User talk:EncycloPetey/Archives/2021

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2021, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

The Great Gatsby questions

I am proofreading and validating pages from The Great Gatsby scanned file (the images). Should the punctuation and spelling be altered, based off the scanned images? Windywendi (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Windywendi: Yes, the text and punctuation should match the images of the scan. The text current in the pages was pulled from and outside source, and needs to be corrected to match the scans. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Thanks, the suggestion has been followed. By the way, while proofreading, is it recommended that the row splittings (which are equivalent to spaces in the depicted text) be situated where the original scanned text splits between rows, so as to reduce the work load of the validator? Windywendi (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

No, if you're proofreading, go ahead and collapse the line breaks into complete paragraphs. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Index:Maria Edgeworth (Zimmern 1883).djvu

Just seeing that this work is mostly transcribed, though missing transclusions. Before I wandered over to look at it, just wanted to check that it wasn't something that you were still working upon, and/or it had special needs. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Not planning any further work on this item. It was set up for others to complete. Thanks for asking, though. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Monteiro Lobato

Hi! I found a public domain translation of a Monteiro Lobato work, but seems that only specific people can download it complete -- Google Books digitized it, but didn't made it available there. Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no experience downloading from Hathi Trust. I would ask in the Scriptorium for help. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Erick Soares3: Index created at Index:Brazilian_short_stories Languageseeker (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Languageseeker: That index page does not work because it is missing the file extension. The Index page must make use of the full filename, including the extension. Also, I do not see a text layer in the Index, so the file you created will need to be redone. It is not ready for use yet. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: There is no extension because the Index is comprised of individual image files for which you do not need an extension. The OCR will need to be generated with the OCR tool. Languageseeker (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The OCR tool is not reliable, and produces a terrible OCR text. That is why the work should be in a PDF or DjVu format, with a text layer added. Also, work comprised of multiple individual images has two additional problems: (a) it makes the work susceptible to single-page vandalism, and (b) it makes it impossible to link to the scan from the Wikidata item with which the work will be associated. There are additional issues with preparing a work this way, which is why it is not recommended except perhaps for works that consist of only a few pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, take a look at what has happened at Commons for commons:Category:Pericles, Prince of Tyre, where all of the individual pages are swamping the category, and the file names tell the user nothing about their content or connection to other files. This includes File:Mdp.39015053493998 003.png which is essentially an image of a blank page. Creating and uploading vast numbers of unconnected pages to Commons makes it difficult for anyone to know what the pages are or what they are for. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Wouldn't be the cause of putting all the individual images on a PDF and then uploading it to Commons? Erick Soares3 (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Tom Jones

To resurrect an ancient topic, Hathi Trust now has a complete scan of the first edition of Tom Jones [1]. Would you have any interest in importing it and creating a scanned backed copy of this book? Languageseeker (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Not at this time. I have quite a few open projects at present. Also, looking at those scans, I would be facing poor quality OCR for much of the work. Many of the pages have both the text on the page and the text from the other side of the page showing through. Add to that the fact that 18th-century fonts are not read very well by most OCR tools. I do not relish the idea of embarking on six volumes of 18th-century OCR errors. Perhaps when I have finished some of my projects and have more time than I currently have. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I added the scans so if you ever want to work on it, you can. Languageseeker (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Abusing permissions

This did not require rollback as it was not vandalism but actually the proper usage of an endash instead of the improper usage of a hyphen. Using your admin rights to then lock it from editing is just petty and childish. Why do you want an improper character in this template? How is this better for anyone? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss major changes to large and complex works or to widely used templates before making them. Your edits can have wide-ranging impacts. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

That is not a "major change" and it does not have wide-ranging impacts. Please revert yourself and actually answer my questions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

