User talk:Neo-Jay

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, Neo-Jay, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here. If you need help, see our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). You can discuss or ask questions from the community in general at the Scriptorium. The Community Portal lists tasks you can help with if you wish. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page.

--Jusjih 07:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC) (the only Chinese-speaking admin here)

Thank you again. --Neo-Jay 10:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

History of West Australia[edit]

Thanks for your help straightening a few things out for me. This is my first substantial upload at wikisource. Now I just need to start with some scanning and OCR. Moondyne 07:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. If you like to use scanning and OCR, you may consider the namespace "Page" (see Help:Side by side image view for proofreading). And as for the table of contents, I think that it may be better to placed at the main page History of West Australia, not just a subpage History of West Australia/Contents. Thanks for your consideration. --Neo-Jay 07:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I was thinking about incorporating the contents into the main page - its just that I was trying to keep the integrity of the original with respect to the order of pages etc. I'll think about it anyway. Moondyne 08:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Happy New Year! --Neo-Jay 08:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Making an accidental mess[edit]

Please look at Special:DoubleRedirects to see the side effects of your changes over the past day or two. Can you please sort it out in short order -- otherwise somebody (or some BOT) is going come by sooner or later and revert/delete all/some of those changes. Thanks. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@George Orwell III: I though that Wikisource could, like Wikipedia, automatically fix double redirects by bots. If it is not the case, I can fix them manually. Thanks for your notice. --Neo-Jay (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
No thank you for following up. FYI - we don't let that BOT run through here because it frequently does not account for the effect it has on sub-pages (which we utilize a lot; WP doesn't) nor the many reasons we are forced to re-design the naming levels of multi-page works to begin with. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@George Orwell III: Thanks for your information. I have fixed all the 11 double redirects made by me. --Neo-Jay (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"Custom rule" for Page:Songs of the workers 9th Edition.pdf/2[edit]

I saw some of your experimentation and thought I might offer this suggestion (for use header and footer area of relevant Page:s)

<div style="background:black;height:1em;position:relative;">
<div style="background:white;position:absolute;left:1em;width:0.5em;">&nbsp;</div>
<div style="background:white;position:absolute;right:1em;width:0.5em;">&nbsp;</div>
</div>

It produces this effect and is amenable to "{{centre block/s|width=xxx}}ing" down if e.g. full available display width is too much:

 
 

Too silly for your purposes? AuFCL (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@AuFCL: Thank you so much! I have added this to Index:Songs of the workers 9th Edition.pdf's page 2, 3, and 67. It's so nice of you!--Neo-Jay (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Nice to see it was useful. I could not resist adding the "heavy hyphens" missing whilst validating those pages; hope this addition fits in with your plans? AuFCL (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@AuFCL: Oh, Great! Thank you so much for adding those "heavy hyphens" to page 2 and 67. They look so cool! --Neo-Jay (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Other versions[edit]

Hi,

No objection to you nesting versions / translations pages. I agree it should be done for the Bible. I did it myself for Daisy Miller, which is a much simpler case:

Some propositions for you:

  1. The graph is a tree. Each node may have multiple children but must have exactly one parent.
  2. That is, a work will be listed on no more than one versions/translations page. And where there is nesting, a versions/translations page will be listed on no more than one parent versions/translations page.
  3. {{other versions}} points from a page, back to the one and only versions/translations page upon which it is listed. Hence it is an error, leading to confusion, to support multiple such pointers.

Hesperian 07:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hesperian: Many thanks for your message. I changed Template:Other versions and Template:Other translations in line with Template:Similar because I happened to meet The Army and Navy Hymnal/Hymns/Glorious Things of Thee are Spoken, which had two {{other versions}} linking two articles: Austria (Haydn) and Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken. It seems to be an exception to the above graph in that the child edition page seems to have two parent versions pages, one for tune and the other for lyrics. Could you please check The Army and Navy Hymnal/Hymns/Glorious Things of Thee are Spoken to see whether such two {{other versions}} are used reasonable? Further discussion can be found at Template talk:Other versions, where Beleg Tâl has posted some comments. Thank you. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Coates poem move[edit]

