User talk:Neo-Jay

Hello, Neo-Jay, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here. If you need help, see our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). You can discuss or ask questions from the community in general at the Scriptorium. The Community Portal lists tasks you can help with if you wish. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page.

--Jusjih 07:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC) (the only Chinese-speaking admin here)

Thank you again. --Neo-Jay 10:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

History of West Australia

Thanks for your help straightening a few things out for me. This is my first substantial upload at wikisource. Now I just need to start with some scanning and OCR. Moondyne 07:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. If you like to use scanning and OCR, you may consider the namespace "Page" (see Help:Side by side image view for proofreading). And as for the table of contents, I think that it may be better to placed at the main page History of West Australia, not just a subpage History of West Australia/Contents. Thanks for your consideration. --Neo-Jay 07:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking about incorporating the contents into the main page - its just that I was trying to keep the integrity of the original with respect to the order of pages etc. I'll think about it anyway. Moondyne 08:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Happy New Year! --Neo-Jay 08:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Making an accidental mess

Please look at Special:DoubleRedirects to see the side effects of your changes over the past day or two. Can you please sort it out in short order -- otherwise somebody (or some BOT) is going come by sooner or later and revert/delete all/some of those changes. Thanks. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@George Orwell III: I though that Wikisource could, like Wikipedia, automatically fix double redirects by bots. If it is not the case, I can fix them manually. Thanks for your notice. --Neo-Jay (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

No thank you for following up. FYI - we don't let that BOT run through here because it frequently does not account for the effect it has on sub-pages (which we utilize a lot; WP doesn't) nor the many reasons we are forced to re-design the naming levels of multi-page works to begin with. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@George Orwell III: Thanks for your information. I have fixed all the 11 double redirects made by me. --Neo-Jay (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"Custom rule" for Page:Songs of the workers 9th Edition.pdf/2

I saw some of your experimentation and thought I might offer this suggestion (for use header and footer area of relevant Page:s)

<div style="background:black;color:white;height:1em;position:relative;">
<div style="background:white; color:#202122; position:absolute;left:1em;width:0.5em;">&nbsp;</div>
<div style="background:white; color:#202122; position:absolute;right:1em;width:0.5em;">&nbsp;</div>
</div>

It produces this effect and is amenable to "{{centre block/s|width=xxx}}ing" down if e.g. full available display width is too much:

 

 

Too silly for your purposes? AuFCL (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@AuFCL: Thank you so much! I have added this to Index:Songs of the workers 9th Edition.pdf's page 2, 3, and 67. It's so nice of you!--Neo-Jay (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Nice to see it was useful. I could not resist adding the "heavy hyphens" missing whilst validating those pages; hope this addition fits in with your plans? AuFCL (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@AuFCL: Oh, Great! Thank you so much for adding those "heavy hyphens" to page 2 and 67. They look so cool! --Neo-Jay (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Other versions

Hi,

No objection to you nesting versions / translations pages. I agree it should be done for the Bible. I did it myself for Daisy Miller, which is a much simpler case:

• Daisy Miller (James) (versions page for the tale in all its forms)
  • Daisy Miller: A Study (versions page for the short story)
    • "Daisy Miller: A Study" in Cornhill Magazine 37 (222–223) (June–July 1878)
    • "Daisy Miller: A Study" in Littell's Living Age 138 (1777 & 1780):
    • "Daisy Miller: A Study" in Home Journal, 31 July – 14 August 1878:
    • Daisy Miller: A Study (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1879)
    • "Daisy Miller: A Study" in Daisy Miller: A Study, An International Episode, Four Meetings (2 volumes, London: Macmillan & Co., 1879) 1: 1–193.
    • etc. etc. etc.
  • Daisy Miller: A Comedy (versions page for the play)
    • Daisy Miller: A Comedy (Not published, 1882)
    • "Daisy Miller: A Comedy" in The Atlantic Monthly 51 (306–308) (April–June 1883)
    • Daisy Miller: A Comedy (Boston: James R. Osgood & Co., 1883)

Some propositions for you:

1. The graph is a tree. Each node may have multiple children but must have exactly one parent.
2. That is, a work will be listed on no more than one versions/translations page. And where there is nesting, a versions/translations page will be listed on no more than one parent versions/translations page.
3. {{other versions}} points from a page, back to the one and only versions/translations page upon which it is listed. Hence it is an error, leading to confusion, to support multiple such pointers.

