text:
Page:Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (IA journalofstra72741916roya).pdf/175

 NOTES ON MALAY HISTORY.

In Chau Ju-kua's Chu-fan-chi," translated by Hirt and Rockhill, under the heading "Palembang, San-fo-ts'i," p. 61, the following passage occurs:—

"There is an old tradition that the ground in this country once suddenly gaped open and out of the cavern came many myriads of cattle, which rushed off in herds into the mountains, though the people all tried to get them for food. Afterwards the crevice got stopped up with bamboo and trees and disappeared."

The editors have rightly surmised that this contains a reference to the legendary etymology of the place-name "Menangkabau," in Central Sumatra. It evidently represents one of the many variant ways in which "popular etymology," as it is called, has attempted to explain this obscure name. The second half is always identified (rightly or wrongly) with the Malay word for "buffalo," but in other respects the explanations are very various. In connection with this Chinese authority, the chief point of interest is that he speaks of the legend as "an old tradition:" evidently it had been current for some time before his own date (which was about the middle of the 13th century of our era); and this goes to show that the Menangkabau country was known by that name from a considerably earlier period. that the real meaning of the name had been forgotten and there had been time for legends to grow up around it.

In Wang Ta-yuan's "Tao i chih lio" (dated 1349 A.D. and recently partially translated by Rockhill in T'oung Pao, March 1915), under the heading "Hsien," p. 100, the following passage occurs:—

"The people are much given to piracy; whenever there is an uprising in any other country, they at once embark in as many


text:
User talk:SnowyCinema/Archives/2018

Index:Boys' Life Mar 1, 1911.djvu
hi, nice work - hope you don’t mind if i transcluded your first article onto the page scans. needs an image inserted. hope you will agree that it is a better using the OCR layer rather than typing all of it, and using the header template to link articles together. might want to move from your user space to article space. cheers. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 17:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:SnowyCinema/Archives/2018


text:
User talk:SnowyCinema/Archives/2020

New Texts
The "Episode "Piggy Bank Robbery" of The Adventures of Paddy the Pelican" should not be listed in New Texts until all pages have been proofread. Right now one of the pages is marked as "problematic", so it cannot be considered ready to be listed as a new text.

I have corrected the author link for the BSA film. When the "author" is a company or corporation rather than an individual, then we use a Portal page, such as we have at Portal:Stratemeyer Syndicate. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 * By the way, it's not the first TV episode here. Our usual format for video clips is .ogv and a search there finds a few others. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Dotted page
I have moved that out of template namespace. We already have enough issues with the existing dotted leading templates without having more issues in more of the same templates. There is requirement to replicate dot leaders in tables, we are not a facsimile site. Some of us would profess that there are many reasons why we wouldn't want to use dot leaders due to their template bloat, etc. and consider that they have little upside. — billinghurst  sDrewth  04:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Balmer copyrights
I looked in to the copyright status of the “copyrighted” works you listed, if you are interested in working on them sooner. “The Man Higher Up” and “The Eleventh Hour” were first published in 1909 in the collection The Achievements of Luther Trant (which may be found here, and at other places); “The Hammering Man” has already been created (from Amazing Stories vol. 1 no. 12, which was not copyrighted); and That Royle Girl is copyrighted for the full term (which expires in a few years). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC).
 * Yes, I believe they were indeed later printings. I know that “The Man Higher Up,” at least, was reprinted in 1926 (in some issue of Amazing Stories, I believe). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC).

Typos
"nnd" in all lower-case on PAGE pages is exclusively a misreading of "and" it seems, if you look at this; would be a decent scheduled task every X months. And learneil is learned in every instance according to a Google search of Wikisource. And pattem is consistently pattern. Peace.salam.shalom (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Template:New texts
Please input the entries (1) yourself (not with the bot) and (2) not as a minor edit. It’s fine to use the bot to input pages (since you proofread the work yourself separately), but you should be the one to add the entry to “New texts.” Good job proofreading (both the books and the films, since we don’t have many films here). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC).
 * (The reason edits are being marked as minor, except when pages are created, is because that's all pywikibot will apparently allow bot edits to be marked as. I'm sure that's changeable within pywikibot's source code, though.) But okay, will add the new texts myself from now on. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Films
If you’re interested in proofreading (perennially perhaps) some films, there are plenty which have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (Category:Silent films videos on Commons has almost 1,500, although, of course, not all of those will be actual films.) You can start a WikiProject for that (although I realise as I am writing this that you were already thinking of doing that). I would be happy to join; more films would certainly be a valuable addition. (Also, I changed smaller to fine block on this and the following page; when text changes size for a lengthy period of time, one should use the “block” form of the template.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC).
 * Sure, I will start that WikiProject page soon, glad there is interest here in it! It's also worth noting that there are also a handful of 1925 films going into the public domain in less than a month, freed from the chains of their pointless 94-year-old copyrights.
 * Since I now see that what I for all this time thought was "smaller" sized text is actually "fine", then I am going to have quite a lot of pages of my old work to fix. Since some of it should be done by means of Template:fine block and others with just Template:fine, I am going to need a few days to script up this automated cleanup process. But I hope that this doesn't have to be done with Template:fine block/s and -/e, because that is even more complicated to automate. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The starting and ending templates are only needed when text crosses a page—if that helps. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC).

Film list suggestions and comment
I would recommend (if you haven’t already) to create a template in your personal namespace that you could subst: that would include the header template and all of the letter subheadings. I would also recommend to include the file for those already uploaded (probably using ). Also, files created outside of the United States, in the public domain there (due to age), but not so in their country of publication can be uploaded to Wikisource (with ), and proofread as normal (e. g., this film). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC).
 * I was wanting to make a template like that, but to be honest, I'm not that good with MediaWiki coding. My template idea would link to both Commons and Wikipedia, and would look like this:

 * Isn't Life Wonderful (Wikipedia article, Commons category, Video file)

 * In cases where a video file is not uploaded, or there is no Commons category, those should be delisted from the template. Perhaps if there is even no Wikipedia article on top of everything else, it should just link to the Wikisource page and that's it. Also the Commons category, Wikipedia article, etc. may have different names than the entry would at Wikisource so the template would have to allow users to change the names accordingly. So I'm not quite sure how to make a template like this, and I think the template should be in the main template space as a WikiProject itself is not located in my user space, but in the Wikisource project space. By the way, I don't wish to suggest that those WikiProject subpages are to be edited only by me; others can contribute to the lists as well if they please. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have created the template I was thinking of here; I am working on the template you are thinking of now. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC).
 * I have finished the template; it is Template:WPF link. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC).
 * Thank you. I'll convert them soon. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Completed films

 * I have another question: Where should completed films be listed? I see that you have removed films from the “uploaded to Commons” list, but I don’t see a place for completed films to go. I have completed two (small) films, but they wouldn’t be added to the “uploaded” list, because they have already been proofread. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC).
 * We really should be adding them to Portal:Film, but I haven't been doing that lately because I forgot. Portal:Film is a bit messy right now and probably should eventually, if not now, be separated into separate portals such as Portal:Mystery film, Portal:Cartoons, or Portal:Educational film, as an example of a way to give a directory of what people want based on the film genre, as we do with books. It will be more important later as we will have such an abundance of films that a page listing all of them would be way too long for a single page. As a matter of fact, I'll go ahead and start doing that right now, since it needs done. And thank you for adding those films, by the way. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Please add any new films to the Portal:Film subportals or, if it does not fit well in any existing categories, add it to Portal:Film. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Portal:Film
Thank for for setting this up. I have reclassified it and its subportals as TR (instead of ZA). The ZA classification is used by the Library of Congress for works that do not sit on the shelves with its books (photos, films, and digital copies). But all items hosted on Wikisource are digital copies, so most items that would be classified there in the LoC would not be placed there on Wikisource. The more suitable location for Wikisource purposes is TR (Photography). --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:SnowyCinema/Archives/2020


text:
User talk:SnowyCinema/Archives/2021

Use CCE publications?
I seem to recall that there was a Copyright Office publication which listed a number of "Early" motion pictures. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

