User talk:EncycloPetey

EncycloPetey

(Archives index, Last archive)

double check please

Hi, I think that Passing by Nella Larsen is public domain due to a lack of renewal. I was hoping you could double check to see if you find anything that I'm missing. If not then we can upload this version for transcription. SDudley (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I do not find it either. So it looks like it lapsed in the US. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! SDudley (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I created an Index for the book. SDudley (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

King Pest

At wikidata, in the same menu as the badges are, you can "badger" a link as an intentional redirect. See wikidata:Q1404570.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

We can, but that's not how editions should be handled at Wikidata. The editions go onto their own page, and should not be redirected. Doing so plays havoc with interwiki connections. The model is set up to understand the difference between a work and an edition; redirects from one to the other breaks that data model. The edition is already linked from the work page in the appropriate section. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The link in the sidebars of the other wikimedia projects. If you are gutenberg, you have a stable link and can paste that link at wikipedia or wikiuniversity or where ever. If you are wikisource (a wikimedia project), you are required by some obscure rule (which does not seem to have anything to do with linking wikis together) to have two versions before you can get the work to the side bars of the sister projects. So, whether or not you intend to be an agent for Project Gutenberg and gutenberg.wikipedia.org (nee en), wikidata and its structure (which should be contained within the data and not the sister linkage) has turned you into one.

I like the wikidata rules for the data, the structure is: good for most cases; winds through some messy structures well; overall a very great thing. I try to make great data for them. Links betweeen wikis belong to the wikis though. If wikipedia would have redirects to #subheadings, and if so called wikisourcers would allow redirects in works when only exists -- these two things alone would allow so much linking between wikis which was probably the original purpose of wikidata (and which was impossible before the redirect linking was allowed at wd).

That is my take on this, Sir Agent Petey. Please consider this.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You are asking me to disregard the standards set by the Wikidata community and the standard norms of databases. I'm not going to disregard community standards or logic. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

As if wikipedia is set up in a "logic". Interwiki links are not a data structure; they are only a small part of the data and perhaps could have a Property if people worried about data standards need to express their angst. A monkey will randomly type Hamlet before wikipedia articles will occur in a logic without redirects. Here, there will need to be two versions before wikidata allows an interwiki link? Where is the logic in that? I ask that you think about this rule. Rules from wikidata belong to the Properties, interwiki links should belong to wikimedia. Really, think some about it. All I am trying to do is to make interwiki links work. That rule about interwiki links got changed after I hacked the fables to get interwiki links to work. I read about it at Scriptatorum. Did you not read that?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I am having so many problems here that could easily be linked to redirects at wikidata. Which would mean that you were completely right and I was completely wrong but for other reasons. So, I feel that I should apologize but I would have to kick the information highway which is truly at fault here. Instead

I have been, these last few months, on a computer which does not have a graphics card. The display is drawn via software with X and Wayland. The software I use for images, when I first used it had a way to refresh the image and the desktop also. I could use that here, on this computer. I suspect they all forgot about the computer memory when they started twiddling with those graphics cards. Two acronyms for DRM, Digital Rights Management and also Direct Rendering Media. So, I am missing libdrm here or libdrm has nothing to work with. gimp gets into something like a thrall when there is a lot of selection on it. I have to resize it and then wait for it to recover from that. So, as the acronym goes the ARM is DRMless.

It draws great browser pages. It previews images fine, even big ones -- they take a tolerable amount of time to render. It only failed deeply at large image manipulation and that only at the display software. So, I really like this box. DRMless ARM is good for many (if not most) things.

So, thanks for letting me kick the information highway on your talk page.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Yellow templates

Before you tell me about Template:Header/doc on my talk page, let's just get this out of the way...since you insisted on this becoming a point of contention.

If you care enough about this issue that you believe the template should be reinstated, consider a site-wide application of your desire. A bot would be the best way to deal with this, and maybe a nudge on someone's talk page, not driving down our readership count with yellow templates that make us look like a site filled with bugs (which I promise is far worse in the eyes of a reader than that minor "issue" of chapter navigation, if you could even call it an issue). I don't even disagree with Template:Header/doc's suggestion (which you're probably going to refer me to), and will probably apply it from here on out. But let's try to reserve those warning templates for absolute copypaste messes from 2005 (and the like), not recent proofread texts by active contributors with a single minor "issue" no one would ever notice.