Hesperian 07:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hesperian: Many thanks for your message. I changed Template:Other versions and Template:Other translations in line with Template:Similar because I happened to meet The Army and Navy Hymnal/Hymns/Glorious Things of Thee are Spoken, which had two {{other versions}} linking two articles: Austria (Haydn) and Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken. It seems to be an exception to the above graph in that the child edition page seems to have two parent versions pages, one for tune and the other for lyrics. Could you please check The Army and Navy Hymnal/Hymns/Glorious Things of Thee are Spoken to see whether such two {{other versions}} are used reasonable? Further discussion can be found at Template talk:Other versions, where Beleg Tâl has posted some comments. Thank you. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Coates poem move

Regarding this move: 1890 is part of the actual title of the poem, and should be reflected as such in the title at Wikisource. If it is too much hassle to revert, I can live with it, but just for your reference in the future... Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: Thanks for your message. Perhaps "(1890)" is not a part of this poem's title although it is included in Poems (1898)/To the Tsar (1890). According to the link you provided for this poem's 1890 (perhaps original?) edition published in The Century Magazine (January 1890), there is no "(1890)" in its title. What do you think of it? --Neo-Jay (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thinking it through, Alexander III was tsar of Russia in 1890 when the poem was written/published. He reigned until 1894. Coates' first Poems (in which "To the Tsar (1890)" is published) was published in 1898. It is my guess that she added the year to the title to distinguish between Alexander III and the succeeding ruler. It is also my practice to try to use the most recent titling when creating titles at Wikisource. It goes to author's intent, in my opinion. What do you think? (sorry for the back-and-forth) Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: So "(1890)" seems to me to be an identifier used by Coates to clarify the context of this poem rather than a part of the actual title. But please feel free to move To the Tsar (Coates) back to To the Tsar (1890) if you like. That's OK for me. --Neo-Jay (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Coates usually placed "identifiers" in subtitles. See "To France" in the same 1898 collection as an example. So, without speaking with her personally (which I hope to do some day), I believe she meant it to be part of the title (as it also appears in the TOC, whereas it does not for "To France"). Truth be told, I have never reverted a move and feel I would make a mess of things. @Hesperian:? @Billinghurst:? Anyone? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: Does the "subtitle" mentioned by you mean the second line under the title? Then Coates also places identifiers in the same line with the title such as in Mars—1907. And her poem's second line under the title may also appear in the TOC such as "Memorial Ode, read at Independence Hall, October 28, 1898" in Page:Florence Earle Coates Mine and Thine 1904 xv.jpg. I think that her practice is not consistent and we might not know her poem's title purely based upon the title's first line or the TOC. --Neo-Jay (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. That is what is meant by "subtitle". "Consistency" may not be a factor. I believe her titles are deliberate, and they should be replicated as they appear on the most recent poem (page in which it appears). Again, if it turns out not to be an easy fix, I'm not worried about it... but my preference is to revert. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: I understand that we have different views on how to identify the title of Coates's poem. Although I still think that "(1890)" is not a part of the actual title, I reaffirm that I am OK with moving To the Tsar (Coates) back to To the Tsar (1890). Please revert my move if you prefer. Don't worry. The revert will not make a mess of anything. --Neo-Jay (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I can revert for you if you want, but personally I'm liking Neo-Jay's handling of this. By all accounts we have a poem published by Coates under the title "To the Tsar", and then later published under the heading "To the Tsar (1890)". It is open to dispute whether that heading gives a revised title, or the same title annotated. But either way the poem has at some time been titled "To the Tsar", so I think To the Tsar (Coates) is the better place for a versions page. Hesperian 02:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

How is title ("To the Tsar") different from heading ("To the Tsar (1890)") above? Are they not both titles? What distinguishes a heading from a title? How do we determine WS titling if not from the page a poem rests on? (not meaning to belabor things, but I guess I am) Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand "title" to be a property of the poem itself, and "heading" to be a typographic entity, preceding the body of the poem, here styled as centred text, in all capitals. As you say, one usually infers the title from the heading. But it is open to dispute whether this particular heading gives a revised title or an annotated title, and that's really not a dispute I want to participate in. Granting for the sake of the discussion that this poem has at various times been titled "To the Tsar" and "To the Tsar (1890)", I like Neo-Jay's handling of this. Hesperian 02:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Alright. I'll let it be. Thank you both for your input, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Traffic Signs Manuals..

