User talk:EncycloPetey/Archives/2017

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2017, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Clandestine Marriage

I can help validate as well, EncycloPetey, if you'll allow! Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: Many hands make light work. Thanks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Stage direction

Before I continue validating certain affected pages, I wanted to ask about your formatting choice for stage direction. I have been converting to {{float right}}, to keep stage direction on the same line as is in the original. It has worked well but for this page, where it did not 'behave', so I used {{block right}} instead. What is your direction/wish in this matter? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: I have only used {{float right}} where (a) it matched the original, and (b) I was certain it would not superimpose over the text if the reader adjusted font size or screen width. The {{float right}} has that disadvantage that, if the text line is too long, then the floating text will display on top of the next line of text, and you cannot assume that, because {{float right}} works on your own screen, that it will also work elsewhere. Especially once transcluded. So I have used {{float right}} only when the neighboring text was a short line that did not wrap to another line.

{{block right}} would be wrong, because if the stage directions wrap to the next line, the wrapped text will align to the left of the text block, but it should align to the right. That is why I used {{right}} instead. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

RE: Block right issues: BWC has instructed, for longer lines of stage direction, that you set a width for block-right as with this page. Would setting a width address the wrapping issue? Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's simple or advisable to set a width when dealing with prose drama. The work you're pointing to is in poetical format, which is a different animal. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I will revert back to {{right}}. I figured you had already thought this through... Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Any other considerations to give a heads-up about while validating? Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing that comes to mind, no. The formatting of stage directions and the use of long-s are the only stylistic issues I recall facing. There are also plenty of archaic spellings, and non-standard spellings designed to evoke an accent or dialect, but you're likely familiar with odd spellings already from your work on poetry. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: The template meant for this situation is {{Rbstagedir}}. Hrishikes (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That template has display issues of its own. For one, it forces a following blank line, even when one is not wanted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

In this page, there is a line break above the exit direction, which does not conform to the scan. Moreover, after the exit direction, there is always a line break, so that is not a problem; the next sentence needs to be written just in the next line, not after a blank. Anyway, that was just a suggestion. Sorry if it was not upto the mark. Hrishikes (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

In recent years, we have tried to reduce the proliferation of unnecessary and superfluous templates, but have not yet tracked down all the older ones. This appears to be one such template, as it it is little more than a {{float right}} with built-in bracket and line return. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Dante - Minor Edit

Hello, I'm new here. Hope you are happy and healthy. So you reverted the minor edit, I can find no explanation and desire some discussion before acceding the point.

The work is poetry, rhythmic language, this is the core of this great work, not precision of language nor spelling. What is gained by future tense meet except greater distance from rhythm? There is no lost meaning. This is the second translation of Inferno I've read and the temporal perpesctive is not salient. Further, uploading every translated edition would cause a disgusting proliferation of the trifling variants, for what benefit? The best fitting shoe can be laced differently at no loss, this minor edit has no cost.

Perhaps the edit fails to be consistent but on what basis is the challenge posited, what proof? If such minor alterations matter, clearly so to does the spacing on the original page. The work of Bukowski utilised that element of style, why is that level of consistency to be denied? It would surely make this more consistent to a poet's perspective and also to prevent over-abundance of copies.

I just don't get it. A schoolkid or university student must check their work, this could be considered a minor test of their scholarship. Although Prof. Paul Fry should comfortably assert the autonomy of the artwork, if this little friction would reach Yale. PonderStibbons (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't understand why altering published works is considered vandalism and not allowed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thoreau collaboration

I've proposed changing the "Community collaboration" to Thoreau at WT:CC. Give it a few days and if no objection (there won't be any), put him into the templates. Past author collaborations have been co-ordinated through the Author page. I suspect that it would be best if you curated the selection of the scans, rather than allowing the hoi polloi to do it. That way we keep off those awful Google scans from 10 years ago. As a project, this would be a good way of testing the waters to see if there is an appetite to revive the Collaborations—and whatever comes out of it will be a bonus towards July. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle: Sounds like a good idea, though I may need help figuring out how and where to put things to make this work. There are several transcription projects already started (by me) at Author:Henry David Thoreau. In each case, I set up the ToC and enough of the front matter to make it easy for newer editors to contribute. And for a few others, I already selected a clean scan at IA and linked to it. The 11 volume "complete works" is the only set of scans that may be suspect, as I didn't select them and they seem mostly to duplicate the other scans. --EncycloPetey (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

