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)

@EncycloPetey: I am not sure what you are talking about. I usually use that mainly on Portal and/or version pages and places where linking to the Index page is interesting regardless of the status of its transcription. Are you talking about some specific context? I am confused. —Uzume (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The link is specifically for use when the transcription is not completed. Once completed, the template should not be used on Portal or Version pages. It is a working link that should not appear once the transcription is done. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Even when transcription is completed but not transcluded? That seems wrong and would make finding it very hard. I usually stick to {{ssl}} when transcriptions are not transcluded yet or when transcription is incomplete. I very rarely use {{scan}} so I am not sure what this discussion is really referring to. —Uzume (talk) 02:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I will be hard for me to point to specific, because my initial post was nearly three years ago. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2025 (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)

Note that the OCR offset in the .djvu has been corrected. (It seems that administrators can do that faurly easily.) On the recommendation in Scriptorium, I have put the .pdf for deletion as a duplicate. -- Beardo (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Dropping in for a note: OCR shifting isn't related to admins; it's the technical knowledge and the having fiddled with djvused.

I've also been trying today to make a toolforge webservice to do it automatically, but I'm having a bit of trouble. Perhaps I'll manage in the next few days.

I should really at least write a detailed help page on how to do it. — Alien  3
3 3 21:06, 14 June 2025 (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)

Authority Control

What would you think of adding Familysearch ID to the template? I use it to correct or fill in missing birth and death years for people with portals. Familysearch links to primary documents like birth and death records as well as census records. RAN (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@RAN: I am assuming you are referring to identifiers based around FamilySearch person ID (P2889). FamilySearch (Q3066228) is a project of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Q42504), but I do not have a problem with such being added. We currently do not have much in the genealogy side of things and methinks we probably should have more as it is sometimes hard to find many facts about long dead authors. —Uzume (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yes! I have been using it to fill in missing birth and death dates as well as figuring out middle initials. Many birth dates pulled from Wikidata were off by a year, because they were estimates made at death, based on the person's age. --RAN (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  @RAN: I often play the "kill old people/authors" game by looking up data and trying to update such things at Wikidata and elsewhere. It can be tricky to research such things (I also use Ancestry (Q26878196) via The Wikipedia Library (Q16463359) to fix up Find a Grave memorial ID (P535) via Find a Grave (Q63056)). I am curious why you decided to post this on my user talk page though and not at Module talk:Authority control where other potential interested parties might more easily participate (i.e., why target me?). —Uzume (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  @RAN: FYI, I recently made 15179774 with regard to your request here. Despite "landing page" comments at d:Property talk:P2889 (including one by you), I decided to link to the ancestors.familysearch.org URL as that now seems to do "the right thing" by displaying things for non-logged in users and redirecting for logged in users (at least it did for me although sometimes I have to reload the page to get it to redirect properly; I have a free church account). I am not sure what all this change affects but you can at least see it "in action" at: Author:Charlemagne. I am sorry it took me a while to get to this. Enjoy, —Uzume (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

• I agree, the extra click was annoying at first, but I agree the greater good for most users is the ancestors page. An amazing resource, despite some admin people deleting Wikidata entries that use Familysearch, saying that it is user generated, so not "reliable" or not "serious". Clearly they have no understanding of it as a resource for objective facts about a more recent person. --RAN (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

  @RAN: I agree that there is at least the potential for low reliability, however, it seems at least on par with the likes of Find a Grave (Q63056), Ancestry (Q26878196), etc. In fact, they are very similar in this regard with the likes of Wikisource. Sure, anyone can edit it and inject bad material, however, it is linked to and backed (in most cases) by actual scans of documents—not to mention patrolled and monitored by a significant number of interested parties. So there are most certainly errors but they usually do not last very long and even those that do, eventually get exposed and rectified. —Uzume (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