If you want to assemble the rest of 3 , 4 5, 7 and 8 :) feel, free, but there's no diagrams/figures yet. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Many thanks for your creating Traffic Signs Manual and its subpages. --Neo-Jay (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Page move

My apologies for the cut and paste move. I first saw the article when it was created with the hoax speech and another editor nominated it for deletion, which I agreed. After other people started editing the article, I moved the page for a fresh start since it looked bad for the article's creation and first edit to had been vandalism, so I nominated the version with the vandalism creation for deletion. The cut and past move was the first solution I thought of. Dash9Z (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dash9Z: Hi, Dash9Z, many thanks for your message. A specific edition of a page can be removed from the page's history at Wikipedia. I think it may also be applicable at Wikisource. If you think that the first edit of Donald Trump's State of the Union Address 2018 should be deleted, you can try to send a message to an administrator at his/her talk page or by email to ask for it, as described by Wikipedia:Revision deletion. Best regards. --Neo-Jay (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Neo-Jay: Thank you for your response and the information. Dash9Z (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dash9Z: You are welcome. Thanks for your contributions. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

On The Spirit of Laws

Thank you for your continuing works on the book of The Spirit of Laws. I thought you stopped 2 years ago, but now you're restarting. Cheers. --116.108.16.207 01:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement. I restarted proofreading pages of The Spirit of Laws (1758), Volume I on 25 June 2018, and proofread one page a day now. I hope I can finish it within 259 days. :) --Neo-Jay (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Some notes

For Trump on China: Putting America First our means has somewhat evolved.

1. you can leave the title as a relative link, it doesn't need to be piped when it is the same
2. the authors of the parts should use contributor = as this is section_author
3. we would not put year and copyright tagson the section level when it is applied to the root
4. with non-fiction works like this pagename is better to reflect that name of the section in the subpagename part rather than /1 /2 /3 as each of these sections would have an individual wikidata item, so a proper title is pertinent in searching, etc. All a little different from fiction works where often the wikidata item is just the rootpage, and chapters are different.

— billinghurst sDrewth 21:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Thank you very much for helping edit Trump on China: Putting America First/Introduction and Trump on China: Putting America First/Remarks Delivered by Vice President Michael R. Pence, and many thanks for your message. --Neo-Jay (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. FWIW we have a gadget (WEF-framework) that makes the WD creations and edits able to be done from here, and useful when you want to create articles for subpages as it remembers previous edits in some fields. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Thank you for the information. --Neo-Jay (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Stories from Tagore

Thanks for taking this up. All the stories are present here, not only The Postmaster. This story, of course, has a major alteration (the last para) from the Mashi version. Other stories, revised for maybe a few words from the Mashi or Hungry Stones version, are existing here. I had redirected a few to the Hungry Stones version (the alteration being minimal), but now that the Stories from Tagore index is here, those redirects should probably be undone. The Stories from Tagore had two new stories (not published in Hungry Stones or Mashi), called Master Mashai and The Son of Rashmani, which are also present here. Hrishikes (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: Thanks for your message. I happened to edit The Postmaster (in my watchlist), and will try editing Stories from Tagore by transcluding Index:Stories from Tagore (IA storiesfromtagor00tago).pdf's pages. Thank you very much for your contributions. --Neo-Jay (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Anglicised spelling of Bengali surnames should not be used except for very famous cases (e.g. Tagore, J.C. Bose etc.). For spelling of Debendranath Mitra as per modern style, see 1 (page 19), 2 (last line of printed page no. 14), 3 (upper part of page 22). Hrishikes (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: Thanks for letting me know this and reverting and correcting my edits on Mashi and Other Stories/The Postmaster and Stories from Tagore/The Postmaster. I reverted my edit on The Postmaster. --Neo-Jay (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Dots...

Hi Neo-Jay,

Great to see this work being done on Huckleberry Finn!

Just one note there... I really cannot emphasise enough how strongly I recommend against using {{dtpl}} and the similar templates for tables of contents and similar. From a technical perspective they are a very poor solution, and even though it is nice to able to reproduce the dot-leaders it is hardly critical (neither from a faithful reproduction perspective, nor from a readability for our readers perspective). My strong recommendation is to just use plain table wikimarkup, possibly augmented by {{ts}}, for such constructs. It's a little more complicated when you're used to {{dtpl}} and friends, but it gives much better results and gives you much better control as a nice side-effect.

