User talk:M-le-mot-dit

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Hello, M-le-mot-dit, 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.

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! Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


Just watching your edits has been very instructive to me. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Index:Aucassin and Nicolette (Bourdillon).pdf[edit]

Thanks It's been great to have you help me polish off this work and your edits are stellar. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Great! I had no idea that we will be able to finish it so fast! Best regards, M-le-mot-dit (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


It isn't necessary to use {{lang}} for Latin, French, German or any other language that is written with the standard Latin alphabet. The template is designed to assist with display of languages in other writing systems, such as Arabic, Japanese, or Russian. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh! I thought it was also used by some talking devices. Thanks for your comment. M-le-mot-dit (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


I have transcluded Telegram - Winston Churchill to Franklin D. Roosevelt (May 10, 1941) 3:38 p.m. for you. Can I encourage you to add it to {{new texts}}. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 00:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Film[edit]

Hey, thanks for doing Frankenstein (1910 film), great work! Feel free to join Wikisource:WikiProject Film as a participant if you'd like. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


As ProofreadPage doesn't work very well for films, consider for future transcriptions saving your proofreads somewhere in Wikisource:WikiProject Film/Drafts. I set up this page for the convenience of film proofreaders until ProofreadPages is no longer an annoyance in terms of film. Format your draft page like is done in some of the finished drafts in Wikisource:WikiProject Film/Drafts/Archives. Specifically, you will need to provide the required data (such as author, publisher, etc.), make sure a ---- is between each element, and that timestamps are above each element.

After you are finished proofreading a work there, you can let me know and I will run my bot through the site with the data you gave. The bot will automatically add the Index page, Page pages, and the final mainspace transclusion, based on the information presented at the draft page. This will make it immensely easier for you, as you won't have to tediously type out, or copy and paste, all of this manually. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The bugs[edit]

Okay, so I was able to figure out how to fix (or better deal with in the future) the problems that just happened with your transcription. Here are some suggestions for what to do in the future:

1. The reason that 1:49:59 wasn't processed is because there was not proper spacing between ---- and 1:49:59 in the draft. It looked like this:


My bot will automatically fix this problem now for future entries, but please do try and keep the spacing clean.
2. Please in the future, try not to use bare returns for spacing in your transcriptions.
{{Center|Top text}}

{{Block center|Bottom text}}
Instead, use <br> or something else. For example:
{{Center|Top text}}<br />
{{Block center|Bottom text}}
The reason for this is that the bot parses the transcription based on what is between two returns ("\n\n"), so that the lines can be converted properly. The bot will now warn me if spacing is within the Ft templates and will force me to go in and fix them.
Please try to do these things in the future for movie transcripts. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: Thanks for the explanations. I'll take care of these recommendations next time. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The Lost World[edit]

I am sorry, but I ask that you please halt your transcription project of this work for just a bit, because User:SurprisedMewtwoFace has found a copy of the film on the Internet Archive that may possibly have more footage/intertitles in it, and if so, the new transcription should be taken from that version. See the discussion about this at WS:WikiProject Film/Uploaded to Commons/1925#L PseudoSkull (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: bad choice! Internet Archives contains copies with different lengths. Internet Archive identifier : TheLostWorldCompleteVideoQualityUpgrade (1:16:05), is another version with different shots at the beginning and different titles. Seems difficult to find the "real" original version. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure which version SurprisedMewtwoFace is referring to in their post, but, according to the beginning of our best known video of the film, which is currently present at the Wikipedia article, our video "combines portions of eight prints to present the most complete reconstruction believed possible." This means that parts of The Lost World are still lost, but that the video contains the most known footage in the best possible combination. However, if SMTF has found a version with a length of nearly 106 minutes, that is closer to the original, so I say perhaps it could be reviewed. (I have my doubts myself that this new video will be better for us to use, but I want to leave in the possibility.) PseudoSkull (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
By the way, this is the file I was referring to. Looking at your draft and comparing, it looks like you were transcribing from a different file than that one. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
The version I am downloading is this one:

It has a 1 hour 44 minute runnning time. I will show it do you once it is completed. (SurprisedMewtwoFace (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC))