 * c:File:Motion Pictures 1912 to 1939 (IA Motionpict19121939librrich0010).pdf which would cover the period you were looking at up to 1926 :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notifying me of the existence of this. As that copyright publication itself is in the public domain, a transcription of it on Wikisource is probably due, as it would be a pretty useful general resource. But dang, it is quite a large text. I should probably add this project itself to the back-burner of my new film WikiProject.
 * Anyway, I've been going through director filmographies on Wikipedia to find which ones are lost and found, etc. I'm trying to put together a pretty good list of found films for us here at Wikisource to have exclusively. Having to look for films this old to watch and wade through the huge amount of films listed on Wikipedia or Commons, with more than half of them unavailable to the general public entirely, can be pretty annoying, and also sad to be reminded of. I hope Wikisource's film coverage will become that one saving grace where viewers don't have to deal with this agonizing ordeal I've been dealing with for years. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Index:Motion Pictures 1912 to 1939 (IA Motionpict19121939librrich0010).djvu if you wanted to aid the transcription effort. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Bot job for you
Happy new year! Fancy running your bot over Index:The Great Gatsby - Fitzgerald - 1925.djvu and doing the running headers? There aren't any chapter names in the header. Inductiveload— talk/contribs 17:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Will do, I am fetching the chapters' page numbers now. My thanks to you ultimately for starting the proofreading of this book. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's running, will be finished in a few hours. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ PseudoSkull (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

noinclude
Your bot edits are adding the "noinclude" tag to the end of every page, which will cause tag errors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize for this, I have stopped the bot for now. Is there a particular reason for the references tags in the footers? I don't see any reference links in the pages I've reviewed. If you want, I could add to all the footers except chapter beginning pages, or where they appear I could tell the bot to leave them as they are. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The references tags are an artefact of the way Phe-bot works. They are not needed and can be removed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I will continue running it. I have added a new feature to the bot that would stop itself if it were ever to find something new in the footer template (besides \n, and ask me from there if it wants to continue. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

1925 film upload requests

 * I was going to add these to the list, which hasn’t been created yet, but I thought it would be easier to ask you directly. Would you mind uploading some of the big-name films listed at 1925 in film? The Alice Comedies and some of the other series also look interesting. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC).
 * Will do. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I cannot upload many of these, because FFMPEG has never been able to install for me (trust me, I've spent countless hours trying) on my only working computer. I have quite unfortunately been having to ask another user on Commons to do a lot of these jobs for me because of that situation. I don't want to keep piling up their talk page with my wishlist. The only thing I can do is strip music with youtube-dl and convert to webm (only works with videos on YouTube itself). PseudoSkull (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Despite my sureness that it won't work, I'm trying a new crazy workaround method I thought of. *rolleyes* PseudoSkull (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyways, quite a few are done. More 1925 films are sure to be added soon. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I filled up the Main Page with Bobby Bumps
I've always wanted to do that tbh. I even screenshotted it. Hopefully that's not against the rules, or else this is gonna be worse'n a sure 'nuff funeral. PseudoSkull (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Big Parade
I’m tempted to start proofreading this film, but wanted to ask you in case you had already started work. I’ve wanted to transcribe more films, but I’ve been fighting the fight over on Commons for the past few days, and just started transcribing “The 1776 Report” (since it has a Wikipedia article)—somehow unsurprisingly, it’s quite dull. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC).
 * Ah yes, that's quite an important one. Feel free to start transcribing it if you'd like.
 * But I'd advise for films as long as this one to do it in a draft space, since the ProofreadPage extension is currently broken for film. It's just easier that way IMO, especially since during the initial proofreading process you may have to add (or rarely remove) elements from the transcription.
 * I have created a community space for drafts now—see WikiProject Film/Drafts (shortcut WS:WPFD). I have already created a space for you ahead of time at which to proofread it, source text from here. The text should be formatted like it was on this page, for example, with timestamps before each element, and with all the timestamps and elements separated out by . If a page is to be marked as problematic, type " p" after the timestamp of that element.
 * If you work on and finish the film's proofread in this draft space, let me know and I can run the bot through it. It will create the Index page, all the individual Page pages, and transclude the film automatically because it's a pain in the ass to do manually. Hopefully one day ProofreadPages will be fixed for film, and maybe given extra conveniences for films specifically. But for now, this is the best way IMO. Have fun! PseudoSkull (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

 * PseudoSkull: My work for this was unfortunately deleted, so I will not continue working on it. I would like to proofread some more movies in the future, but I will likely not be able to do so for a week or so hence. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC).

The Bargain
Hello, I'm editing a draft for The Bargain; I've to clean it up, but before I have a few questions.

Thanks in advance for your help. M-le-mot-dit (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * At 05:50, there is a form with a very tiny text, unreadable. What is the best practice in such a case?
 * At 22:33, there is a poster with a picture. Is it recommended to insert the picture?
 * When a same letter or scene is seen several times, is it necessary to have a page for each occurrence? e.g. several shots if a building…
 * On every boards, there is line with a 'Part' number. Is it necessary to keep this line?

 * Hello, . The rules about film aren't really set in stone, but here are some guidelines I have in regards to these issues:
 * Normally when text is illegible, we replace where the text would normally go with Template:illegible and the page would have to be marked as problematic. But generally don't do this, unless there is illegible text for an in-scene text crucial to the plot, that the film-makers wanted you to read in full, such as a letter. If it's illegible, try your best to pretend it doesn't exist in your transcription; i.e. just skip transcribing that part.
 * I can't recall a time when images were ever placed inside film transcriptions here. There's not really a rule against it though, and it doesn't hurt anything IMO. So add it if you want to.
 * If some in-scene text repeatedly is shown throughout a certain scene, such as building text, please don't include it repeatedly as that clutters up the page. There is only a need to include in-scene text once. Although, if there is some crucial in-scene text that repeats 30 minutes later or something in another scene, you can repeat that.
 * What you're doing now with the parts, labelling them in only one intertitle per "part," seems fine, since there are no intertitles specifically separating out the parts. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Thanks; I'll let you know when my corrections are complete. M-le-mot-dit (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Hi, . The proofread of the draft The Bargain is terminated, I expect there is no error in formatting data. When you are free, you can run your bot. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for the hard work, I will do that this afternoon or tonight. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Thank you for job. It's very time saving! Just a few pages to correct (missing end of text, e.g. the 1st one). Also the process for portal and category (portal = ), but it was quickly fixed.  Regards, M-le-mot-dit (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Agh, not that bug again! Not sure why that portals/categories mixup happened yet again, but I will work to fix it for next time. PseudoSkull (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

template:watch
We have this template that we encourage for webm files. Its use allows us to more easily find where we have such files in place, and allows for us to better manage conditions around these files. — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Then innovation is probably necessary—those are regular film entries, the only difference being that there is no transcribable text for those films. We might want to modify Template:Film to do the same thing as Template:watch for consistency's sake. Also, due to the way Template:film works, films themselves are normally kept in the Notes section of a Header template, but your usage has deviated from that, so do you suggest we should modify our system so that all film videos are placed outside of the header template? PseudoSkull (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ugh, don't know why that template was created. They should be merged, we don't need two (I would prefer WATCH as old template and pairs with listen). Can you work out the features that you wish to have and note on one of the template talk pages and ping me when you know what is truly need. Maybe consider pinging the community at WS:S pointing to wherever you are thinking we should be and getting their feedback. It is not an area of interest to me, so will do what is needed. — billinghurst  sDrewth  22:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland (1903 film)
video is back, recovered from Commons, and locally uploaded. Would you please check the file description and the like. Thanks. — billinghurst  sDrewth  21:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's on my personal to-do list to go through all of the older film entries and fix them up, update them, and even re-validate them, as even some of the validated ones have transcription issues. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