• I saw that of the people that last edited the template, you had made contributions on that day, some of the others had not made a contribution recently. But you are right, it should have been made there. I was not aware of "module" space, I have only edited templates at Commons.
• One other concept needing your input. We have the surname categories I started and I see you have been adding people. Can you connect one at Wikidata: Category:Surnames|Bennet|wikidata=Q20995766 ? A bot will eventually link them from Wikidata on Monday, but I want to see today how we can have a backlink going in the other direction. If this was a portal we would have a backlink with "sister projects: Commons category, Wikidata item". I was wondering if we need backlinks from category space. --RAN (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  @RAN: Well, Template talk:Authority control is a redirect to Module talk:Authority control so it should not have been that hard to find. As for the surname categories, I was linking some of them at Wikidata. I am not sure about any bot automatically linking them as that takes some significant work to split the category from the Wikidata item into a separate category Wikidata item like I did by splitting Category:Bennet (surname) (Q131390053) from Bennet (Q20995766). I was actually considering whether it made sense to add logic to Template:Person/Module:Person and Template:Author/Module:Author for such surname categories (we already have a bunch of them in the module here for other reasons such as occupation) instead of manually adding author and portal pages to such categories. Commons does a similar thing with their c:Template:Wikidata Infobox/c:Template:Wikidata Infobox/core/c:Module:Wikidata Infobox. —Uzume (talk) 07:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Another idea that could use your input. I suggested that we migrate the "inflation" template to Wikidata, there were no objections, but the template is very complex with many subtemplates. Could you look at the template at English Wikipedia and see if you understand it enough to migrate it? I have news articles from the the early 1900s and it would be great if in the notes section of the template, it calculated the current value of the dollars mentioned. Currently I do it by hand, but it will never update. --RAN (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  @RAN: I am assuming you are referring to w:Template:Inflation. I cannot say I am particularly familiar with such. I took a brief look at it and I was unable to find your suggestion (with or without objections). That said, after a brief survey, methinks such a request would be a monumental task and I am unconvinced Wikidata would be right place to house such information anyway. There seems to be an entire database of a sort hidden within the template stack there (e.g., w:Template:Inflation/US/dataset is one such "data" lookup template). This reminds me of the issues with w:Template:Taxonomy (and its 120k+ subpages, etc.) and the 6k+ templates in w:Category:All country data templates, etc. Presuming Wikidata is the right place, one would first have to consider what is the right way to model such data and then construct a system to make queries from such a model. Perhaps a better solution would be to migrate it to mw:Help:Tabular data which gets stored in JSON (I believe Wikidata also uses JSON for its semistructured Wikibase data under the hood) in m:DataNamespace at Commons as a part of mw:Extension:JsonConfig. There was an interesting/credible attempt to migrate the inflation database to a set of Sribunto Lua modules (see w:Template talk:Inflation#Lua version of Template:Inflation/year and w:Special:PrefixIndex/Module:Sandbox/User:Ahecht/Inflation) but it ultimately failed (apparently due to some performance issue). Basically it sounds like you want a better more portable implementation of the inflation data that can then be used here at Wikisource (with the possibility to also eventually renovate existing usage at Wikipedia, etc.). I cannot say I am an interested enough party to spend many man-hours working on such a thing (even if I do have a handle on what might well need to be done). I do not mind discussing such an architecture but I likely won't be committing much time towards actually building such (even though it does sound like a valuable proposal). —Uzume (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• I agree, "inflation" is too complex to migrate over easily. I got lost trying to work out all the subroutines and data sets it invokes. I have just been calculating and adding the updated dollar amounts into the notes section to give context. The data will gradually lose meaning, but for now lets you see what the $500 reward mentioned in a new article in 1880 would be equal to today. It would be much better if MediaWiki or some other central storage space held these complex templates so they could be invoked by all the projects, and only have to be updated at one place. --RAN (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Author:John Horne Burns

You included the standard PD licence which says that there were works published before 1929. That seems unlikely as he was only born in 1916.

Are you aware of any public domain works by him ? -- Beardo (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Beardo: I am not particularly aware of any and I do not recall why I stubbed out that author at that time (maybe it was to differentiate it from Author:John Burns; I do not recall). I never claimed there were any works by him before 1929, only that any that existed would be PD in the US. I have no objection if you want to change {{PD-US|1953}} to {{copyright author}}. —Uzume (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Putting PD-US produces the message "Some or all works by this author are in the public domain in the United States because they were published before January 1, 1929." - I have changed as you suggest. -- Beardo (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

scan page link 2

Your changes have broken this in the main space. I am going to revert them and hope there are no hard feelings.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: Of course I do not mind if it were actually broken but I do not think it was broken and if it was why did it take over two years for anyone notice such? Please provide an example where it was broken. —Uzume (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I am sorry. I reverted it and it was still broken for me in main. I am having template weirdness here. {{spl4}}, which I asked to be authored and then it was authored by Xover was broken and the history showed only ShakespeareFan. That spl2 is only broken for me doesn't surprise me. I am on a small touch thing right now so I will paste a link tomorrow and be as happy as I can be if that link works for you.

Two years? When I first started to edit here, I was told not to bother with "dpl" and kin due to them being "too complicated". I always assume I am the only person using them. spl2 is good for linking to Figures in technical works. It was working earlier this year when I was doing patents. US Patent ocr sucks, both old and new versions; I think they are printed on brown paper. But I am rambling with my memories of all spl2 use. And this device keeps changing what I have typed. Sorry and then another sorry. And maybe another for the weird word in this long draft. Link tomorrow.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: Yeah, I wish I had started here sooner but I really only started editing here in late 2019. My account here goes back to 2009 and I have a bunch of edits before 2019 but don't let those fools you. The 2009 date is really just SUL and the other earlier edits are all imported from other WMF wikis (most EN-WP). —Uzume (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Here on Page:Wireless Telegraphy and Telephony (1908, Massey and Underhill).djvu/41 it is working. But in main, at Wireless Telegraphy and Telephony/Chapter 3#29, for me, it is not even a link.

