User talk:EncycloPetey

EncycloPetey

(Archives index, Last archive)

Tragedies of Euripides (Way)

Hello. Shouldn't the sub-pages show Euripides as author as well as Way as translator ? Or am I missing something ? -- Beardo (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The title is "The Tragedies of Euripides". I think at the time I started this, the reasoning was that saying "The Tragedies of Euripides, by Euripides" was redundant in the header. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if it might be useful to have links to the author page - either in the header blocks or in the notes. -- Beardo (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Teeftallow and Rope

I think that Rope (US 1929) is based on Index:Teeftallow-1926.djvu. It was mentioned in a search result, and I haven't read much of either. I put it at wikidata like this but it really needs to be reviewed/verified. Thank you.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Highly unlikely. Teeftallow is about a lynching in Tennessee. Rope is a UK play about a plotted murder followed by gloating, and is set in one scene in a single room. Aside from a death, there is no resemblance between the two. I think the AI that suggested the connection made only a random connection between these two. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian, @EncycloPetey - I hope you don't mind me butting in here. According to http://findingaids.uflib.ufl.edu/repositories/2/archival_objects/290650 the novel was adapted into a different play called Rope in 1928 - "Rope (By D. Wallace) : "A Drama" by David Wallace and T.S. Stribling (Based upon Mr. Stribling's novel, "Teeftallow")" -- Beardo (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Beardo: Thanks for the research! I have removed all the bad data.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Raph Williams65

I'm probably missing something, but, out of curiosity, why did you Nuke him? Only copied over a template from WP, and it doesn't look like vandalism. From looking around, didn't look like it was discussed anywhere, and I'm not seeing in which CSD this falls. (And Nuke, as it doesn't provide a reason, can look intimidating to new users.) Thanks. — Alien  3
3 3 18:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

New users should not be blindly copying in templates from other projects as their first (and only) edits here. We have enough cruft. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Creating Tables

Hi, I need help creating table, as I'm struggling to match the design.

• Page:Phrenotypics; or, The Science of Memory Simplified and Made Easy (Woollacott).djvu/17]]
• Page:The science of memory fully expounded. For the use of students, ministers, public speakers, etc. (IA scienceofmemoryf00will).pdf/104
• Page:The science of memory fully expounded. For the use of students, ministers, public speakers, etc. (IA scienceofmemoryf00will).pdf/105
• Page:The practical memory system (IA practicalmemorys00lest).pdf/46

82.167.168.197 00:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The first and final ones on that list, I'm not sure how to achieve. I think I've fixed the third one, which may be enough for you to see how to fix the second one. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Could you use w:en:Template:Diagonal split header for the second and third ones? For the last one, it looks like uploading an image is the best solution. 82.167.168.197 04:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

As I say: I do not know. That's something I've never seen before. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Is Sex Necessary?

Thank you for working on this fun book! But I do not understand why you reverted the edit that marked page 10 as a blank page in the Index with a dash? I believe that that is the way to do it. It did not mess up the pagination of any of the succeeding pages; page 11 still comes out as page 11. Did you not notice that? See the documentation here: Help:Page_numbers#Un-numbered_pages -- Gnuish (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

No, a dash is not used for every blank page. We mark a blank page by setting the Proofread option to "Without Text". A dash is for a page that is both blank and not part of the numbering sequence. The page you marked is clearly page 10, because the page before it is page 9, and the page after it is page 11, so it is part of the numbering sequence. That is explained at the location you linked. You did not read the qualification at the start of the section. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I did read the qualification at the start of the section. And it says that the numbering continues under the dash, as indeed it does. Try looking at the version that you reverted, using this link, and you'll note that the page number after the dash in the list of pages is 11, not 10. And when you click on page 11, it takes you to a page that has [11] printed at the bottom. It worked.

Pages i, ii, iii, and iv are also fully blank and should probably be dashes in the page list. One can set pages to "-" without disturbing the roman numeral numbering as well. The fact that those pages were blank was an artifact of the printing technology of the time, not actually part of what the author intended to convey. (As is the blank page behind the illustration on page 9, or the blank pages that in some books align chapter starts on a right-hand page.)

I appreciate that there may be multiple ways to do things such as denote a fully blank page. What I didn't appreciate is when you reverted a way to do things that worked fine and caused no problems. Reverting other editors' changes should be reserved for when they have made a mistake, or vandalism, not merely for when you might have chosen to do it a different way. Reverting is not a kind gesture, it's more of a slap in the face. I humbly ask that you seek to be kind to other editors. -- Gnuish (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I do not think that the irony in the end of the previous contribution was necessary or helpful in any way. Having said that, I would just like to note that I also often mark blank pages with a dash. As it is not a really important issue, I suggest letting the contributors to the work to settle it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Duplicate ID's..

