User talk:EncycloPetey/Archives/2023

Versions dates
I have removed these date categories because versions pages don’t have dates. This is because a work can have different versions published during different dates. This is also true for translation versions pages, as the original work can also have gone through multiple editions, published in different years. Also, those categories (and all other such categories) should be deleted; I have emptied several other categories in a similar manner. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Version / Translation page is for the work itself, and gets linked to the data item for the work. For Classical texts, all editions we host are English translations, and so have a recent date on them.  The best way to categorize the originals is by using the Version / Translation as for the work itself.  Other Wikisources do just that, and it's the one page we coordinate with Wikipedia articles on those works via Wikidata.  It is precisely because th individual editions will all have varying dates, and for ancient, classical, and medieval works, the dates will NOT be the same as the original work.  Hence, but the Version / Translation page into the category.  If you have a decision you can point to, where this removal and deletion of categories was discussed, please share. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree up to “hence.” Where there are multiple versions (either translations or versions), the Wikidata reference should point to the translations or versions page. I agree that the modern translations will have modern dates, to correspond to when those works were published. This is also appropriate for copyright reasons. The original works should be connected through the translations/versions page. I agree with all you have said, until this point. However, I do not understand how those points lead to the conclusion to put incorrect date categories on translations pages. Similarly, dates should not be put on translations or versions pages where individual editions of such works have different dates of publication. Dates serve as measures of copyright to a great degree, so they should be accurate representations of the date of publication of specific editions of a work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Except that is not what Wikidata is doing. If you believe Wikidata is in error, you should let them know.  Our Versions / Translations pages are where the primary data item for the work point.  Italian Wikisource even goes a step farther and put their pages in a namespace "Opera:" (Work:).  I disagree with you about dates.  Where there is a Versions / Translations page, the date on that page should be for the first publication, or composition if the work comes initially from a time when publication was not the primary means of distribution.  And while dates usually are relevant for copyright, they often are not.  The date of a 20th century edition of Shakespeare is only relevant for copyright if the edition includes new notes, illustrations, or the like that merit protection under copyright.  For a translation of an ancient Greek drama, it is the date of first publication of that translation that is relevant, not the date of the specific publication of that translation.  Even in the Loeb Classics series, many of the translations were published well before they appeared in that series. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said, I agree with your comments about Wikidata. Again, if a translations or versions page exists, that should be (is) the point of connection to the Wikidata item. Of course, if a work is old enough, the date doesn’t really matter for copyright; but in any case an accurate date is important for integrity, identification of sources, and citations. For translations/versions pages, while it may be useful to indicate a date of original publication, that should not be given as a date for the work itself, which would just confuse the other (non-copyright) elements. This is especially true where there is not one date to point to for the version. Beyond merely copyright, it is important to indicate dates accurately, and including a date on the translations/versions page confuses the issue. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But for Modern Library or Everyman's Library editions, the date of publication may have no meaning whatever. In that instance, knowing the date of original publication of a work is important.  Knowing the date of the original does not confuse anything, as far as I am concerned. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

nothing about the flac files?
I looked up how to start a sound file playing at a certain time (to skip the lv blurb) and it requires javascript. When I uploaded the flac, it was with visions of highlighted read along.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I know nothing about this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

MC listing
The categories list all indexes present that month—including all one-month- and two-month-old proofreading and validation indexes—not just new indexes for the month. Formerly, a bot added them, but it has not worked since November 2022, and I have been filling them in. (On the topic of bots not working, the daily stats haven’t been working for a days now.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Deprecated Center tags..
https://public-paws.wmcloud.org/User:ShakespeareFan00/obsolete.txt

Perhaps you can make a better effort? I need to review the 1000 or so I did anyway, so will be a bit busy for a while. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Temp screenshot
This is tagged as temporary: File:AsAManThinketh - temp screenshot PM.png. Is it still needed? Xover (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * And File:CDWard.jpg and File:CDWard (cropped).jpg (both tagged as temporary, neither showing any usages)? Xover (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * All were indeed needed only temporarily. I have deleted them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Editing Help
Hello, I have come back on Wikisource after several years. I am not able to get this page in correct manner. Please help and support.-Abhinav619 (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Everything looks fine to me at first glance. You will need to use underline and might need to put the whole page into block center to keep it from spreading out too far to the left and right once it's transcluded. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for it. Can you also check the footnotes.-Abhinav619 (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I see some footer text at the bottom of the page, but no footnotes. A footnote would be attached to the main text with some sort of symbol or number. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * , Sorry footer text only. But it not aligned in one line as can be seen in the original text.-Abhinav619 (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Now it is done. Thank You.-Abhinav619 (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, This document has been proofread. Can you please help with further steps. --Abhinav619 (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I have started it here.--Abhinav619 (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain what process you're seeking help with. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