White Fawn's Devotion
Hi, a draft page is ready to be processed for a short film: White Fawn's Devotion. Thanks in advance. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * : Thanks, that's perfect. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The Sinking of the Lusitania
Hello, another film draft is ready to be processed: The Sinking of the Lusitania. Regards, --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well done. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Same to you, thanks for helping with coverage of McCay's films. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The Regeneration
Hello, I've finished the draft of The Regeneration. There are some "problematic" frames (00:59, 09:59, 10:28) where some name are truncated, but not really useful for the action. Let me know if I need to remove them. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Gertie
Hello, while we are looking for the Lost World, here is another Dinosaur story: Gertie the Dinosaur. If was wondering if the title was not Gertie, but I've adopted the name in the Wikipedia article. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Gertie seems to be the proper title and not Gertie the Dinosaur. See, for example, this page of the Motion Pictures, 1912-1939 copyright catalog. There is no entry for "GERTIE THE DINOSAUR", but it does list "GERTIE (1914)" as being by Winsor McCay, which it confusingly lists as an unpublished work. I'm not sure why the film has been popularly called Gertie the Dinosaur if all this evidence points to the proper title being Gertie—perhaps it was called that later to distinguish it from the other films with the name Gertie in the title, or to make clear for marketing purposes that the Gertie character is a dinosaur character. The copyright records aforementioned list 4 other Gertie films that existed between 1915 and 1916 as well, interestingly enough, and actually, all of those were listed as published works, while the main film Gertie was listed as unpublished. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I wanted to see if any contemporary sources such as film magazines used the title Gertie the Dinosaur when referring to the film, but as even more evidence of my argument, a search through Google Books of works before 1920 containing "Gertie the Dinosaur" came up with no results. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the draft ready, or do you need more time? PseudoSkull (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Gertie the Dinosaur poster.jpg Yes, the content is ready; will you rename it Gertie? It's the name we see in the cartoon itself as well as on the original poster. I wonder why most of the references call it with a longer title. I've also found Gertie, the bashful dinosaur in Cartoons Magazine #10 (1916). --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I know, and this is why I have brought up a move discussion at the English Wikipedia talk page for the article about this film. Unfortunately I don't think I will get much support there for my case. They don't want the original title that was actually used at the time, but the "popular" title today that was made up by some cooks in the 90s. But anyway, thanks for doing this film, and we'll use the real title here—I'll get the bot running. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done PseudoSkull (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The Iron Horse
Hello, I think I've finish with the draft of The Iron Horse. Please verify the publisher, if other films by the Fox Films use another company name. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I will start the bot when I get home, thanks for the hard work yet again! PseudoSkull (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The Call of the Wild
Thanks for adding the detail. I suspected he was the director but I see on the Wikipedia page that he was both director and wrote the screenplay.

For disambiguation pages, we want enough information to unambiguously identify the work in question, usually the date, the kind of work (play, novel, film), and the author. However, for certain kinds of works (such as operas or silent films) the author is not as useful for identification of the work as the composer (for an opera) or the director (for a film). For example, there were two films called "War of the Worlds" in 2005. Identifying them by the authors of the scripts (Friedman & Koepp vs. Hines & Goforth) would not be as useful as saying one was directed by Spielberg and the other by Hines.

So, we could say the film was "directed by", but "by" would be just as accurate for Wikisource purposes since what we usually mean is that they were the author of the written portion. Your point is taken though. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Incredibly busy
Some of you may have noticed I haven't been producing film transcripts as rapidly as usual lately. That is because I have been unusually busy IRL. In about a month and change I won't be so on-and-off with the busyness and will be able to do more work on the film transcripts again. PseudoSkull (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Subpages
With works like Bobbie, General Manager we would do a things different Also noting that we would typically only categorise top level of a work, unless there is something different on the subpage that requires the differentiation. — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * title = ../
 * as if we ever move pages then all these links automatically update
 * translator =
 * actually isn't one of our mandatory header fields, feel free to cull it if not needed; added to the preload as we had a period when we had translations and was always been omitted
 * prev/next =
 * to also note that with the magic piping of MW, you can just do a link like [[../Chapter 9/ note terminating forward slash, and it will display just that text
 * year =
 * we would typically only put at the top level for a simple published work, especially novels, it isn't changing and we don't need to categorise or anything
 * commonscat =
 * unusual to utilise that manually at all, leverage WD, and cannot remember a time when we have needed it at subpage level
 * Addendum. From memory you are an AWB user, I have (slovenly) recorded some of my regex at User:SDrewthbot/Header. — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The star in the window
Hello. The pages which you have tagged for deletion cannot be deleted because they are being transcluded to the main namespace. Let me know please after it is solved. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Please do not bulk move Page: namespace pages
Hi. Please do bulk move Page: namespace pages. Please just ask an admin to do it at WS:AN. It creates way too much unnecessary work to have to go and do bulk deletions. Thanks. — billinghurst  sDrewth  21:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Aborted. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * can I at least finish what I had started in this instance? PseudoSkull (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, please stop. We have better tools, we can move without redirects, and in bulk with subpages. I don't want to add another 100+ pp for no reason. Also, I don't see that the PDF file is functioning, I am not getting pages displayed. — billinghurst  sDrewth  22:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It shows up fine for me, but it does take a little longer than usual for each page to load for me. Languageseeker uploaded the file. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) Also, what is wrong with the DJVU file? I don't see anything problematic with the text or alignment. — billinghurst  sDrewth  22:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * see Scriptorium/Help. Tl;dr, there are 6 pages with repeat pages instead of the actual pages that should appear there. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: Gentlemen Prefer Blondes
In answer to your question, they are apostropheless (and the text otherwise contains eye-dialect spelling errors) because the author is writing in the persona of a carefree and rather simple-minded narrator. In other words, it is a literary device. BD2412 T 16:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Just showing off
Apologize, and no offense intended, by replacing the The Box-Car Children titles with magic words. This time I did it correctly, but it had to be done for the reason stated in this post's title. — Ineuw (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment
When one is in the middle of setting up an Index: page and someone comes an edits in the middle of it, and causes edit conflicts, and they have been asked previously not to do it, then I think that it is reasonable to remind that person. In your case, I think that you will remember that I was fixing up numbers of matters through the work; you reverted, so be it. Always happy to debate things and healthily disagree about policy and its implementation, I don't like sniping. — billinghurst  sDrewth  22:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair 'nuff. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

C of Completeness

 * Thank you! :) PseudoSkull (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

A Carol
Noticing your search for Author info, the first item I see is Carol Johnson’s WWII illustrations. I have only seen spot illustrations in the work, maps and so on don't provide much of a visual clue, but I do now realise that the Carol being sought might be a he. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

They turn up library catalogues as co-author on publications by the Georgia Conservancy, I assume it is the same person, you might contact the org directly or via FB. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The General (film)
Hi. I wonder which file to choose for The General. File:The General (1926).webm is smaller and first seconds are missing (title board); File:Buster Keaton - The General (1926).webm is larger and complete but may be deleted because of the soundtrack. Do you know how to remove the audio track? M-le-mot-dit (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is indeed a problem that the second version contains a soundtrack since this is very likely still under copyright. The file won't need to be deleted, however; a new version with no audio will be uploaded and the revision with the audio will be hidden. So there is no need to worry about this. As for our transcription, I say the second version is better, since that seems like an original title card to me. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

"Mistakes" in Songs and Sonnets
These are not "mistakes", but things that my bot will fix in the end. Leaving these there enables me to proofread faster. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Headers...
Thanks to InductiveLoad's comments and some use of IndexStyles - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Ruth_of_the_U.S.A._(IA_ruthofusa00balm).pdf/styles.css.

