User talk:Beleg Tâl/Archives/2016

← Archives

Beleg Tâl | Talk | Archives | 2016

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2016, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Needs your expertise

Hi,

Can you please straighten out the few double redirects recently created with your "Bible" related moves. List found HERE. Thanks for attention in advance. I would do it myself but I get the feeling there is more to fixing these than my "Bible" knowledge allows. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Done, and thanks for pointing out that page; it looks like it will be very useful. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

File:How-to-say-the-rosary.djvu

Checked for a renewal?

This one is from 1937. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I got it at archive.org —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

That's no garuntee sadly, Archive.org of late has soemtimes archived sutff that is nominaly copyright. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea how to check for renewal. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

:Index:TheRosaryItsHistory.djvu

Checked for a renewal? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I got it at archive.org —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

A Comprehensive Index of Names of Original Authors and Translators of Psalms and Hymns/Cover

May this orphaned subpage be deleted? Its content appears at A Comprehensive Index of Names of Original Authors and Translators of Psalms and Hymns, but as it was added (relatively) recently I did not want to delete it without checking first to see whether there is some purpose for having a duplicate. Tarmstro99 13:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Nope, no reason that I recall, go ahead and delete. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Tarmstro99 19:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Montfort

We do have at least one page on de Montfort at Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/St. Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort. I imagine that there are probably enough other works in other reference works to create a category or portal if desired. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

If you want to create an author page for him, go ahead; I know of at least one work that he has written, though it is not hosted here yet. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'll do it myself, I'm in the mood for some author-page-making :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Double-plus-within-circle

Hello. I do not mean to diminish your suggestion at Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 56.djvu/165 but I have been there before and the Unicode-combining-circle approach just happens to look fairly awful on my browser (firefox.) I put forward a HTML overlay of a different pair of unicode codes for consideration: does that work for you? If not I'll reluctantly return to the combining- form. On the other hand, so long as the text hangs together consistently there is no real necessity for choosing any given symbol…? AuFCL (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hm, interesting. I know that the combining characters I used are meant to be used in the way that the text uses, i.e. to put a binary operator inside a circle to make a new binary operator. It is semantically correct even though it appears Firefox's default fonts don't render it correctly. I'm not sure what PLUS SIGN IN LEFT HALF CIRCLE and PLUS SIGN IN RIGHT HALF CIRCLE are meant for, so I worry a little that it doesn't work semantically. If it does, then I think it would be preferable as it renders better, but if it doesn't I think semantic accuracy is more important than browser rendering. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair point. I only chose them (+, +) on a graphic-appearance basis and will not defend them beyond that. I repeat the suggestion that (semantically) as this is merely a reference symbol, unless it appears anywhere within the work in an image element (and thus must be matched as closely as possible) that there is no reason why any distinct symbol may not be substituted throughout without loss of meaning. AuFCL (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Rosary book

I have no clue how to structure content with brackets spreading across lines like on the last two pages of the Rosary book, and, on that basis, don't know whether it can be done, or how to proofread the page. Are there any ways around here to create those multi-line brackets? Also, I suppose, that part of the pages might benefit from a two-column format, although I don't know how to do that either. I'm actually more than a little stupid, but you probably already guessed that. John Carter (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Lol, nothing stupid about any of that. Multi-line brackets can be created using {{brace}} or {{brace2}}. I decided not to include them for two reasons:

1. Brackets don't expand to fit the text, so depending on the width of the containing element it can look dumb. For example, see the following:

$\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right.}$ This is a list with three items It is in a box with a brace The box is wide enough to hold it

$\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right.}$ This is a list with three items It is in a box with a brace The box is not wide enough to hold it and now it looks dumb

2. The brace is there to indicate that after each line you say Pray for us. If you want to depict this faithfully you have to find a way to rotate and position the text, which in my opinion is not worth the effort.

As for columns, I ignored them because of the following paragraph in Help:Beginner's guide to proofreading, which I think also addresses the above issue with braces:

You do not have to make an identical, photographic copy of the scan. Wikisource is a website, not a book and the text is more important than the typography. You should just try to get as close as possible. Some things work in books but do not work on Wikisource. For example, columns of text are not necessary and do not work well on Wikisource; they should be ignored during proofreading. Remember that several pages will be added together in the main namespace when proofreading is finished. Things like columns will not be readable.

