User talk:Beleg Tâl

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Beleg Tâl Beleg Tâl | Talk Archives


Ext scan links[edit]

Thanks for the improvement! I have linked most of Mrs. Coates' poems (published in magazines) in versions pages to external links, so I could probably go through and improve all those too... But one thing I noticed after moving to Portugal is that I am no longer able to view (myself) many of the links to Google books versions. I'll think about updating them as you have, and possibly linking instead to Archive.org sources where available. For if I can't view them, I assume many others are unable to as well. Have a good day! Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Manual formatting for poems[edit]

You mentioned that you prefer to use explicit line breaks when transcribing poems rather than <poem>. How do you deal with the spaces between stanzas, then? I tried out a manually-formatted poem on this page but wound up using explicit paragraph margins on every stanza in order to create the breaks—surely that is not what you do! Levana Taylor (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Levana Taylor: The paragraph breaks between stanzas are automatically generated by the MediaWiki platform, like this:

There is a secret drawer in every heart,
Wherein we lay our treasures one by one;
Each dear remembrance of the buried past;
⁠Each cherished relic of the time that’s gone;

The old delights of childhood long ago;
⁠The things we loved, because we knew them best;
The first discovered primrose in our path;
⁠The cuckoo’s earliest note; the robin’s nest;

The merry hay-makings around our home;
⁠Our rambles in the summer woods and lanes;
The story told beside the winter fire,
⁠While the wind moaned across the window panes;

The golden dreams we dreamt in after years;
⁠Those magic visions of our young romance;
The sunny nooks, the fountains and the flowers,
⁠Gilding the fairy landscape of our trance;

The link which bound us later still to one
⁠Who fills a corner in our life to-day,
Without whose love we dare not dream how dark
⁠The rest would seem, if it were gone away;

The song that thrill’d our souls with very joy;
⁠The gentle word that unexpected came;
The gift we prized, because the thought was kind;
⁠The thousand, thousand things that have no name.

All these in some far hidden corner lie,
⁠Within the mystery of that secret drawer,
Whose magic springs, though stranger hands may touch,
⁠Yet none may gaze upon its guarded store.

Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
PS I suspect that you are asking this because some browsers use a very small margin between paragraphs, which results in stanzas being displayed closer together than could be desired. In my opinion this is acceptable (and far better than using <br><br> like the <poem> extension does!). If we want to do something about it, the best way would be to update the site CSS to force a slightly larger space between paragraphs across the board. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Right, I do think that the stanzas could use some extra space between them (at least in browsers where it’s small—I didn’t know that it differs!), but not at the cost of adjusting margins manually! My feeling about the <poem> style at the moment is the opposite of yours: the space is excessive, but nonetheless better than being too small… Oh well, perfectionism is the worst way to approach editing Wikisource. Do you have any other reason beside this style-disagreement for dislkiking <poem>? Levana Taylor (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not about style or spacing, it's about semantics. The break between stanzas should to be rendered in HTML as </p><p> and not as <br><br> regardless of how big or small the space is, but the <poem> extension is incapable of using the correct HTML structure. I have also had issues with <poem> interacting with table semantics, and with poems with lines longer than the width of the container, but these are secondary concerns. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I see, yes. I do think it’s nice to have something that applies an entire set of standard formatting to poems but if it’s not well designed and programmed, better not to use it. Thanks for the info! Levana Taylor (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Author:Euthymius not apparently an author[edit]

Wondering why we are creating author pages like Author:Euthymius when they are not apparently authors, or nothing evident in the two linked biographies to indicate that they wrote. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: his legacy appears to be such that I would expect that writings of some sort exist, either letters or treatises or whatever. I could find no confirmation that he doesn't have any extant works, so I put him in Author space. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll also point out that I have often had trouble finding examples of writings by ancient Orthodox authors, even when they are particularly notable for their writings, which makes me particularly hesitant to put this page in Portal space without corroboration of their non-authorship from a more knowledgeable source. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I am presuming that we can be pretty fluid in moving from portal: to author: ns if evidence of works are found, and as WD tracks and updates target pages/moves, I find it quite reasonable to create the portal pages, and move and update as necessary. I am also tending to more create a portal: ns page, whereas previously it was just a bit of a PITA, especially noting that as have one link per person means that we aren't going to duplicate, which used to be an issue. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: It has always been my practice to put individuals in Author space until and unless I have reason to believe no extant works exist. I won't object to your taking a different approach. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Kangaroo Island Courier[edit]

Uhm. What was the idea behind this: Index:Kangaroo Island Courier, 1911-01-07.djvu? Were you planning to transcribe something from it? Why the uncropped screenshots of the NLA pages?

