User talk:Jarnsax

PD-old-assumed

Please avoid using this template on files where no assumptions are needed. Pre-1923 photographs published in the USA of USA locations have no possible assumption needed to state they are public domain. Consequently changes like this are unhelpful and cause confusion for reusers. --Fæ (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing some examples, you appear to have mass changed templates in an attempt to eliminate PD-old use. Unfortunately in that process you have misused {{PD-old-assumed}} by adding it to images which are 100% unambiguously public domain, such as the Robert N. Dennis collection as uploaded from the NYPL.

On the basis that your account appears inactive, having made no contributions for several months, I will make a proposal on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems to mass change these edits.

--Fæ (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Report of the Second Norwegian Arctic Expedition in the "Fram," 1898-1902 (volume 3).djvu

And also:

File:Report of the Second Norwegian Arctic Expedition in the "Fram," 1898-1902 (volume 4).djvu

Yours sincerely, ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

US warship italics

What is [1] based on? I haven't heard such a rule before. The English Wikipedia uses italics, e.g. the featured article w:USS Missouri (BB-63). PrimeHunter (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: That was a while ago, I've actually been changing them back (and fixing others, there was no real consistency) since. I had come across materials from 'back in the day' about how the Navy did such things, and they didn't italicize the names of ships in commission once they started using the USS prefix in the early 1900s... the actual "name" of the ship was Texas, and "USS Texas" was the designation of the ship while in commission (and ships went in and out of commission a LOT). What I realized more recently is that it doesn't matter, really, since all the various style manuals (Chicago, etc) say to write it as "USS Texas". I've actually been getting rid of that template and manually fixing the things as I dig through the DANFS appendix on battleships (and edit wikidata a ton). The description text it gives is rather irrelevant with the wikidata infoboxes, sometimes just wrong, and doesn't work for things like the cancelled first South Dakota class. I'm just scraping the source info (like actual date of completion, length, draft, and so forth) into Wikidata, and citing it there, and trying to get as many as possible to match the Commons naming schema (most do not) and actually be in the correct 'by name' index categories with the correct sorting, so it's halfway possible to actually find stuff without just randomly searching variations.

TBH, what I figure is going to cause more 'drama' is the designations of these early ships, like me removing "ACR1" from the USS Maine, but I can explain in detail exactly where it came from, and why it is wrong (and the designations in the names of early ships are broken on Wikipedia for exactly the same reason. Basically, the 'ships histories' from the "Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships" have been transcribed at least four times now, on websites going back to the 90s, and in each case they included an abbreviated description at the start (and for Maine in indeed starts ACR1). What people didn't do is look at the actual book, which had a long table of abbreviations (ACR means "Armored Cruiser"), and nobody has seemed to look at the appendixes, where it specifically explains "The symbols BB, CC, SS, and AS were not officially authorized until 17 July 1920. As used for vessels commissioned prior to that time, BB, CC, SS, and AS represent unofficial abbreviations used for the sake of convenience. The symbols C, CS, and ACR have never been official designations." The USS Maine was, at some point in the planning stages, Maine (Armored Cruiser No. 1), then built as Maine (Battleship No. 1), then later given the USS prefix when it came into use. The Act of Congress funding her and Texas just called them 'armored vessels' (they are included in the appendix).

And yeah, the name of the Wikipedia article is wrong, because everyone referenced the web copies of the histories instead of the actual book. If you look at the updated DANFS at [2] they have expanded all the abbreviations (and taken the description 'second-class battleship' from the appendix or some other source). Using "BB" for her is just completely wrong. I'm trying to make our names for those shipe what was used at the time, since that's what is in the captions of historical images people are uploading, and make sure there are redirects for the wrong names. Jarnsax (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, {{Italic title}}, neat, I wish I had known about that, much better than rewriting or adding an explict displaytitle. Thanks. Jarnsax (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm mainly interested in italics because I often clear out categories in Category:Pages with ignored display titles. Most of them are ship categories with a DISPLAYNAME to make italics on the ship name but mismatched in other parts of the name, e.g. after a move. I made {{Italic title|string=}} to deal with this. I will continue to use italics when I fix ship pages. The English Wikipedia has a common name policy to usually use the (currently) common name of a subject even if it's not the official name. We also have a ship-specific guideline which says to always use italics: w:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). PrimeHunter (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Yeah, I just changed a number of cats I had messed with to use that template, and I will change pages to use it in the future as well. It's an elegant solution to the problem (and it turns out that the cathead template for US battleships wasn't, too many edge cases). As far as Wikipedia, I get it, I just strongly suspect that those applications of 'hull class' being common now specifically relates to early Wikipedia editors specifically citing web 1.0 sites like hazegray and hyperwar that transcribed the abbreviations verbatim before NHHC put up their version of DANFS, and everyone looking at Wikipedia, lol. It's circular, people picked up the 'mistake'. Jarnsax (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and BTW, here's a link about the "USS and italics" thing. [3] I've also looked a things like [4], esp pages 284 and 286, which is as official as it gets, from 1938, and doesn't italicize names other than as to denote the previous names of renamed ships. Jarnsax (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PDF categories

Hello, please do not mass-add categories by file type such as "Books from the United States PDF files" to tens of thousands of files. Such categorisation is unessescary, because to search PDF files, one can simply use Special:Search/filetype:pdf - the categorisation is therefore utterly redundant. I suggest to discuss such controversial edits more broadly before continuing. TheImaCow (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an opinion. Feel free to point at any policy I'm breaking. I'm not particularly worried if you think I'm wasting my time.

