From Wikisource
(Redirected from Scriptorium)
Jump to: navigation, search
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.



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.


Standard handling of Errata[edit]

Some time ago a question was posted in the Help section of Scriptorium as to methods of handling published Errata. Before I go overboard (as if I haven't already!) has anyone any objections to my creation and usage of this template {{errata}}? Right at this instant there is but one page Page:Investigationofl00boolrich.djvu/73 (and yes, it is a nightmare of formatting, but that is not the issue at present) making use of the new template, so there ought to be fairly minimal impact to removing it if any serious objections come up. AuFCL (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikisource:WikiProject DNB handled it with a footnote, see also template:DNB errata; i.e. Abbott, Edwin (DNB00). Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 23:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Utilising global spam filters[edit]

I put a suggestion to administrators at and about utilising global spam filters. These filters are a replication of what is used locally. If general users have a comment, or a question, it is probably appropriate to add them at the noticeboard. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

BOT approval requests[edit]

Recitation-bot testing[edit]

Following on from the discussion Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2014-09#Automated import of openly licensed scholarly articles the WPOA team involved has utilised a bot to undertake some data imports into the WS: namespace to trial their processes. They have hunted me down at Wikimania2014 to seek feedback on the next steps that they need to undertake to meet our requirements. We have made some updates to their processes, and are ready for more testing over the next few days so we can deal with this in a sprint format. Letting the community know of the things taking place. They have some great technical people who can really build tools, and some of the tools that we are talking about have good prospects for helping with other data population to and from wikidata. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not against this bot but I am a bit disappointed that I got no feedback on an issue I noticed some months ago, see Wikisource:WikiProject_Open_Access/Programmatic_import_from_PubMed_Central#New_Family_of_Bluish_Pyranoanthocyanins. I would have expected at least an acknowledgment, if they want to run a bot here.--Mpaa (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
@Maximilianklein, Mattsenate:billinghurst sDrewth 02:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I think this bot has some issues. I sampled a few random pages. This is one of them Wikisource:WikiProject_Open_Access/Programmatic_import_from_PubMed_Central/Capturing_Natural-Colour_3D_Models_of_Insects_for_Species_Discovery_and_Diagnostics. Note also the empty template at the bottom. I hope we will get an answer.--Mpaa (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Sampled again: this is from Sep, 9: Wikisource:WikiProject_Open_Access/Programmatic_import_from_PubMed_Central/The_Invisible_Prevalence_of_Citizen_Science_in_Global_Research_Migratory_Birds_and_Climate_Change or Wikisource:WikiProject_Open_Access/Programmatic_import_from_PubMed_Central/Global_Diversity_of_Sponges_(Porifera).
Left a warning to @Maximilianklein:.--Mpaa (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
BTW, still disappointed by lack of attention from a bot eager to run ...--Mpaa (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Mpaa, and sorry for the lack of feedback on our part - I hadn't noticed your messages before. Since User:Maximilianklein, User:Mattsenate and User:Klortho mostly work on the code base, criticisms and suggestions more closely related to the Wikisource end are best directed to me - I am here on an almost daily basis now, triggering the bot, checking the imports and keeping things in sync with our software development.
Yes, the bot has some issues, and we are working on them at several levels:
  1. the conversion from the XML at PubMed Central into MediaWiki-importable XML,
  2. customizations for Wikisource (example),
  3. the upload procedure,
  4. integration with Commons, Wikidata and Wikipedia.
Many of the issues only became apparent once we actually started to import articles here - we have two years of experience with importing files into Commons, but doing full articles is more complex by nature. Furthermore, there are inconsistencies in the XML that publishers deliver to PubMed Central, and while we had mapped them out in some detail for multimedia imports (see talk), it turned out that these inconsistencies affect full text imports even more than expected, and thus much of our coding is actually focused on building workarounds for these issues, while we continue to fix actual bugs in our system and add new features. We also engage in a working group that tries to address these XML inconsistencies at their origin, i.e. with the publishers. This will hopefully make automated imports more straightforward in the future. Finally, continued integration of Wikimedia projects with Wikidata also affects our workflows, and many details (e.g. whether and how the metadata for the imported journal articles and their authors should all go onto Wikidata) are not clear at the moment.
For all this, it is vital that we can do test imports in order to fix, refine or otherwise improve our workflows. For the moment, these imports will always go to subpages of our WikiProject, and we will move things over to the main namespace only manually, for articles that have been fixed as far as we can see.
Thoughts on any of this shall always be welcome as we move forward. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@Mpaa:, I am still working on the bot, as @Daniel Mietchen: said, it is an iterative process that needs to be have periodic, still imperfect, test imports. I am also happy to address issues you find with the bot if they are constructive and specific. You can put them on my talk page or on directly on the github issue tracker. Thanks for giving the content a critical eye, we need it. Maximilianklein (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Welcome.--Mpaa (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


