User talk:EncycloPetey

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Advertisements for The Lay of the Nibelungs[edit]


I am getting close to finishing the proofreading of the text of Index:The_lay_of_the_Nibelungs;_(IA_nibelungslay00hortrich).pdf and would appreciate any thoughts as to how to best approach dealing with the advertisements. Should they be proofread and marked as proofread, marked as not need to be proofread but proofread anyway, or simply marked as not needed to be proofread and pretty much ignored. If proofread, would it be better to add them to the TOC and transclude an Advertisement "chapter", or no?

Thank you for any advice.

PWidergren (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Advertisements are optional. You may choose to proofread them (or not) and to include them (or not). --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your prompt response. I will exercise my option when I get to that point.
PWidergren (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you decide that you do want to include them, let me know, and I can pull several examples of ways to include them. We typically do not list them in the Contents, but there is more than one way to include them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect deletions[edit]

Do we really have to go over this again? You're going against what's useful. What is the help of what you're doing? PseudoSkull (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go over what again? You created pages in violation of Speedy deletion criteria. If you think policy should be changed, then work to change the policy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I will. But, I just have to wonder why following bare rules in your mind is more important than what's useful to actual contributors and readers? It seems like one of those wedge-issues where we could just scrap the rules and accept it in just this specific edge case. We have an even more w:Ignore all rules-ish culture here than Wikipedia does, so why are you so adamant about this specific rule? PseudoSkull (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do we have to go through that discussion again? We had that discussion as part of the deletion discussion just a few months ago. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, what I was saying was it seems overkill that I even need a proposal for something this minor in the first place. It has always struck me as odd that some administrators put so much weight into this specific speedy deletion criteria, while not even paying attention to other guidelines, rules, and even different criteria in that list. But I did write one up. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am neither strongly for nor against such a change, as long as the community agrees. I do wonder whether there are tools in place that flag cross-namespace redirects that would have to be re-tooled. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This may also be a discussion to bring up at Wikidata. If there can be a way to have both an Author and Main disambiguation page here at WS somehow, then none of this is necessary. I'll look into that too. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@TE(æ)A,ea.: Posting here because something is borked on your talk page. It's auto-generating a topic and text that I'm not writing.

WS:PD is "for proposing deletion of specific articles on Wikisource in accordance with the deletion policy, and appealing previously-deleted works." It is not intended for general discussions. That would need to happen in the Scriptorium. You can certainly link to a diff on the WS:PD page, and refer to the closure rationale for support, but WS:PD is not a general discussion page. The nominated page has been kept, and that concludes the discussion of that nomination. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • My talk page has always been troublesome for me; I don’t think I’ve ever used it, or at least I don’t remember doing so, and I only read my messages when I’m not logged in (not that I care). I followed the template instructions. I could create another discussion, based off of another index that fits the same criteria, but I don’t think that that is a good use of total contributor time. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for reverting my erroneous edit to Template:New texts. So should the work only be listed once the entire book, at Poetical Works of William Cullen Bryant, is completed? (@SnowyCinema: moved it to a subpage there.) Thanks a lot, Cremastra (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cremastra: I'd like to chime in. I don't think it's necessarily inappropriate to include a "subwork" like a short story or a long poem in New texts. But a short poem like this one is pushing it a little, probably not harmful though in this one instance.
In any case, even if the collection isn't fully transcluded, the poem should still be included as a subpage of the collection, because not doing this can cause maintenance issues down the line, as can be seen with the dubious status of many of our poems by Emily Dickinson, an issue which has been here for over a decade but is just now being addressed. SnowyCinema (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SnowyCinema: Okay, thanks a lot for the information. I will bear it in mind. Cremastra (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cremastra: The biggest problem in this instance was that the page you posted did not contain the complete poem. The poem continues across two pages (191 and 193), before and after the image. But the second part of the poem was not present in the final page. You had only included the first half of the poem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, darn, you're right. I had assumed it ended because the next page was entirely an image. My bad. Cremastra (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It happens to the best of us. Books are long and complicated, eh? SnowyCinema (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why Author:Sukavich Rangsitpol is Locked[edit]

How can I add ?

During his trip to the Philippines, H.E. Mr Sukavich Rangsitpol was conferred an Honorary Degree of Doctor of Education by the Philippine Normal University. His will to reform education and strong leadership in educational management were highly commended. ทีมกฎหมาย (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was locked for repeated and persistent violation of copyright law. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kalevala, vol. 2[edit]

It would be very helpful to me if you could set up the transclusion of the first chapter of volume 2 so that I have a model to follow. When I attempted to do that, it seemed to get mixed into vol. 1 and I am uncertain as to whether the two volumes should be treated as two volumes or as one extended volume in this case.