PD-India criteria
Works that are PD in India are only PD in the US due to URAA if the author died before 1941; unless they're films, sound recordings, government works, anonymous works, or works first published over 60 years after the death of the author; in which case they need to have been published before 1941. I removed PD-India from Vishnampet R. Ramachandra Dikshitar's page because he died in 1953 and I didn't think any of the criteria applied for publication to be the relevant date. Do they? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 19:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Doom of the Great City - ads
Should the ads use curly quotes, as well as the main body ? -- Beardo (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. We stay consistent on that point for any individual scan or related series of scans. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Beardo (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Hellas
I was just about to say, there's no reason to provide a disambiguation page, unless you can find evidence of more works with the same name. But you did, so congrats. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hellas is another name for "Greece", and at the end of the 19th century LOTS of books, articles, and poetry were published under that name, since the Greeks were fighting for independence. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Romance of the Rose
I’ve sent for a copy of the book; the existence of the digital copy might make it take a bit longer to arrive. I’ll keep you up to date, though. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Aristophanes: The Eleven Comedies
Are you able to download full scans from Hathi, and create DjVu files from them? If so, there is a two-volume scan there now that I have been wanting for years: Aristophanes: The Eleven Comedies. It the first complete translation of Aristophanes into English, and we've had a woefully incomplete copy since before I started editing here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @EncycloPetey: No, sorry, it's geolocked so I can't access it. Xover (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's frustrating. I have a physical copy of this work published more than 100 years ago, but this is the only scan I can find.
 * It looks like the Google copies of the scans may be accessible: (vol. 1) & (vol. 2). Will those work? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: If so, volme II looks like it might have a duplicated pair of pages near the front. The main title page ought to be the 11th page of the scan, not the 13th. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @EncycloPetey: Grr, no, geolocked there too. Xover (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't access the Hathi copies, but I may be able to get the Google ones. Let me try, and if so, then I'll upload them locally. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: Vol. 1 times out each time I try to upload, and Vol. 2 is "larger than the server is configured" for. The files are 100MB and 130MB, respectively, as PDFs. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @EncycloPetey: Normal upload caps out at 100MB. To upload up to 2GB you need to install c:User talk:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js, typically by adding  to your common.js. Then you open the File:filname.pdf page (not the upload form) and pick "Upload (chunked)" from one of the top menus (under "Create" I think). Add the description before selecting the file to upload (upload starts immediately when you pick the file), and you can probably set the "Chunk size" slider to max (~20MB).It's really not user friendly, but you should be able to figure it out; and it allows uploads up to ~2GB and can retry uploads even if there is an intermittent failure while uploading. It can't work miracles so if Commons / uploads are really broken it'll still fail, but in my experience it manages to complete uploads far more reliably than the built-in uploader. Sadly Rillke is no longer active because with some user-friendlyness improvements it would be a better option for all uploads (for experienced users; newbies still need handholding with licenses and such). Xover (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

length of feature text intros and Featured text candidates
Hi. Are you able to explain why the introductory text keeps getting longer, then we keep extending the length of "new texts" It used to be the case that we were able to keep to 6 or 7 new text, however for the past few months, we keep adding more and more.

Also, I am not seeing that Featured text candidates is having its gutter updated as we add texts to the list.