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Index question

You seem to be a bit more aware of the details of creating an index page than I am. The old Hastings w:Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics is, even at this time, still considered to have some of the best pieces ever written on their topics (Louis de Vallee Poussin's articles on Buddhism among others) but I myself have never figured out how to create an index page. All volumes are available over at commons, in their commons:Category:Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. They are long, and the non-numbered pages in the beginning can be numerous, but, if they are started I have a list over at w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Library of those which articles which are included in the bibliographies of the articles in the most recent Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, and could at least get a start on them. John Carter (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Help:Beginner's guide to Index: files should give you a good idea of how to create the Index pages. If you run into trouble or want someone to check them over when you're done, let me know. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Bibleversions

Hi,

I wanted to draw your attention to Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2012-02#Template:Bible versions and Template:Bible versions 2. Given that more-or-less the same template has already been deleted by community consensus, there is a presumption against your new one. However a lot of time has passed since that discussion, and I can see that your template has a better, more flexible design. I still don't much like the idea of templating this content, but I'm certainly not going to speedy-delete the templete or even nominate it for deletion. I just hope you know what you're doing, because I don't want us to end up back where we were then!

Hesperian 02:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Ugh, I wonder what those templates looked like that they needed to be deleted. My primary intention with {{bibleversions}} is that, if a translation of the Bible is added or modified, it can be changed in one location instead of 66+ manually (especially since many of the Bible books' pages are missing a few entries); and also to ensure that no versions are inadvertently skipped on some of the pages. I am taking care to ensure that all special cases are accounted for; you'll note I've got 4 special cases already. I do know what I'm doing for the most part, though I'm still trying to decide what the best way to manually hide each individual version would be (I'm open to suggestions!) If you think it wise, I will take it to the Scriptrium before proceeding further. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Bible versions

{{header
 | title      = {{{title|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}}
 | author     = 
 | section    =
 | previous   =
 | next       =
 | wikipedia  = {{{wikipedia|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}}
 | commonscat = {{{comonscat|{{#switch:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|Deuteronomy|Exodus|Genesis|Psalms|Song of Solomon={{SUBPAGENAME}}|#default=Book of {{SUBPAGENAME}}}}}}}
 | wikiquote  = {{{wikiquote|The Bible}}}
 | portal     = {{{portal|Christianity}}}
 | notes      = ''This is a [[WS:STYLE#Disambiguation_pages|disambiguation page]] that lists different versions of the books of the Bible.''{{#if:{{{notes|}}}| 
----
{{{notes}}}}}
}}
;Biblical works

* [[Bible (Wycliffe)/{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] (1380s)
* [[Bible (Tyndale)/{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] (1526)
* [[Bible (Bishops')/{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] (1568)
* [[Bible (Douay-Rheims)/{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] (1610)
* [[Bible (Authorized Version)/{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] (1611)
* [[Bible (King James)/{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] (1769)
* [[Bible (American Standard)/{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] (1901)
* [[Bible (Jewish Publication Society 1917)/{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] (1917)
* [[Bible (World English)/{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] (in progress since 1997)
* [[Bible (Wikisource)/{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] (in progress since 2006)
* [[Halley's Bible Handbook/{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]
* [[Mikraot Gedolot/{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] (in progress since 2005)

Bible versions 2

<includeonly>{{Disambiguation|intro='''{{SUBPAGENAME}}''' is a book in the [[Bible]].  The following English translations may be available:

* [[Bible (Wycliffe)/{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] (1380s)
* [[Bible (Tyndale)/{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] (1526)
* [[Bible (King James)/{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] (1611)
* [[Bible (American Standard)/{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] (1901)
* [[Bible (World English)/{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] (in progress since 1997)
* [[Bible (Wikisource)/{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] (in progress since 2006)<!--