At my request, John Vandenberg is going to recreate the previous functions of user:JVbot/patrol whitelist in toollabs based wikisource-bot. I also plan to get some basic voluntary archiving available, predominantly for user pages. The bot will be using pywikibot. To do these functions, we seek the approval of the community to undertake some tests for evaluation. The bots would be persistant, and automated in that functionality. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ran some archiving runs using and some liitle issues with captcha they work fine. So not sure if anyone wishes to set up an archiving on their talk page, if they do, I can some more tests. I will set up some instructions on the bot user page (for the moment). Wikisource-bot (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I added it on my talk page. But I do not talk too much, so not too much to archive ...--Mpaa (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I have set the beast to run daily, now not sure whether our 'crats @Hesperian, Zhaladshar: want to wait until @John Vandenberg: gets the patrol component going or not. Noting that component will just patrol, not specifically edit. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd like a few members of the community saying yay or nay about having this bot before I flag it. To get that started off, I'll support giving this bot the flag. One question: will it only be used for archiving or will it have expanded functionality in the future?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
    @Zhaladshar: At the moment archiving and patrolling to takeover from the defunct JVBot (same script). I would hope that we can utilise this WMF account for additional tasks that the community needs run on an automated basis, without much (any?) intervention. More info about scope of existing scripts is at mw:Manual:Pywikibot/Scripts. I would see that any additional tasks will be requested here, and added to the scope of the bot with approval of the community. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As I am involved in pywikibot, if one notices something strange with edits done by this bot, I can assist. There is also the possibility to open tickets in bugzillaPhabricator (Product pywikibot)--Mpaa (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support – As interested in creating database reports -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)



I see nothing but those in page namespace in this special page as far as 5500 pages. Hopefully we will be able to choose which namespace to see or not to see in the future.--Jusjih (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It would require a bugzilla request to get any difference, though I am not sure that this report will ever be useful for us. The main ns works are usually small as they don't contain the text, just the <pages> transclusion component. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Getting the WMF to do anything with the built in reports is pretty unlikely. Its not a very exciting task and some of the projects have been begging for changes for years that still haven't been done. Wanted pages routinely kicks out Templates and categories and talk pages even though these all have their own wanted Special pages. There are some things that could be done but I am not sure if they would be allowed here. For example if we added a sufficient length history statement to the Zero byte pages in the Short pages list that contain no text, it would remove them from the short pages list. It could also explain to new folks like why they are blank without actually changing anything to the visible rendering of the page. We could also create a bot that creates our own report rather than rely on the built in ones that never worked very well. It probably wouldn't be very hard for me to craft the SQL code to run it but it would require someone with Labs access and who would be willing to run the job. I'm not that familiar with the database table structure for Wikisource though so it might take some tinkering. In fact after doing a little checking ENWP has a report for long pages with the code available here. So we could use that as a baseline. Again though, I don't know how it works here yet, but I wanted to offer a couple suggestions. Reguyla (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Fwiw... a similar issue with the Draft namespace doing the same on Wikipedia has a Bugzilla already. It might be worth following/adding to. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

A switch to let you choose the namespace might be easy, in which case we might be able to find someone to do it. If you want, I'll file the request. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Correspondence between Gandhi and Tolstoj[edit]

Dear Madam/Sir,

I am looking for facsimiles of letters (hand-)written bei Tolstoj and came upon the above correspondence. Can you advise whom I have to contact in order to purchase such facsimiles?

Thanks for your cooperation and reply.

Best regards from Germany,

Heidi Hacker

Paragraph break in footnote[edit]

Hi, on this page I had a footnote with a para break that wasn't displaying when it was coded as two returns. I added a {{nop}}, and that seemed to help. Is that the right approach, or is there a better way? Pelagic (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Added another approach, see if you like. Hrishikes (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I only knew about using <p> to force a paragraph break in footnotes, but I must admit, using {{nop}} certainly looks better in the code. I don't think there is a "right approach" unfortunately. djr13 (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I've tended to use <br/><br/>, but mainly because I don't know why inserting blank lines doesn't achieve the desired result. I'd like to have some of the other code-minded folks here comment on the use of {{nop}} in this situation, because it's certainly the most elegant and easily explained solution, if it doesn't lead to any unwanted effects. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Using <br/><br/> is perhaps a bad idea, both for appearance and possible accessibility reasons. <br/> is purely visual while <p></p> actually indicates a new paragraph. djr13 (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The problem I have with using <p> is that it's an opening tag, usually with no closing </p> tag to accompany it. It only works as a hack. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
You can use both, and in fact that can even help. For example, if you have a three paragraph footnote, you can code it like this: "<ref>Paragraph 1<p>Paragraph 2</p>Paragraph 3</ref>", and nothing stops you from enclosing the second, or fourth, etc paragraph even if there is no other paragraph that follows it. Although I haven't checked if there are any problems if the second, fourth, etc paragraph is split across a page. djr13 (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I feel naughty using a naked <p> without closing </p>; though bad XHTML, I think it's allowable again in HTML5? Structurally, "<ref><p>Paragraph 1</p><p>Paragraph 2</p></ref>" would be more correct, as the two paragraphs are sibling parts of the parent ref. Pelagic (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
For the 10,000 time.... if you want "something" to ALWAYS appear, render, qualify-as and stay a paragraph across the wiki marked-up world, as well as in any printing/conversion normal HTML compliant world (let's say into a PDF) - you should wrap that "something" in opening <p> and closing </p> paragraph tags; end of story. While anything else might appear correct to the eye, you are just dancing with the wiki mark-up &/or dancing around the HTML specification to get that faux reality. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
GO3, according to my count it's only 5,632 times and not more.— Ineuw talk 20:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
If we took that to its extreme conclusion, then we'd all be using pure HTML markup instead of dancing with the wikicode. A possible down-side of <p>...</p> is that tools which deal directly with the wiki code would have to be written to cope with both the wiki-style blank line and the HTML-style <p> tags, if they wanted to detect semantic paragraphs. But I take your point, George, that <p>...</p> is robust. A future change to Wikimedia software could possibly break some uses of {{nop}}. The problem is that we don't really know why the two-line-breaks method doesn't work within a <ref>. Pelagic (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
"Dancing with the wikicode" here is a symptom of not being Wikipedia. Their mission is to foster the ease of ongoing discussions as they relate to material never considered to be finished or at least always in a state flux. It makes complete sense to apply formatting "shortcuts" via symbolic equivalents in their case. Our mission is to faithfully reproduce published works as close as possible to the original. It makes absolutely no sense to follow Wikipedia's lead here because our products can and do have a finite "end-point" - a point where a product becomes static and theoretically falls away from the need to make any further changes or amendments to it from then on.

