User talk:Beleg Tâl/Archives/2019

The Book of Martyrs (Foxe)

Will you be attending to the pages of this work later? Or would you like me to take care of them? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I intended to take care of them later, but if you are able and willing to take care of them now, I would be very grateful. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

On a related note, do you know where the list of Deletion reasons is located? One reason is "Exported to Bibliowiki (formerly Wikilivres) in Canada". This statement should probably be updated to the current name and location. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I saw that too. Unfortunately I don't know where that data is located. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I found it and updated it : MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Song (Coates)

I noted your note at the Song page that I will be the one to transfer Coates' list of songs over... Thanks :) I haven't forgotten, but will likely get to it in February. Have a good one! Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

History of Ink...

Thanks for doing the various scripts...

In terms of those remaining:

Page:The_History_of_Ink.djvu/111 : - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinhalese_script

Page:The History of Ink.djvu/113 - Aethopic - Is it a localised script like that in w:Tigrinya_language or variant of something else entirely? - See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ge%27ez_script

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Both appear to be in Unicode BTW. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Thanks for this. I am frankly stumped on the Sinhalese; I spent a good amount of time trying to figure it out. The Sinhala word for ink is තීන්ත which is clearly not the word used in this text. I couldn't find any synonyms or similar terms in Sinhala that look similar either. I can't tell which characters are the ones used in the text, as there are many very similar ones. Is it ඳලී? ලචි? උඑ? None of the combinations I tried turned out to be words, much less words with meanings similar to "ink". Maybe we can ask at w:si:විකිපීඩියා:උදවු කවුළුව and see if someone there would be willing to weigh in? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I just posted at w:si:විකිපීඩියා:උදවු_කවුළුව#Can someone help me at English Wikisource?. We will see if anyone responds. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you but...

Nipping something in the bud: Special:Contributions/176.88.20.164 would be appreciated. Please remove this notification per DENY once resolved. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: looks like EncycloPetey took care of it already. What's DENY ? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

As in "Deny recognition" , generally on other wikis notifcations to admins about bad editors are suppressed once the isssue is resovled, so that the bad editor isn't given publicity. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Deleting pages orphaned due to file/index rebuilds..

I'd been trying to reduce the number of Page: namespace pages in Special:LonelyPages... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Any chance you could review what for the most part are largely technical speedy deletion requests, and possibly take a look in the special page concerned to eliminate a few more? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Portal space

Out of curiosity, what is an example of a Portal that would use {{PD-old}}? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Saw it on Portal:Westminster Assembly; Special:PrefixIndex Special:WhatLinksHere might show more —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Chronological_Table_and_Index_of_the_Statutes/Chronological_Table/Ric2

According to you {{nop}} works most of the time. Perhaps you could figure out (and DOCUMENT) why and where this leaks whitespace that should not be present in the header line for the table? Thanks.

I spent a very long time trying to get the templates working, only for them to 'break' again when the parser got updated. Being able to write the sort of table syntax I've suggested elsewhere would be very helpful in completely avoiding the sort of obscure and pedantic little interactions that seem to arise between just how exactly various parts of mediawiki interact, to put or remove whitespace where it's not expected.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: done. You transcluded an extra blank line from Page:Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes.djvu/44. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd also like to validate this looking for simmilar issues later in the same work? This was the first one I'd found. Also the transclusion is also using a somewhat non-standard page assmebly mechanism at present, because of various pedantically specifc interaction issues.. (Sigh). And Wikisource as you know lost a potential contributor because they found the site unfriendly to work with. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I really hate validating, so I'll pass on this one... (I still intend on finishing Revelations of Divine Love though btw, eventually). I did try "fixing" the transclusion to use the <pages ... /> syntax and it really is a mess. And yes, the Mediawiki platform unfortunately really is unfriendly to work with, even if you do nice simple projects and avoid complicated table templates like I do for the sake of my own sanity :S —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Right then I will file a deletion request on this, no point retaining something that's going to make me even more annoyed.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

One medium term repair (until the parser is updated to provide a proper synatx for split tables) would be to do an AWB substitution rewriting

{{Statute table/header|cont=42 Edw.3.}}

as

{{Statute table/header}}
{{Statute table/continuation|cont=42 Edw.3.}}

In the header portion. The intervening line feed/carrige return is important. It's unclear why splitting the template in this way worked, but it apparently had the desired effect of plugging one of the whitespace leaks.

Naturally also if possible the first line of the body should be a {{nop}} per what was discussed elsewhere, again this is something that could be added with a suitable AWB rule I think. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: done —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Betacode script...

Is there a simmilar scripting convention for other scripts like Hebrew (which comes up in theologicial/scriptural works) and for IPA? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: no idea —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Poems (Chesterton)/Lepanto

Sooner or later, this will have to moved back to where it was. There is more than one edition of a collection of Chesterton's poems entitled "Poems", which is why I included the date for disambiguation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: That is true of nearly every work on this project. When someone adds a second one, we can move it to a more standard disambig title like Poems (Chesterton, 1915). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It just makes more sense to me to disambiguate from the outset when we know this, instead of having to move, edit all the links, and change redirects later. If it's all set all from the start, it saves on later work for the whole community. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive user?

Nvnnvc has been making SEVERAL disruptive edits (link). Beeswaxcandle already tried explaining this to them ([1]). I warned them on their talk page ([2]). Still having at it. Could you please intervene? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Done —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

In response to further silliness on the user's talk page (redirecting to this page), I've checked global contributions and see that they've been indef blocked as a sock on Meta. I leave the decision to amend our block to you as the original blocker. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Shakespeare's Sonnets

The Yale Shakespeare volume has the same title as the work you're currently doing (Shakespeare's Sonnets). It would probably be easier to disambiguate now than it would be to do so this summer. Do you have a bot or tool that make make all the necessary changes, or should I post a request for someone else to help? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I've posted on bot requests, Mpaa should be able to handle it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Sonnets

The {{Sonnets}} template is linked throughout to only the 1883 edition, and the template is used throughout the 1883 edition. Placing it on the general page for Shakespeare's Sonnets does not add anything that isn't available through the only current edition linked, and is edition specific to boot.

For the general page Shakespeare's Sonnets we will need a new template: one that links to the versions pages for each of Shakespeare's Sonnets. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: The template {{Sonnets}} is supposed to link to the versions page for each of Shakespeare's Sonnets. User:Mpaa modified it to point to the 1883 edition specifically, presumably because the 1883 edition is the only edition we currently have. Once other editions are added, and versions pages are created for each Sonnet, {{Sonnets}} will be modified accordingly. If you want to remove {{Sonnets}} from Shakespeare's Sonnets, go ahead, but please ensure to restore it when it is updated after the versions pages are created. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I've created a template Template:ShakespeareSonnetVersions that can be placed on 154 versions pages and easily updated for new editions of the Sonnets. Have a look at Sonnet 1 (Shakespeare) and let me know what you think. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

That's the next question: Do we want the versions pages to be of the form Sonnet 1 (Shakespeare), with redirects like "Sonnet I (Shakespeare)", etc. Or should we create them with title such as Shakespeare's Sonnets/1. so that they will be subpages of the main versions page? There are a lot of decisions that need to be made before investing in a new template. I'd hate to have to do a lot of work, then swap horses mid-stream, so to speak.