It uses less inline formatting:) Albiet the chapter headings are now done with plain-heading.

If you want to know please ask ( or ask InductiveLoad.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

coveting the turntable....
Mostly, I do not want to offend anyone, but, I really would like to re-do your images for your turntable manual (which is so cool!). Just the grays to white and keeping the blacks black. It is just the thing, really, to fix my script with (which will do them automatically, in batch, with some prep).

Two problems that I can determine about me being here and typing this. Offending you because "redo". And, I would like to redo them as jpeg, simply for making it a smaller download.

I would be willing to share my (once it is working) script for the opportunity. It needs python though, which might be a show stopper. It is a little like magic on b&w images.

Even a double no from you does not take the cool out of the book!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm always open to simple improvements being made to any of the images I upload. Please provide me the script if it's ever made. The transcription project is finished now, so please enjoy this rare manual for a turntable that I happened to stumble across among family belongings. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Index:Notes to Clark on contracts (IA notestoclarkonco00graviala).pdf
Why are you are formatting this as a list (which makes it more complicated than it needs to be? Why not as simple paragpaphs with anchor? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Tag nesting...
https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page%3AThe_Masses%2C_Volume_1%2C_Number_2.pdf%2F1&type=revision&diff=11586181&oldid=11586118

You reverted, was it the lack of an edit summary?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The  was targeting the  not the center template that was outside of it. What was the intended action? PseudoSkull (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

 * What outer center tag? For all the other  the Underline was applied only to that construction.  The aim in moving it  was to match what was already in the page, and to resolve an issue with mis-nested tags. Prior to my change you had 3 sets of closing brackets before the closing   in the relevant portion of the code,  Not two. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

making moves and stuff
If you think I should move Undine, okay. But Billinghurst told me not make large moves any more as admin have tools and such. I poked around and thought about what I need to do to enable an admin to move things easily, like a move template that would put the name of the chapter with the Chapter NN. Commons has a few move templates, I can get to them pretty quickly but here, not so much.

So, if you would like to show me how to initiate the move and make it easy for admin to accomplish it, I would be truly grateful!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Admin ready
Hi. You know where we are as a community, what goes where and are communicative with the community about what you want to do, and participate across all of our namespaces. I like how you are working where you disagree politely, and unafraid to speak up, and in the end act on consensus, not your opinion. So I see that you are ready for local adminship. Are you up for the hat? If yes, then I am happy to nominate you. Thanks for your consideration of the mop duties here. — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the offer, and I will gladly accept the nomination. I feel that admin tools will be very useful to my endeavors on this project. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

heh. pages.
I saw the recent edit to Undine. On the first page, I replace all of the Page with <pages and Billinghurst replace them back. I did what I did to keep (a or the, your choice) peace. Here is the conversation and a little mention that I don't really care about the tags, but I do about a or the peace. User_talk:Billinghurst.

I thought that years ago he had been harrassing me to never use {{page but there you go. One admin, using that tag and me trying to remove it and being told I was wrong. Good luck with admin, if I read the changes correctly.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * {{ping|RaboKarbakian}} I investigated it because I saw it failed to show the page number on the sidebar for the plate and the caption. So I replaced the template with the page tag for that reason. There are probably other reasons why this template is not preferred, and I believe it is consensus not to use it, although I don't know about any formal rules. The only acceptable use I know of is in film transcriptions, because there is unfortunately no alternative as of now for that specific type of work, due to a technical issue that hasn't been worked out yet. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The main page shows how to show the pages with the {{page thing. something like #tag.  You are having many of the same problems with this text that I did.  Good luck with that!  I got nowhere, but it looks great.  (It does need page numbers, however....)--RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrator
Hi PseudoSkull,

You now have sysop privileges here on WS. If you know any other languages, could you add them to the admin table on WS:ADMINS? Thanks! Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Order of the Mop. — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Opinions and Projects
Hello. I agree wholeheartedly with your stated Wikisource opinions on your user page. I am also a person with decided opinions about certain WS topics. I posted links to some of them on the talk page of your new project to speed up proofreading. Enjoy! Laura1822 (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Deescalation
Everyone can get heated and throw out ill considered statements. If they choose to retract them by removing the thread then that is usually sufficient. I am aware that there have been other, more problematic, unsubstantiated accusations made, but in this instance they were retracted and I would suggest deescalation is the better approach. Xover (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

before I rudely interrupted you
… you were saying ~ Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

title: User talk:SnowyCinema/Archives/2021


text:
User talk:SnowyCinema/Archives/2022

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Revdel and protection
Unless the material in question contains personal information or grossly offensive stuff (including insults etc.) we usually do not revdel spam and vandalism edits. Revdel should generally be used as little as possible, and only when there is specific need, in order to preserve the open nature of the project. Too many hidden revisions tends to erode the confidence of the community in administrators (they should be able to check the actions we take with the tools as much as possible), and it prevents, for example, researchers from studying things like the types of spam, how wiki communities react to it, how fast, etc.Similarly, WS:AN and WS:ADMIN should generally be open to all, since even new or anonymous users may need to ask for help from the admins or participate in admin confirmation votes. Semi-protecting it for a few hours or days to slow down an ongoing vandal is fine, but the period should be kept as short as possible.Keep in mind that even with the general light touch and institutionalised humility for admins (no special authority, confirmations every year, etc.) on enWS, there are still some contributors that view admins as a clique, kabal, and in-group that do things in secret, use the tools to lord it over normal contributors, and generally behave like petty local dictators. Unless there's a compelling need, we need to keep things out in the open and accessible to all. Xover (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The revdels: Admittedly I picked up the habit from an admin on Wiktionary who has a habit of revdelling everything that is even remotely vandalism. Granted it's not a very popular behavior anywhere. Noted, I will be far more cautious on revdels than I have been as of late. However, I am only split on the issue of revdelling spam that contains promotional links and such: I'd prefer that such links get no attention at all, as the intention for putting them on a wiki is for someone to click them. I also am concerned that some of those links are likely to contain viruses (after all, they wanted to get their product out by spamming a random wiki so that isn't indicative of those marketers being morally decent). If community consensus is against me hiding promotional material then so be it, but my personal opinion is that it should not be shown in any way. WS:ADMIN protection: That was a mistake in judgment on my part, my apologies. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Stuff in non-current revisions of a page are not visible to search engines etc., so it's not really a problem in practice. Trust me, I understand the urge to completely nuke these, but in the grand scheme it matters very little. We don't actually get very much of it, or all that often, and we usually revert it within minutes. It does no real harm sitting in the old revisions. Xover (talk) 07:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

wiktionary?
I seem to remember reading that you were active at wikt. If not, just disregard the following....

hic Rhodus, hic salta came up in ggle when I was searching for which fable the phrase comes from. I finally found it, in the Perry list, at en.wiki. All via google. I rarely search for phrases at dictionaries and I never thought once even to try. It is from The Boasting Traveler, Q19080201. Maybe you could work which fable into the definition there? Or not. Mostly I am here to blow up!!