If you tell me it is a link for you, I will gladly let this rest and just believe it works every where but in my stupid, crappy twisted and wrong world, where my constant thought is "That is not AI, that is just stupid software." Wikipedia always looked like a certain awful kind of hell to me. Dishing out transcluded works from source is so different from what the wikipedias do; I started at commons which does something very different than wikipedias do.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: Well, I can see your problem. The template appears to work fine, however, your usage of it appears to be flawed. The /doc pages states: "In the main namespace, this gives a simple, unlinked label consisting of {{{2}}}, the link label." so it does in fact work just fine for doing that but it appears you are attempting have it link to something else and are providing a |3=anchor. If you look at the code for {{spl2}} you will notice it does not use a third unnamed parameter. I think you can sort of do what you are looking for with {{spl}} as you can set the anchor (at least in the main namespace). The order of arguments is different however (and one does not need to provide the fragment separator of #). —Uzume (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This used to work, i.e. show a different link depending on the namespace. It was akin to {{dpl}} only the template did no maths so it could wrap around words and roman numerals and give different links per namespace the same. That is the only reason that I turned it back to the Billinghurst move; because it used to work (show a different link depending upon the namespace). And just so that I cannot prove it, the history of Template:DJVU page link 2 has been deleted. Inductiveload rewrote them and using the "scan page link" and they worked at that time also. I have a lot of linked toc in my past work here that uses this, you know, because it worked.

I don't really need to be believed, but shouldn't it have a different name now if it is not going to link in the main like spl does? The name was changed from "DJVU" to "scan" because it was confusing as it worked also for pdf or jpg or whatever format of document was at use in the Index space. I think that the similar name applied to two different linking expectations is even more confusing. I will quit bothering you with this. But one last thought. Just because there is a unicycle available, it doesn't mean that everyone needs to use it. Personally, I would need at least two wheels, but that doesn't mean that a second wheel needs to be added to the unicycle. If a second wheel is added to a unicycle for me, (for example) not only does it make it not a unicycle any longer, but it also means that no one will be able to actually be able to use a unicycle. No one that can and no one will be able to learn to use one. Many will be able to use the two wheel contraption that we wrongly call "a unicycle" though.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: I am not sure but I think I might even remember such behavior. Perhaps you should talk to Inductiveload or something. I know there are many pages that depend on the current functionality but there might be just as many broken depending on the old functionality you were expecting too. —Uzume (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I have reverted the last change by RaboKarbakian, because it broke pages in the main NS, displaying the code like [[[[{{{3}}}|1]]]] instead of the page numbers. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Jan Kameníček heh, that is the point of spl2. It is there for non-numerical page numbers like the roman numerals in tocs. It is recommended in the toc documentation to be used when {{spl}} and toc page offsets absolutely will not work.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

One of the works where it was broken was The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, which is given in the documentation of the {{Scan page link 2}} as an example of the template's usage. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Besides, I think that problems that may arrise by any change should be solved before the change, even if the problems are caused by wrong usage of the template. So if the template is used wrongly in some pages, first it needs to be replaced in all such cases, and only then it can be changed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Author:Lazar Komarčić

Do you know if any of his works have been translated to english ? -- Beardo (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Beardo: I really do not know much about that author so I am mostly unaware of that author's works in general, however there seem to be about a dozen works attributed to him on Commons. They appear to be in the author's native tongue of Serbian so they would be applicable for Wikisource original translations, should someone want to work on such. —Uzume (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps one day ! -- Beardo (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Author:Samuel Chiles Mitchell or Author:Thomas Lindsley Bradford

Are you aware of any works by these men - in particular ones in the public domain ? -- Beardo (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Beardo: No, I am not. However, doing a little searching there are some. For Mitchell there is volume 10 of The South in the Building of the Nation. For Bradford there are many at his Commons category: c:Category:Thomas Lindsley Bradford. Did you look for those yourself? You should really check Commons at least. —Uzume (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

You created those pages - you really should have added some works when you did so. -- Beardo (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Beardo: Well I cannot do everything (a lot of the ones I stub out like that are done because I was working on something larger like Wikidata or Commons) and I thought that is exactly why things like {{populate}} exist to begin with. —Uzume (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Author:Walter Forward Austin

Did this person author any books, or merely publish books? If you know of books he authored, please list one. If he was a publisher only, then he should not have an Author page. Author pages are for Authors, not publishers. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I think things like: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/author/31526 (linked on the author page in the authority control section) and https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Austin%2C%20Walter%20F.%20%28Walter%20Forward%29%2C%201872- and pretty self explanatory but I was planning to add some (after I gathered more data like linking it to The Great Events by Famous Historians and other things). —Uzume (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

OK, so he did act as editor on at least a couple of publications. Thanks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Yes, that is why the author page is part of Category:Editors as authors —Uzume (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Those categories are usually auto-generated from "occupations" placed at Wikidata without a reference, so I generally do not rely on them to be authoritative. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: True, but there is much data at Wikidata you could have relied on to tell you what he worked on (e.g., the links I quoted) without forcing me to justify such here. —Uzume (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I came and asked a question, and explained why I was asking the question. I thanked you for answering my question. I do not understand your apparent defensiveness over my asking a question. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I am sorry if I came off defensive, but I only just created his author page and hardly had time to add more. Also I seem to have been getting many such inquires lately as if I have to defend my actions for creating author pages. —Uzume (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Please do not feel attacked or that you need to defend your actions. I have been following up on new Author pages for a couple of days, and am asking questions of the page creators because that's usually the best and fastest way to obtain the information. Once I knew there are published works, and heard you say that you intended to add some, that let me know I did not need to hunt any down myself, and I could move on to other pages. I appreciate the fact that you answered with even more information than I needed to know to answer my question. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: It just seems like, if I publish an author page with {{populate}}, I get pinged but if I instead add even a single work (even if they are extremely obscure or even entirely erroneous), I do not. This seem the opposite of what it should be. Thank you. —Uzume (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Index:A Plea for Woman.pdf

I appreciate you wanting to validate this, but I'm not sure I'm happy with your other changes here. I wish you'd talked to me before making sweeping style and markup changes; indeed, is there not an unwritten rule that the original contributor gets significant latitude in questions of style?