And, if {{Sonnets}} is supposed to be the main navigation template for Shakespeare's sonnets, then should we create a separate navigation template for the 1883 edition, and then replace all copies in the 1883 edition? Or should we remove the template from the 1883 work? Or keep the 1883 template as is and create a new template? Lots of things I'd want decided before we start changing things. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: The format Sonnet 1 (Shakespeare) is both the most appropriate with regard to our naming conventions, and is also the result of previous discussion at Talk:Shakespeare's Sonnets (1883), and is also the format that was used for the Sonnets until I provided the scan edition. I personally do not think it is appropriate to use sub-pages as versions pages; if the work in question is a work per se it should have a top level versions page, but if it is not then it should not have a versions page at all. — I also don't think edition-specific TOC navboxes are appropriate either in most cases. I am currently removing it from the 1883 edition, because while I am okay with leaving it when other editors have added it, I myself will not create any TOC navbox template specific to the 1883 edition. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion you've pointed to dates from 2007, which is very, very old by Wikisource standards. It may be worth revisiting, as practices since that time have changed. The problem with considering Shakespeare's Sonnets is that, not only are the individual sonnets well known and numbered, but the collection is itself a work. We therefore have a work made up of component works, which is something we don't normally have to contend with. I'm therefore not so certain that a subpage structure should be rejected outright. Neither am I advocating for it at this point, but think a discussion ought to be had to see what people think who work with Shakespeare, and those who work with similar issues such as collections of poetry. We have more than a few community members I'd like to hear from before making a decision. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: You may be surprised at how many works-made-of-component-works that we have. The Bible is the most well-known example. The Rosary consists pretty much entirely of previously-existing works, as does the Raccolta. Les Fleurs du Mal is a work and also a collection of original works. Every opera or musical is also like this, with songs as components—see I've got a little list and A more humane Mikado, for example. I've worked with texts like this frequently enough to be confident that practice has not changed in this regard, and that the standard "Work (Disambig)" format of Sonnet 1 (Shakespeare) is still the preference.—That being said, I'm okay with bringing the discussion to the Scriptorium if you feel that it's important to do so. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

"The Bible" is a bit different because it was assembled after the component works were written and circulated, and the contents which are included differ between editions as does the sequence. Shakespeare's Sonnets was published as a unit in 1609, and all later editions derive from that single printing. Operas and musicals do have component pieces and songs, but always within the larger context of the original as a whole. The Sonnets again differs in that any one sonnet is a complete work in and of itself. But yes, once I've had time to write up some thoughts, I think going to the Scriptorium and requesting feedback is the route I'd like to take. Unlike my "disambiguating Shakespeare" proposal, I'm less clear in my own mind about the approach that I might prefer. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, I see you're doing some work on Shakespeare's other poems. Thanks for taking on that task. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

For the time being, let's use Sonnet 1 (Shakespeare) as a model to establish format and conventions, but not propagate these changes until we've agreed upon the style we want to use. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I've come around to the idea of using a naming system like Sonnet 1 (Shakespeare). One more related issue before we implement: Should we include a 3-digit DEFAULTSORT on the versions pages (e.g. DEFAULTSORT:Sonnet 001 Shakespeare) so that the versions pages for the Sonnets sort numerically instead of alphabetically? Without it, the pages will be sequenced in categorization as: 1, 10, 100, 101, 102, ...109, 11, 110, 111, ...119, 12, ... 19, 2, 20, 21, which may not be desirable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I think that's a fantastic idea, and I support it wholeheartedly. I'll see if I can build it into the template. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

In the headers, "next = " has always been intended for parts within a work. I have serious misgivings about using it on a Versions page to link from one sonnet's versions page to another sonnet's versions page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Given that the Sonnets have a fixed order, and that these parameters have been used in the past for versions pages of works that appear in sequence (have a look at Job (Bible) for a rather extreme example), I did not think it inappropriate to use here. However, if you feel they are inappropriate, I can remove them (or you can do so). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The Job example is one of the reasons I feel justified in my misgivings. :P --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Ha - okay :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

So, do you think we're ready to bot-create the version pages for each of the 154 Sonnets? Or is there something else to attend to first? I can begin working through the Yale Shakespeare volume this week. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: yes, ready if you are. I'll see if I can do it using AutoWikiBrowser, and if not I'll post on bot requests. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Done —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I see you've also taken care of the Wikidata item links, so thanks for that as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I've added what VIAF IDs there are for individual Sonnets at Wikidata, but there is one more task for Wikidata, that is better suited to a bot / script: The standard library title form for each Sonnet should be added as an English alias. This is of the form Sonnets. 116 - using Sonnets for the library title of the collection, full stop to end the title, then a space, then the number of the individual sonnet. Would you be able to generate and add these aliases? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. QuickStatements is a good tool. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation - it is time to close the Phase 1!

Hello

You have volunteered to be a coordinator for the Talk pages consultation 2019. Thank you again!

Community summaries are due by Saturday, April 6, 2019. It is now time to close the conversations. We really thank everyone who has participated. Every opinion matters.

What is a community summary?

The goal of a community summary is to wrap up the discussions and provide a summary of what your participants said. That way, other communities can learn about your community's needs, concerns, and ideas. We have seen very different feedback on different wikis, and it is time to discover what everyone thinks!

Please include in that summary:

• every perspective or idea your community had, and
• how frequent each idea was; for example,
  • how many users shared a given opinion
  • whether an idea was more common among different types of contributors (newcomers, beginners, experienced editors...)

You can add as much detail as you want in that summary.

Please post it on the page for community summaries, using the most international English you have.

Can't the Wikimedia Foundation read all the feedback?

We are trying, but we really need your help. For most conversations, we have to use machine translation, which has limitations. This can help us find the most common needs or global ideas. Machine translation is useful, but it does not tell us how people are feeling or what makes your community unique.

Your community summary should be built from your community's perspective, experience and culture. You might also know of relevant discussions in other places, which we did not find (for example, perhaps someone left a note on your user talk page – it is okay to include that!). Your summary is extremely important to us.

What are the next steps?

Phase 2 will happen in April. We will analyze the individual feedback, your community summary, and some user testing. We hope to have a clear view of everyone's ideas and needs at the end of April.

Some ideas generated during phase 1 may be mutually exclusive. Some ideas might work better for some purposes or some kinds of users. During Phase 2, we'll all talk about which problems are more urgent, which projects are most closely aligned with the overall needs and goals of the movement, and which ideas we should focus on first.

Discussions about these ideas may be shaped and be moderated by the Wikimedia Foundation, guided by our decision criteria, listed on the project page.

How can I help now?

• Please provide the summary. :)
• While we study the feedback, we may ask you for more information.
• We will need your help for Phase 2 as well, probably to translate or publicize some future materials we may have.

If you have any questions or need some help, please ask.

Thank you again for your help, Trizek (WMF) 18:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Interface Admin position

Putting this here to avoid further cluttering the Scriptorium thread.

