Wikisource:Scriptorium

From Wikisource
(Redirected from Scriptorium)
Jump to: navigation, search
← Community pages Scriptorium Archives→
Shortcut:
WS:S
WS:SCRIPTORIUM
The Scriptorium is Wikisource's community discussion page. Feel free to ask questions or leave comments. You may join any current discussion or start a new one. Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel webclient. For discussion related to the entire project (not just the English chapter), please discuss at the multilingual Wikisource.

Contents

Announcements[edit]

Note
This section can be used by any person to communicate Wikisource-related and relevant information; it is not restricted. Generally announcements won't have discussion, or it will be minimal, so if a discussion is relevant, often add another section to Other with a link in the announcement to that section.

Proposals[edit]

Tumblr update[edit]

The experiment with a Wikisource Tumblr continues. At the moment, it is limited to announcing PotM and featured texts. I have recently (that is, a few days ago) included the Wikisource:News headlines as part of the cycle. Another recent event is that the blog is now included as part of Planet Wikimedia, a blog aggregator that brings together posts from many assorted Wikimedia-related blogs. This might get more attention from other Wikimedians. We currently have two followers and have had three "likes" to date (two of which were for the announcement of the PotM for The Cycle Industry).

Nice job, can we at the end of the end month(ish) retrospectively note the completed texts from {{new texts}} from the month? Or we could note them when we transfer them to their archive at Wikisource:Works
I discovered it via the Planet. Thanks for getting it on there! Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Currently I am the only person with control over this Tumblr. Some organisation goes on via WikiProject Social media. I missed some things over the last two months as I was having various internet connectivity problems. There may be a problem in that everything we do runs on a monthly cycle, so it all updates on the same day. I am currently postponing the featured text announcement a little to (marginally) spread things out. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Spreading things out sound good, so what else an be considered for a rough schedule through the month. It may be worth looking to get some sort of text from the active projects at one a month, at least to spike some interest. DNB and PSM are always good candidates. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Good Job Adam :) JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
AdamBMorgan's Tumblr work silently and beautifully continues to grow. —Maury (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC) http://englishwikisource.tumblr.com/
More on update: AdamBMorgan's project on Tumblr is beautiful and well-organized. The man cannot be perfect but one would not know it by looking at his Tumblr website. Go there and look what has been done and what more one can imagine that can be done. Leave a message so the area will not look empty as far as comments are concerned.

http://englishwikisource.tumblr.com/post/48383252175/news-update-1000th-index#disqus_thread

—Maury (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


Password[edit]

Per this discussion "both Stewards and CheckUsers have wikis available where passwords can be stored for future recall as needed". I propose we make use of this solution, unless a better idea is offered. The best time for this type of housekeeping is at the beginning, else it gets put off until to late. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, and I have accounts at both. If you want me to create a page for it, I would recommend CUs. Another alternative is that you email the detail to info@wikisource.org, and it will be stored in the OTRS system. All of these have other eyes staring at them, so none of it is perfect security. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
In this case, Tumblr doesn't work that way. In order for the tumbleblog to, potentially, accommodate multiple people it is a "secondary blog" (personal blogs are "primary blogs"). The password protection is for the user account and not for any individual blog (the guidance mentions password protection for secondary blogs but this seems to refer to read-access rather than write-access). Anyway, secondary blogs have members and admins. Members can post and edit/delete their own posts; admins can delete anyone's posts, invite new members and remove them. Admins can promote members to admin status but once they have that status they can't be demoted or removed.(Tumblr FAQ).
It would help to have other people posting (if nothing else, just to cover for the semi-annual periods when I randomly lose all access to the internet). This is easy from the Tumblr side of things but the process for arranging this is on the Wikisource side is a little vague. Any such person will need a Tumblr account and I don't think they need to set up a primary blog if they don't want one. Presumably, some Wikisource community approval will be required. There is a voting section on WikiProject Social media but it doesn't get enough attention at the moment to fulfil it's own requirements. Member status should probably be easier to acquire than admin status but this is yet to be determined. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Well that certainly complicates my proposal. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
After thinking about this some more, I/we could create a new Tumblr account just for the purpose of recording the log in details somewhere. That way, if I should fall in front of a bus (or whatever), it can be revived, repaired or reclaimed using that account. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
This comment is to keep this article up beyond April 30. ResScholar (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

WWI Analytical and artistic works[edit]

I have proposed a change to our policy concerning self published works. Wikisource_talk:What_Wikisource_includes#Self_Published JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for a WikiSource Project on Rees's Cyclopaedia (1802-1819)[edit]

I suggest this will be a suitable project, and will be interested to learn colleagues' views. The work is in 39volumes, and has 30,400 pages. The text is in double column with an average length of 1480 words per page, which makes it around 39 million words, allowing for short pages. There over 1000 plates and an atlas.

An edition was published in America from 1805-1822 with a number of the articles re-written to reflect American religious sensibilities, additional articles and more plates.

An account of the work can be found on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rees%27s_Cyclop%C3%A6dia.

As George Sarton said : [Encyclopaedias] 'offer one of the simplest means of recapturing the educated opinion of earlier times', A Guide to the History of Science, 1952, 82-3. Rees appeared during the second half of the Industrial Revolution, and contains a wealth of material about evolving developments in science and technology. In addition, there is a mass of other topics, and the work will be an invaluable resource for quarrying for use in Wikipedia articles

In contrast to the DNB, the text includes tables of figures, mathematical and scientific formulae, as well as musical notation, both orthodox and plainchant. All the articles have references to the appropriate plates, and it would be good if these could be hyperlinked. The editorial work will be challenging, but the editing tools developed for the DNB will be of great help in getting the job done.

2020 will be the bicentenary of the publication of the last part of the British edition of the work, and I suggest this will be an appropriate date to target for completion of the bulk of the work. Apwoolrich2 (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Mark Wikisource:Translations as Policy[edit]

Wikisource:Translations has been in place since 2005, it has been marked as a proposed policy since 2006. During an extensive discussion at Wikisource:Requests for comment/Annotations and derivative works significant details about community expectations where worked out. As these expectations govern a new name space, I believe it is only fitting to officially mark it as a policy.

On a related note, I am also beginning updates to the page based on the above mentioned discussion. I would expect those updates to be completed prior to marking the change from proposed to policy. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe I have captured all the consensus updates to Wikisource:Translations. Please feel free to Copy edit, or start a discussion at Wikisource talk:Translations if you believe the consensus from Wikisource:Requests for comment/Annotations and derivative works is not adequately addressed. Additionally a discussion about how to create the new name space is occurring at Wikisource:Administrators'_noticeboard#New_Name_Space. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

BOT approval requests[edit]

Bot flag request for BrandeisBot[edit]

I've created User:BrandeisBot, a pywikipedia bot that will help upload the missing U.S. Supreme Court cases. It uses a JavaScript program called lochner to pull text from Justia, and a Python program called brandeis to parse them into wikitext that can be uploaded by pywikipediabot's pagefromfile script. The bot produces an output quite similar to BenchBot's—it splits the pages into a main page, /Opinion of the Court, /Dissent [name], /Concurrence [name], etc. It also adds a talk page for each, and redirects the case number to the main case page. It will be manually-assisted—as the Justia files can vary in how they're formatted, the parser can't always keep up. It does check if the page exists before parsing, and won't overwrite any existing pages. There is more thorough documentation at User:BrandeisBot/Documentation.

I was told to demonstrate its uploads for a case, so I've (slowly) created Rice v. Cayetano. I've provided the oldid versions because I will be cleaning up the files to show what kind of maintenance is required. As a note, I did not do any editing of the text file output by brandeis before it was uploaded, just to give an idea of some of the errors it can make and things it can miss. Normally I plan to make minor changes to that before it's even uploaded.

The text file used to create it is at User:BrandeisBot/sampletext. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Help[edit]


World Brain by H G Wells[edit]

I've started a stub for World Brain. This is my first editing here, although I am active mainly on Wikiversity. Would appreciate any advice about bring over text - what should be considered or done next? Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I placed and updated welcome template on your talk page, it has a link to Help:Contents. The first goal would be to get a copy of a scan preferably with a text layer on to Commons. While this is not always possible, it is the best start. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
H. G. Wells' works are still copyrighted in Great Britain, so a scan should not be uploaded to Commons. If a scan is to be used it would be uploaded onto Wikisource. ResScholar (talk) 07:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Section 12-1 should have a paragraph break.[edit]

Can someone please explain why in passing a text block to a template, the parser chokes on what should be a straightforward paragraph break?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

wouldn't know where to begin.... but if you're editing within the wikicode and want something to behave like a pargraph normally would?
Just make it a paragraph regardless of the wikicode. Use <p> </p> -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Ye[edit]

What are the conventions for the word ye when it stands for the. For example, at the bottom of this page, in place of the text marked as illegible, should I write ye, þe or something else altogether? Abjiklam (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Use what will most closely replicate the text on the page. In this case, it will be ye. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Abjiklam (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to add for future reference that there is {{ye}} that can be used. Abjiklam (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Images of different editions of the same book[edit]

Life with the Esquimaux Vol. 1 & 2. contain the same images as Arctic Researches, And Life Amongst the Esquimaux since the two works are only different editions of the same book. Arctic Researches seems to have higher quality scans of the images, so would it be acceptable to use them for Life with the Esquimaux? Abjiklam (talk) 10:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

If those images are identical I would use the best ones. Further, in "Vanity Fair" or another work, there was an image that was black and white whereby I asked Bilinghurst (an administrator) if I could replace that with the same image but in color and he said "Yes". We also had that with a black and white Flower where we replaced it with one in color.—Maury (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick answer. Abjiklam (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
You are very welcome. Also take a look where I enlarged the image. We (I) try to get them the same size if the original isn't very small but often we enlarge them a bit so that a person can see what the image is about. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes I noticed. I didn't do this myself because I read in one of the guidelines that image sizes are supposed to be defined by the user and are better not forced to a specific value. Is it better then to ignore this guideline? Abjiklam (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Index of Titles transclusion[edit]

The Index of Titles in this work is not included in the TOC. Considering that I am using the header=1 transclusion, should I/how should I best transclude or link to the Index in the Main? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

A question for enlightenment[edit]

I tried adding DEFAULTSORT parameter to an author's page and this triggered a sort overwrite warning. Where is this hidden parameter? Does it exist for all author pages? I am about to add numerous new author pages and/or update PSM contributions.— Ineuw talk 05:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

See Author Template page:
Overrides (for exceptions): {{{defaultsort}}}: Override the category sorting, which is normally "{{{lastname}}}, {{{firstname}}}".--Mpaa (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the enlightenment. :-) — Ineuw talk 01:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

SCOTUS case with 2 majority opinions[edit]

How would one formulate the USSCCase and USSCCase2 templates for court decisions that contain two or more majority opinions (e.g., United States v. Booker (543 U.S. 220))?--Dlarmore (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Asking for help with the Custom regex tool[edit]

Searched the web for this but found no solution. How can I specify the \newline code in the Custom Regex 'replace' panel? The find parameters are clear and I use it, but replacing any 'find' value with \newline just doesn't work for me. Thanks.

Example:

Search: /foo/g
Replace with: \n\n . . . this inserts the literal value \n\n. — Ineuw talk 21:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Just use Enter as in a normal editor, it will create newlines.--Mpaa (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Wow!!! Amazing, thank you, it worked.— Ineuw talk 02:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Score Deployed but won't pasre valid notation[edit]

User:ShakespeareFan00/scoretesting ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. You have entered a "raw" score, so you need the raw setting. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Page:The_Army_and_Navy_Hymnal.djvu/32/score[edit]

OK I've made a start to test things.. If someone can continue the transcription I should be able to pick up the syntax fairly quickly.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at Page:The Army and Navy Hymnal.djvu/33 where I've done the score already. I've deliberately not added the lyrics because putting them into the score makes them unsearchable. For example, "When morning gilds the sky" vs "When morn -- ing gilds the sky". No-one will search for the second phrase. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
OK I've spent the best part of day trying to get my head around the syntax and failed, I've thus blanked the sandbox attempt

linked to above, so that someone that is actually competent can typset it accordingly. Thanks ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Question http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Barzaz_Breiz,_huiti%C3%A8me_%C3%A9dition.djvu/644 has midi? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
And I've added Vorbis=1 to the proofread examples.. I think a full blown MIDI scoring version rendered using Fluidsynth is out of scope right? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't know what to do[edit]

Hi. I'd like to start editing here, but I'm having difficulty figuring out how it works. I get the idea that the stuff in mainspace isn't supposed to be touched (because the text doesn't change), but I'm not sure how to create new stuff. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Editing happens in the Index and Page namespaces. A good way to start is with the Proofread of the Month project. For example, try clicking on one of the red-highlighted pages in Index:Natural History, Birds.djvu and editing the text to match the page scan as much as possible. To try starting a page from scratch, try Index:Tales from old Japanese dramas (1915).djvu; click on one of the un-highlighted page numbers. The goal is, again, to edit the text to match the page scan. When you are done in either case, set the page status to proofread (yellow) with the radio buttons at the bottom of the screen and save the page. Look at Help:Proofread for some more instructions.
If you want to start your own work: you need to upload a scan to Wikimedia Commons and start a new index page for it (see Help:Beginner's guide to Index: files for that). Lots of scanned works can be found at the Internet Archive and similar websites. When all the pages are proofread, the text can be transcluded to the mainspace (see Help:Transclude).
Is there anything in particular you wanted to try? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I would like to create works for hymn texts. Is it absolutely necessary to upload the scan to the Commons? I can't access the Commons on my computer. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The scan (which is usually a DjVu or PDF file) needs to be available for the proofreading system to work. It can be uploaded to Commons or, in some cases, directly uploaded to Wikisource. If it is a problem, you can ask another user to upload the scan for you if it is available somewhere (like archive.org or Google Books).
However, you can write directly to the mainspace in some cases: if you are transcribing from a printed, unscanned book or if you are copying from another digital library (although that is not the preferred approach). You could also do this if you are going to copy and paste everything to a matching scan later. That will cause you more work though. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Versions of the same book[edit]

Hi! I'm new to Wikisource (but not to Wikipedia though) and I have a couple of questions. First of all, if there is a number of reprints of some particular classical book, is it fine to digitize any of these reprints? I mean, is it a good practice to upload and proofread, let's say, a publication of a Shakespeare's play in 2005? I guess the best thing would be to have scans of the original publication, but of course it is not always feasible. --DixonD (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikisource. Wikisource:Versions might answer some of your questions. In brief, yes, any version (or even multiple versions) of a book can be digitized on Wikisource, although we'd prefer the closest thing to a first edition where possible (and with high quality scans—again, if possible). Be careful with a 2005 edition, however, as sufficient editing can create a new copyright (although I doubt anyone would rewrite Shakespeare enough for that to happen). Also, if you don't work from scans, you need to state the source of the text on the talk page with a {{textinfo}} template. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Another question. I have a scanned copy of a book with a collection of works of one author. How should these works appear in Wikisource - as separate pages or as subpages of the page for the collection? --DixonD (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Subpages of the page for the collection. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hash target link[edit]

How can I make a hash target link, for example Amazing Stories/Volume 01/Number 01/Off on a Comet—or Hector Servadac#Chapter VI? Heyzeuss (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The link will work but you need to add an anchor at the other end. The easiest method is using a template, either {{anchor|Chapter VI}} or {{anchor+|Chapter VI}}. In this case, the anchor needs to be added to Page:Amazing Stories Volume 01 Number 01.djvu/14. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I thought it was automatic, as with ==wiki markup== type headings. I'll try those templates out in a few places. Heyzeuss (talk) 03:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The chapter headings are just formatted text, like the rest of the story, although inserting the anchors during proofreading makes sense now that I think about it. However, this has reminded me that there actually are some automatic anchors: the page numbers. Amazing Stories/Volume 01/Number 01/Off on a Comet—or Hector Servadac#12 would be the closest thing to the link you want. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Translation laden Transcription Projects[edit]

Hi there,

I'm a college student in, Ireland and I am working on a proposal for a crowd sourcing transcription project, of items held in the United States. This one is different however, they documents are in 19th Century Puerto Rican Spanish, and potential transcribers are asked to transcribe from this to English. I was wondering if someone could point me towards a project that may have been done or is ongoing that involves translation at the sametime?--Fonzbob (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Abraham,_Robert_(DNB00)[edit]

The 'wikipedia article' link here points at a disambiguation page on en.wp. The correct article is "Robert Abraham (architect)". I don't know how to fix this, so... :) Revent (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg fixed Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Books with texts in multiple languages[edit]

What would be the policy in this case? Let's say we have a book with poems which is written mostly in English but contains also German text. Should we put English and German parts into English and German Wikisources, respectively? I tried to find something related in former discussions and in policies, but I didn't manage. --DixonD (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It varies; I don't think there is a hard rule on it. If it is a multilingual book aimed at English readers (for instance, a text book on a language or some translations) it belongs here on English Wikisource. If it is a true multilingual book it may be more appropriate for Multilingual Wikisource. In some cases, I have seen books split over different projects, as you describe. In your case, it sounds like it is an English work rather than multilingual or spitable; but I have not seen it and can't give any definite answer even if I had. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Annotation(s)[edit]

What was decided about annotations? Are we allowed to use them? I ask because I am using one. I thank you gentlemen, —Maury (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

We can use them but only in a separate, clearly marked annotated version. I will relaunch WS:Annotations as soon as I have enough time (which should be before the end of the month). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Noisy Scans[edit]

Index:Art of Cookery 1774 edition.djvu - Cleanup possible?