I'm not under the impression that it's "controversial". I didn't create the category (it's been around since 2018). I also didn't create Category:PDF files from the United States, or add any significant number of the ~27,000 files that are in there. There are also other categories of "books" sorted by traits like city of publication that contain tens of thousands of files, which are also obviously not controversial.

I'm aware that you can search by "file type", but there is no actual way to search file pages for either "actually a book" or "from the US". People use all kinds of variations of the templates, and a huge number of those pages have completely garbled metadata. There are actually a ton I've found in various categories that are named things like "California Digital Library" followed by some Internet Archive identifier.

The point of what you call "unnecessary" is to make it easier to methodically work on cleaning them up and adding them to Wikidata. Jarnsax (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worse filename ever, lol.

File:IA Query "sponsor-(Sloan) date-(1000 TO 1925) publisher-((New York) OR Chicago OR Jersey OR Illan)" (IA floridagamewater00inroos).pdf that's (as of now) "File:IA Query "sponsor-(Sloan) date-(1000 TO 1925) publisher-((New York) OR Chicago OR Jersey OR Illan)" (IA floridagamewater00inroos).pdf". Sigh. Jarnsax (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File name breakage

The request for this file rename broke a work on Wikisource. Works hosted on Wikisource have complex linkages with the files they rely on. Files used by Wikisource should not be renamed without full commitment to making the hundreds of edits that will be required as a result of a file rename. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey: Well, crap. It was actually my intent to avoid ones used over there (I'm aware of the issue). I guess I didn't notice because it was only used once instead of one for each page..

Unfortunately, a large number (if not most) of the file names on Commons are really mangled in one way or another (see last section... that's not the only one) imported from somewhere like the Internet Archive without accounting for that their names are usually already bot-mangled versions of text copied from a card catalog.

I will make a point out of remembering to double-check for usage over there (though I was hoping that the person renaming it would be a sufficient double check on such things). Jarnsax (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your attempt at Wikisource cleanup, but things there are still not functioning correctly. The connection between the work and its Index page are still fouled, and I'm not sure yet what needs to happen to fix the remaining issues. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey: Flipping through the entire book over there, in both page space and where it's transcluded, I don't see any broken pages. AFAIK it's following the redirect just fine. If you can point at what's broken, I'll be happy to try to fix it. Jarnsax (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, everything has the appearance of working because the redirects keep the appearance of proper functioning. But since the file has actually been renamed, it no longer links to the page in the Index: namespace. The issue is described at s:Wikisource:Scriptorium#Transcluded volume's Source tab is not linking to its Index. So the Index page and all its subpages will have to be moved. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the Index and everything in the Page namespace, but there still may be cleanup like this that needs to happen. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey: Ok, I see now.... and yeah, I ran across that edit just now, while using https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Index:How_to_tell_the_birds_from_the_flowers_and_other_Woodcuts._A_revised_manual_of_flornithology_for_beginners_(IA_cu31924027175250).pdf to sort the other ones. Jarnsax (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey: Please let me know if I break any others (though I will try not to) and I'll do my best to fix it. Jarnsax (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to ask for speedy-delete of an empty category

When you want to ask for speedy-delete of an empty category, best practice is to mark it with {{SD|C2}} if it would be OK to re-create it in the future, given that appropriate content becomes available or {{SD|C1}} if it is an inappropriate category name that should not be reused. In particular, this is better practice than just blanking the category page, as you did at Category:Walcott Cambrian Geology and Paleontology II plates missing identification. ("C1" and "C2" come from Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion). Jmabel ! talk 23:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm used to simply blanking the page being considered a "effective" speedy request, when the reason seems obvious.... I'll actually tag them from now on. TBH, the closest "rationale" for the categories I've recently blanked is probably G8... they are ones that someone cleared out and left behind empty. Jarnsax (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with blanking is (1) it doesn't communicate the rationale and (2) because it doesn't specifically mark it as needing deletion, it might be a month or more until someone finds it. As I just found Category:Amphibian and reptile inventory on the Headwaters and Dillon Resources Areas (1998), which you apparently blanked over a month ago. - Jmabel ! talk 05:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

com:file redirects

Hi. Unless it is from a recent upload that has been moved, please do not request the speedy deletion of a redirect. Essentially, they are retained per the guidance reached by a consensus of the community. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: Presumably this is regarding...

These were created when I requested the move of Bulletin - United States National Museum (IA bulletinunitedst631909unit).pdf and screwed up copy-pasting the filename from my spreadsheet, twice. The file was only at either of those names for a few hours... it is now at A Monographic Revision of the Coleoptera Belonging to the Tenebrionide Tribe Eleodiini … - United States National Museum Bulletin (no. 63) (US GPO, 1909) (IA bulletinunitedst631909unit).pdf, which is where I meant to put it in the first place. Jarnsax (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. Kadı Message 20:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]