But if you're still gun-shy about utilizing straight tags here on Wikisource, you can always check-out {{P}}aragraph tag & {{Span tag}} to see if they suite your needs for any given scenario or not. (Additional comments a bit further down) -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, for the feedback, everyone. For what it's worth, I did "show source" on the {{nop}} and <p> versions, and they both have the same HTML code. The structure is like <li> <span class>paragraph1</span> <p><span class>paragraph2</span></p> </li>. I don't know if they are served up that way; conceivably the browser may have built the same DOM from different HTML and be generating the "source" from its internal representation. Pelagic (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

LI = "line item" has never been all that well defined (css = display:line-item;) nor understood in all the history of the HTML specification when it came to element behavior and sub-element handling . Generally, most consider the closest equivalent to display:line-item; to be display:inline-block without the added ability of automatically generating the target item (the number or letter offset to the left in every [OL] list) that display:list-item does).

I suspect its those poorly defined nuances in line-item [LI] causing wiki mark-up to "break-down" when wrapping more than one other chunk or line of text. I've made the leap here that the inline in inline-block (closest equivalent to display:list-item) is causing -duh- multiple text-blocks separated by what normally causes a paragraph break between the two bodies of text under wiki mark-up to render "up against each other" in an inline manner instead. Using [P] for instances of two or more bodies of text under [LI] forces the desired separation of text chunks to break without the reliance of the [failed] wiki mark-up's expected behavior coming into play at all.

In those instances where there is only a single chunk or line of text content under an LI tag, there is no such issue. It seems that single, un-broken chunk or line of text reaps the benefits of block rather than inline in display:inline-block in spite of being - as you've noted in the source after a save - an inline element ([SPAN] = display:inline).

I'm sure there are ways to overcome this particularity using some elegant CSS defining or similar but, as stated before, you'd still wind up dancing with or tip-toeing around one [HTML spec.] or the other [wiki mark-up] at some point in your editing life here - making all this an academic exercise at best. Hope that made sense. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Minor edits[edit]

I'm not sure when to tick that box. What constitutes a minor edit on Wikisource?

On Wikipedia, basic fixes to grammar or punctuation are generally considered minor, but here I suspect even amending a single character could be non-minor. What about if I change a page from Proofread to Validated without any modifications (because there were no errors)? Is that still non-minor because it involves a status change?

Pelagic (talk) 10:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The answer to that question will vary a bit from editor to editor here. My own very general rule of thumb is that a minor edit makes no (or very little) visual difference in the result (such as removing superfluous spaces or changing the way the coding is done), or if it will correct a small error that I made myself in the previous edit just moments before (such as just finishing a proofread, but then realizing a small-caps template is needed at the outset). I do not consider it minor if I've corrected OCR errors, and it is never minor to change the status of a page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, EncycloPetey. — Pelagic (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

History of Hungarian Literature Page 34[edit]

How do I deal with page page 34 of "A History of Hungarian Literature"? Especially its two different reference bullet points? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lo Ximiendo: How is this? —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The correct way of doing footnotes is to use <ref>…</ref> tags. See Help:Footnotes and endnotes for more details. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
You can see a specific use on Page:A history of Hungarian literature.djvu/14. If not done this way, then the text will not transclude correctly into the Main namespace. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Works contained in other works[edit]

If a work is contained in another work, not as a section in a collection, but for example a poem that is cited in its entirety, should it be made a separate work with its own page in mainspace?