Toggle ProofreadPage[edit]

How can I edit in the index and page namespaces directly without using ProofreadPage? I am in the process of debugging Finnish Wikisource, and I need to turn the extension off briefly so that I can copy and paste. Heyzeuss (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Turn off javascript. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Thx. Even though I believe you about my crappy pdf, I still have to try it for myself. I'm also going to try to load up Emily Dickenson at Finnish Wikisource. Heyzeuss (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I disabled javascript in a few different browsers, and it still looks exactly the same all of the time. I'm trying to get just one big edit box instead of the form.
EDIT: It does not all look the same with javascript turned off. The index page and edit screen are unchanged, but the edit screen in the page namespace just has a big edit box. Heyzeuss (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Bench_and_bar_of_Colorado_(1917)/Portraits[edit]

Can someone explain why it's a pain to get multi page table transcluding? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Footers & Other Questions[edit]

I am new to Wikisource (this week!), and am editing the Letters of Jonathan Swift, volume XIII. The title of the book and the page number are at the top of the page. Most pages have a footer which includes the first word or two of the next page. Should I put those in the footer when proofreading, or delete

Also in the footer are sometimes random letters and numbers, such as "D 3" or "XVIII". Should those be included?

If I include them, is there a special code that allows text in left, center and right justification? I have found {{RunningHeader}} useful in the header and in the text of the page -- can I use it in the footer?

For the three points above, it is your choice, depending on how close you want the look and feel be to the original page. If you choose to include them, you would insert them in the footer and they would not be transcluded anyhow. You can use {{left}}, {{center}} {{right}}, {{float left}}, {{float right}} or similar.--Mpaa (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes, in the text, the letter's address will be on the left and the place and date of writing are on the right. I use the running header for that. This page is an example: Page:The_Works_of_the_Rev._Jonathan_Swift,_Volume_13.djvu/66 I have two concerns about this one. First, the address is not quite on the left margin -- it is offset a bit. I've been ignoring that, as I don't know how to add an offset to the running header code.

I would not use {{RunningHeader}} within a page, but use the above templates. For the rest, it looks OK, the text is the main concern, a fac-simile of the original is nice to have but not the main goal.--Mpaa (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Second, the font is slightly different from the rest of the text. How much does that matter? If I do need to add a code to reduce the size of the font, how do I do it? I've tried adding |smaller| within the running header code, but that doesn't work.

You can use {{smaller}} or e.g. {{fsx}} or similar variations.--Mpaa (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for helping with these questions.Susanarb (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Index:The New Latin Primer (Postgate).djvu[edit]

I'd appreciate some advice on how to cope with the accented characters I can't find in the toolbars.

I'll do my best with it, but I'd appreciate somone that works with accented stuff extensively filling in the difficult stuff.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll do my best. Is it just the pages marked purple at the index? I'm not sure how to get a horizontal line over a group of several letters as with the Roman numerals on Page:The New Latin Primer (Postgate).djvu/217. I don't think there's a diacritic for it, but maybe there's some sort of HTML style setting that will do it. Angr 11:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
try {{overline}}. I've not used it with all-caps, so am not sure if it will collide with the tops of the characters. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Thanks for your help! Angr 14:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Proofreading problems[edit]

Some new script has made it possible to [mark this page as proofread] without editing. Unfortunately, it seems to also prevent the source text from appearing next to the text to be proofread. I've tried on several pages now, and can't get source text to display next to the Wikisource text unless it was a page that I edited last (which is no help). This is happening on half a dozen texts that previously had no such problem. I won't be able to proofread until the problem is resolved. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed. My process was to go to Category:Not proofread, and randomly click on a page. I tried this numerous times, and not a single page image displayed for me.
I am not seeing anything corresponding to the [mark this page as proofread] comment above, so I can't comment on the cause. All I know is I'm not seeing any page images. This is a critical outage, and needs to be resolved quickly. How to proceed?
Hesperian 03:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
There was some mention of that in the Tech newsletter to a change to patrolling, and it points to here. That said, I am not facing any issues in patrolling. New pages? Revised pages? Got more info? I can pull up pages and see text beside images in view and no images. I am poking Special:RecentChanges and yet to strike an issue. NOTE that I have different rights, but none that should override anything that affects local advanced editing rights. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
It has come good for me again. Hopefully it was an intermittent issue and working for Petey too. Hesperian 06:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I am no longer seeing this problem now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Follow the gerrit link and it says Update May 31, 2013 4:30 AM so presumably a fix. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Greek[edit]

I am editing letters to and from Jonathan Swift. Occasionally, there is a letter containing another language. I'm fine with Latin, French, and Spanish, but the Greek letters are quite beyond me. Here is the page: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_Works_of_the_Rev._Jonathan_Swift,_Volume_13.djvu/342. If any of you can read and/or transcribe Greek, I encourage you to take a look to fix it! And thank you! Susanarb (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

What you can do, if you wish, is mark the text with {{Greek missing}}, save the page as "Problematic", and move on. The template will place the page into Category:Pages with missing Greek characters, which, one would hope, is monitored by people with the skills you are looking for. Hesperian 00:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks! Susanarb (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I do know some Greek, but this text contains at least three printed forms of Greek characters that I'm unfamiliar with. If I can get hold of one of my Greek expert contacts, I'll have him take a look at it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I check this category once or twice a week (usually on a Sunday) and deal with any pages that are tagged. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I think we've got the Greek fixed now. A colleague at Wiktionary figured out what was going on and supplied me with the Greek script, which is now added to the page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Internal link to other ws[edit]

Stupid question: what am I doing wrong?

Moondyne (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You want this? it:Orlando furioso/Canto 1 Hesperian 01:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, ta. Moondyne (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Formatting a book's back index[edit]

I'm trying to format this index here: Page:Origin_of_Species_1859_facsimile.djvu/503. I can see that the page number should go in the header, and that the index is labelled by the first letter of the words. But the index here also includes the first and last index elements on the page ("aberrant" to "bees", for this example). Where should I place these so that the transcription is consistent with the original text, but they won't get in the way when the index is viewed together as a whole here: On the Origin of Species (1859)/Index? I was thinking in either in the header or the footer? Ozhu (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I would put them in the header. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I've put them in the same running header with the page number. There really isn't any reason to do otherwise, since the headwords are not going to appear in their published location anyway. Also, please look at the use I've made of the {{bar}} template. A parameter of "2" produces a single bar of the same length that you've tried to recreate with two dashes, but without the space in between. I think it makes the result look cleaner. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that tip. I'll go back and use that. Also makes it easier to edit with gvim on Windows, which doesn't handle special characters well at all. Ozhu (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

How do I use plain sister to link to 2 wikipedia articles?[edit]

A Dictionary of Music and Musicians/Bärmann covers three members of the same family, two of whom have WP articles. w:Heinrich Baermann and w:Carl Baermann. How do I link to both of them from the same mainspace page without resorting to the deprecated {{wikipedia}}? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If you're trying to avoid using interwiki links, you could create an author page for them and link from there. The only other thing that comes to mind is the creation of a template like {{taxon}} or {{dated}}. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, if you use {{header}} instead of {{DMM}} (or modify the latter appropriately!), you could make use of parameter "related_author", which permits multiple (local) author links using the syntax (e.g.) related_author=Heinrich Baermann/Carl Baermann. MODCHK (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
H'mm. It's taken me all day to realise what you meant by using an interwiki link. I've obviously got too close to this project and can't step back far enough to look at it dispassionately enough. Oh well, at least I've got there now even if it is 9 hours later. There's also a hat note on Heinrich's WP article for Carl's. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be possible to modify the "wikipedia" parameter in header to accept more entries with the same syntax as " realted_authors"? I had the same need as BWC elsewhere.--Mpaa (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Template:Header just "calls" the Plain Sister template and that is where you'd need to add the capability for "extra" WP links. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Edit: btw... has anyone tried applying a stand-alone plain-sister template in the header's notes field in addition to using the "built-in" parameter? Yes check.svg Done  ? -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
We come humbly and grovel at the feet of the master, who even in the deadest hours of the night always produces the goods! Thanks. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, I rephrase. Wouldn't it be better to modify Plain Sisters to accept multiple links? Even if a stand alone template call in notes produces the result, we are just distributing around info which should logically stay together.--Mpaa (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
One possible drawback of duplicating the "related_authors" approach on the wikipedia= parameter is that the internal use of {{#titleparts:}} would preclude links which contain a "/". I am aware this is a really silly example, but w:/etc/passwd exists, even if it is actually only a #redirect... MODCHK (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
How many times are we legitimately going come across something like BWCs example? I can just as easily take any recent executive order and bind it to 6 or 7 relevant existing pieces/persons on WP; the question then becomes if I should take it upon myself to make every work a 'top ten list' of what I think is most important to expand-upon / investigate further or not. Sometimes the perceived limitations on what or how much one can do turns out to be a good thing & I think this might be one such case. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Umm, I thought I was agreeing with this basic point.
Somebody also has to make this blindingly obvious comment, so it might as well be me: Whatever is wrong with embedding links in the article text at the point right where the eventual reader may want to look them up? Sure in this case it is a short piece, but who wants to scroll to the top of the article in case there is a relevant link, especially since the sister links don't exactly advertise where they point to: ((1) Wikipedia article) vs ((4) Wikipedia article)?
NoBoDy - that's who! (well... at least in my opinion that is). Personally, I don't practice the typical sister-linking thing much if at all. If I need Ickipedia at some point for some reason & we don't already host that person, place or thing on its/their own for a jump-point, I just point to WP in an inline-piped link. -= either it gets utilized upon arrival or folks will effortlessly read past it; not my problem =-.

This is why I'm hoping Wikidata at least manages to centralize the core info on proper people, places and things. When that info is sufficiently compiled, I'm guessing it will all be standardized and readily available through the Pageinfo (API?) thingy instead. Maybe then this circle-jerk with inter-language linking this & sister-linking that will finally start to fade (You might not have been around yet but I was never in favor of embedding stuff into the navigation header in the first place fwiw. I only work to "improve" upon it however I can because that is what the community wanted & decided; my PoV is over-ruled by that). -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Also what about multiple links, each to a local Author: page; each one of which links to exactly one wikipedia page... You know, the way it has been done for almost forever before? MODCHK (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Find a way to automate it - I don't believe people are against what you're saying but the realities of editing/profreading are all stacked against this. Having the capability in the same place, using the same practices makes it far easier to go back and link to WP as opposed to [re]proof-reading everything just for running down a half-dozen or so possible inline-link points. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
A simple "No, it's not" is enough.--Mpaa (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Request local file move to Commons[edit]

Once again, I am unable to upload a file to Commons for some reason. Can someone please take the local file...

...and overwrite my previous upload to ...

Thanks in advance. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

On it. Hesperian 02:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Done. Hesperian 03:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"Margin notice"[edit]

Hi, on Latin Wikisource, I imported this template la:Formula:Randnotiz rechts from the German version in order to display text written on the margin. It doesn't work so well (see la:Pagina:Hortus Malabaricus Volume 1.pdf/20 where the "Fig. 1" is displayed somewhere over the original page; while on la:Hortus Malabaricus/Liber I it appears over the rest of the text). Do you have a template which works better? :D (Unfortunately I don't know how this "concept" of writing on the margin is called in English, so I was a bit unsuccessful in searching). --MF-Warburg (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at {{sidenotes begin}} and its companion templates in either the sidenotes series or the outside series. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! --MF-Warburg (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Riders of the Purple Sage[edit]

This is a long-languishing item on my to-do list. Adam suggested that this edition, which is the first edition, ought to be the one uploaded, and the file is certainly the cleanest. I noticed that page 1 is one of those "Google notices" that needs to be removed, and page 2 is the book's cover. However, I need help adjusting the Djvu accordingly, since I have never understood how to remove the Google notice. The file in question is already on Commons here, and the local index file is Index:Riders of the Purple Sage.djvu. Note that the index file has been set up according to the way the file should look once the Google notice has been removed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! The second task I'll need help with is getting the four images prepped and uploaded (five, if you count the publisher's mark on the title page). The Index page has all the image locations identified, and there is a clean copy at the Hathi Trust. The images should be uploaded to commons:Category:Riders of the Purple Sage. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I take it back. The scans of the images at the Hathi Trust are terrible, with chromatic interference patterning that destroys the image. Wherever someone can find clean images, please use that. The original source of our djvu file at the Internet Archive appears to have been a PDF, so it's not a good choice either. If we can't find a clean copy online, we might have to rescan ourselves, if someone has access to an original edition. At least there are only four images needed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm doing an image run with HesperianBot as we speak. Let us see how it fares. There are a lot of ifs, but if it succeeds in following the trail from the Commons page to the archive.org page, identifying the right zip file, downloading it, identifying and extracting the correct image file for each page with a raw or missing image tag, converting it from tif to png, and, after all that, if the images therein are of an acceptable quality, then your problem will be solved. :-) Hesperian 06:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
It didn't work, and when I attempted manual extraction I found that the scan images in the zip are just as awful as they djvu images. Not worth pursuing. Hesperian 10:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
As I said, we might have to go with original scans or photos. I do notice that in commons:Category:Riders of the Purple Sage there is a photo of the title page and frontispiece. The user who uploaded that image has been active on Commons as recently as this past May. Someone who knows the requirements for images might contact them about whether they still have access to that copy of the book. I don't do work with images (yet) because I don't have image manipulation software suitable for dealing with quality images. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The original scans of the book come by the way of GoogleBooks' digitization project so the notion that there are other sources for this book are slim to none. The available full view GoogleBooks copies for the 1912 edition are all at least 5 years old or more to boot (you'll find the exact link way down near the bottom of the info found on Archive.org's host page).

A quick look through the images available thru GoogleBooks aren't much better than the those found on Archive.org but they are at least full sized ones & have a better chance of being workable than what we currently have (the image pages in the DjVu file are about a third of the size of all the other pages in case you haven't notice thanks to our thumbnail resizing in the Page: namespace). -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at all the options at GoogleBooks, but I have checked every copy at the Internet Archive, most or all of which seem to have come from GoogleBooks. They're all very old (in internet terms), all with extremely poor quality images, and some have even had the images stripped out. So, I don't put a lot of hope in finding on-line images either. I've left a message with the person at Commons whom I mentioned above. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, there are only 3 or 4 available full veiw versions of the 1912 edition available to me here in the U.S. on GoogleBooks; maybe other locales will have more options.

Regardless, the primary concern here should be reproducing/replacing the text, followed by securing quality images (if and when that is possible of course). -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't anticipate any further problems with the text, now that the source file is up and corrected. But, as the images may take some time to track down and process, I'd like to get a head start on that issue. Although our priority should be text first, that doesn't mean that the one must be completed before the other is begun. The text can proceed apace at the same time as a search for images, yes? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
To each his own... There is no "right" way to approach this; only the most logical or most efficient way (in my opinion). Since images are moot for most mobile device viewers anyway - and a general pain in the azz to secure & produce correctly - I prioritize them dead last in order to theoretically satisfy the largest number of potential readers with the most complete high-quality content that's possible. Otherwise; why bother with visiting WS at all? I can read what we're hosting now directly from IA (warts and all) or from Project Guttenberg. Of course, this is just my opinion; not policy. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
My own view is that the images we process serve a greater good. Once they're uploaded on Commons, they are useable not only here, but also on Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikispecies, and other MW projects. Their presence then serves to promote what we do here, and to raise awareness of this project, in a way that goes beyond the mere availability of the text which (as you say) may already be accessed from many locations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
All points well taken and am 100% in principled agreement with here... but I just don't see any evidence of that approach outpacing [my] the view that complete and accurate transcribed text, albeit wikified instead of pure HTML/XML, is still the only current "advantage" WS has over similar outlets. The benefits of producing high quality images in addition to the goal of providing complete and accurate transcriptions as near as possible to the original seem marginal at best (at least for me that is). Had we the traffic comparable to the kind enjoyed by Wikipedia, imho you'd be absolutely in the driver's seat here with your POV. But when auto-logins out pace main page views somewhere in the ratio of 10 to 1, I become more concerned with proving ourselves as useful to the potential reader/researcher than I am with rounding out what I consider the more aesthetic aspects of hosting works.

Don't get me wrong, sometimes the inclusion of a diagram or a map is indeed paramount to remaining true to the original content in our transcriptions; how blurry it is another matter altogether for me however. Again, there is no "right" answer regarding any of this, I'm just glad that we have regular contributors who care enough to voice such nuances in the first place. Prost. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

A poem with a reference which also contains a poem[edit]

Can someone please help and look at this PAGE? The poem at the end of the page contains a second reference which also contains a poem and I can’t seem to place the reference number to match the original. — Ineuw talk 03:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done . Don't use poem tags is the simple answer. I'm sure there's a more complex one, but let's not go there. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Great - thanks for the advice and the help.— Ineuw talk 05:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Other discussions[edit]

Closure on bot confirmations[edit]

The 90-day warning to owners of idle bots has now passed. The discussion thread was archived to Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2013-03#90 day warnings posted, and rather than bring it back here I edited the outcomes straight into the archive.[1] No bot owner responded. With one exception, I have closed as not confirmed, and de-flagged the bot.

