User talk:EncycloPetey

Victoria Barrier and Land

I just wanted to say that I would not have stopped everything I was doing and uploaded a new version over this image. I started poking at the prints first so I was already involved and had the new version before I looked at this. And I have done what I described before.

Frankly, it is a well done image. I don't know that I could have done better with the software I use before version 2.9. It has problems. Jpeging is the word I use because the word artifacts has too great a history and usually means by now valuable or interesting. Jpeg artifacts are where the pixels have all lined up into more visible squares. Huffman tables....

It is a good name. It is the name space. I am thinking it should be used for a tutorial of how to do engravings. I think you should write it with this engraving, especially has you have such a long history here with sound files (as I remember it). --RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about in most of your posts because you ramble. If you wish to say something, then say it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

JIF is pronounced jif. GIF is pronounced gif. Then. That you do know.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

and laser (Light Amplificaton (æmplɪfɪˈkeɪʃən) by Stimulated Emission (ɪˈmɪʃən) of Radiation) is thus not pronounced "leɪz.əɹ" but "læsɪɹ"

same logic

and yeah, of course I pronounce "GIF" as "jif" 193.175.5.176 16:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

not such a good cat

The categories to get rid of was "books by" and "literary works by" which deserve the label "superfluous", leaving the books to appear first in the authors cat.

Authors hometown, statues, festivals, clubs named after them, places they slept, etc. require scrolling.

Also, you have been flying under my radar (watchlist) and its nice to see you again. Especially if you are the smart egg dropping Petey and not the limited single quotes variety.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Books are a subcategory of Works on Commons. There are super-categories for things named for a person. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata is going to help to get rid of that. The authors name can be catted simply and sweetly into authors cats and the individual book cats (when they exist) can go into super book cats, by year and publisher and cover color or whatever. It is wrong to have to navigate through two cats to get from W. Irving to his books. "Superfluous" <-- I promise to look that word up, btw. I think I might like it....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not "wrong". Commons uses a consistent category structure so that the same categories will always be found in the same place. This is especially important since it serves an international community. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:Kunstformen der Natur - plate 82 (Hepaticae)

I don't understand why you removed this category from File:Assortment of Hepaticae from Kunstformen der Natur (1904), plate 82.jpg. It makes sens to have a category for each plate, which makes navigation through Category:Kunstformen der Natur easier (work in progress) ; each category can be than associated with a wikidata item. Léna (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Mks

2 2405:201:A411:40FA:4051:7F2B:C815:65A 09:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:The Acharnians and two other plays

Hello, noticing your revert, Category:Ernest Rhys was the editor of this translation by John Hookham Frere. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

How do you know that? I cannot find that information anywhere printed in the volume. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello EncycloPetey, The description on the bottom reads:
Unknown author Author Aristophanes Translator John Hookham Frere
Editor Ernest Rhys.

And also The Acharnians, and two other Plays of Aristophanes (1909) . Cheers. Lotje (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The "description" was added by an editor. The information does not appear anywhere in the book that I can find. It is information with no source, and it therefore not reliable. That author also stated that the author was unknown. I have corrected the description. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The first page states that Ernest Rhys is the series editor, so a category for the series could be placed into Category:Works edited by Ernest Rhys. But adding a category for an individual volume into a personal category without any context would only confuse people. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you EncycloPetey for your vigilence. Very much appreciate your comments and your time correcting the description. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Structured Data Warning

That warning that you were so interested in at wikidata is back. See the structured data on File:Ladys Book-V03.djvu

The other data there was a "negotiation settlement" to cause a bot to stop slapping inception date on publications. I need inception date sometimes, most often for a photograph that was published in the book, or whatever.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

It looks as though this happens sometimes when a file is uploaded. Some users are able to "purge" so that the file becomes corrected. I can do this at Wikisource, but I'm not able to do it for Commons files, for some reason. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

"Inception" is not for publication, but indicates when the process of writing the work began. I sometimes need this for plays, which the author started writing years before it was ever performed or published. I suppose it could also be used for the date a photograph was taken, since it might have been published much later. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:1902 books from Great Britain

There is a fairly clear consensus that after 1800 books are categorised as from the UK - or from its component parts - not from Great Britain. There are no 19th century categories for books from GB. After 1800 the country was called the United Kingdom. There are no categories like Category:1906 in Great Britain to support them. Rathfelder (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