You have made accusations and denials. That is not discussion. If you believe a change should be made across the entire Portal namespace, that is a major change. Please discuss such major changes before making them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not a major change to replace incorrect hyphens with correct endashes. How is that a "major change"? Please revert yourself to use the proper character. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I have explained why it is a major change (see above). --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I have asked you "Why do you want an improper character in this template? How is this better for anyone?" Please answer. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Please explain why you think it is an improper character. Whose standard are you applying? There is nothing in Wikisource:Portal guidelines to support your assertion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hyphens are for hyphenating and en dashes are appropriate for separating running text. See w:Dash#En_dash and the many style guides it cites. See also the proper use of hyphens at w:Hyphen#Use_in_English, none of which are for spacing in running text. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

An absence of this particular situation from that article does not make its use incorrect. Pointing me to an article with handwaving is not a justification; it is avoid the responsibility of offering a justification by saying "it's somewhere in there". But I have looked anyway, and the section on the uses of the en-dash gives three uses, none of which apply here. It is not being used to connect symmetric items, it is not substituting for a hyphen in a compound, and it is not appearing in a sentence. Neither does it appear in a range of values. I see no evidence in the uses to explain why you think an en-dash is correct not why you think a hyphen is incorrect. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

A hyphen is incorrect here as it is used to mark a break, as in "N – Nonsense", which is not a way that hyphens are used (i.e. "N - Nonsenes" is incorrect). Why would you think that a hyphen is the correct character to use here? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Let the Scriptorium discussion work itself out at this point. You keep making assertions here that things are "correct" or "incorrect" without any support. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

ext scan link

This template does not belong in main namespace, and especially not on versions pages? Author ns or Portal ns only please. What value does it bring, what are you hoping to do with it? Similarly {{small scan link}} is superfluous. It is not the purpose main ns to link off to back and work areas. This is a similar discussion to the linking of those ugly periodical links. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The namespace limitation is not stated anywhere in the Template's documentation, and has never before been an issue that I am aware of. The small scan links are there where the works are being transcribed. The template will be removed when the work is complete, and thus the template's presence alerts the reader that the scan is still undergoing transcription and proofing. The templates have been in place since 2018, so their removal would be a substantive change. Until the issue is resolved, leave the status quo please. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

You can find a discussion here from 2015 that resulted in the listing of WorldCat, GoogleBooks, and Index links from a Versions page in the Main namespace. You raised no objections at that time. The page's links remain intact to this day. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Wikisource:Versions and Template:Versions That usage is your extension, not others, and is part of the issue that we have when others start smattering it all over the place. The purpose and design of template was specific to tidy up and simplify author ns, and allow for better use of volumes. This is our beautiful display space. We have always said that it was our display space. That the curatorial aspects and more free reign were the author and portal namespaces; not work space. Ext and small scan link make it work and commentary space. And please don't pull that it is not namespace restricted, we have not typically said that anywhere with any of our templates. The reasoned use, used to be enough. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Those are claims, but you've offered no support for them. I have provided a link to a 2015 discussion that resulted in a very different decision from what you are claiming. Are we to throw out the community decision? On what basis? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

No claims? I pointed you to the two community's pages that talk about versions. Please show me there where it is community practice what you are doing. You have pointed me to a discussion on that talk page and now you want to say that sets the consensus of the community for what you are proposing? That is hardly the place for a consensus for universal policy. And then to say that I didn't have comment is a ridiculous statement. Are you truly proposing that community consensus is determined on a random talk page? You would like for me to throw that at one time you that you didn't participate on a discussion on a random talk page and that discussion sets the community practice forever after? You are kidding right? — billinghurst sDrewth 03:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Further preliminary discussion Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2016-01#Can_a_version_page_have_only_one_blue-link_edition_entry? is hardly an endorsement for what you are proposing, especially in the form that the discussion took place. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I argued the other side in that discussion. But the decision made at that time overrules what I think about the matter. This also points out that the decision "on a random talk page" (as you say) was displayed prominently in the Scriptorium as well. So you cannot claim that the discussion or decision were obscure. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

At zero point have we had community consensus determined on a work's talk page, that is a specious position. Look at the subject line at WS:S and honestly tell me that you think that is a sustainable position that the community delegated ongoing community consensus to that discussion. You are kidding right? — billinghurst sDrewth 04:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

You are making claims that are unsupported. Let's start with the original claim: Where does it say that {{ext scan link}} does not belong in the main namespace. Where does it say that it is limited to the Author and Portal namespace? I answered your question about the value it brings, so please support your original claim.