The exception is MediaWiki default. This is not a normal bot account. It is the default username to which content diffs are ascribed whenever internal changes to MediaWiki, or the running of internal MediaWiki scripts, result in apparent changes to content. It appears that we do have the ability as a community to determine whether we want to flag this account as a bot or not. However it has no owner/operator, so a 90-day failure to 'show cause' means nothing. I think this is a special case, outside our usual confirmation processes, and I would like further guidance from the community before I take any action.

Hesperian 01:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


No owner/operator = security risk.
No activity since 2007 = not all that much being ascribed to it, eh?
Last activity in 2007 = deleted everything it's ever contributed to Wikisource pre-2007; and I do mean EvErYtHiNg.
I would think the first point is enough and the crux of the matter for us in relation to the rest of the Wikiworld & it's practices / policies. Without an actual user to be held accountable for whatever reasons, I don't see how anyone can vote other than to adhere to the current standards in place - without exception - and de-flag the account.

If this becomes the minority view - I'd rather see some activity on the account so at least we ascertain it is not an account who has had it's password lost to history before any action is sanctioned either way.

If even that becomes tossed aside by further community consensus to still keep the Bot around - I'd say at least block it as a precaution until proof of an actual operator or the need-for-its-use one day magically materializes. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe the account cannot be logged into. I believe that it isn't really a user account at all; it is a faux username that internal script edits get assigned to. So I'm not sure in this case that "No owner/operator = security risk".
I am happy to de-flag: presumably this would merely cause any edits to appear in RC. I would be reluctant to block without an assurance from the devs that this would not have the potential to disrupt internal database maintenance.
Hesperian 04:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
... and I believe that approach to update/add items to & for the local "MediaWiki" namespace is no longer done locally on a project by project basis via a Bot & its scripting. "It" comes "down" from code on the servers automagically. Need to overwrite the server dumped default? Then you, me or some bot would edit the local "MediaWiki" namespace's equivalent to override those "dumped" defaults, no?

Anyway, if you can find me some evidence that bot has been used for anything since early 2007 for something positive rather the deletion of old static method in preparation for the current server based method on any wiki project never mind just en.WS, I might reconsider. Until then, all we are debating here is our own POVs and not the facts (i.e. - not a shred of activity - as far as I can tell - for over 5 years now).

I say that means the account & its bot has been superseded by better coding and as a result was made obsolete sometime early in 2007. What you say amounts to the idea that not a single thing relating to the MediaWiki namespace has been refined, amended or improved by the higher power of the Wiki-developers for over 5 years now. We frequently joke about being left-out of the overall development scheme, but I don't think its been that bad. (or is it?) -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, an old MediaWiki installation of mine (version 1.18 I think) had a user called MediaWiki Default (which set up the default main page during installation). A new installation (1.22alpha) does not have any such user – I think it can be safely blocked (although I see no use for that). Inkbug (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I don’t see a reason for it to keep the bot flag, or block to block it. Removing the bot flag just makes the edits more visible if/when the account becomes active, at which time the community can decide what to do about it. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
NO requirement for a bot flag; remove, That aside I see no requirement for action, it is no different from hundreds of other quiescent accounts. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will remove the bot flag for this account. Hesperian 00:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

April's Feature Text of the Month's odt file doesn't work[edit]

The ODT text for April's Feature Text of the Month is pretty well blank besides a table with some numbers and the copyright notice. I just thought I would report it. I don't know if any other text are affected. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

On a related note, Wikisource:Books is also affected including PDF, ODT, and MediaPress. I wish this worked because I would love to print on demand. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
EPUB is also affected. I downloaded War Pictures with EPUB and got it all, so presumable, the problem is just with A Jewish State (1917 translation)?
A bit more research… Same Problem with The English Constitution (1894) seem to be related to books with Parenthesis in the title. Jeepday (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Has someone chatted with Tpt? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I have only had conversations posted here. Just downloaded The Time Machine (Heinemann text) as EPUB. Seem to have gotten it all. Jeepday (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Can you check it now to see if it is the same or better. I added class="ws-summary" to the ToC. The work that Matt pasted seems fine to me. Well except the fact that the titles and the poems are on different pages. Seems that we are going to need to look at how we format works with a centred component, that then has stuff wrapped in other non-breaking type formatting. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Tried A Jewish State (1917 translation) as EPUB again, still getting the same little bit. Jeepday (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Can I start by saying how much I detest Template:Dotted TOC page listing and how it so bloats code on page, and anyone who uses it on any of the works that I start will be beaten about about the head with it. okay, got that off my chest. I have added class="ws-summary" to that template, and it seems to have had the desired effect BUT the individual page numbers in the output, rather than chapter headings makes it less than effective. I really would recommend that we we look to chapter names as they they give good chapter headings. [Note that I am using the Firefox add-on EPUB READER for this checking]. So it should right now, and we will have to look at what frWS has done, or what Tpt said about this at an earlier time. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we deprecate it before it spreads even more? I often use it but I am unaware of the nasty effect as it is not written anywhere. And who knows how many more I am not aware of. User assumption is: if the template is there, then there is no problem in using it.--Mpaa (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm no fan of the bloat that template brings with its usage either but it is only written up that that way because it has to "overcome" the issues with Dynamic Layouts & its execution in the load order to ultimately render pretty much the same for everybody @ 1st page click-in. Its overkill - no question about that - but the true fault lies elsewhere & deprecating it now imho wouldn't really solve anything in the long run. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I downloaded the two problem books with the WS EPUB tool and opened both in Calibre, the problem seems to be corrected. Jeepday (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I got Tpt in IRC, and subsequently added the class to MediaWiki:Proofreadpage header template — billinghurst sDrewth 14:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

More Failed down loads[edit]

Score extension (a big thank you)[edit]

\relative c' { f d f a d f e d cis a cis e a g f e } It would appear that the Score extension has been deployed on this wiki. I would like to say a big thank you to all the people who picked up the threads where real life snatched me away from this project, as well as the folks whose threads I could pick up back then (most notably, Johannes, River, and Tim), and Mark and Sumana who helped me get into the Wikimedia development process. There are surely a lot of other people who should be mentioned here, and that they're missing is entirely my fault, for I haven't really been following. So, again, a big thank you to everyone involved. It always leaves a strange feeling to leave something unfinished, but then to see it finished in the end by the caring hands of such a great community made we weep tears of joy, literally.--GrafZahl (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I started a talk about hiding the vorbis player when using score with vorbis=1 [4], feel free to comment if you think about a better user interface. — Phe 23:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


Looking for an excuse to have a play? There are plenty of pages out there tagged as needing a score. Unfortunately their categorisation is a bit of a mess: you'll find them in Category:Pages requiring musical examples, Category:Pages containing sheet music and Category:Texts with missing musical scores. Hesperian 00:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

A manual on the Lilypond notation language can be found at http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.16/Documentation/notation/index.html Hesperian 00:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Woohoo! Thanks to GZ we got through a major hurdle. To note that it was originally bugzilla:189 and now we are up in the 45k range. We need to run around like headless chooks and fix up some of the bits that we have dismantled due to the lack of the functionality. It would be good to bring back the project, and we need to fix up our instructions. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

For reference Help:Sheet music. There have been people sharing information about how they use lilypond. I will try to capture it and stick it on the corresponding talk page, and we can sort through what is useful. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I am delighted to see this. Thanks to everyone involved. If anyone wants me for anything I'll be playing with music. Here's my first page with 7 examples of it being used: Page:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians vol 1.djvu/24 Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
FYI, an example on the French-speaking wikisource : fr:Page:Barzaz Breiz, huitième édition.djvu/641.
A question : what is the best place for language neutral scores ? (like fr:Suite pour violoncelle BWV 1007, not using the extension right now). Oldwikisource or the home-wikisource of the author ? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The elements of musical scores are themselves a language. There might be a case for a new language domain: music.wikisource.org. In the absence of such, I guess oldwikisource would be the place. Hesperian 02:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Very interesting question! We can do some level of interwiki display, and it is one that we should investigate (and one to play). We should also investigate #LST and ensure that this functions well, and whether it is possible in parts, both breaking and joining. Fun! — billinghurst sDrewth 02:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be an obvious way to change the rendering size. Certainly "smaller block", "larger block", etc, have no effect. Hesperian 02:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Project for musical scores[edit]

What do you guys think about starting a separate language-neutral version of Wikisource for scores? The Muscogee Wikipedia was closed so I doubt there would be any objections about using the mus. prefix. Scores with lyrics in some specific language could be placed there and transcluded into their language version using {{iwpage}}.--Micru (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Objection for the prefix mus (ISO code have to be ISO code ; the 5-6 projects with prefixes that aren't ISO code but looks like ISO code are always troubling/confusing me), why not with a simple and explicit music prefix ?
I see two ways to do it :
  • only the langage neutral music (and iwpage to import the others) ;
  • all the music (and iwpage to export the not“langage neutral”) ;
I don't know which one is best. In the second case, all the music is in the same place and the community could be specific and more efficient. But it doesn't seems logical to put everything there since there is books with only a few pages of music sheet. Eg. fr:Livre:Barzaz Breiz, huitième édition.djvu/br:Livre:Barzaz Breiz, huitième édition.djvu : this book is already on two wikisources with iwpages, is it really a good idea to add pages on a third wikisource for the forty last pages ? (I’m not sure but why not).
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I think this should be discussed in meta and involve more users. It is not only about "books containing scores", but also about scores in general, like those in IMSLP. Books that have scores can be in both sites if seen appropriate. In the case that you describe maybe it would be enough having in the French version only. Anyway, here is the Request for comments in meta.--Micru (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
We only just got the score extension turned on. Also, the vast majority of works with scores are going to be predominantly written in some natural language. There will only be a very small number of works that are, first and foremost, a score, and cannot properly be hosted in any particular natural language subdomain. I think these should be hosted at the language-neutral Wikisource for now. Once we have a thousand such works, we might revisit this. Hesperian 02:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Before every project opening, there is a incubation test. There is no other possibility than waiting to have a active community on scores/music/songs/etc. Nonetheless, we could think about it and how to do it (eg. about the perimeter which is not clear to me). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Help with a blog post?[edit]

I'd like to highlight Wikimedia's new usage of Score with a WMF blog post that points to specific scores on Wikisource, Wikipedia, and any other project that's using them. I hope this post will also be suitable for circulating to music teachers, music historians, and the musicology community to encourage them to come and use Score to share their knowledge and archives with us. And in this post I'd like to also link to LilyPond notation documentation, and thank volunteers Brian Wolff, GrafZahl, Markus Glaser, Beau, Anja Ebersbach, River Tarnell, Johannes E. Schindelin, and the WMF staffers who worked on this. Would one of you like to volunteer to cowrite this post with me? Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps writing such a post is not my forte, but I would like to cheer you on! This is awesome. -Pete (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I like the idea of such a blog post, however with the parser choking on even relatively straightforward snippets (for example, Page:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians vol 1.djvu/452 where I've had to comment out the lyrics so that at least the notes will show) it's too early to circulate an invitation to the wider music community. Once it's working as per the tin, then I'd be happy to assist. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Beeswaxcandle - ok, let's wait to publish the blog post until that bug is fixed, but will you help me write it and then hold it in readiness to publish? Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Anyone who wants to pitch in, please go ahead and add prose or ideas or links to this blog post draft on meta. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Beeswaxcandle: Thanks for reporting this here! The problem you are reporting sounds like an issue in the code of the MediaWiki software or the server configuration. I have copied the issue to the Bugzilla bug tracker at bugzilla:48779 (anybody can do this, see How to report a bug for more info). This is needed to make developers of the software aware of the issue. The link and number of the bug report is on the right, so everybody can inform themselves about status and progress. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but this is the same bug as bugzilla:48465 and bugzilla:47534. Hence my not bothering to report it separately. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

GLAM Boot Camp workshop[edit]

Doug and I may give a presentation this weekend on Wikisource, which may involve teaching how to edit in Page space. Just a heads up, if there are bizarre edits and such, and not to get involved in proofing/validating a work or anything. We may pick a short work to be validated in the given time or maybe pick up on an abandoned index. I'll post which one here if it gets to that. Thank you! - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

A short work considered to edit is The Yellow Wall-Paper, depending on the number of attendees and the nature of the presentation. A nice scan is here, with cover and all (unfortunately at the end of the work). If someone has a chance, could you remove the Google pages, put the cover in the front for me and convert to DjVu? - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll get on that for you folks. Check back here for progress. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done -- see File:The_Yellow_Wall_Paper.djvu. I didn't create an Index: 'cause the whole thing might get proofread before your presentation even starts if I did. Good Luck. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much George. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
No worries... & a "shout-out" would be nice. :) -- George Orwell III (talk)
Shouted :) I also had a chance to talk with a board member who was interested in holding an edit-a-thon for wikisource, I suggested the city because there are a few of us in the area that came to mind. I mentioned you and LJB to maybe be trainers, and I apologize for not consulting either of you beforehand for your interest :) - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Wow, that is a big note. BTW, that missing line, as well as several other errors and the use of ALL CAPS in stead of italics, were all errors in the Gutenberg version that Ijon linked (I hadn't caught the missing line but I checked it following your post); it looks like someone just copy pasted that over from PG in 2006 - basically the version he linked is a prime example of why Wikisource is better for a reliable text. ;-) --Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

OED1[edit]

The first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, actually having the title "A new English dictionary on historical principles : founded mainly on the materials collected by the Philological Society", was published in 12 volumes between 1888 and 1928, with later supplements. Several of these volumes can be found at the Internet Archive, e.g. the last one vol. 10 part 2. Would it be legally okay to import them to Commons and Wikisource? Are they now considered to be in the public domain? And if so, would it be a good idea, or has someone else already proofread the text? --LA2 (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Looks to me like the works published prior to 1923 could be placed on en.ws as they are PD in the US but any of the volumes that Craigie (d. 1957) or Onions (d. 1965) were editors of cannot go on Commons as they are not PD in the UK (and won't be until 2035 in the case of Onions). The Volumes that are post 1923 publication would have to be evaluated separately for US copyright but most likely could not go here (though they could be placed on Wikilivres). This breaks up the work, so it might be preferable to put the whole thing on Wikilivres.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The extra consideration of the copyright law is whether the works were commissioned. If they are commissioned works of the organisation then they just had 50 years from the year of publication, not posthumous. Issue is knowing the contractual arrangements, so look to see who is claiming copyright. Though to stop any fuss on the matter and arguments at Commons, if they are needed, then would say upload them to Wikisource and tag not to be moved. One wonders how many volunteers we would get to edit the work, those sorts of work usually need someone to drive a standard formatting type, and if it has lots of quirky formatting that tends to make things not happen. It would definitely need a project to manage it and someone willing to drive it. If that isn't there, I wouldn't be hurrying to do it. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there any chance that we could get in touch with the OED editors and have their approval, or at least a comment? --LA2 (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think they are much interested in free competition from themselves. I concur with Billinghurst, I wouldn't put the 1923 to 1928 volumes on here until we have a strong claim that the copyright has expired on those volumes. You may want to discuss with Dan O'Huiginn on GitHub who seems to be interested in such a project. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Besides the OED people themselves, I don't know of anyone who has transcribed it. There's at least one person at PGDP who has had it on his to-do list for years, but they're monsters; they have their own phonetic alphabet and ridiculous amounts of text per page. The general opinion was that the copyright on the post-1922 volumes was not something that needed to be worried about; by the time you reached them in the transcription process, they would be out of copyright. The 1928 volumes will be PD in the US in 2024. w:OED cites a now missing page on the OED website for "According to the publishers, it would take a single person 120 years to "key in" text to convert it to machine readable form which consists a total of 59 million words of the OED second edition, 60 years to proofread it, and 540 megabytes to store it electronically." The OED1 is a bit smaller, 12 or 13 volumes instead of 20, so only 30 or 40 million words.
I think it would be incredibly cool to have, but it's not something I'd start without serious consideration.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Help test the new account creation and login[edit]

Hi all,

After many weeks of testing, We (the editor engagement experiments team) are is getting close to enabling redesigns of the account creation and login pages. (There's more background about how we got here and why ‎our blog post.)

Right now are trying to identify any final bugs before we enable new defaults. This is where we really need your help: for now, we don't want to disrupt these critical functions if there are outstanding bugs or mistranslated interface messages. So for about a week, the new designs are opt-in only for testing purposes, and it would be wonderful if you could give them a try. Here's how:

If you have questions about how to test this or why something might be the way it is, I'd definitely check out our step-by-step testing guide and the general documentation.