For example, the translation of Veni Creator Spiritus by John Dryden is cited in full in The seven great hymns of the mediaeval church/Veni Creator Spiritus, and it has also been transcluded into its own page: Creator Spirit, by whose aid

Another example: the Book of Common Prayer (1892) contains many prayers which are not original to that work, and some of them have been given their own pages:

Both of which are taken from Book of Common Prayer (1892)/Morning Prayer.

Is there any sort of guideline on how, or if at all, this should be done?

Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: I can't say for certain but one thing to bear in mind is that even if the text as such is identical things like formatting may not be so it could still be worthwhile to transcribe the same content or virtually identical content in two separate places. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: would be the best person to recomend how to deal with this situation as she is doing quite a bit of work in the poetry space. The BCP example is probably not the best to follow as the Lord's Prayer appears in several parts of the book including Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, and Holy Communion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I work mostly with {{disambiguation}} and {{versions}} pages with poetry, and Billinghurst has mentioned those methods below. It is a good way to have each work represented. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I have separately transcluded a work from an existing work where it is included in full, not an excerpt, and it is incidental to the work itself. So the full poem, full psalm, etc. Where I have done that I do it by putting section tags around the work, and transcluding to the name of the work, and in the notes I cite the source, and don't put it as a subpage of the original work (it is one of those exclusions from normal). Of course, we can create a redirect to a version of a work and utilise an anchor to direct.
That said, in the case that you cite "Book of Common Prayer (1892)" the published works are not incidental to the publication, they are the publication and should be dealt with as subpages of the work. In situation like this if it is the only version of "Lord's Prayer" we would put in a redirect to the work. If it is just one of a number, then we would have either a {{disambiguation}} or a {{versions}} page to direct the user to all the variations that we host. Each version is published, and each is worthy of its own presentation, especially through time, and through expanding geography of publication. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
So, based on what you are saying, this is what I understand, and I am going to use the Dies Irae as an example: the seven translations of Dies Irae that are included in The seven great hymns of the mediaeval church would be considered incidental to the work, and should be transcluded separately and listed on the {{translations}} page as separate works, instead of the list of links to anchors in The seven great hymns that I had put there originally. However, the translation of Dies Irae in The Catholic Prayer Book and Manual of Meditations is not incidental to the work, as it forms part of the Service for the Dead, so it should be listed on the {{translations}} page as a link to the anchor in The Catholic Prayer Book. Is that right? I had been doing it with anchors all along, until I came across "Creator Spirit, by whose aid" which had been separately transcluded. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Separating columns[edit]

Does anyone know how to edit this table to separate selected columns with vertical lines? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done . Moondyne (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


Second question: On this page, why are the footnotes displaying above the table? The table needs to span two pages, so is there a way to correct this without using a klodgy work-around? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I was going to refer you to Help:Page_breaks#Tables_across_page_breaks, but upon review it does not explicitly cover this case; nor in fact do I think it is worded particularly clearly (or indeed even correctly—e.g. what are the leading {{nop}}s in the headers even achieving?) 04:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! The simple fix makes sense. And yes, there are a lot of these special situations not covered anywhere here in writing as far as I know. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Oops. Upon further checking those "peculiarly placed" {{nop}}s were so documented by our own dear @Hesperian: thus. Perhaps he might be so kind as to reconfirm their placement? (i.e. should they appear at the end of the header blocks instead of at the top? Or are they in fact correct as shown and my interpretation faulty instead [in which case a more detailed explanation might be appreciated]) 06:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC) (Yes: I know, I was above. Just blame PPPoA negatioation!)
Table syntax only works if "{|" etc. appear at the start of a line. Previously the templates and/or PHP code that were responsible for pulling a sequence of pages into a single page did not start each page on a new line, so table syntax would break whenever a page started with or within a table. The {{nop}}s were the solution to this. I have no idea whether or not they are still required. Hesperian 12:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
They are still required. However, following the instructions for spanning pages does not work as given; additional coding is needing, e.g. "|-". And the instructions don't handle the situation where there are both footnotes and a page-spanning table. Without an explanation of what the {{nop}} is doing, I had to ask for help in figuring this out. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
{{nop}} gives information on what it does, which is basically be a placeholder while mediawiki does its iteration of presentation, and it is akin to the magic done for {{=}} and {{!}}.

If the instructions don't carry every permutation, then it is probably a situation that wasn't thought about at the time (so add it), or maybe all the edge cases made the instructions confusing (maybe add it to the pages about references), or there are other MW changes that have been made that have made for a new situation (so add it). To also note that there are a couple of variations to how to span tables, so what is provided there is one person's examples of what worked, rather than the single definitive means of how to do table spanning pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

requesting upload help[edit]


Due to some unresolved technical issue at my end not been able to download and upload a bilingual book. A book called Marathi proverbs (1899) by Alfred Manwaring is mainly a translation book using english language available on archive .org. I am requesting help in getting the same uploaded at commons and en wikisource.

My further plan is to some how upadate and incorporate same at Marathi wikibooks Marathi language learning page in en wikibooks in course of time.