I read The Last Man. I hated that book so much. I couldn't wait for that last man to die. The more quickly everyone in that book could have died, would have greatly improved it. A short story of it would still have been bad. I am not typically like this, but all while reading this book I kept thinking, "forcrissakes die already!" I would like to vote repeatedly for its deletion, but they would all be super emotional voting. So, I do that here. KILL IT!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

My revision on User talk:Inductiveload
Hi, I'm wondering why you undid my message on Inductiveload's talk page. Languageseeker (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That was completely accidental! I was on my phone looking through my watchlist, looked away, looked back and someone's edit was reverted. This happens too often, to the point where I think I need the rollback button disabled on mobile. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries at all! Happens to the best of us. Languageseeker (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Emma
When you moved this work, you did not leave a redirect, and so broke all of these links. The link on the author's page was only fixed today Note that there is no naming convention that requires use of the author's name, so the redirect was not required. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * All known examples of misdirections have been fixed. Apologies for the confusion it caused. In the future, I will have a more automated way of dealing with these so that it catches all the misdirected links.
 * I interpreted the title of Emma (1816) as problematic because the year is used as a disambiguator for versions, while the author name is for general disambiguation. So the title Emma (1816) would indicate that there are no other works at Wikisource called Emma except by Austen, and that the Austen work has other versions. This is not the case, though. And the Emma general disambiguation page already existed with other items disambiguated by author. Ideally if there were multiple versions of Emma being hosted, we'd have a title like Emma (Austen, 1816).
 * We have all kinds of problems at Wikisource having to do with inconsistent styling in work transclusion, and I've noted quite a lot of examples of this in my user subpages. And inconsistent titling/disambiguation is one of my main concerns with that. I think that if policy would discourage editors from trying to make title disambiguation consistent, we should fix that at the Scriptorium so that there are hard rules surrounding that issue. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 * We do not have (and shouldn't) standard ways to name titles for disambiguation. There are so many edge-cases: works by the same author and title in the same year; editions of the same work in the same year by the same publisher; works that need to be disambiguated by translator.  Any attempt to codify the naming of works here would produce a document so convoluted as to rival the US tax code. A title like Emma (1816)  merely indicates that the work is titled Emma and was published or printed in 1816.  It implies nothing else. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 * I disagree that it would have to rival the US tax code, because while there are a few convoluted exceptions, the formula I proposed isn't that complicated and should still be in effect, while the edge cases could be worked with in some other reasonable manner. Hopefully you'd agree that having some formula is better than none. I still maintain that to have a consistent representation of how works are searched is preferable. But however our opinions may differ, as much as I hate to do so, I'll keep away from moving others' works around unless there is (or is made) a clear consensus to do so, in the future, where I had erroneously thought previously that the consensus on this issue was clear-cut. My bad. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 * For works that do not share titles, and are short, and whose author's names are short, and do not require other information, your method works. But we have Midsummer Night's Dream (1918) Yale, and do you really want to force that to expand to Midsummer Night's Dream (Shakespeare, 1918) Yale?  And should Moby-Dick (1851) US edition have to expand to Moby-Dick (Melville, 1851) US edition?  There are many such cases where including the author's name adds no useful information and where other information is required for disambiguation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 * (edit conflict) Another point to consider: If we ever do add another edition of Emma, then we will need a disambiguation page. The logical place for the disambiguation page would be at Emma (Austen), but that location is now occupied by an edition that would have to be moved (again) to make room for the disambiguation page.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Moby-Dick — Again, edge cases can be dealt with in other ways where it makes sense, but I think generally the author should be at the root of the disambiguations. I am on the edge about even having encyclopedia articles in disambiguation pages at all, but no comment on that right now.
 * Emma (Austen) having more versions — Right, and I expect that that will be the case. Since it's a very popular novel, it probably has reprints by all sorts of companies with interesting differentiations in styling or typography. Also, I would always expect that anything could be disambiguated further in the future and have no problem with works being moved because of it (which is another reason I think the naming process should be more consistent, that it'd make this process easier). But it shouldn't be considered the end of the world. Consider that there are almost certainly other works called Fidelia or Delight (probably poems) which I haven't found yet, and then those will need to be made into disambiguation pages with the works moved... PseudoSkull (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Three Men in a Boat
Hello, Is there a particular reason why you chose to re-title this work as 'Three Men in a Boat (sourced)'. Surely the default assumption should be that all works are sourced and should be marked 'unsourced' only if they are not. Or do you plan to rename every sourced work in this fashion? Chrisguise (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Complicated, but I moved it to fix a capitalization issue in the word "In". It would have just been moved to "Three Men in a Boat" when the discussion was over. I didn't like the title either, but didn't know a better temporary title offhand. I have moved it to Three Men in a Boat (1889) because there appears to also be an 1890 reprint published by a different company in New York, at least. PseudoSkull (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And also, I have decided to go far more easy on moving works, because what I once thought were fairly standardized disambiguation/titling practices are apparently not standardized at all, unfortunately. I will only move works in the future if there is consensus to do so that is far more clear. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The Home Front
Hi. May I have your help? In The Home Front I can't catch what Grandpa says at 03:57. And if you have any feedback, it'll be welcome. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I can't quite hear it either, but I think the beginning of it says "Shut 'em off" or "Shut 'em up". PseudoSkull (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * . Thanks, I'll listen again. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Regulations on the Administration of Movies

 * I will apply for a requested move. The page ought to be called Regulations on the Administration of Movies (2001) because there are two versions of 1996 and 2001. -- Beta Lohman ※ Office box 07:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. A versions page was also created for when the 1996 version is transcribed. PseudoSkull (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikisources...
Depending on how you feel, do you want to do a little bit more digging? ( I found some of my Wikivoyage content on a site called https://www.travelerandfree.com/en/Amusement_parks) which claims to be run by the same management team. :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Subtitled film
Do you think that a subtitled film could be acceptable? I was thinking about The Battleship Potemkin (1925) with English subtitles.webm. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, it will be. I found that subtitled version on YouTube and upon some research I discovered that this subtitled rerelease was created no later than the 1970s (given the styling of the film, I suspect 1940s-1960s), and since the translation had no copyright notice, it is a Template:PD-US-no-notice case (with the original Russian part just being PD-US-expired). In a subtitled film I would just transcribe the subtitles, and leave the original Russian text to the Russian Wikisource. In-scene text will probably be in Russian and can therefore be left out. But one thing I'm curious about is the title—the Wikipedia consensus is that the film is called, but this version calls it The Battleship Potemkin. I think that therefore the page should be located at Battleship Potemkin (because I think consensus lies at that name), with a note in the header about the naming situation, maybe? It's an interesting film; this will be a valuable addition to Wikisource's collection. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Horror film
That 2010s to present content is incorrect. 2600:387:C:7137:0:0:0:4 20:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

There was never a reason why they merge them. 2600:387:C:7137:0:0:0:4 20:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