Thanks. — billinghurst  sDrewth  14:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't put up any Featured Texts since 2019. The gutter is blank because no one is putting up new texts. We've been cycling through the same works year after year as the monthly templates repeat.  I took charge of the FTs for a time starting in 2017 because in 2015-2016 we had new texts listed every other month instead of every month.  I ceased after 2019 because no one was nominating many usable texts any more.
 * Any sense that they are "getting longer" is self-perceptive, since they haven't been a different length for the past 4 years while the same texts repeat. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you have move rights?
In respect of Coral Island, I am wondering if it is a difference between US vs UK printings. Thus the US edition we have as scans should be more clearly under an 'edition' name? I haven't found the original Nelson publication on IA :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What are you asking? We currently have an unsourced copy, and want to replace it with a scan-backed copy.  Why would that require a move? --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Because I was planning to put a scan of a UK edition up at some point, and I wanted to avoid a duiplicate name. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But you said you haven't found a scan. There is no reason to move it if we don't even have the possibility of using a scan. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I said I had found a 1900 scan of a UK edition, what I had not found was a "first edition." scan. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Where did you say that? I see no mention of that scan in this discussion.  If you are referring to some other discussion, I have not seen it.  Please provide full information. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * (sigh). I mentioned it in the WS:PD discussion. (Proposed_deletions) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, so some scan, of unstated provenance, unstated URL, and unknown quality exists, and which you don't plan to work on anytime soon. Why would that necessitate a move?  In these situations, where we're going to go to scan-backed in place of an unsourced copy, we don't keep the unsourced copy.  So why go to the trouble of moving a work that isn't going to be kept?  I would advocate for creating the scan-backed copy at a new location, then, if we have a list of editions we plan to host, convert the existing location to a versions page.  Right now, we have no completed scan-backed copy, and you have provided no details about other editions.  If you don't plan to work on an additional scan, then there is no urgency.  We can take care of setting up a versions page once the currently running scan has been readied and transcluded.  That way we don't need to go through the complicated hassle of a move of an entire work, fixing all the headers, only to delete it later. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not that it's vital right now but the PG edition seems to be - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lAYGAAAAQAAJ&redir_esc=y based on the dates. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Lint..
Hardly a priority, but: https://public-paws.wmcloud.org/User:ShakespeareFan00/ql2.txt https://public-paws.wmcloud.org/User:ShakespeareFan00/ql3.txt

In estimate just over 9000 pages.. Mostly mismatched italic or bold formatting, so nothing excessively complicated to repair.

In the case of the former (ql2) it should only take a competent contributor just under an hour to resolve the Linter raised concerns.( The 11 or so items in that list are items I can't work on for copyright reasons.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The pages from The Emu are the unedited OCR. They have not had any proofreading done, so the errors are the result of random OCR characters.  The Principia and other scientific works heavy on math content would be very difficult to spot.  The KJV pages likewise have many in-and-out of italics switches throughout the page.  Spotting a single technical issue hidden in the page would not be straightforward. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's what I suspected. Hence the approach to an experienced contributor, rather than a general request on the Scriptorium. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You would do better to ask an editor who knows how to detect Linter issues. I would be taking blind stabs, and have no means to determine whether or not the issue is resolved after making an edit. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PerfektesChaos/js/lintHint and
 * this https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-LintHint.js may help.
 * (Wikiversity seems to have taken their config directly from my common.js ! )
 * ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So you're asking me to spend my time learning to use a new code I've never used in order to find a half dozen italics errors for you? Including errors caused by the fact that some of the pages have never been proofread?  What's the benefit of doing this? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't worry then. I'll find someone else.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The aim of attempting to resolve the LintErrors was to improve the quality of the transcription. Status 2 is "Problematic" (which means the pages should have been partially proofread already, other than the issue which is causing the problematic status), Status 3 is pages that should have ALREADY been proofread, but may need some minor overhauls in order to be validated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The script I linked provides a box at the top of the Edit page, which when expanded provided links to the location of the LintError within the wikitext of the Page: being edited.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Help
Sorry, maybe I'm being bold, but I need help to upload a book to Wikisource in djvu format. I already have the file, but I don't know how to upload it as it is here, so that the image is on the right and the text on the left. I'm not going to ask you to explain it to me here, obviously, but maybe you can recommend me a simple tutorial (or you can introduce me to someone else who has the time to give me a hand). The only thing I found is this, and the truth is that I didn't understand anything. Thanks and apologies. If you don't have time or interest in helping me, I understand perfectly. PeterCanthropus (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * First question: Is the work in public domain in the United states? Second: If it was published outside the US, is it in public domain in its country of origin?  The first step in the process depends on the answer to those two questions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The Case of Charles Dexter Ward
The wikipedia article reads - "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward is a short horror novel (51,500 words) by American writer H. P. Lovecraft, written in early 1927, but not published during the author's lifetime." Do you want the article here not to reflect the wikipedia article ? -- Beardo (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Why do you feel the wording on Wikipedia should matter here? This isn't Wikipedia, and never has been.  Wikipedia is a separate project, as is Wiktionary, Wikispecies, and Wikiquote.  Further, are you looking only at the English Wikipedia, or all the Wikipedias?  Some of them use "short novel" or a phrase that means that, and some use a single word meaning "novella", or "short novel" depending on whatever the translator chooses to use.  The two mean exactly the same thing.  Whether something is a novella or short novel is like deciding whether a sandwich is a submarine, hero, hoagie, or "poor boy".  They're all the same thing.
 * Wikipedia is dynamic, and we aren't part of Wikipedia, so we should not concern ourselves with trying to matching their text. For example, what Wikipedia says in their first sentence about an author is suited to Wikipedia's needs, and will be very different from the Author page description on Wikisource, which is written for the distinct needs of Wikisource.  Wikipedia also often copies information from other sites, and does not always end up with correct information.  I have seen instances where the date of first publication on Wikipedia was incorrect, because they used the first book-edition date for a novel rather than the date of serialization.  Further, "short novel" and "novella" mean the same thing.  Wikipedia editors have fights over whether something is a novel or a novella, yet there is no hard and fast definition that can be applied.  Whether we call something a novella or a short novel is 100% subjective, and Wikipedia cannot and should not be a basis for deciding that choice. There is no reason to Wikisource to worry itself with trying to match what Wikipedia editors decided to go with, except in cases where significant, sourced, and verified data is concerned.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The Book of Ser Marco Polo
Regarding Travels of Marco Polo, The Travels of Marco Polo: The Complete Yule-Cordier Edition, Il Milione, and The Travels of Marco Polo that are currently redirects to the non-existent The Book of Ser Marco Polo.