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mahitgar: From some research of sources the author was born 1855, and doesn't look to have died until 1950 which means that the work cannot go to Commons. Due to the multilingual nature of the work, to me it looks like it should be hosted at oldwikisource: due to the amount of mixture nature of the language through it, and with the work only being available at one site. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

England Birth[1]
Births Jun 1855
MANWARING Alfred Worthing 2b 261

England Death[2]
Deaths Mar 1950
Manwaring Alfred 94 Hastings 5h 339

My other sources are 1932 edition of Crockford's clerics that shows him as the author or the work, living in Sussex, and ordained in 1879 (which is usually when they are in early-mid 20s). 1911 England census has an Alfred Manwaring, a cleric, b.1855; and the 1861 census shows him the son of William (baker, grocer, postmaster) and Eliza in Broadwater, Sussex. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The work's explanation and prose is mainly in English and geared for speakers of English. I think the work would be fine here, and would be better served by putting it here. Oldwikisource may have some works, but I've yet to ever see one of them. Their Main Page makes it look as if they don't host anything and the site is impossible to navigate. It would be better to not put up a work at all than to waste time hosting it there. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Thanks for your support in copyright status research. I searched Marathi leanguage sources but could not get any info in Marathi language.

I suppose he worked for Church Mission Society either in Nasik or Bombay region. this mention shows he was at Nasik and probaly refernce in this document may also be related to him. I found another of his title on line at this location.

Your last Sussex guess (son of William) seems to be nearest (but not sure). If we consider average 100 yrs life we shall need to calculate atleast to 1955. Indian copyright act brings books 60 yrs after death so the booke may come in public domain in indian some where in 1956 unless any previous death year gets confirmed. I do not know about UK copyright laws. So I suppose unless we get any more info it is safer to wait for another year (i.e. Jan 2016 per Indian copyright laws) before we upload the book.

About project sutabilty I gave thought and prefer en wikisource since it will be better to advert, seek and divert support of mr-wiki people at limited projects like en wikisource and mr wikisource for me. As such the said book is mainly in english and limited text in devnagari script.

Thanks again and seasons greetings

Mahitgar (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Creating a Page[edit]

Hi all, I'm trying to explore and help out in different Wikimedia projects. I stumbled across Wikisource and found it contained a library full of texts from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. I've also found a website online here that contained all the texts from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. I wanted to copy some articles into Wikisource but I don't know if this is correct.

For example, the first article in the ever 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica was about the A107. Wikisource doesn't have a page on it. So is it possible for me to create 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/A107 and copy and paste the text in? Thanks, TheQ Editor (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

While it is possible to copy and paste in text for the EB1911, we prefer to have the information proofread in the Page namespace, and transcluded in the article. For example, the article on Critias is transcluded from this page of Volume 7. The EB 1911 is one of the few organized projects here, with many editors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

CoI and own book (published by reputable source)[edit]

Hi all,

I am the author of Open Access and the Humanities, an open-access book itself under a CC BY-SA license and published by Cambridge University Press. I would be interested in knowing if WikiSource would be interested in having a copy/version and, if so, what I need to do to militate against conflict of interest. The book has been peer reviewed and published by a reputable entity, but I appreciate that I have biased placement as the author. I did, however, deliberately choose a BY-SA license so that inclusion in WikiSource and other such projects might be possible.

MartinPaulEve (talk) 11:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It falls within our scope, and is therefore welcome here. As for conflict of interest, I should think that all we need is disclosure (achieved above) and continued mindfulness. Welcome aboard Martin. Hesperian 11:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for the speedy response and warm welcome! I will wait for my account to become confirmed and will then work on this, including a disclosure on the talk page or another appropriate space. MartinPaulEve (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

formatting suggestions sought for inscriptions[edit]

How should I handle formatting for these inscriptions? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

If you think the last line being centered and the rest justified is worth capturing, there's a bit of formatting to handle that which works on some browsers, but not all. Prosody (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I would like to keep it as true to the text as possible, but I would also like to keep it as simple as possible (and browser-friendly). I also would not know how to apply the coding/formatting based on the link you provided, being myself technically-challenged... Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, GO3. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Accessing (.edu - type) Open Courseware Materials[edit]

Hi, I am currently experiencing a ton of DNS-issue related problems in accessing opencourseware content related to Utah Valley State College (specifically with accessing Joylin Namie's Sociocultural Anthropology course materials - ie. Podcasts), and would like some help. Where/how I can get the best help for these issues would be great!

On this site I tried a few of the links regarding accessing the content and recieved pages that were not available.

Please help! unsigned comment by LliamShepherd (talk) .

The links that we have may be old, and no longer exist. If you are getting blocking errors, I would suggest that you talk to your ISP, there isn't much we can do for you. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Soft redirects to other Wikimedia sites[edit]

As I have exported most amended Law of the Republic of China as evolving works to Wikibooks, do we have soft redirects to other Wikimedia sites, please?--Jusjih (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I would think that we would just link normally and state that they are at enWB. It is not impossible for us to have a Translation: ns page of a piece of law, so the portal page is a relevant page to keep. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
A broken redirect was left behind: Additional_Articles_of_the_Constitution_of_the_Republic_of_China_(2000). @Jusjih:, could you look into it?. Thanks.--Mpaa (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I am adding soft redirects for long term.--Jusjih (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

When to use 'uc' template to transform text to uppercase[edit]

Under what circumstances would it be appropriate to use the {{uc}} template? This template transforms the given text to all capital letters -- for example: {{uc|example}} produces example.

