User talk:Eievie

Constitution of Medina

Works hosted on Wikisource must be in the public domain, or must have been released under a license compatible with Wikisource. The three translations you've listed were all published after 1929, so that are not automatically in the public domain in the US. Please note that published translations may be under copyright, even if the original text is ancient. Translations that are still protected by copyright cannot be hosted here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The First Written Constitution by Muhammad Hamidullah was published in 1941 in Lahore, then British India. The copyright of that time and place was the Indian Copyright Act 1914. Is that the right law to look into, or would later laws trump it? Eievie (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Cesura

The reason that {{gap}} is now used is that it is a more recent and more flexible formatting template. {{cesura}} is an older template that has not been updated, and is seldom used any more. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh. I thought {{cesura}} was more specific about it's usage, so I just assumed it was better. Eievie (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It is more specific, but it's very specific, requiring a lang block template, specified font, and special formatting to produce a gap of the right size. The {{gap}} template works in any font style. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll ask around and see if we can't get the template modernized and made adjustable locally to specific works using CSS. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The template should be updated now. I'm not certain whether the width can be adjusted using CSS, but the tamplate has at least been brought up to standards. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Eievie (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The Life and Voyages of Captain James Cook

Files in the public domain in both the US and their country of origin should be uploaded to Commons, rather than Wikisource. We only host files here if they are public domain in the US but not in the country of origin. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Treatise of the Covenant of Grace

Thank you for doing some work on this. Can you do anything better on making the errata footnote clearer where the only effect is for incorrect wording is to be removed, namely on pages 41, 268, and 280?

My purpose in working on this book is to prepare for a modern spelling edition (if I ever get that far), as I have been told by experienced people at Wikisource that this is required before an "annotated" edition is permitted (which is what a modern spelling edition would be treated as). This would not be updated or translated in any other way than updating the spelling. Merely typing it in a modern typeface removes the long esses, which are a major part of this, but there are plenty of other examples, e.g. removing the final "e" from "eate" and "roote" on page 1, and changing "signifie" to "signify" half way down page 3. I would not revise grammar, for instance changing "importeth to "imports". This would make my updated edition similar to ones done for a large quantity of other Puritans' writings in the 19th century. PeterR2 (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I was just adding in the {{errata}} template because there is a template specifically for that. By the template existing, I assumed that was the site's standardized way to handle errata. That's really all I know. Eievie (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Where in the volume are the Errata published? The {{errata}} template is for placing the published errata in place, and linking to the place where the errata appear in the volume. I do not see the published errata in the volume. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

If you're still talking about A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, then the errata are on the bottom of this page. Eievie (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Then the final volume is not set up to link to this yet? See Orlando Furioso (Rose)/Canto 15 just after p.140, as an example, where the errata notes at the end of the Canto are linked to the errata as published, so that readers can verify the corrections were published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The original book has an Errata section at the bottom of the Contents page facing page 1, the start of the main text. PeterR2 (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

But where is that connection made in our transcluded copy? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't me who installed the Errata template into A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace (I had been making the called-for corrections using SIC), but I don't feel that there is clear information as to how to use this Errata template. Nor did the Orlando Furioso book apparently originally have an Errata page (correct me if I'm wrong) whereas in A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace we have an Errata page in the original 1645 book. I thought I saw somewhere that the Errata template was meant for the situation where the original book had an Errata page (as you said "the published errata"). See also A_Treatise_of_the_Covenant_of_Grace#cite_note-1 PeterR2 (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The Orlando Furioso does have an Errata page in each volume, and because it is referenced in multiple Cantos, it is displayed on the volume page for each volume. Follow the "detail" link to see the Errata. That's how it's supposed to be set up. On the page with the text to be corrected, the Errata show up as a set of footnotes, each linked back to the Errata in the book. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

OK I have now found the original errata page in Orlando Furioso. It has an "anchor+" template, and also repeated hidden text with the word "Page" (once "Pige") . The first erratum, on page 32 has this {{errata|vince|vinces|Orlando Furioso (Rose)/Introduction#ERRATA}}. PeterR2 (talk) 10:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Style changes

As a general principle:

1) We do not change the style of a page if the result will be significantly different from the original. Putting centered text into the left-hand column of a table is a significant change.

2) We do not overhaul the style work of others unless there is a strong technical reason that the change must be made. I have noticed that you have been going through proofread works and making major stylistic changes and changes to template calls that are both unnecessary and are significantly different from what was originally done. This is considered bad form on Wikisource, for multiple reasons; like bulldozing someone's garden to redesign it the way you prefer. If the garden was not full of weeds, then this approach is inappropriate. You should stop making such changes, consider reverting your changes.

--EncycloPetey (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The notion that implementing more streamlined templates isn't allowed sounds far-fetched to me. If that really is a rule, can you please point me to which policy says so? Eievie (talk) 05:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)