In my mental tally I have you down as opposed to the Interface Admin proposal on the grounds that the proposed policy is too complicated and has too much process overhead. At the same time, in my head, the practical application of it would be essentially as I understand you to want it to be. This suggests to me that one or both of us must be misunderstanding the other.

If you have the time, could you perhaps give me a couple of specific points you object to so we can figure out who is misunderstanding what—and I realise the answers to that may very well be "me" and "everything" :) —and what we can do about it?

I just want to get a policy in place, and the proposal is my attempt to figure out how it needs to be based on various requirements. My personal investment in the particulars isn't all that strong: I'm just trying to dig up, tease out, and balance requirements from the community, previous discussions, and WMF Legal. --Xover (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: here are my thoughts in general:

• All admins (except you yourself, as the newest) were given the privileges of interface-admin when they were made admins, and therefore have already been vetted for these privileges. For this reason I believe the actual interface admin bit should be freely given to existing admins as desired/needed. It is very simple to treat interface-adminship as just one more feature that all admins are able to use as needed.
• Even if interface-adminship needed to be considered separate to regular adminship, there is no need for a separate policy and nom process; just bundle it into WS:Adminship. You'll notice we have no dedicated beaurocrat policy or nom process either, and that works just fine.
• We shouldn't need half-a-dozen rules for removing and restoring interface-adminship; anyone who loses admin access or requests removal will be removed, and that's all that's needed
• We shouldn't need to maintain a dedicated interface-admin team; the crats are already 3 admins with this permission; if all admins have the permission then the point is moot.

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!

Regarding the existing proposal, the intended way that it should work in actual use is:

• Any admin can get Interface Admin
• They get it by posting "I want Interface Admin and I'm familiar with the policy" on WS:AN (which section on WS:AN doesn't really matter)
• One of the `crats assign the right just as they do with normal admin rights (no "nomination", no voting)
• The periodic confirmation of admins look identical to today, unless someone chooses to bring up something that only applies to Interface Admin

For all normal situations this is the visible effect of the policy, and what anyone will need to actually care about. The essence of it. All the rest is just to have something written that deals with the rare stuff (and those bits can be tweaked, dropped, or added to). Or that is the intent in any case. I am failing to see the conflict between that and your first two bullet points.

But let's see if we can find some points of agreement. Here's a few assertions that I think we might agree on, and from which to build.

• We should have a policy about this (short—long, simple—complex, rudimentary—comprehensive, formal—informal, written—unwritten... but something).
• The policy should actually be written down somewhere, whatever it is, even if it's just a single sentence, and wherever we eventually decide is the best place for it.
• Independently of where the policy lives, there should be an info page for Interface administrators, just like there is for Abuse filter editors, Autopatrollers, Administrators, Bureaucrats, etc. (i.e. there should be no redlinks on Special:ListGroupRights; but you'll note some of those are just redirects)
• It is useful to document (somewhere, in some form) what an interface administrator is, what things require interface admin rights to do, that it means using 2FA and how to do that, and how to get ahold of one if needed.

Or to put it a different way, I'm not actually seeing any big points of disagreement on what the policy should be, but rather the points of contention are its form, how detailed and comprehensive it should be, and so forth. And that makes me hopeful we can find some way to tweak the proposal sufficiently that it satisfies everyone. --Xover (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: I guess I can agree to that :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js

Hi User:Beleg Tâl, and thank you for your informative reply about this in the Scriptorium.

I would like to apply this in Hebrew Wikisource, so that it will function the same way it does here at English Wikisource (i.e. showing the page numbers in the margins). Even though I am an administrator there, it seems that there isn't permission to do so. "interface-admin" seems to be needed. Do you have that authority, or can you refer me to someone else who might be able to help? Dovi (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dovi: Information is at m:interface administrators. Specifically, requests for assistance for projects that do not have their own interface administrators should be made at m:Steward requests/Miscellaneous. --Xover (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation: Phase 2 starts!

The Wikimedia Foundation is currently conducting a global consultation about communication. The goal is to bring Wikimedians and wiki-minded people together to improve tools for communication.

Phase 1 of the consultation is over, thank you very much for your help on setting up that first phase. We've published the Phase 1 report. The report summarizes what we've learned, proposes a direction for the project, and asks specific questions to explore in Phase 2.

Very briefly, the proposed direction is that wikitext talk pages should be improved, and not replaced. We propose building a new design on top of talk pages that changes the page's default appearance, and offers key tools like replying, indenting and signing posts. To keep consistency with existing tools, the new design will be a default experience that existing users can opt out of. We also propose building features that experienced contributors want, including the ability to watchlist a single discussion, and the ability to move, archive and search for threads. Building these features may require some loss of flexibility, or small-to-medium changes in wikitext conventions. The goal is to only make changes that directly enable functionality that users really want.

You can see more information and discussion about the proposed direction in the Phase 1 report, including the results of new user tests and some of the quotations from Phase 1 discussions that led to this proposal.

Now it's time to start Phase 2!

We have six questions to discuss in Phase 2, asking for reactions to the proposed direction, and pros and cons for specific changes that we could make.

Can you help by hosting a discussion at your wiki? Here's what to do:

1. First, sign up your group here.
2. Next, create a page (or a section on a Village pump, a dedicated page, or an e-mail thread – whatever is natural for your group) to collect information from other people in your group.
3. Then start the conversation with the six questions listed in the Questions for Phase 2 section of the report.
4. Inform your community about the Phase 2. We will display a banner on the wikis when some communities will have setup their local consultation places.
5. When the conversation is concluded, please write a summary of the discussion on the Phase 2 community discussion summaries page, and report what you learned from your group. Please include links if the discussion is available to the public. Community summaries for Phase 2 are due by June 15, 2019

You can read more about the overall process on MediaWiki.org. If you have questions or ideas, you can leave feedback about the consultation process in the language you prefer.

Thank you! We're looking forward to talking with you.

Best, Trizek (WMF) 07:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation Phase 2 update

The Phase 2 of the talk pages consultation has begun. Several communities have already signed-up. This email is sent to every Phase 1 coordinator to provide you some updates.

If you prefer not to participate to the phase 2 as a coordinator, no worries: you can ignore that message, and you will not receive any message from us for the phase 2. In the future, we will only send messages to people who've listed their names on the phase 2 page. You've been very helpful for the phase 1 and we still thank you for your help. Can you forward this message to other people who may help?

Create a group or have it ready

Some groups are ready, some other are still under construction and we still miss some languages or wikis. We invite you to sign-up your community page for the phase 2.

We have two tables: one for under construction pages, the other one for ready-to-go pages. Under construction pages should be listed: we can help you to built it if needed. Those pages have to list the questions we have and should provide a link to the Phase 1 report.

Pages that are ready to be used have to be moved to the "Confirmed participant groups" section to that we can add them to the banner.

Banner and advertizing

When a community page is ready, we will help you to have it known. We are going to display a banner with link to the consultation on your wiki. We need some help to translate that banner (it is very short). We will not display a banner without translation to your community.

Don't forget to add a link to the consultation to any page on your wiki where people can see the information. You can also invite other wikis in your language to participate to one global page (like for Russian language).

Don't forget to post the information about Phase 2 on social medias related to your wiki(s), and ping people who participated to the phase 1.

