User talk:JimKillock

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hello there! I see you're interested in the DNB. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Cothvrnvlvs three short Latin historical plays[edit]

This work is entirely in Latin. the English Wikisource does not host works written entirely in other languages. This collection of plays should be hosted at the Latin Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

user:EncycloPetey I did wonder, but it contains a Latin-English vocabulary and and English introduction, so it's aimed at English speakers as an English educational resource. Assuming it is better placed at Latin Vicifons, is there a way to move it?
While it is aimed at native English speakers, the majority of the text are three plays written entirely in Latin. The text is presented almost entirely in Latin. We could host the vocabulary here, but we wouldn't host the plays. Even for bi-texts, there is a general feeling that we would host the English here, but the Latin, Greek, etc. would be hosted elsewhere. You can see this at Index:Ten Tragedies of Seneca (1902).djvu, for which we host the English translations of Seneca's plays, but not the Latin text.
I don't think anyone has the means to make a wholesale move. But once you set up an Index page at the Latin Wikisource, the individual pages can be copy-pasted in. The is also a multilingual Wikisource, if you think it might be better placed there, but few people know about it, so works hosted there attract little notice. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

You can use {{iwpage}} after placing text at la.wikisource. See for example Index:The Oxford book of Italian verse.djvu. @EncycloPetey: is it possible for such edition? Ratte (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This situation is different. There is not an opening chapter or two in English, but one paragraph. This work has almost no English content, and so falls outside the scope of English Wikisource. The Oxford Book of Italian Verse has sections that are written in English, which is a different situation to what we have in Cothvrnvlvs. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
There around 15 pages of Latin-English vocabulary; an English introduction and contents page; an English imprint. So about 17 pages out of 64; or approximately 25% of the book is English content. So I am not sure it is so different to the example given.
I would have thought that (wherever it is hosted) it should be possible to find a complete version with English and latin content. I am a bit confused as to how this is meant to work. Presumably Latin Wikisource won't want the English-Latin vocabulary and introduction? So the solution proposed above seems like the right way for someone to be able to find and export a 'complete' book? JimKillock (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
The Latin Wikisource would probably host the bilingual glossary, and would certainly host the three plays. So most of the book could be hosted there if not all of it. I see no reason why they would reject the one-page introduction if that is the only internal page that is fully in English.
For hosting it here, I count only two pages of the book that are strictly English, and one of those is the title page. Yes, an argument could equally be made for hosting the glossary here as at Latin Wikisource, but it is a bilingual section of the work and it would be unfair to say that it is "in English". With only the title page and a one page introduction as the English content, it falls outside our scope here on the English Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it's clear that a vocabulary, of Latin words to English, is not a bilingual work in any meaningful sense. It is only functional for an English speaker wishing to understand Latin, it is of little use to a Latin speaker wishing to understand English. So bilingual only in the technical sense that it contains words in two languages. This is clearly an English work surely? Who else would make use of it?
In any case I remain very confused as to what I meant to do with texts with mixed language content. Is there any documented policy or guide? JimKillock (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Other people wanting to understand Latin who speak English as a second language could make use of it to understand the Latin. The point of the vocabulary is to understand the Latin, not to understand English. Wikisource has a history of not maintaining lists of explicit policies. Most of the guidelines are known by long-standing members and seldom collected in the form of official policy. Most attempts to establish or change official written policies become mired in endless discussion. The best articulation regarding your question that exists is Wikisource:Multilingual texts, which says just what I've been saying: "Texts in other languages should be placed in the appropriate language subdomain, or at the general multi-language website." While the Latin plays were obvious written for use in English schools, the text itself is Latin, and the remainder (except for the title page and one-page introduction) is bilingual. It falls outside our scope. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Alright, I don't agree with how you see a vocabulary list, although we seem to agree it is for English speakers, whether first or second language; but as I said I can see the sense moving the Latin to Latin. I still have two questions:
(1) I am confused how I am meant to know / interpret / understand these policies if they are not written down. If they get mired in discussion, perhaps that is because the lines are not so solid or easy to apply given the varied nature of real world texts, and perhaps some discretion or flexibility is needed. For anyone who contributes, It's never a nice thing to be told what you are doing is wrong or incorrect; it is worse when this is done with no way to understand or challenge what is being done, which is the result of not being able to read a policy. That's also not so good if the policy is simply delivered by people who are long standing project members: I don't think that's really how Wikimedia projects are intended to work - I had understood that transparency and accountability as well as being welcoming are meant to be the values Wikimedia wants to aspire to.
(2) I still don't understand how I am meant to assemble a bilingual or multilingual text - I have been working on several Latin parallel texts or texts with notes and commentary in English. It would be very helpful for me to read some kind of description of how to do this. Think for instance of Comenius' parallel texts for learners, various colloquies, etc. Should I place Latin in Latin and English in English? What do I do with text that regularly mixes both up? What do I do to ensure people can get whole books, rather than part books? How do I learn the technical basics? JimKillock (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
As to your first question, this is a problem on every Wikimedia project but in different forms. Wikipedia has hundreds of policy documents, but you can be hounded for violation of what people think the documents mean, even when the documents don't say such a thing. I am one of a number of people who left Wikipedia over just such problems. Wikipedia has an entire bureaucracy within their community that spends all its time drafting and policing policies. Here, we are a small community and have minimal guiding documents, and every so often something gains enough interest to produce a written document, but mostly not. It is possible in a short time to become familiar with everyone who edits here regularly.
For your second question, I refer you to the previous times I have explained: "Texts in other languages should be placed in the appropriate language subdomain, or at the general multi-language website." English texts are hosted on the English Wikisource. Latin texts on the Latin Wikisource. If it is a Latin text with English commentary, then it is a multilingual text. It could be hosted at the Latin Wikisource (with English commentary removed) or on the general multilingual Wikisource, where texts in more than one language are hosted. If it is a parallel text (like the Loeb Classical series) than host the English here at the English Wikisource, and the Latin at the Latin Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
OK, but I am still unclear how I assemble or present the complete text; this describes halving a book and placing the text in different places. Where and how is it best to assemble the complete thing? Can this only be done on the multilingual site? If so, I must create three difference versions, where the most complete version is also the least accessible? Or do I mirror the whole on both Latin and English Wikisource? Can I find instructions or help; or do I just look at other examples and try to extract the code? JimKillock (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
If you wish to assemble the complete text there are two options: One, prepare the entire text at the multilingual Wikisource. How that process is accomplished there is a matter for that community. The English Wikisource is a different project and a different community. You won't find their policies or procedures here or vice versa. You'll need to ask that community for its procedures. The process of halving is generally intended for parallel texts in two languages. The English half of a parallel text is established here, and the other language section on its Wikisource project. My understanding is that there is a function that enables a user to then view both texts side-by-side, but there is no control over which sections of one align with which sections of the other. It simply places the two side-by-side without aligning corresponding sections. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
And, all that said, some parallel texts have a fuzzy status if they have an English translation being made de novo by Wikisource editors. You will find some parallel texts hosted here in the Translation namespace, which means that they are newly created English translations by Wikisource editors. Two of the most prominent are Translation:Romance of the Three Kingdoms (from the Chinese) and Translation:The poems of Catullus. So if you are creating your own translation based on your own knowledge of the language, then it is within the scope of the English Wikisource to produce a parallel text. In part, this is because the original text must be visible for the creation of the translation, and also for checking and editing of the translation by others. Such works may have one primary contributor, or a whole group of contributors. There are other limitations of this approach, but it is one instance that blurs the limits of what is within scope for hosting here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful although I'm not completely sure what is best. My goal would be to provide parallel texts, as an ebook format. I'm in the process of doing this for the Jánua Linguárum Reseráta Vestibulum; which I started primarily for my own purposes as I found it too difficult to use the C17th century versions. So in this case it is slightly modernised Latin plus semi-novel or modernised translation, thus I did not think it appropriate for Wikisource (it's not a literal copy, in either the Latin or English) and put it on Wikibooks.
I suppose for other items I might go through a double process, to first digitise the original very closely, then take the text and adapt it as I see fit elsewhere, eg on Wikibooks. Unfortunately though Wikibooks does not have an epub export currently, while Wikisource does and it seems to work quite well. JimKillock (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Uploading images to Commons[edit]

