User talk:Uzume

Text-indent

We normally do not present indentation of paragraphs on Wikisource. But if you want a shorter name, {{dent}} exists, and works for both indented text and hanging indents. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

That is nice but I am not sure I care too much. I just used it here for this response. Uzume (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

If you only need it for talk pages, you can produce the same effect with a colon, as I did here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I never said that. And I do not like the colon as it uses definition list markup. Uzume (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

My mistake. I misunderstood what you meant by "I just used it here for this response." --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

My point was there are other uses than in Wikisource content. Uzume (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Scans

Please do not use {{Scan}} if the work has been fully transcribed. Scan index pages should only be linked it the process of proofreading is still in progress. Once the proofreading is complete, we remove the link to the scan, and instead link to the transcluded, finished copy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Pliny now messed up

Hi, the changes you've made to the Hudson translation of Pliny mean that the Bostock & Henry translation links are also pointing to the same version. You need to sort this out. If they are to have the same title (The Natural History of Pliny), then there needs to be disambiguation—usually in the form The Natural History of Pliny (Hudson).

On a related note, subpages should not have redirects left behind, so mark them for speedy deletion with criterion M2 "unneeded redirect". Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I actually noticed that and am still working on it. —Uzume (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle: Okay, that makes me wish there was a rights group for suppressredirect here. It seems like I have to have be an admin or a bot to get that here though. —Uzume (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It was a deliberate decision at the time of setting enWS up to restrict that right to admins only. It's because of the potential to break incoming external links for works that have been hosted for more than a short period of time (undefined). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Cut and paste moves

Hi Uzume,

Please note that most content on Wikimedia projects are licensed in such a way (CC BY-SA) as to require attribution of the original when reusing it, typically handled in practice by linking back to the original. In particular, when copying a template or Lua module here from enWP you should make sure the edit summary contains a link to the original (e.g. w:Template:Ensure AAA contrast ratio). This also has the beneficial side-effect of making clear what the source is in case it needs to be reimported later (as is often the case with code). Xover (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Xover: I would have run actual imports if I had that right. Maybe you can do that for me (I have seen logs where you did that in the past). I did add Wikidata sitelinks, even if I did not specifically link back to the copy source directly as you mentioned. Thank you, —Uzume (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

UK Statutory Rules/Instruments and Orders...

A partial list of external sources is here:- Portal:Secondary Legislation of the United Kingdom but as you've found with 1964 there may be more volumes than just Year 19xx volume 1,2,3. etc. which isn't reflected in the current portal.

Any chance you could liase with @Technolalia: in getting 'complete' (and page-list checked) volume-sets for Commons? https://statutes.org.uk/site/collections/british-and-irish/statutory-rules-orders-instruments/ listing various volumes from around 1890 (although obviously not all S.R & O or SI were in fact printed in collated volumes, especially those of a temporary or local character.)

My interests in UK SI, are those dealing with Traffic Signs, especially pre 1972 SI's amending TSGRD 1964 and the earlier TSGRD 1957, which are NOT present on legislation.gov.uk. TSGRD 1975 onward are on legislation.gov.uk, and so are less of a priority. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Well, I am not sure that I am that interested, however, I always like to fix things. That said, I am not familiar with Technolalia or for that matter, UK legislation either. I believe you are referring to User talk:Technolalia#Statutory Insturments.. (FYI, I am in the USA and a VPN won't buy anything at HathiTrust or its University of Michigan administrator; as Technolalia stated everything is via login). It is cool that he has been poking Google and getting them to release them. Government documents usually have very different public domain/copyright statuses (e.g., in USA all documents generated by a government official in the performance of their duties are considered public domain at time of release, including legislation, military reports, etc.). —Uzume (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

That's fair.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

ToC issue

Hi, I don't know how to fix the small problem of the ToC between pages 20 and 21. See the result The Novels and Other Works of Lyof N. Tolstoï/Volume 19. Thanks, Yann (talk) 07:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I got interrupted and did not get time to finish it. I plan to solve that issue by using the same concept as {{hws}}/{{hwe}} (basically copying the data and make one disappear and the other show both). It is a simple enough fix. —Uzume (talk) 09:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

She

I note that there seem to be two versions of the same original at:

• Index:She - a history of adventure (cu31924098819562).djvu, and
• Index:She - a history of adventure (IA cu31924098819562).pdf

Are they both needed ? -- Beardo (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Beardo: No, not that I am aware of but I am not sure why you would ask me as it seems to me there are others far more versed in such things that I am. It seems to me the revised edition at Index:She (1888).djvu would be even more interesting. —Uzume (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I asked you because you worked on the .pdf and created the .djvu, didn't you ? I'll ask in the general main forum. -- Beardo (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did, likely because I uploaded the DjVu. —Uzume (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Multi-language works

Multi-language works are hosted at the multi-language Wikisource, not on the English Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I am aware of that—what is your point? —Uzume (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

You posted (edit-conflict) at WS:PD for keeping the Latin edition of the Commentaries of Caesar.. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I only vied for the English portions as per another vote. I fully agree the Latin portions have no business here. —Uzume (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The end-notes were a mix of Latin and English. The six pages of "Introduction" were the only portion entirely in English. And these pages had two issues: (1) in 13 years of the Index being here, no one proofread those pages, (2) the "Introduction" was a ramble by the author not focused on the text or Caesar. Please also note that you did not comment on keeping the work until after it was deleted, and posted simultaneously with my posting to close the discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: You sound defensive. Even though I believe the English portions of the work could have stayed, I am in no way disappointed with the outcome. If someone proofs the Latin portions at la.WS or mul.WS, I would vie for an undeletion but until then, I am unconcerned. You might notice, I pointed the WS link at the Commons DjVu file entry at mul.WS (via oldwikisource iw prefix). Thank you, —Uzume (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't control how I "sound" to you; that's entirely your interpretation. But in future, if you want to comment to Keep something in a WS:PD discussion, please comment before the deletion happens, not afterwards. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I agree, language is never entirely precise and the "sound" of things can easily be misinterpreted (and thus my comment). That said, I believe I posted my response before the deletion (although I cleared re-edited it during/after). Regardless, I am still unconcerned on the outcome (and more concerned about this discussion actually). —Uzume (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Check the time stamps in Recent Changes. I started deletion at 11:21, and you did not comment until 11:29, as I was deleting the final four pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: And I am expected to check Recent Changes deletions before submitting my reply? I experienced no edit-conflicts at that time. —Uzume (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It's quite a coincidence then that you posted a comment on a thread just as it was about to be closed, considering that you've posted to that discussion page on only two days in the past year. My assumption was that you had posted because you saw the deletion happening in Recent Changes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I did not see that. In fact I posted to WS:PD shortly before that on a different topic and just happened upon this one (without looking at Recent Changes which I do not routinely consult). The so called "edit-conflict" is unfortunate but as I stated before, I am unconcerned with the result (and more concerned with this side-bar discussion). —Uzume (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I suppose two hours earlier could be "shortly before". --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I had researched and prepared most of my response, prior to getting interrupted offline. If your are still unconvinced about the timeline of things, please consult the history of c:File:Commentariesofcj00caesuoft.djvu, where I made edits prior to your closing this WS:PD discussion in question. I am still not sure I grasp the point to this discussion. I also made the 13886938 edit here on the topic of {{Iwpage}} due to that template being mentioned in this WS:PD discussion (as part of my research for the responses in question). —Uzume (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Cabin at Trail's End

Hi Uzume, I notice you uploaded a new version of a scan of The Cabin at the Trail's End by Sheba Hargreaves. I believe this is a PDF of the same scan that was already up as a DJVU.

Are you aware of the general preference for DjVu over PDF, as discussed here? It's not absolute, as I understand it, and I'm interested in any reasons you may have had. Seemed best to discuss before transcription efforts begin in earnest. Thoughts?

And, are you interested in working on this transcription? I'd be happy to work on it with you if so. -Pete (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: I do not have an issue with DjVu in general but IA-Upload corrupted that particular one (as it does far too often when building from JP2 bundles) by incorporating pages that it should not have. That is the cause of the OCR text being on the wrong page (an error by IA-Upload). There are numerous tickets on Phabricator about this. The PDF I uploaded (also via IA-Upload) does not have such issues. —Uzume (talk) 03:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

GoToLinkedPage

I'm curious about this. Why the detour through Wikidata for a local wikilink, and why not just use {{wdl}} if some form of indirection is needed? Xover (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Xover: Mostly because I was considering moving that to Commons as per c:File:The Adventure of the Three Garridebs 01.jpg —Uzume (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks. I wondered what I was missing. :) Xover (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Xover: I was trying to cleanup author:Howard Keppie Elcock but this credits are in significant disarray so one thing at a time. I did not want to just override {{do not move to Commons}} without ample substantiation. —Uzume (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

We have redirects

What is the value of making edits like this? We have redirects in place that perform that function. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: By the same token an argument could be made that |author-display= (along with |override-author= and similar for other contributor types) are also unneeded since we have redirects that serve such purposes. Are you advocating to be rid of such template/module parameters in lieu of redirects? If so, methinks your argument should be made at Template talk:Header. Thank you, —Uzume (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

No, we do need both values for Author pages disambiguated by the use of dates. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Actually, we do not. The current {{header}} logic will automatically remove parenthesized disambiguation from the author (or other contributor) link display text. So in point of fact, if dab dates are included at the end in parens, there is no actual need for those parameters (at least not based upon your current argument). That said, I believe they are useful and would not consider lobbying for their removal. —Uzume (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Incidentally, it is quite possible Author:F. Scott Fitzgerald could come to refer to more than a single author, e.g., becoming a {{dab}} page, including Frances Scott Fitzgerald as well as Author:Francis Scott Fitzgerald. Wouldn't it be good if the works linked to the right place then? —Uzume (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

If that situation arose, your approach would require us to edit every single header with the direct link. Using the redirects would simply necessitate a change of redirect target. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Well perhaps I am preparing to convert that to such a {{dab}} page. What are the value of your posts here questioning me about such? —Uzume (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I want to determine whether (1) there is some advantage I am unaware of. If there truly is a benefit, then community practice should change in light of such a benefit, or (2) if there is no actual benefit, the eliminating needless edits, wasteful time, or detrimental changes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I cannot say I understand your impetus to question me about such edits. Were you able to obtain what you were looking for? If you determine they have little to no benefit, how do you propose to eliminate them? I do not think cleaning up accreditation and/or bypassing some redirection is problematic (in some cases I changed things to read "F. Scott Fitzgerald" as credited in the published work and in others just bypassed the redirection causing the same text to link to Author:Francis Scott Fitzgerald). —Uzume (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

From what I gather, the bypassing of the redirect is pointless. There is no advantage. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I agree, however, there is also no disadvantage either. —Uzume (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

If you are preparing to disambiguate, as you imply, then your edits are wasteful, as all your changes will have to be redone following the disambiguation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Please elucidate as to why? Thank you, —Uzume (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Because, if you are adding the full name of the current Author page to the header now, then you disambiguate that Author page, it moves the location of that Author's page, which means the Author link has to be changed again after the disambiguation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: You have it the other way around. I have now converted Author:F. Scott Fitzgerald to a {{dab}} page. It seems like my earlier edits are in fact need in that light, no? —Uzume (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

No. Frances never went by the name "F. Scott Fitzgerald", so the disambiguation is spurious. Every publication with "F. Scott Fitzgerald" is by Francis, never by Frances. Also, Frances was 7 years old in 1928, so it will be decades before we host any of her works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I am not sure I would call it spurious, but I agree it is a tad early. That said, you seemed to want to force my hand in such matters. It would have been so much easier if you had just dropped the topic, no? —Uzume (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I was not attempting to "force your hand", I was seeking information. It seems more like you are scrambling to justify your actions. You have now made ill-advised changes in the absence of evidence to create an Author page for a seven-year-old (in 1928) with the wrong copyright license. That is, unless you have evidence of works she published by the time she was seven. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

For modern Authors with no known hostable works, we routinely delete the Author pages. Are there hostable works by Frances? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not aware of any, but there might be works available under other potential licenses besides, public domain status. She was a journalist. Some of her work will likely be under an assortment of licenses. —Uzume (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Authority Control

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author:John Horne Burns

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

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

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

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

scan page link 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author:Lazar Komarčić

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

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

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