(1) Where is this consensus? (2) Are sub-national and non-national divisions forbidden somewhere? We have Category:Books from North Carolina, which is a sub-national region, and Category:Books from Europe which is not a nation, but is geographic. Note also that the 1801 Union specifically names Great Britain and Ireland as the two components that make up the new Union. So why can't the region of Great Britain have categories? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

The concensus is demonstrated by the lack of any such categories in the 19th century. We have subcategories by year for England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, and often for individual cities. They are more useful than Great Britain. I dont think you will find many references to books published in Great Britain in the 20th century. North Carolina and Europe are still recognised political entities. Great Britain was clearly not a country after 1800, which is why there are no categories like Category:1902 in Great Britain. See the discussions on Category:Books from Great Britain by year. Rathfelder (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Consensus cannot be demonstrated by a lack of data. There are lots of categories that do not exist, but their absence is not evidence for any consensus.

Here are a few examples of books explicitly published or copyrighted in "Great Britain" in the early 20th century, with links to the texts ar Wikisource, where you can also see the text in a scan of the original print of the books:

• 1918: Borís Godunóvl "PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN"
• 1924: Hell-Bent fer Heaven; "This play has been copyrighted and published simultaneously in the United States and Great Britain"
• 1928: Strange Interlude; "All acting rights ... are reserved in the United States, Great Britain and all countries of the Copyright Union"
• 1928: The Return of the Soldier; "Printed in Great Britain"

So clearly publishers in the 20th century were still regarding Great Britain as a recognized place.

By the way, I did see the "discussion" you mention, and it consisted of a single comment by yourself stating a viewpoint without any supporting evidence or reasoning. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

But as a country, which is how books are categorised, Great Britain belongs in the 18th century. There is no law of Great Britain now, so nothing can be copyrighted in Great Britain. Wikisource seems to have a very rudimentary categorisation system - those you quote are not categorised as books. Rathfelder (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

So the evidence I've presented, from the books we're categorizing, shouldn't be used because. . . ? You've simply made an opposite assertion with no supporting evidence. Your opinion of the Wikisource categorization is irrelevant to this discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

There are no other categories for Great Britain in 1902. Categorisation is systematic. We start from country and often work down to cities for publishing. The books published in the UK would be categorised as from London. Using Great Britain after 1800 is not helpful. In fact it could be seen as disruptive. Rathfelder (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Of your six statements, I accept the first three. All the similar categories were deleted, and therefore they do not exist. I do not believe this was the correct option, however. And your final three statements I do not accept. Not all books published in the UK are from London. Using Great Britain is both helpful and meaningful, since the items being categorized make use of the term themselves. And "could be seen as disruptive" is an opinion with no support and meaning. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

What is your objection to categorising books as from England, Wales, Scotland and NI, in line with other 20th geography of the UK? Rathfelder (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I did not object to using those categories. But why use NI, which was not created until 1921? Doesn't that go against your argument? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Before 1921 they should be in Ireland. Rathfelder (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Which was part of the United Kingdom, yet Category:Ireland is not placed inside Category:United Kingdom, so the individual countries are not placed within the larger nation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Before 1921 you could put the Irish dated categories into the UK. We have to cope with changes in countries over years. Rathfelder (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Algeria from Within.pdf

Hi, you reverted MatrixBot, saying this is the only categorisation by date but Category:Algeria from Within (1927) is categorised by date making this file implicitly categorised. I explained the way my bot works at User:MatrixBot (checks if a category that starts with "(year) books" is within 1 depth of any categories on the files) —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 13:04, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Are you aware of how some Wikisourcers are using these categories? Scans of editions published with any date get put into those categories. So there is no guarantee that a scan is from the same date as the parent category. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you give an example please? —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 16:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Such as in this edit, where an 1897 London edition was added to the category for the 1896 New York edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I relooked through my code. The code checks if any parent categories (to depth=1) starts with "(year) books", but (year) must be in the PDF categories, so I don't think the issue you described has happened. My code is at [1] if you want to have a look. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Does it compare the date in the file data against the date in the category for a match? That's going to be the place where issues will arise. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Nowhere in the code does it look through the file data (information template, title). It only looks at the categories to determine a match. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 10:12, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Edith Wharton in art

Category:Edith Wharton in art is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

CSD C2 (unuseful empty category)

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead.

---

Geoffroi 02:31, 16 January 2026 (UTC)