I've noticed that in the past few days you've uploaded images from Latin for beginners such as File:Latin for beginners (1911).djvu-170.png Please upload images to Commons rather than locally. Wikisource hosts the texts, not the images, unless the images are still under copyright in their country of origin. The book Latin for beginners and its illustrations should be in public domain in both the UK and US. The author died more than 70 years ago, and the images were published anonymously more than 95 years ago. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Pete, mostly I've done as you suggest, see my Commons user submissions]. In the case of File:Latin for beginners (1911).djvu-170.png I hit a weird conflict; see File:Latin_for_beginners_(1911).djvu-170.png. This didn't replicate back to Wikisource, as it had the same name, and I couldn't see a way to rename it on Commons, nor to delete to 'blocking version' on Wikisource. So I replicated it here as a workaround; hopefully someone can just delete the blocking image so the Commons copy of the image can be used here. JimKillock (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Once the files are uploaded to Commons, you can tag the local copies with {{speedy}} to clear them out. I'm not sure I understand what problem you ran into with the uploads. The target you pointed to was one of yours. You should be able to rename images yourself, or upload a new copy over your own uploads. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
OK, so there are things I don't know how to do, but the problem as I see it as that there is a file here—created first—and there is a file on Commons with the same name. The new file on Commons can't be accessed, because the local file seems to 'block' it. For example:
Latin for beginners (1911).djvu-170
summons up the file here, not the file on Commons. The same code elsewhere would take the file from Commons. So what steps do I take? I don't seem to be able to rename the file at Commons. I don't seem to be able to delete the duplicate-same-name-but-wrong file here JimKillock (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok, tagged image page for deletion and added explanation JimKillock (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You only need to tag the image; no other editing is necessary. And once the local image is deleted, it lets the one from Commons show through. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy criteria[edit]

Hi, when tagging a page or image with {{speedy}}, please indicate the reason. This helps us determine under which criterion to delete (or decline). The list of criteria can be found at WS:D. Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi and thanks, Beeswaxcandle, done JimKillock (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Key to Easy Latin Stories for beginners[edit]

From what I can tell this book is not about Latin at all. It is a collection of short stories in English intended to be translated into Latin as exercises for students. But the book neither contains Latin nor teaches any Latin. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Also note: Index pages should only be categorized into maintenance categories, not into subject categories. The Index page is a working space, and not the final text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I just followed the categorisation prompt. JimKillock (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Codex amiatinus[edit]

While poking around at Latin Wikisource, I discovered there is no copy of the Latin Bible. A little poking around turned up an 1854 publication of the Codex Amiatinus text (external scan), or at least the New Testament portion. I'd be willing to work on transcribing a couple of the books if I could have help getting the basics set up. I haven't worked over there and so do not know which templates exist, what they're called, etc. I have upload a DjVu copy to Commons at File:Codex Amiatinus novum testamentum latine (1854).djvu --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Pete, this sounds worthwhile; I'd be willing to do a chunk especially if we have others involved. There are of course digital text versions of (other) Latin bibles elsewhere. I guess you are thinking about establishing clearer rights as well as making Wikisource more complete? (There's also the advantage of good epub export tools!)
On the basics, I think they're fairly similar to here; where there are missing template functions they copy across so I have tended to just do that. Sometimes they are using less sophisticated or what seem like older versions of templates. I'm happy to help where I can; la:Usor:Barbaking there is very helpful and quick to respond. JimKillock (talk) 07:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
PS: I don't know my Bible history so I made a quick check of what the Codex amiatinus is (you presumably do know!) – this looks like a good choice for a first Bible transcription project. Those nineteenth century prints are also good to work with as OCR sources so I think this is a good way to go. JimKillock (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Not only for those reasons, but additionally the Wiktionaries need an authoritative source for quotations that exemplify the use of specific Latin words. The Codex Amiaticus would provide a good source for quotations for a date that sits squarely on the cusp between Late and Mediaeval Latin. So having this text transcribed would be useful to them as well. The Latin Wikiquote would also benefit. I also know that the Bible-related projects on Wikipedia are always lamenting the dearth of quotable Bibles on Wiki-projects, so having a complete Vulgate Bible would benefit them as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good. Shall we take this discuss to the Vicofons Scriptorium? JimKillock (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I will start a thread there, as well as the basic Liber pagina. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)