There is also a 20-vol set of Thoreau's Writings published later than the 11-vol set (see here). It contains more journal writings and a few more poems. If ever hosted here, which would be more desirable? Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Without checking the individual volumes in detail, I can't be sure. I may have time later this week to comb though them. However, even the 11-volume set looks to mostly duplicate works we already have in earlier editions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

EncycloPetey, were you planning on working further on A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers? I was wondering because I was going to work on the pages with Thoreau's poetry (the pieces without quotes), and I would differ in poetry formatting. I would modify the pages containing poetry that you have already done in the interest of uniformity. Any objections? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not planning to continue in A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers. I set up just enough that other editors would have a guide, and be able to take over, but do not intend to pursue that volume any further myself. I will be continuing only with Cape Cod, and perhaps with some of the essays in Excursions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I did a review of the difference in content between the 1893 and 1906 sets of The Writings of Henry David Thoreau. The 1906 set contains all of the 1893 works (with the exception of "The Prometheus Bound of Aeschylus" and "Translations from Pindar"—omitted from the 1906 Miscellanies volume, but added to 1906 Excursions and Poems volume) with more comprehensive Journal writings (14 volumes in all from Thoreau's Journal as opposed to Early Spring/Summer/Autumn/Winter only in the 1893 set—comprising only 4 vols.) The 1906 set contains about 10 more poems. In my opinion, it would be beneficial to at least host the 14 Journal volumes here (if there is interest). Other volumes/essays in the sets are pretty much already covered (hosted here) with original editions. It would be nice to see Walden backed by a scan, however. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'm confused. Are the translations in the 1893 volume, the 1906 volume, both, or neither? Your edit change does not make that point clear. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I was waiting for your reply before any further correction and to avoid an edit conflict... The translations are in both sets. In Excursions and Poems volume (1906) and in Miscellanies volume (1893). Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Then the 1906 set includes everything from the earlier set, and more? --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

That is correct. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

To add, if it is decided to host the 1906 volume set, I would recommend the IA scans from the Boston Public Library. All 20 volumes are available from that library. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The scans would still need to be checked individually for errors, omissions, and for quality; and if they are recent enough, there may not be DjVu. But other consideration aside, that sounds like a good plan. I may tackle Thoreau's translation from Aeschylus after I finish the Plumptre volume I'm currently trying to polish off. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The Translations can be found in Volume 5 of the 1906 set. I have checked the Boston Public Library scan at IA (see (external scan)) for missing/damaged pages, etc., and all appears good to go. The BPL 1906 20-vol. set was scanned in 2011/12, so DjVu files are available. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

For reference, I have listed the details of the 20 vols. at Author talk:Henry David Thoreau along with ext links. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Image titling

How do you wish to name image files for the Writings volumes? Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: Anything that identifies the source work, volume, and distinguishes the image is fine. From what I've seen, you have the better image editing skills. I'll just note that I've set up commons:Category:The Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906) for the Writings set being done, so the images ought all to placed there. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks... I noted the Cat page; for images, should I remove "color" and make B&W? Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, all the photographs are B&W, so that shouldn't matter. Sometimes keeping the sepia page tint looks better than B&W, and I leave that decision to you. You might first edit them all as sepia, and then see whether a shift to B&W holds up or ruins the image, before uploading. The printer's mark on the main page of each volume is scarlet, though, and that should probably be retained as such, with the page color shifted to white. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Lastly(?), is there a technical way to format the captions (includeonly or something like that—I don't know how it works) so that they display below the images in the Main? because the caption pages appear before the image pages within the volumes, which would place them at the top when transcluded... but in the original, the captions were on see-thru vellum displayed toward the bottom in front of the images. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Rather that transcluding a complete run, I'd use a line break to set off the image and its caption, and transclude them individually. If this doesn't make sense to you, just ask me to demonstrate after you've set up a page where this is an issue. It would be easier to edit an example as a practical demonstration, than to try to explain it in the abstract. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit away :) [1] Thank you, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

this edit should illustrate what I mean. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

If you want to avoid breaking the block centering, then you might need to reposition the images so they are not between poems. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll play around with things, and will let you know if I need help. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Still breaks Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It should work now. See Help:Transclusion (the advanced section) for other tips like this. The trick was that it needed to run continuously with a single <pages> call to keep from breaking the block center. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I made note on my to-do page in case it comes up again. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