You also stated that "It is not the purpose main ns to link off to back and work areas", but we have templates such as {{Incomplete}}, {{migrate to djvu}} and {{Transcluded OCR errors}} that do precisely that. This refutes your claim. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Where does it say that the template should be used in other namespaces. Go back to its purpose. Designed in 2010 to replace links in Author namespace. Where does Wikisource:Versions encourage its use, or request its use? The maintenance templates are clear exceptions as they can only be seen as true main ns templates, though I would love to be rid of them too, but they have met the purpose of the community since 2000s and are a lesser evil as the are on problematic purpose. So please tell me how and why on versions pages you see links to IA from the main ns comply with WS:Wikilinks. They do not add value to our site, they take people off-site. I will start that discussion at WS:S — billinghurst sDrewth 04:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

So your argument is essence is that "Since it isn't explicitly allowed or promoted on Wikisource:X, then it isn't allowed." That would mean the template is not permitted in the Portal namespace either, since Wikisource:Portal guidelines does not says anything about the template. The template was created in March of 2010, and predates the creation of the Portal namespace. Nor do I see the template mentioned at Wikisource:Style_guide#Author_pages or Help:Author_pages, so (by your argument) the template can't be used in the Author namespace either. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

That is a poor argument. I am saying that the version pages do not talk about that sort of linkage, especially not external. The author and portal namespaces are our curated spaces, not our presented works. The template was specifically created for its use in the author namespace as we were curating spaces to link to lists of works. The portal namespace was a discussed place for further curated works where we couldn't fit them in the author spaces, especially when we moved publishers and the link, it is a reasonable extension. The main namespace is for the presentation of works. Our disambiguation has always been clean and simple, and inch by inch they are getting more and more complex. They are no longer becoming the simpler pointer pages to our works, people are drifting them to becoming pseudo-stub articles and ultimate finding aids for works in multiple places. It is not their purpose, and this creep is becoming noise, and loud noise in the main namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

At this point the discussion should move to a community decision. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Details?

I was looking into Vladis13 due to an unrelated (technical) request elsewhere, and noticed they were blocked here. Given what's visible in the contributions log, an indefinite block (or even a month, for that matter) and revoking talk page access seems a bit excessive… Is there more to this story that I'm missing? Xover (talk) 07:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The editor was transferring interwiki links from Wikisource projects to Wikidata and deleting them from their home Wikisource projects, then merging editions of the same work in different languages into single data items on Wikisource. Both billinghurst and I tried to explain why this should not be done, and it became a thing on Wikidata. The block here was to prevent further loss of data here since the user refused to accept guidance from multiple people on multiple sites. His edits on Wikidata as recently as this month show that he still does not fully understand the difference between a "work" and an "edition", sometimes putting editions on their own data items and sometimes on the data item for the work, and sometimes merging work and edition data items. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. I see. Handling issues arising from Wikidata is indeed hard, and will only get harder as time goes by. We're going to have to eventually figure out some process for that.

But in the mean time, blocking someone here for their actions on Wikidata is a little iffy. And blocking any good faith contributor—no matter how misguided or belligerent—for more than hours or a couple of days seems excessive. The goal of such blocks is to prevent immediate harm or defusing an immediate situation until a more robust decision process (i.e. a local or project-wide discussion) can be employed, and they should generally be escalating (i.e. start with a very short duration, slowly increase the length if the previous block failed to get the situation in a constructive track).