The Australian copyright status is basically impossible to determine with any certainty given the paucity of records (at least the ones I found in a quick/superficial/cursory search), so it won't be movable to Commons until it ages out past what they accept as sufficient probability (publication + 120 years is the last consensus I saw; some argued for up to 160 years iirc) that any pma. 70 authors' copyright has expired. --Xover (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: I have no memory of this work, but after some digging I traced it back to this discussion. I would guess that the uncropped screenshots are there because that was the best scan I could find? And I did tag it as "do not move to Commons". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, it was also tagged as "Candidate to be moved to Commons", hence my confusion. :-)
But in any case, since it looks like the user posting the request never followed up here (they did write their article on enWP and uploaded a JPEG of just the poem on Commons), would you be opposed to deleting it here? It's clogging up some maintenance categories and is highly unlikely to be worked on in any forseeable future; and if needed we can either undelete or recreate with better cropped scans if somebody wants to work on it in future. --Xover (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: Sure, why not. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Done. Thanks! --Xover (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Index pages based on a JPG (or a PNG?)[edit]

Hi, I noticed you recently set up Rose Festival (Portland, Oregon) letter, April 15, 1909 so that it is properly scan-backed. Thank you! I had not realized it was possible to do that with a JPG image.

Inspired by this, I tried to do something similar with Index:Stephen Puter book announced, Associated Press.png. But the Index page gives "Error: No such file" and the transclusion, which I tried to set up manually, does not seem to work.

Do you know, do PNGs and JPGs work the same way with Index: and Page: namespace? Did I do something wrong, or are PNGs just not supported in this way? -Pete (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: You cannot use <pagelist/> tag for such indexes; you just need to list the page(s) manually (this is the old format of index pages). Ankry (talk) 05:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth, @Ankry: mul:Wikisource:ProofreadPage and in truth while it mentions the transclusion in the <pages> section, it is quiet on how to use an alternative to <pagelist> in the "Pages" field. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:The documentation is rather a technical changelog and tag definition than instruction for users of how to create index pages. Feel free to update it. Ankry (talk) 10:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all, glad to learn how to do this properly. -Pete (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Keeping unsourced redundant texts[edit]

In going through the backlogs of works lacking a source and license I've noticed several where a scan-backed text has been added (by you, in several cases, I think) and you have moved the old one to Title (unsourced) and created a versions page for both. I would have thought this a perfect example of what G4 is for. Is there any particular reason you are keeping these? My strong inclination is that for texts that are both without source and without a license—and especially if they have been tagged as such for some time without being fixed—the unsourced text should be deleted. I am also inclined to delete such that are merely without a source/scan if there is nothing in particular (an explanation in the notes or similar) that suggests it is a different edition (and hence possibly worth keeping on those grounds) than the scan-backed work.

The majority of these cases I've seen so far have been such that the most likely source for them is a cut&paste from Gutenberg or another etext site, and completely without illustrations or other affordances. We're not exactly wasting volunteer effort by losing these! --Xover (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: I have discussed this on WS:PD a couple of times. I agree with you, but not all editors in those discussions agreed.
My own stance has also changed over time. Nowadays I will generally simply overwrite the unsourced version with a sourced version if the texts are the same, whereas before I would simply move the unsourced one out of the way. I think my standard for "the same" has also changed over time, and I will now generally disregard small differences like punctuation and capitalization.
The general opinion was that if the texts are not the same, then the unsourced text should be kept as a separate version or put through WS:PD (where the outcome was often keep as separate version).
I think it would be worth revisiting some of the ones I opted to move rather than overwrite, and either speedy or propose deletion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. Thanks for explaining. I think I'm going to say that for copy&paste/gutenberg/low-quality texts, with no source, and with no license, G4 is clearly applicable. If a source is given in the notes or talk page, some thought is required and the conclusion not a given. And if the quality of the text is high (i.e. it looks like someone put some effort into it) some effort should be put into trying to identify the source. But ultimately any situation where we have one good scan-backed text and one unsourced text, the default is G4 unless some factor justifies an exception. --Xover (talk) 12:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Jerome of Prague[edit]