Phase 1 report

The Phase 1 report is ready and communities should be aware if it. Please invite people to read it!

If you have any question, please contact me !

Trizek (WMF) (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding/requesting a editor/admin tool

How can I request a tool development or add a tool: I want to have a simple voting system designed or a template for collecting votes in favour of a specific change/modification I have proposed a simple framework, but it needs work. I think I left it on the page where it was reporting about phase I. Moughera (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Moughera: here are some options:

• Post your feedback at w:Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019/Phase 2, this is where people are discussing ways to improve the discussion processes.
• Post your feedback at w:Wikipedia:Village pump, this is where general discussions on Wikipedia belong, and Wikipedia editors can point you to a better place to make the request.
• Post your feedback at Phabricator, this is where software and tool requests belong, but I don't think they will listen to you.
• Wait until the next meta:Community Wishlist Survey, this is where all the users get to propose ideas for improvement, and will probably happen at the end of 2019.

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The_Consolation_of_Philosophy_(Sedgefield)

Fixed a Lint-error in this, but noted that the source information is minimal, a proper scan would be nice.

There doesn't seem to be {{No scan}} or {{needs scans}} template.  :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

A proper scan would be nice. Maybe we should create a {{No scan}} template? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Ask on scriptorum first though? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Lonely pages...

Being Special:LonelyPages ...

Any chance if you have a spare moment to try and reduce this further so there's only redirects in it?

I've tried to remove some of the lower hanging fruit in it, as you can tell by my recent contributions.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not a fool proof list though given that some nominally oprhaned Index: pages are in User:Hesperian/Indices which does not seem to have update in a while. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll add it to the list of backlogs to keep an eye on. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Shrubsole

We seem to have more than one William Shrubsole that did hymns. The one in the Army Hymnal was created as Shurbsole and the work was linked to the other Shrubsole. I have corrected that work, disambiguated the author, though couldn't determine some works authorship, so left them pointing at Author:William Shrugsole and you are welcome to point them where they need to go. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Good catch! —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

New template-

Being Template:Recto-verso header, attempts to encapsulate the modulus based pagenumbering code you've used sometimes. You might want to review and see if it's something that could start to be used. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Page:Sintel movie 4K.webm/8

This was generating a LintError about misnested spans? Can you take another look, because I was having a hard time finding the point at which it broke, and if it's to do with some aspect of whitespace handling in Mediawiki I stand practically no chance in determining it fully at present? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: can you give me more details about what error it is generating? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Certainly: "Lint errors: Misnested tag with different rendering in HTML5 and HTML4" the link with the lintid being [3] ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I've found that this is often due to

1. Attempting to place a DIV based template inside a SPAN based one
2. Attempting to place content that generates its own HTML (typically a DIV or SPAN) inside a paragraph run, but which Mediawiki is unable to 'tidy' correctly due to paragraph and whitespace interactions. It would also be nice if someone at some point sat down and provided a fully documented account of how all the whitespace interactions in Mediawiki are (or are suppposed to be) processed, because some of the harder glitches to track down, I've found have proven to be down to the minutiae of precisely what Mediawiki does (or doesn't) do in this respect of 'tidying.'

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: After extracting the HTML using Special:ExpandTemplates, I pasted the HTML into the W3C validator and a closing tag checker and both tools found no errors with misnested tags. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Me is puzzled as to why it's being mis-detected then. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Ante-Nicene Fathers‎

I've been doing some lint repairs on this. Some followup from other contributors appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Is that the garbage copydump one? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Well it's not the scan backed one, if that's what you mean. If you think it wasn't worth keeping, WS:PD exists. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

It's worth keeping, but it's not worth fiddling over minutiae when the whole work is a mess —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Page:Miscellaneous_Babylonian_Inscriptions.djvu/18

Second view on the approach here.. Oh and I need a way to wrap the __escape functionality in a portable way. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: looks OK to me, though I would just use {{multicol}}. Also I think that the character next to the numbers are prime symbols rather than apostrophes, 5′ rather than 5'. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Lint

Thanks for doing Lint edits on my user page and elsewhere!

It's a quiet thing that quietly and slowly, but surely, goes a long way to improving the site for everyone, and I wanted to acknowledge this. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The sculptures and inscription of Darius the Great on the Rock of Behistûn in Persia

Hello! Thanks for welcoming me :) Sorry to bother you, I just noticed some potential issues.

- Cuneiform lines starting with brackets don't seem to have been matched to be given hanging-indent templates (e.g. 161)

- "Col. I." in the header doesn't apply to all pages: 161 has "Col. II.", while 210 has no corresponding part.

- Some differences in the text on 161 (in line 95, "(𐏁)[𐎡𐎹..." instead of "[𐎠𐏁𐎡𐎹...", and "[𐎹 𐏐]..." instead of "[𐎹𐎠 𐏐]..."; in line 96, "𐎺𐎲𐎡[𐏁 𐏐]..." instead of "𐎺𐎡𐎲𐎡[𐏁 𐏐]...")

- Should I put the footnotes back in on p.161 (removed here)?

- Also on p.161, I was wondering about the character I couldn't identify on line 96 immediately following "𐎶𐏓[𐎠]": it's encoded here as "𐎤", but the two halves of the letter in the book scan are reversed from the glyph for that character in the typefaces I have installed on my system or in the Unicode standard; is that just an equivalent variant?

- SUBPAGENAME in the header gives unexpected page numbers on e.g. 161 and 210

(Are these changes are deliberate / are you still working on it?)

Thanks! —{{user|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜Talk｜Contributions 00:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Goldenshimmer: I'm still working on it. Sorry I had to overwrite part of the page you worked on in order to get the automation working. I'll be doing a couple more automated passes to fix residual problems like the SUBPAGENAME offset. After that I'll take care of the other discrepancies manually (though this will take time, and you're welcome to help.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl:: Cool, thanks! No worries, just wanted to check. Thank you for your work on the text, and for your response to my query! :) Sorry if my poking at it earlier made extra work for you. —{{user|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜Talk｜Contributions 01:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Goldenshimmer: I believe I have accomplished all that can be done automatically. Feel free to proceed with proofreading if you wish. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Also replied to you on my talk page :) —{{user|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜Talk｜Contributions 02:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Page:Amendments to the Constitution of India.pdf/372

I'm not sure what this would be termed officialy,. In English practice it would I think be termed a Commencement notice. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC) (I'm asking so I can describe it in a Pagelist I'm building.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: I've stopped labelling special pages - it's either a number or a dash. I saw some other, more experienced users doing this and I find it a lot easier. That being said, I would call this a section title page, probably would have labelled it STitle or something —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Page:Ruffhead - The Statutes at Large - vol 2.djvu/94

What caused the actual problem, with this work in general :- Page:Ruffhead - The Statutes at Large - vol 2.djvu/94

namely that there was an unresolved 'stripped' tag, buried in too many levels of complicated template markup.

