User talk:Beleg Tâl

From Wikisource
Latest comment: 15 days ago by Beleg Tâl in topic Index:LyraEcclesiastica.djvu
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Beleg Tâl Beleg Tâl | Talk Archives

Lang

[edit]

Why? Xover (talk) 06:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Xover Because.
I started out by trying to find more information about Author:Miss Cheape and Author:Miss Blackley, only to find that their author credits are woefully lacking, as are most other members of Lang's writing team, so I'm trying to fix that. For example.Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
How about you let me know what you tried to do with the automatic header that didn't work, and I'll see what can be done. Xover (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I didn't try to do anything with the automatic header, because the automatic header has never (to my knowledge) supported section_author and its related fields (though if you feel like implementing those, feel free to do so) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ok, then let me rephrase: please let me know the parameters you would have needed. Xover (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
If I were to have used the automatic header for this work, I would have needed contributor, section_author, section_translator, section_editor, and section_adapter, as well as iterated forms of each (section_author1, section_author2, &c.). However, in order for me to feel comfortable relying on the automatic header for individually credited subpages in general, I would expect it to support the full functionality of Module:Header/attribution data. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I will point out, however, that I don't really see the point of using the automatic header in cases where the header differs from subpage to subpage (which is always the case when the subpages have different authorship). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are limits to what the automatic header can support similar to the old template-based header. For one thing it needs to specifically enumerate every supported parameter, unlike Module:Header that supports arbitrarily large fooN variants (in logic; displaying lots of them will quickly fall over). It doesn't exactly help that they need to be enumerated in multiple places either. Hopefully we can get some of these limitations removed upstream (in PRP) at some point, but for now this is what we have to work with. Xover (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, that's more or less what I expected. I do like the idea of automatic headers in theory, but the vast majority of the texts I work on are anthologies like this with complex attributions, so unfortunately I don't really see automatic headers as a feasible replacement for this type of work any time soon.
Semi-tangentially—I often manually create tables of attribution data in my sandbox (example) to ensure that all the Versions and Disambiguation and Author pages are all updated properly; and I have long had this vague idea that it would be nice to turn this into some sort of standardized structured attribution system that could then be used to populate all the Wikidata work and edition items as well. I feel like such a system would be helpful (or even necessary) for managing attribution data for automatic headers also. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Septuagint

[edit]

In this edit you removed several works in transcription, but never provided a link to any copy of the Septuagint. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Look closely, you will see the little letters "q.v." This means that you should click on the link to Bible where you will see many translations of the Septuagint, including all of the ones that were listed at Septuagint (even the ones that are not actually titled "Septuagint") —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please see the Style Guide then: works not titled Septuagint should not be listed on a disambiguation page. That information should be moved to the See also section of the page rather than exist as a listing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm glad that we're in agreement then! —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Making the word Bible bold, to make it clear that it is the link, does help make it clear what the line is recommending. But at some point, we may have translations of the Septuagint with a different title and/or a different translator. I would rather see the word Septuagint linked via redirect to the Bible page. That redirect can then become a translations page in future. A work of that stature will eventually need a hub location. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think it's fine to create a redirect to Bible. I guess the preferred redirect would be Septuagint (Bible)? or maybe Greek Old Testament?—As for creating separate translations pages for the Septuagint and all the other various source versions that English bibles are translated from, I think that's far beyond the level of complexity I'd want to have to maintain, but perhaps we'll need to restructure our Bible translations pages eventually anyway, and we can deal with it at that time —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think Septuagint (Bible) would be more NOP. I agree that a total restructure now might be premature, but having the link page established provides a more stable place for linking than anything we currently have. Otherwise, what would we link mentions of the Septuagint to from all the works that will do so? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hm, that's fair. I'd link to [[Bible|Septuagint]] but I agree that it would be good to have something more obvious. Let's go with Septuagint (Bible) then, since I suppose that's the best option available. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good. Do you think it would be better to redirect to Bible right now, or to the translations page for the one translation that we have? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Definitely should redirect to Bible rather than The Septuagint version of the Old Testament, as there are several Bibles whose Old Testament is translated from the Septuagint. Some directly (e.g. Bible (Thomson)) and some indirectly (e.g. Bible (Douay-Rheims), via the Vulgate) and some partially (the "Apocrypha" in the King James Version). Speaking of which, should we create a redirect for Vulgate (Bible), do you think? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Given that we have several Bibles translated from the Septuagint, then perhaps it is time to create that as a Translations listing page. It hadn't occurred to me that we had additional translations from the Greek (rather than the Hebrew). --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, like I said, creating all the translations pages for all the various source variants is complex and would require a whole bunch of research and maintenance... I personally think lumping it all under Bible is good enough, but if you want to start splitting it up by source text then feel free to get started. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Elemoont

[edit]

Please ensure that you are correcting all of the internal links for moved works. I notice the Contents from this one is now broken. I have not checked the others. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lol that's what happens when the move is still in progress :p —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Annotated?

[edit]

Why is is this Annotated? New York Evening Post/Annotated/1890/Death Of An Old Pilot I fixed a typo from the transcription, I did not interpret anything. --RAN (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) this work contains several interwiki links to Wikidata, which are annotations under our policy WS:ANN. I have separated it from the required "clean" copy at New York Evening Post/1890/Death Of An Old Pilot, which does not contain interwiki links. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The pagenmae New York Evening Post/Annotated/1890/Death Of An Old Pilot hides the annotated near the beginning of the link, in violation of WS:ANN. A correct name would be New York Evening Post/1890/Death Of An Old Pilot/Annotated or New York Evening Post/1890/Death Of An Old Pilot (annotated). Either way the pagename is meant to reflect clearly the fact that it is annotated. Your name implies that this is an annotated edition of the entire run of the Post, but only the one article is annotated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you can find a way to do that and still make the {{annotation header}} template function, please do so, because I couldn't get it to work —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also, if you think this is "in violation of WS:ANN", maybe have a reread of that policy, because what the policy actually says is "The title of the work must clearly declare that the work is annotated" and "The format is not fixed". Perhaps you would like to submit a proposal on WS:S to fix the format of an annotated text to be one of the formats you personally prefer? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is not fixed because three options are given. The pagename you chose does not match any of the three options, although I can understand how you made your mistake. If the header is not working, then that is a technical issue to request help with. It is not unusual to have technical issues here. :) --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

New Hampshire

[edit]

If you're going to make these kinds of big moves, please ensure the links at Wikipedia are also updated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Index:LyraEcclesiastica.djvu

[edit]

I have added the missing pages from this work to the file, on which you had been working. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Amazing, thanks! —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply