User talk:SnowyCinema

Welcome

Hello, PseudoSkull, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• Help pages, especially for proofreading
• Help:Beginner's guide to Wikisource
• Style guide
• Inclusion policy
• Wikisource:For Wikipedians

You may be interested in participating in

• Proofread of the Month
• Community collaboration
• Requested texts

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{CotW}} to your page for current wikisource projects.

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

Have questions? Then please ask them at either

• Wikisource:Scriptorium; or
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Koavf: Nice to see you're active here too! Thanks. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes. You were first answered by User:EncycloPetey who is very active. He is a competent admin here who can answer all your questions. Additionally, I have found User:billinghurst to be very helpful. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

How does the QT system work? Is it possible for someone else to do the proofreading, and you run the QT.py script? In any case, would you be willing to do this work? It doesn’t seem to me to be particularly difficult (although I would also like to know what sorts of text make QT work difficult). Thank you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Ah, some interest! Well, I'm sure you're familiar with the WikiProject Film draft system already. It is structured kind of similarly to that system, except I've done quite a lot more work in coding this new QuickTranscribe system. Here's a more detailed description of the project: User:PseudoSkull/QuickTranscribe Basically, QT aims to eliminate all possible tedious or repetitive elements from the transcription process, streamlining everything onto a single page workspace, where all the material is split out from there, into various places like Wikidata, Commons, and Wikisource itself across multiple namespaces.

I am proud to say that as of right now, the system works very well with ~ 400 pg. novels or less, at least novels from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It can also do single-page works (like children's books or essays), and the functionality for short story collections, and in theory poetry or essay collections, has gone a long way as well. But for works that have more complicated structures, such as many esoteric kinds of nonfiction or academic works, the system struggles a lot as of right now.

If you would like to try using this system, you would be the first person besides myself to ever try it. Despite having gone further than I could have ever imagined since its inception in May, the project is still in its early stages. So maybe you could consider yourself an "early tester". If you'd like to try using QT and see how you like it, I can make a short video tutorial/demo for it sometime this week for you, to show the basics of how I do it, and I'll try and write more documentation as well. Would you be interested in that?

As for the scan you sent me, it seems like that work should be doable at a glance. I'll look into it. Although, do you know why it starts at ~ Chapter 7? Is it a second volume? I didn't read the fairly long intro and preface (because I'm going to sleep soon), maybe those go into why. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

• I am interested, so some documentation would be nice. (To be honest, a video would also help, if that wouldn’t be too much work.) As for the book, it is a translation of a manuscript, the beginning, end, and some of the middle of the which were destroyed over time (according to the preface). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Got it. I'll see what I can do for you, and I'll get back to you soon.

Just so you know, I have plans to one day release a frontend web application for QuickTranscribe before releasing it for general use on Wikisource. I assume I will probably be able to get it hosted on Toolforge (the Commons IA uploader tool and the Wikidata matching game are also hosted there, for example), and if I can't I'll host it on my own server. But for now, the way it has to be done is through a user subpage on Wikisource itself. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Toolforge is essentially self-service. See Help:Toolforge and Help:Toolforge/Quickstart. If you're building tools related to Wikimedia projects I highly recommend it. Xover (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

• (1) The Robinson Family should be on its way. (2) Is the scan of the Rhymes good? (3) What’s your progress on the documentation? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@TE(æ)A,ea.: (1) It's actually The Stephenson Family—please make sure you got the right one. (2) It seems perfect from a glance, thanks. (3) A frontend for QT is currently under development. It would probably be best to use it in the Toolforge environment, since I believe I can have it in a working state in a few months. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

• PseudoSkull: The name was from memory; I did order the right family. There doesn’t seem to be any problem with the request, so it should be filled “soon” (whenever that is, but it’s also close to end-of-semester for the colleges likely to fulfil the request, so maybe a little later.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

• I don’t mean to pry, but I would like to know how you’ve progressed on the QT system front-end (or public-facing part, anyhow). I’ve seen a lot of easy-to-do-but-time-consuming works which I think QT would work well for, or at least for text generation, but I haven’t looked through your GitHub enough to be able to figure it out. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Hey, it's been a while! I apologize, as you might have been able to tell I've been very inactive lately due to IRL obligations and I abandoned most of my longstanding projects, but expect that I'll start working on Wikisource frontends and more user-friendly functionality fairly soon. The code is messy as it currently stands. Thanks for reaching out! I'm glad this is still desired. :) SnowyCinema (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