Hi,

I have moved Jerome of Prague back to Portal:Jerome of Prague. The style guide very reasonably states that An author ... is any person who has written any text that is included in Wikisource. This could be imo overlooked if there were at least a small chance of some of his works appearing here in future, but nothing has been published in English so far. If something is discovered, the page can be turned into the author page then. There are millions of authors who published something in foreign languages and it imo does not make sense to copy their lists of works from non-English Wikisources (example: cs:Author:Josef Pekař) to English Wikisource. A bot of a skilled contributor could create hundreds thousands of author pages in a very short while if we wanted to have Author pages with lists of non-English works. However, lists of works in Czech should belong to Czech WS, works in Romanian to Romanian WS etc. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: we have never kept an individual in Portal space after works were identified authored by them that are in scope on English Wikisource. I do not know why you think it is preferable to keep it in Portal space. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I do agree that author pages are designed for lists of works in scope of English Wikisource (i.e. works published in English language). Your move of Author:Bernard Bolzano is absolutely OK, supposing that the works were published in English (thank you for adding the list). This, however, does not seem to be the case of Jerome of Prague. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
BTW, after this impulse I started searching for Bolzano's books in our scope as I would gladly proofread some of them, but cannot find any. For example you have listed there "Theory of Science (1837)", but this has turned out to be quite misleading as only German language work Wissenschaftslehre was published in the given year, while English Theory of Science appeared only in 2014 and so will not get into our scope before 2109. However, there might be a small chance for Paradoxes of Infinite (1950) as it seems that its copyright was not renewed, though at the moment scans are not available anywhere–but we can hope somebody will scan it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Theory of Science is the common term in English for the work originally called Wissenschaftslehre; there was a translation published in 2014, but any public domain English translation of Theory of Science, including any translation created by Wikisource editors, are in source. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
As I have understood it, we do not list "common terms" of works (one work may have several common names), but their real titles. Your list is really misleading, I first thought that the works were published in English in the given years and immediately started searching for scans to proofread, but then I was really disappointed (besides losing time uselessly). How many other readers get confused?
Public domain English translations of Theory of Science, including translations created by Wikisource editors, would be in source if they existed, but unfortunately nothing like that exists.
Of course there is an extremely small chance (very close to zero) somebody will translate these particular works for Wikisource. If this were the reason for listing the works, why not directly copy the whole list from de:Bernard Bolzano (the chance somebody would choose something suitable for them to translate might be increased), as well as lists of other authors from all non-English Wikisources who wrote non-English works... However, I really do not see the point in making similar lists. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: the choice of using the original titles vs common names is generally left to the discretion of the editor who compiles the list of works. I agree that the original title is preferable, but in my experience the more popular name is the more common choice, and avoids the issue you mentioned above ("lists of works in Czech should belong to Czech WS, works in Romanian to Romanian WS"). As for Bolzano, I did my own research and compiled my own list, I did not see that there was a list at de:Bernard Bolzano to copy. And in general, it is extremely common to create Author pages for authors whose works can be added to Wikisource in future even though none have yet been added, and I would vehemently oppose any attempt to curtail this practice. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist blocks YouTube hyper-links[edit]

On this page, at least. Here is the page (without the hyper-link), if you are able to create it:

Thank you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC).

@TE(æ)A,ea.: I have updated MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist to allow the YouTube link on Page:A Review of the Open Educational Resources Movement.pdf/44Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Untitled[edit]

Hello. Can you give me your email address? I have some private questions. --Josephine W. (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Josephine W.: You can email me here: Special:EmailUser/Beleg_TâlBeleg Tâl (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

How to handle junk page creations?[edit]

I was seeing a lot of junk page talk creations from an IP recently. Can you check the New Page feed, and block the IP concerned? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Yes check.svg Done well spotted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent nuke and block[edit]

Thanks so much. I was wondering though, would you mind taking a look at my (infrequent) contributions and evaluating my chances of becoming an admin? I'd like to be able to help in such situations in the future. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Have a look over Wikisource:Restricted access policy and Wikisource:Adminship, and especially note Wikisource:Adminship#Nomination standards. Your work with scripts is impressive, your interest in fighting vandalism is commendable, and your contributions to validation are much appreciated. Your scripted modifications of page status might be seen as indicative of non-thorough proofreading, though the pages I checked were fine. If you confirmed your understanding of and commitment to the policies I linked, I'd probably support your nomination. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm a little confused why you marked all of the top-level mainspace pages that you created as nonstandard texts. Does this indicate that you are not confident in your ability to create texts that confirm to Wikisource standards? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
At the time, I was just starting to get acquainted with wikisource, and thought it would be helpful if someone else took a look --DannyS712 (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Gotcha. Well, those pages look standard enough (or at least as standard as the other court judgements I've seen) so I've removed those tags :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Index:Dictionary of National Biography. Errata (1904).djvu‎‎[edit]

The IP edits were reverted, but there seems to be a content loss somewhere, that I can't figure out as reverting back to an old KNOWN version didn't bring back the missing content. What's gone wrong, and how can it be fixed? unsigned comment by ShakespeareFan00 (talk) .

@ShakespeareFan00: I am confused, I see no content loss anywhere in that page's history, what exactly are you referring to? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Index:Dictionary_of_National_Biography._Errata_(1904).djvu&action=history
The last KNOWN version (15 Feb 2011) is 1063 bytes, The revert to it is only 896 bytes. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: After much head-scratching, I am now pretty certain that the changes to MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index template since February 2011 are the cause of the discrepancy. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, underlying template changes and related empty fields. Wouldn't spend more time on it. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)