If Mediawiki had a PROPERLY designed way of re-constituting, combined runs of markup, the level of complexity in the templates that broke here would not be needed. Perhaps you are in a better position to FINALLY pin down the pedantic minutiae of why what should have been a straightforward /s /e template to implement, has managed to defeat at least 2 experienced coders? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

And also when this was converted previously, the footer hadn't been cleaned out fully from a previous attempt. This is why having one approach would be desirable. BTW the approach used on this page should be translateable elsewhere.. It's still not entirely stable, hence the simpler approach of using footnotes directly others have reccomended. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, the simple answer is that we should definitely ditch the whole {{cl-act}} system in this work; it's way too complex and headache-inducing. Is it still having a stripping error? I can try to chase it down. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not giving a striiped Tag error currently, what's more I 'found' a way around the Drop inital layout concerns {{float left/s}} (which I hadn't previously found Page:Ruffhead - The Statutes at Large - vol 2.djvu/92 check the transclusion in my sandbox.)., that were stopping things working previously!.. Eventually if you hit a rock enough you get a carved stone... :lol ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I would however agree (even though it works) that {{cl-act}} has too much complexity for "normal" users, the same can be said for {{pagelayout}} and {{marginNote}}, but those still get used. This is of course were the train-wreck happens...ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

TODO: Write {{vrpage}} and {{rvpage}} variants of {{lrpage}} {{rlpage}} to do left, right swapping automatically based on page numbering, or transclusion.... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The Statutes at Large (Ruffhead)/Authorities

I moved the table as it's likely to be continually updated. You might want to resync? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Mainspace isn't the right location for it though - perhaps it can go at Talk:The Statutes at Large (Ruffhead)#Authorities? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Done ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Page:Ruffhead - The Statutes at Large, 1763.djvu/206

The transclusion on this works but the current implementation wraps undesirable whitespace for some reason that is NOT apparent from reading the template or it's documentation. As I've said previously if there was a properly designed way of doing this....

The equivalent page at French Wikisource is https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Ruffhead_-_The_Statutes_at_Large,_1763.djvu/206 which also has the same issues with undesired whitespace addition.

The template (and presumably the underlying code is working as designed though, as it's presumably intended for complete sections, as opposed to fragments.)

using #lst or #section directly would lead to the kind of headaches (which like with cl-act-p's deprecation were trying to be AVOIDED. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Also when placing an {{iwpageSection}} within a section, it seems to be ignored if that section is subsquently itself transcluded uisng an {{iwpageSection}} call, seemingly making it more difficult to compose mutli-language works. As I said , if there was a properly designed way of doing this, ....

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, it would help that when templates are grouped together in documentation that if certain parameters differ, then that should be noted. In the iw templates, {{iwtrans}} needs the Page: prefix included whilst the other templates noted on that page, require it to be dropped.

I personally think the whole set of templates along with {{Page}}, should be rebuilt as a properly designed Module: to address some of the current limitations, but given the lack of expertise amongst certain contributors, I don't see that happening on a credible timescale. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Another complication is that ALL the sidenotes are in English, even on otherwise untranslated portions. This to me suggests that despite the efforts made to split the work, it would be BETTER if it was hosted on a SINGLE wiki (namely English Wikisource.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00:

• I assume you are referring to the gap that is being inserted before the transcluded content? Your markup looks correct, so I would call this a bug in the Interwiki implementation. Time to call Phabricator I guess.
• Do you have an example of this kind of transclusion-of-transclusion that is failing? I don't know if this should work or not, but I would rather expect it to work.
• If the documentation is unclear or could benefit from better organization, you are allowed to improve it.
• I agree that MediaWiki:InterWikiTransclusion.js seems a bit hacky and a module-based approach could probably be better, but I personally would leave that to the devs.
• If you think that it would be better to consolidate the whole work on enWS, go for it. Just make sure you have consensus with any other contributors on that work, and update the style guide on the Index talk page.

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

1. Is it an LST issue or a local scripting one though? I'd rather not raise a phabricator ticket if it's a 'local' issue to en,fr and la wikisources.
2. I transclude the notes from the en page linked above to the fr page, the section in which that occurs is then iw transcluded back to en.
3. Noted, and I will be looking into updating that soon.- I also posted the generated inner HTML here Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help#IwPageSection_generates_badly_formatted_HTML , where a blank span is generated. My assumption is that it isn't transcluding the en content here, to prevent rescurisve transclusions possibly.
4. Isn't that a Local script? or is it a 'core' part of Mediawiki?
5. My understanding is that I'm currently the "sole" contributor on this on the other wikis. (It was me that asked for some of the Law French content to be moved from la-> fr wiki IIRC.) Re-consolidating multi-lingual works needs a Scriptorum disscussion if you'd like me to start one. I think this dicussion is best continued at the Scriptorum/Phabricator, provided I can re-draft the technical concerns.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00:

1. LST is being used correctly so I assume it's Interwiki that's at fault

2. I see what you mean. I'm not sure whether this is a bug or a feature. I'd assume it's a feature; maybe you can include this in your planned updates to the documentation.

4. Like PageNumbers.js, I would consider this to be a core feature implemented as a local script.

5. If you're the only contributor on every wiki, and you don't intend to delete the progress you've made on the other wikis, then I don't see the necessity of involving the Scriptorium, but if you want to get the wider community involved then you're welcome to do so.

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation: final report published

Hello

Over the past six months, a big consultation was hosted on various wikis about talk pages. You have helped us to host those conversations on your wiki, and we want to thank you about your help. Without your assistance, it would not have been possible to achieve it.

We are happy to inform you that the the Phase 2 report is now published. Like every community member, you are more than welcomed to write your thoughts about this report on the talk page, and watchlist the project page.

The publication is an important step: now we have a direction and the Editing team is going to work on the talk pages project. The next steps will be presented at Wikimania, on Saturday August 17, at 14:00 UTC. The session will be livrstreamed and recorded.

Thank you again for your help and assistance. The success of this consultation would not have been possible without you.

Danny Horn, Benoît Evellin, Sherry Snyder, Thomas Meadows and Peter Pelberg, 09:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Ext scan links

Thanks for the improvement! I have linked most of Mrs. Coates' poems (published in magazines) in versions pages to external links, so I could probably go through and improve all those too... But one thing I noticed after moving to Portugal is that I am no longer able to view (myself) many of the links to Google books versions. I'll think about updating them as you have, and possibly linking instead to Archive.org sources where available. For if I can't view them, I assume many others are unable to as well. Have a good day! Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Manual formatting for poems

You mentioned that you prefer to use explicit line breaks when transcribing poems rather than <poem>. How do you deal with the spaces between stanzas, then? I tried out a manually-formatted poem on this page but wound up using explicit paragraph margins on every stanza in order to create the breaks—surely that is not what you do! Levana Taylor (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Levana Taylor: The paragraph breaks between stanzas are automatically generated by the MediaWiki platform, like this:

There is a secret drawer in every heart,
⁠Wherein we lay our treasures one by one;
Each dear remembrance of the buried past;
⁠⁠Each cherished relic of the time that’s gone;

The old delights of childhood long ago;
⁠⁠The things we loved, because we knew them best;
The first discovered primrose in our path;
⁠⁠The cuckoo’s earliest note; the robin’s nest;

The merry hay-makings around our home;
⁠⁠Our rambles in the summer woods and lanes;
The story told beside the winter fire,
⁠⁠While the wind moaned across the window panes;

The golden dreams we dreamt in after years;
⁠⁠Those magic visions of our young romance;
The sunny nooks, the fountains and the flowers,
⁠⁠Gilding the fairy landscape of our trance;

The link which bound us later still to one
⁠⁠Who fills a corner in our life to-day,
Without whose love we dare not dream how dark
⁠⁠The rest would seem, if it were gone away;

The song that thrill’d our souls with very joy;
⁠⁠The gentle word that unexpected came;
The gift we prized, because the thought was kind;
⁠⁠The thousand, thousand things that have no name.