Out of the attempted repairs, I hadn't found any more problems (other than those you had already reverted), but your objections meant I've reverted a number of pages, because you implied the attempted solutions were not solving the problem. However as a result the reverts have re-tinroduced the Duplicate ID's error that were present before the fixes.

Perhaps you would care to look over the reverted pages, and in a calm way explain why you considered the intended changes not to have worked as intended? (BTW fp-xxx, was being used as "Facing Page XXX") . If you are saying it's generating new duplicates fair enough, but I had attempted to make the ID's unique.. Hmm... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I understood what the fp-X were intended to mean, but the numbers were wrong. As I said, please discuss the issue with the community to come up with a solution before implementing it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you see the problem (at right)? You applied a novel solution, to work that other people did, without discussing the proposed change, and included errors when you applied it. Slow down, and discuss first. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

A novel solution that isn't apparently working or appreciated. Just roll-back everything, it's quicker than having an argument. That way someone else can reinstate any repairs that are actually stable post discussion. Highly disruptive (possibly), but we must respect that this "novel" approach introduced errors. Perhaps you could also start the relevant discussion, to implement a proper "policy" as you managed to convince me that this is no longer the sort of collabrative project I thought it was, which is a shame. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: See also Wikisource:Scriptorium#Duplicate_ID 's..

Author:Johann Georg Hohman

The page which I created Author:John Georg Hohman mixes the anglicized John and the Germanic Georg. I think that may have been a mistake from the index - the actual book used John George. I have now created a redirect from the book version of the name to the author page. Should the John Georg Hohman be left as an unused redirect or can that be deleted as unneeded ? -- Beardo (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Check ISNI and the Library of Congress listings. Any spelling that appears in a major database like those makes a valuable redirect. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Namespace-dependent link templates

(@SurprisedMewtwoFace) Often, e.g. here, pages use namespace-dependent templates, so in Page it looks like they only link to pagespace, and they don't link to mainspace, but when transcluded in to mainspace (in this case here), they do link to mainspace and not to pagespace, as they should. Therefore these pages aren't problematic. — Alien  3
3 3 15:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm...I didn't mark them as problematic, another poster did. Should I undo the last few changes I made and leave it with the earlier revision? Most people reading will be reading in mainspace, not pagespace. SurprisedMewtwoFace (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Revert it, I don't know, as it's not worse, but there wasn't a need to do that. — Alien  3
3 3 16:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Got them reverted and marked proofread, not problematic, again. Sorry about the confusion. SurprisedMewtwoFace (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I marked these pages as problematic because (a) they do not link to the short stories as they should, and (b) they link to the Author pages, and they shouldn't. A table of contents should never link to materials outside the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

On b): The names of authors may be wikilinked to an author page (i.e., a page in the Author namespace) (from WS:Links). I don't recall seeing such an interdiction to linking to authors in a toc page. Could you point me to where it resides? Thanks. — Alien  3
3 3 19:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Three principles apply here:

(1) There is no policy or guideline that advocates the linking of external pages from a table of contents. This is not a practice that has ever been encouraged. To say "It hasn't been explicitly prohibited, therefore it is OK" is a fallacious argument. Not all conventions on Wikisource are spelled out in policies. Some are considered to be such basic common sense that no one has ever written them down. This is one of those.

(2) The WP principle of "least surprise" applies here; a table of contents is for navigating the internal pages of a work, and should not include a set of external links to other pages.

(3) You can see that Jan.Kamenicek made this same statement on this same page in January. So I am not the first administrator to point out this problem even on this page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. — Alien  3
3 3 19:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I am really against that template's use. It means that links do not show up on the Index page copy of the ToC, so editors actually working to set up the mainspace subpages cannot access the links from the Index, nor even know whether any or all of the subpages exist at all. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Module:Makeid

Thanks,

What I was attempting to do was flag uses of purely digit numbering <nowiki>^%d+$<noiwki>, in content in Page namespace as potentially these conflict with the page numbering script. This has been a headache, Perhaps you could review the last edit, which got to the intended goal, and do a code review. I had already self-reverted as it was clearly not working prior to the last edit. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Module:Isdigit Okay why is this causing errors? I've had it with having to literally play hunt the quirk EVERY single time :rage: ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)