For good-faith contributors, a month-long block is a bit excessive to be imposed unilaterally by a single admin, and an indef block with revoked talk page access should definitely only be imposed by the community. Keep in mind that without access to edit their own talk page they can't even request an unblock without jumping through hoops: it's a "life without possibility of parole" sentence. That's way out of proportion to the crime, even if we were to include the actions at Wikidata, and definitely so when viewed only in relation to their contributions on this project. Xover (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I am suggesting that you should unblock them. Indef is out of proportion to their actions, and an indef block should not be imposed unilaterally by a single admin for any nominally good-faith contributor. It is entirely possible they would have ended up there in the end, but then through continued and more serious disruptive behaviour and with the ban imposed by the community. Xover (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. Note that I have not been as active in recent months. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

header template, The

I find myself frustrated with the flexibilty of this template, any sort of ordering of bibliographic data, then its formatting, then a lack of labelling, then I stand back and look at the very name and skewed purpose. My notion is that its original purpose was to replace the title page, and in deed become the meta title for a single work of that name [of multiple sources, like a en.wp article, indeed, this was the first virtue I recognised in scanbased transcription]. I thought to share this with you because of the efforts in versions, disambiguation and neatly informative translations pages.

My impression is that the header template was intended (throughout a work) to let people know what work they are in, and provide links to the previous and next section. It also permits the editor to provide brief information about issues with the copy. I don't see that it would, could , or should replace the title page, which sometimes includes additional information and/or an illustration. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm tending to the picture of George Eliot for my favoured nominee at welcome, which seems to accord with some of your thoughts on this first impression; being face on is good when I think about it. Yours, CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not as active here at the moment. My job responsibilities have changed, and I do not have the time to weigh on on this. I recommend asking the community at large if you have settled on a specific image as a possible replacement. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Commons file image rotate request

Greetings EncycloPetey... Is it possible for this image to be slightly rotated right? I was not able to do so myself at Commons. If not, I can create my own file for this page. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not have software the performs incremental rotations. You might have more success looking for help from someone at Commons. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks! Hope all is well :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: I was here dropping a link (that may or may not be welcome) off and saw this. Try Wikisource:Scan Lab in which, I make no promises for.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @RaboKarbakian: :) I rotated the image to my liking using my photo editing software. I just need to refresh my memory as to how to create a derivative file (if that's what it's called) at Commons... or else upload an effectively redundant image there. I will keep the scan lab in mind however. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks:Oh, I misunderstood then. The croptool at commons will also rotate. Croptool needs to be enabled in preferences and I cannot remember where exactly the rotate is, maybe/probably below the little boxes that tell where to select for crop. And there is an additional login also. I thought you wanted a whole (pages and pages) scan rotated. Maybe you can rotate it and skip the new upload, but a new upload requires nothing more than a new name. Croptool will upload into the same namespace also, you get the option before you tell it to crop..--RaboKarbakian (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I opted for the new upload... Easier for me (and quicker); I am not very patient :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

just a nothing: Prospero might be Brahe

I was looking for a way to generate the log tables for an astrology book. I found a lot of stuff, nothing definitive though, but this was one of the more interesting off-wm things I read. The part about Brahe and Prospero is close to the end... https://mathpages.com/rr/s8-01/8-01.htm --RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

TOC question

Hello, EncycloPetey. 2 years ago you explained me the use of Auxiliary Table of Contents, when I added a TOC in The Oldest English Epic/Chapter 1. I think I did that to be able to download Chapter 1 with its sub-chapters. After your explanation I realized that Chapter 1 belonged to a parent work: The Oldest English Epic, so I dropped the need, and added an Aux TOC there. But now I thought about it again... that it would be practical to be able to download Beowulf (Chapter 1) only, which is one of the versions shown in the Beowulf page. And I think this can be achieved with the {{Hidden export TOC}} template. Would it be appropriate to add one in Chapter 1? —Genesis Bustamante (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I really don't know enough to say. Typically, an auxiliary table of content is placed on the primary page, to allow complete download of the text, which would not be possible in a book that otherwise lacked a ToC. You may have to run some tests to see what works, and what doesn't. It is possible that having the Aux ToC in a subpage could cause download issues for the full text, but as I say, I do not know for sure and recommend testing out a few options before committing to a full change. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll do some tests in my sandbox. —Genesis Bustamante (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I could not make tests there because the export options did not appear. I went to the main namespace and added an AuxTOC in Chapter 1 and one in Chapter 5; then I had to delete the main AuxTOC to prevent TOC item repetition. The exports are good, whether the whole book or Chapter 1, and both PDF and EPUB show the subchapters nested. That is unprecedented for me. —Genesis Bustamante (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