 * 1. Pretty much the only reason I edit Wikipedia is to insert public-domain movie files and to link to Wikisource transcriptions. I stopped editing Wikipedia for most reasons other than that because of, to put it lightly, some issues I hold with their community. 2. You should not evade a block by asking other users to make edits for you on other platforms. I must say, that's pretty sketchy behavior. Are you sure you have nothing to hide? The block log says "Please log in or create an account to edit" because you are being affected by a range block (which I don't know the history behind). If you're not in any trouble at Wikipedia, please make an account and edit the page yourself. This is clearly something you care about, so be your own advocate. 3. Furthermore, what you're asking has nothing at all to do with Wikisource. I mostly deal with classic films, which can be transcribed on Wikisource, and I know virtually nothing about newer films, especially not ones from as recent as the 2010s. Modern movies just aren't my area of interest. I also don't know the history behind the drama of whatever happened with editing that page, and don't want to get involved as someone unknowledgeable about the subject. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to edit the horror film article while it's protected. 2600:387:C:7137:0:0:0:4 20:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * w:Wikipedia:Edit requests PseudoSkull (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Commons Media of the Day
Maybe you could consider sprinkling your movies in the Media of the Day for the Main page at commons. iirc, there was a bit of a template learning challenge (at least for me), but, you can pick the thumbnail, which is fun and also, well, the Media of the Day was/(and I am sure)is a challenge there. I am not sure how many movies you have here now, but one every one or two weeks there, spread out over a year would be great. And, April Fools there -- I enjoyed my year of putting MOD in place. There are worse activities around this wiki. So, this is just for your consideration....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I know that a user named Racconish puts a lot of films into Media of the Day. I was thinking actually of what it would be like if we had a film in Wikisource's Featured Texts. Some good candidates would be ones like Safety Last!, The Big Parade, or Night of the Living Dead, if they ever get validated. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Validation is not such an issue there. I was using Dutch newsreels and such, media where there are is no review process anywhere for them.  commons:Template:Motd/2012-04 I put that newsreel there (on April 1).  The thumbnail is some guy walking in a perfect model of the airport there.  It was kind of lame compared to some of your reels, but there was only so much to work with!!  I had viewed and catted many of the video then and was at that time, more familiar than anyone with what was available.  They fight and bum-kiss for a place at Image of the Day, but not so much MOTD.  It is a good thing for some smarty-pants who would like to slide into a fun job with little or no competition.  At least, that was the reason I did it when I did.  Back then, they yelled (wiki-yelling, which is weird in itself) at the one poor guy for putting too many of his insect/bug images in.  In his defense, it kept coming up with no media for that day and he had plenty of bug movies.  More than just old books there.  Also, I love the old commercials!!  The "crying Indian" and the "your brains on drugs" which worked better as an ad for 24hr restaurants than prevention -- if you could find good copies of this....  Those two movies are the bookends for childhood of the Dazed and Confused era.  The children those public service announcements were aimed at were the first gen of children who everyone had a tv.  Their parents remember getting their first but all of them were born into a home with one on.  Okay, I am just spewing here now....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Raccoonish, heh. Not so funny, actually.  Amazon books pushes Dean Koonz.  Some people tried to make me think that a software trick (they had a search that would find eyes in an image in 2007, they put it then with the red-eye remover plug-in) was magic (spooky music magic).  This kind of deceit, is fun for like 15 minutes, but the longer the deceit persists, the less and less and less funny it is.  The facts here are facts, the opinions here are mine.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

From the Manger to the Cross request
Could you please use GemmaBot to get this film finished and out of the "On hold" section? Lizardcreator (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I talked to about this privately, and he said he wants to go back and review the film transcription for formatting and in-scene text. He has been very busy lately so has not gotten a chance to work on it. Per his request, I want to hold off on doing anything with it for now. PseudoSkull (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

these
I wouldn't typically usually use the first, I have hardly ever found it handy plus it is pretty much overruled by the second for how we set autoconfirmed. See what I have done to /50 to keep it tight. — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Do you think that the filter can be turned on again without harm? PseudoSkull (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Turned it on, and shortened the block way down. Easy enough to follow up to cull users who are playing up with less problems. Typically this an IP jumper, and has strings of prepared accounts, so they don't often come back. We can play with it anyway. Oh, and typically I would hide those filters, they read regex. — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

AbuseFilter 50
This was set up to block all new users that used list wikimarkup, or that otherwise included an asterisk in an edit (in the diff). Several of the other patterns could also easily occur in innocent edits (e.g. a Google Books URL with a hexadecimal string, a book about a certain atrocity where the OCR just dropped a space between the two words, etc.). Recall that there's no special license in policy for blocks performed by way of the AbuseFilter vs. performed manually, so you need to be very sure about the triggers before you set a AF filter's action to block. Xover (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies, the abuse filter was an idea to stop a vandal that is constantly creating new accounts and performing similar edits each time. Next time I'll just ask the community for help before making any AbuseFilters because I don't have a whole lot of experience with them, and their syntax is also pretty unique. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I tend to avoid them in general and especially with action=block. The syntax is really obscure and the risk of false positives too high. Xover (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well yeah I agree. I just won't mess with it anymore. It's too risky. There's not much room to even learn because the best way to learn to code is through experience, and any failure with that will just lead to things like this. It's probably worth just manually blocking each instance of vandalism, if only to keep things like this from happening, so I'll just do that when I see it. I mean clearly the vandal is smart enough to change their game slightly when they see an AbuseFilter is onto them, so the filter was pretty effective, but no civilian fire can be acceptable. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Gremlins!
Thanks for the catch on -. Much appreciated!But if you have time, since you know where it broke, could you have a stab at fixing it? I vaguely recall that templates don't work with double redirects, and that the first-letter capitalization counts as a redirect (i.e. "clear" vs. "Clear"), so it might be a very quick fix. No worries if you don't have the time, I'll get to it… eventually. :) Xover (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe I've fixed it. I think that when "#REDIRECT " was typed, there may have been an abnormal symbol in there that looked the same but was slightly different than what was actually intended to be typed, like maybe it was a different type of space symbol for example... Maybe you switched keyboards? Because when I changed to a placeholder target via copy and paste, it tagged it as "New redirect", then when I switched to Template:Clear again manually, it said "Changed redirect target". PseudoSkull (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Aha! Yes, Apple, in their wisdom, when caps lock is on and you hit the space bar, insert a non-breaking space instead of a regular space character. And I'd turned on caps lock to type "REDIRECT" of course. Nice catch, and thanks for fixing my mess! Xover (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Page:The Great Train Robbery (1903).webm/2 -- looks wrong?
I don't think Page:The Great Train Robbery (1903).webm/2 is right. Could you check it? JesseW (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The text appears on the train, as some sort of numeric identification. But, it's not a very important bit of text to the plot. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, would it make sense to add some kind of comment to the transcript, pointing out where the text appears, then? JesseW (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Your input is requested at WS:PD#Daniel Deronda
Hi,

Your input is requested at WS:PD#Daniel Deronda. I'd appreciate it if you could indicate there whether the subsequent comment affects your !vote at all. Xover (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I moved away recently and have been very busy with work. I haven't had as much time for the wacky Internet. Hopefully that can change soon. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries. We all have IRL first and foremost to worry about. I just needed to have people clarify their positions in light of the late comment and figured you were unlikely to see it unless notified directly. And for future reference, I mean to imply no obligation by such prods: if you're busy IRL you're busy IRL and us internet people will just have to deal. :) Xover (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:SnowyCinema/Archives/2022


text:
User talk:SnowyCinema/Archives/2023

youtube
Hi. Often the answer for youtube whitelist requests is to say use the full url, not the youtu.be shortcut. It is not difficult to legitimately work around the blocking components, it just needs a stop and a moment of thought. — billinghurst  sDrewth  04:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I did know that the shortcut could be converted, but thought using the shortcut, to stay true to what was done in the original work, was the answer. The spam whitelist also lists over a dozen other examples of youtu.be whitelisted links (for Index:Introductory Material to the Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.pdf), so I was following the example of what was already done in a similar work. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * See Introductory Material to the Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol/Endnotes PseudoSkull (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of what other people have done, and I am well aware of what I have said to those people at the same time. Following people's poor example is defensible, though necessarily desirable. With regard to "the look", this is a printed work, and does not actually require active hyperlinks, they are a nicety. Plus you can create active, functional links and still control the display to replicate the look of the work, as I explained at WS:AN. Fudging these things through administrative action in whitelist should be the last resort, and we are better off teaching people how to fish, than fish and feed. — billinghurst  sDrewth  22:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Author:Wilfred Ernest Lytton Day
Not sure whether you are writing much at enWP, however, this bloke seems to have missed getting an article, yet seems suitably notable, especially with his early collections. I transcribed his obit. — billinghurst  sDrewth  — billinghurst  sDrewth  21:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you finding this guy and making an author page for him, but I don't edit much at enWP. Not a huge fan of that site and its deletion practices. I'd prefer to stay an enWS and other sisters. But I would support a WP article's creation, however. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Pretty much the same re enWP. I will drop it over there with Ferguson, another FRPS, who is also missing. — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Please don't usurp
Portal:Virgin Islands is the holistic, not the US territory, and reallocating unless there is a clear error is never a good idea. Better to start new portal specifically if it is needed. — billinghurst  sDrewth  03:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Nathan Hale