Regarding this move: 1890 is part of the actual title of the poem, and should be reflected as such in the title at Wikisource. If it is too much hassle to revert, I can live with it, but just for your reference in the future... Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: Thanks for your message. Perhaps "(1890)" is not a part of this poem's title although it is included in Poems (1898)/To the Tsar (1890). According to the link you provided for this poem's 1890 (perhaps original?) edition published in The Century Magazine (January 1890), there is no "(1890)" in its title. What do you think of it? --Neo-Jay (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Thinking it through, Alexander III was tsar of Russia in 1890 when the poem was written/published. He reigned until 1894. Coates' first Poems (in which "To the Tsar (1890)" is published) was published in 1898. It is my guess that she added the year to the title to distinguish between Alexander III and the succeeding ruler. It is also my practice to try to use the most recent titling when creating titles at Wikisource. It goes to author's intent, in my opinion. What do you think? (sorry for the back-and-forth) Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: So "(1890)" seems to me to be an identifier used by Coates to clarify the context of this poem rather than a part of the actual title. But please feel free to move To the Tsar (Coates) back to To the Tsar (1890) if you like. That's OK for me. --Neo-Jay (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Coates usually placed "identifiers" in subtitles. See "To France" in the same 1898 collection as an example. So, without speaking with her personally (which I hope to do some day), I believe she meant it to be part of the title (as it also appears in the TOC, whereas it does not for "To France"). Truth be told, I have never reverted a move and feel I would make a mess of things. @Hesperian:? @Billinghurst:? Anyone? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Does the "subtitle" mentioned by you mean the second line under the title? Then Coates also places identifiers in the same line with the title such as in Mars—1907. And her poem's second line under the title may also appear in the TOC such as "Memorial Ode, read at Independence Hall, October 28, 1898" in Page:Florence Earle Coates Mine and Thine 1904 xv.jpg. I think that her practice is not consistent and we might not know her poem's title purely based upon the title's first line or the TOC. --Neo-Jay (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes. That is what is meant by "subtitle". "Consistency" may not be a factor. I believe her titles are deliberate, and they should be replicated as they appear on the most recent poem (page in which it appears). Again, if it turns out not to be an easy fix, I'm not worried about it... but my preference is to revert. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: I understand that we have different views on how to identify the title of Coates's poem. Although I still think that "(1890)" is not a part of the actual title, I reaffirm that I am OK with moving To the Tsar (Coates) back to To the Tsar (1890). Please revert my move if you prefer. Don't worry. The revert will not make a mess of anything. --Neo-Jay (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


I can revert for you if you want, but personally I'm liking Neo-Jay's handling of this. By all accounts we have a poem published by Coates under the title "To the Tsar", and then later published under the heading "To the Tsar (1890)". It is open to dispute whether that heading gives a revised title, or the same title annotated. But either way the poem has at some time been titled "To the Tsar", so I think To the Tsar (Coates) is the better place for a versions page. Hesperian 02:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

How is title ("To the Tsar") different from heading ("To the Tsar (1890)") above? Are they not both titles? What distinguishes a heading from a title? How do we determine WS titling if not from the page a poem rests on? (not meaning to belabor things, but I guess I am) Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I understand "title" to be a property of the poem itself, and "heading" to be a typographic entity, preceding the body of the poem, here styled as centred text, in all capitals. As you say, one usually infers the title from the heading. But it is open to dispute whether this particular heading gives a revised title or an annotated title, and that's really not a dispute I want to participate in. Granting for the sake of the discussion that this poem has at various times been titled "To the Tsar" and "To the Tsar (1890)", I like Neo-Jay's handling of this. Hesperian 02:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Alright. I'll let it be. Thank you both for your input, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Traffic Signs Manuals..[edit]

If you want to assemble the rest of 3 , 4 5, 7 and 8 :) feel, free, but there's no diagrams/figures yet. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Many thanks for your creating Traffic Signs Manual and its subpages. --Neo-Jay (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)