Many thanks, Steven (WMF) (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Quick heads up that we enabled this today. There is one red link to fix, but I assume someone will notice it who knows whether Wikisource either has an appropriate link to redirect to, or wants to comment it out. Steven (WMF) (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The red link is in Special:UserLogin and goes to Help:Logging in, not sure if we have an appropriate page or not. Does anyone know if we have a good redirect or if we need to create this one? Jeepday (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
If you don't want to create it (even a simple page helps, I think, and you can crib from another wiki if you like), you can always "blank" the message by creating it with a hidden comment as the only content. Steven (WMF) (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I have amended the underlying link to point to meta's equivalent page, which may not be perfect as it takes them off our wiki, though is better than a red link. We probably want to look to some minimal text, and then point them to meta as a better solution, though I hate the idea of having to maintain the text. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I did think about that, however, I did create a simple page that points to meta for the general information, and then through in our 4 general quick links. People can hack away. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Goody Two-Shoes (1881).djvu[edit]

In the scans pages 136 and 137 appear to be transposed. It would be appreciated if this was resolved quickly, as most of the text of the book is complete. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- I wish they were all that easy to fix. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Update- The text for this is now transcribed, but needs proofreading/validation. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Warning on leaving edit page with unsaved changes[edit]

The implementation varies with mw. software updates. I noticed the following combinations of behaviors after updates:

  1. No warning when leaving a page edit view without editing - which is correct (previous versions but didn’t track which).
  2. Warning is not triggered when leaving an edited header or footer - which is incorrect (previous versions but didn’t track which).
  3. Warning is triggered by opening the page in mode and then leaving - current behaviour in the current version (1.22wmf2 (506e233)) - which is incorrect.

Could we/should we, bring these to the attention of the developers for future releases? Thanks. — Ineuw talk 22:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Page warnings are configurable to be on or off in your editing preferences. From my experience it tracks a change of of url {{PAGENAME}} and I am unaware of any recent change. Personally mine is set to off, and I hate that wretched default is on. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the nuisance factor and it’s setting in Preferences\Editing. However, the option was probably added for people like me (but I won’t elaborate). Previously, it was implemented differently. After software update, the implementation is altered and currently it’s incorrect. In this particular case, I check pages validated by others and even when I don’t touch anything it is triggered which is wrong.— Ineuw talk 02:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else lose customised buttons old toolbar?[edit]

Today I have found that my customised buttons situated in the old toolbar are no longer functional/visible. I just get the old unmodified toolbar, very inconvenient. WMF say that they cannot think of things that have changed in the past few hours to break things. So anyone else having issues? When did your's start? — billinghurst sDrewth 00:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I lost them a long while ago and posted about it here several times. In one of the posts (archived), I also mentioned the version number when the failure began. Experimented by removing everything (all code), and then added a single customized button and this worked, but only one. The addition of more caused the disappearance of all. The presence, or the absence of the unrelated code which hides some of the standard buttons did not affect the customization, so re-added them. Please see my common .js. — Ineuw talk 02:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Mine were all there last night when I went to bed, but are not there now. Very much a nuisance. My guess is that someone has played somewhere with the monobook skin. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Same as BWC.--Mpaa (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Ahem, My problem mentioned above was in the Vector skin and the old toolbar.— Ineuw talk 06:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


  • Interesting. The consolidation and elimination of the various "skins" available to Users has slowing been progressing now for more than just the last few WmF releases -- but most negative changes are typically weeded out in testing long before roll-out or are quickly identified & reverted post roll-out, so I don't think the root of the problem will be found there.

    By chance however, I've been deep diving into the .CSS and .JS revisions & developments ranging from some of the more recent WmF releases as well as those from back in the old .svn hub days in an attempt to try and make sense of it all before addressing our own little mess of settings. About a week ago (maybe less), I took the liberty of spitting up our rather stupidly huge single Mediawiki:Common.css file into seamlessly loading sub-sets with the aim of testing & eliminating of some of the more redundant/obsolete crap we still manage to have lying around in there.

    The only real difference now is that Common.css now loads these "sub-sets" ( Mediawiki:Common.css/Tweaks.css, Mediawiki:Common.css/Mainpage.css, Mediawiki:Common.css/Boxes.css, Mediawiki:Common.css/Lists.css ) in addition to anything still being set within Common.css itself. Nearly all the previously defined settings and values were kept on; but everything -- whether reorganized or not -- has been reformatted in the process to provide some resemblance of consistency across all the pages affected. I tested it all & at every stage against the W3 "JigSaw" tool to make sure it wasn't just CSS 2.1 complaint but CSS 3.0 compliant as well. It is possible something I did while making these modifications is only now being exposed for what it is with the latest WmF upgrade being rolled-out on top of it. Please take a look at those files and smack them around around some until they talk to you - I hope nothing comes back to implicate me here. Thanks & let me know asap if "trouble" is indeed found. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Sorry GO3, tried to blame you, but FAIL!. It is a wikilove fix that fouls other things bugzilla:47457#c64; fix is at bugzilla:47872. I am told that they are looking for a fix ASAP, though it may be days. Keyword that I was looking for and couldn't think of was mwCustomEditButtons. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    I had thought as much but my doubts kept creeping along in spite of all the "care" I took in the break-out. I figured better to speak up now and have others put my mind at ease instead. Thanks.

    Some interesting stuff going on in the various bugzillas -- the most important point being...

> The mwCustomEditButtons interface has been deprecated in favor of
> mw.toolbar.addButton, which [was] created especially for the legacy toolbar users
> last year to address the many declined bug reports for mwCustomEditButtons
> which could not be otherwise addressed because mwCustomEditButtons is beyond
> repair, it is a flawed concept and it keeps breaking for many reasons.

In the same "loading order" vein as the custom toolbar buttons now face, I'm wondering how many other preferences and/or gadgets we have in use around here that are only "working" by happenstance rather than by design. I know its probably unpopular to say so but I'm putting out there anyway - the loading and expansion of All editmode tools for WS members is contrary to nearly every other sound practice being observed on the sister sites. As if initially expanding the entire set of tools only to have folks force them closed again [closed is the default every place I checked btw] wasn't potentially problematic enough, it seems like loading only the essential tools via the selected skin will become the new standard some day soon. Folks who want any of the extras (and any overhead & junk that may come with them), would then opt to activate it/them in their individual preferences as needed rather than the current 'all of them on and on all the time' defaults.

Some of the other scripts and gadgets we've had around for good amount of time now probably should be vetted against the current coding environment as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I also lost my buttons. What to do? Without i cannot work! --Aschroet (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Solution — mw.toolbar.addButton
It has obviously escaped our notice previously as this has been addressed and is covered as updated scripts at Wikisource:Tools and scripts/More editing buttons. Rather than show the code here, it is probably more prudent for those who need to code update to copy and paste their requirements from the list on that page. I will be adding more of my more customised components to the list, and would encourage others to add their custom fixes to the list. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That's nice, but it hasn't worked for me. Any other solutions available? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Got it to work now, but I've had to wrap each button in an if statement. No idea why it works. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Possibly because you have it in monobook.js, I long ago moved mine to common.js. You should just be able to wrap it in one all encompassing if statement, rather than one per statement.
  • Anybody know of a domain or sister site that sets WikiEditor as the default for all (annon. & Users)? That would be one way to see if you our your settings are effecting the basics being provided by the wikicode on the servers. I tripped over just such wikimedia site roughly a week to 10 days ago while poking around where I remember I was suprised to see the WikiEditor come up by default . . . but damn if I just didn't spend nearly and hour trying to re-trace my steps in looking for it! Anyone? -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    I am pretty certain that the Wikieditor (so called beta) toolbar is the default. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    It is default ON, new wiki at which to and play at Wm2014: — billinghurst sDrewth 01:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

 NOTE : that changing to this methodology appears to resolve the issue of the buttons not working in headers and footers in the Page: namespace. Please try it and let me know if it doesn't work for you, as I will need to hit the corresponding bugzilla request. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

some days I really want to fly down there and give you a long overdue slap

Obviously a recent patch has chipped away another small nugget of our mountain of accumulated shit and [re]balanced the "load order of things" back across the virtual line that lets that old "focus" problem resolve itself somehow, yada, yada, yada..... embrance & enjoy it while you still can <suckers>.

More importantly, the WikiEditor the rest of the planet seems to be using has finally got their menu overflow/overlap bugs straightened out in that same batch of patches as well - now there really is no excuse not to try moving over and using it some so you won't have to go 'cold turkey' when the current house of cards finally collapses (no-pun intended) & gets removed for good.

My previous still stands, however - we have too much junk standardized, gadgetized, or what-not, loading as part of our so called defaults and nobody has kept up with their routine maint. nor the pace of the now bi-weekly code changes. I bet if we removed the redundant Edit-mode Characters/Tools from the below the edit summary & save button for the ones embedded in the drop-down menus in WikiEditor, that problem would have been resolved weeks ago instead of yesterday. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

[en] Change to wiki account system and account renaming[edit]

Some accounts will soon be renamed due to a technical change that the developer team at Wikimedia are making. More details on Meta.

(Distributed via global message delivery 03:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC). Wrong page? Correct it here.)

To note that this only applies to those who do not have global accounts, which is only one or two. If you are not sure if you have a global account check Special:CentralAuth — billinghurst sDrewth 14:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Which brings to mind a little title/emblem prejudice I have noted. "Global" accounts, pretty limiting if you ask me, also notice that several WMF logos appear in the shape of a globe, even though the claim is that "anyone can edit". What about the other inhabitants of the solar system, the galaxy and the universe? Not to mention cross dimensional and parallel universe entities. Then there are also the souls caught in different astral planes, the list goes on (Limited list; failure to mention does not discount importance). I say it is time to stop the hidden bigotry, the wiki-world is not just one world or one existence, embrace them all! JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Doing interwiki link updating across multiple dimensions is a pain in the ass. Trust me. EVula of Earth Prime // talk // ☯ // 18:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Every link has it’s issues, at least with multiple dimension linking you don’t have to contend with light speed issues. You either have to initiate the link prior to the link be requested (significant timing issues, don’t get me started), or you have to use faster then light communication, and talk about bandwidth issues. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

[en] Change to section edit links[edit]

The default position of the "edit" link in page section headers is going to change soon. The "edit" link will be positioned adjacent to the page header text rather than floating opposite it.

Section edit links will be to the immediate right of section titles, instead of on the far right. If you're an editor of one of the wikis which already implemented this change, nothing will substantially change for you; however, scripts and gadgets depending on the previous implementation of section edit links will have to be adjusted to continue working; however, nothing else should break even if they are not updated in time.

Detailed information and a timeline is available on meta.

Ideas to do this all the way to 2009 at least. It is often difficult to track which of several potential section edit links on the far right is associated with the correct section, and many readers and anonymous or new editors may even be failing to notice section edit links at all, since they read section titles, which are far away from the links.

(Distributed via global message delivery 18:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC). Wrong page? Correct it here.)

Index:The Relations Tolstoy.pdf[edit]

The Relations Tolstoy.pdf

A new contributor has transcribed the Tchertkoff translation of Tolstoy's The Relations of the Sexes, based on a PDF file that is itself merely a print-to-file of a modern transcription. I think this defeats the purpose of transcribing against a source... but I don't want to scare this new contributor away. How should we proceed, please? Hesperian 01:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Obviously the source file should be replaced for one that is made up of actual scans of the original book as first published. Unfortunately, after a quick look, this particular Tolstoy-related work seems to be an "exotic" one and not so easy to find a free on-line equivalent so far. Google Books gives me all the specifics. ...
  • Title: The Relations of the Sexes.
    Transl. by V. Tchertkoff and A.C. Fifield Principally from Private Letters, Diaries, and Unpubl. MSS.
    Volume 20 of Free Age Press ed. of Tolstoy
  • Authors: Lev Nikolaevič Tolstoj, Vladimir Grigor'evič Čertkov, A. C. Fifield
  • Published: 1901

... but no full-view download [USA]. Maybe another region will have full access.

Without a replacement (and strctly in my humble opinion) - the best accommodation I would offer up here (since it seems to be all proofread already) is to subst:itute the existing content into a new stand-alone & non-transcluded mainspace work, delete the Index: and related Pages, delete the incorrectly WS domain uploaded PDF file and explain to the User why all that is being done. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I presume that your subtext is that creating a faux scan of text is of no real value, and we may as well just have the text. Agreed that substituting the text is the way to progress, and remove the index and page ns after that. I don't see a full text version at Google, and presume that Hathi Trust doesn't have it. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I've just looked on Hathi Trust and can't find a copy there. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Can I suggest moving the last item suggested by GO3 to the top? i.e. tell the user what is up first then tell them we'll gladly do that all for them if they don't know how.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Button icons required[edit]

If there are any image button makers out there, it would be great if someone could make some in the same style as Commons:Category:MediaWiki edit toolbar formatting buttons. I would like buttons

Then we can add these to the scripting tools. Thanks if anyone can. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hyphenated word start.svg and Hyphenated word end.svg

Yes check.svg Done — Ineuw talk 03:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ultra Kool, but how do I attach them to my toolbar and get them to function? Add a script? —Maury (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Done it for you. I have also updated Wikisource:Tools and scripts/More editing buttons. Thanks Ineuw, you are a champ. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
You’re most welcome. This, being my first attempt at using Inkscape, didn’t want to promise until I succeeded. But now, I’m on a roll. :-) — Ineuw talk 23:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Ineuw, thanks!  :) --Zyephyrus (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Transclusion of text from within "poem" tags[edit]

I recently found that text labeled within <poem></poem> tags cannot be transcluded. The text that is called simply doesn't appear.

A simple experiment here makes the behavior clear.

To say the least, this is a major practical limitation on the ability to transclude sections of text in Wikisource. Does anyone know if this behavior is intended? Can it be fixed? Is there any way to work around it? Dovi (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you will find the problem to be the placement of section tags within poem tags. If you place the poem tags within the section tags, I bet they transclude just fine. Hesperian 06:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply, and yes that is precisely the problem. If you have a poem or a song within <poem></poem> tags, and need to transclude specific stanzas from it that are labeled with section tags, nothing appears. Why don't section tags work within poem tags? Dovi (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Something to do with tags not being re-entrant in their "<" forms—the same problem as discussed in w:Wikipedia:REFNEST. Therefore it may be possible to solve the problem by replacing the "<poem>Blah</poem>" tags with "{{#tag:poem|Blah}}". Hesperian 07:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Due to the nature and shortcoming of custom <tag>s. I bet that it will work if you use the form ... {{#tag:poem|<section begin="text" />here is my text that I want<section end="text" />}}. Read more about Magic words.

As an aside, same reason why templates inside many <ref> tags don't substitute. Also why I use #tag for my refs, though I do substitute. mw:Extension:Cite is the most problematic tag in that sense. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much to both of you for the suggestion!

I tried it, but things didn't go smoothly and I may be making some silly mistake. Please glance at my example again: "Part Three" and "Part Four" still don't transclude. However, strangely, during one edit "Part Four" did briefly transclude (at least during the preview), but I wasn't able to reproduce the behavior again. Can anyone suggest a fix? Please feel free to edit the example. Dovi (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That looks like a NADA to me. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, thanks anyway. If anyone else has suggestions please let me know. Is it worth filing a bug? Dovi (talk) 05:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I found the bug. It is also mentioned on the page for the LST extension. Please vote for the bug. Dovi (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

button button whose got the buttons ?[edit]

AE, ae, OE, oe, (n-dash but I don't use this), m-dash are missing. I haven't changed anything and only started editing a short while ago for today. What happened? It sure would be nice if we could remove some buttons and replace them with things more often used (like the English pound symbol) -- a personal customized toolbar instead of useless buttons and having to scroll down and look around to get a British pound symbol, etc.. —Maury (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed this one. If anyone else wants intervention, please ask. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
It's still kaput. I think it's the fuse. I must go to bed now. Will B Back asap. "Calling out, "Mayday, Mayday... —Maury (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Fixed it. My not recognising }} against })
I have done this, copied from French wikisource: it works, though I don't understand how  :) --Zyephyrus (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The first part is sets the framework, and the second part is the respective definitions. The syntax omits the individual labels as they are set out in the framework. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Can I please see a link to the code? Thanks.— Ineuw talk 15:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
It's back! I never noticed before but my # button gives me the English pound sign -- something I use often. Thanks fellows!

Ineuw, who are you asking about a link to code?

Thanks again fellows, I figured it would be the fusebox. Americans should have kept the British spellings and the metric system! ££££$ —Maury (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment on the (new) edit link[edit]

The new [edit] link to me is a fraction on the small side. I was wondering on others' opinions. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It is small, but not overly small. I would say it is net improvement. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The previous method was to define .editsection to universally appear far right regardless of the level of the section heading and the word ( [edit] ) itself had font settings in proportion to the particular heading's font size. Obviously they've done away with pushing the term all the way to the right (conflicted with too many settings where topicon or collapsible feature were in play at the same time), but I'm not so sure going with that single font size for all the heading levels was best. Currently, it does seem 1 variant too small to me personally but maybe all it needs is a 1px letter-spacing to make it more obvious while keeping it just as "small"? -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
meta:Change to section edit links suggests that the "mw-editsection" class can be adjusted via Common.css if we want to do so. I have no personal problem with the size of the new edit link, I just keep looking to the right and have a moment of confusion before remembering that it has moved. As a project, it probably isn't that important either way as most content pages don't seem to use sections. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


Moot point as it turns out - there is already a request to merge a change from 'x-small' to 'small' in place. See Here.

