and automation. At the very least, you could store them in some tracking category like, Category:Texts ported from the State of Alabama which need proofreading and readers could still find these texts useful. Again, I guess I'm just so ignorant that I'm asking bad questions. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I was more focusing my comments on older works, those that are not currently online / readily available. Some consider that those works that you identified that are permanently online, then sometimes there is less value on importing them, especially with the variety of licences that can apply to them. Usually we can just as readily link to them from pages, we don't require the works to be housed locally to be part of the library, one could build an Author (person) page with offsite links, or a Portal (organisational authors) page to the works. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Library I suppose I still need to read up on what Wikisource's actual scope is, because I had a different impression about what it actually could or should do. If I understand you correctly, I have to admit that I'm a little disappointed, honestly. (Although please don't take that as a slight against the hard work that I'm sure you and several other contributors put into this project.) —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikisource:What Wikisource includes and Wikisource:For Wikipedians. I am not talking what we may, could or should be. I am talking where I see where we are as an evolved volunteer library that has limited resources, so more where we are in the journey. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

multiple blank lines[edit]

You don't need to use <br> over and over to create multiple blank lines. Just use multiple returns to insert blank lines directly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Ping:EncycloPetey Thanks. As you can see from my contribs, I'm getting the hang of ProofRead. Much appreciated! —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Dates in diambiguation situations[edit]

Hi,

In light of some of your moves in the Author namespace, I ask you to please follow existing guidlines (#5) and refrain from using anything other than a plain old dash when it comes to an Author's basepage title that has any form of "date" in it. example...

  • John Smith (1878-1956) - OK for core, target, mainpage that holds content
  • John Smith (1878–1956) - NOT OK for core, target, mainpage that holds content. OK as a redirect to the main page however

..... thanks -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)