All these in some far hidden corner lie,
⁠⁠Within the mystery of that secret drawer,
Whose magic springs, though stranger hands may touch,
⁠⁠Yet none may gaze upon its guarded store.

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

PS I suspect that you are asking this because some browsers use a very small margin between paragraphs, which results in stanzas being displayed closer together than could be desired. In my opinion this is acceptable (and far better than using <br><br> like the <poem> extension does!). If we want to do something about it, the best way would be to update the site CSS to force a slightly larger space between paragraphs across the board. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Right, I do think that the stanzas could use some extra space between them (at least in browsers where it’s small—I didn’t know that it differs!), but not at the cost of adjusting margins manually! My feeling about the <poem> style at the moment is the opposite of yours: the space is excessive, but nonetheless better than being too small… Oh well, perfectionism is the worst way to approach editing Wikisource. Do you have any other reason beside this style-disagreement for dislkiking <poem>? Levana Taylor (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not about style or spacing, it's about semantics. The break between stanzas should to be rendered in HTML as </p><p> and not as <br><br> regardless of how big or small the space is, but the <poem> extension is incapable of using the correct HTML structure. I have also had issues with <poem> interacting with table semantics, and with poems with lines longer than the width of the container, but these are secondary concerns. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I see, yes. I do think it’s nice to have something that applies an entire set of standard formatting to poems but if it’s not well designed and programmed, better not to use it. Thanks for the info! Levana Taylor (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Author:Euthymius not apparently an author

Wondering why we are creating author pages like Author:Euthymius when they are not apparently authors, or nothing evident in the two linked biographies to indicate that they wrote. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: his legacy appears to be such that I would expect that writings of some sort exist, either letters or treatises or whatever. I could find no confirmation that he doesn't have any extant works, so I put him in Author space. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll also point out that I have often had trouble finding examples of writings by ancient Orthodox authors, even when they are particularly notable for their writings, which makes me particularly hesitant to put this page in Portal space without corroboration of their non-authorship from a more knowledgeable source. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I am presuming that we can be pretty fluid in moving from portal: to author: ns if evidence of works are found, and as WD tracks and updates target pages/moves, I find it quite reasonable to create the portal pages, and move and update as necessary. I am also tending to more create a portal: ns page, whereas previously it was just a bit of a PITA, especially noting that as have one link per person means that we aren't going to duplicate, which used to be an issue. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: It has always been my practice to put individuals in Author space until and unless I have reason to believe no extant works exist. I won't object to your taking a different approach. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Kangaroo Island Courier

Uhm. What was the idea behind this: Index:Kangaroo Island Courier, 1911-01-07.djvu? Were you planning to transcribe something from it? Why the uncropped screenshots of the NLA pages?

The Australian copyright status is basically impossible to determine with any certainty given the paucity of records (at least the ones I found in a quick/superficial/cursory search), so it won't be movable to Commons until it ages out past what they accept as sufficient probability (publication + 120 years is the last consensus I saw; some argued for up to 160 years iirc) that any pma. 70 authors' copyright has expired. --Xover (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: I have no memory of this work, but after some digging I traced it back to this discussion. I would guess that the uncropped screenshots are there because that was the best scan I could find? And I did tag it as "do not move to Commons". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, it was also tagged as "Candidate to be moved to Commons", hence my confusion. :-)

But in any case, since it looks like the user posting the request never followed up here (they did write their article on enWP and uploaded a JPEG of just the poem on Commons), would you be opposed to deleting it here? It's clogging up some maintenance categories and is highly unlikely to be worked on in any forseeable future; and if needed we can either undelete or recreate with better cropped scans if somebody wants to work on it in future. --Xover (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: Sure, why not. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! --Xover (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Index pages based on a JPG (or a PNG?)

Hi, I noticed you recently set up Rose Festival (Portland, Oregon) letter, April 15, 1909 so that it is properly scan-backed. Thank you! I had not realized it was possible to do that with a JPG image.

Inspired by this, I tried to do something similar with Index:Stephen Puter book announced, Associated Press.png. But the Index page gives "Error: No such file" and the transclusion, which I tried to set up manually, does not seem to work.

Do you know, do PNGs and JPGs work the same way with Index: and Page: namespace? Did I do something wrong, or are PNGs just not supported in this way? -Pete (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: You cannot use <pagelist/> tag for such indexes; you just need to list the page(s) manually (this is the old format of index pages). Ankry (talk) 05:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth, @Ankry: mul:Wikisource:ProofreadPage and in truth while it mentions the transclusion in the <pages> section, it is quiet on how to use an alternative to <pagelist> in the "Pages" field. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:The documentation is rather a technical changelog and tag definition than instruction for users of how to create index pages. Feel free to update it. Ankry (talk) 10:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all, glad to learn how to do this properly. -Pete (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Keeping unsourced redundant texts

In going through the backlogs of works lacking a source and license I've noticed several where a scan-backed text has been added (by you, in several cases, I think) and you have moved the old one to Title (unsourced) and created a versions page for both. I would have thought this a perfect example of what G4 is for. Is there any particular reason you are keeping these? My strong inclination is that for texts that are both without source and without a license—and especially if they have been tagged as such for some time without being fixed—the unsourced text should be deleted. I am also inclined to delete such that are merely without a source/scan if there is nothing in particular (an explanation in the notes or similar) that suggests it is a different edition (and hence possibly worth keeping on those grounds) than the scan-backed work.

The majority of these cases I've seen so far have been such that the most likely source for them is a cut&paste from Gutenberg or another etext site, and completely without illustrations or other affordances. We're not exactly wasting volunteer effort by losing these! --Xover (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: I have discussed this on WS:PD a couple of times. I agree with you, but not all editors in those discussions agreed.

My own stance has also changed over time. Nowadays I will generally simply overwrite the unsourced version with a sourced version if the texts are the same, whereas before I would simply move the unsourced one out of the way. I think my standard for "the same" has also changed over time, and I will now generally disregard small differences like punctuation and capitalization.

The general opinion was that if the texts are not the same, then the unsourced text should be kept as a separate version or put through WS:PD (where the outcome was often keep as separate version).