New Index additions

I was merely thinking that we should have a more targeted/methodical approach to getting Thoreau's works completed. Several versions are permitted, of course... but the likelihood of completion becomes less, in my opinion, when too many options are available. I think 'overkill' was attempted to be avoided with the initial listing/prioritization of current projects at the author talk page, but such are not always seen or noted by everyone. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested review

You have been in previous contact here with the editor being discussed elsewhere at wikipedia:User talk:Doug Weller#Me maybe being a little mean here, but... and now that wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ret.Prof and WP:NOTBLOG regarding his edits here. I am aware that there are nowhere near as many clear cut rules here as there, but I believe that as per his history here of over 3500 edits, I don't know that I see a single edit outside of user space. On that basis, I think that, maybe, like at the current ANI thread at wikipedia, maybe there might be grounds for questioning this editor's presence here as well. John Carter (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I stay out of WP politics these days. The question on WS would need to be raised in a suitable forum before I would comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Understood, and I wasn't attempting to involved you in wikipedia, believe me, but, honestly, I don't know exactly what the appropriate forum here would be. John Carter (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion

Category:Speeches_by_Donald_John_Trump There are several speeches by/of categories and there are also several "x of Donald John Trump" categories. Why delete this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't create categories for speeches by individuals. Those get listed on the author pages. In general, as I have said before, Wikisource does not create categories for "works by author". If other such categories exist, they should probably go as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Merging So then would we upmerge everything into Category:Speeches? How do you propose diffusing this? Just by year? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

There are lots of possible subcategories: by year, or by nation, etc. We just don't do it by person because that is needless duplication of the Author namespace. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

By person In spite of your above claim, you not only left this but repopulated it. Why is this one different than all the others? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Because it is a subcategory of works issued by a particular government position, subdivided by the holders of that position. US executive orders are only given by US Presidents.

By contrast, a "speech" is merely a form of work, like "book", "poem", or "essay". Anyone can give a speech, and we never create categories based on "Form of work by X" for any person. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment I believe that the standard is Author:Donald John Trump/Speeches and that can be categorised in Category:Speeches. I can also see that we could put into something like [[Category:Speeches of Presidents of the United States]] or [[Category:Speeches pages of Presidents of the United States]].
•  Comment I don't think that it is particularly beneficial you two arguing away here. General guidance and particulars sought from the community to get a broader consensus is more beneficial. That we have never done something is not a rule that prohibits something from being done, at the same time that something has not been done is guidance in itself. Either way, consensus of the community leads us all. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

  If someone comes to my page and asks me a question about my reasoning or actions, I will respond here. If someone asks for an opinion on a community issue in the Scriptorium, I will respond there. If there is something wrong with that, please explain. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Insular template and dots above

Thanks for improving {{insular}}! I am curious--I do not have any problem with characters with overdots; ḃċḋḟġṁṗṙṫ looks exactly as it ought for me (or at least how I think it ought). Since the font is the same, is there possibly a different issue at play? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: The "f" in f takes the insular font for me, but the "f" in ḟ or ḟ does not look the same. It lloks like the "f" in whatever font I am currently using. The dot combines (as it should), but the "f" below it is not parsed and rendered in the desired font. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

OH I see what you mean. The combining diacritic works but there is no available insular form of the combined letter, got it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Missing pages

Do we have a way of indicating that certain pages are passing from a DJVU? I don'the see anything in the help section. Matthew Henry's Exposition of the Bible seems to be missing pages from the author's memoir. Heyzeuss (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Heyzeuss: When I find that pages are missing, I set the Index to "Source file must be fixed before proofreading", mark the missing pages as "Problematic" (if they are blanks or duplicates; this can't be done if the pages were simply omitted). Then I post clear and specific details about the problem on the Index discussion page, and ask for Help at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Repairs (and moves).