I think I understand the reasoning (preemptively pointing much-linked titles to a common dab title?), but so far as I know this is neither established practice nor something that should be our practice. Where normal redlinks encourage page creation and make visible holes in our coverage, adding these (broken) redirects hides the missing link target and clutters up broken redirect maintenance reports. Xover (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It is a very common practice to anticipate the link for a work whose Index has been set up. I have used this for over a decade, when I know the target has been set up uniformly from multiple locations.  I chos redirects over deletion because these are the points to which any links from outside have been pointing.  Once someone starts transcribing volume 1, it can be transcluded as "incomplete" to plug the redlinks.  I simply haven't the time right now to do much Wikisource work.  RL has suddenly become very busy with unexpected work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'll buy it as a highly temporary situation (ignoring IRL interruptions, of course, those have a habit of messing up the best laid on-wiki plans), if there's a concrete plan for the redirect target to exist at some roughly speaking definite point. But as a general rule we shouldn't consider a dangling redirect to be a normal / desirable situation, and certainly not over any significant amount of time. The right time to add those redirects would be after the target has been created in all non-extraordinary situations. In any case… you should probably expect those to get tagged for speedy at random intervals since they show up on various global maintenance lists. Xover (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No new pages were created for the redirects. Existing links were redirected.  The alternative was for all the linking pages to be deleted, and thus go dead, then have to figure out later which pages ought to exist as redirects.  It's a workaround, and inelegant, but I thought it preferable to clearing away all evidence of existing paths for such a high profile work.  The deletion discussion sat around since January, with overwhelming support for starting fresh, and it was time to take some action, but no one actually started transcription. That said, the number of daily hits for some of those page and redirect targets was too high to simply erase them.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't have the context, which is why I'm speaking in broad generalities. "Broken redirects bad!" essentially. I don't think I would have done it that way (maybe rather list the redirects on the WS:PD thread so they show up in WhatLinksHere), but you're the one familiar with the situation so I won't belabour the point. Xover (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Meh. Case in point, they've now been tagged for speedy again; and they're likely to keep getting tagged periodically forever because "dangling redirects bad" is a pretty universal rule of thumb on Wikimedia projects.My suggestion would be to just delete these and note the target in the deletion log. We could, if needed, also create a dummy log entry at The Book of Ser Marco Polo noting the former incoming redirects. In addition, WhatLinksHere should now show this discussion for both the redirects and the target so the information is recoverable. If you think that's an acceptable workaround I can do the log fiddling (just let me know).I don't have any better suggestions just now unfortunately. Xover (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As long as we have a complete list for re-creation that can easily be found, that would be fine. Though I would prefer that someone just start transcription, so that we have the target again. I worry that people will start deactivating the redlinks that point to the pages as well.  It has happened in the past.  And then we lose all the linking even if the redirects are created again.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

References to Internet Archive and Hathitrust
Hello Thanks first of all for your feedback on my proposals to how to organise the periodicals section. I have contributed a first page I composed for the German Wikisource and tried to adapt it to the English WS. Could you please check The British Journal of Nursing? Thanks I have two questions on this, as I found the referencing a bit difficult to follow. Are there maybe other templates to be used for referring to items in Hathitrust and / or Internet Archive? I found it a bit complicated to orient myself. On German Wikisouce we have organised the reference to Hathitrust in a way that we do not even mention Hathitrust, but simply decipher what institution the scanned item is from e.g. mdp = Michigan, nyp = New York Public Library, uiug = Illinois etc (see the [https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Vorlage:HT documentation on the HT template). I find our results easier to follow.