SISTER LINKS:-
-->
| notes = {{plain sister
 | wikipedia      = {{{wikipedia|}}}
 | commons        = {{{commons|}}}
 | commonscat     = {{{commonscat|}}}
 | wikiquote      = {{{wikiquote|}}}
 | wikinews       = {{{wikinews|}}}
 | wiktionary     = {{{wiktionary|}}}
 | wikibooks      = {{{wikibooks|}}}
 | wikiversity    = {{{wikiversity|}}}
 | wikispecies    = {{{wikispecies|}}}
 | wikivoyage     = {{{wikivoyage|}}}
 | wikidata       = {{{wikidata|}}}
 | wikilivres     = {{{wikilivres|}}}
 | meta           = {{{meta|}}}
 | portal         = {{{portal|}}}
}}
}}

@Hesperian: The new "bibleversions" is a body template, and does not include the header components so that does alleviate the concerns around filling/blocking the page name and trying to disambiguate. Re usability, especially for newbies (which the bible works can attract), I sometimes wonder on the value of complex templates in themself, and is a multi-faceted template better than multiple single templates. There is definitely value in templating, and having the requisite class labels applied within the template. So if we do go for multi-facted templates, we need clarity with parameter names, and excellent documentation, and good handling of empty parameters. So if it is to remain, we need to be able for people to have a good empty template for users to copy and paste, and the easy ability to fill empty parameters. Plus to consider whether we want red links in templates, as some will come along and parameters for non-existing pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hm, I can see why those were removed; I would probably have voted to delete them also :) I think my version avoids all the problems of this approach: it specifically only lists versions we have (or are in the process of creating) and it allows for other versions and proper disambiguation.

Adding the template to new pages isn't an issue I foresee, as there are only so many books to be added, and I doubt there are many Bibles that contain books not listed at Translation:Bible. A more important issue would be how to update the template when a new translation of the Bible is added. I intend to work on ways to make both of these actions really easy and straightforward once I have it working across the board.

My opinion on redlinks is as follows: if a translation of the Bible does not have a certain book (Tyndale, Biblioþece, and any Hebrew bibles being obvious examples), then that translation should NOT be listed. Also, a translation of the Bible that is not on WS should not be listed. However, a translation that is WIP (e.g. Douay-Rheims) should be listed even if that individual book is not yet added. Otherwise, each book's version page would need to be updated individually as books are added to the translation, and that defeats a major purpose of this exercise. You'll note that the redlinks on the pages I've done so far (up to and including Nehemiah (Bible)) adhere to this logic. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Page move

Please do not create unnecessary redirects when moving and then delete them. Thanks.— Mpaa (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

How do you move pages without creating unnecessary redirects? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

In fact, as far as I can tell, it is not possible to do what you ask without elevated permissions, unless you wish me to stop moving pages altogether. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Correct. @Mpaa: Admin right! (suppressredirect) that and move subpages (move-subpages). Special:ListGroupRights — billinghurst sDrewth 22:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, sorry. Was not aware admin right are needed. Actually, I can't see a why ... does not look something to restrict IMO.— Mpaa (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Abusable right, and one that can be a beast to clean up if someone does complex moves. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Adminship

It should have been asked previously by one of us, and the community has been lax in not asking. Are you up for a nomination? — billinghurst sDrewth 04:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind the extra tools. Would there be any further expectations of me beyond what I currently do here on WS? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, of course there are expectations, it is whether you consider the expectations reasonable and in line with the role, and what you do now. In terms of participating given the use of the tools, one would hope that you would have the opportunity to use them where there is a need; though I don't think that there are expectation of "GIVE MORE!", or "give us your first born!", "thou shalt go forth and do ...". There is implicitly a further expectation of considering community consensus in one's actions, ahead of one's own personal opinion. I considered nominating you as there are tools that I see that would be useful when you are doing the work that you do. I have no expectation that you do more, just more that you are able to do, and hope that you can continue to grow the tasks and skills that you currently have. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I accept the nomination, and thank you! —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for tardiness, I was busy then unwell. Getting to it soon. Once I have done the business, it is convention that the user publicly accepts the nomination and noting that they have read the WS:Adminship page and will look to comply with Wikisource:restricted access policy. Thanks. There soon! — billinghurst sDrewth 10:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I hope that you are feeling better. I've accepted the nomination. Thanks :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I've closed your admin nomination and given you the tools. Thanks for taking on the extra responsibility. I hope you enjoy it. ;-) Hesperian 00:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Now can I trouble you to update Wikisource:Administrators#Current administrators with any other languages and/or access? Cheers, Hesperian 00:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Will do.—Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Congrats, welcome to admopship. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Lol, thanks. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Press Release