However, it sometimes turns out that the original was published that way. The First Folio of Shakespeare is a mess with wrong page numbers, missing page numbers, etc. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

"Victi Resurgunt"

Wondering if you know what the translation, or essence of meaning, is of "Victi Resurgunt" with reference to this poem. Thanks if you can help! Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: The Latin translates as "[those who] had been defeated, are rising again". It is a partial quotation from Ovid's Amores 1.9.29–30 : "Victi resurgunt, quosque neges umquam posse iacere, cadunt." (and the conquered rise again, / And those whom you say never could be brought down, fall.) The original had both sexual and political connotations, but I suspect only the political connotations are meant in the Coates use of the quotation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Like a phoenix then... Wonderful, thank you! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I would like to request for adminship...

Then you can smile and see me edit. I have been interrupted by bans and really am seeking your experience. Can you help clear up my namespace. I would like to contribute if at all possible to en.wikipedia.org if at all. Godsend Sonofida (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

We generally do not grant adminship the brand new editors. The fact that your user page originally consisted of material that violated copyright, and that your current user page is unrelated to what we do here, both suggest that you are not ready to apply for adminship. You must first learn what Wikisource does and how we do it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It's Greek to me...

Would you mind checking the Greek on Page:The Subjection of Women.djvu/164? Thank you! BethNaught (talk) 10:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Done @BethNaught: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The Promise Key

That is a later incarnation of the title, here is one with the original title:

https://books.google.com/books?id=XQV5AAAAMAAJ&q=%22promise+key%22&dq=%22promise+key%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwianMCj5vTSAhWDdj4KHZBeBjoQ6AEIHDAA

Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Til Eulenspiegel: That 1988 publication demonstrates that there is disagreement over the title, but it does not demonstrate the original title. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I knew of it long before 1988 and that is the actual title, but for want of proof it will be kept on the erroneous one I suppose . Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

We do not title books based on personal "knowledge", but on published evidence. The internet provides a wealth of copies with our current title, and no evidence for any error in the current title—merely a single 1988 publication with a differing title. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Help for Greek

Hi! Can you please check the Greek on this page? Thanks, Hrishikes (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Done The upsilon had a tilde over it instead of the tone mark it needed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Formatting guidelines

Since you have had a go already at the POTM, I was wondering if you wanted to leave some specific formatting guidelines at the Talk page for the text for proofreaders. Sectioning, poetry, etc. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Once I had a look at a few pages, I will do so. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

How should page titles be disambiguated in the Main, there being some songs with the same title such as "Auld Lang Syne." Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd favor using the method adopted by the DGRBM, and give page names as ../Auld Lang Syne 1, ../Auld Lang Syne 2, &c.

Also, we should probably start a TOC page listing the songs by title and linking to them. The index lists them only by first line. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

A TOC for the Index or an Aux TOC for the Mainspace, or both? Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Alphabetical or as they appear? Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I would do an Aux TOC, but on a separate page ../Contents (linked prominently from the main page of the work), and listed in the order they appear, with page number. If we use a simple enough table format, then adding rows for additional songs as we go should be easy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Not to get too complicated, but how about a sortable table? I do not know how to add pg nos. to the table, but surely someone does...? Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Title	Page
Tullochgorum	1
Ettrick Banks	2
Fee him, Father!	2

A sortable table would be too large, I think. We have 600 pages with 2 to 3 songs per page. That would make a sortable table of around 1500 rows. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind creating the TOC, but I'll wait until table formatting is decided upon before I begin. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I like this format:

Title	Page
Tullochgorum	1
Ettrick Banks	2
Fee him, Father	2

The links don't work here because they're relative, but if you edit the coding, it's much, much simpler. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

May I begin building at The Book of Scottish Song/Contents? Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Certainly! Have at it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Words escape

I would disagree with this edit made by another user, but I lack the words/reasoning to explain why. Do you perhaps have the words, or are you in agreement with the change? My thinking is that the intro text (other than the lines of song which are block centered) is left-aligned, and text should be rendered accordingly. Again, appropriate wording escapes... Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the original text is simply standard justified, and there was a break in the introductory note because of the centered quote. The right square bracket is simply indicating the end of the note, not indicating a right-hand alignment of the text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete my css page

Hello EncycloPetey, I have seen that you have deleted my Userpages as requested. Please delete the page User:Labant/common.css also. Thanks.

Hallo EncycloPetey, ich habe gesehen, dass du meine Benutzerseiten wie gewünscht gelöscht hast. Kannst du bitte noch die Seite User:Labant/common.css löschen. Danke.

