User talk:Uzume

Text-indent

We normally do not present indentation of paragraphs on Wikisource. But if you want a shorter name, {{dent}} exists, and works for both indented text and hanging indents. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

That is nice but I am not sure I care too much. I just used it here for this response. Uzume (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

If you only need it for talk pages, you can produce the same effect with a colon, as I did here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I never said that. And I do not like the colon as it uses definition list markup. Uzume (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

My mistake. I misunderstood what you meant by "I just used it here for this response." --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

My point was there are other uses than in Wikisource content. Uzume (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Scans

Please do not use {{Scan}} if the work has been fully transcribed. Scan index pages should only be linked it the process of proofreading is still in progress. Once the proofreading is complete, we remove the link to the scan, and instead link to the transcluded, finished copy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Pliny now messed up

Hi, the changes you've made to the Hudson translation of Pliny mean that the Bostock & Henry translation links are also pointing to the same version. You need to sort this out. If they are to have the same title (The Natural History of Pliny), then there needs to be disambiguation—usually in the form The Natural History of Pliny (Hudson).

On a related note, subpages should not have redirects left behind, so mark them for speedy deletion with criterion M2 "unneeded redirect". Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I actually noticed that and am still working on it. —Uzume (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle: Okay, that makes me wish there was a rights group for suppressredirect here. It seems like I have to have be an admin or a bot to get that here though. —Uzume (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It was a deliberate decision at the time of setting enWS up to restrict that right to admins only. It's because of the potential to break incoming external links for works that have been hosted for more than a short period of time (undefined). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Cut and paste moves

Hi Uzume,

Please note that most content on Wikimedia projects are licensed in such a way (CC BY-SA) as to require attribution of the original when reusing it, typically handled in practice by linking back to the original. In particular, when copying a template or Lua module here from enWP you should make sure the edit summary contains a link to the original (e.g. w:Template:Ensure AAA contrast ratio). This also has the beneficial side-effect of making clear what the source is in case it needs to be reimported later (as is often the case with code). Xover (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Xover: I would have run actual imports if I had that right. Maybe you can do that for me (I have seen logs where you did that in the past). I did add Wikidata sitelinks, even if I did not specifically link back to the copy source directly as you mentioned. Thank you, —Uzume (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

UK Statutory Rules/Instruments and Orders...

A partial list of external sources is here:- Portal:Secondary Legislation of the United Kingdom but as you've found with 1964 there may be more volumes than just Year 19xx volume 1,2,3. etc. which isn't reflected in the current portal.

Any chance you could liase with @Technolalia: in getting 'complete' (and page-list checked) volume-sets for Commons? https://statutes.org.uk/site/collections/british-and-irish/statutory-rules-orders-instruments/ listing various volumes from around 1890 (although obviously not all S.R & O or SI were in fact printed in collated volumes, especially those of a temporary or local character.)

My interests in UK SI, are those dealing with Traffic Signs, especially pre 1972 SI's amending TSGRD 1964 and the earlier TSGRD 1957, which are NOT present on legislation.gov.uk. TSGRD 1975 onward are on legislation.gov.uk, and so are less of a priority. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Well, I am not sure that I am that interested, however, I always like to fix things. That said, I am not familiar with Technolalia or for that matter, UK legislation either. I believe you are referring to User talk:Technolalia#Statutory Insturments.. (FYI, I am in the USA and a VPN won't buy anything at HathiTrust or its University of Michigan administrator; as Technolalia stated everything is via login). It is cool that he has been poking Google and getting them to release them. Government documents usually have very different public domain/copyright statuses (e.g., in USA all documents generated by a government official in the performance of their duties are considered public domain at time of release, including legislation, military reports, etc.). —Uzume (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

That's fair.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

ToC issue

Hi, I don't know how to fix the small problem of the ToC between pages 20 and 21. See the result The Novels and Other Works of Lyof N. Tolstoï/Volume 19. Thanks, Yann (talk) 07:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I got interrupted and did not get time to finish it. I plan to solve that issue by using the same concept as {{hws}}/{{hwe}} (basically copying the data and make one disappear and the other show both). It is a simple enough fix. —Uzume (talk) 09:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