Thank you for the information on the central discussion. I have read the link you provided. Still am not sure if my specimen would be meet the laid down criteria. If you wont mind, can i send a copy of the press release to you for review. Thanks Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, you can send it to me, but you might be better off to post it in the Scriptorium so that you can get the opinions of several people. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Dates in tables

If you're going to use a sortable table, then it makes little sense to format the dates as "3 April 1878", because the primary sorting item will be the "3". In a sortable table, it is preferrable to format the dates numerically as YYYY-MM-DD, or "1878-04-03" for the example I gave, so that the items can be sorted by date. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why whoever put the table on Author:Leo XIII together used that formatting. On the other hand, it appears to work okay. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... Interesting... --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding {{=}} inside html

This problem has been archived by Hesperian, but can you tell me why you added {{=}} to some users' signatures diff at Wikisource:Administrators? It added a non-existent category "Pages using invalid self-closed HTML tags" to the Admin page. Outlier59 (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

If you have text containing = inside a template (such as {{closed}}), the Wikimedia parser will interpret it as a parameter setting and fail to render the template correctly. For example: {{larger|1+1=2}} yields {{{1}}}. Therefore, {{=}} can be used to escape the character for use in a template. See Template:=/doc for more details. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

That makes zero sense to me. The HTML looked fine to me until you generated a HTML error with that edit. Outlier59 (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It was in a template. It didn't render. I escaped it. It rendered. That's all there is to it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Baffling. Outlier59 (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Index:Revelations of divine love (Warrack 1907).djvu

Would you like to assist? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Index:Revelations of divine love (Warrack 1907).djvu

Major part of this text is now in system :) I haven't done the adverts. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Index:Revelations of divine love (Warrack 1907).djvu

Adding the links is going beyond mere transdcription, and why Wikisource is more than paper. Thanks :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Will try again another day

I cannot work out why it is not archiving your posts, the bot thinks that minimal are ready. I will look at it again when I am more alert

Processing [[en:User talk:Beleg Tâl]]
19 Threads found on [[en:User talk:Beleg Tâl]]
Looking for: {{User:Wikisource-bot/config}} in [[en:User talk:Beleg Tâl]]
Processing 19 threads
Only 0 (< 2) threads are old enough. Skipping

— billinghurst sDrewth 15:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

And as you saw, it was the configuration of your template. If you followed some instruction, can we check that the mistake was not there, rather than misapplied here. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like I got confused; I saw 'd' outside the parentheses in variables %(year)d and assumed it was the same syntax for algorithm old(31)d. Thanks! —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Bible (King James Version, 1611)

It's good to see you're working on a source text for this Bible version! I don't mean to rush you to get it done, but I noticed Category:Index - File to check lists many volumes as not ready for proofreading (though I think they might be), and Index:BibleKJV1611-001.pdf doesn't include any profreading guidelines... which could be extended/copied/referenced to the other volumes.

You might want to think about using or not using the long-s in this work. I think of the long-s as a historical typographical fad that isn't particularly useful to modern readers. Just my opinion. The one long-s book I worked on was Essay on the First Principles of Government, 2nd Edition (1771) -- and I eliminated the long-s for modern readability. It's your choice regarding the proofreading guidelines for Bible (King James Version, 1611), but you might get more participation if you opt for normal-s rather than long-s.