I think it would be worth revisiting some of the ones I opted to move rather than overwrite, and either speedy or propose deletion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Thanks for explaining. I think I'm going to say that for copy&paste/gutenberg/low-quality texts, with no source, and with no license, G4 is clearly applicable. If a source is given in the notes or talk page, some thought is required and the conclusion not a given. And if the quality of the text is high (i.e. it looks like someone put some effort into it) some effort should be put into trying to identify the source. But ultimately any situation where we have one good scan-backed text and one unsourced text, the default is G4 unless some factor justifies an exception. --Xover (talk) 12:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Jerome of Prague

Hi,

I have moved Jerome of Prague back to Portal:Jerome of Prague. The style guide very reasonably states that An author ... is any person who has written any text that is included in Wikisource. This could be imo overlooked if there were at least a small chance of some of his works appearing here in future, but nothing has been published in English so far. If something is discovered, the page can be turned into the author page then. There are millions of authors who published something in foreign languages and it imo does not make sense to copy their lists of works from non-English Wikisources (example: cs:Author:Josef Pekař) to English Wikisource. A bot of a skilled contributor could create hundreds thousands of author pages in a very short while if we wanted to have Author pages with lists of non-English works. However, lists of works in Czech should belong to Czech WS, works in Romanian to Romanian WS etc. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: we have never kept an individual in Portal space after works were identified authored by them that are in scope on English Wikisource. I do not know why you think it is preferable to keep it in Portal space. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I do agree that author pages are designed for lists of works in scope of English Wikisource (i.e. works published in English language). Your move of Author:Bernard Bolzano is absolutely OK, supposing that the works were published in English (thank you for adding the list). This, however, does not seem to be the case of Jerome of Prague. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

BTW, after this impulse I started searching for Bolzano's books in our scope as I would gladly proofread some of them, but cannot find any. For example you have listed there "Theory of Science (1837)", but this has turned out to be quite misleading as only German language work Wissenschaftslehre was published in the given year, while English Theory of Science appeared only in 2014 and so will not get into our scope before 2109. However, there might be a small chance for Paradoxes of Infinite (1950) as it seems that its copyright was not renewed, though at the moment scans are not available anywhere–but we can hope somebody will scan it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Theory of Science is the common term in English for the work originally called Wissenschaftslehre; there was a translation published in 2014, but any public domain English translation of Theory of Science, including any translation created by Wikisource editors, are in source. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

As I have understood it, we do not list "common terms" of works (one work may have several common names), but their real titles. Your list is really misleading, I first thought that the works were published in English in the given years and immediately started searching for scans to proofread, but then I was really disappointed (besides losing time uselessly). How many other readers get confused?

Public domain English translations of Theory of Science, including translations created by Wikisource editors, would be in source if they existed, but unfortunately nothing like that exists.

Of course there is an extremely small chance (very close to zero) somebody will translate these particular works for Wikisource. If this were the reason for listing the works, why not directly copy the whole list from de:Bernard Bolzano (the chance somebody would choose something suitable for them to translate might be increased), as well as lists of other authors from all non-English Wikisources who wrote non-English works... However, I really do not see the point in making similar lists. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: the choice of using the original titles vs common names is generally left to the discretion of the editor who compiles the list of works. I agree that the original title is preferable, but in my experience the more popular name is the more common choice, and avoids the issue you mentioned above ("lists of works in Czech should belong to Czech WS, works in Romanian to Romanian WS"). As for Bolzano, I did my own research and compiled my own list, I did not see that there was a list at de:Bernard Bolzano to copy. And in general, it is extremely common to create Author pages for authors whose works can be added to Wikisource in future even though none have yet been added, and I would vehemently oppose any attempt to curtail this practice. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist blocks YouTube hyper-links

On this page, at least. Here is the page (without the hyper-link), if you are able to create it:

Thank you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC).

@TE(æ)A,ea.: I have updated MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist to allow the YouTube link on Page:A Review of the Open Educational Resources Movement.pdf/44 —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC).

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Beleg Tâl/Archives/2019,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikisource and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello. Can you give me your email address? I have some private questions. --Josephine W. (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Josephine W.: You can email me here: Special:EmailUser/Beleg_Tâl —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

How to handle junk page creations?

I was seeing a lot of junk page talk creations from an IP recently. Can you check the New Page feed, and block the IP concerned? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Done well spotted —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent nuke and block

Thanks so much. I was wondering though, would you mind taking a look at my (infrequent) contributions and evaluating my chances of becoming an admin? I'd like to be able to help in such situations in the future. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Have a look over Wikisource:Restricted access policy and Wikisource:Adminship, and especially note Wikisource:Adminship#Nomination standards. Your work with scripts is impressive, your interest in fighting vandalism is commendable, and your contributions to validation are much appreciated. Your scripted modifications of page status might be seen as indicative of non-thorough proofreading, though the pages I checked were fine. If you confirmed your understanding of and commitment to the policies I linked, I'd probably support your nomination. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm a little confused why you marked all of the top-level mainspace pages that you created as nonstandard texts. Does this indicate that you are not confident in your ability to create texts that confirm to Wikisource standards? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

At the time, I was just starting to get acquainted with wikisource, and thought it would be helpful if someone else took a look --DannyS712 (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Gotcha. Well, those pages look standard enough (or at least as standard as the other court judgements I've seen) so I've removed those tags :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Index:Dictionary of National Biography. Errata (1904).djvu‎‎

The IP edits were reverted, but there seems to be a content loss somewhere, that I can't figure out as reverting back to an old KNOWN version didn't bring back the missing content. What's gone wrong, and how can it be fixed? —unsigned comment by ShakespeareFan00 (talk) .

@ShakespeareFan00: I am confused, I see no content loss anywhere in that page's history, what exactly are you referring to? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Index:Dictionary_of_National_Biography._Errata_(1904).djvu&action=history

The last KNOWN version (15 Feb 2011) is 1063 bytes, The revert to it is only 896 bytes. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: After much head-scratching, I am now pretty certain that the changes to MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index template since February 2011 are the cause of the discrepancy. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, underlying template changes and related empty fields. Wouldn't spend more time on it. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Beleg Tâl/Archives/2019,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Elohist

Do we even need the page? If we have nothing on it after 10 years, maybe it should be deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Maybe. The Elohist author and the Yahwist author are credited with contributing to the Pentateuch, which is a work that we host on Wikisource. So I think there's a good case for having author pages for them, even though their contributions are hypothetical (but then, so are the contributions of Moses). However, I see no need for empty portals dedicated to the documentary sources they are supposed to have written. I think the best solution is to replace the empty portals with non-empty author pages. What do you think? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

<shrug> We can do redirects of portal pages and bunch them under a common portal page for the subject. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: sure, works for me, though I don't think we have any other works on the subject to make a common portal page - maybe we should just redirect to Portal:Bible? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Not my area of speciality. Single item portals are bleh! Old Testament? — billinghurst sDrewth 12:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Beleg Tâl/Archives/2019,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Deleted redirect

Hi. I agree with merging the various disambiguation pages as you have performed recently. However, I would like to ask you if it is possible to undelete the redirect Sonnet 110 (Kollár). The page was created quite a long time ago and such redirects should not be deleted, as it was well argued a short time ago. Thank you. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: The page was created in February 2019 which is very recent and not even remotely close to "quite a long time ago". There are no pages that link to it. There is also no reason to link to it in future, unlike the situation in the discussion you link to. It is literally just clutter. Why would you even want it to remain? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Also in my opinion Sonnet 110 is also a useless page and should just redirect to Sonnet (since the works are all listed there anyway, and the number is itself only further disambig, and the number attached to sonnets has nothing to do with the sonnets themselves and only to do with the edition they happen to be in). So Sonnet 110 (Kollár) is doubly useless. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