--Labant (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI: Wikiquote

I recently created many language related Wikiquote pages including the "q:Japanese language" page there. Given your interest in China and Japan I wonder if you would be able to contribute to de-stubify the pages there. Most of the major languages of the World are now up there with the exception of the Korean language (also Portal:Korea here don’t have any literature related works). Will you be able to create the Korean language article on Wikiquote and locate some public domain works to add to Wikisource here. Solomon7968 (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Solomon7968: Sorry, but my interest is much greater than my knowledge when it comes to the literature of China and Japan, and I cannot read or write any East Asian language. I'm much better with Greek and Latin literature.

The only suggestion I can make is that I did edit A History of Japanese Literature, which should list works of significance, grouped by the style and period in which they were written. The volume also contains many quotations from the works, in English translation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you speak Latin or Ancient Greek? I am the author of the (recently created) Latin article on Wikiquote and I wonder if you have read volumes from the Loeb Classical Library series. If yes then how about creation of the WQ article on LCL. Solomon7968 (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I doubt I would have the time or requisite skill to write such an article. Sorry. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

National Socialism

Why have you prevented users from editing Adolf Hitler's page because I rightly used the term National Socialist to describe him?! This is not vandalism, this is historical correctness and justice! I may wish to add more of his speeches and works!

The Party's name is National Socialist German Workers Party! The derogatory epithet "Nazi" was invented by Germany's enemies to denigrate the Germans and as such contradicts Wikimedia's policy of Neutrality!

"The term “Nazi” (along with “Nazism”) is a political epithet invented by Konrad Heiden (7 August 1901 – 18 June 1966) during the 1920s as a means of denigrating the NSDAP and National Socialism. Heiden was a journalist and member of the Social Democratic Party. The term is a variant of the nickname that was used in reference to members of the SDP at the time “Sozi” (short for Sozialisten). “Nazi” was a political pun, based upon the Austro-Bavarian slang word for “simpleton” or “country bumpkin”, and derived from the fairly common name Ignatz. It would be like saying “nutsy”. So, if for no other reason, one should easily understand why the term was regarded as derogatory by the National Socialists and why they would never use it to describe themselves. One should also see why it would be used and popularized by Marxist-Bolshevik agitators and understand how it was seized upon by various other political opponents and subversive types, both within Germany and abroad, including the international media and political leaders of the western powers.”"

https://justice4germans.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/exposing-the-nazi-epithet-who-started-it-why-how-and-who-benefits/

- Owain Knight (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You have asserted your claims many times, and the community has rejected your arguments many times. The discussion is ended. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

INDEX page for a literary magazine

I need an example of how to create the index of articles for the magazine Once a Week recently uploaded by me. Thanks. GinnevraDubois (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't usually work in those sorts of publications. You might need to ask in the WS:Scriptorium to find someone who has. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Bryophyta, cro-wiki

• removed, thx, EncycloPetey --Zeljko (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but

I did not create the original Once a Week volumes list - can you do the necessary changes? Thanks. GinnevraDubois (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The Time Machine (Heinemann text)

I am asking for some opinion. This is a former featured text. However, the text is not Heinemann's. It is the 1924 Atlantic text. See at the end of the talk page of the work. Heinemann text had 16 titled chapters, whereas the text here has 12 untitled chapters and one epilogue. See the TOC of Heinemann text here. This text is wrongly claimed as Heinemann text in this site and may have been the source of our text (the talk page mentions Gutenberg as the source, but there, the year is mentioned as 1898, and no claim is made as Heinemann text). I think the title of the text here should not claim that it is the Heinemann text. What is your take?
P.S. The Atlantic edition text, claimed as such, and declared as revised, can be seen, page-by-page, here. Hrishikes (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: It looks as though you may be right. I'll take a closer look and see what might be done after some coffee. Nice catch. We have more than a few misidentified texts from bygone days. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Based on the dates I'm seeing, it's also possible that the USF site took the text from us. I haven't been terribly impressed with USF for accuracy, as I've seen several misidentified editions at their site, and wouldn't rely on their data or identifications. Also, I'm not seeing anything in the Gutenberg source text that positively identifies it as the Heinemann text. This may have been a later identification error. The text was not identified / moved to its current location until October 2010. Prior to that time, our copy was not identified as any particular text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

But what about the Heinemann TOC I cited from the index file and the utoronto identification of the Atlantic text? Hrishikes (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm still doing research. I'm trying to determine which text we have, whether it's remotely accurate, whether I can locate a scan, and therefore whether it's worth saving. This is a big enough issue that it may require a note in the Scriptorium, at least to give the community a heads-up. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Since our copy does seem to be a published version we wouldn't otherwise have, I propose we rename it The Time Machine (Atlantic text) and adjust the existing links and publication data. Then, we replace the current location of The Time Machine (Heinemann text) with the scan you located. Do you agree?