Hope you're having a nice August! :) Outlier59 (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

This text has already been on WS for a long time, I was just adding a scan. I have no interest in getting it done or determining proofreading guidelines, besides adapting the existing text to the scan. However, you will notice that there are guidelines, just not at the usual place, at Talk:Bible (King James Version, 1611). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this something that should go to "Match and Split?" Outlier59 (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I have already moved all extant text to page space. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Salic Law (Anonymous)

Hello. Could you please delete Salic Law (Anonymous) which replaced with Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages/Book II/The Salic Law and to include info about this edition in Salic Law? PS. I think it would be nice to create a disambiguation Magna Carta with Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages/Book I/Magna Carta and Source Problems in English History/Appendix/Magna Carta. 1215. Thanks. Ratte (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

When I have finished transcluding Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages I will ensure that all its contents are attributed and disambiguated appropriately. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Squirrel Nutkin

Can you validate those last two pages (pp 57-58)? Then we'll be done with this scan. :) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Done (high five!) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Talior of Gloucester

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TlVbAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q=Potter%2C%20Beatrix&f=false - There was a 1931 renewal. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Same for Squirrel Nutkin. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Which based on US terms, would have expired in 1998 (?) , the Uk term being longer would have expired at the start of 2014. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

ALL books published before 1923 are public domain in the United States right now. I am no expert on US copyright law, but I do know that 22 of Potter's tales for children were published before 1923 and therefore I don't care what other copyright issues may have occurred along the way. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

A silly mystery

Hi. Perhaps you can explain and help me to resolve the mystery of where Guillermo Marín Ruiz's image file specified in the author page. There were two identical images, and if you open the page to edit, you'll notice that I hid one image reference, but cannot find where on the page is the image link to the 2nd image. — Ineuw talk 19:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I was confused the first time I saw that too... the page is linked to Wikidata, and the Wikidata item has a "image" parameter, so the image gets displayed on Author pages. I think the mechanics for it are in the author header template. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that I am not crazy. — Ineuw talk 19:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Ginger & Pickles, scan page 2

I was looking at Page:GingerAndPickles.djvu/2 and I saw your note about possible copyrightedness, but looking at the scan, it almost looks like it's the inside flap of the dust jacket? I didn't think we transcribed the dust jackets. I've half a mind to just blank the thing and ignore that particular page, but I didn't want to just do so without further input. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's the dust jacket. The other scans we've done didn't include dust jackets. I'm pretty sure that the text on the dust jacket is copyrighted. We could blank it, but it also needs to be blanked in the source scan. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mukkakukaku: I found the images that are under the jacket and used those; once they're validated the work is complete. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Got 'em. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Open Library scans

So I'm looking at the Flopsy Bunnies scan, and it looks like it's the proper version and all. I don't really understand what you meant by your message on Requested Texts that they're "modified versions of the illustrations." I've tripped over a bunch of PDFs that have illustrations by artists other than Beatrix Potter, but these appear to be the originals...?

The only thing I see is the copyright notice which says, "The reproductions... have been made using the most modern electronic scanning methods from entirely new transparencies of Beatrix Potter's original watercolours." It seems to me that we're still falling under the "pre-1923 publishing" umbrella: the illustrations were originally published in 1909, which puts them out-of-copyright. A higher fidelity version is published now, but the original remains published pre-1923. An appropriate metaphor, I think, would be if I created a painting and published it in 1909; the technology of the day would limit the ways that it could be printed in 1909, and a reprint today would be of much higher quality -- neither of which has any impact on the fact that there is a single original painting and that single painting was first published in 1909.

Help? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Considering that the book itself claims a copyright of 1987 (or something like that) for the image reproductions, and a copyright of 1991 for the paperback edition (which you will notice has little borders and corner images and so forth), I'm not entirely comfortable using this scan on WS or Commons. Besides which, I'd like to be able to proofread the whole thing, colophon and all. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Further, look at Commons:Threshold of originality#United States and http://coolcopyright.com/contents/chapter-2/alfred-bell-v-catalda-fine-arts ; I don't want to go down that road of fuzzy copyright issues when the works in question are genuinely completely public domain. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, forget all that. The images are probably fine; Commons:Template:PD-art will probably take care of that. The colophon is more the problem. Hosting a text on WS that explicily claims copyright, even if the claim is not relevant, makes me want to continue to pursue other alternatives. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mukkakukaku: I've changed my mind and come round to your point of view. I'm preparing the DJVU files for the last three works and will upload them soon. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Yay!! Let me know when you upload them and I'll give you a hand. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 07:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