You'd also have me interested for a QT frontend &/or explanation; I myself have been doing some stuff to automatize, but you've done much more, and I have a growing feeling that a lot of stuff has been rewritten multiple times by different people with minimal variation (e.g. this and that or that thing and QT's transclusion). It'd be a good idea to try maintain a centralized listing scripts and other tools to use those already existing (maybe adding some functionalities by the way) instead of making the same thing over and over. For example, we must have at least ten variants of a script/program to unwrap text lying around. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 19:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The word "proper" has been thrown around a lot in conversation today without any basis that I can see. Our Help:Disambiguation page has no statement of any kind about "proper" naming for such pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@EncycloPetey: That's not a good thing. We need more consistency in the logic of our mainspace pages here. Our lack of coherent hierarchical structure is one of our greatest downfalls, one that I deal with constantly with lots of headache. I guess the move just seemed to make sense to me in that moment. But, have it your way. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

There have been several prior attempts to standardize naming on mainspace pages, and all have failed to achieve anything like consensus. If you think a particular form is likely to be useful, it can always be created as a redirect to the actual page, without necessitating a move. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@EncycloPetey: Apologies for the rules oversight on my part. I've been modifying probably hundreds of disambiguation pages in the past week or month, so hopefully you'll consider this my pass for a slip-up. It wouldn't have been the way I named the page if I transcribed the work, but I'm not gonna fight tooth and nail over that minor page-naming disagreement.

But I do think it is important that we improve our naming conventions here. For any site with large amounts of data, having a good consistent structure is key. I know we can't ever make it 100% consistent, but we can certainly get close—and Wikipedia and Wiktionary aren't 100% consistent either, but at least they try. One day, I think there will be a change in this regard, but obviously not today. It will probably require a larger community than we have now for more users to actually feel the pains. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Part of our issue results from the huge number of things published, in combination with the variability of title forms. My principle has been, if we can use the actual title, to do so, and only create artificial names where the actual names of multiple publications conflict. Sorting out the Shakespeare play titles was one of those times, and I posted my intentions before starting the changes, to be sure there would be no blowback. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just a tip: for cases like the recent author pages for authors with no eligible works, it's often worthwhile to take the issue up with the contributor on their talk page first. Most of the time they're created out of ignorance and after a quick check they can be speedied without needing a community discussion, minimum times the thread must be open (one week for proposed deletions, two for copyright issues), and so forth. Xover (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Xover: Alright, but I didn't follow up because EncycloPetey started that discussion on the user talk page before I got the chance to. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I changed it because, in my view, this is covered in intro and point 7, first bullet, of Wikisource:Style_guide#Formatting. Especially the part "as well as incremental spacing found within justified text.", "knowing that we are trying to reproduce works for modern readership, not provide facsimiles of the time and place.".

The tempo of the sentence and the similarity with the rest of the sentence shows it is clearly a typographical artifact to keep the text justified.

At least, this is how I interpret the Style guide. Mpaa (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Mpaa: It's unclear to me why Washburne's typist decided to use spaces between the hyphens there. One view is that maybe it was purposeful—that it is to represent a slower transition between the "clatters" than the "tromps". Or maybe it's just a typographical error (although for that typo to appear 3 times in a row is strange). Although, (and this would be an argument for your side), it could just be to take up space on the page on purpose to fill a line, which would not be something we'd want to replicate. But we will never truly know the motivations, because everyone involved all died decades ago. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the File:The Lost World (1925).webm being a restored version, the first frame declares that it is copyrighted since 2016. Shall we keep this transcription? If yes, it will be necessary to insert new pages in the index. M-le-mot-dit (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@M-le-mot-dit: The copyright should not apply to our transcription, since the restoration is trying its best to be loyal to an original source. Since we didn't keep in the sound, I think we're fine.

I am concerned about the timestamps though, possibly being out of sync. Are they? I'm not sure why the other file was deleted at Commons, but they really should be a bit more careful before deleting these sorts of files that are connected to Wikisource transcriptions. PseudoSkull (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I have to review the timestamps. A small sequence presenting Conan Doyle is inserted at the beginning. I am going to update the draft. M-le-mot-dit (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've updated the original draft—timestamps, 7 new pages plus a few minor modifications. Can GemmaBot fix the index and transcription? What do you suggest? --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@M-le-mot-dit: Done, along with Usher. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Splendid! But this Usher is not famous for the quality of its dialogs… M-le-mot-dit (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I considered that category, but (a) it's a subcategory of science fiction, and (b) the NASA paper does not contain any actual discussion about extraterrestrial life. It is about Category:Astrobiology, the scientific search for such life and investigation of the origins of life. Most of the paper deals with microbial biology on Earth and scientific equipment designed to search for evidence of life. It does not cover extraterrestrial life, not even in speculation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@EncycloPetey: Well I created it for both science and science fiction, since there can be scientific discussion about the possibility of alien life. The work is called Concepts for Detection of Extraterrestrial Life, so I thought there was at least intent to discuss it. But I'll leave you, our local "expert" on the work, to determine if that's appropriate. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Most library cataloging systems distinguish between the science of something and fictional stories about it. That way, economic studies of poverty and the novels of Charles Dickens aren't put into the same category. They're typically distinguished by terminology in the Library of Congress with formats like "Poverty" vs "Poverty—Fiction", and here we have categories like "X in fiction" to mimic that. We don't always have such a split, but then again, our categories are not as rigorous or as frequently used as they should be. Many works are uncategorized at all, or poorly so. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, all are works about poverty either way, so there should be a base category overarching them at least. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

