User talk:Beleg Tâl

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

Poems (Chesterton)/Lepanto[edit]

Sooner or later, this will have to moved back to where it was. There is more than one edition of a collection of Chesterton's poems entitled "Poems", which is why I included the date for disambiguation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: That is true of nearly every work on this project. When someone adds a second one, we can move it to a more standard disambig title like Poems (Chesterton, 1915). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
It just makes more sense to me to disambiguate from the outset when we know this, instead of having to move, edit all the links, and change redirects later. If it's all set all from the start, it saves on later work for the whole community. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive user?[edit]

Nvnnvc has been making SEVERAL disruptive edits (link). Beeswaxcandle already tried explaining this to them ([1]). I warned them on their talk page ([2]). Still having at it. Could you please intervene? –MJLTalk 14:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
In response to further silliness on the user's talk page (redirecting to this page), I've checked global contributions and see that they've been indef blocked as a sock on Meta. I leave the decision to amend our block to you as the original blocker. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Shakespeare's Sonnets[edit]

The Yale Shakespeare volume has the same title as the work you're currently doing (Shakespeare's Sonnets). It would probably be easier to disambiguate now than it would be to do so this summer. Do you have a bot or tool that make make all the necessary changes, or should I post a request for someone else to help? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I've posted on bot requests, Mpaa should be able to handle it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


The {{Sonnets}} template is linked throughout to only the 1883 edition, and the template is used throughout the 1883 edition. Placing it on the general page for Shakespeare's Sonnets does not add anything that isn't available through the only current edition linked, and is edition specific to boot.

For the general page Shakespeare's Sonnets we will need a new template: one that links to the versions pages for each of Shakespeare's Sonnets. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: The template {{Sonnets}} is supposed to link to the versions page for each of Shakespeare's Sonnets. User:Mpaa modified it to point to the 1883 edition specifically, presumably because the 1883 edition is the only edition we currently have. Once other editions are added, and versions pages are created for each Sonnet, {{Sonnets}} will be modified accordingly. If you want to remove {{Sonnets}} from Shakespeare's Sonnets, go ahead, but please ensure to restore it when it is updated after the versions pages are created. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I've created a template Template:ShakespeareSonnetVersions that can be placed on 154 versions pages and easily updated for new editions of the Sonnets. Have a look at Sonnet 1 (Shakespeare) and let me know what you think. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
That's the next question: Do we want the versions pages to be of the form Sonnet 1 (Shakespeare), with redirects like "Sonnet I (Shakespeare)", etc. Or should we create them with title such as Shakespeare's Sonnets/1. so that they will be subpages of the main versions page? There are a lot of decisions that need to be made before investing in a new template. I'd hate to have to do a lot of work, then swap horses mid-stream, so to speak.
And, if {{Sonnets}} is supposed to be the main navigation template for Shakespeare's sonnets, then should we create a separate navigation template for the 1883 edition, and then replace all copies in the 1883 edition? Or should we remove the template from the 1883 work? Or keep the 1883 template as is and create a new template? Lots of things I'd want decided before we start changing things. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: The format Sonnet 1 (Shakespeare) is both the most appropriate with regard to our naming conventions, and is also the result of previous discussion at Talk:Shakespeare's Sonnets (1883), and is also the format that was used for the Sonnets until I provided the scan edition. I personally do not think it is appropriate to use sub-pages as versions pages; if the work in question is a work per se it should have a top level versions page, but if it is not then it should not have a versions page at all. — I also don't think edition-specific TOC navboxes are appropriate either in most cases. I am currently removing it from the 1883 edition, because while I am okay with leaving it when other editors have added it, I myself will not create any TOC navbox template specific to the 1883 edition. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The discussion you've pointed to dates from 2007, which is very, very old by Wikisource standards. It may be worth revisiting, as practices since that time have changed. The problem with considering Shakespeare's Sonnets is that, not only are the individual sonnets well known and numbered, but the collection is itself a work. We therefore have a work made up of component works, which is something we don't normally have to contend with. I'm therefore not so certain that a subpage structure should be rejected outright. Neither am I advocating for it at this point, but think a discussion ought to be had to see what people think who work with Shakespeare, and those who work with similar issues such as collections of poetry. We have more than a few community members I'd like to hear from before making a decision. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: You may be surprised at how many works-made-of-component-works that we have. The Bible is the most well-known example. The Rosary consists pretty much entirely of previously-existing works, as does the Raccolta. Les Fleurs du Mal is a work and also a collection of original works. Every opera or musical is also like this, with songs as components—see I've got a little list and A more humane Mikado, for example. I've worked with texts like this frequently enough to be confident that practice has not changed in this regard, and that the standard "Work (Disambig)" format of Sonnet 1 (Shakespeare) is still the preference.—That being said, I'm okay with bringing the discussion to the Scriptorium if you feel that it's important to do so. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
"The Bible" is a bit different because it was assembled after the component works were written and circulated, and the contents which are included differ between editions as does the sequence. Shakespeare's Sonnets was published as a unit in 1609, and all later editions derive from that single printing. Operas and musicals do have component pieces and songs, but always within the larger context of the original as a whole. The Sonnets again differs in that any one sonnet is a complete work in and of itself. But yes, once I've had time to write up some thoughts, I think going to the Scriptorium and requesting feedback is the route I'd like to take. Unlike my "disambiguating Shakespeare" proposal, I'm less clear in my own mind about the approach that I might prefer. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, I see you're doing some work on Shakespeare's other poems. Thanks for taking on that task. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