I see the argument that single quotes might not produce semantically correct HTML, but as for alternatives like Template:em text:

• I'm not convinced it's worth the additional burden while proofreading
• It's not what the editor buttons give you, so does it really matter, when MediaWiki controls the rendering anyway
• I don't see that it's supported by an explicit consensus at Scriptorium, nor is it described at (indeed it contradicts) Help:Editing, Help:Templates, or Wikisource:Style guide

BethNaught (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, you created A Plea for Woman before it was complete, which I prefer not to do, but at the very least it should have a maintenance tag marking it as incomplete IMO. BethNaught (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@BethNaught: I am not sure I made any "sweeping style and markup changes." I like semantic markup so I often use those so one can tell one type of italics from another. I also prefer not to transcribe things as all capitalized and instead just mark it up to look such to fit the actual printing that way anyone that copies the text won't get the all cap version, etc. But do feel free to change things if you prefer things another way as I am not that concerned. As for the main space item, there is already an automatically generated bar graph at the top of any pages when transcluding via <pages> but feel free to add other notices as you see fit (although you may have to change them frequently if you are updating the page transcriptions which seems cumbersome). —Uzume (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that your preferences are not objectively wrong, but they are just preferences. And if, as you say, you're "not that concerned", why did you decide to implement them in somebody else's partially-done project?

There is a long-standing social norm here (or at least there used to be, I've only just come back from a long wikibreak) that you do not jump in on other people's projects without asking. One reason is that many people get a sense of satisfaction from seeing a project through from beginning to end. Another is that formatting across a work should be consistent, but there are many ways of doing things, so it makes sense for one editor to do the whole thing in their chosen way. The exception to the norm would be to validate pages, but in that case, not to change the formatting decisions of the original contributor without discussion.

By jumping in, you've:

• stopped me from getting the satisfaction of transcribing the whole work;
• created an unwelcome feeling of urgency on my part by leaving a work in mainspace unfinished;
• imposed your formatting preferences on me, meaning I either need go to through the unpleasant drama of reverting them all, or do all future proofreading according to your style, against my preferences and at a higher level of complexity.

You've been around a while, so I would have hoped you'd have picked this up, but I've explained it to give you the benefit of the doubt (in that regard) and make my views clear. Please don't do this kind of thing in future, unless you know the original contributor is ok with it.

As for this case, I'm not particularly motivated any more. BethNaught (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@BethNaught: There are many partially completed projects around. I am sorry I did not notice you had been recently working on it. I meant no disrespect and I certainly did not want to put you out in terms of wanting to continue working on that. Please do continue. I really like your work and I am sorry to have inadvertently stepped on your toes. Please feel free to change and/or revert things how you like. —Uzume (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@BethNaught: How would you like me to handle this? It seems you had planned to transcribe the entire work as unit project. I had no intention of taking over that whole work as project and without noticing you were working on it in such a manner, it seems I have inadvertently interrupted and demotivated you from working on it. I have not touched anything related to that work since I received your first message about this and realized you were actively working on it. Besides validating the thirty-seven pages you had transcribed, I only transcribed five pages, mostly title pages and table of contents pages. I also added twelve main space pages: the main work and eleven chapters as subpages. I also created a CSS style sheet for the Index and added the table of contents pages as transclusions to the Index. Most of the work I did was just organizational based upon the table of contents.

I do not usually do much in the way of main content Page transcription work. I prefer to help organize things by working on Wikidata, stubbing out author pages (you may have noticed I created Author:Marion Kirkland Reid, Author:Hugo Reid (1809-1872), etc.), categorizing works on Commons (e.g., I created c:Category:Marion Kirkland Reid and c:Category:Hugo Reid (1809-1872), etc.) and setting up Index pages for works in preparation for the proofreading step (i.e., leaving them in "To be proofread") of the the transcription process. I also like to work on templates and Scribunto modules, etc. Lately I have been trying to cleanup the organization of some periodicals (volume, issue number, article name, year and month, etc.).

Would you prefer I contact an administrator and ask them delete all my work related to A Plea for Woman, commit to fully transcribing it, never touch it from here on out or somehow try to collaborate on it in some other way (for now I am not touching it until you tell me what, if anything, you want me to do)? Getting people to actively contribute to things is a precious treasure and much needed resource, and the last thing I want to do is to dissuade or demotivate someone from potentially contributing to valuable public work like Wikisource, etc. It is with a heavy heart, I feel I may have hurt you in this regard and I look forward to your response on this matter and hope you will consider continuing your amazing work here at Wikisource. —Uzume (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate you wanting to make things right, but as I alluded to, I want to minimise the drama. It would be excessive, even petty, to ask you to delete the pages you created, which is legitimate work, just so I could do it later. As for undoing the formatting changes, it might be worth it if I were committed to go back and finish the work, but the spell is kind of broken there. So please don't go to the bother.