I wish I had access to a copy of Hammond's book The Time Machine: a reference guide as I think it would answer my remaining questions. However, if we decide on this course of action, then I will summarize what we've found in the Scriptorium, and what action we think should be taken. I'm hesitant to actually make any changes until the community has had a chance to respond, as this is a significant find. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

If it is Atlantic edition (edition details: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?399494), then it is a 1924 British edition (pub: T. Fisher Unwin, London), and accordingly, not PD-US. PD-ness of original version won't apply, because of substantial difference, including number of chapters.

The reference guide, snippet view: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=mR3_3vVoI1sC (see page 19) Hrishikes (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

If it is the Atlantic edition, then it will be PD in the UK (70 yrs rule), and may be in PD in the US depending on whether copyright was filed and/or renewed. I'm checking that now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks as though copyright for that edition was never filed in the US. I'll add that bit of information when I write up a Scriptorium summary. Someone here is likely to be better versed in US copyright status than I am. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: Discussion posted. Any further observations or comments would be better placed there for the community to read, unless you mean them for me specifically. Again, thanks for doing the initial research on this. Our collection of works by H. G. Wells is very much in need of an overhaul. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Away at the moment ...

... but I think that you are missing the point being made. Ignore the actual words used, and read the sentiment and disappointment. Many like to tend a bit of garden, and when others come in "help" by pulling weeds, which were not,then there can be angst. Respect is a two way street. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I don't miss that point, and do understand. But I also know that this is ultimately a community effort, and that we must be aware of the face we present to our members, both old and new. My concern is: what can be done? and who might be called upon to do it well? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can do it if it is done with respect and understanding. Sure it is a community effort, however, those two components seem to have been missing with what has been undertaken. The resultant outcome for that lack of consideration is certainly within those foreseeable in such a circumstance. I am a little surprised by it, though not shocked to the roots. At the same time "the doing something about it" could also be handled with a reflection, on the behalf of the community, that the enthusiasm to achieve blind-sided some to the personal satisfaction that one may have been looking to have achieved. One coin, two sides. Strive for opportunity, not insult. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

PER ASPERA AD ASTRA

Just found out that this motto appears on an Earle family crest (family of Florence Earle Coates). But I was told it translates as "Through hope to the stars"; WP states "Through hardships to the stars". Has the translation changed over the years? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm finding confusion might lie in the difference between asper— (to make rough) and aspir— (to breathe after)? Hardship, difficulty, toil... would all make sense based on Coates' poems "Per Aspera" and "Man, that will not be beguiled". Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: Unfortunately I am in the process of moving and do not have access to my Latin reference texts. I would want to look at works on Late and Medieval Latin, as that is where the confusion may lie. Some words changed meaning after the Classical period, and some new meanings or new words appears in later centuries as well. On-line resources can be good for researching Classical Latin, but I have yet to find good electronic resources for post-Classical forms of Latin. Hence, I will need to wait until I have access to my personal Latin library to make a response. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

At your leisure. Happy moving! Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: I don't see any way the motto could legitimately translate as "through hope". There must have been confusion with Latin spēs (hope), perhaps because modern Romance languages use speranza or esperanza which are derived from the Latin verb form spērāns (hoping). --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. Perhaps "hope" was derived through the generations in its inference: "through hardships [with hope] to the stars." Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

redirect talk page to its obverse

Do we truly wish to have a redirect like

Wikisource talk:Community collaboration/Archive →‎ Wikisource:Community collaboration/Archive

it seems unusual to me to redirect a talk page to the obverse. Also to where did the discussions in the pages disappear to which archive? — billinghurst sDrewth 03:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikisource:Community collaboration/Archive is the archive. Subpages organized by date are listed at the top.

