User talk:EncycloPetey/Archives/2024

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2024, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

WS:PD

@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)

• 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)

"The Arctic Lover"

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)

@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)

@SnowyCinema: Okay, thanks a lot for the information. I will bear it in mind. Cremastra (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

It happens to the best of us. Books are long and complicated, eh? SnowyCinema (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Why Author:Sukavich Rangsitpol is Locked

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.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220904100222/https://www.seameo.org/vl/library/dlwelcome/photogallery/president/sukavich.htm ทีมกฎหมาย (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Kalevala, vol. 2

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)

@PWidergren: Done. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.

PWidergren (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank for keeping me honest

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)

@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)

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)

double check please

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)

I do not find it either. So it looks like it lapsed in the US. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! SDudley (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I created an Index for the book. SDudley (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Yellow templates

Before you tell me about Template:Header/doc on my talk page, let's just get this out of the way...since you insisted on this becoming a point of contention.

If you care enough about this issue that you believe the template should be reinstated, consider a site-wide application of your desire. A bot would be the best way to deal with this, and maybe a nudge on someone's talk page, not driving down our readership count with yellow templates that make us look like a site filled with bugs (which I promise is far worse in the eyes of a reader than that minor "issue" of chapter navigation, if you could even call it an issue). I don't even disagree with Template:Header/doc's suggestion (which you're probably going to refer me to), and will probably apply it from here on out. But let's try to reserve those warning templates for absolute copypaste messes from 2005 (and the like), not recent proofread texts by active contributors with a single minor "issue" no one would ever notice.

You've been quite lenient with much less standard works than that one. And you've even been against standardization models that are written in other guidelines in the past. I wonder why that is. I wonder how you would feel if someone slapped that warning template on a work you proofread that used roman chapter numbers in wikititles... Since, after all, guidelines on roman numerals in wikititles (with exactly as much authority as the Header template docs if not more) do state that "Chapters, sections and so on should be numbered with Arabic numerals (i.e. 1, 2, 3; not Roman numerals)." I'm guessing the answer is you wouldn't be happy about it.

Anyway, if you insist to care a whole lot about this issue, I'm bringing this to a Scriptorium bot proposal discussion. I will absolutely not waste my time fixing those for this work or any of my previous ones, and if you insist on keeping the standardize templates there I'll do everything in my power to have one of three things happen: 1. Get the template documentation line changed to be more broad and allow what I did, or 2. Get the community to rule that the template documentation isn't authoritative enough to warrant a standardize template, or 3. Get a bot to fix all instances of the previous and next inconsistencies in discussion. In any case, the standardize template will end up removed. SnowyCinema (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The documentation is directly referenced in Wikisource:Style guide under the very first point under Formatting. It is not simply documentation, but is also part of policy. I note these as I find them, and have frequently gone to the trouble to clean them up myself.

As for Help:Subpages#Chapters_and_sections is a Help page, which describes the generalities for users needing help. There are exceptions in policy allowed for acts of dramatic works, which was discussed the last time we revised the policy. But even I limit myself on that to five-act plays; you can see Little Clay Cart (Ryder 1905), where I used Arabic numerals because the play had 10 acts.

I understand that you're unhappy, but as an admin you should not be posting works as completed that do not adhere to the basic guidelines of formatting. As an admin, you should be familiar with policy and helping to uphold it, not flagrantly ignoring it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Done Sheep Limit is fixed per suggestion. SnowyCinema (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)