Recently I've been proofreading/validation documents produced on a typewriter that use all uppercase headings, and have been concerned that maybe I've been doing it wrong by just writing the headings in all capitals instead of using the aforementioned template.

Any guidance would be appreciated. (There are similar templates {{lc}} (lowercase) and {{capitalize}} (first letter capitalized) that I similarly do not know the proper circumstances of, but which I've not had the opportunity to use to date.)

Best. -- Mukkakukaku (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

When should you use it? Never. Highlight example, copy it, paste it into a text editor: you get "example". Turns out it wasn't upper-case text at all, it was lower-case text masquerading as upper-case text. The template is evil. It should be deleted. Hesperian 06:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Disclaimer: some browsers are smart enough to push upper-case to the clipboard, so your mileage on my copy-paste demo may vary. I think my point stands. Hesperian 06:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
How does the 'evil' argument not equally condemn {{sc}}? {{sc|Example}} (Example) cuts/pastes as "Example", but it looks like E{{x-smaller|XAMPLE}} (EXAMPLE) which cut/pastes as "EXAMPLE". Not too sure where you are going with this argument? 06:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
"Example" is obviously styled, and I am comfortable with it decomposing to "Example" when that styling is removed. "EXAMPLE" has the appearance of unstyled text, it can easily be rendered using unstyled text, and I am not comfortable with it actually being completely different text with a surreptitious styling applied to it. Hesperian 00:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Not precisely a defence of this template, but there is a good case to be made for using the parser-function equivalent {{uc:example}} — which produces EXAMPLE — which does screen-scrape correctly and reliably as [EXAMPLE] — and that usage is within templates which may need to compare two strings in a case-insensitive fashion. Simply consistently uppercase/lowercase/capitalise both quantities to be compared (say) in a {{#ifeq:}} test.

For reference these parser function/magic keywords exist and produce results as shown:

  1. {{uc:eXaMpLe}}: produces EXAMPLE;
  2. {{lc:eXaMpLe}}: produces example;
  3. {{lcfirst:eXaMpLe}}: produces eXaMpLe; and
  4. {{ucfirst:eXaMpLe}}: produces EXaMpLe.
N.B. Functions 3 & 4 affect only the initial letter of the string, so to produce sentence capitalisation something akin to {{ucfirst:{{lc:eXaMpLe}}}} would be required (produces: Example as expected.) (Buried in "official" documentation about two-three screenfulls down from here: MW:Help:Magic_words#Formatting) AuFCL (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't prescribe to the "never" scenario, I would say "hardly ever". My commentary is that I use it with some newspaper articles where the capitalisation has been made by the sub-editor, not the author. I use it as newspaper articles when they come back from search engines can look butt ugly. So I get the presentation form for the article, though the text as for a search engine. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Between Two Loves Title page and TOC[edit]

I just got finished proofreading the novel Between Two Loves. Now who wants to add the image at its title page and modify its table of contents? Fix the pages that mark a new chapter, particularly the quotes before the chapter starts? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

How about the quoted paragraph on the start of a chapter? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Bracketed limits in TeX formulae[edit]

Work: Index:The_evolution_of_worlds_-_Lowell.djvu Pages: Page:The_evolution_of_worlds_-_Lowell.djvu/289, Page:The_evolution_of_worlds_-_Lowell.djvu/292, Page:The_evolution_of_worlds_-_Lowell.djvu/293

Issue: Square brackets have limits on them, which was not seemingly possible to render on the relevant lefthand side bracket, currently rendered on righthand bracket. Assistance from someoenw that knows TeX would be appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: drop usage of \left and \right and substitute \Bigl and \Bigr respectively. You may then either:
  1. superscript and subscript the symbol using normal _ and ^ methods, or
  2. \overset and \underset the limits per (for example) Page:The_evolution_of_worlds_-_Lowell.djvu/289.
The choice essentially boils down to offset or vertical (my choice) alignment of the limit values. AuFCL (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Done, care to do a validation pass? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
With respect with that many unaddressed problematic pages nobody is going to get interested in this work. Come back when you have a real request, rather than a whine. AuFCL (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
With respect to your respect I respectfully incline that I'm sure addressing this matter will fix many of the "unaddressed problematic pages" or at the very least give the ability to move forward in addressing many "unaddressed problematic pages." Much respect, --Rochefoucauld (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Custom layout[edit]

I'd like to define my own layout for books. To test, I copied the code at Help:Layout#How_to_write_dynamic_layouts to User:Chowbok/common.js, but I don't see any difference, and "My Layout" isn't coming up under the Display Options. Do I have the wrong idea on how this works, or did I miss something, or...? --Chowbok (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Dynamic layouts are not a personal/custom layout they are all system layouts. To affect personal changes you would need to utilise CSS code in your Special:MyPage/common.css. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
But that would affect how everything is displayed, right? I just want to have an alternative layout as an option under Display Options. Is that possible?Chowbok (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Books without Indexes?[edit]

