The Eloquent Peasant

Welcome to Wikidata, The Eloquent Peasant!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

• Introduction – An introduction to the project.
• Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
• Community portal – The portal for community members.
• User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
• Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
• Project chat – Discussions about the project.
• Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Reason for undoing one of your changes to Q6299569

Hello The Eloquent Peasant, I wanted to let you know that I have undone your edit in which you capitalized the word "general" in the English description of Juan César Cordero Dávila (Q6299569) and changed it to be uncapitalized. The reason for this is that the description is what that its name implies what it is meant to be, simply a description and so should reflect the capitalization one would use when describing the subject: "Juan César Cordero Dávila was a general". The word "general" would be only correctly be capitalized when being used as a title when referring directly to Juan César Cordero Dávila: "Major General Juan César Cordero Dávila was born in Puerto Rico". The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@The Editor's Apprentice: Okay. I get it.

The reason for my strange linking of scans and the main

It is really easy for wikisource to reach forward or around or what have you and to get the link to wikipedia. It is not easy, however, for wikipedia to search through the editions and grab the link to wikisource. You can check the article at wikipedia. Since you moved the link to the scan, it will not show at wikipedia (in the navigation).

At the point that source gets two versions of that book, then the versions page will go there, but until then, if there is only one, then that gets put on the Main item, the one with the interwiki links.

This happens a lot with short stories. I just removed a link from the Pit and the Pendulum to the single source and replaced it with the versions page, because just what I said about the two versions is happening to Poe short stories right now.

When I was doing the fables, there were a few that only had one version (out of 4 books!!) and I made the wikidata item for it and added that to the "has edition" but the actual link to the works was put onto the fable item (for the interwiki links). There is a chance that there will never be two versions of those fables.

I can show examples if my explanation is lacking.

Another "problem" with linking at the scan is that the images come from more than just that one scan. Obviously because that scan has so many missing images. So that the finished Peter Pan is going to be from more than one of the items there, it makes this additional sense to have the Main namespace linked to the Main link.

Also, the scan links. There is a template at commons. The book template. If the scan item contains the scan and the index page, the book template will open the book at the page the image is on and point to the index page. I put the category that the images are in on the "literary work" item so that the infobox at the category points to the Main article. Having the scan and an image (I like the title pages for books) is confusing for the templates there. I run my commons with the preference "cats on top" (well, in the preferences it is more officious than that) and navigation there is much much easier, and the infoboxes are really nice.

Your change has one item pointing to two different wikisource areas and no other wiki will see it. Wikidata is supposed to be about stable inter-wiki links.

So, I am not going to change them back as maybe you have questions or different experiences or whatever. Truly, my goal is to get them put back the way I had them!! I am sometimes wrong and sometimes often wrong, and/or the examples I have given are impossible to understand. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• @RaboKarbakian: Oh. Okay. Then. I'll go ahead and undo my changes! Sorry about that. Yes there are several versions but I didn't know all that. Thanks for the explanation! Seriously, thanks for the explanation. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• @RaboKarbakian: So I went ahead and put the Wikidata statements back to how you had them because, as you have explained, "There is a method to your madness"... However, book versions are different and that worries me. We are working on version Q106352018 of the book even though we did find plates (luckily) from other versions, only because they were missing.
• @RaboKarbakian: Do you think that before we can apply the wikidata item Q106352018 to the version in Wikisource that we are currently working on, there must first exist a 2nd version of the same book in Wikisource for the interwiki links to work? I believe you, just want to make sure I understand. Thanks! Cheers! --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• @RaboKarbakian: Finding the missing plates (4), uploading a few missing B&W images, and transcluding everything is next right? Eventually, maybe 10 years from now someone will validate the pages, but now there is no need to be discouraged! --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The first item, thanks for understanding what could be defined as gibberish.

Through the discussions of "editions, versions and translations" I have read, I am using more variations than most would want and less than some think should be used. I start a new "literary work" if there is an edition with an illustrator and one without. Each different illustrator gets a different "literary work" also. So, Poe's Tales of M and I.... Two "literary work" that I know of, one illustrated by Clarke and one by Rackham. OCLC sometimes follows this also with different OCLC work ids. Things get real messy when you get into often republished works like Grimm. But, the answer to your second item is that while they are different, the text is the same and the images are mostly the same so it is the same version, but perhaps different editions (the edition number is sometimes published, sometimes not) but all are of the same literary work. The Sleeping Beauty is such a thing where the Index that is at wikisource is one of just a few numbered editions, but File:MU KPB 006 The Sleeping Beauty - Arthur Rackam.pdf is the same literary work, just not the same edition.

Peter Pan images. I have been using File:MU KPB 040 Peter Pan - Illustrated by Arthur Rackham.pdf for most of the images. It is complete, as much as I have looked at it. On the second day I was working with them, I matched the images to the captions and got them right that time! Heh. I would have used that file for the Index if that first one from IA hadn't already been in use. Those MU KPB scans have (occasionally) missing pages though. I have been processing them in batches of tenish. The Snow White images process very quickly except for the three color pics which are very not quick to do. So, it is a juggle for me, between image process & upload, proofing and image installing. Working on the three at one time is good for my enthusiasm and attention span (Poe, Evans and Barrie right now) Not sure if how I work is of any interest or relation to this....

Validation at wikisource. First of all, I love the Validators! It is something that I am terrible at. I get involved in the beauty of the page and forget to look at the words.... The second thing about validation at wikisource, is that it is not a requirement for announcement, as it is at Gutenberg. You cannot publish there (get your work through the post-processor and onto the new works page) without its equivalent. Here, at wikisource, sometimes putting it into New Texts is the best way to let the Validators know it is available for validation. So, validation is something I appreciate more than expect -- especially since I am so incompetent at it.

Those MU KRB pdf scans from the University in the Netherlands were really great to get. At IA, the scans of Rackhams Cinderella -- the oldest was from the 1970s, for instance, and not in the Public Domain. Now we have one. Making the Poe available triggered a copyright investigation that allows it to be here, which would not have happened (probably) without its being here. And, the missing images from Peter Pan -- just to mention a few of the things provided by that upload from this last January.

Again, thanks. In my process, pload and proof juggle, the easing of the proofing part is great!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)