While I fully understand why you have created this template, it does go against stated Wikimedia-wide policies whereby it is up to the reader (viewer) to have discretion. Somewhere in the archives there is at least one discussion on putting in warnings for various offensiveness. The conclusion was to continue to not use them. If you feel that we should look to change this, we'll need a full discussion on the Scriptorium. However, I would see no objection to a category for these films as a possible way of flagging them. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Beeswaxcandle: In real life I'm getting people telling me that I'm intrinsically supporting the messages or themes of the films I transcribe by transcribing them. Obviously, the fact that I spent the time to transcribe the films in question isn't something I go around telling everyone, but, I have been told by some (again mostly IRL) to be careful which works I transcribe, because of the impacts it may have on my personal reputation and/or the course of history from here on out.

It's clear to me that there's a lack of understanding among the general public about the nature of our site and our transcriptions. And you have to keep in mind, most of our readers are from the general public, and know nothing about our concepts of neutrality or the like, and aren't spending time reading terms of service, mountains of editor policies and guidelines, or learning about the nature of our community.

So, while I get the sentiment that we want to stay on the edge of neutrality whenever possible here in the wiki-sphere, in practical terms people often see the addition of a work to a collection like ours, especially with the amount of time we have to invest in our transcription process, as alarming when some offensive material is in it. Especially since there are a handful of works where the entire message of the work is extremely bigoted at its core as is the case with The Birth, or that one infamous anti-gay propaganda film from the 1960s that's also PD. Think of the vast Klan literature, Nazi literature, or Ford's The International Jew, as some print examples.

In truth, I think all transcriptions should be treated as equally great additions to our collection, even if the material in them is abhorrent. A great diversity (in opinions, perspectives, topics, authors with different backgrounds, etc.) should be valued on a site like Wikisource, but this unfortunately means we have to eventually come to terms with the ugly.

I think the general public needs a bit of nudging. This is a very complicated topic that I'm finding hard to summarize here, but basically, members of the general public will easily take an understanding like "Oh, god, somebody really racist clearly did this transcription! Who else would spend so much time on it?" or "Hey, that racist guy from this book actually had a pretty solid point! We should hate X people after all." from some transcribed material by a fervent racist in the early 20th century, especially in this age where Twitter (oh, sorry, X!!!!!), TikTok, and Instagram reign as some of the most popular platforms in the world. We're in an age where people hate reading anything at all, unless it's in the form of a Snapchat caption or a short-form hurled insult with hashtags. You can forget the feud between Stuart Pratt Sherman and H. L. Mencken if they were still alive. Hell, they'd be joining forces! Am I ranting? Sorry. It's late.

Ahem. Well, I'll take it somewhere else if you want, but it's pretty clear to me (and several other Wikisourcers I've spoken to about it in other instances) that something like this is needed. PseudoSkull (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Beeswaxcandle: A recent discussion was on {{Moral disclaimer}}, and consensus said this template can be used on talk pages. But, personally, I think that's not enough. And I think all the consensus around offensiveness here stems from the fact that we haven't had to deal with the backlash from having those offensive works here, since those very works are often avoided by our contributors for these very reasons. The Clansman, for example, the basis for The Birth and probably the most significant racist piece of literature in American history, was deleted a few years ago because it only had a few chapters done, non-scan-backed. An index was produced recently, but it's barely been worked on. And honestly, this is understandable. Think about it like this—what if we had a ton of works by the Klan, (which we hypothetically could)? I think it'd be fair to say we'd have some explaining to do to our readers, wouldn't you? PseudoSkull (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

That was the discussion I was remembering, but I must have dipped out part way through as I didn't remember the talk page conclusion. Yes, the General disclaimer statement was formed well before I joined here in 2009. Again, I fully understand the why of what you're doing with this template and I certainly don't disagree with the importance of this conversation. My concern is more about where the boundary is. If we need to overtly flag blackface, do we need to do the same with texts with the words "coon", "nigger", and "chink"? What about those with faked negro dialect or where blacks are only seen as servants and/or comic relief? I'm immediately aware of these because the Stratemeyer Syndicate books that I'm working on are littered with them. And that's before we deal with the role of Jews in these books. [I note that there is no disclaimer template on the erotica that we hold.]