It should go from...

[edit]

to...

[edit]

... at some point. The server cached stuff has been mad slow to refresh of late so it might be awhile before we actually see the change. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

New button images added and an old unresolved issue[edit]

I created three new toolbar images Ligature ae.svg, Ligature oe.svg, Degree symbol 2.svg and implemented them in my Common.js. I caution anyone using my functions as they are, because I am using the Vectra skin with the legacy editor toolbar, and the code termination is a bit different from the Wikisource:Tools and scripts/More editing buttons.

The old issue is that toolbar actions still don’t work in the headers and footers whereas some versions ago they did. Should I file a bug report?— Ineuw talk 07:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ineuw, the code is different for the Wikeditor toolbar (described at mw:Manual:Custom edit buttons) which is itself used within Vector skin and I am surprised that you have some functionality. Headers and footers are a separate problem and there is a bugzilla, see via bugzilla4WS. From my reading it will be a won't fix in the current form, but yes as part of other rebuilds requested. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. The fact that it suddenly works is a great surprise for me as well. Complete functionality was restored only in this mw release. With various versions, either nothing worked, or only a single button functioned and when I added more everything died. After reading the above discussions, tried again with nothing to lose, and now all my custom buttons work, albeit the function termination is different. This code style was copied from Inductiveload’s custom toolbar buttons.
As for the header/footer I will wait for the solution whenever it happens. [Ineuw's sigature missing] (—Maury (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Dynamic image sizing unlocked?[edit]

First version; only worked with < IE7 - Disregard

For as long as I can remember, we've been limited to manipulating the following image file parameters to try and get images to display as desired....

[[File:Name|Type|Border|Location|Alignment|Size|link=Link|alt=Alt|Caption]]


Well there is one more parameter that I don't recall being documented anywhere (last one)....

[[File:Name|Type|Border|Location|Alignment|Size|link=Link|alt=Alt|Caption|class=CSS class]]


After playing around some and defining a css class for it, I think I've found a way for images to re-size themselves on-the-fly based on their container's size. See the image in Temp Image Testing for the re-sizng in action as you play with your browser's settings or change the dynamic layout.

All you need to do is slap |class=freedImg at the end of your File: statement to help start testing the feature.

So if you normally type ....


[[File:Amazing Stories April 1926.jpg|center|400px|alt=Cover of Amazing Stories volume 1, issue 1 for April 1936.]]


... to render image files, now you'd type...


[[File:Amazing Stories April 1926.jpg|center|400px|alt=Cover of Amazing Stories volume 1, issue 1 for April 1936.|class=freedImg]]


... instead. Feedback is welcome as this is still in 'beta' testing. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Not working as expected for Firefox, on Layout 2 I have a huge image left aligned that extends way beyond the right margin. Should we really be playing with an article that recently was written up at enWP's Signpost? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
<img class="freedImg thumbborder" width="2627" height="3959" src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/The_Yellow_Wall_Paper_pg_1.jpg" alt="The Yellow Wall Paper"></img>

What about now? I created a new temp test page at Temp Image Testing. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't work for me in Chrome, unless I'm late to the example. I have a (potentially) related question to what you're working with: there are times where I want an image to define the width of a box that also holds text. If you can indulge my preference for a moment and look over my reasoning for using "frameless." I was wondering if there was basically a way to set a table to "frameless" as well; take a look at this page, currently I use breaks so that the cell with text doesn't create a wider border around the image. Defining the box width as 220px wouldn't be good either, cos I like to believe that if the image is too small for someone (or too large, in theory) that they would simply go into their preferences and change the thumbnail size, and I'd want the text below it to reflect their desired image width.
And only marginally related, I think most editors (and in most cases, not all for sure as it pertains to formatting) would like to remove our preference for sizing the images and really are concerned with how it looks for the reader. Would it be possible to set our sites "frameless" parameter to something larger than 220px by default? I mean, most editors don't use frameless because it is small, but I imagine if it defaulted to say, 300px, it might be more attractive for editors to free up the hardcoded image widths. A simple -/+ Image size in the display options could make us one of the best sites for viewing images on any device. - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
You mean like...
[[File:The fall of Ulysses pg 6.jpg|frameless|396px|center|link=|alt=]]
?? -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
No.. I am trying to avoid using a defined width. I like using frameless only with the knowledge that someone can make it larger or smaller by going to their preferences.
It seemed that since you were working with sizing images based on their containers, I was hoping there might be a simple way to size a text cell based on its container. So for the page you edited, the frameless image parameter (default 220px) sets the width of the text box beneath it. Currently, if I were to remove the breaks from the text cell, it would expand the image cells border too; instead, I hope that when removing the breaks the text will wrap by the border set by the image size, which is dynamic from use of frameless. - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Then I don't understand why you are pining your hopes on any table or series of tables acting as a functional container - that has not been my expierence with tables at all. And Users are generally stuck with the default (220px) unless "we" override the defined values of the various divs involved (which was what I thought I was working towards but it seems only IE loads the class= last and the alt= firt in the resulting HTML img tag line). -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for introduce my request amidst your work, what you were trying to do with image width I believe would help me with limiting text width too. Like if you succeed with having an image width span by the container its in, I believe that I could too use something similar to have a text cells wdith limited by some other factor too, essentially limiting it to the width occurring in another cell, an image.
I know most people don't go in and change their thumbnail settings, but that they can has always erred me towards using frameless. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
but text that shrinks and grows with the image is the built-in thumbnail caption! -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
"Ulysses was now ready to begin his literary researches."
The page in question has those green borders which I wanted to include... I know, it's not necessary, but I like how it looked in the book and wanted to reproduce it. I couldn't get them with the use of the thumbnail caption. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

More on unlocking images[edit]

2nd version

After playing around some more and defining a 2nd css class for it, I think I've found a way for images to re-size themselves on-the-fly based on their container's size. See the image in Temp Image Testing for the re-sizng in action as you play with your browser's settings or change the dynamic layout.

No template yet but the raw html pretty much goes like this....

<div class="freedImg" style="  width: 100%;   [or  ### px ] ">
<p   class="freedImg" style="  width:inherit;               ">[[File:The fall of Ulysses pg 48.jpg|link=|alt=]]</p>
<p class="imgCaption" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:1.75em;">{{Lorem ipsum}}</p>
</div>


The width needs to be set to 100% in the first div class="freedImg" line for dynamic resizing to really work. You can still force a fixed px size if you wish.

An example of 33% of the textarea/screen (or 33% of the container[=100%]) follows....

<div class="floatnone"  style="     width:  33%;      margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;">
<div class="freedImg"  style="     width: 100%;     ">
<p   class="freedImg"  style="     width:inherit;   ">[[File:The fall of Ulysses pg 48.jpg|link=|alt=]]</p>
<p class="imgCaption" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:1.75em;">{{Lorem ipsum}}</p>
</div>
</div>

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim. Donec pede justo, fringilla vel, aliquet nec, vulputate eget, arcu. In enim justo, rhoncus ut, imperdiet a, venenatis vitae, justo.

Hope that worked - delete if it screws up the page. No tables or File: settings involved. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

h-h..Hello?      Is there anybody out there?
It appears to work with Chrome, IE8 and IE6. I have not had a chance to test using this myself but it looks like it could be useful in a lot of situations (I have found that "frameless" is usually too small by default and have had trouble picking a useful alternative image size). I don't think this will work when captions need to be overlayed on the image but the current system will be fine for those situations. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for takin' a look. The more feedback - the better (and I don't believe the full 100% setting alone will work on anything lower than IE8). -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it works for me on Chrome and IE8, I can check Firefox tonight. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Both image here and sandbox work in Firefox 20.0 :) When can we expect a template? - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Ignore the IE6 comment. That was a work computer that was running IE6 last time I checked but has apparently been updated since and I just didn't notice (I don't use IE a lot). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't put too much faith in the IE6 comment having to deal with it almost daily, but thanks for checking. I'm already thinking about how best to template-tize this but I'd like more than just the three of us to go on. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I am as ever late to the party. Just adding to the numbers (now 4?), this works for me using Firefox 21.0/Linux. MODCHK (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time figuring out the best approach to template-tize this. On the one hand, it seems best to just apply the container with the 100% setting alone and then have that plug into templates that would apply percentages/positions to that container like in the 33% example above. On the other hand, folks would most likely prefer an all-in-one template too. Then there is the other possibility of making all this a module first and build templates from there. Thoughts? Comments? -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe wrap the template in a 400px container or something; I think that the template can only really be useful in something like Layout 2; otherwise using a 25% or something of the screen width works on a desktop, but would obviously be too small on a tablet. The opposite, a 100% on a tablet would be great, but on a desktop, obviously too large. 400px is somewhat arbitrary, but it at least has some value according the enwp on image formatting for browsability, and it goes along with our layout 2. Just some thoughts... And can we get rid of that damned forced font on layout 2? - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
That is kind of backwards imho - I'd just add a line to the Dynamic Layout to impose a percentage of the full image container if need be rather than having the template perform resizing tricks based on which layout is in effect. Plus your rather large viewscreen is the exception; not the rule - even the extra large malaria poster looks fine here in Layout 1 for example. Its the font size being too small that throws layout 1 off and not so much the lack of margins imo. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I apologize, I may have not understood exactly what you were asking so please forgive any ignorance. As someone who intends to use this, I wanted to give an input. I've made an example in a sandbox with my concerns, and with the point that I was trying to make; that it might not be a bad idea to cap off the 100% width somewhere. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Input appreciated but I'm afraid its skewed by current practices. If the standalone image was created based in proportion with its caption size to its printed text size and the border trim turned into padding or margin instead of cropped, you'd see all this quite differently. Look at your sandbox again to see what I mean. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Still afraid I don't understand. The change you made still shows the same case regardless of trimming and caption, that for a monitor, 100% image width not contained by a layout or table will simply be too much image for a desktop (yet decent for mobile), and that reducing the size to say 33% will simply be too little for a tablet or mobile device (yet decent for a monitor). I suspect neither of us is helping each other out, so for now I withdraw my input. - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll admit to not entirely getting this to work as I envisaged; but if somebody cleverer with CSS than I runs with this... How about applying both max-width (say 600px) and min-width (say 300px) elements along with overflow:auto (this is where I came unstuck in my experiments!) to restrict the dynamic scaling range to reasonable limits for the mainstream device dimensions. Really small screens should clip the image and simply permit it to scroll (this is what I was attempting with overflow, but only with limited success...)?
Here is my best attempt so far: User:MODCHK/Sandbox (uses User:MODCHK/Template/dynamic image) Warning: annoyingly breaks centring…suggestions please! MODCHK (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Impatience has gotten the best of me and I can only hope that neither parties are upset. I've created {{dynamic image}}. It would be nice if we could use {{image}} though. I've left the min-width empty, don't see any need to have a default. The max-width I've currently set at 400px for no real reason outside of an opinion that most images with a portrait orientation can interrupt a great deal of text beyond a 400px width. Feel free to change it. Again, I apologize for any hastiness. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm impressed. That works very well for me, and without the failings of my own flailing attempt!
None of these are serious issues, but may I suggest/ask:
  1. Provision for some kind of clear:left/right control would be useful in situations of stacking floated images?
  2. Control over text-align: for caption? This would reduce the requirement for text-indent, which seems to me to be somewhat at odds with the idea of variable image size: neither fixed values (1.75em), nor percentages cover all the cases well.
  3. I originally suggested min-width as a possible means to prevent the image becoming unusably small on narrow displays, especially as the default image-linking-to-?-linking-to-commons actions is suppressed. If a value were specified, then the enabling of overflow:auto or equivalent might be nice? (Although my experiments to date fail to give a satisfactory result on any of the current containers...)
  4. Use of link= appears to pretty much destroy dynamic resizing, at least the way I've tried it. Is there a way of usefully having both? MODCHK (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll add what I can from your suggestions, they all make sense. I didn't think of the min-width as an issue, but after your response I could see where there would be one. I'd set it rather small, for example some small publishers marks occupy (something like) 20% of a printed page width, so naturally I'd want to match it when compared with the rest. How about if the min-width is set at 10% of whatever the max-width is? I'll make it 40px for now. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Just realised I worded point 3 really badly.. I did not mean the earlier template default of no minimum limit was wrong; I just meant it would be nice if the template user had specified a min-width, that choice might be taken as a trigger for scroll-box handling (and of course the extra research getting that to work... See GOIII's comments below.) Anyway, nothing wrong with what you have done! MODCHK (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
No worries about the template - the whole point after figuring out how to "properly" inherit settings thru containers was to make FreedImg accepted by the community thru some participation other than solely mine. However, I'd make 'Dynamic image' a shorcut to the "real" template code if you're planning on applying it to existing works today - the eventual template name will be 'FreedImg' with 'FI' as the primary shortcut to it fwiw.

I'll try to save you the time of trying to get the core premise here to do things like floating around text and stuff {point 1 above) - most of those things won't fly by manipulating the existing 2 or 3 lines (in the code/pre box far above) of FreedImg; you'd need to place the FreedImg stuff in still another container with the formatting you desire for any chance of getting both the dynamic resizing and the desired functionality to work in harmony together.

For point 2 - the caption line was included more to avoid the inevitable return to the safety of the familiar formatting templates around here (you know, a span within a div when really a paragraph tag handles the same thing) and screwing things up even though to the rendering eye nothing seems out of whack. You can manipulate it however you wish as long as it primarily remains a paragraph tag (please - not another div!).
Not sure about point 3 - I'd have to double check but I seem to recall the min/max thing wasn't universally workable browser wise even when excluding IE 6&7 from the mix. Again, we pretty much need to leave existing 2 or 3 lines of FreedImg as is and concentrate on placing them with some other container for any hope of keeping the dynamic resizing functional. Still, I'll take another look at this specifically when I get some real free time to be sure.
Point 4 is a guaranteed fail. Since there is no way to directly manipulate the IMG tag under the wikicode, trying to customize it through the normal File: parameters makes the whole FreedImg thing unstable if not out-right broken afaict. The only other thing that might be of use here was the class= setting for the File: string. I tried to use that parameter in the section directly above this one btw. Otherwise you can forget about making changes to the File: string & even if there is some nuance that manages to work today it probably won't in the future as more and more of the wikicode attempts to become HTML 5 compliant (please see http://validator.w3.org/ I make it point now to always check everything including this FreedImg stuff against it to be sure). --George Orwell III (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks George, I'll play around a bit with it, but I pale in comparison to your coding even if you were to jump in now without any "real free time" :) I'll move the template to {{FreedImg}}. I know it would require a bot and consensus, but how do you guys feel about one day moving it to {{image}}? - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I really did not expect point 4 to be workable. If anything I thought I might not have been doing something really obvious to you guys. And FWIW choosing a final resting place of {{image}} has got my vote. The current redirection to {{missing image}} seems to me to be a bit.. inscrutable. MODCHK (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Its not that point 4 can't be workable someday as it is more that I'd rather avoid doing so for the time being because it adds the <a href=....> container around the <img> portions and I can't entirely account for that tag's current behavior because I haven't [re]researched its properties under HTML5 just yet. The fact that the wikicode manipulates the <img> tag by default is only a secondary irritation to getting it to work (I hope).

Note that I've made some changes to the preliminary FreedImg template - forcing center rather than letting the omission of left or right to produce centering is highly problematic down the road was paramount there. I also tweaked some of the parameter naming and changed the doc accordingly - please review/refine it. I left margin-left/right undocumented on purpose re: the same letting the default intuitively become centered on its own rather than [re]directing or forcing it. Folks shouldn't need to mess with that just yet anyway so lets leave it undocumented.