Yes, looking at it now, I support this version's inclusion as the main video. This is an update from even our newest reconstruction (the one I just linked) that was compiled in 2016, 2 years after our best version was uploaded. So we need this to be the one we transcribe from. So I'm sorry M-le-mot-dit, but I would say the transcription should be restarted after this one is uploaded. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: Well, it's not a great concern. The sequence I've transcribed still exists in the complete version. I'll just have to change the time labels. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: Don't you think there is a problem with the license of this version: "Restauration and special contents of this edition Copyright Lobster Films 2016"? --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@M-le-mot-dit: Indeed the logos in that credits sequence could be a problem, but other than that, no. A faithful restoration of a work that's in the public domain isn't able to be given an exclusive copyright in the United States. The musical score that someone produced is able to be copyrighted (in the case of a silent film with a score added), but that has already been stripped off, so everything else (besides the credits sequence) is still freely long as it really is a faithful reproduction. I have asked SurprisedMewtwoFace to upload a new version of this file without the credits sequence, so that it doesn't mislead people who want to use it for whatever reason. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


I mean, if you want to you could continue transcribing the version we have. Probably most if not all the intertitles in this version will also appear in the other version. The only reason I was saying you maybe shouldn't before is because it would be tedious to go back and fix all the timestamps for most of these as the timestamps will certainly be different in the different versions. But if this is the way you want to do it, go ahead, there's no harm implicitly done there as it's just a draft page. But it can't (well, probably shouldn't anyway) be transcluded to the mainspace until the best version is fully transcribed. So I apologize for any frustration I may have caused you regarding this issue. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Processing of films[edit]

Both are too long for me to cover right now as I will have to lose internet soon. I will do at least one of them tonight. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: Good job! Many thanks! --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

New texts[edit]

A work should not be listed on "New texts" until it has been fully proofread. The Four Horsemen still has pages that have not been proofread, so it is not ready for listing.

I also see that there is a "see also" red link at the top of the page. This should either be attended to or removed before listing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I disagree. The pages marked as problematic were in-scene text, and they did not look like they were important to the overall plot, nor did it appear to me that the film's team intended for those to be read in full. I put at Help:Film that in-scene text can be mostly added at the user's discretion unless it is crucial to the plot of the film (like a letter shown for several seconds that is intended to be read by the audience). Also consider that some text would be impossible to read, since there is such a heavy unlikelihood, especially for more obscure films, that a better-quality print than the existing uploaded one will ever be found. Therefore, some pages will have to be problematic forever. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
... furthermore, to suggest that the work has not been proofread is kind of untrue, M-le-mot-dit did proofread the work in full even though some pages had to be marked as problematic, when you consider that every piece of the text that was not optional to include was proofread. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
For texts to be considered complete, the full body of the work must be "proofread". If there are "problematic" pages, they should be dealt with before listing the work as a "New text". If there is in scene text that is not legible or relevant, then the page should be marked as "proofread" and the details about the text noted in some way. "Problematic" pages indicate that the page is missing an image for the original; has a scan that is damaged there and needs to be replaced; or something else is preventing the work from being proofread. Yes, film standards will necessarily be different, and perhaps some template or such needs to be adapted for the situation you are describing, but if there are pages of the work that have not been proofread, then the work is not yet done, and the work should not be listed at New texts.
And yes, the difficulty of getting a better print for an old film may be high, but there are printed texts where the same is true. We have some very low-quality scans that become bogged down in transcription because the scan text is illegible and no other copy is available. For those books, they cannot be listed as a New Text until the issue is resolved. Films do not get a bypass on this simply because they are a different medium. The same standards of completeness apply regardless of the medium. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Okay, well I'm going to mark the pages as proofread for now then. I will be pondering how to deal with these situations in our film transcripts, but one idea I just thought of is for unimportant in-scene text to be marked as "Without text" or perhaps just mark them as proofread even if some of the text is illegible. Perhaps there should be a way to hide and show in-scene text not crucial to the plot, just as we do sometimes with advertisements in books.
The reason I say this is that admittedly for some films in-scene text can get rather lengthy, and readers of the transcript will have to scroll through lots of unimportant text before they get to the content they actually want. Safety Last! is a pretty good example of this; that film has so much unimportant in-scene text that it became full of clutter, to the point where I think there was more in-scene text than even dialogue. So during my transcription (not yet done) I decided to eliminate almost all of it.
I don't wish to edit war, so if you or anyone else finds this proofread marking that I have done to be substantial enough then you can reinstate the text in Template:New texts yourself. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
If the decision is that the text is insignificant, and is handled in some way that allows the page to be marked "Proofread", then the minimum requirements for listing the Film as a New Text have been met. We only ask that a work be fully Proofread (in the Wikisource sense); the work be fully and correctly transcluded; and a suitable license template placed on the work's primary Mainspace page. It's nice if the Author page exists (so we don't have redlinks on the Main page), categories have been added (so that it can be found through category searching), etc., but those things can come later. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey:, @PseudoSkull: I'm sorry, I have been too enthusiastic when I've added the film to New texts. I'll be more selective regarding optional text. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 08:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Preface of Nanook of the North[edit]