For the time being, let's use Sonnet 1 (Shakespeare) as a model to establish format and conventions, but not propagate these changes until we've agreed upon the style we want to use. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I've come around to the idea of using a naming system like Sonnet 1 (Shakespeare). One more related issue before we implement: Should we include a 3-digit DEFAULTSORT on the versions pages (e.g. DEFAULTSORT:Sonnet 001 Shakespeare) so that the versions pages for the Sonnets sort numerically instead of alphabetically? Without it, the pages will be sequenced in categorization as: 1, 10, 100, 101, 102, ...109, 11, 110, 111, ...119, 12, ... 19, 2, 20, 21, which may not be desirable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: I think that's a fantastic idea, and I support it wholeheartedly. I'll see if I can build it into the template. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

In the headers, "next = " has always been intended for parts within a work. I have serious misgivings about using it on a Versions page to link from one sonnet's versions page to another sonnet's versions page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Given that the Sonnets have a fixed order, and that these parameters have been used in the past for versions pages of works that appear in sequence (have a look at Job (Bible) for a rather extreme example), I did not think it inappropriate to use here. However, if you feel they are inappropriate, I can remove them (or you can do so). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The Job example is one of the reasons I feel justified in my misgivings. :P --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Ha - okay :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

So, do you think we're ready to bot-create the version pages for each of the 154 Sonnets? Or is there something else to attend to first? I can begin working through the Yale Shakespeare volume this week. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: yes, ready if you are. I'll see if I can do it using AutoWikiBrowser, and if not I'll post on bot requests. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I see you've also taken care of the Wikidata item links, so thanks for that as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I've added what VIAF IDs there are for individual Sonnets at Wikidata, but there is one more task for Wikidata, that is better suited to a bot / script: The standard library title form for each Sonnet should be added as an English alias. This is of the form Sonnets. 116 - using Sonnets for the library title of the collection, full stop to end the title, then a space, then the number of the individual sonnet. Would you be able to generate and add these aliases? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done . QuickStatements is a good tool. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation - it is time to close the Phase 1![edit]


You have volunteered to be a coordinator for the Talk pages consultation 2019. Thank you again!

Community summaries are due by Saturday, April 6, 2019. It is now time to close the conversations. We really thank everyone who has participated. Every opinion matters.

What is a community summary?

The goal of a community summary is to wrap up the discussions and provide a summary of what your participants said. That way, other communities can learn about your community's needs, concerns, and ideas. We have seen very different feedback on different wikis, and it is time to discover what everyone thinks!

Please include in that summary:

  • every perspective or idea your community had, and
  • how frequent each idea was; for example,
    • how many users shared a given opinion
    • whether an idea was more common among different types of contributors (newcomers, beginners, experienced editors...)

You can add as much detail as you want in that summary.

Please post it on the page for community summaries, using the most international English you have.

Can't the Wikimedia Foundation read all the feedback?

We are trying, but we really need your help. For most conversations, we have to use machine translation, which has limitations. This can help us find the most common needs or global ideas. Machine translation is useful, but it does not tell us how people are feeling or what makes your community unique.

Your community summary should be built from your community's perspective, experience and culture. You might also know of relevant discussions in other places, which we did not find (for example, perhaps someone left a note on your user talk page – it is okay to include that!). Your summary is extremely important to us.

What are the next steps?

Phase 2 will happen in April. We will analyze the individual feedback, your community summary, and some user testing. We hope to have a clear view of everyone's ideas and needs at the end of April.