Would you be amenable to generalising the wording of the template closer to that of {{moral disclaimer}} rather than focusing solely on blackface issue? That way you won't need to create a series of these for each type of problematic presentation. I also think that, for the time being and consistency with the previous consensus, the template (in whatever version) will need to sit on the Talk pages—until such time as a more general conversation than just us two in the late evening can be had. [By the way, the reason I even looked at the template was the name, which I thought was another typeface one, akin to Blackletter.] Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Beeswaxcandle: I've reverted the changes for now, so the template and module have no effect anymore. I'll take your advice and gain consensus first.

There's a lot to unpack here, for sure, and the issue is complex. For this bit, I'll focus on film, specifically, since that's the area I feel most comfortable talking about.

Our prime examples right now are Al Jolson's films and The Birth of a Nation. The Birth can just be covered by a general disclaimer, I'm fine with that. It's bad all around.

But with Jolson's material, it gets more complicated. His two feature films (1927's The Jazz Singer and 1928's The Singing Fool) are not straightforwardly about race at all. There are a few blackface performances in them, but the theme of black racism has very little to do with the overall plot of the movies. Just reading the Jazz Singer transcript alone, the racism would barely be apparent, much like the works you mentioned with an occasional use of the N word. It would take watching the film itself to see the blackface performances (and watching it to the end at that), and to make a judgment of offense from that.

The themes of The Jazz Singer revolve around traditionalism, and what it's like to escape it. Jakie Rabinowicz (by stage name Jack Robin), the main character played by Al Jolson, is the son of a Jewish cantor, in an immigrant community in New York City. He wants to live a life as a jazz singer (hence the film's title). But his father fervently disapproves of this lifestyle, which he views as new-fangled and against the will of his religion, and so his father the Cantor disowns him from the family. The film touches on his jazz life (which involves blackface in some brief bits), as well as his relationship with his family at home in New York.

Contrast this with The Birth. That movie is a straightforward piece of propaganda that documents the Civil War and Reconstruction periods from a white supremacist perspective. Well, "documents" is pretty generous..."perverts" would be a better word. The themes behind that movie? Explicitly racial. The overall message of that film is essentially, "if you give black people an inch they take a mile". According to that movie, once we ended slavery, black people took over everything and made life miserable for white people. And that's not even an exaggeration—I clarify that here because the plot is so ridiculous, you'd think I was making it up. (I know this because I watched it so you don't have to.)

Anyway, the point is, The Jazz Singer doesn't have anything to do with race unlike the other point of comparison which is The Birth of a Nation, but does feature blackface, which some viewers will notice. On the other hand, see also A Plantation Act (1926) also starring Al Jolson—a short "test film" for the sound technology later used in The Jazz Singer. To not make this too much longer, A Plantation Act is basically just a minstrel performance, nothing more. Pretty yikesy...

In light of all these points (and of watching too many movies no one ever watches), the degree of offense and the reasons behind offense is indeed complicated. I think making different templates would make sense, but I agree it should probably only be used in the more extreme cases, or where it's at least obvious that the work has some bigoted things in it. Take for example The Jazz Singer—the blackface isn't that prevalent in the film itself, but the blackface is a huge part of that film's legacy, so prominent that much of the film's promotion highlighted the blackface acts specifically. So, if searchers know what the film is, they know blackface has something to do with it. So I feel like in that instance, the disclaimer is justifiable. In something like The Fighting Coward, though? Where only a minor character had blackface, the film isn't known for blackface, and the themes don't revolve around race? Maybe we can take it off of that one.

Well, anyway, to summarize, it's the general public I'm concerned about—our editors will get it, but Your Average Joe™ will extrapolate more than necessary. Here are the principles I want to leave you with. Three things: 1. Is the work known for offensive content? 2. (Especially) Does the work leave you with an explicitly bigoted political/philosophical message? 3. The bigotry is particularly obvious for some other reason. Those are my guidelines. I'll think more about it, though, to give a more organized answer/proposal later. PseudoSkull (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Added onto the fact that when these consensuses were presumably formed and relashed (2000s–early 2010s), this was before many of the modern social movements surrounding race, gender, and sexuality (mid-to-late 2010s, present era of early 2020s), had even close to the amount of recognition they do right now. It's really impossible to avoid these questions anymore. PseudoSkull (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hope you don't mind me chiming in here. New Wikisourcer here, still learning. Wanted to say how much I'm impressed by senior editors modeling respectful conversation like this. I also apreciate the "Be Bold" is still the philosophy here.