Also, no need to lay it on quite so thick with the compliments or the gravity of regrets. It's unfortunate, but it's an understandable mistake, and I don't claim to not make mistakes myself; so going forward, no hard feelings.

I think I might look in at the proofread of the month next, it's right up my street. BethNaught (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@BethNaught: I do not know about "lay[ing] it on [] so thick" but this event did make me notice you and so I poked around a bit and maybe you feel it is excessive but I do think your work is amazing and I am glad you haven't given up on Wikisource in general. I am still wondering what you might want me to do with this particular work, if anything. Are you considering working on it at some future date (come back to it after settling down and considering things more)? Or do you not want that but would rather see it completed and want me to put time on it (because you do not want to touch it again but the work itself is worthwhile)? I also noticed how you used {{#invoke:BethNaught/RHH|three}} with {{subst:}}. I believe the approach of {{#invoke:Recto-verso|recto_verso}} is better (e.g., handing roman numeral page numbers, etc.) but I really like {{subst:}}; it is not like page number or their headers are subject to change and need to be recalculated at every page rendering. It would be really nice to do something more complex (e.g., the header at Index:The Bondman; A New Saga (IA bondmannewsaga00cain).djvu) but at the same time static. Ideally, it should result in a single simple {{rh}} or similar. —Uzume (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Mainspace transclusions with empty pages

It's probably not a good idea to do so many placeholder transclusions with pages that don't exist inserted into them, such as was done at Battle Hymn of the Republic (1862 sheet music) and Battle Hymn of the Republic (1890 sheet music), as well as what was previously done with The Story of the Battle Hymn of the Republic (with all the chapters!) before any pages were there. If a casual reader, or even some editors, came across these, they'd be confused and think the page was somehow broken, leading to a more negative perception of the entire site. I wager that your goal was probably to save someone else the extra effort of having to do transclusion themselves, or to "get the hard part out of the way early," since transclusion is highly technical and annoying. But the mainspace should ideally have at least some content to show, since mainspace content inevitably invites more attention. So I deleted them for now. SnowyCinema (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@SnowyCinema: "so many"? Each had only four pages. That hardly seems like a lot to me. As for transclusions of Index:The story of the Battle hymn of the republic (IA storybattlehymnr00halliala).pdf, I was in the middle of transcribing it but apparently you re-transcribed it, trashing everything I had done to that point. I am glad I am not the type to be overly attached to such things (see e.g., #Index:A Plea for Woman.pdf above). —Uzume (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh! I didn't realize you were actually in the middle of active transcription of the content!!!😨 I had kept a close eye on the Index as I was working on The Story (to make sure that wasn't what was happening), and the behavior I saw looked like you were just filling in the first few front matter pages and "gray" pages, like people often do with many indexes at a time here without being interested in transcribing the content pages. I didn't know you were transcribing it externally just like I was!!! Sorry!!! ;( It probably wasn't a good idea to jump into something you just added a link to seconds ago, admittedly, now that I think of it! I'll try not to do that again, even if my interest in the work tells me otherwise (which this time was severe and extremely tempting).

If you ever want something specific done (like you need a bot to clean up an Index, or there's a work you want transcribed but it's too annoying for you to want to do it), let me know and I'll drop everything to do my best at it—it'll be my way to make it up to you.

Well, anyway, on the issue of missing pages, it's not about the number of pages that were missing in the transclusions—my issue was more about optics. Doing this, to any page in the mainspace at all, produces a header and a bunch of red links, and also ProofreadPage puts page numbers in the side-bar in a kind of discombobulated way to compensate for the fact that the pages weren't ever created. A reader who picked a version of "Battle Hymn of the Republic" to read, and it happened to be one of those two links, would get what appears to them to be some kind of glitch, which would confuse and disorient them, and this kind of thing often makes casual readers question the legitimacy of a site they're looking at.

But I guess it's not that big of a deal, since sadly, most of our works don't even go higher than five page views per month anyway... So, eh, I guess it IS a "You left your fork on the table and left for a moment! An evil ninja might steal it!" kind of scenario. SnowyCinema (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@SnowyCinema: I am not too concerned about it but I appreciate the sentiment. If you are offering though, maybe you can transcribe the sheet music: Index:Battle Hymn of the Republic (1862 sheet music) and Index:Battle Hymn of the Republic (1890 sheet music) (which should be virtually identical except a few dates). I am not very good with <score> and LilyPond markup (it probably doesn't help I never learned to read sheet music; perhaps I should work on that). —Uzume (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Consider it done. But I will ask that if you'd allow me to transcribe them, I may want to delete the current indexes because I want to consolidate the images into one PDF file. Is that okay? Well, either way, I'll challenge myself to have it done by the end of the week. This'll be fun! SnowyCinema (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@SnowyCinema: I have no issue with that but if you do, you might want to consider building your PDF/DjVu based upon the JPEG2000 images from the Library of Congress source instead. Recent PDF specifications allows JPEG2000 compression of images within the work so your combined work might look better that way (though it might not matter much for this particular piece). I was just following things like: Index:Battle Hymn of the Republic. I find it sadly amusing Commons does not allow JPEG2000 files but allows PDF files with embedded JPEG2000 images. —Uzume (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

hat notes

Hat notes like {{other translations}} should not direct users offsite. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Where is that documented at? —Uzume (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