In any case, great work on Huck Finn, and please don't hesitate to let me know if you need help with anything. --Xover (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Xover: Thank you for the message. Please feel free to remove dot leaders from the table of contents of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884) (index page). But today main page's featured text (Trees and Other Poems (index page)) and new texts (Hand in Hand (index page), Life in India (index page), Adventures of Baron Wenceslas Wratislaw of Mitrowitz (index page), and A Study of Shakespeare (index page)) all use dot leaders in tables of contents (by Template:TOC row 2dot-1, Template:TOCstyle, Template:TOC row 1-dot-1, etc., although not by Template:Dotted TOC page listing (dtpl)). Does Wikisource have any consensus on using dot leaders in tables of contents? --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus against the use of the current dot leaders. This was only a personal recommendation from me as a technical person, and only because I happened to look at one of the pages using them while following up on the deletion discussion. If my arguments did not convince you you should absolutely feel free to keep using those toc templates exactly as you please, and please accept my apologies for bothering you with my personal hobby-horse. But, hey, one of these days I will have convinced enough of the community that these templates are a bad idea that they can be deprecated. :) --Xover (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Xover: Many thanks for your reply. I am not familiar with this technical issue. Hope the community will accept your opinion. Best regards. :) --Neo-Jay (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Page:Indo-Pacific Strategy of the United States (February 2022).pdf/5

I have no part in the merge discussion.

All I know is that {{float right}} causes a LintError and badly formed HTML, whereas a {{right block}} did not. Perhaps you would like to suggest a better soloution, that gives the same rendering without generating more work for the parser?

float right is SPAN based, which means it can't be used for a list (as the instance on this page.) I agree with you that the documentation could be improved.

The technical differences between {{right block}} and {{block right}} is that right block inherits the alignment by setting the align attribute as inherit in the inline CSS, if it's not otherwise specified, ad sets the position attribute to relative. Block right is protected so I can't update that template to make the two templates identical, at which point a redirect could be set up.

{{right block}} was also updated to use {{optional style}}, which made it generate less redundant styling. {{block right}} should probably be updated to also do this.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Sorry for my late reply. Thank you for explaining the differences between the tree templates (Template:Right block, Template:Block right, and Template:Float right) and removing the merger proposal from Template:Right block. My concerns have been resolved, and your reverting my reverts (this and this) is ok to me. --Neo-Jay (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Naming and disambiguation

When disambiguating, I usually use the author's surname rather than the full name in parenthesis because that seems to be the preferred style at WS.

On another note, I don't know that I like encyclopedia pages being disambiguated from other works. Policy and consensus is against me on this one it seems, and I can't put my finger on an exact justification for why I feel this way. But, I always thought of a disambiguation page to be a page for eliminating confusion. So, at a page like Moby-Dick, I'd expect the novel by Melville and a poem or something, which I'd consider a work. But what's actually there is an encyclopedia article about the novel... And I'm thinking, "well, there's no way anyone would ever confuse the novel with the specific 1920 encyclopedia article". When people are looking information up in an encyclopedia, I don't think they're thinking of the article as something that's a distinct work, but just think of the title as a description of the content that's going to be in it. I.e. they're searching for topics, not the articles themselves. It just feels to me like they don't belong in a disambiguation page. But that's just my unpopular opinion. Hopefully at least you can understand why I feel that way. Cheers PseudoSkull (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: Thank you for letting me know the "surname/full name" issue and moving Jalna (Mazo de la Roche) to Jalna (Roche). But Mazo de la Roche's surname seems to be "de la Roche", not "Roche" (see, e.g., Wikidata:Q67813558 and Wikipedia:Mazo de la Roche). Do we need to move Jalna (Roche) to Jalna (de la Roch)? As for adding encyclopedia articles to disambiguation pages, I think that an encyclopedia article has its own author(s) and, no matter how short it is, can be seen as a distinct work. A long encyclopedia article may even be regarded as an academic masterpiece. Even if an encyclopedia article is about a novel, the article, like any other distinct work of literary criticism (which may be a book of hundreds of pages), is still different from the novel itself. If encyclopedia articles can be added to author pages (see, e.g., Template:EB1911 link's doc and Template:Americana link's doc), they can also be added to disambiguation pages to help readers find works with the same tile. But I admit that it's just my personal point of view, and I am not sure whether I am right. Thank you.--Neo-Jay (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Legal disambiguation pages

Thanks for helping with creating redirects to legislation! I'd like to remind that there are often synonymous legislation in different jurisdictions that differs with the year, or even shares the same title. For example, in the page "Defamation Act" you'll see how may jurisdictions have similar legislation with the same title. So, before creating redirections, you may want to do a quick Google search to see if these things exist, thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@廣九直通車: Thanks for your message. I only check existing Wikisource pages (not Google search results) to see whether a redirect or disambiguation page is needed. If there is only one such page, I will create a redirect, not disambiguation page. I don't think that we need to create a disambiguation page that has only one blue-link entry (but if such a disambiguation page has been created, I would not object). A redirect page can be easily changed to a disambiguation page when more than one existing Wikisource page has the same title. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)