I agree 100% that society has changed a lot these past 10 or 15 years; plenty of people simply are no longer educated on basic tenets of free speech and the risks of censorship. I'm working on a large work here full of potentially offensive content and I'd have no problem with some form of disclaimer atop either the entire work, or perhaps certain chapters. The key would be the wordsmithing of the disclaimer, and linking to a page that lucidly and patiently (but unapologetically) lays out the WS philosophy.

Not sure I can contribute much more of substance here, though I'd gladly chime in on anything in the Scriptorum if it comes up. Mostly just wanted to say "Thank you" for this conversation and how well it's being conducted. Cheers. Brad606 (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Beeswaxcandle, @Brad606: I just thought of something a bit creative with this. What if we had a Wikisource essay on offensive material, to go in Category:Wikisource essays? This would be something that wouldn't need consensus since it's just a layout of perspectives on the issue, and not a formal policy or even a guideline. Maybe this essay could be linked to on our disclaimer templates that I'm sure will come about in the future, as a way to further explain what value these works have, despite the views they represent.

I'd like to volunteer to write the essay. The "nutshell" summary of this essay would be, "yes, we will include works that are offensive or have offensive material, but, no, we don't support them, since we're a neutral platform." But there are a lot of nuances that I feel like I could also address in this essay, such as amounts of offensive material, offensive words or acts (such as blackface or the N word), sentiments against censorship in general, and why including even the most racist works can be useful to the general public if used for research projects and the like. These are all things I know I've outlined several times on discussion pages and the like, but maybe it's time to just put it all in one place and let it sit there. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm more than happy with that idea. I don't have the time to do any writing at present, but can assist with proofreading, &c. Maybe do a draft in your user space and let me know when it's ready for someone else to look at it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@PseudoSkull I like this creative idea, too. I think you've got a particularly informed perspective given your interests. I'd really appreciate reading an essay like that, and I'd be glad to offer a review or proofread if you could use one. Brad606 (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! The writing's been a bit rough for me tonight. I want to be brief but at the same time I want to be exhaustive. Then here I went on some diatribes about Carl Van Vechten and Al Jolson in the drafts, and I don't even think they were that relevant to the main point of the essay. Eeeh. I'll pick it back up some other time. PseudoSkull (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Recently, someone uploaded a new file on The Kid which includes the original opening and closing titles, and so the wikisource page needs to be updated too. Mayimbú (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mayimbú: Ah, well good, it looks like that version is more complete rather than less. I'll put it in Category:Film transcriptions with out-of-sync timestamps, since this is not an uncommon thing to happen here. Thanks for letting me know. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've updated the Administrator pages to take account of your username change. If there are other places here at enWS that need adjusting, please either fix them or let me know. Obviously, I'll have to leave the sisters to you. Best, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Beeswaxcandle: Ah, thank you. Is it inappropriate to change talk page pings etc.? If that's ok to do, then I can just run a script through the whole site and fix all links to PseudoSkull. SnowyCinema (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The last time an admin changed names (Angr to Mahagaga), we left the signatures as they were on the talk pages and archives. The redirects from the rename cover things pretty well. Just check the Double Redirects page next time it's updated. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Update: Hey, sorry I haven't gotten back to you on this. I have been very busy with other projects (you know, 1928 talkies...).

Just to let you know though, I actually want to start looking into ways to improve the actual proofreading system within the Index (by lua and JS code), learn how ProofreadPage actually works on a technical level, write a new working Index page model, and try and lobby for my changes to be used on Wikisource. I would like to actually improve Wikisource's native process, rather than trying to use things like QT to work around its difficulties. So, let me know if you have any suggestions of things to read in relation to ProofreadPage, documentation etc. So I'll be working on some improvements (with patches) to propose to the MediaWiki folks, to try and make our proofreading process inherently more streamlined. SnowyCinema (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Sorry, the only knowledge I have is in HTML/CSS/MediaWiki (for template stuff) and Lilypond (for music). On that note, I’m working on “Sonny Boy” and the Hatch–Goodlatte Act now, and will get to “Heart O’ Mine” once I finish up “Sonny Boy.” TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your move broke all the internal linkages in the headers. Please fix those linkages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@EncycloPetey: What did it break, now? I left redirects for all the chapters. I don't see any red links anywhere. Are you wanting me to fix these so that they don't point to the redirects, or is something else broken? SnowyCinema (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@EncycloPetey: In some of the chapter headers, such as at The Man Who Laughs (Estes and Lauriat 1869)/Chapter 22, it may at first superficially appear that the links are red, but if you use "Hard Purge", this will go away. This also will go away on its own after a few days. But, let me know if that's what you're referring to. SnowyCinema (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