The same holds true for referring to Internet Archive. In the German version of WS each link using the template is translated simply as Internet Archive (see description). I wonder whether the English templates can be changed as well or maybe there are alternative templates one can use that simply translate a reference to Internet Archive as Internet Archive and a reference to an item in Hathitrust either simply as Hathitrust or comparably to our system decoding the institution. I mean, when referring to an item in Google Books, this is also simply translated as "Google Books" and not "Google Books" on the one hand followed by identifier and having the cryptic mixture of letters and numbers thereafter. I do not want to overload the general discussion room longer. If you feel I should better contact someone else, could you please tell me who that would be? Thanks DIRK Haendelfan (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What you've done on The British Journal of Nursing looks like a working page, not a page for the transcription of the journal, and does not follow preferred style on English Wikisource. Pages in the main namespace should present the workl, not detail bibliographic information concerning outside resources.  We use external scan link to link to potential scans, and we do not provide information about libraries where the scan originated, or the database that houses the scan.  That kind of information is not relevant for The British Journal of Nursing.
 * Our goal is not the indexing of links to external locations, but the transcription of scans here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your feedback. I give up. Obviously your goals on engWS are incompatible to what I have in mind and I will stay on GermWS.--Haendelfan (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

closed/s + /e
Hi. Thanks for all the work you're doing processing WS:PD. But a plea: retrain your muscle memory to use closed/s and closed/e. See WS:AN#How to close discussions (template changes). The number of broken close templates I've found in the archives or the live page is downright depressing and the /s + /e variant pretty much just make those errors go away. Xover (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I missed that change, but will do. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Please see Proposed deletions where the new method has failed because of two internal collapsed sections. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I determined the issue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Argh. I was so hoping we'd be rid of these kinds of issues now. My guess is that this is because cot still uses layout tables combined with the really rather unfortunate choice in MediaWiki to use the rarely used, ill defined, and rather awkward "definition lists" as the HTML structure for talk pages. I'll try to dig deeper when I can and see if I can make this more robust. Xover (talk) 12:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Undeletion and scanning
I posted the undeletion requested there because it was deleted as a copyright violation (and an undeletion discussion would thus require discussing copyright, rather than discretionary deletion rules). As for scanning, at PseudoSkull’s request, I have set up a nice sub-page here to manage requests (rather than having to jump around talk pages). Feel free to ask! TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The journals of Lewis and Clark
I'm curious why you deleted this entry and marked it as not having meaningful content or history. I'm guessing it is as the entries had not all been added. I was planning to add references to the multiple different revisions and transcribe the original version of the journals. As far I understand, these are important historical journals pertaining to history of the United States. Please restore the entry or provide more detail as to why you don't think it belongs. Thanks AHIOH (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * They are, but disambiguation pages are for disambiguating works present here, or at least in progress. You created a blank page.  I would recommend first collecting items at the Portal you started, and proceed to disambiguation only if we have multiple copies of the same work or multiple works by the exact same name.  So far, I've seen no evidence of such and therefore no reason to have a blank disambiguation page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)  --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood, thanks. I figured it was as I had not added the content yet, just wanted to make sure the part about not being relevant to history wasn't a factor. I was thinking the page was more of one for a work being the "journals of Lewis and Clark" and would only create the disambiguation pages if the titles of the versions were identical such as "Original journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, 1804-1806" and so on. AHIOH (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've moved the file and corrected the Index; and also made a suggested restructuring of the Portal. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I'll take a look AHIOH (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hyakunin-Isshu
I saw your image moves, and was inspired. When the page was deleted a year or so ago, I traced down MacCauley’s translation, which Wikipedia dates to 1917 for some reason. I’m working on TASJ (vol. 3) at the moment, but it will be very nice to get Porter’s fine (and in a book, not in transactions) translation transcluded. I’m working through the index at the moment. How do you want the transclusion to be done? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go all-out with an Aux ToC listing the poems by number and by author, with links to the individual poems by number (one poem per subpage), which means I'll do the process of setting things up in stages. I will be creating Author pages for all of the 100 Authors, and linking them as contributors. I'll experiment with the setup using the first 10 poems until I'm happy, then extend whatever pattern I settle on to the remaining poems, but I intend to have a separate subpage for each poem.  Depending on the length of the Contents, I may transclude the Index at the bottom of the primary page, since it will visually bracket the Contents.