"...there's no way of knowing the various places, online and offline, where there might be incoming links." It was created more than 7 months ago, that is a long time ago, and so it is reasonable to keep the redirect. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

As for redirecting Sonnet 110 to Sonnet: I am not sure about its usefulness. Only people looking for something titled "Sonnet 110" are likely to come there. Why should they be redirected to Sonnet, which is overloaded with a large number of other links? What is more, looking for Sonnet 10 using e.g. CTRL+F they would find only Shakespeare. I suggest not to do it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Seven months is practically yesterday. Whatever, it's no longer deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyright in Kenya

• Last message to scouts
• Last message to Scouters and Guides

I was looking at this: w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Unpublished_works. The unpublished letters, made in Kenya, date to 1941. {{Pd/1923}} Wouldn't they now be in the public domain? Evrik (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC) Evrik (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Evrik: yes, but you still have to add the template on the work page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Evrik: You used a pre-1923 license tag, but the work wasn't published until 1941. You need to use a license tag that is valid for 1941 works. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Author talk:Morgan James Sweeney

Think that is what I can find from the easy searches. Should be enough to do the profile components at WD. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Gadget HotCat works with "category redirect"

I was guided ages ago that it was better to utilise {{category redirect}} than to do redirects for categories. I don't remember all the detail, though I know that it works fine with gadget:hotcat, so that is the practice I utilise, and is utilised elsewhere. Are you aware of a system change that would have us apply hard category redirects, or a system change that makes that preferable? Similarly at Comons the practice is to utilise this form rather than delete established categories as people just add the categories often anyway and then they are left red though populated — billinghurst sDrewth 01:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I am not aware of anything that allows any sort of hard or soft category redirect to function in any meaningful way whatsoever. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

<shrug> Is there a problem following the lede of other wikis in their practice and not to put in hard redirects Category: ns? It is purposeful. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: no problem, I just was not aware of the practices of other wikis. Do we have this documented anywhere? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Umm. Never even thought about it, this is the first time that I have seen it locally for a long time—(emphasis "that I have seen".) Plenty of coverage at Mediawiki, Commons and enWP (quick and dirty link grab):

• mw:Help:Categories#Redirecting a category
• c:Commons:Redirect
• w:Wikipedia:Redirect#CATEGORY

— billinghurst sDrewth 22:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Text—non-text distinction

This is, I believe, entirely incorrect. The relicensing not only applied also to non-text media, it specifically applied to all such files uploaded to Commons (which is mostly not text) and all Wikimedia wikis. What's your reasoning for this change? --Xover (talk) 07:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: The Terms of Use forbid the use of imported text "that you have found elsewhere or that you have co-authored with others" that is only licensed under the GFDL but not under CC-BY-SA or a compatible license. It does not forbid the use of non-text media that is only available under the GFDL; "Non-text media on the Projects are available under a variety of different licenses that support the general goal of allowing unrestricted re-use and re-distribution." It has nothing to do with relicensing and has everything to do with the terms of use that forbid us from hosting GFDL-only text. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. That phrasing is indeed ambiguous. I suspect it reflects "Wikipedia bias". However, I believe m:LU is pretty unequivocal: GFDL-only content from third parties is no longer allowed. --Xover (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: Like WS:T, it appears that intentions which were clear in the proposal (i.e. m:LU) are absent in the actual policy (i.e. m:TOU). As it stands, GFDL-only non-text media uploaded to English Wikisource after 2008 does not actually violate any current policy of enWS or the Wikimedia Foundation. We could of course propose a change to WS:COPY if you think this should be explicitly forbidden. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

It may also be worth mentioning that m:LU/FAQ states that "While merging GFDL-only text into WikiMedia projects will ultimately no longer be possible, we propose to continue to permit GFDL 1.2-only media uploads for the foreseeable future, to address concerns regarding strong and weak copyleft, until such concerns are fully resolved to the satisfaction of community members." —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Poland portals

I see that you created Portal:History of Poland … I have to say, I can’t figure out how it differs from Portal:Poland, which also contains works relating to current events at various points in history. Can you explain what the intended purposes of the two portals are? Also, where should I add The Polish Mystery—The National Government, which is a British journalist’s account of the political situation (anti-Russian organized activity) in 1863? Thanks --Levana Taylor (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Levana Taylor: I did not create it; I only made some very minor edits there. Looking at the page history, it looks like Portal:History of Poland was created when Portal:World History was split up into separate portals for each country. You can link to "The Polish Mystery" from both portals if you think it is appropriate. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

OK thanks. I misread the history. I’m going to do a bit of reorganizing. Levana Taylor (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The whole "History of ..." series just confuses me. When is it history? Today, or at the time? Oh we, portals are just our special weirdness anyway. That said, I am guilty of sticking stuff there with nowhere else obvious. [Rider: I am pretty certain that I would fail library cataloguing.) — billinghurst sDrewth 22:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Images-ch9 letter.jpg

Why here and not Commons; how'd the {{subst:uwl}} thing happen; and what's the source? --Xover (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: IDK where {{subst:uwl}} came from, but it's local because I don't think {{PD-Disavowed}} is a valid license for Commons, and it's not in the public domain under "normal" rationales like expiry or release. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey. Good to see you back; I was starting to get worried! :)

I don't think {{PD-Disavowed}} is a valid copyright rationale anywhere, but be that as it may… What's the source? Also, why'd you upload the rest of them to Commons as no-notice? Can we transwiki it to Commons to clean out the maintenance categories here, is what I'm getting at! :-) --Xover (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: The others predate the 1977 cutoff for no-notice, but this one was published in 1978 so no-notice does not apply. I don't think it can be transwikied. File:Zodiac-back-with-you.jpg is also local for this reason. I've updated the source link. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I also agree regarding {{PD-Disavowed}}, and even no-notice is kind of pushing it because these are manuscripts rather than publications, but proposals to crack down on assumed PD have historically not succeeded so I decided to just scan-back them and leave them alone. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Aha! I knew there was something I was missing! Thanks.

Yeah, cracking down on our seriously dubious copyright practices is a fight for a different day. First step is to get more than three people commenting on copyright discussions, and then to get through some of our backlogs (and boy do we have those!). If we can manage that then maybe, possibly, we could have a community discussion on some of the issues in that area. --Xover (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

author:Clay Smith

Might this person be https://www.barnhouse.com/composer/clay-smith/ and d:Q1980516 ? — billinghurst sDrewth 09:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: as far as I can tell these are two different people. Smith (1878-1930) was married to w:Coyla May Spring, ran the Apollo Concert Company, and toured in the US, whereas Smith (1885-?) was married to Lee White, ran the Lee-White Company, owned and operated the Strand Theatre in London, and toured in the UK and Australia. Info on Author:Clay Smith (sparse at is is) can be found here, here, and here, and also apparently in the book Horses Don’t Fly: A Memoir of World War I, by Frederick Libby (New York: Arcade, 2000). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)