They are up. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Isn't a 1989 impression still in copyright? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

No. If it was first published before 1923 it is PD. What is copyrightable about the new impression? The only differences between the original and the new impression is better scans of the art (PD-Art on Commons), and a new colophon ({{PD-ineligible}} due to no creative content), —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Index:UnitedReformedChurchLionWalkColchesterAct1980Xlii.djvu

What to check my OCR cleanup? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Translation:French Nursery Rhymes

What does "C.B." signify in your edit of Translation:French Nursery Rhymes? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, that's what the author is listed as in the text. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

If the author is listed in the text, even with an abbreviation, then why does it link to "anonymous texts" from the author? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who C. B. is, nor does anyone else appear to; that to me is still anonymous. You can't create an author page for that. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Why not? Is this is a difference then between US usage of "anonymous" and elsewhere? In the US, "anonymous" works are defined as those "which no natural person is identified as author", as opposed to those published under a pseudonym. I've seen a great many Victorian works attributed to an abbreviated form of a name, which often can be tracked down. To my mind "anonymous" works are those in which the author is not identified at all. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I just don't see much difference if all you know about the author is their initials (assuming that it is their initials, which is not guaranteed either). Anyway, I've unlinked it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Index:The Church hymnary (1893).djvu

I've asked for the file to be made local though, until someone like you can provide dates for every composer/author listed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you take a look at the index list of composers/authors and identify any problematic ones?

You seem to be the best person to match these up :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hm, there are so many, may be a while before I get to it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

What does problematic mean here? Copyvio in UK? Life+70? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. For a pre 1900 work it's unlikely, but it would be nice to have full dates for those that might be. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Re bad page scans the source was https://archive.org/details/Princeton ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I also when researching found this site, http://openhymnal.org/copying.html, It would be very much appreciated if you were willing to consider asking them if they were interested in contributing to Wikimedia projects like the 2 existing hymnals I know about on Wikisource (we may have others of course). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to ask their assistance yourself :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll bear it mind, but I am not religious. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Index:Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent Buckley.djvu

I've found a 'page anomaly' duly marked with blue. Thought you should know. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a good scan on Google Books. I'll fix it when I get a chance. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Page:Iolanthe lib.djvu/20

Hey there,

There's an unnecessary "Streph." at the top of the dialogue on this page, and I can't seem to figure out how to remove it without messing up the rest of the text. Saw you'd created the page, hope you could fix it so I can carry on with validating the text. Much thanks :) —C. F. 16:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for validating that text. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. —C. F. 16:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

For archiving

Hi. With {{closed}} in WS:PD and WS:CV, it is really helpful if the words kept and deleted are used in the first parameter, especially as the first word. It means that whomever is archiving can do searches and get to those in each group. Some like "done" when in edit mode are not sufficiently informative, and it becomes a PITA for this bothersome task. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Good point, I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for pointing that out. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Strange and Wonderful Prophesies

I suggest you look through it, I OCR corrected the transcribed text in scans earlier but didn't want to mark it as proofread until the formatting was acceptable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep, that's the plan. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

HathiTrust

When you were pulling the Beatrix Potter pdfs from HathiTrust, did you use any particular tools to download the individual page PDFs and stitch them back together? There's another work I'd like to harvest but the prospect of doing so manually is daunting.... --Mukkakukaku (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I used DownThemAll on the recommendation of User:Jpez, who described its usage as follows: "I've added plenty of books from there myself. Go to the last page of the book, right click it and pick "copy image location". Open downthemall and add a new download. Copy the link there. In the link you pasted change the width (I've found 2000 is good enough) as mentioned above, width=2000, and change seq= to seq=[first page number:last page number] exactly as is with the square brackets. For example seq=[1:200] if the last page is 200. Start the download and downthemall will download all the pages in image format. Then they may need some cleaning up and they'll need ocr." —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you. I'll give that a try. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)