As for usurping the 'Image' template name - rather not as doing so (a.) ridiculously presumptuous of us to think such a "standard "should or could be wisely usurped; and (b.) is in use by some of the sister sites as it is & however that may be; a unique name just avoids possible overlap imho. Either way, if we want to easily rename the template later, always using the FI shorctut now guarantees that option for us, bot or not. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Just quickly cos I'm turning in for the night soon, the width parameter seems to be not working. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Actually, I don't know if the width works when previewing. Maybe it's just my eyes... - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Well I can't check that just on your say so - do you have a sandbox or an example in use that I can verify/play-with? Don't mean to be d!ck here; its just hard to work to fix something I didn't entirely create - you added min & max width for example & I didn't test for that just because the absolutely simple settings weren't fully vetted yet! -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Settle down guys. Width works fine if max-width is omitted. An over-larger min-width will unsurprisingly tend to swamp the effect of the other two. The three parameters probably should never be specified at once―and likely not very portably at all. We are still exploring possibilities. A little broken glass on the floor is only to be expected. MODCHK (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Check this out: test
You'll see that the percentage width of the title page image is not active unless it is limited by some other container. The top is "free," the bottom in a 400px table, you can see that the 80% width I've placed on the title page image isn't working in the top, but is in the bottom. - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
And now??? You sure all those templates imposing auto div line spacing, div centering and anything I might be missing being used the page didn't affect FreedImg? As soon as closed the "centering" template before the title page image and reopen it afterwards the 10-little piggies line-drawing returned to 75% of the entire width in the Sandbox for example. Is that what you meant to be as broken? -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
That is, thanks George.
I think we should a default value for widths set to something, rather than have to enter a max-width / min-width everytime. I'd say a good majority of illustrations tend to be portrait oriented that span a printed page width. This value needs to be set at something; I looked at your sandbox MODCHK and an issue I could see. Imagine you start with an image width set at 40% as the portrait, and you want to set something to a quarter width in relation to that as it appears in the printed book. You now have two transcluded images set respectively to 40% and 10%. Since the scale has been reduced, they can quickly both get sent to the min-width on a portable device or tablet. I think keeping the largest range after defaulting to a max-min-width in the template allows for better consistency, better range of images on a variety of devices, and more control if we as a community decide to change default values.
I don't really mind what the max-width / min-width values are (just not too extreme!) but I think they should be set at something. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Did I go over the top in removing the defaults for max-width & min-width from {{FI}}? I thought this approach might be best at least for early testing, so the various effects may be isolated, but I'm certainly not opposed to putting them back.
Regarding image proportion relationships, is this the sort of thing you mean? I must admit I was surprised at how well-behaved it seems to be―I was expecting the two images would have to be encapsulated in a common container, thus breaking use of the template. However, it seems to work for me at least (i.e. both images resize in proportion to one another (really ∝ page width―but at least to a common factor‥) MODCHK (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
My opinion comes from the idea that though printed page widths vary, if we default the width to some value, we can help standardize and simplify the entire process. For example, if you look at this transclusion you'll see that the images using the current {{fi}} are entirely too large. What I was working on is that the illustration at the top is 100% of the books printed page width in portrait orientation. The title page illustration with all the piggies spans (from my eyes) roughly 80% of the books printed page width. For ease of sizing and relations between images in a given book, I would like to use 100% and 80% between the two, as opposed to having to constantly do math. Without a default width, it would be up to me to choose the width per image or per book, which kind of sucks. Or, I'd have to do what you've done in your sandbox, which is consider a full page image width in portrait to be some percentage from the full 100% (not in a container) and then settle on something like 40%. Next, I'd have to think "what is 80% of 40%?" in order to make the title page image 80% of whatever I've set the illustration preceding it to be so that they size and resize proportionally to how they appear in print.
So, some people might choose to proportion images in a given print by using max-widths or by doing percentages of percentages. This seems like a hassle in the long run between editors and potential styles of handling image sizing. Just some thoughts; I don't want to push a particular width but 400px seems to be a good middle of the road thing. And of course, defaulting to a width makes it easy for the 90% of the image sizing, and the special cases for sizing that will arise can change their default max-widths. So there is only extra work when not setting a default. - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
@Theornamentalist: You make a good argument. The shame of this is that the three of us represent varying extremes of views (I am deliberately being hyperbolic to make the point: Doesn't anybody else have an opinion?), which doesn't help when determining choices.
Not all proofreaders will be thinking about the final presentation, so {{FI}} might not always be the best choice, at least initially. Perhaps in practice it may be only used when reworking a transclusion―post-proofing?
I expect that (like yourself?) a default max-width of about 400px is a pretty sound compromise. MODCHK (talk)
For now I've changed it to the previous defaults; odd thing though; some of the percentage widths don't seem to be forced until after changing my browser size. For example, the cover image set at 100% compared to the frontispiece, set at 80%, are identical in size until shrinking my browser to 400px, seen here. After it's shrunk, they begin to obey the set percentages.. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC) here's] a better example.

┌───────────────────────┘
 Unfortunately, the premise here was to do away with any of the previous limitations being imposed on image [re]sizing first and worry about how or if it behaves for the various User applications as they come afterward. We can't "unleash" something on the one hand and hope to limit it on the other - that just doesn't make sense and probably why max & min width parameters within the current scheme won't fly. This doesn't mean it can't be done somehow - only that the approach of directly adding those parameters to what is now a template is not the way to do it. What happens if we add another container?

<div style="min-width:34px; max-width:394px; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;">
<div class="floatnone" style="     width: 100%;      margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;">
<div class="freedImg"  style="     width: 100%;     ">
<p   class="freedImg"  style="     width:inherit;   ">[[File:The fall of Ulysses pg 48.jpg|link=|alt=]]</p>
<p class="imgCaption" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:1.75em;">{{Lorem ipsum}}</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim. Donec pede justo, fringilla vel, aliquet nec, vulputate eget, arcu. In enim justo, rhoncus ut, imperdiet a, venenatis vitae, justo.

Seems to work the same as if we tweaked the Primary DIV Container. If this way pans out to work for everyone all we need to do to keep things pure is create a template that adds this container while calling the FreedImg template to produce the same results.

The alternative solution to directly meddling with the FreedImg parameters is to add min & max somewhere in the CSS and see if that works. I'd rather not mess with the CSS if at possible however. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Very cool, I was working on something in userspace but your idea is not surprisingly more elegant. My concern came from the transclusion, and even worsened after you removed the min-width and max-width. I don't want to be doing percentages of percentages so that the images aren't too large; ideally I'd like to wrap the image in a max-width container like you've shown above with the premise that such a "max-width" does exist for decent functionality of the transclusions. I'm gonna create a draft subpage of {{FI}} with the container you've made above to play around with at Red Riding Hood. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Impo'tant!!!
If your browser has anything like an "enable Automatic Image Resizing" setting or settings, please make sure to disable them while you test anything related to the FreedImg initiative being introduced/discussed in this section. It will greatly reduce the chances of 'false' positives but don't forget to renable it when your done (or not). -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

More buttons for edit custom toolbar[edit]

I’ve uploaded additional extended Latin character buttons which may be of interest to Wikisource users:

Ansi 0163.svgAnsi 0198.svgAnsi 0228.svgAnsi 0232.svgAnsi 0233.svgAnsi 0235.svgAnsi 0239.svgAnsi 0241.svgAnsi 0246.svgAnsi 0252.svg

I also offer my services to provide other custom character buttons at a special very low introductory price. :-) — Ineuw talk 15:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

fyi... it seems you can "steal" all the buttons you want from the Special Characters menu in WikiEditor. You'd just need to paint? them Vector Tab blue (like the above) afterward.
I wish somebody was up on modifying WikiEditor instead of finding limited new ways of preserving the past; it would make the entire bottom edit menu & gadget thing-ys redundant for example. -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I would like one of each please and Master-charge it to George Orwell III. I see ae AE oe OE in text at the top and I have one that shows as the number symbol # that produces my beloved English Pound symbol £ that I encounter often. I don't need the # button but it connects to the £ symbol. Why cannot these be color coded? There is a large yellow Trumpet that I never use as well as several other symbols I dislike and never use. Having the correct symbols is an advantage. Those buttons George mentions could be placed at the top, or some of them, instead of buttons we do not use. Useless to me for years are the symbol for square root Insert formula here, Embedded file, Horizontal Line, Red circle around letter W (ignore wiki formatting) and n-dash, and signature with time stamp , and [poem], and [br/] where useful buttons could be placed. —Maury (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Your redcoat Pound button should be straightened out by now but thats not what I'm talking about when I mention "WikiEditor". To see WikiEditor, visit WikiMania 2014 page, click edit like you normally would and give it a few to load - once it does, you should get the WikiEditor interface. I've had it on for a few days now and it actually learned to load just as fast as the button-o-rama thing ever did for me. It depends upon an internal resource loader rather than the java[script] installed with your operating system that the current toolbar needs to work. Still has its bugs and nobody seems to know how to easily customize it --- but I've seen ones that were and they look & work just as good as the old button bars ever did for me. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
GO3, I agree. Until there is a true user customizable toolbar available, all these attempts are just patch jobs. I also forgot that my setup is different from the standard Vector skin/Vector editor setup which allows me to use the above buttons. These characters (+ a few more that I didn’t upload) are based on the PSM project which uses these extended characters extensively - and little else. That’s why I made the above collection.
Also, I am teaching myself the basics of Inkscape, because of the need for occasional diversion from proofreading, and because haven’t had any luck in finding additional employment in the PDF split and merge & upload industry. — Ineuw talk 19:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Missing authors[edit]

I don't know if people will find this useful, or if it's redundant with some other mechanism I don't know about, but I have created Category:Works with non-existent author pages to help locate red-linked author pages from headers. It is based on this edit to the header template, which places texts in that hidden category if the author page being linked to does note exist. There are nearly 800 of these, mostly some combination of truly missing authors, "authors" which probably do not merit links, or variant spellings/phrasings of existing author pages. It's worth perusing. Dominic (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, it's still actively populating. I just noticed it is over 2000 now. Dominic (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
In the case that we can't find information on the author, is there a preference to leave it redlinked or to use override_author= ? - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Leave them red. I am pretty good at finding Aus & UK 19thC and early 20thC authors; and reasonable for US authors of the same period. If anyone needs a hand, I have yet to refuse a reasonable offer. To also note that the VIAF search tool is helpful, though can need you to manually invert names. Also Phe prepared a script to check and pull available data from enWP (needs sane use), and you can get that from my common.js file. —unsigned comment by Billinghurst (talk) .
The category approach based on an {{#ifexist}} within the header template is going to be problematic. Basically the category populates as {{header}} changes, they are removed from the category when the individual files are updated, not due to the redlinks being converted to active links. There is benefit in the condition as it has shown up a whole lot of misapplied headers parameters, but isn't really going to solve the redlinks. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

What to do about employee authors?[edit]

While having a thump at reducing this list of missing author pages, it highlights a bit of a conundrum with regard to press releases, and works of primarily corporate authorship. On pages like E-3 damaged while landing at Nellis the page has been prepared by an employee of the defence force, as part of their duties, and the article in itself is not a view/opinion of the author. We can try to look to maintain author pages for people for whom we may not get any data, or we can look to a different approach. I am thinking and would like to propose that we can just list these in the portal namespace noting the author's name, and use override_author parameter to nullify the author's wikilink. None of this would later prevent an author page being created if there were more works, or the person became 'notable' for other works. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That works for me, though I think I would redirect the author page to the portal, and include the rationale. Jeepday (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Though our rules say that we don't do cross namespace redirects. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, forgot about that. Soft redirect, maybe? (probably not). Does not seem like a big enough issue to be making rule changes, so barring some other idea, your solution seems best. Jeepday (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Highlights[edit]

The "highlights" box on the main page doesn't contain highlights at all; it merely gestures at our scope. I would like us to start using that box for genuine highlights. But first we have to figure out what our highlights are.

For example,

and so on. But these examples are made up; we haven't actually achieved any of these.

So... what are our biggest, boldest, most significant achievements? What should we be proud of? What should be we celebrating on our front page? I'm thinking bold projects of epic scope and great significance, completed to a very high quality.

Hesperian 08:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The DNB bullet point is valid, I think. I'm not sure about the state of the PSM project but some variation on it could work, eg. "The first X years of Popular Science Monthly". The classics don't appear to be very popular here (they are a lot of work for little gain as they are already widely available, so not a very fulfilling activity to pursue). I'm not sure if it's what you want but our translations of Catullus seem to get some attention online. Otherwise, I can't think of any complete "epic scope" stuff at the moment. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Oi! We do have all 63 vols of DNB, + all three vols of 1901 supplement completed. Sure not all yet validated; that said, I get your point. I care not about Dickens, nor Shakespeare, nor Byron, ... the pig swill iggorant that I am; though I still get your point. I have proofread poetry, but not read any of it; but I see your point. There are many reasons to be here, sometimes it is not the features, but the benefits. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Can we randomize things deemed by the community as highlights? So that quality and complete high brow works can be mixed with pig swill... Yeah, it is another thing to keep track of for us, but I think that's what we're getting at anyway. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
For example, Author:Florence Earle Coates to me is worthy of highlighting; I think LJB has cataloged all her works. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Rotating components through is definitely possible, the pun on my user page does that daily; so does {{active projects}}; and it is one of the things that we do during validation month with texts Wikisource:Proofread of the Month/Coding. The biggest issue that I have found is ensuring standard formatting and sizes. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Chrome shortcut manager[edit]

I searched talks and I didn't find any mention about Chrome Shortcut Manager. If you are using currently Chrome browser, and you are not afraid about some javascript, you'll love it: you can link keyboard shotcuts for any existing or new js script, and you can import or export them to share them with other users. I use it too as a fast and simple tool to test new scripts. --Alex brollo (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I would think that such information could be added to Wikisource:Tools and scripts — billinghurst sDrewth 00:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Please open a thread there - presently I'm unfamiliar with en.source and its style rules; then I'll be happy to share some scripts if any of you is interested. --Alex brollo (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't use Chrome at WS, not sure what the manager is about, so it isn't something for which I will be starting a thread. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
This is precisely why I posted only here a brief mention of such tool. I'll not mention it any more but someone is interested about. :-) --Alex brollo (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Some Score issues[edit]

I've encountered some problems with Score and I don't think I'm the only one. I've already mentioned this on Extension:Score but it's worth repeating it here in case anyone has similar problems or can think of a solution. Complicated or just long pieces of music appearing to be hitting an error. Initially I thought I might be doing something wrong but now I think it's software related.

I started Index:National Anthems of the Allies.djvu as a way to learn Lilypond notation (it was a short work with a few different pieces, so I thought it would work well). However, pretty much every page I've tried hits an error message eventually. For example, Page:National Anthems of the Allies.djvu/16 shows this error (in other pages I have commented out the error-causing elements). However, at a wikimeet over the weekend I talked with someone who has a non-Wikimedia wiki with the score extension enabled and found out that the same code, when copied and pasted over, worked properly: WikiTranslate. I've tried the code in a sandbox on Wikipedia and I get the error again. Therefore I think the problem is not necessarily with Score itself but with Wikimedia's handling of Score; possibly some incompatibility or maybe WM is capping the extension's resources in some way.

I have mentioned this on the extension page, as I said above, but I haven't filed a bugzilla bug report yet. I want to see what's happening with other people first. Has anyone else had the same, or similar, problems? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

NB: I anticipate another problem but haven't got far enough to actually test it: I can't see a way for the extension to continue over pages. This is not a big problem but it will cause a discontinuity (the extension breaks and wraps bars automatically, so multi-page pieces are likely to awkwardly and obviously break at the end of each transcluded page) and it will prevent complete midi/ogg generation (again, just a page at a time). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm having the same issue with scores in Index:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians vol 1.djvu. A straightforward snippet of a few bars is fine, but once there are more than 2 staves or more than 3 systems or several instances of split voices or lyrics or a figured bass line the parser seems to choke.

wrt to the multi-page issue I don't know how transclusion is going to work yet (as I've hit the same barrier as Adam) but I wonder if the midi/ogg generation issue would be best solved by uploading to Commons as a file and transcluding from there. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

BUGZILLA them. Adding comments to the extension talk page is going go next to nowhere. The only means to get some action is to bugzilla these pieces. If the examples are long, then add them to the talk page and link to them from bugzilla. Have you tried it without Vorbis turned on? I am presuming that it is some part of the Timed Media Handler extension. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I haven't even tried to apply vorbis to these scores yet. I'll file a bug report later today (I need to find my bugzilla log in details, which are not at my current location). I was hoping there was something I missed or was doing wrong after all but it doesn't look like it. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
There are a number of issues already reported, feel free to check the list of open Score bugs. If the specific problem that you face is reproducible, it would be great if you could send the software bug to Bugzilla by following the instructions How to report a bug. This is to make developers of the software aware of the issue. If you have done so, please paste the number of the bug report (or the link) here, so others can also inform themselves about the bug's status. Thanks in advance! --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
bugzilla:48465 reported. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
After re-reading the other bugs, bugzilla:47534 might be the same thing (although the description is slightly different). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Page numbers for works with no scans[edit]

I was wondering what the best practice is for including page numbers in works with no scans (for example, if I were to want to add Todd v. Thompson). The page numbers are valuable, but it doesn't seem like it would make much sense to use the Page namespace if there aren't any scans. Is there an existing template to emulate the auto-generated page numbers, or would it be worth creating one? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I like the variation of {{page break}} that was set up. {{page break|121|left}}, though it does require that one use <div class="indented-text">. And from memory I believe that the anchors are also there for direct linking. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Ooh, thank you! This is exactly the sort of template I was looking for. Unfortunately, it would appear that the anchors were removed from the template a few years ago. Perhaps I'll look into why that happened—they would be nice to have. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Examples of big jpg-indexes with content?[edit]

I have some problems with the view of index-pages built by many jpg-files on svws. I am now looking if the same problem is found in other projects. Do you have any examples of large indexes made by many jpg/png-files, where the pages has content? -- Lavallen (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we have many indexes based on images alone. Even where they do exist, they are usually only 1-2 pages long. I tried searching for an index that matches your requriements but couldn't find anything. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
How about this? - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The pages on svws I have problems with, have 700-1000 pages. I have seen a jpg-index here with 2000+ pages but the pages had no content. I guess it's the rendering af the matrix of colors that gives a hiccup in the javascript. But I cannot verify if it is limited to svws or if it can be found on other projects. It was when the computer installed IE10, that the problems came. -- Lavallen (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Second eyes requested[edit]

This was a recent US ruling I transcribed. Index:11-796_c07d.pdf I'd appreciate some second eyes and category assistance. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

{{brace2}} and math tag rendering[edit]

MediaWiki has multiple ways of rendering TeX math markup, which is used by {{brace2}} to make nice looking squiggly braces in used in early modern table typesetting. In this use-case, the behavior of these different rendering methods produces different output. Rendering it as PNG produces the expected output for the input described in the template's documentation (one unit per table row). Rendering it with MathJax makes it much smaller (about 1/3 expected size). Dunno if there's anything we can do about this and it doesn't seem like this is a known issue. Prosody (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact it clearly states experimental right next to the option in User preferences to enable MathJax in the first place - a quick look pretty clearly showed that when MJ is applying whatever that stuff was zooming by in the bottom left corner of my screen, is forcing a change in the .css line-height setting upon submit (looked like a 0.3 difference before vs. after - just can't tell if the value went from 1.5 down to 1.2 or went from 1.2 up to 1.5. Either way - MJ is caluclating one value and rendering with the other .. apparently & imho, that is.