How does it work if I want to edit a book that's already here, but there's no index or source for it? I assume those weren't used in the earlier days of this site. Should I add them as if it's a new project, or start a new project, or something else?--Chowbok (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the name of the book? —Maury (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Chowbok, you have started a new book, Index:The Confessions of a Well-Meaning Woman.djvu, and have done little on it. Why not complete what you have just started? That is already a "new project". We get too many partial books here the way you are doing. We are backed up with incomplete books started and abandoned for others here to finish. Try completing what you yourself start before looking for another one to start. —Maury (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Sheesh. "Done little"? I think I've done pretty well on that considering I just started it a couple days ago, and it's my first project. I can't even ask about other stuff? Guess you guys don't have a "don't bite the newbies" rule like at Wikipedia.Chowbok (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
If are looking to replicate an existing work with a scan-supported text, unless you are 100% certain that there is an exact version/edition match, then it would be a case of a separate version, and we would disambiguate the two versions, or maybe delete the version unsupported by a scan (an independent decision). — billinghurst sDrewth 09:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Chowbok, I did not know you are new here. You have done so much on Wikipedia and seem to know how to bring in a book and start working on it. But it is still "little done" when you start asking for other books and asking what should you do. I just answered your question and then asked you, Why not complete what you have just started? but I am not going to argue with you over my reply. The book you *started* awaits and is simple. No, you should not "start a new project". You should finish that short and simple book you started that I validated pages on. That book isn't difficult. Oh, it isn't "guys" (plural) you are replying to - it is one person being only myself. Do you want me to do that little book for you so that you can start on a more complicated one? —Maury (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I'll finish it, thank you. As I said, and you can verify this, I'm making pretty good progress on it, little as it may be. Sorry for even thinking about the future. I promise I won't even talk about other projects until I've finished this miniscule book you so sneeringly refer to.--Chowbok (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Since you are "new" here, and I didn't know as stated above, you are going far better than "pretty good". I didn't intend to mean the book is on a nanoscale. Peace be with you, —Maury (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

my first proofread page[edit]

My first proofread page at:

seems to have a problem that I don't understand. Please help if you can.

The first footnote seems to have a space before the "big dot" which is supposed to be an "asterisk" (*). What did I do wrong? or is it because I use Mozilla Firefox? All help appreciated as I try to be helpful making improvements to Wikisource.


  • KenJ
Look at how the asterisk works above. That volume states this at the top: "Source file must be fixed before proofreading". The guys that started that volume found out that pages are missing. That is shown. It should not be worked on until those pages can be found and inserted from another source.

You did not do anything wrong with the asterisk. They are like that when they touch the left margin. We just know to remove it when it is time to use the text that follows that "big dot".

Several of us here use Mozilla Firefox. I am using the newest version now 30.0.5

I have done that page you are writing about. Look at it now and compare the before and after to see the way the asterisk and cross footnotes are now used and how they appear both under "edit" the page and when page wasn't edited. Once a page is edited you click the yellow circle under the page to indicate the page has been proofread.

Register your name or alias as shown at the beginning of wikisource. Then instead of signing you type 4 tildes in a row and save. That automatically saves your name and user page and talk page. The reason for registering is so those internet service providers that you use will not show in the message above. Some people don't worry about it and don't do this which is fine but it is safer to register - especially if you get into an argument (rare here) and someone wants to track you like you encounter using Google search engine and other search engines and websites.

I am now going to type those four (4) tildes in a row but what will show is my name and talk page. Please find a different book because of the problem with the one you worked on and asked about. I hope that this reply helps you. Happy Holidays !, —Maury (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

After Action Report 770th FA[edit]

I have in my possession, what I believe to be an authenic after action report, dated 21 August - 30 Sept 1944. My father, Robert F Williams was a T/Sgt in said unit.

I am wondering what, if anything, this report is worth.

If anyone sees this...please email me at:

David Williams

Problem with MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js in Ukrainian Wikisource[edit]

Hi! We are using MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js in Ukrainian Wikisource, it works fine, but we've got a problem with one specific page. If you go to this page in Chrome, the link to page 58 will be not shown. In Firefox everything is fine. Can anybody help me to find the cause of this issue? --DixonD (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

Other discussions[edit]

HHVM revealing new weirdness[edit]

Is anybody else forced into using the simple labeled section editing ( ## John Smith ## ) mode instead of the "old" style <section begin="John Smith" /> labeling - no matter the gadget setting to disable/restore it is set to - when HHVM (HipHop Virtual Machine) is enabled or is it 'just me' again? -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You haven't indicated the type of issue that you are seeing. I can add section labels (in Page: ns), and I can view existing pages (main ns) with section labels. I am using HHVM and have seen no quirkiness. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The issue is unless I disable HHVM, every edit/creation needing a begin or ending section tag is converted/saved as is depicted in the first gray box. I've never used this format (with the # number signs) nor was it ever "enabled" here - manually or otherwise - and if it ever was somehow enabled, I could "switch back" by using the gadget enabling the "old style" labeling (of course its confusing, its is another ThomasV piece of garbage left over from days long gone. Proper <section begin & <section end tags are actually the "default" or the "norm" loaded via core extension(s). That was overridden site wide in Base.js long ago only to be disabled site wide again via a default selected gadget).