 * ''Discussion continuation: Scriptorium

You've set up a redirect across namespaces. We don't do that. An Author disambiguation page should reside in the Author namespace, such as Author:William Shakespeare. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Where is this stated as a hard rule? I see no evidence of such a rule at Help:Redirects...and if there is such a rule, I'll gladly bring a discussion about it to the Scriptorium, since these types of redirects are useful. The technicality about which namespace it's in should not necessitate that a helpful redirect is not created. Having a redirect from Author:Nathan Hale to Nathan Hale disseminates confusion, and also would prevent that author page from being duplicately created. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, the disambiguation page John Brown has been set up in the past by administrator Billinghurst, where there are both author pages and works. This is because we don't need two separate disambiguation pages for the same thing, according to him, because that confuses Wikidata. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * WS:CSD M3 - Cross-namespace redirects. It's one of the reasons for speedy deletion.  All of us make mistakes from time to time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * See also Help:Disambiguation, where our standard example is in the Author: namespace, not the mainspace. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

 * (ec) One disambiguation page per term per wiki, and we try to align it to the namespace of the pages, though in the end when there are multiple nss including main, then it ends up in main namespace per Help:Disambiguation. And somewhat yes, so it does align with WD. Commentary: I have protected author ns pages, so they are not recreated. With regard to redirects, x-ns are stated in Deletion policy that they can be speedy deleted, though I also wonder whether it is the one time that we should have xwiki ns redirects, on that I do umm and ahh and I haven't felt strongly enough to have that battle for a change. For the page itself, I would say that I would have put main ns works first in main ns, and then done the authors. I also would  have put the bio link on the disambig page, as I would have still relied on that being on the author page in the "Works about" section (and my reasoning being that we don't typically do redirects to bio subpages when they appear more logically elsewhere. — billinghurst  sDrewth  22:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

There should only be one disambiguation page per page title for all namespaces, with all these pages being at root level, not as subpages
 * and this conversation went through WS:Scriptorium several years back as we modified this when we started coming across multiple disambiguation pages. I can see the following WS:S (somewhat) pertinent discussions
 * Scriptorium/Archives/2016-10
 * Scriptorium/Archives/2022-01
 * Scriptorium/Archives/2023-01
 * — billinghurst  sDrewth  22:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking at that again, why do we need to disambiguate the main namespace, there doesn't seem anything there to need disambiguation. The main ns page can exist on its own, and link to the author's page through — billinghurst  sDrewth  22:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Re
AN. Smells like ... ? — billinghurst  sDrewth  04:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought so, but I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt before blocking to ask a socratic question. Since if I was wrong and blocked them, that could be troublesome. PseudoSkull (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Totally understand, and you will note that I did the same not doing. — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Ppoem and lang block...
ppoem has a lang= param directly. I asked inductiveload for this. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

¡No Pasaran!
Here. You had asked for this a while ago. It is in the public domain (no notice), and none of the copyright notices on the photographs are valid (they are all missing the date). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! May I ask how you get these books for scanning? Is it through interlibrary loans? PseudoSkull (talk) 04:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * PseudoSkull: Yes, I use ILL. Any other books you’ve been wanting? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably a big scan project (a novel) so I'd understand if you didn't want to do it, but if you could get Flying Death by Edwin Balmer (1927), that'd be much appreciated! PseudoSkull (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If I get a scan of it, I'll transcribe it immediately. PseudoSkull (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s only 200 pages, that will be easy. The longest one I’ve uploaded is The Net of Faith (800 pp.), and I’m working on some multi-volume works now which are longer. The most tedious was probably The Art of Japan; the pages took about two minutes to scan each. (For a novel, it’s closer to 15–20 seconds.) A good number of libraries have a copy, so it should come in soon. I’ll scan it as soon as I get it. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want a few more, Diary of One Month in Honolulu (1910) and Kat and Copy-Cat (1929, not renewed), both by Katherine Merritte Yates, are two books that are probably interesting that I've been meaning to get to scanning myself. Again, your efforts are much appreciated. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * PseudoSkull: Both have been ordered—pester me any time if you’re having trouble finding a book. Kat and Copy-Cat is listed under a different name (a pseudoskull, er, pseudonym, I presume), but the name under the copyright is “K. Yates.” The Diary might be a little more difficult to get, or it’ll be a bit easier (if the other library is willing to scan it). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

 * The Morris is ordered. Any other of Morris’s work catch your interest? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you mind making a subpage of your user page to request scans? I may add to something like that and ping you there periodically if you don't mind. Thanks. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Here you go: User:TE(æ)A,ea./Requests. You might want to watch that page, since you have so many requests there already. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I would like to additionally request that, for works requested by me, index pages do not get created yet. I'll create them with my systematic approach later. Just uploading the files to IA or Commons would be great. And once they're uploaded, I'll get to it. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

A slip of the click?
Here? Xover (talk) 09:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Sorry, I have to admit, I completely have no idea how that happened. Must have been a misclick. Fixed 12:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, it was a rollback, those things are so easy to click in your watchlist without realizing it. Thanks for catching it though! PseudoSkull (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I especially mislike how easy it is to misclick on mobile. And I've seriously considered disabling rollback on desktop too for this reason. Xover (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

/P/ error
Dapples of the Circus is messed up from p. 59. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * :( Thanks for letting for me know! PseudoSkull (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

rh/1
Hey. A couple of places you've had Gemma add rh/1 to page headers/footers. Here for example. Why are you using rh/1 here rather than, e.g., rh or just plain c? Context for the question is that rh/1 is most likely going the way of the Dodo, and I want to make sure all use cases for it are covered by other alternatives first. Xover (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That edit was over 2 years ago, so I don't really remember why I picked that specific template. Maybe (and I'm just guessing) I felt the template was appropriate at that time, for some reason that wouldn't apply to today. I believe in later renditions of the same code, I did end up using rh. That Royle Girl was one of the earliest transcription projects I can remember doing on this site, and I've been learning better practices/methods along the way to improve my transcription practices every time I get an opportunity since then. PseudoSkull (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. So no concerns if we replace it with rh or plain c then? Xover (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, do whatever's the right thing. PseudoSkull (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Possible QT (or OCR) errors encountered
Hi, I recently finished validating Solo and wanted to follow up on our previous conversation (on my Talk page) and point out some errors I corrected multiple times, in case they might be QT-related: 1. In several cases, a double quote would be handled incorrectly: it would end up at the beginning of a line (where no quote was in the source), and a single quote would be where the double quote should be. It seems to occur if there are one or more single quotes inside the double-quoted text (e.g. contractions, like "I'll" or "I'm"), so it appeared to be trying to generate matching single & double quotes. For example: Special:Diff/13579422 and Special:Diff/13567567

2. Although most French or French-origin words have their correct e-accents and other special characters, sometimes an e-accent is inserted where none is in the original source text. One case I encountered twice was "debutante" (in the original text), but "débutante" in the generated text: Special:Diff/13567033 and Special:Diff/13567147