Some ideas generated during phase 1 may be mutually exclusive. Some ideas might work better for some purposes or some kinds of users. During Phase 2, we'll all talk about which problems are more urgent, which projects are most closely aligned with the overall needs and goals of the movement, and which ideas we should focus on first.

Discussions about these ideas may be shaped and be moderated by the Wikimedia Foundation, guided by our decision criteria, listed on the project page.

How can I help now?

  • Please provide the summary. :)
  • While we study the feedback, we may ask you for more information.
  • We will need your help for Phase 2 as well, probably to translate or publicize some future materials we may have.

If you have any questions or need some help, please ask.

Thank you again for your help, Trizek (WMF) 18:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Interface Admin position[edit]

Putting this here to avoid further cluttering the Scriptorium thread.

In my mental tally I have you down as opposed to the Interface Admin proposal on the grounds that the proposed policy is too complicated and has too much process overhead. At the same time, in my head, the practical application of it would be essentially as I understand you to want it to be. This suggests to me that one or both of us must be misunderstanding the other.

If you have the time, could you perhaps give me a couple of specific points you object to so we can figure out who is misunderstanding what—and I realise the answers to that may very well be "me" and "everything" :) —and what we can do about it?

I just want to get a policy in place, and the proposal is my attempt to figure out how it needs to be based on various requirements. My personal investment in the particulars isn't all that strong: I'm just trying to dig up, tease out, and balance requirements from the community, previous discussions, and WMF Legal. --Xover (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: here are my thoughts in general:
  • All admins (except you yourself, as the newest) were given the privileges of interface-admin when they were made admins, and therefore have already been vetted for these privileges. For this reason I believe the actual interface admin bit should be freely given to existing admins as desired/needed. It is very simple to treat interface-adminship as just one more feature that all admins are able to use as needed.
  • Even if interface-adminship needed to be considered separate to regular adminship, there is no need for a separate policy and nom process; just bundle it into WS:Adminship. You'll notice we have no dedicated beaurocrat policy or nom process either, and that works just fine.
  • We shouldn't need half-a-dozen rules for removing and restoring interface-adminship; anyone who loses admin access or requests removal will be removed, and that's all that's needed
  • We shouldn't need to maintain a dedicated interface-admin team; the crats are already 3 admins with this permission; if all admins have the permission then the point is moot.
Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the existing proposal, the intended way that it should work in actual use is:
  • Any admin can get Interface Admin
  • They get it by posting "I want Interface Admin and I'm familiar with the policy" on WS:AN (which section on WS:AN doesn't really matter)
  • One of the `crats assign the right just as they do with normal admin rights (no "nomination", no voting)
  • The periodic confirmation of admins look identical to today, unless someone chooses to bring up something that only applies to Interface Admin
For all normal situations this is the visible effect of the policy, and what anyone will need to actually care about. The essence of it. All the rest is just to have something written that deals with the rare stuff (and those bits can be tweaked, dropped, or added to). Or that is the intent in any case. I am failing to see the conflict between that and your first two bullet points.
But let's see if we can find some points of agreement. Here's a few assertions that I think we might agree on, and from which to build.
  • We should have a policy about this (short—long, simple—complex, rudimentary—comprehensive, formal—informal, written—unwritten... but something).
  • The policy should actually be written down somewhere, whatever it is, even if it's just a single sentence, and wherever we eventually decide is the best place for it.
  • Independently of where the policy lives, there should be an info page for Interface administrators, just like there is for Abuse filter editors, Autopatrollers, Administrators, Bureaucrats, etc. (i.e. there should be no redlinks on Special:ListGroupRights; but you'll note some of those are just redirects)
  • It is useful to document (somewhere, in some form) what an interface administrator is, what things require interface admin rights to do, that it means using 2FA and how to do that, and how to get ahold of one if needed.
Or to put it a different way, I'm not actually seeing any big points of disagreement on what the policy should be, but rather the points of contention are its form, how detailed and comprehensive it should be, and so forth. And that makes me hopeful we can find some way to tweak the proposal sufficiently that it satisfies everyone. --Xover (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: I guess I can agree to that :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


Hi User:Beleg Tâl, and thank you for your informative reply about this in the Scriptorium.

I would like to apply this in Hebrew Wikisource, so that it will function the same way it does here at English Wikisource (i.e. showing the page numbers in the margins). Even though I am an administrator there, it seems that there isn't permission to do so. "interface-admin" seems to be needed. Do you have that authority, or can you refer me to someone else who might be able to help? Dovi (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dovi: Information is at m:interface administrators. Specifically, requests for assistance for projects that do not have their own interface administrators should be made at m:Steward requests/Miscellaneous. --Xover (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)