In the template's documentation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I really do not see anything like that at Template:Other translations/doc. —Uzume (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

The first line of the documentation says: "This template is to be used to point to translations pages: pages that list other translations of the same work". Do you know what translations pages are? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: That is not very clear but I am going to go out on a limb and guess it refers to pages in the Translation namespace. —Uzume (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

No, they are "pages that list other translations of the same work", as noted in the documentation. The page Roman de la Rose, which you have been editing, is a translations page. This and other forms of disambiguation pages are explained at Help:Disambiguation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Then I think the template's documentation needs some better clarification on that. —Uzume (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

What additional information do you suggest as helpful? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Rather than answer that I just updated the documentation. —Uzume (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

You are now conflating versions pages with translations pages. If there are multiple versions of Chaucer's translation, then those would be listed at a versions page dedicated to those versions. We have only one such item right now, untranscribed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

See for example: Cyclops (Euripides) which lists the translations of Euripides' play Cyclops. This is a translations page, and so lists the translations. Shelley's translation of that play has multiple editions, so those are listed at Cyclops (Shelley). This is a versions page, listing various editions of the same translation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Do we have more than one edition of Chaucer's translation? A versions page is not for listing a single item, in isolation, but it meant to help connect when there is more than one. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: What do you mean by "we"? I believe verions disambigution pages can disambigute between verions that are not currently present at Wikisource. Is there some restriction I am not acquainted with? —Uzume (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

"we" in this sense means Wikisource. I refer you again to Help:Disambiguation. When there is a single edition, there is no disambiguation needed. In such cases, we use a direct link or redirect. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: What are you getting at? Is there a verions disambiguation page that has only a single edition listed? —Uzume (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I refer you back to the question you have dodged twice now: Do we have more than one edition of Chaucer's translation? --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I refer you back to "we" and is there a restriction on versions disambigution pages disbigutating versions not currently at Wikisource? —Uzume (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

If you do not know the answer, then please just say so. If you are unwilling to answer, that shows bad faith. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I frankly, do not understand what you are trying to say/ask. Is it bad faith to misunderstand? —Uzume (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

This question is straightforward: Do we have more than one edition of Chaucer's translation? That is the question, and it feels as though you are deliberately dodging by arguing semantics. You have been a contributor here for six years, and in that time should have become able to answer a "yes-no" question. Do I need to take this to WS:AN? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I believe we do but I am unsure what you mean by "we have"; at what point do you include "we have" something. When it is available externally? When it is at Commons? When something more is at WS-EN? Feel free to take my confusion to WS:AN if you think that is merited but I still am confused. I am not sure why you are even asking that to begin with. Is there something specifically you are concerned about? —Uzume (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

If you're not sure, then, can you tell me which editions you believe we have? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: You mean besides the two listed at: The Romaunt of the Rose? I am not really sure. —Uzume (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

There are also these: IA & IA. but I just scraped those from: WS:RT#Unsorted. —Uzume (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: If all you wanted was a link to The Romaunt of the Rose then I am sorry for the confusion. In any event, I am glad you seem to have gotten when you were after (though I am still not entirely sure what that was). —Uzume (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Chaucer is one of the cornerstones of the early English language. Having good and proper sources here for his works would be an excellent thing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Module:Authority Control

With your recent change, pages like Touch and Go (Lawrence 1920) now say "LC Item" instead of LCCN", but the Library of Congress calls this value "LCCN" if you follow the link to the site. LCCN applies to editions and works. Should we be using different terminology for the LoC information from what their own site does? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: LCCN is just the identifier format. It applies to more than bibliographic items. You will notice the link also points to their website where item is in the the URL and that those bibliographic items are not LC authority LCCNs or other types of LCCNs either. You can read more details about LCCNs in details at: https://www.loc.gov/marc/lccn_structure.html Already one could specify multiple different types of LCCNs. Should we call them all LCCN? That seemed confusing so I disambiguated them. Sure both Library of Congress item ID (LCCN bibliographic) (P1144) and Library of Congress authority ID (P244) (as well as Library of Congress Children's Subject Headings ID (P8647) and some other things like some forms of Library of Congress Classification (P1149) can be LCCNs) use LCCNs but I do not think it helps to focus on the identifier format. We could also call them all MARC since all of these are representable as MARC records too. But the LC is trying to move away from MARC to BIBFRAME, etc. I believe it makes more sense to focus on what they represent. Clearly LC does call these "item". If you prefer I could use a term like accession number since those LCCNs (LC Control Number) are are used exactly like those of OCLC Worldcat OCLC Control Number (OCN), i.e., one entry for every acquired item. —Uzume (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

