User talk:Jarnsax

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Hello, Jarnsax, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Carl Spitzweg 021-detail.jpg

You may be interested in participating in

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{CotW}} to your page for current wikisource projects.

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

Have questions? Then please ask them at either

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome! --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Index:Bergey's manual of determinative bacteriology.djvu[edit]

Is this work in PD in the US? You have not added a license tag indicating whether this is so. Wikisource only hosts works that are in the public domain in the United states. Works published in the US in 1957 must have failed to renew their copyright to be in the public domain. See Help:Copyright renewals for more information. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: See My assumption is that the MBLWHOI Library specifically checked for a copyright renewal as part of the claimed 'due diligence', and did not find one. It's also on the Internet Archive (uploaded there by MBLWHOI) and has been on Commons for a while. Searching the USCO catalog online, it's renewal doesn't show up, and it should (it would have been due in 1985). It was probably not renewed because the 8th edition had come out in 1974. Jarnsax (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
That assumption is not always a good one. For example, some works on the Internet Archive were scanned and uploaded from the University of Toronto, so that Canadian copyright law applies instead of US law. As a result, we always ask that due diligence be done for works hosted here, and Commons will require a suitable license to be added. The 70-year rule applies only outside of the US, so a US-specific license needs to be added on Commons. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
This is a US work.. see the copyright page. I checked the USCO catalog for a renewal, and it didn't show up. The only way to check it further would be to find the original registration in the CCE, and check it by registration number. Do you want me to? Jarnsax (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
But you did not add a US-license on Commons. You must add a US license to the file on Commons regarding this work's copyright status precisely because it is a US work. The license you added is inadequate for a work published in the US. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I'll fix it... it's registration A313572 from 2 Dec 1957, registered to "Williams & Wilkins Co.", and it wasn't renewed. It's on page 976 of July-Dec 1957. Jarnsax (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Jarnsax (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Image pages[edit]

When a page consists of an image, instead of creating it completely blank, it is preferred to use {{raw image}}, which will allow a temporary image to appear on the page until a suitable one can be uploaded to Commons. You can see how I did this here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Yeah, I was just leaving them alone for now because I think these already have extracted images on Commons. Jarnsax (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
That may be, but creating them as blank pages is far from best practices. You could simply wait to create them, if you find that using a template is troublesome. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

A more serious issue I notice, now that I've properly looked at the work, is that only a small portion of it seems to be in English. The policy on English Wikisource is against hosting such works here. Works that are primarily in one language are hosted at the Wikisource for that language, and works that are in multiple languages are hosted on the multilingual Wikisource. The Norwegian expedition report looks like it ought to be at the multilingual Wikisource instead of here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Okay, good to know. I think about half the articles are in English, but still. Is there a way to port what I've done so far over there? A bunch of the pages have the OCR on the wrong page, that's why I was creating the pages, I was moving it. Jarnsax (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
There are some mul:WS admins here. I think @Billinghurst: is one, but am not certain. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Not me. Locals with dual list themselves at Wikisource:Administrators, best though to look at their list at mul:Wikisource:Administrators. They should be able to import. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Bindery marks[edit]

Wikisource generally does not transcribe the bindery marks in works. These are usually letters, number, or letter-number pairs that appear in the bottom corner of pages. Their purpose was to assist the binder in correct assembly of the printed pages into a book. We do not transcribe them in most cases because they are not part of the work any more than a library stamp would be. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I had asked on the IRC channel what the practice was about 'signature marks' (that's what they are called, actually) and go no responses after quite a while.... I was left with the impression, after looking on the wiki, that there was no actual rule one way or the other, since I could literally find nowhere that it had been publicly discussed. My opinion is that transcribing the signature marks into the footer could not hurt anything, and I don't think library stamps are at all a good analogy, since those are added after the book has actually been sold, and are unique to the particular copy, while the signature marks are actually printed on the page at the same time as the text block. The same argument (that it's not actually part of the work itself) would also apply to printer's colophons, and it seems to be routine to transcribe them. Jarnsax (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
True, bindery marks are printed on the page before the book is sold, but they may be cut off when the pages are trimmed. They are not part of the work. It doesn't hurt to transclude them, but general practice here doesn't include them. Many Wikisource standard practices are not documented in a central location because we tend to focus more on content than documenting and doing paperwork. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


I'm confused by recent edit like this one. I don't see any difference. Are you "proofreading" them a second time? If so, you should mark the page as "Validated". That designation indicates that the page has been proofread by a second set of eyes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: They are 'broken', apparently after being edited with the visual editor. It won't let me 'validate' them, even if I've never edited them before, and from asking other people on IRC they see the same issue. Once they have had the null edit (with whatever invisible change it makes to the status) they work fine (I still can't validate them, since it thinks I 'proofread' them, but other people can). Jarnsax (talk) 03:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
My guess is that the visual editor is inserting some kind of non-printing character into that text. Jarnsax (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah, we're going through that again. We get annoying software issues like this from time to time. Thanks for explaining. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: You're seeing the recent changes spam (which is what I guess you are looking at) because I'm running through the rest of that book and doing null edits to all the broken pages. Jarnsax (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Figure spaces[edit]

Hi, I didn't know about the {{0}} template until seeing your comment. I've been using {{fsp}} (e.g. in pages like Page:A Voyage of Discovery and Research in the Southern and Antarctic Regions Vol 2.djvu/205), which at least has a logical name and is using a real figure space character. The only advantage I can see of the 0 template is the ability to change to using a different character or string. A disadvantage of it is that search strings that go across the template won't work as the character is present in the text. However, given the extensive use of the 0 template, I think deprecating it in favour of the other is unlikely to happen. If you wanted to try, I would give support. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle: Glancing around at some of the places where it's used, yeah, that actually is a 'legitimate' use for it... see The American Journal of Science/Series 3, Volume 22/Note on the Observations of Comet b, 1881, made at the United States Naval Observatory, where it's being used to make tables of astronomical coords line up correctly...
TBH, my opinion at this point is more that it's documentation (and name) are kinda bad, and should just explicitly tell people to use {{fsp}} instead if replacing numbers. Jarnsax (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)