You need to make a "null edit" on each page. Since you've posted the film to the Main page, people will visit the novel. Having multiple redlinks throughout the work during this time is a serious issue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done and fixed links in TOC to point to the absolute title, as an added bonus. SnowyCinema (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

This was showing up as containing Fostered content. I assume its pending material for QuickTranscribe? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ShakespeareFan00: Yes it is, I'll try and get that squared away shortly. SnowyCinema (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Mayimbú (talk • contribs) has mofidied this page and has proposed the deletion of File:Phantom of the Opera.webm. You may read Deletion request here. I don't think that it is necessary to keep both versions. We have the solution to:

• create another index using File:The Phantom of the Opera.webm;
• move the existing index;
• override the lower quality file in commons;
• or other suggestions?

M-le-mot-dit (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @M-le-mot-dit. I'm for moving the file's existing index but i just don't know how to do it (if it's done manually page-by-page or if there's a tool for that i ain't aware of). —Mayimbú (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi SnowyCinema, how do you suggest to name both versions? @Mayimbú: there is a way to create the index, we have to be sure of the name and the date of these versions. According to the first sequence (the character with a lantern in the tunnels under the opera house) and the cast (Virginia Pearson's 1925 as the mother of Carlotta), it seems that it is the 1929 sound version without sound, as stated there. Please do not hurry. M-le-mot-dit (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@M-le-mot-dit: So let me get this straight. The currently transcribed version, now at The Phantom of the Opera (1925 film), is the 1929 sound version except the sound was removed. And the version transcribed here was an original 1925 version, and in HD, both with different intertitles? If I'm right in my assumption here, I'll go ahead with the moving process. SnowyCinema (talk) 18:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, not exactly. In my understanding, both files File:Phantom of the Opera.webm and File:The Phantom of the Opera.webm are the same versions, reissued in 1929 (intertitles are the same); the 1925 version being File:The Phantom of the Opera (1925) preview.webm. If you look the first 2 minutes, you will see titles which are replaced by a spoken explanation (muted) in the 1st and 2nd files. I have beginning to check the timing of the 2nd file, but the year 1929 may be a problem for the copyright? Shall we keep 3 versions? M-le-mot-dit (talk) 18:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

N. B. I suppose that the digitalization of 1st and 2nd files are done with different copies, the difference being only a sequence of 8 s. M-le-mot-dit (talk) 18:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@M-le-mot-dit: I did some research, and thankfully, I found no evidence of renewal of anything related to a 1929 restoration of this film. But even if there was, the versions we have are so similar to the original from 1925 that it wouldn't matter. So just to be sure, we're good to go on copyright.

So my next question is, what would you like me to do with Wikisource:WikiProject Film/Drafts/The Phantom of the Opera (1925 HQ film), and the current index at The Phantom of the Opera (1925 film)? I'll leave it up to you. SnowyCinema (talk) 18:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion we could keep only the high quality version uploaded by Mayimbú. You may move the draft to a more appropriate name ("HQ" is not really good, may be "reissued 1925 film)"); then delete the old index and transcluded file. In a few weeks I'll recreate a new "1925 film" from file "The Phantom of the Opera (1925) preview.webm" which contains different intertitles. M-le-mot-dit (talk) 19:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The '25 version and '29 version are a misnomer. They're actually 2 different prints:

• The Eastman Print: an abridged version of the 25 release which bears the continuity of the now-lost sound release (hence why Carlotta is portrayed by Mary Fabian instead of Virginia Pearson, which is assigned as his mother).
• The Hampton Print: a reconstruction of the original release print from 16mm sources by John Hampton.

Copyright ain't a problem, since the protection for all content related to the film lapsed when Universal failed to renew the copyright in 1953.

—Mayimbú (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK @Mayimbú:. In summary we should process Wikisource:WikiProject Film/Drafts/The Phantom of the Opera (1925 film, Eastman print) using file "The Phantom of the Opera.webm" and remove from Wikisource Index:Phantom of the Opera.webm and related pages. Do you agree?M-le-mot-dit (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fine, although the incoming inclusion of the Hampton Print (File:The Phantom of the Opera (1925) preview.webm) transcript means that there must be a versions main page for the '25 film. —Mayimbú (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

So The Phantom of the Opera (1925 film) will be changed to a version page as soon as the Eastman version is complete. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@M-le-mot-dit: I'll go ahead and create the versions page, if we're good to go with transcluding this new draft now. SnowyCinema (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, SnowyCinema, this new draft has been reviewed and is ready to process. When it is done will you replace the former The Phantom of the Opera (1925 film) by a version page?— M-le-mot-dit (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please import Eastman print, Hampton print is not ready.