IT is not merely the format, it is the label used to identify the value in the link I supplied, and it is the label used at Wikidata as a result. Works and editions have an LCCN. The LoC website and Wikidata both call it an "LCCN", so I fail to understand why you are calling it something else. We should not be inventing new terminology for world-class databases. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: The website also calls many other things LCCNs like: cf94054902, n81082970, sh85037527 sj2008009618, bi2021000008 sn90051192. Not all of these can be dereferenced at lccn.loc.gov via their "permalink" service and they all refer to quite different things but they are all described at Structure of the LC Control Number. If it really bothers you can I change the label to "Library of Congress Control Number for bibliographic items" or "LCCN accession number" or some such. I do not think it is a good idea to leave it at just "LCCN". You did not mention that I also changed the other perhaps much more common LCCN used here to "LC Auth". You do realize that the lack of a good name does not mean we should all use poor names for things. I am sure we could refer to many authors here by their pseudonyms but we choose not to do that. The point is, it does not always make sense to use the original terminology in every setting. —Uzume (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I prefer that we use the same terminology that everyone else uses, rather than inventing peculiar labels of our own. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I did not invent "item". It is used at LC in URL. I just choose that label over others. —Uzume (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

It may be in the URL, but it is not what the identifier is called. Our site's URL includes "org" but I have never seen "org" used in an ID field to refer to Wikisource. Please revert the label to match what the LoC and Wikidata are using, rather than using your own personal label. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I do not mind changing it but "item" is hardly a "personal label". —Uzume (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

When every other database refers to it as a "LCCN", it would unhelpful for us to fabricate our own terminology. --EncycloPetey (talk) EncycloPetey (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I think focusing on the "LCCN" aspect is a rather poor choice since that also refers to many other things besides bibliographic editions and increases conflation instead of disambiguation but I did not make the change to start arguments. —Uzume (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Uzume: I understand your motivation, but I tend to agree with EncycloPetey on this: "LCCN" is a label that is 1) well-established and 2) used elsewhere so there's a pretty strong presumption in its favour. In those circumstances it would be better to raise the issue at the Scriptorium to get community input on whether a change is desireable and, if so, to what. I suggest you change the label back in the live code and then bring the issue there. Xover (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I already returned to including "LCCN" in the label before you posted this. I have brought issues to Scriptorium and they usually get a few comments but otherwise mostly ignored. Even if I believe current convention is wrong, I have better things to do with my time than be concerned over such a thing but thanks for your input. —Uzume (talk) 07:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Your response is misleading. You did not return the label to "LCCN"; but instead changed it to "LCCN accession number for bibliographic items". [1] --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I was not trying to be misleading. It is obvious that LCCN's represent more than just bibliographic items so it needed definition. Even the Wikidata property you mentioned Library of Congress item ID (LCCN bibliographic) (P1144) is labelled more appropriately than a naked "LCCN". —Uzume (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

That's because data item Q620946 is for "LCCN", and the property needs to be distinguished from it. On Wikisource, we never have that problem because there is context in where the "LCCN" label is used. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Not everyone implicitly understands that context and I notice even your edit to the label did not return the label to a naked "LCCN". I still think the label would be improved if closer to Library of Congress item ID (LCCN bibliographic) (P1144), but I am not really interested in spending more time to pursue the matter (e.g., in a consensus discussion, etc.). —Uzume (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

The change I made was to try to compromise with you, but that was before Xover's comments were made here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Re: Authors: We do refer to some authors by their pseudonyms, and our advice page on that subject mentions this fact, and notes that it is acceptable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey, @Uzume: I have reverted to the last stble version, solely on the basis that there is disagreement. The revert should not be construed as supporting any particular outcome or conclusion beyond just going back to what had been the status quo for a long time before the current disagreement arose. To resolve the issue I have opened a discussion on the Scriptorium at: WS:S#Label for "LCCN" authority entries?. Please do at least express your preference there, possibly with arguments pro or con, and feel free to correct my summation of the issue if you think it deficient. Presumably this issue is not sufficiently controversial to engender a giant sprawling discussion and formal !votes so hopefully some community input there can point to a resolution that is at least acceptable for everyone. Xover (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Xover: That seems overkill as I really have no major disagreement and was fine with how EncycloPetey changed things. I do think the label could be better but don't really think it merits a major discussion on the matter. I already stated that I do not plan to participate in such a discussion as I have better things to do with my time (see #c-Uzume-20250804074500-Xover-20250804053100 and #c-Uzume-20250822051500-EncycloPetey-20250821180400). —Uzume (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

My apologies if you feel I've blown it out of proportion, but in your last comment here prior to my posting to WS:S, and in your reply on WS:S, you still express disagreement with EP's position. And this minor disagreement did result in multiple circular edits to a template transcluded to pretty much every text we host and every author page. Think of it this way: if you disagree with the status quo then others may also disagree with it. Having the discussion will show us either that there is consensus to change it or that there is consensus for keeping it as it has been. In the latter case, that consensus is valid until overturned by a similar discussion and can be cited if the same disagreement pops up again in the future. Xover (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Xover: I am not sure about multiple circular edits. I had changed the label (along with multiple other things). EncycloPetey seemed dissatisfied and asked "LCCN" return to be in the label. I did that but did not return it to a naked "LCCN". He still did not like it and made a change himself which also was not an entirely naked "LCCN". I thought things were done there but we continued to have a friendly chat about it talking about our reasons. Then you reverted things and declared a controversy. It seems odd to declare such when the last edit to the label was by the person who took issue with the the initial change. —Uzume (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