Good luck. :| George Orwell III (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC).... should have been a bit more clear

It is the direct containing element that seemed to get 'reset' - not anything with a TeX or IMG class or id. I'd try forcing that container & it's line-height value so there is less of a chance for deviation (just remember - anything sitting by itself on a single line in the edit box jets the paragraph tags slapped on it unless its already somehow part of another block in the document tree (a div & its display:block; span with display:inline-block; and the like - though you mentioned tables earlier and a table-cell should wrap it just as well as anything else. now apply that said it with a straight face 'Good Luck' from before. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Tech newsletter: Subscribe to receive the next editions[edit]

Latest Tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes.
Recent software changes
(Not all changes will affect you.)
Future software changes
  • The next version of MediaWiki (version 1.22/wmf5) will be added to Wikimedia sites starting on May 27. [15]
  • An updated version of Notifications, with new features and fewer bugs, will be added to the English Wikipedia on May 23. [16]
  • The final version of the "single user login" (which allows people to use the same username on different Wikimedia wikis) is moved to August 2013. The software will automatically rename some usernames. [17]
  • A new discussion system for MediaWiki, called "Flow", is under development. Wikimedia designers need your help to inform other users, test the prototype and discuss the interface. [18].
  • The Wikimedia Foundation is hiring people to act as links between software developers and users for VisualEditor. [19]
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Unsubscribe • 20:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Important note: This is the first edition of the Tech News weekly summaries, which help you monitor recent software changes likely to impact you and your fellow Wikimedians.

If you want to continue to receive the next issues every week, please subscribe to the newsletter. You can subscribe your personal talk page and a community page like this one. The newsletter can be translated into your language.

You can also become a tech ambassador, help us write the next newsletter and tell us what to improve. Your feedback is greatly appreciated. guillom 20:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


Clear, concise and useful info all in one. Symbol support vote.svg Support subscription as part of WS:S. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done We'll receive it here every week.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I want my available screen space back[edit]

How does one get excluded from the faux Edit Notice system? You know the one telling me... This page should include a process header template along the top of this section as I type....

OK - here's your header....


Scriptorium


Yes check.svg Done
why won't it release me screen :( arrrrggggg..


Thanks for any insight on this - I don't think its the "real" Notice System system - apparently, I'm a new visitor everytime I edit when a filter shuld be detecting me as N/A (not applicable) by now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

mw:Help:Edit notice. I don't believe that it is collapsible or dismissible, though someone, somewhere may have a clever means to achieve that. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I've read up on all that already. Figuring to exclude at least the sysop group - I tried to apply that as per the documented filtering. Only then did I realize its nothing more than a forced banner with no brains behind it being applied. Somebody familar with the system should be able to tell us what is missing and then "filtering" is much like detecting what namespace a work happens to be in, then, depending on that - do A (or if not) - do B in templates. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
... and it case it matters, I haven't found any evidence of it being acknowledged let alone preventing the no header abuse filter tag from being applied either. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright tags for presidential debate transcripts, among other things[edit]

I noticed that there's a lot of presidential debates transcribed here without a proper copyright tag. As far as I can tell from case law, speech is not copyrightable unless it is from prepared remarks, so I've just been applying {{PD-ineligible}} to them all. But I think that live debates and interviews deserve a special tag explaining the situation. I'd appreciate any input, seeing as IANAL, and not a particularly good template-maker either. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right about unprepared speech generally being exempt from copyright protections, but Presidential debates might not fall under "unprepared" in the expected sense. Not that I can point to anything specific or in writing that says as much to "prove" any of what is to follow but, fwiw, my personal notes on this to date pretty much goes like this....

The modern era Presidential debate(s) (and in most cases - any primary debate(s) leading to the Presidential ones) are run (or hosted?, maybe sanctioned?) by a special debate commission per a series of agreements secured from both among the more well-established & formally recognized political parties & the respective candidates at the time that hope to participate in such debates. These agreements can be negotiated long before the start of any given "election season" but are frequently re-visited & refined during the process of securing a party nominee (which typically includes those inter-party 'primary' debates), as it whittles down the number of possible Presidential debate participants over time. Once the Presidential debate participants materialize for sure, a final (and rather specific) agreement is made between the debate commission, the political parties affected and, of course, the candidates who will be participating. This "final" agreement covers everything from the proverbial coin flips to see who goes first and for what or when, all the way up to the debate topics that may, may not and/or won't be addressed along with many other similar "nuances".

The possible problem re: copyright lies within these supposed negotiated agreements. Apparently, the debate commission is typically "given" the rights to any of the content generated during a debate by all the concerned. The political parties in turn look to the Debate Commission to "authenticate" as well as "provide" that debate content freely and equally for at least that campaign season (if not beyond) as needed. The candidates are also believed to mutually waive any claim to content, etc. regardless of whoever wins for the benefit of the expected Presidential Library's archives after that person has left office. So while the debate content may seem to be made available (online) by the Debate Commission to the public at large and is frequently re-produced by the press, etc. there is no concrete statement by the Debate Commission saying the content is in fact PD or OK for re-use per CC 3.0 (that I know of). The opposite seems to be true (all rights reserved) and all tangent inquiries to anybody even remotely credible as an authority on any of this pretty much believes the way I do: any content generated in one of these debates, be they prepared or otherwise, was assigned away by the candidates, etc. via an operation of law (final agreement = a legally binding contract) prior to the debate, the Debate Commission is indeed likely to be the "lawful" copyright holder unless negotiated otherwise in that "final agreement" and the content won't technically fall into the PD (in a manner that WikiSource can [re]use) until the establishment of the President-in-question's, NARA affiliated Presidential Library takes place some time after that person has left office.

So while I can't point to any specific source to back this up as worded nor in full, I've come across enough supporting evidence to make me believe the possibility is indeed valid. The lack of any specific & supportable replies by the Commission, the RNC, the DNC and similar to date only makes me more concerned that the Commission is indeed the "technical" rights holder in these narrow election debate cases. The fact they don't seem to profit any by reproducing or packaging the debate content only means they are staying within the tax laws they must operate under while bolstering their credibility, etc. in the process - it is not evidence contrary to the idea of the Commission being the legitimate copyright holder.

In conclusion, I've always gone by the rule that [Presidential] debate material is the exception to the unprepared speech rule thanks to the role the pre-debate agreements may (or may not?) play in them and most likely not PD' until at least the winning candidate (the President) has his or her own Presidential Library setup by & affiliated with our National Archives after they've left public office for good (and the percentages for PD go up in my view when such persons are no longer among the living as well). To the best of my knowledge, and without any additional support/dissent being provided by the so-called experts or by any of the parties involved to verify, only inspecting such agreements on a case by case basis by the WS community would put this inclusion or exclusion matter to rest for sure (well, at least in my humble opinion it would). -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

But can otherwise uncopyrightable material be magically made copyrightable by agreement or contract between two private parties? I don't see how any contract can override the requirement that content be "fixed in a tangible medium of expression", as the Copyright Act puts it. At any rate, we have Presidential Libraries up until Bush Number Two, so anything up until then should be uncontroversial. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Since all of the concerned in this particular situation are not interested in exercising any of the profit motive type of rights here but primarily the protection from possible future infringement and exclusivity of distribution type of copyright rights - it boils down to your word against theirs about what exactly was fixed in a tangible medium, by who and when. Plus they have an agreement of some sort signed by the major concerned parties before the supposed first fixation - all you have is the incredible assumption that every question, answer and/or statement made during such debates were mentally created and orally delievered on the spot for the very first time ever. Not very convincing imo.

The case law that I've read pretty much makes this a work for hire-ish type of copyright scenario - though no monies were paid to create/participate/perform the content (the debate). The agreement secured prior to the actual content "creation" only means some content was expected and no matter what that content wound up being in reality, the actual creator(s) of the content had already agreed to waive / share the rights to it via some agreement. In these narrowly defined debate cases, the transcription can be construed as a derivative rather than any first fixation - which is also fairly outdated premise in the paperless digital age. Basically, copyright is secured upon creation and not so much the first fixation in some medium any more- the trick is to have registered the work before somebody tries to infinge upon it. Of course only the copyright regulations can dictate what is and what is not acceptable re: medium if any one in this situation has bothered to it take it that far that is. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

My draft for this template may be found at User:Phillipedison1891/Sandbox/PD-transcript Phillipedison1891 (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Ahem... if a work becomes part or property of the National Archives and Records Administration per the Presidential Records Act & similar statutes (or even by private agreement/donation) - it should be tagged PD-USGov not whatever this new license may or may not be. A federal worker just happens to be the one securing the transfer of that copyright to the Federal government per some pre-established operation of law either way (just as good as if he/she created it during the course of their official duties). -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't favour a licence PD-transcript. We have tried to keep it as simple as possible, and PD-ineligible covers the criteria where it is applicable for a transcript. If the licence text in the latter tag is insufficient, then I would favour a review of the words to ensure that it suitably covers the topic matter; and/or further explanation at Help:Copyright tags to elucidate on the matter. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how anything has changed - the specific debates in question were not exactly spur-of-the-moment or unrehearsed exchanges but planned for well ahead of the actual event, mock debated during the run-up and coordinated/sponsored via the agreements with the third party specialized committee & political parties (i.e. these particular series of debates can hardly be considered unprepared speech).

Agree on the point about not really needing another banner that amounts to the same rationale as the existing PD-ineligible one however. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, this discussion on the English Wikipedia seems to indicate that just because something is in NARA collections, doesn't mean it's necessarily in the public domain. (Has to be created by a government employee) Can someone show conclusively that presidential debates of past presidents are committed to the PD? If not, should we use my previous rationale? Should we burn them with fire? Phillipedison1891 (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not familiar enough with the relevant copyright laws. However, looking at NARA's website, ARC #59652 (ie. one of the 1984 Reagan-Mondale debates) states, under Use Restrictions, "Restricted - Possibly | Public Law 101-246 | Issued February 6, 1990, this law provides for the domestic release and distribution of USIA motion pictures, films, videotapes, and other materials 12 years after initial dissemination overseas, or, if not disseminated, 12 years from the preparation of the material."
The "Restricted - Possibly" element apparently means that it is not automatically PD-USGov (which would be "Unrestricted"). The rest, however, implies a 12-year copyright term, which may actually require a new licence template after all. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Note that the record you have linked to is a video of the debate, not a transcript. Additionally, the "Public Law 101-246" cited has nothing to do with copyright, it just mandates that the content be released to the Archives after 12 years. Which seems to me to imply that the "Restricted - Possibly" means that the content is/was "Classified" (meaning it is a crime to leak it out, highly unlikely for this material) or "For Official Use Only" (means that, as a federal employee, you can get fired for releasing it, but it's not a crime). Neither provide any impediment to inclusion on Wikisource, provided the content has already been made public, which it has. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The stuff donated by a President to his Library is PD because the Library is $etup in conjunction with NARA (a Federal agency that only holds the stuff (~20 years) covered by the Presidential Records Act then that goes public as well). That former President dies and all bets are off except of course the truly classified national security stuff. All that other jazz on Wikipedia had nothing to do with Presidents. The regulations concerning the Records Act were returned to the Reagan "standards" by Obama in 2009 so the 1990 restriction was legit at the time - too bad its no longer in effect. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Index:The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha.djvu[edit]

Where are the subsequent volumes? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Holy crap. I knew work was being done, but I didn't expect it to be so fast. I can upload the other two later tonight. - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Here you go: Volume 2, Volume 3. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
VOlume 3 has missing pages :( , Can you confirm this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Music-Hall Selection...[edit]

Hi, it would be appreciated if the knowledgeable people here would be able to assist in suggesting poems and items that could be used to re-construct a music hall like revue. I'd be really interested in developing this is as an offshoot project assuming there is material available?

Inspired by a poem I found, which I found myself trying to figure out how it might be sung!ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Natural History Museum transcription project[edit]

Hi all

I'm working on something with the Natural History Museum in London where I am currently the Wikimedian in Residence.

The museum is scanning huge drawers full of species at very high resolution and I want to set up a transcription project for the labels, I'm thinking there are 2 options. I'd like to know, is there an automatic way of transferring pages of a transcribed pdf from wikisource to commons as seperate files? Also is it possible to add custom fields to a page or a document as a whole? The other option is to upload them straight to commons and use hidden categories to for unread proofread and validated. As far as i know this would be first citizen science project on a Wikimedia project.

Any advice would be appreciated

Many thanks

--Mrjohncummings (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

@Mrjohncummings Sounds like some fun you have got yourself into there. It is post pumpkin hour, so I am probably a bit slow, however, I am not catching the gist of your example of work, or what you are looking to do. Generally for works that are out of copyright, and in the public domain we put the scans at Commons, only hosting scans here where they are not in the public domain in their home country, so cannot be at Commons. Are you talking specimen images alone, or specimen and text? How many pages are we talking to the PDFs? I would think that it would be worth getting the opinion of Dominic (talk • contribs) as he did Wikimedian in residence at NARA and has plenty of experience in the field. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Index:History of the Anti corn law league.pdf Text complete[edit]

Any one want to play hunt the hyphen? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
It need's red (Non-proofread) pages turning into green (validated ones). I've spent a while cleaning up the OCR, but I don't

trust my ability to spot every typographical or ocr error. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

GLAM query[edit]

Hi, I'm Wikimedia UK's GLAM organiser, (that's Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums in the real world) and I've had a query from one of our potential GLAM partners. Would we be willing to accept a publication of a museum's digital catalogue? That would include what it has and hopefully the metadata or at least the part that was digitised? Obviously it would have to comply with our licensing requirements, and I think it would fall within "source documents of historical importance; in this case Wikipeda-style notability requirements apply". I'm pretty sure that if such documents were published here then they would be cited as sources on other wikis. But I'm also confident that only a subset of any such catalogue would be physically printed, hence my query. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not certain that I understand what is being suggested, or what is being envisioned. Our scope is at Wikisource:What Wikisource includes, so if it fits within that, I don't see an issue with it being housed, and if it doesn't fit there, then we need to talk about how it is or isn't there. How useful, functional, navigable, relevant, and interlinkable it becomes there is no way to know without more details and understanding. If it is needing volunteers, or needing work, will depend on how sexy it may be, and whether it will entice contributors, and/or operators from other wikis. OR whether it is just going to be bot applied, and becomes set and forget, and a resource for people to use. <shrug> For me, I need more information before venturing into comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. My view is that it would fit into "source documents of historical importance", but I'm a near novice on WikiSource, even my volunteer account has barely enough edits to be autoconfirmed. I'm hoping that having such documents online would be useful to Wikipedia as some information could be sourced to these. also I think there would be interesting opportunities in linking them. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you have an example? It might help. I think something slightly similar was proposed (by The Land as it happens) a few years ago. That was a catalogue of ships compiled by the National Maritime Museum, rather than the museum's collection, but there were objections because it had not been formally published. Personally, I think that catalogue and this one would be OK, especially as I would count museums themselves as publishers, but community consensus has been undecided so far. One thing in your favour is that museum catalogues have been published in the past and could, in theory, be transcribed onto Wikisource as well (eg. Louvre 1883, Met Museum of Art 1905, etc); your documents would not be out of place in the grand scheme of potential content. NB: They would probably need to have fixed dates, both because Wikisource does not host "living" documents and to improve their historical value for the future. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I will look into getting an example. May I'm assume that one of the publication issues is the extent to which the museum has checked their metadata? I had hoped that people would consider these "source documents of historical importance" and therefore welcome these into WikiSource, if this isn't the applicable project for such source material can you suggest one what is? Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
The accuracy of the original source material is not a problem for Wikisource (the accuracy of the transcription or equivalent is, of course). For example, if this page of the Louvre catalogue claimed the Mona Lisa was painted by Michelangelo, that would be the publisher's problem. Wikisource will not correct it and if it were transcribed here it would show Michelangelo as the painter of the Mona Lisa; even though it is obviously an error, we would be faithful to the original and host the error.
The inclusion rules are mostly to stop vanity publishing. However, if it is just metadata, you might have a problem with another of the exclusion rules, on reference material, and as far as I know there is currently no Wikimedia project that would host it (this has been a problem with deletions in the past). I think the debate on reference material was mostly about excluding things like stand-alone tables of prime numbers. Without seeing the example, it is hard to tell but I think a catalgue should be alright in that respect. Talking of metadata, it might help to think that the catalogues themselves should have their own metadata: title, author, publisher, location, date of publication, etc. They should be distinct, fixed publications; so if you get a new one in a year's time, that would be a completely different catalogue with its own metadata and page on Wikisource.
Regarding "source documents of historical importance", I agree. For example, the history of artefacts can be tracked between collections using old catalogues. An amateur historian recently claimed a viking map was a fake based on similar material and the descriptions they contained. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Translation[edit]

Is it a common thing between Wikisource users to translate source materials of other languages into English? Are there any guidelines for that? Could you please show me an example? --Yoosef Pooranvary (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Translations are permitted and encouraged in Wikisource. We are just finishing up discussions on the topic at Wikisource:Requests for comment/Annotations and derivative works. Here is the basic expectations. I don’t think we have the separate name space set up yet, but translations can be created in the main space and moved later. The works Here have been translated by Wikisource, many of them may not meet our current expecations for new work, if you have any questions just ask. Jeepday (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikisource user translations are appropriate for Wikisource. They will be hosted in their own names space (per Special_namespace). There should only be a single translation to English per original language work. A scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki, where the original language version is complete at least as far as the English translation. There was much conversation about language competence, but a clear definition and measure was not achieved. Lacking a clear guideline for language competence, the general expectation for accuracy of translation here, is the same as it is at any sister wiki work.
And of course Wikisource:Translations — billinghurst sDrewth 05:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Extract illustrations by OCR software[edit]

Has anybody been able to use the page layout analysis in ABBYY Finereader to extract illustrations (or their coordinates) from page images? The program does detect (not always correct, but still) where text columns and illustrations are. From this, I only save the text, for future proofreading. But often you also want to extract the illustrations, like I did in Eskimo Life/Chapter 3 and Page:Eskimo Life.djvu/66. Could the OCR software assist in this? Have you heard of anyone trying that? --LA2 (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

LA2, I know this is off course with your question. However it may be helpful to someone. Using Adobe Acrobat one can take a PDF file and save every page to an image of a chosen format. I extract all pages as .jpg and do whatever cleaning of text pages I want and/or gather all images to work with. George Orwell III (a WS wizard) can also do this-and anything else. —Maury (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Edittools[edit]

Can someone please explain why my edittools customisations have stopped working, or where the current manual page is for this beast of a thing. Moondyne (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have them set in your gadget? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
"Edittools: Enhance the existing edittools with additional groups of insertable characters as sections of a dropdown menu." is ticked. Browser cache purged. Moondyne (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Tech news: 2013-23[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes.