Yes, we need to have the redirect, because the talk page used to be the Archive. I have no idea why this was so, but people who have not visited for a while may need the redirect. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Confirmation has been + 12 months following close

... which is why it becomes 13 months between confirmations, with the increment. Has always been an interesting quirk, and one that makes me grin. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Then it hasn't been consistently applied. Sometimes it's 12 and sometimes 13. Prior to making my edit, I checked the page edit history first to be sure and last month (for one example) we advanced 12 months. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Then we had better talk to our 'crats. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Frederick Douglass and PotM

Hi, which work are we starting with? I need to know what to put into the templates on Friday? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll see what I can pull together later today. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Was just going to ask. I may have an opportunity to plug the PotM tomorrow, and was wondering which text would be first. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I was just setting up an Index and posted moments after you commented. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Index:The man who knew too much.djvu

How are you diagnosing it as the UK edition? It was printed in the USA, see the colophon. The UK edition was published by Cassell & Co. and is available here. The UK title was different: The man who knew too much, and other stories. The Harper edition is classified by Wikipedia and HathiTrust as the US edition. Best, Hrishikes (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not sure how I reached that conclusion. The copy appears to be a US edition by every measure I can think to check. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

French texts on WikiSource

Hello, I was under the impression that if you wanted to have an item translated, it had to be uploaded to the English Wikisource, is that not correct?

Ouvrard (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

No, that is not correct. Before we create a translation here, the work must be proofread on its native language Wikisource, in this case French. But the scan would still be uploaded to Commons, not the French Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

IP 200.100.167.32

Can I trouble you for a block? Vandalising the Main Page header is NOT evidenced of good faith?

I reverted the changes to the template concerned..

It appeared as gibberish, but I'm wondering based on past experience if this was meant to be actual text in a different encoding.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe it was actually gibberish. Sorry I wasn't on-line, but it looks as if someone else has taken care of the block. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Paragraphs

I was wondering, when a paragraph continues onto another page, and I don't want it indented then, should I use {{nodent}} or something else (I remmeber using something on my project on the Multilingual Wiki for this transclusion-related issue)? Also, is {{nop}} routinely used for when the end of a paragraph is on that page? Sorry to ask so many questions. Inatan (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Indenting never happens unless you force it, and we usually do not indent paragraphs. So nothing is necessary when a paragraph continues onto another page.

When a new paragraph begins on the next page, however, an {{nop}} is needed at the end of the previous page, where the previous paragraph ended. This forces the text from the following page to appear on a new line, thus making a paragraph break. Without {{nop}}, the text would be run together as a continuing paragraph. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Aha, thank you! Inatan (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

One quick question, though. What if there is a rule at the base of the page? Do I still need a {{nop}} template? Inatan (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Inatan: That can be affected by what follows on the next page. Can you point to a specific instance about which you have this question? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I have this in mind. And since asking that last question, I just remembered another issue I have not been able to find in the guide pages: my book has emphasized words in little boxes in-text on every other page. The words are contained in the text anyway, but do you know if they are usually left in, and if so, how would I format that? Inatan (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

On the page you indicated, the rule marks the end of a section (the Preface). You could put in an {{nop}} after the rule, or you could put the rule into the footer, and the {{nop}} at the end of the last paragraph of text. Putting the rule in the footer means it would show up in the Page namespace, but not when transcluded into the final book in the Main namespace. Either method is acceptable, as the rule in the printed book here indicates to the reader that the section does not continue onto the following page. Such a marking is not needed or meaningful in an electronic version where the whole section can be viewed all at once. Such rules were usually added by the printer as an alert to the reader, and are not part of the author's work. So, it could go either way. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping out with an explanation at the contributor's Talk page. I was not exactly sure how to approach the situation at the time. I knew the changes would eventually need to be undone (and thanks @Prosody: for those edits)... I had hoped for a response from the User, but perhaps one had already been made. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Q

on Principles of Political Economy/Book 1/Chapter 1/Section 1, can you get rid of the extra header? Thanks. Artix Kreiger (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. There was a second header template mistakenly included on page 36. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Missing