She

I note that there seem to be two versions of the same original at:

• Index:She - a history of adventure (cu31924098819562).djvu, and
• Index:She - a history of adventure (IA cu31924098819562).pdf

Are they both needed ? -- Beardo (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Beardo: No, not that I am aware of but I am not sure why you would ask me as it seems to me there are others far more versed in such things that I am. It seems to me the revised edition at Index:She (1888).djvu would be even more interesting. —Uzume (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I asked you because you worked on the .pdf and created the .djvu, didn't you ? I'll ask in the general main forum. -- Beardo (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did, likely because I uploaded the DjVu. —Uzume (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Multi-language works

Multi-language works are hosted at the multi-language Wikisource, not on the English Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I am aware of that—what is your point? —Uzume (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

You posted (edit-conflict) at WS:PD for keeping the Latin edition of the Commentaries of Caesar.. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I only vied for the English portions as per another vote. I fully agree the Latin portions have no business here. —Uzume (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The end-notes were a mix of Latin and English. The six pages of "Introduction" were the only portion entirely in English. And these pages had two issues: (1) in 13 years of the Index being here, no one proofread those pages, (2) the "Introduction" was a ramble by the author not focused on the text or Caesar. Please also note that you did not comment on keeping the work until after it was deleted, and posted simultaneously with my posting to close the discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: You sound defensive. Even though I believe the English portions of the work could have stayed, I am in no way disappointed with the outcome. If someone proofs the Latin portions at la.WS or mul.WS, I would vie for an undeletion but until then, I am unconcerned. You might notice, I pointed the WS link at the Commons DjVu file entry at mul.WS (via oldwikisource iw prefix). Thank you, —Uzume (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't control how I "sound" to you; that's entirely your interpretation. But in future, if you want to comment to Keep something in a WS:PD discussion, please comment before the deletion happens, not afterwards. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I agree, language is never entirely precise and the "sound" of things can easily be misinterpreted (and thus my comment). That said, I believe I posted my response before the deletion (although I cleared re-edited it during/after). Regardless, I am still unconcerned on the outcome (and more concerned about this discussion actually). —Uzume (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Check the time stamps in Recent Changes. I started deletion at 11:21, and you did not comment until 11:29, as I was deleting the final four pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: And I am expected to check Recent Changes deletions before submitting my reply? I experienced no edit-conflicts at that time. —Uzume (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It's quite a coincidence then that you posted a comment on a thread just as it was about to be closed, considering that you've posted to that discussion page on only two days in the past year. My assumption was that you had posted because you saw the deletion happening in Recent Changes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I did not see that. In fact I posted to WS:PD shortly before that on a different topic and just happened upon this one (without looking at Recent Changes which I do not routinely consult). The so called "edit-conflict" is unfortunate but as I stated before, I am unconcerned with the result (and more concerned with this side-bar discussion). —Uzume (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I suppose two hours earlier could be "shortly before". --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I had researched and prepared most of my response, prior to getting interrupted offline. If your are still unconvinced about the timeline of things, please consult the history of c:File:Commentariesofcj00caesuoft.djvu, where I made edits prior to your closing this WS:PD discussion in question. I am still not sure I grasp the point to this discussion. I also made the 13886938 edit here on the topic of {{Iwpage}} due to that template being mentioned in this WS:PD discussion (as part of my research for the responses in question). —Uzume (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Cabin at Trail's End

Hi Uzume, I notice you uploaded a new version of a scan of The Cabin at the Trail's End by Sheba Hargreaves. I believe this is a PDF of the same scan that was already up as a DJVU.

Are you aware of the general preference for DjVu over PDF, as discussed here? It's not absolute, as I understand it, and I'm interested in any reasons you may have had. Seemed best to discuss before transcription efforts begin in earnest. Thoughts?