M-le-mot-dit (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@M-le-mot-dit: Sorry, did the wrong one! I'll start over with Eastman then. SnowyCinema (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@M-le-mot-dit: Done SnowyCinema (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is now a broken redirect. Is there any reason to keep it ? -- Beardo (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done Thanks for bringing this to my attention. SnowyCinema (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Was about to see the film without being spoiled but i can't find any subtitle file in my native language, so i thought i could create an .srt file translated directly from the film transcript for my viewing, but there's no available transcript at the time. -- Mayimbú (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mayimbú: Alright, I'll put this movie on my list for this week! SnowyCinema (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your last change created a Lua error. I have reveerted as I was not sure what you were trying to do. -- Beardo (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for catching this. I'm not exactly sure how this happened. It's never supposed to use a status like "yestadv", so I feel like what might have happened was that the "no" in "notadv" was somehow changed to a "yes", instead of just making the progress "yes". But I'm not sure how that is even possible. SnowyCinema (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Actually I think I see the problem now, and I fixed it so it shouldn't happen again. SnowyCinema (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am really surprised how a technical person like you can do wonders with the old literary works. Rightly you have chosen Films and helping them in many ways. I am a Pathologist working in India, without much technical knowledge, started working in Wikisource. I have done some work with other Wikikedians and completed some large works related to Wars, Anthrapology, Literature and Medicine collaborating with some like minded people. They took lot of time. May I request you help me in the Project The Flora of British India. The seven-volume work by Hooker is very authoritative in the field of Botany and Ethnomedicine worldwide. Can you QuickTranscribe the text into the content pages of these seven volumes running to around few thousand pages. The link is: The Flora of British India Vol 1.djvu Thank you very much sir. Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Rajasekhar1961: Hi, unfortunately I believe my technology is not quite capable of works of such complexity as this one yet. My technology has mostly been tested on single-volume novels and short story collections from the early 20th century, and the technical nature of this work, looking at this page as a sample with many fractions and a complex hierarchy of sections, would make the transcription not so "quick". I may look into it and see what I can do with it, if I could come up with some structure, but it wouldn't be much easier for me than it would be for you to be honest. SnowyCinema (talk) 06:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Rajasekhar1961: Just to give you an idea, I believe one of the most complex nonfiction works I've completed to date with the technology would be Growing Up, a short children's education book, and it doesn't even have an index at the end (functionality I'm still building out). SnowyCinema (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for taking time and study the material pages. I know it is Scientific data and more complex. Anyhow. Best of luck in your projects.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is a guideline written mostly by two people, not a policy or the result of consensus. We have a long history of not being a link farm, and Portals are first and foremost pages to guide users to the content we have. Content we don't have is put onto the Requests listings or now the MC. ---EncycloPetey (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's also as much a matter of degree in cases. Having one (as I left there) project currently under completion is fine. On a long Portal, maybe two or three such red links. But having 25% of a Portal consist of redlinks and offsite links is generally a bad look for us. Such lists can be placed in User space, project pages, or Talk pages, but shouldn't be filling the Portal. Doing so makes it difficult for people to use the Portal for its intended purpose of guiding readers to our hosted content. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@EncycloPetey: I find the way you framed this second comment to be fair, but the actual situation not indicative of how this is being framed. To say it looks bad if a lot of the portal page are red links is something I could understand—I still disagree but I do find sympathy in the argument—but there were only two out of many complete ones, and they seemed to be intended to facilitate transcription projects and not to just catalog bare listings. SnowyCinema (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Portal has about 10-12 blue links. And three (not two), red links were added, of which I kept one. Three red links is a significant fraction on a Portal that short; on a longer Portal three or four would not be such an issue. We have a history of this issue on Wikisource. Compare this old version of the versions page for The Odyssey. We have four translations. But the old version had accumulated so many red links, it was impossible to tell which ones (if any) were housed here. Add to that the fact that red is an eye-catching "alarm" color for those who can see red, which distracts from text in other colors, thereby making the problem worse. The lengthy list of red links was moved to the Talk page to avoid having a link farm page in mostly red. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fair to say that can look to be a problem, personally I tend to remove red links now and keep gray text where no scan is available for a version. But that's just my preference. Well, anyway, our documentation doesn't clearly prohibit this (in fact, more or less encourages it), so we can't blame new contributors for only doing what the documentation says to do, so I guess we just have bad documentation, then. SnowyCinema (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