Thank you in advance for any help in this matter.

PWidergren (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PWidergren: Done. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you.
PWidergren (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank for keeping me honest[edit]

Your recent comments on my upload of The Golden Ass of Apuleius reminded me of a project I worked on a while back. When I added a scan to Shakespeare's Sonnets (1883) I used a scan that had slightly different punctuation; I had intended to proofread it myself to fix it, but had eventually forgotten about it. Going back to it, I saw that people were ignoring the punctuation when proofreading [1]. I'm a bit appalled that people are proofreading carelessly, but it shows that you are absolutely right that even small amounts of mismatched punctuation is enough to throw a wrench into a proofreading effort. I just wanted to thank you for driving this home for me :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Beleg Tâl: Comment from the peanut gallery: I think it's hard to say if these were laziness on the part of the proofreaders, or just legitimate mistakes, even though there were a few. Specific bits of punctuation (such as "," -> ";") are some of the most difficult things for the eye to catch. And they're impossible for rules-based correction technology to catch, because there's so little difference between them syntactically that either one would usually work in a given context. Also, OCR technologies usually assume prose, since that's what they're best at, so poems generally have to be formatted from scratch, meaning more time is required and therefore more room for syntax errors. All in all, I'd be careful to assume laziness in proofreading, not just because I am guilty of making these kinds of errors myself (I try, I promise!), but that I'm quite confident to say we all are. I disagreed with the use of the "npsbs", but other than that the errors weren't particularly surprising to me. I've seen worse.
Also, while the ideal is obviously to get it as close to the text as possible (and we should ultimately correct it to that level), I personally don't think typos in proofreading should be considered hammer-worthy until they start to severely impact the meaning of the text, or how it looks aesthetically. Even 100 typos among 100,000 words that were correct (for example) is a pretty significant level of accuracy despite how it may seem on the individual pages. The fact that we have the text at all is what's important to most readers, and we make no guarantee to researchers or anyone else of absolute accuracy in our efforts. SnowyCinema (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I was operating on the assumption that adding a scan to a poor transcription would just mean that the transcription errors would get ironed out via the proofreading process; but as you say (and as EncycloPetey pointed out) this just makes the errors harder to catch. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

double check please[edit]

Hi, I think that Passing by Nella Larsen is public domain due to a lack of renewal. I was hoping you could double check to see if you find anything that I'm missing. If not then we can upload this version for transcription. SDudley (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not find it either. So it looks like it lapsed in the US. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! SDudley (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I created an Index for the book. SDudley (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

King Pest[edit]

At wikidata, in the same menu as the badges are, you can "badger" a link as an intentional redirect. See wikidata:Q1404570.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can, but that's not how editions should be handled at Wikidata. The editions go onto their own page, and should not be redirected. Doing so plays havoc with interwiki connections. The model is set up to understand the difference between a work and an edition; redirects from one to the other breaks that data model. The edition is already linked from the work page in the appropriate section. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The link in the sidebars of the other wikimedia projects. If you are gutenberg, you have a stable link and can paste that link at wikipedia or wikiuniversity or where ever. If you are wikisource (a wikimedia project), you are required by some obscure rule (which does not seem to have anything to do with linking wikis together) to have two versions before you can get the work to the side bars of the sister projects. So, whether or not you intend to be an agent for Project Gutenberg and (nee en), wikidata and its structure (which should be contained within the data and not the sister linkage) has turned you into one.
I like the wikidata rules for the data, the structure is: good for most cases; winds through some messy structures well; overall a very great thing. I try to make great data for them. Links betweeen wikis belong to the wikis though. If wikipedia would have redirects to #subheadings, and if so called wikisourcers would allow redirects in works when only exists -- these two things alone would allow so much linking between wikis which was probably the original purpose of wikidata (and which was impossible before the redirect linking was allowed at wd).
That is my take on this, Sir Agent Petey. Please consider this.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are asking me to disregard the standards set by the Wikidata community and the standard norms of databases. I'm not going to disregard community standards or logic. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As if wikipedia is set up in a "logic". Interwiki links are not a data structure; they are only a small part of the data and perhaps could have a Property if people worried about data standards need to express their angst. A monkey will randomly type Hamlet before wikipedia articles will occur in a logic without redirects. Here, there will need to be two versions before wikidata allows an interwiki link? Where is the logic in that? I ask that you think about this rule. Rules from wikidata belong to the Properties, interwiki links should belong to wikimedia. Really, think some about it. All I am trying to do is to make interwiki links work. That rule about interwiki links got changed after I hacked the fables to get interwiki links to work. I read about it at Scriptatorum. Did you not read that?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]