Any particular reason this wasn't included? Is it needed (part of the original film)? And if it is, then do you want me to proofread that section? PseudoSkull (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: I think that this Preface is not part of the original film; for example, the text at [1:53] says: "Less than two years later…", or, "Nanook of the North has gone into most of the odd corners of the world…". And the title text comes after this preface. Also there is no date for it, and I don't know what is its copyright status. If you have 2 minutes watch it, tell me if you think I have to complete the draft. M-le-mot-dit (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I watched it fully now. As confusing as it unfortunately was made to look, in context when the writer said Nanook of the North (italicized in original) it looks to me that he was referring to the person who he calls Nanook, calling him in that line the film's name as a sort of way to introduce the viewer to the film. I don't know that it's possible to prove this was for sure in the original film, but it looks pretty likely. In the previous intertitle, the director says "At last, in 1920, I thought I had shot enough scenes to make the film..." so when he goes on to the next intertitle to say "less than two years later" he seems to be referring to the year 1921 or 1922, which would be consistent with when the film was released.
TL;DR, the preface likely did appear in the original. And even if it didn't and were an addition to the film years later (due to the evidence I heavily doubt this), it would have to have been before Robert J. Flaherty died in 1951. As such, in the US the preface would have to have had a copyright notice in its own right indicating the year it was released with the film (or the new version of the film would have a separate copyright notice, something like "New version Copyright 1928" or something). As this didn't happen it's in the public domain anyway. So you should be good to proofread the preface.
By the way I really appreciate all the hard work you've done with all these important pieces of film history! PseudoSkull (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: Thanks for your comments. I change my opinion, the Preface text is now included and the draft complete. M-le-mot-dit (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


Thank you for working on this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the wait[edit]

I'm sorry it took me a few days to get back to Wikisource—I had something unexpected come up IRL that I had to address immediately. That should never happen again though. I am botting Girl Shy now. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: Thanks! It's fine. I've done myself the short Manhatta, easy to manage manually. I've put the time in each page header; it may help to proofread. M-le-mot-dit (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I can still run my bot[edit]

I check my watchlist at least once a day even now, you could still put your films in "Ready to process" if you'd like. Thanks so much for even more impressive progress in the realm of film on Wikisource. :) PseudoSkull (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: Thank you, I'll ask for your help when The Black Pirate is ready. M-le-mot-dit (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Transcribing Film scripts on Wikisource[edit]

Hi @M-le-mot-dit: I stumbled upon Index:Frankenstein - Edison Mfg. Co., 1910.webm recently and found it really really interesting. I wanted to ask what your workflow for transcribing film scripts on Wikisource. What technology is being used? Is there any connected with Closed Captions on Wikimedia Commons? And any other information related to this. I am trying to use this model for transcribing folklore videos on Wikisource. Thank you for your help in advance. --Satdeep Gill (talk) 09:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Satdeep Gill:, I haven't use any special technology, but wiki syntax, patiently watching at the film and transcribing dialogs and "in scene" texts. The guidelines are given in Help:Film. The idea being to get the text only, it is not so rich as Closed Captions: no indication about who speaks, music, background noises… Well, for a silent film that make no much difference. You may also have a talk with PseudoSkull, he is strongly involved in that project. Have fun! --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)