Ah. Do I have to delete the uploaded part if I cannot get the second or can I leave it until someone uploads the second part any day? For myself, I might try to find a complete copy in the Public Domain rather than the second part of the copy I had uploaded. By the way, [[2]], it was Billinghurst who directed me to the copy I just uploaded. I do fear accidentally uploading copyrighted material so I ahve not really dared to look myself, lest I stumble on pirated content. I herd you liek mudkips (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@I herd you liek mudkips: It is possible to complete just the half with the current scan, but there is no telling how long it will be before the other half becomes available in a scan. I usually prefer to locate a complete scan (or set of scans from the same publisher and date) before proceeding. There are a couple of works I'd really like to work on, but have held off because only a portion is available in scan form. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I actually found a better and complete one [[3]]. How should I upload it? Should I send it directly here or upload it first at Wikimedia? Also, is it Public Domain? It says it is not in copyright but I want to be sure. And how can I tell if something on archive.org is public domain or not? And does pirated content exist on archive.org? I herd you liek mudkips (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@I herd you liek mudkips: We preferentially upload files to Commons, unless there is a copyright issue that prevents putting it on Commmons, yet still allows it to be hosted locally. For this particular book, the translation was published in 1879, so there is no US copyright problem, and since the translator died in 1940, there is no UK or French copyright problem either. So the file should be uploaded to Commons (djvu is preferred).

The site Archive.org doesn't host pirated content, but sometimes they make a mistake, and sometimes copyright laws change, so we always double-check to be sure. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Now, on my talkpage, can you leave me some links that will help me work with Wikisource? Meanwhile, I will upload the material. I herd you liek mudkips (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure which links would be most helpful. The "welcome" template you already have has a few, and knowing which specialized links would serve you best isn't possible until I know more of what you would like to do. Later today, once your file is uploaded, I could set up the Index page for you, but I won't be able to do that at the moment. I am currently attending to things offline and can only be on for short stretches. But a few hours from now, I can attend to more complex tasks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Question

If a work is in Public domain in the US but not in the UK, does that mean the Wikisource copy would be blocked in UK? Also, if a work by a change in law went back into copyright, would Wikisource have to delete it? I herd you liek mudkips (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@I herd you liek mudkips: No, we would not have to delete a work here unless the work was under copyright in the US. Our site is not locally blocked either, which is a result of the digital age outpacing out-of-date copyright laws. It is unlikely that future law changes would put additional works retroactively into copyright, but this has happened in the past. And works that become copyrighted in the US would be deleted.

However, if a work is not in public domain in the UK, it could not have its scans hosted at Commons, and editors in the UK would probably not work on it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Archiving

Bits that didn't archive are due to not having dates against them. If you forge an old date, they will archive accordingly. Vice versa if you don't want to have bits archive, you can prevent that per the instruction on the bot page. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

"Two points about the Page namespace:"

I feel certain there are dozens of additional points about Page namespace where I can mess up. I suspect they are all mentioned in a help page scattered somewhere. Where can I find them sorted in descending severity/lethality. I'm new. Every edit is a first experiment. I will screw up. Where do these fall in the scale between "irreparable" and "nobody-cares"? I subscribe to "Primum non nocere" but that's tough to follow without a standard of measure. —unsigned comment by Klarm768 (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC).

Hello

Thanks for notifying me. I concur to the points made in Wikisource:What Wikisource includes. But on the other hand, I also suggest you to give editors a warm welcome instead of a simple cold warning. Just a thought ;) Hymnguistic (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikisource takes a dim view of editors who violate copyright law. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yup, that’s like a way of saying “I don’t give two sh*ts about you”, treating me like another useless human being that deserves to die. (I am human too, you know.) Just sayin’. Cheers ^_^ Hymnguistic (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Could I have some files "localised"

Hi, I have recently imported some items from the Internet Archive mostly related to Cornwall, @ShakespeareFan00: has been helping me and says that commons:File:Cornwall (Mitton).djvu and commons:File:The Cornwall coast.djvu need to localised on English Wikisource as PD-US (pre 1923) but not PD-UK/PD-70 due to the authors death dates and therefore can't host them on commons. (see commons:User talk:Arthur Kerensa), could you please help me with this? Arthur Kerenſa — speak 12:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but not until much later today when I'll have the sort of internet connection I'll need to do that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Arthur Kerensa: Come to think of it, you'd probably get a faster response posting in Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help to request the files be transferred locally. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, no worries, there isn't any rush, but i posted on the Scriptorium as well. Arthur Kerenſa — speak 16:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

It's unfortunate that a globally banned user's socks turned up here, but thanks for cleaning up my talk page. DoRD (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)