You've been quite lenient with much less standard works than that one. And you've even been against standardization models that are written in other guidelines in the past. I wonder why that is. I wonder how you would feel if someone slapped that warning template on a work you proofread that used roman chapter numbers in wikititles... Since, after all, guidelines on roman numerals in wikititles (with exactly as much authority as the Header template docs if not more) do state that "Chapters, sections and so on should be numbered with Arabic numerals (i.e. 1, 2, 3; not Roman numerals)." I'm guessing the answer is you wouldn't be happy about it.

Anyway, if you insist to care a whole lot about this issue, I'm bringing this to a Scriptorium bot proposal discussion. I will absolutely not waste my time fixing those for this work or any of my previous ones, and if you insist on keeping the standardize templates there I'll do everything in my power to have one of three things happen: 1. Get the template documentation line changed to be more broad and allow what I did, or 2. Get the community to rule that the template documentation isn't authoritative enough to warrant a standardize template, or 3. Get a bot to fix all instances of the previous and next inconsistencies in discussion. In any case, the standardize template will end up removed. SnowyCinema (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The documentation is directly referenced in Wikisource:Style guide under the very first point under Formatting. It is not simply documentation, but is also part of policy. I note these as I find them, and have frequently gone to the trouble to clean them up myself.

As for Help:Subpages#Chapters_and_sections is a Help page, which describes the generalities for users needing help. There are exceptions in policy allowed for acts of dramatic works, which was discussed the last time we revised the policy. But even I limit myself on that to five-act plays; you can see Little Clay Cart (Ryder 1905), where I used Arabic numerals because the play had 10 acts.

I understand that you're unhappy, but as an admin you should not be posting works as completed that do not adhere to the basic guidelines of formatting. As an admin, you should be familiar with policy and helping to uphold it, not flagrantly ignoring it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Done Sheep Limit is fixed per suggestion. SnowyCinema (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Admin update discussions

Thank you for doing that. I got distracted last weekend with a job offer and completely forgot about it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Romance of the Rose

I have started to proofread the first volume of The Romance of the Rose, much in the same manner as the Kalevala volumes I recently finished proofreading. If you have the time, could you look it over, give me any suggestions if the sidenotes could be done better, for example and perhaps set up the three volumes to link together in a standard manner? If not, I would just try to mimic the setup of the Kalevala volumes, but it would be helpful. The table of contents is complicated, I am still trying to perfect that, so that it shows up well on the index page, but I would like to get it right. Thanks in advance for any assistance.

PWidergren (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I may have time to look at it this weekend. IRL work has been busy the past couple of weeks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Thanks

PWidergren (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for not remembering this sooner, but it looks as though you have a solution now. IRL became very busy the past few weeks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Vulgar Errors

This was a redirect to Pseudodoxia Epidemica An Alphabetical Table which you deleted. Should the redirect page be deleted as well ? -- Beardo (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it should. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Livy

https://www.google.it/books/edition/T_Livii_Historiarum_Ab_urbe_condita_libr/nJ72S0pa-ccC?hl=it&gbpv=1&dq=pacilius+tito+livio+ab+urbe&pg=PA947&printsec=frontcover

[1]https://www.google.it/books/edition/T_Livii_Historiarum_Ab_urbe_condita_libr/nJ72S0pa-ccC?hl=it&gbpv=1&dq=pacilius+tito+livio+ab+urbe&pg=PA947&printsec=frontcover

About my my corrections in your translation of Titus Livy (by the way, heartfelt congratulations for the magnificent work), I attach the file which correctly shows that the real name is Caius Furius Pacilius. Please, therefore, correct the passage: Pacilius and not Pacilus. Thank you so much!!!!!! Tandem reverto in domum (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a Latin edition, not the English translation that we are hosting. The English translation uses a different spelling than the Latin text. We are hosting the English translation made by Spillan (and others), and that translation uses the spelling Pacilus, as you can see here in this scan. What spelling is used in a completely different edition of the work is irrelevant for our purposes. Consider for example that Titus Livius is usually called "Livy" in English. We do not mix information from different editions, so we would not alter an English edition based on spellings in a different edition published in Latin. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks Tandem reverto in domum (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Category:Index pages of works about Toki Pona

Sorry, my mistake. In that case, you'll also want to delete Category:Index - esperanto. I made the category because I was copying everything from Category:Esperanto language that also seemed relevant to Category:Toki Pona language. --Spenĉjo (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

You will also want to delete Category:Index - toki pona won't you ? -- Beardo (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Image...

