User talk:Beleg Tâl

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


The so-called "Haka Mate"[edit]

I like what you did, and you have done right in your translation. I went in to read the Russian Wikipedia article in the subject and it is not nearly as complete as yours. Incidentally, there is none of the legally required attribution on the Russian article. Perhaps that has to do with the fact that the legislative of the Russian Federation doesn't feel like they need to protect a minorities right to a poem of sorts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:9a2d:c99b:0:45:d16e:c501 (talk)

dog and cat pack at commons[edit]

In case you are interested commons:User talk:Fæ#Why_having_both_formats_is_a_a_good_idea.... I was surprised to find the pdf that had been uploaded by Fæ.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]

@RaboKarbakian: I am not sure what you are referring to. What PDF did Fae upload? Why are you bringing it to my attention? What does this have to do with dogs and cats? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
@Beleg Tâl: More like PDFs. Fae said 800,000. Search an author or better, some prolific publisher with an unusual name. Possibly (probably) Fae's uploads.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]
You are a cat, as you are reliable and competent at Wikidata.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Redirect[edit]

Please restore The Condor/2 (2)/Prominent Californian Ornithologists. III. A. M. Shields, which you recently deleted, despite the fact that is in use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[]

@Pigsonthewing: I'd be happy to help, but from what I can see the page is not actually in use and has been flagged for auto-deletion for nearly six months. Why does it need to be undeleted? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[]
Because it is, as I said, in use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]
... @Pigsonthewing: do you see something I don't? the only links to it are on user talk pages, and you can fix the link on your own user page, so what actual use are you referring to? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[]
Thank you for confirming it is used. Please now restore it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[]
@Pigsonthewing: As you can see there are no pages that currently link to the redirect, so there is no need for the redirect to be reinstated. Have a great day. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[]

Share your feedback on the OCR improvements![edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Hello! We (the team responsible for the Community Wishlist Survey) have launched the project for OCR improvements. With this project, we aim to improve the experience of using OCR tools on Wikisource. Please refer to our project page, which provides a full summary of the project and the main problem areas that we have identified.

We would love if you could answer the questions below. Your feedback is incredibly important to us and it will directly impact the choices we make. Thank you in advance, and we look forward to reading your feedback! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[]

Ambiguity[edit]

Just as an "FYI"… I think moving Will was a bad call. As I've mentioned elsewhere, Shakespeare is an exception in almost any context. We don't even have an author page for the one other "William Shakespeare" that wrote anything (and I'll bet you we never will), and even if we did we'd have three, tops, links to it. If [[Author:William Shakespeare|]] doesn't actually link to Shakespeare it's going to surprise everyone, and we're going to end up having to constantly monitor it for inbound links that have to be fixed. --Xover (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[]

@Xover: I can definitely sympathize with this perspective. However, we have had this discussion before, and we have always come down on the side of "it doesn't matter that one is notable and the other isn't". And, as a matter of fact, we do have an Author page for Dr. William Shakespeare. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[]
If that's your reasoning then I definitely disagree. None of those names are actually ambiguous. I thought you were thinking of William Shakespeare Jr. (who would be ambiguous because we don't include the "Jr."), since they actually authored a couple of patents (and could conceivably have written other published material). If the pages you had in mind were other people who just happen to share one of their given names and one of their surnames with Shakespeare then this wasn't just a bad call but a bad call. As EP suggests in the public thread, this should have been discussed first. --Xover (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[]

{{Indic missing}}[edit]

Hi. as you seem to have some expertise with South Asian languages, I was wondering if when you had a spare moment, you could look into the uses of this template with a view to dispersing the relevant items to more specific "problematic language character" categories. {{Hindi missing}} was created recently, with this in mind.

My other question would be, based on other Wikisources usage and likely incidence in older works, which other South Asian languages are likely to need their own templates? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[]

@ShakespeareFan00: unfortunately you are mistaken, I have no expertise with South Asian languages at all, except that I sometimes enjoy the detective work of tracking down the occasional unidentified character. However, I believe User:Hrishikes has some expertise on the subject. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[]