3. This one may just be an OCR glitch, but one frequent error was a comma instead of a period, buried in a paragraph of multiple sentences;  it never replaced the final period of the paragraph, IIRC, so seemed like it may be due to a rules-based correction. Looking at the original source text, the period looks normal, to my eye. Examples: Special:Diff/13587380, Special:Diff/13587311, Special:Diff/13586531 Harris7 (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for these observations. I've been carefully watching your edits on these pages, so that the system can be improved.
 * 1. That was a regular expression meant to catch instances of paragraphs that are supposed to begin with quotations marks. This regex has been deactivated recently and I'm still trying to think of a better way to solve that problem.
 * 2. The débutante thing was purely my eyes failing me. The software you mentioned does put accent marks on certain words automatically, but I usually remove them if I see they're not used in a particular work. Since there are so many accented words in Solo due to its heavily multilingual nature, I think I just missed those two instances during proofreading.
 * 3. That is an OCR glitch, and I really don't think it's one that can be easily remedied. You can default to a period before certain capitalized words like "The", "You", etc. but it starts to get really iffy where you get names like "Paul" or "Richard", because there really aren't too many rules you can pull from. Not very common, but in may books thoughts are not italicized or put in quotation marks, leading to the words thought by the characters capitalized mid-sentence, which is something that'd have to be watched out for during proofreading. Though I think it's still justifiable. But in certain works, such as The Tattooed Countess by Carl Van Vechten which I also recently transcribed, quotation marks are entirely removed from dialogue...which I personally think is a really weird decision on the author's part, but hey, we gotta respect the source text. What can I say?
 * Overall, Solo was a bit complicated with the formatting due to the multilingual nature of the text, and Pierre Coalfleet actually reminds me a lot of Van Vechten as an author, so I wonder if there was any influence in either direction... I'd encourage you to validate more texts if you ever have the time. It will help to make the technology better and better. Here's a complete list of all the works that have so far been transcribed with QT. The actual titles are the same as the subpages. Or heck, just tune into new texts every once in a while. I've been filling up over half of the list for the past 2 weeks now (at least). PseudoSkull (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:SnowyCinema/Archives/2023


text:
User talk:Jan.Kamenicek/2018

Article number is not our usual approach
Something like Philosophical Transactions/Volume 54/46 is not the way that we would usually portray a work. We have been using the philosophical approach of an article title. Page titles with numbers are horrid for search results, and generally portraying a work. They are also not very useful for putting into linking templates from author pages. Is there any particular reason that this is your approach with these works? — billinghurst  sDrewth  22:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I decided to rename the subpages after I read that "Works that have chapters/sections should be numbered, not named" in Style guide. I had also noticed a similar approach was applied e. g. in Philosophical Transactions/Volume 95/Number 19, but I decided to omit the word "number" as it may be misleading for somebody, who might consider it a number of an issue and not of an article within a volume. What is more, some article titles are too long and are not allowed by wikisoftware as page titles, which can be solved only by changing/shortening the title (which thus stops being the original title anyway), or using the number system. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies for sounding a bit gruff in my first post. :-/ The chapter pointer, to which you refer, is meant to be more about using the word "chapter", not just number, and then to not use the names of chapters; as such it more relates to running books, rather than articles in journals and other compiled works. In such circumstances, there we are usually only listing the root work on an author page. [Noting that the Number 19 is another that has escaped review.] Obviously we need to do some expansion of our help pages. Littell's Living Age, PSM and our other journals and newspapers are better and more relevant examples of our nomenclature. We have something like article link and the templates that utilise it to standardise output and links. — billinghurst  sDrewth  09:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm, I understand your point but it is difficult to understand it that way from the guidance as it is spoken there generally of subpages and does not distinguish compiled works. I have nothing against returning everything into the state before the subpages were moved, but I would prefer the guidance was changed prior to doing so to avoid a situation in which somebody else would come and argue that the movement was in fact correct and should not have been reverted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have suggested the change at Wikisource talk:Style guide. If you have time, I would appreciate if you could comment it there. Thanks. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph indentation
Unless there's something special about how paragraph indentation is used in a specific text, we usually don't try to represent the indentation of the first line of a paragraph. In the past it's caused more problems than it benefits from having. Also, with a big complicated work like the Encyclopedias Brittanica, it's best to do whatever everyone else seems to be doing. It's good to have consistency between different parts of the same work, and updating the entire work to reflect the improvements you make for the small parts you're working on would probably be difficult and time consuming, so the easiest thing is to not make your parts different, unless it's a really worthwhile improvement. Prosody (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I started indenting the first line when adding some articles from Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th edition, after I saw that other contributors did it here, e. g. at Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 16.djvu/843. I don't know whether this attitude is applied widely in EB articles or whether I just happened to meet some of few examples of such practice. However, if it is not recommended generally, I will not apply it in EB too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Philosophical Transactions link
I have set up the template to allow for link to the respective articles from the author pages. It leverages article link to give a standard, and traceable means to link to works. If you think that there will need for a shortened version (... lkpl) for interwork links, then please let me know. — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Sfrac
I am sorry to hear that it does not work in Chrome. I use Firefox where, as you mentioned, it displays as the examples in Template:Sfrac/doc are described. I have just checked using Microsoft Edge and it displays in a similar way to Firefox. If this display issue with Chrome is still a problem for you, as I do not know how to fix it, I suggest that you ask at Scriptorium, as someone there may well be able to help you. -- PBS (talk) 08:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have just viewed the documentation page of the template with the Chrome browser. It seems to display OK (although some numbers are in grey). -- PBS (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, now I see it displayed correctly as well. That's strange, but I am glad it works as it is supposed to work. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Translations
When you are listing multiple English translations of the same source text, we use translations instead of versions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

 * You probably mean the poem A Mood. These are not different translations of the same source text, it is one translation, just published in different anthologies, so I would guess "version" suits better. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

 * I could not verify whether they were the same translation because one is redlinked. But when the original is not in English, we prefer translations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. The translator wrote that some of the poems were simply reprinted from another anthology in the Preface, but I have no problem to use "translations" instead of "versions". I am going to change The Pitman in the same way too.
 * As for the redundancy: I used The Clouds (Coates) as a model, because it is recommended as such in the documentation of Versions. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That versions page isn't recommended as an example. Rather, the fact of different source information pertaining to different editions of that poem is mentioned as example for use in titling the different pages where two editions are located. There is no link to that Versions page, nor is it offered as an example. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Licence templates only needed on main pages
Hi, I see you've put a licence template on the subpages of The Jail. This is not required because the licence is on the main page. The only exception to this is when dealing with an anthology where the various works on the subpages have explicitly different licences. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I see, OK. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Uploading Files from Archive.org
I asked this question of mine. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Work based categories
Hi, We don't do work based categories here. Your Category:An Anthology of Modern Bohemian Poetry has nothing in it that can't be got from the Table of Contents. Please decategorise the subpages and then mark the category for speedy deletion. See Help:Categorization for the types of category that we accept. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I have noticed that there are work based categories, such as Category:Slavonic Fairy Tales, Category:Grimm's Household Tales and others. There are also sometimes a few things which cannot be got from the TOC, such as front matter or back matter. Can you point out the rule which says that work based categories should not be created, please? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I have already found it at Help:Categorization. OK, so I will remove them. However, I saw quite a number of such categories here, so English Wikisource is not very consistent with this rule. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't always catch things quickly, and sometimes problems sit unnoticed for a very long time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Authors and poets
If you categorize an author in Category:Czech poets, you do not need to place them in Category:Czech authors. The category for Poets should show up as a subcategory of Authos for the same language / nationality. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, I ususally do it only if the author is not only a poet, but some different kind of author too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

An Anthology of Modern Bohemian Poetry
I notice that in the Table of Contents, you have linked items in the Contents list to Author pages. That is not best practice, and is likely to (1) confuse readers, and (2) break links for people who read the book as a download. The Contents of a work should only link to the work's content. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm, I will think about it. When I was looking for a model how to deal with an anthology, I looked at the first one in the Category:Anthologies, where the authors are linked in the contents. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks as though the linking to Authors in that work was done by a relatively new editor here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

And before I forget again, Thank You for adding the Anthology, and for all the work you've been doing here on Wikisource. Your efforts add greatly to the value of this site. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I do appreciate it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects
Wikisource doesn't use cross-namespace redirects. They're on the shortlist for speedy deletion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jan.Kamenicek/2018