List semantics

Please don't undo semantic structure of pages. Why is that better? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

If you believe Wikisource should adopt some new policy regarding list formatting, you can propose that we do so. Right now, Wikisource has no such policy, and out own policy pages use exactly the format you are objecting to. Please make the proposal and get community consensus before claiming it as policy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Which policy pages are you referring to? All pages should have proper semantics. Why would you remove a proper non-breaking space? Why would you include "1st" rather than "1"? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Which policy pages are you referring to? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

You are being intransigent and petulant now. I styled the page to not have long bulleted lists and you removed them as well as the other changes I made. Look at Wikisource:Requested_texts/1924, which has properly semantic lists that you started yourself. Why are you doing this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

"Proper semantics" is your opinion? Where in any style documents on Wikisource is it required that all levels of every list (indented or unindented) must have every single item bulleted? Bullets are for emphasis in print, not a requirement. If you wish the community to adopt your opinion as policy, please propose it, allow time for discussion, and if a community consensus arises, then your opinion will become a community-accepted practice. Until it is is adopted, please do not claim that it is somehow required. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

It is required per actual semantics of HTML. Why is 1923 different from 1924? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Where has your preferred style been adopted as Wikisource practice? I understand that other sites may have adopted that practice, but Wikisource is not other projects. Please explain why your changes are necessary in term of what practices Wikisource has enacted or adopted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not styling, it's semantics and every other page. E.g. the equivalent for 1924. It is necessary for proper semantics because Wikisource is a website. It's also what we're already doing. Also, as I have now asked you three times: "which policy pages are you referring to"? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Calling it semantics instead of styling is a semantic argument, true. But you have not answered my question; you have appealed to abstract authority, which begs the question rather than answering it. Where has your preferred style been adopted as Wikisource practice? Are you able to answer that question? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a semantic dispute only to the extent that you seem to not understand the difference between semantics and styling on the Web: HTML is for the former, CSS is for the latter. I have already answered your question: it is in practice on every other such page that is a listing of works. Literally all of them have unordered lists of works for literally all works. Also, I did not beg the question, what is it that you think that means? For the fourth time: "which policy pages are you referring to?" For the second time: "why are you doing this"? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

That does not answer my question; you are trying to answer by making an unsupported claim that "it is in practice on every other such page that is a listing of works". Since you are unable to point to any adopted policy or practice, you have your answer. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Your point was, "We do this on all other pages, so this shouldn't be different". That is my point. All other pages have lists of works in semantically meaningful, unordered lists, including ones that you have created. For the fifth time: "which policy pages are you referring to?". For the third time: "why are you doing this"? For the second time, "what is it that you think that begging the question means?". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

An example of begging the question is that when I asked where has your preferred style been adopted as Wikisource practice, you replied that it is in practice on every other such page that is a listing of works. This is both untrue and is begging the question by stating that it must be so because it is so. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not beg the question: I applied your reasoning which was that we should retain the standard used on "out [sic] own policy pages" which "use exactly the format" that I am applying to the 1923 page. Literally all works on all other pages are in semantically meaningful unordered lists. None of them are not. Since you argued that the 1923 page should follow existing practice, you are making my case for me. My argument was that all web pages should be semantically correct, this is a web page, therefore this should be semantically correct. Please show how that argument is "begging the question". For the sixth time: "which policy pages are you referring to?". For the fourth time: "why are you doing this"? As I have also asked you many times over: please give me an example of any work listed on any such page that isn't in a semantically meaningful unordered list. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