We're back to plain "LCCN" as the status quo, so if you no longer disagree with that then everything should be hunky-dory. Meanwhile the community gets to have a say in the matter, if they have an opinion at all, which is never a bad thing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Xover (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Xover: Well I am against such as I believe it could be considerably better, but I do not plan to be concerned over or pursue the matter. It is just not that important to me. It would be childish to think everything I thought was the only way and fight for every little thing. The fact of the matter is that we do not always get our way and that is life. I would rather spend time working for/fighting for things I believe really matter not things I had a passing differences of opinion about. —Uzume (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Use of Populate on Author pages

Wikisource:Scriptorium#Deleting_author_pages_with_populate is a proposal to make the use of Populate on an author page a reason for speedy deletion, and it's got decent support. I would appreciate it if instead of creating pages like Author:Flora Haines Loughead, you only did so when you want to put a work in the field.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Such a requirement is akin to requiring someone to transcribe an entire book in a single go. The whole point of things like {{populate}} is allow one to develop such things over time so I am going to have to go against your proposal. Clearly Flora Haines Loughead has plenty of public domain material available. The fact I do not have time to do that in a single sitting hardly seems a worthwhile reason to delete meterial. This is especially true of works with many authors as it takes work to create author pages as one often has to flesh out many other things just to get to creating them. It takes but a single click to find some of Flora Haines Loughead's material at c:Category:Flora Loughead. If such things bother you, you are fee to help develop them instead of trying to get other people's work deleted. I would appreciate if you would back off on the proposal and allow people time to work on things instead of expecting them to only submit entirely complete material (be they author pages or other types of works). Sadly I do not think this brief message will likely sway you so now we both know we don't always get everything we want. —Uzume (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Sadly, if this proposal comes to fruition, then I will likely stop using {{populate}} and leave the "Works" section entirely blank and instead make author stub pages with {{general-stub}}, then one can sift through Category:Stubs for them instead. —Uzume (talk) 07:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

The proposal is also delete new Author pages with no listed works. Empty author pages are the problem. No one is asking you to list everything or to fully transcribe a work before creating the page. We are wanting at least one work listed, so that we have evidence the person is actually an Author and deserves to have a page on the English Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I am aware of the proposal. I shall just have to throw in random material that is harder to verify. Thanks for bringing to my attention. —Uzume (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

If items can't be verified, that is cause for deletion. If you are deliberately putting unverifiable information into pages, that may be grounds for administrative action. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I never said it would be impossible to verify such things. I just need to add the most obscure thing they are credited with producing—something not currently available online (but references to it are). —Uzume (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Clearly Flora Haines Loughead has plenty of public domain material, which means it would be trivial to add one or two major works to her page, not akin to requiring someone to transcribe an entire book in a single go.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: If it is so trivial for you, please do not let me stop you. I do not find it trivial when I am working on the Wikidata item and creating the author page and linking it properly, etc. Or perhaps you would prefer author pages without names, dates, etc. and just a single work listed? —Uzume (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The works of…

When I saw this edit, I thought you might possibly be interested in this. If not, apologies for the interruption. Xover (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@Xover: That does seem mildly interesting. I was mostly interested in ensuring Nicholas Rowe was represented there as he is often credited as "the first editor of Shakespeare" (see Shakespeare's editors). I just added a few more that I stumbled across at the same time. —Uzume (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Xover: FYI: That sandbox list of yours seems to be missing the 7th volume of the Rowe series. Despite early volumes stating "in Six Volumes" there is a later 7th volume from 1710 which among other things contains Venus and Adonis, Tarqin and Lucrece and a pile of Shakespeare's other poetry. You can find copies at the HathiTrust link I included in the edit you quoted here. —Uzume (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Xover: I took the liberty of adding a local Commons copy to your list with w:this and to c:Category:The Works of Mr. William Shakespear (1709) with c:this. —Uzume (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, excellent. Thank you! I should probably transwiki it here as a portal or something at some point. Xover (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Author:William Morris

Is there another William Morris causing the need to disambiguate ? -- Beardo (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Beardo: Yes, there is, e.g.: Morris, William, 1826-1891, Morris, William, 1705-1763, Morris, William, 1861-1936, Morris, William, 1873-1932 and Morris, William, 1889-1979. And that does not even take into account of those with similar names like: William Morris Davis, Morris, William C. (William Charles), 1874-, Morris, William E. (William Edward), Morris, William H. (William Hopkins), 1827-1900, Morris, William O'Connor, 1824-1904, Morris, William Wilkes, 1780-1847, Morris, William H. (William Henry), 1915-, Morris, William E. (William Ellis), 1812-1875, Morris, William Harrell, 1929-, Morris, William David, 1870-1957, Morris, William Alfred, 1875-1946, etc. And these are just the ones I could easily find with probably works published before 1930. There is an even larger number of such coming down the pipe for years after that. —Uzume (talk) 04:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)