At Wikisource:Scriptorium#Proposal_to_change_SIC_display. Are they voting for the {{ls}} solution yet?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, although I believe that's a complex issue that also needs to be reevaluated—specifically how I don't know. SnowyCinema (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have been abusing SIC for years. I like it. I first type the fix and then I type what is there. The first time the fix displayed, I said something like hot damn and left it that way. So, to make it a style choice means that many of my SIC will act wrong in a more complicated way. {{ls}} provides the option to read with long s or have them converted to regular s (in the main space). I like reading the long s. There are a bunch of voices in my head that get activated. Voice styles, that is. Funny lisp voices from movies, radio, etc. Its amusing. I don't know if I understood what a long s is before poking around here. I still don't really know what it is, but I have an opinion and experience with it. SIC is, I like how it is. It is optional. The editor should know how to put SIC in, most of the stuff I work on will not lack for missing periods being added in. But making it a user style option is interesting.

Can you ping me if they start to talk of making it a style option in Main?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

...is nonsense. cf. T361860 Xover (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

thanks for helping earlier with the Encyclopedia. Same problem with subjː Error: Invalid interval, can you pease help again? - Tar-ba-gan (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Should be fixed now. SnowyCinema (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanksǃ Tar-ba-gan (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The thing is, “lawsuit” is a general term, referring to the entire case. The edicts-of-government doctrine only applies to the work of the judge in any given case, and the document you sent me is the Second Amended Complaint, written by A.M.’s lawyers and copyrighted either by the lawyers or by A.M. The eventual court opinion in the case (and the images within that, if any) could be hosted, but not the complaint which is public record (as a document submitted in court) but not public domain (as a document produced by the judge). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey. You might be interested in Miriam Michelson's In the Bishop's Carriage. Apparently it was adapted to film twice before 1929, in addition to existing in both serialized magazine form and an expanded novel edition. She's also (again, apparently, I'm not familiar with her) considered a somewhat feminist writer so it'd be a nice twofer to improve the gender imbalance in our coverage.

My own todo list is such that this would never surface, and I have limited interest in the subject matter and in transcribing films, but I figured this might be of interest to you. Xover (talk) 07:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Xover: Hey, good to hear from you again! On a quick glance, it looks like the 1913 film is not available online, and the 1920 one is a lost film, although the novel edition is probably something I'd be interested in doing. But, I'm very busy lately and haven't had time to work on WS projects for about 6 months. If you have anymore you'd like me to look into when I get back into "Wikisource mode" feel free to just send me them like you did here. I appreciate this! Gives me some motivation. :) SnowyCinema (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I’ve sent for a copy. I’m happy to proofread it when it comes. The University of California says that they digitized it, but if they actually did I can’t find it anywhere. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This was showing up as having fostered content.

Was it still content that was in use or pending? If so I suggest wrapping it with <syntaxhighlight>...</syntaxhighlight> tags to remove it from Linter results.
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Develop an index page schema for films that would use the schema Page:Sandbox.webm/27:12 for pages, make it automatically organize it both in Index and in transclusion. Could this be done with a template, or just Lua automatic? Look into. SnowyCinema (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It appears to be impossible to do this, due to Lua constraints on displaying pages with certain prefixes on the fly... That's thoroughly disappointing. SnowyCinema (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The version from which the transcription comes from is not the original English release version adapted by Channing Pollock. Pollock's version had the character of Joh Fredersen renamed as "John Mastermind".[1]

My guess is that the version in question is sourced from the MoMA print (it has the same typography as File:Nosferatu (1922, English titles 1947).webm and File:Ben Hur (1907).webm), which follows the continuity from the 1936 version.[2]

Sadly, i can't find the Pollock cut online but, uploaded in five separate parts, there's a tinted australian print of the film (running 8,500 feet/2600 metres at 16 fps, or about 143 minutes) which follows Pollock's continuity.[3]

On a side note, i suggest to rename the file as the English Wikipedia uses a video file with the same name. ---Mayimbú (talk) 02:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mayimbú: Would this be a copyright concern? If it's the same compiler as Nosferatu, that puts the print c. 1940s, and with no copyright notice, it'd still be in the public domain? SnowyCinema (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dunno, i failed to see in the video file any copyright notice but a title card which reads "an UFA film made in 1925". --Mayimbú (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to change it anywhere you'd like. SnowyCinema (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply