User talk:Beleg Tâl/Archives/2024

Wkidata uses
Re: "Versions pages on enWS should be linked to "literary work" items on Wikidata"; we also have version pages that should link to "dramatic work", "scholarly work", or even "written work", among others. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure those are subclasses of literary work, but yes you're right :D —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe "written work" contains "literary work", rather than the other way. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Index:The Statutes of the Realm Vol 6 (1685-94).pdf
Can you do page re-alignment on these and later volumes? Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I can add it to my to do list, but I'm not likely to get to it soon. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Paleographic letter forms...
Category:Palaeographic_letter_templates These need documenting if you had time. A lot of them need Junicode to work, but when that's set up an Indexstyles they are VERY powerful for transcribing some older works :) .. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea. I am not familiar with most of those templates, but it would be good to have them properly documented. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Initials template at Author:Joseph B. Sindelar
Hello. When I reverted your edit, I explained it in the summary. May I ask why you reverted it again without any explanation? -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry. I'm going through a list of dozens of untagged author profiles and didn't realize I did that one already. Maybe I'll come up with some sort of category for "authors with initials that are supposed to be like that" or something —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Have a look at WS:S and let me know what you think :D —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem :-) As for the linked discussion, it is definitely a good idea to mark such author pages somehow, though I am not able to say which of the two discussed possibilities is better. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Match and Split comment
Hi, I note your comment on the newly created category that archive.org text pastes could be good match and split candidates. H:MS specifically lists IA texts as not suitable for M&S. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Some texts are copy-pasted from IA without proofreading, and those are not good for match and split. But quite a few are actually proofread against scans, but predate the ProofreadPage extension (or are uploaded by certain editors who don't use the ProofreadPage extension for some reason). So I said could be good candidates. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Author:Meša Selimović
I see that you added a PD/US licence to this author. Are you aware of any works by him that are pre-1929 ? I note that his wikipedia article says that his first work was 1948. -- Beardo (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about this person, I just added a suitable license tag because the page had no license at all —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What made you think that licence was suitable ? What licence should be used for someone with no works that can be hosted in Wikisource ? -- Beardo (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The license would be suitable because any works by them published pre-1929 would be PD (this is true for everyone). If there are truly no hostable works by them, then copyright author would be even more suitable, and deletion would probably be even more suitable than that (following a discussion at WS:PD of course) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Editor in Header
Your edit creates a new problem. There are works that were edited in their original language, then translated into English, such as all of the Imperial poetry collections throughout Japanese history. In those cases, we definitely want the editor to appear first. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

"No license" tags
Hi, I see you are adding no license templates to a number of works. I'd urge you to be a little more cautious with them; in some cases, a license is indeed clearly indicated, just not in the programmatic way that makes administrative review easier. For instance, Wikipedia publishes 500,000 articles in 50 languages states in its header "The text of this press release is placed into the public domain by its authors."

More specifically, when I was learning the ways of Wikisource, for a long time I thought the license information was understood to be kept with the underlying djvu or PDF files on Commons, and didn't worry about adding them here. I now understand that's not sufficient, but...old habits die hard. I'm doing my best to catch your tags on my watchlist and add templates where I can, but I'm not sure I'll keep up. I hope there will be an effort to catch at least the straightforward cases prior to any deletion effort? -Pete (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it, I have no intention of trying to delete them :) think of it more as just a label that says "you can improve this work by adding a license tag" —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But, it's not just your intentions I'm worried about. I'm not sure if it's the case here, but certainly on other wikis administrators will often purge anything with a "no license" tag with a speedy delete. Also, why should the reader be subjected to the tag, at the top of the page, in a case where there's a clear statement in the header? If the information is indicated, this seems to me confusing and cluttery to the reader, and counterproductive. -Pete (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Lack of license tag is not a valid rationale for speedy deletion on enWS; to be speedied it must be a "clear and proven copyright violation". And as for subjecting the reader to tags, I think it is good for readers to have clear indications for when a work is not up to our standards, and why. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Another way to go about it might be a slightly gentler tag, something that goes at the bottom of the article and says "the license should be reviewed." If you're not reviewing even for statements in the header notes, that's a step somebody should take prior to making a definitive "no license" assertion. -Pete (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. The current wording of no license is a lot harsher than most maintenance tags. Maybe I'll propose a reword on the scriptorium. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thanks. -Pete (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I said this on Scriptorium, but I'll say it again here more directly. Despite my concerns about the process, I very much appreciate your attention and effort to addressing what is apparently a pretty pervasive and important problem. You brought an important bit of policy to my attention that I had never noticed before, and I'll be adjusting my practices going forward. Thank you for that part. Still think there are some process details to discuss, but I want to reassure you that I see value in your overall effort. -Pete (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

STOP STOP STOP adding no license tags
I’m trying to clean them up somewhat systematically, mass-adding pages DOES NOT HELP. PLEASE STOP. (Also, get permission before using a bot?) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Do I need to spam your talk page as much as you spam the template? When did your bot get approved? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous. It's a maintenance tag. Not everyone can deal with the ridiculously over-complicated PetScan query. Seriously. (Also AWB doesn't require bot approval on enWS) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m not saying that everyone has to use the PetScan query—I know how cumbersome it can be. As people mentioned in the discussion (in which you participated), there is a better way of doing things than just adding the template everywhere. This is especially so where the license is easy to add. You have already added it around 1,500 times (just checking quickly over your recent contributions), which does not help a structured approach to tackling this problem. (Again, this is especially so where the template has a more dire message than the reality of the situation.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I have asked for the tags to be added, because it helps me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your undertaking!
Seems like our projects are aligned again! I'm constantly using (and annoyed with) sidenote templates and I just want to thank you for setting up [[Template:Beleg Tâl's sidenotes]] as a placeholder. I'll definitely be using it going forward (especially in my current Bible projects), and I'm looking forward to seeing how it develops. Feel free to reach out and complain about sidenotes whenever!

—SpikeShroom (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Blenheim column of victory
Hello.

I would like to ask you about the changes at Text on the Column of Victory in the grounds of Blenheim Palace.

Back in 2006, I visited the location of the column, took close-up photographs of the column with sufficient resolution to allow the text to be transcribed, then myself transcribed the text on the south face of the column, which contains an (entertainingly biased) account of the Battle of Blenheim - a not insignificant amount of work. I also uploaded the photographs - the photographs of the south face as a source for which my transcription could be verified, and if necessary corrected, and the photographs of the other faces of the column in order to enable other people to transcribe the text of those to expand the page. I believe that the north, east and west faces contain the text of a private Act of Parliament that gave the estate to the Duke of Marlborough.

In 2007, somebody else added the text from the east face.

The page remained in substantially the same form until 2018 when you edited it, although it appears that at some point somebody deleted the photos. I see that in 2018 you removed my transcription of the text on the south face. I am guessing that this is because by that time, the photos had been removed, so there appeared to be no source for the text. I see that there is someone's photograph of the east face on Commons and that someone else's photo of the south face (taken in 2015 and under a CC-BY-NC 2.0 licence) exists on Flickr. If downloaded at the highest resolution, the text of the south face is legible (aside from a rather small amount obscured by the railings near the bottom of the photo), so if a copy can be uploaded to Commons (as the licence would appear to permit) then this would resolve the problem of lack of sourcing.

I was going to try to restore the text from the south face based on the page history, but I see that it is now set up to include text from Wikidata, and I have no clue how to do this. I don't want just to restore the page in its previous form if we are supposed to use Wikidata instead these days.

Please can you add the text from the south face. You will that I had formatted some of the it as centred text - this is where it appeared as such on the column itself as you will clearly see in the photo, so it would be good for this formatting to be preserved along with the text.

Thank you. Scil100(2) (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Huh, interesting. It was a long time ago that I worked on that, and it looks like I replaced it with a transcription from a photo that got deleted, as you surmise.
 * I see that there are some photos on Commons that could be used as a source, though I am not sure which face is which:
 * commons:File:ENG Woodstock Blenheim Park 004.jpg
 * commons:File:ENG Woodstock Blenheim Park 005.jpg
 * commons:File:ENG Woodstock Blenheim Park 006.jpg
 * commons:File:ENG Woodstock Blenheim Park 007.jpg
 * I'll see what I can do with this :)
 * —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC) —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Floruit
Thank you for fixing the author pages with hardcoded fl. dates I'd made! I'd been a bit hesitant to create Wikidata pages for authors when there wasn't much information about them, but will do so in future, and avoid hardcoded dates. I did have a couple of questions though.

I noticed that you'd added the 1800s as a decade for the floruit date of some authors (I guess to make them appear as fl. 1800s in the header?) but I couldn't work out how to change this to 19th century. As says it supports multiple dates, I've added them all to authors whose work spans more than one decade. Not sure if this is the best approach, as the header then adds them all as "fl. 18xx/fl. 18xx/fl.18xx", etc. (e.g. Author:Heinrich Apel); maybe the header template could be changed to remove all subsequent fl.s? edit: I've now switched the floruit values to each decade they published works (e.g. "fl. 1820s/fl. 1830s"); still not sure this is the best approach; perhaps Header could use the &  values that you've added? What do you think? -- Yodin T 15:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The approach I prefer is to use the smallest single valid unit possible in (whether that be a year, decade, or century), and then put the actual dates in  and . As for using the latter values in author, I have made that suggestion but it hasn't been taken up. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Author:Sota Omoigui
Do you recall why you included a PD-1923 license ? That doesn't seem right to me. -- Beardo (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * No I don't, but I expect it's because it's the only license that is always valid regardless of where or when the author lived, so if you don't know anything about an author it's really the only license that you can use. (shrug) —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In this case, the author page should have been deleted after the discussion at WS:CV, so I'll flag it for deletion —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC) —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for adding WikiData links
WikiData is an almost complete mystery for me, so thank you for connecting my authors to WikiData pages - I imagine it's done semi-automatically, but it's still worth thanks!

Qq1122qq (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Psst @Qq1122qq, don't forget to add license tags when creating author pages :) —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the prompt - at the moment I'm just going through the contents pages for the 1928 Popular Mechanics issues and adding author stubs. For many of them we don't have autobiographical information, or even full names. What would be the most sensible license tags for them? Qq1122qq (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If they've published something before the US cutoff date (such as the 1928 Popular Mechanics), then you can use PD-US regardless of any autobiographical information. —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * All Popular Mechanics 1928 author pages should now be updated with license information. Thanks again for the prompt. Qq1122qq (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

‎Poems by Emily Dickinson - Second Series
Don't forget that each of these poems had a Wikidata item associated with it. Either the versions page or a "duplicate" edition should be connected to each of those data items. Right now, what's happened at Wikidata is each data item has been de-linked from Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * If the items are for the poem themselves, I'll link them to the versions page. If they are for the unsourced edition, then they should probably be deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How would you go about listing all the WD items that were linked to these pages? Can it be done with petscan or something? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The easiest way might be to check your Wikidata Contributions. You'll be listed as having edited each page as part of your deletion actions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

sdelete
Hi. Why leaving a redirect when moving a page and then tag it as sdelete, instead of moving without redirect? You are also an admin, you could speedy right away in case you forgot to uncheck the "Leave a redirect behind". Mpaa (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * When I'm using my non-admin account User:Beleg Âlt (i.e. when I don't have access to my MFA device to log in as admin), then I have to use sdelete :) Often I'll be the one to go back and delete them properly when I'm logged in as admin, but often someone else beats me to it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah OK, I didn't notice the Alt vs Tal :-) Mpaa (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Dab redirects
I'd seen a lot of redirects in disambiguation pages, but up to now I assumed they were created by some sort of (semi-)automatic system. I just realized that you do them manually. What's the point? — Alien333 (what I did &amp; why I did it wrong) 14:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not really necessary, but I do it to maintain the distinction between a work (which will be a versions page or redirect), and an edition (which would be the scan-backed text). The redirect essentially holds the space for the future versions page when other versions are added, and makes for less work in the future (and makes it easier to clean up if they forget to create the versions page). It also makes it easier (for me) when I'm dealing with integrations between enWS and Wikidata, where the work and edition remain separate items even if the work page on enWS is only a redirect.
 * Anyway if you don't feel like doing this, it doesn't matter too much, I just find it marginally improves the organization of information on this website. —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. It is for the same reason that sometimes redirects are created to a subpage of a work, though they not used in the TOC? (first example coming across my mind is Snowflakes, that I've since overwritten for a disambiguation page) — Alien333 (what I did &amp; why I did it wrong) 16:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. When I am working on anthologies and collections, I always create redirects (or versions pages) from the title of the work, to the edition of the work published within that anthology or collection. Again, it's not really necessary, but it keeps things cleaner and makes it a lot easier when dealing with integration with Wikidata and other Wikimedia projects.—See, for example, User:Beleg Tâl/Sandbox/Flint and Feather —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For an example of why I do this, have a look at Author:Charles Lutwidge Dodgson. We have multiple versions of most of his poems, but the majority of them do not have a versions page (yet), and most of those with a blue link redirect to only one of the versions that we have. I will be working on cleaning this up, but my personal preference is to handle this stuff as I go. —Beleg Âlt BT (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Acrostic disambiguation page
Hi, I saw you'd added some items to this recently. Contrary to the title at the head of the page, most of the works listed are not called 'Acrostic', they an acrostic. Those that are, such as the Keats and Poe poems, and the encyclopaedia articles, should be here but most of the others should simply be categorised as 'Acrostics' (category doesn't exist at the moment). Chrisguise (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * On the contrary - the only works I added to that page that are not titled "Acrostic" are Acrostic - Madrigal and Acrostic - The Martyr, which in my opinion are close enough. The others are, in fact titled "Acrostic". There are other acrostics by Carroll that are not titled "Acrostic", which I did not add to that page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)