You are now telling me what I'm saying (and getting it wrong) instead of hearing what I am saying or answering my questions. Please limit this discussion to the Scriptorium from here on out, as it is unproductive here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

RE:block centering

Hello. What change do you refer to? —Genesis Bustamante (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

This one. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I did it because it looked block-centered to me, and because I think it's poetry. I did it following the visual example of Metamorphoses. Would styling the Page namespace have been correct? Or is it wrong nevertheless? —Genesis Bustamante (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

It isn't page-centered. Plays typically are not centered, but are aligned to the left margin, with indented sections in the Chorus passages. Metamorphoses may or may not be centered poetry, depending on the edition. For plays in verse, Layout2 is applied to the Main namespace to narrow the margins and assist formatting. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand now. Thank you. —Genesis Bustamante (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Changes to Greek template

Hi, I noticed serifs on Greek weren't working too - but didn't notice it until after you made a change to the Greek template. I vote we change the "Polytonic" template back to what it was a while ago (removing the redirect to Greek). At least the "Polytonic" template used to be reliable (it worked on other devices like Chromebooks etc. too) DivermanAU (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the history, Inductiveload tried to reset the fonts back in August for this very reason, but used the wrong code. I simply corrected that mistake. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

But why aren't serifs displaying like they were a few days ago? DivermanAU (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

They haven't been displaying on Greek text for me for more than a month. When I edited the template, they began displaying again. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems something has changed recently, on three different devices (a Windows laptop, a Windows desktop and a ChromeBook) that used to display the serif-type fonts using the {Greek} template, all three now display a sans-serif {Greek} font. I did try clearing the browser cache. Can't we just reinstate the {Polytonic} template back to what is used to be (rather than a redirect to {Greek})? {Polytonic} used to reliably display serif-type fonts. DivermanAU (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The {{Greek}} template is using what the old polytonic template did. When did the serifs no longer appear for you? You said above that you'd noticed the serifs weren't working for some time, but didn't notice it until I made a change to the template. So the first question is when did the serifs stop working for you? They stopped working for me back in August when the templates were changed. I'm on a Mac, which has Greek fonts installed at the factory, so when the serifs disappeared in August, I assumed some change just needed to work through the pages. But three months on, and turning on serifs does not work for Greek. This is doubly annoying in that you cannot turn on serifs in the Template namespace at all to see what is working or not. You can see that Inductiveload tried to reinstate the serifs back in August because they weren't working [2] but the previous code had "fonts" not "styles" [3], so I took us back to the last code that actually worked [4]. If it's not working for you, it must be a Windows-related issue. When I reinstated the previous code (which you say did work for you back then) it should have worked for both of us, Mac and Windows, as this was what we had before. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, it does seem a bit odd. I did notice the fonts looked different maybe around 20 Nov. but the change could have happened before and I didn't notice. It can't be a Windows-only problem though, as the fonts now look different too on a ChromeBook I have. I did create a new {Polytonic2} template for testing based on an old revision of {Polytonic}. That shows the serif-style fonts OK (See User:DivermanAU where I have a line (about 10 down) showing Greek text with different templates. My 2 Windows PCs and the ChromeBook show serif-style fonts when using {Polytonic2} but not with {Greek} or {Polytonic}. DivermanAU (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any serifs in the Greek text on your User page, regardless of the template used. There is no way of turning serifs on or off in the User namespace as far as I can tell. Any test must work in the Main namespace (and ideally in the Page namespace too, but there is no option for serifs in the Page namespace either). --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for no timely reply. I have been busy with work this week and have not been on Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Greek Letters

Hello,

In Ovid's Metamorphoses, on page vi., there are some errors with the Greek letters (at the very least accents, and possible separation of words), although the page has supposedly been validated by someone. Although I could attempt it myself, it is probably best if you could please fix this, given your user page mentions some knowledge of ancient Greek (letters).

Thanks,

Could you provide a link, so that I know which copy of Metamorphoses you mean? There are at least three. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, I determined which page you meant, and have corrected the Greek text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)