Recent software changes
(Not all changes will affect you.)
  • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.22/wmf5) was added to non-Wikipedia wikis on May 29. It will be enabled on the English Wikipedia on June 3, and on all other Wikipedias on June 5. [20]
  • The Tamil Wikipedia shared a Lua module they created to automate their Main Page. [21]
  • There is now a test wiki to test new features in right-to-left languages. [22]
  • The Thanks feature was added to the English Wikipedia; users can now thank others for individual edits. [23]
  • The new interface for account creation and log-in is now the default on 30 wikis, including the English Wikipedia, Commons, Meta, and Wikidata. The feature will be added to all wikis after June 5. Users can return to the old look by adding ?useNew=0 to the web address. [24]
  • Videos are now played in pop-up windows if their size on the page is smaller than 200 pixels (800 pixels on the English Wikipedia). [25]
  • Opening your talk page now marks notifications as read, for wikis using the Notifications feature. (bug 47912) [26].
  • All autoconfirmed users can now reset transcoding of video files; previously only administrators could do this. [27]
  • The Nearby feature allows people who use mobile devices to see Wikipedia articles about objects and places around them. [28]
Future software changes

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

Trademark discussion[edit]

Hi, apologies for posting this in English, but I wanted to alert your community to a discussion on Meta about potential changes to the Wikimedia Trademark Policy. Please translate this statement if you can. We hope that you will all participate in the discussion; we also welcome translations of the legal team’s statement into as many languages as possible and encourage you to voice your thoughts there. Please see the Trademark practices discussion (on Meta-Wiki) for more information. Thank you! --Mdennis (WMF) (talk)

Universal Language Selector to replace Narayam and WebFonts extensions[edit]

On June 11, 2013, the Universal Language Selector (ULS) will replace the features of Mediawiki extensions Narayam and WebFonts. The ULS provides a flexible way of configuring and delivering language settings like interface language, fonts, and input methods (keyboard mappings).

Please read the announcement on Meta-Wiki for more information. Runab 14:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC) (posted via Global message delivery)

Maintenance of the Month (June 2013)[edit]

Crossed spanner and screwdriver overlaid on the standard Wikisource iceberg logo

 The current Maintenance of the Month task is:

Work index revision

Revising the purpose and structure of Wikisource:Works

Previous maintenance: Categorization
The next scheduled collaboration will begin in July.

The current MotM task is about Wikisource:Works. It should be our work index, but it is actually an illustrated subject index today. You are encouraged to share your ideas for improvement on the relative thread.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Index:CIA World Factbook(1982).djvu[edit]

Any Volunteers to help get this OCR clean? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

No offence but why bother? Its out of date and will always be way inferior to the official website[32]. Per WS:SCOPE: "… works whose content is expected to constantly change over time, for the purpose of keeping the work updated, to improve the content matter of what has already been published, or to make the text more comprehensive, are excluded from Wikisource's scope." Moondyne (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I count 1982 as Historical archive... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Was 1982 a significant edition? Moondyne (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Everything becomes significant if it survives long enough. I can see where there could be interest in these as historical reference. The web page is always in flux, while the print editions are time capsules. I don’t have enough time/interest to actual work on the book, but I can see it’s appeal. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This happened to be the earliest available edition I could find on archive.orgShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a parallel to the similar British publication, Category:The Statesman's Yearbook. Even if we can't handle every year's issue, a good sample should be interesting. --LA2 (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Wiknic[edit]

I know that not everyone stops at Wikipedia on a regular bases, so for those that don’t check out w:Wikipedia:Wiknic

The Great American Wiknic is an annual wiki-picnic held in cities across the United States on or around a common day every summer. This year's Wiknic will be on Saturday, June 22 and nearby dates, with a local raindate generally the following day.

Having attended several, I can tell you that you need not be a devote Wikipedian, anyone who lives anyplace in the Wiki family will be welcomed. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Tech news: 2013-24[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes.

Recent software changes
(Not all changes will affect you.)
  • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.22/wmf6) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on June 6, and to non-Wikipedia wikis on June 10. It will be enabled on all Wikipedias on June 13. [33]
  • An alpha version of the VisualEditor was enabled on all Wikipedias on June 6. Please test it and report problems. [34]
  • Several VisualEditor bugs have been fixed; users can now add, edit and remove categories using the editor's "Page settings" menu.
  • Wikimedia error messages will no longer link to the #wikipedia [[<tvar|meta-irc-chans>:m:IRC/Channels</>|IRC channel]] on Freenode. [35]
  • The logo of 16 Wikipedias was changed to version 2.0 in a fourth group of updates. [36]
  • A test instance of Wikidata is now available at test.wikidata.org. [37]
  • Users can now patrol the first version of a newly created page if they visit it from Special:NewPages or Special:RecentChanges. [38]
  • Translation pages will no longer include edit section links (bug #40713). [39]
Future software changes
  • A report on mobile upload errors was published, and software changes to reduce their number will come soon. [40]
  • A request for comments on updating MediaWiki to use RDFa version 1.1 was started on MediaWiki.org (Gerrit change #67608).

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Unsubscribe.

20:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Casper's Keyboard[edit]

Since yesterday I have encountered Casper the friendly ghost's Keyboard, including now to my right and colored white whereas I have a soft grey background (for serious eye protection). Casper's Keyboard is around every place I go and in every page I edit. I myself do not need nor want it the bloody thing. It is highly similar (to me) to "pop-ups" that people try to avoid and will purchase programs to negate the annoying pop-ups. In the honourable name of Henry VIII please do away with it. —Maury (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I expect you have just encountered this. If it is really bothering you, may I suggest you:
  1. Select the "toothed gear" symbol beside "Languages" in the left pane;
  2. then select "Input" in the panel which should pop up;
  3. click on "Disable input tools" and
  4. Finally "Apply settings".
That should put paid to your "Casper" problem (at least until the next time the software changes...) MODCHK (talk)
Hello, MODCHK, and a hearty thank you. It worked! You use a moniker here but is your real name, and vocation, Bill Nye —— the Science Guy? After all, that program won nineteen Emmy Awards. Seems like the same fellow to me! Thanks again, Casper's Keyboard was popping up everywhere—more than Popeye's Popcorn. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
No; but curiously I was a fellow student of one of the subsequent co-hosts of Sleek Geeks. Not exactly sure how happy I am about that. MODCHK (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Rather late, I have just stumbled over the "official" answer to Maury's question. Here is the reference: FAQ #16, if anybody wants to make use of it. (Hint hint: see also FAQ #21 on the same page.) MODCHK (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
<re: FAQ#21 Where can I report a problem? Please report problems and suggestions in Bugzilla. Please ensure to report as much detail as you can.>

(1.)I don't know anything about MediaWiki. I come to Wikisource to edit books and do not spend time roaming about looking at everything elsewhere. I knew of no FAQ there since I work here.

I am familiar with Wikipedia and Commons but I started in Wikipedia in 2006 and Commons became a necessity for uploading images -- after they were no longer to be uploaded to Wikipedia.

(2.) I would have had to wait a long time asking for help by following FAQ#21 and *perhaps* eventually getting an answer from Bugzilla. (3.) There is no social interactions with sending a message to people unknown to me. Look to the social areas on Internet (Facebook) &c; &c. to learn how important social interaction seriously is. However, we here have very limited social interactions due to the many problems we encounter and work out together. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I quite agree. The point I thought about making earlier but held back on was that I feel introducing new "features" which apparently have no controls under the centralised "Preferences" (and I looked here and on wikipedia without success!) menu spanks of poor(ly thought out―read this both ways) interface design. The tool may be pretty, but if it quacks like a (Prefences/)Gadget(s), why ever cannot it be switched on/off like a gadget?
There I've said it. Now somebody embarrass me by proving me wrong. MODCHK (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I agree too. Further, there's a rather serious Commons/Wiktionary linking problem that I posted on Bugzilla two years ago, that has not been resolved. The bug was caused by someone implementing another of those bright ideas that wasn't fully thought out. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
"Two Years"? EncycloPetey <--which of your parents named you that? write once again to Bugs-villa and complain that you are still waiting just to see what, if any, answer is given--perhaps something like, "We're still working on it". My take with places like Bugs-villa is that I would have a much better chance of getting President Obama's digital signature immediately from him.—Maury (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm in full agreement as well. The theft of valuable screen real-estate in the left bar for something I neither need nor want (and cannot turn off) is frustrating. One wonders if the designers of these things all have 30" monitors and assume that everyone else does as well. Alternatively, they enjoy constantly scrolling up and down a screen while editing. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Blackletter is broken[edit]

{{Blackletter}} is broken. I reckon it has something to do with the announcement above: #Universal Language Selector to replace Narayam and WebFonts extensions. Any volunteers to sort it out? Hesperian 14:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Same for me. I installed UnifrakturMaguntia font and worked. See {{Blackletter}} doc page, there is the link where to get the font.--Mpaa (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Likewise, the template was recently broken for me (Mac), but now works after downloading per Mpaa. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Reported as bugzilla:49499. I checked this yesterday but forgot I had downloaded the font to test it a while ago (I didn't see a problem). It shouldn't be difficult to just add it to ULS too, so it should be back up and running soon. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for reporting this. I similarly checked yesterday, but already had UnifrakturMaguntia installed locally so saw no problems.
If/when ULS incorporates the font, would somebody please also make a note to then check if turning off ULS per my hints above to Maury Casper's Keyboard above ends up re-breaking it... It would be a shame if the two functions (keyboard and fonts) turn out to be toggled inseparably... MODCHK (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Not fixed yet but apparently it "will be in 1.22wmf7." - AdamBMorgan (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
In case anybody missed it, 1.22wmf7 is now installed. Is anybody still having problems (with {{Blackletter}}) who doesn't have UnifrakturMaguntia installed locally? Unfortunately, my set-up here is too non-standard to be a representative test. MODCHK (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Works for me; thanks folks. Hesperian 00:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-25[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Translations are available.

Recent software changes
(Not all changes will affect you.)
  • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.22wmf7) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on June 13. It will be enabled on non–Wikipedia sites on June 17, and on all Wikipedias on June 20. [41]
  • The Narayam and WebFonts extensions were successfully replaced by Universal Language Selector on June 11. [42]
  • VisualEditor news:
    • VisualEditor was temporarily disabled on Wikipedia sites on June 14 due to an issue that inserted a lot of HTML code. The issue is now fixed and VisualEditor works as before.
    • Users can now use VisualEditor to add images and other media items from their local wikis and Wikimedia Commons. [43].
    • VisualEditor also allows editing references. [44]
  • The new Disambiguator extension, which was previously part of MediaWiki itself, was enabled on test wikis. It adds the magic word __DISAMBIG__ to mark disambiguation pages. [45]
  • The newly enabled Campaigns extension allows Wikimedia Foundation data analysts to track account creations that result from a specific outreach campaign.
Future software changes
  • Universal Language Selector will be added to the Catalan (ca), Cebuano (ceb), Persian (fa), Finnish (fi), Norwegian Bokmål (no), Portuguese (pt), Ukrainian (uk), Vietnamese (vi), Waray-Waray (war) and Chinese (zh) Wikipedias on June 18. [46]
  • Starting on June 18, VisualEditor will be randomly enabled by default for half of newly created accounts on the English Wikipedia to test stability, performance and features. [47]
  • Two new webfonts (UnifrakturMaguntia and Linux Libertine) will be added to wikis that use Universal Language Selector. [48] [49]
  • It will now be possible to hide the sidebar while using the Translate extension to reduce distractions (bug #45836). [50]
  • A patrolling link will now be visible for un-patrolled pages, even if users don't visit it from Special:NewPages or Special:RecentChanges (bug #49123). [51]
  • A request for comments on enabling a new search engine for MediaWiki was started.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Unsubscribe.

EdwardsBot (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Documentation[edit]

Does anybody know why top links are shown now on the left side? --DixonD (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Because they are defined (by Template:Documentation/start box) as belonging to class "editsection", the same class that Mediawiki uses to handle section edit links. That class was recently restyled, and you're seeing a side-effect of that. I'm inclined to think that it is not correct for us to be applying chrome css classes to content. Hesperian 06:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

World War One[edit]

2014 is the centenary of the start of World War One. I know there will be lots of events to commemorate the anniversary in the UK and I suspect the same will be true elsewhere. I think some of the Wikipedias, and definitely the Wikimedia UK chapter, are trying to do something for the event too. So, do we as a community want to do anything for WW1?

I don't think whatever we try should be that ambitious as that would probably mean it doesn't actually get done. The easiest commemoration would probably be timing some appropriate featured texts and proofreads of the month. A slightly more ambitious plan, but one that I think might work, is to use the Community Collaboration section on the main page as a duplicate of PotM, running concurrently with a WW1 theme (and organised via a new WikiProject). It is simple enough to set up and we have the existing precedent of PotM to use as a template. There is a danger this could dilute user attention, so that neither regular-PotM nor WW1-PotM get completed, but I think it would be OK. More ambitious collaborations are possible if this seems too conservative. WW1-themed featured texts could either way.

Of course, we don't have to do anything for WW1. I don't think we have ever done anything similar for any other historical event. However, WW1 is useful as it is still important, this is the first centenary, it is in a period when a lot of works are in the public domain, and it marked a period of increased literacy, so there was a lot written about it at the time. So, what do people think? Should be do something and, if so, what? (There's no rush just yet, we have a year, but it would be useful to at least get some rough ideas sketched out.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

A few thoughts:
  • Remembering that the war extended from July 1914 through to November 1918, we've got over four years to cover this event.
  • The PotM works could easily include works that are related to WW1 without being explicitly there. For example, one of the Geography months could cover the Balkans and another could do Belgium.
  • We could also use the excellent collection of WW1 poetry that LJB has done (I'm gradually working through the validation) with, say, Poem of the Week on the Main Page.
  • Now that the score extension has been implemented (and hopefully shortly will work fully) we could also add some of the songs of the war (Run, Rabbit, Run; It's a long way to Tipperary; Pack up your troubles; &c.). I have scannable scores of several collections of these, if they're not already available.
  • We should certainly try to host copies of all the declarations of war and of the various armistice documents.
  • w:WP:MILHIST may well have members who would be willing to assist, both with suggested works and with proofreading. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Very modern authors[edit]

What is our policy on author pages for authors whose works have no chance at all of being in the public domain, such as those who have written in the very late 20th century only? I ask because of Special:Contributions/2.33.233.47, who is creating author pages that, although they are well-formatted and contain no links, list works not likely to be hosted here in my lifetime. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I would say delete them. Their works can be listed at Wikipedia, and can be recreated if they are released under CC. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Scriptorium&oldid=4482104"