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s exciting! Once I finish up the index, I’ll hold off until you get the format set up, then I’ll try to follow up. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The table of contents and example poem both look good to me. I changed the larger/sc to li/uc, though. A few other notes: I’ve been working through Romance of the Rose, and should be finishing up volume 2 soon. Volume 3 might have to wait until next year, though. I’ve added Porter’s other works to his Author: page (list from Nachod), in case any of those catches your eye. Lastly, I’ve been scanning in the first English translation of the Man’yōshū, which will start to enter the public domain in 2025. (I was hoping that it was 1928, and not 1929, but no luck for me. In any case, that’s a long-term project.) Since you are creating Author: pages for all of the individual authors, might you perhaps want to create a disambiguation page at the name of every one of the poems, to list every translation of each individual poem? I mention this because I remember a similar system was employed in relation to Æsop’s fables, and you seem to be more (Wiki)data-inclined. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Creating disambiguation pages for all the individual poems sounds like a bot project.  did that for the Shakespeare's Sonnets and might be convinced to help with doing so for the Hyakunin Isshū once all the Author pages and poem pages are up for the current edition, since at that point the data can be grabbed from the header fields and ToC. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oof lol :) These days, if the list of versions of the poem is identical to the list of versions of the collection it is in, I tend to favour more of a soft-redirect type approach, like The Little Boy Found, or even just a straight redirect, like Rikki-Tikki-Tavi. That makes it easier for inexperienced editors to add new versions of the collection without having to edit hundreds of disambig pages! —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * These poems are in Japanese, each with a different author, and with no standard English titles, so they would be referred to by number. Because they are by different authors, each needs to be listed on its Author's page.  Perhaps we can use a Portal model, as I did for Portal:Odes of Pindar. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve also changed  to  . TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like you're also using block center instead of center block and colons to indent instead of em. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s just my personal style; is there any difference between those choices? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please do not apply a "personal style" to assorted pages throughout the work. The pages of a work should be done uniformly the same, especially when that work has multiple poems to be transcluded across 100 subpages.  I can see at least a half dozen differences between what you've started doing and the model page you agreed was fine, and some of those differences means that your pages will display different when transcluded.  I appreciate that you want to help, but please use the format and markup that you agreed was fine, back when I asked you. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Advertisements for The Lay of the Nibelungs
Hi. I am getting close to finishing the proofreading of the text of Index:The_lay_of_the_Nibelungs;_(IA_nibelungslay00hortrich).pdf and would appreciate any thoughts as to how to best approach dealing with the advertisements. Should they be proofread and marked as proofread, marked as not need to be proofread but proofread anyway, or simply marked as not needed to be proofread and pretty much ignored. If proofread, would it be better to add them to the TOC and transclude an Advertisement "chapter", or no?

Thank you for any advice.

PWidergren (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Advertisements are optional. You may choose to proofread them (or not) and to include them (or not). --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt response. I will exercise my option when I get to that point.
 * PWidergren (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you decide that you do want to include them, let me know, and I can pull several examples of ways to include them. We typically do not list them in the Contents, but there is more than one way to include them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Redirect deletions
Do we really have to go over this again? You're going against what's useful. What is the help of what you're doing? PseudoSkull (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Go over what again? You created pages in violation of Speedy deletion criteria.  If you think policy should be changed, then work to change the policy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will. But, I just have to wonder why following bare rules in your mind is more important than what's useful to actual contributors and readers? It seems like one of those wedge-issues where we could just scrap the rules and accept it in just this specific edge case. We have an even more Ignore all rules-ish culture here than Wikipedia does, so why are you so adamant about this specific rule? PseudoSkull (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Do we have to go through that discussion again? We had that discussion as part of the deletion discussion just a few months ago. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, what I was saying was it seems overkill that I even need a proposal for something this minor in the first place. It has always struck me as odd that some administrators put so much weight into this specific speedy deletion criteria, while not even paying attention to other guidelines, rules, and even different criteria in that list. But I did write one up. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am neither strongly for nor against such a change, as long as the community agrees. I do wonder whether there are tools in place that flag cross-namespace redirects that would have to be re-tooled. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This may also be a discussion to bring up at Wikidata. If there can be a way to have both an Author and Main disambiguation page here at WS somehow, then none of this is necessary. I'll look into that too. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)