There was? I don't recall seeing that at the time; in fact I made a note then that it was a unilateral change but got sidetracked and forgot about it (which was why I changed it back now). If there was a discussion I must have entirely missed it, and links would be appreciated. A quick search now failed to turn up anything. Xover (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I never loved the image change. Sure, George Eliot was a great author, well-respected, etc., but it still seems quite preferential for a general-purpose template. Someone's favorite author might be Tennyson or Blake or Wells or Wollstonecraft. The old image was more neutral in that respect, since it doesn't appear to depict any known individual in particular. SnowyCinema (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It was a discussion held across multiple pages. I know at least three people were contacted individually, including me, for input. We didn't choose the image for "favorite" status, but for aesthetic and representational reasons. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

What was it supposed to represent? A welcome template for Wikisource should represent books in general (our old welcome template image), or perhaps the concept of an archive, or perhaps the transcription process (the Main Page image), not portraits of specific authors. A new vote should be held. SnowyCinema (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

If you want to start a vote of some kind, you can certainly do so. Personally, I prefer an actual English-language author to an imaginary random guy from a painting. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe a different ambiguous image would be more agreeable among our editors. While many of our actives being Western bibliophiles would understand George Eliot's work as common knowledge, she may not be immediately recognizable to potential editors from certain other backgrounds (cultural, educational, age, etc.) who may perceive the image as a random old portrait of a young woman. So the aesthetic wouldn't resonate with everyone. SnowyCinema (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's supposed to represent "a woman", and be "representative of women in literature". That is, it was picked motivated by a desire to increase the representation of women in history. Or so the candidates proposed (1, 2, 3) suggest. Which isn't a bad motivation per se, but it's a choice of priorities for this context with which not everyone will necessarily agree (I don't, for one). Xover (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

So three people, on various obscure pages where the community at large is not involved, and you consider that a consensus on which you would revert? Xover (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Guidance?

Hi, following up on this, since this is probably more about me learning something than about making a decision.

Here's my thinking.

Per this discussion (and your urging especially), I decided it's about time I start putting in some effort into processing a backlog, and learn a bit more about Wikisource practices. I've kept pretty focused on Works with no license template, but also trying to keep in mind the "no source" backlog and address that one as best I can where they overlap.

When we started with that, there were I believe almost 1600 pages in the backlog. I noticed the "Florida roads legislation" pages at the time, and made a comment to the contributors, but focused my efforts on lower-hanging fruit.

Now, we are at about 350 pages in the backlog. The 20 pages currently in the backlog (and the hundreds linked on the portal page) now constitute a more significant chunk of the "problem" expressed by the backlog's existence. It's relatively trivial to add either {{PD-GovEdict}} or a more bespoke Florida template to these pages, which would clear them out of this backlog; but they would still have no source linked.

As such they do not currently align with Wikisource's verifiability standards. Finding and linking the sources would take a great deal of effort, and having pinged the people who seemed to have worked on this rather esoteric content in the past several months ago, I see no indication that anybody is interested in doing that work.

So I see these possibilities:

1. Do nothing
2. Delete the pages
3. Add PD banners to the pages, and don't worry about the lack of scans/links
4. Find a way to get that extensive work done, to more thoroughly fix the problem.

I believe that it's worthwhile to keep Wikisource well organized to encourage search engine indexing, so #1 seems less than ideal. Whether or not that's your line of reasoning, you've also expressed concern about the lack of copyright information on pages.

What do you think is the best path forward? I don't necessarily need a complete solution from you, but hoping for some guidance on how to best encourage community deliberation to move things in a better direction without unnecessary turbulence. -Pete (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

A good start would be to search for backing scans, either yourself, or asking for help. If backing scans can be located, the verifiability problem is at least partially resolved. If no one can locate scans, and the pages are therefore not verifiable, we then have a basis for possible deletion, since we were unable to verify the contents of those pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I take it you find my efforts on those two insufficient. Can you tell me what I missed? -Pete (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you look for copies of the source? Your deletion proposal made no mention of any efforts to find a source copy. Did you ask for help (assuming that because these are state legislative documents, they might be hard to track down)? Again, the proposal made no mention of any effort to locate sources. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I believe I searched at archive.org and a basic Google search, and a basic (non-expert) attempt at the Fla. secretary of state's site. I already requested help in two different venues, months ago, as I linked in my Scriptorium post yesterday, and when you assumed I hadn't yesterday I pointed it out again. So...I guess I'll just again say yes? I'm open to specific suggestions about how I could make such requests better, but I don't think repeatedly asking me whether I sought help really gets us anywhere -Pete (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I do hear you, that mentioning my own efforts explicitly would have been helpful in the nom. -Pete (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)