And, are you interested in working on this transcription? I'd be happy to work on it with you if so. -Pete (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: I do not have an issue with DjVu in general but IA-Upload corrupted that particular one (as it does far too often when building from JP2 bundles) by incorporating pages that it should not have. That is the cause of the OCR text being on the wrong page (an error by IA-Upload). There are numerous tickets on Phabricator about this. The PDF I uploaded (also via IA-Upload) does not have such issues. —Uzume (talk) 03:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

GoToLinkedPage

I'm curious about this. Why the detour through Wikidata for a local wikilink, and why not just use {{wdl}} if some form of indirection is needed? Xover (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Xover: Mostly because I was considering moving that to Commons as per c:File:The Adventure of the Three Garridebs 01.jpg —Uzume (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks. I wondered what I was missing. :) Xover (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Xover: I was trying to cleanup author:Howard Keppie Elcock but this credits are in significant disarray so one thing at a time. I did not want to just override {{do not move to Commons}} without ample substantiation. —Uzume (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

We have redirects

What is the value of making edits like this? We have redirects in place that perform that function. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: By the same token an argument could be made that |author-display= (along with |override-author= and similar for other contributor types) are also unneeded since we have redirects that serve such purposes. Are you advocating to be rid of such template/module parameters in lieu of redirects? If so, methinks your argument should be made at Template talk:Header. Thank you, —Uzume (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

No, we do need both values for Author pages disambiguated by the use of dates. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Actually, we do not. The current {{header}} logic will automatically remove parenthesized disambiguation from the author (or other contributor) link display text. So in point of fact, if dab dates are included at the end in parens, there is no actual need for those parameters (at least not based upon your current argument). That said, I believe they are useful and would not consider lobbying for their removal. —Uzume (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Incidentally, it is quite possible Author:F. Scott Fitzgerald could come to refer to more than a single author, e.g., becoming a {{dab}} page, including Frances Scott Fitzgerald as well as Author:Francis Scott Fitzgerald. Wouldn't it be good if the works linked to the right place then? —Uzume (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

If that situation arose, your approach would require us to edit every single header with the direct link. Using the redirects would simply necessitate a change of redirect target. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Well perhaps I am preparing to convert that to such a {{dab}} page. What are the value of your posts here questioning me about such? —Uzume (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I want to determine whether (1) there is some advantage I am unaware of. If there truly is a benefit, then community practice should change in light of such a benefit, or (2) if there is no actual benefit, the eliminating needless edits, wasteful time, or detrimental changes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I cannot say I understand your impetus to question me about such edits. Were you able to obtain what you were looking for? If you determine they have little to no benefit, how do you propose to eliminate them? I do not think cleaning up accreditation and/or bypassing some redirection is problematic (in some cases I changed things to read "F. Scott Fitzgerald" as credited in the published work and in others just bypassed the redirection causing the same text to link to Author:Francis Scott Fitzgerald). —Uzume (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

From what I gather, the bypassing of the redirect is pointless. There is no advantage. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I agree, however, there is also no disadvantage either. —Uzume (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

If you are preparing to disambiguate, as you imply, then your edits are wasteful, as all your changes will have to be redone following the disambiguation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Please elucidate as to why? Thank you, —Uzume (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Because, if you are adding the full name of the current Author page to the header now, then you disambiguate that Author page, it moves the location of that Author's page, which means the Author link has to be changed again after the disambiguation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: You have it the other way around. I have now converted Author:F. Scott Fitzgerald to a {{dab}} page. It seems like my earlier edits are in fact need in that light, no? —Uzume (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

No. Frances never went by the name "F. Scott Fitzgerald", so the disambiguation is spurious. Every publication with "F. Scott Fitzgerald" is by Francis, never by Frances. Also, Frances was 7 years old in 1928, so it will be decades before we host any of her works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I am not sure I would call it spurious, but I agree it is a tad early. That said, you seemed to want to force my hand in such matters. It would have been so much easier if you had just dropped the topic, no? —Uzume (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I was not attempting to "force your hand", I was seeking information. It seems more like you are scrambling to justify your actions. You have now made ill-advised changes in the absence of evidence to create an Author page for a seven-year-old (in 1928) with the wrong copyright license. That is, unless you have evidence of works she published by the time she was seven. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

For modern Authors with no known hostable works, we routinely delete the Author pages. Are there hostable works by Frances? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not aware of any, but there might be works available under other potential licenses besides, public domain status. She was a journalist. Some of her work will likely be under an assortment of licenses. —Uzume (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)