I'm not saying it doesn't work - I'm saying its never been my preference and I'd never adopt using that resource wasting, load corrupting method of labeling on principle alone. Turning off HHVM restores my years old preference when it comes to section tags in short. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless you have since "fixed" something I am not seeing these issues (I currently have both HHVM enabled and "Use the old syntax in the Page namespace" selected. Old (<section> syntax seems to work and is not apparently "rendered" into #### upon opening edit session. In fact I deliberately took no steps to protect that #### above if that may serve as a test-case.) AuFCL (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I've never set any preferences or disabled anything, but I have always had my section labeling converted to hashtags when I insert them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The 'enable-just-to-disable' hash tag nonsense was put in place probably before you got here so that is why you believe it is normal behavior. The particulars can be found in MediaWiki:Base.js which is basically forced to load before anything else does in our MediaWiki:Common.js file. Any doubts? Let's stop forcing Base.js altogether and see what happens then shall we? -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
i was having section problems in IE (before HHVM) forcing me to use <section begin="John Smith" />. is this a pseudo-improvement? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 17:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I had LST issues the first or second day HHVM was rolled out too but that issue went away by itself. That was nothing like what started [for me] yesterday however.

I just want to be clear - I'm sure HHVM is merely revealing never before seen issues that were always lurking about rather than the outright or primary cause of them. Obviously it will become the standard once the bugs are all stopped out so there is no reason to "fear" using it while its still in beta. I've retitled this section so it hopefully doesn't come off so "accusatory" as it initially may have been. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

As for using <section begin="John Smith" /> - that goes back to my original point - regardless of having/using the hash tag approach to section labeling or not, the LST and [to an extent] the Proofread page extensions use & recognize section tags by design & nothing else. Period.

Hiding/converting/applying section labeling using hash tag syntax is a cosmetic or maybe comforting thing for editors I guess but a big honking waste of resources imho when it comes to the extensions themselves -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The hashtags were put in to make it easier for people who didn't understand the begin and end section tags, which do have their own quirkiness, and were causing some issues for some users. For some they will be easier as they are just required at the start of a section and automatically close a section at the termination of a page, unless a hashtag terminator is used. So while I prefer the old style, the alternate style was introduced for good reason as a display case, so condemning it is a little harsh when you are a vastly experienced user. People are given choice, and that is a good thing. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Nobody condemned the premise for using hash tags to make life easier for newbies - only in the manner it was implemented...

  • tags from extension is default -> automated conversion to hashes forced by Base.js site-wide -> return to default tags via gadget by per user preference
  • tags from extension is default -> automated conversion to hashes enabled universally for all via gadget initially -> restoration of default tags possible via disabling gadget by per user preference

The difference between the two instances is only the latter fulfills the premise without penalizing the "resources" of those who prefer the extension's default(s) in the process. The attempt to paint this condition as somehow a net increase in choice leading to a overall gain in benefit falls flat [again] if one examines the nuances of the facts at hand.

The Gadget interface was in place at the time and could of just as easily served as the vehicle for [java]scripting hash tags into a "reality" as forcing it via Base.js did - the promised uptick in traffic by a quick acceptance of hash-conversion prevailed over common sense and preferred practices is all. Too bad that promise played out like the search for WMD's did in Iraq.

This isn't the first time 'administration thru appeasement' has turned out to under-serve the community-at-large's interests in the long run but I consider it one of the most egregious examples of it to date. And fwiw, that was the only condemnation made in my previous comments, Neville. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, (although no one asked for it), replacing section tags with hash tags were/are a most idiotic idea. When I began using them, I was also a newbie and I was not confused by section tags, but certainly was by the hashtags. GO3, Is Neville a reference to Papa (Joseph) Chamberlain's infamous boy? — Ineuw talk 02:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
well, ok, could we get a better solution, say button on edit toolbar? a section button with a pop-up fill-in section name would be really useful. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 23:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there a way to view short pages needing reviewed?[edit]

I was looking through some of the stuff here and I noticed from the community portal that there are a lot of pages that need to be proofread. Some are very long though and have foreign language characters that need to be converted. I wanted to ask if there was a way to see the shortest unreviewed pages? A lot of headway could be made fairly quickly by doing those small pages first. Reguyla (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh and I found several pages like Page:The Oxford book of Italian verse.djvu/99. With both the needs proofread and does not need proofread note. Reguyla (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The Oxford Book of Italian Verse is mostly in Italian. Since this is the English Wikisource, and since we do not host Italian text, only the English portion (prefatory material) of that work is hosted here. The rest is available at the Italian Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
"Short pages" in the WP sense are less relevant here, especially in the main namespace. As we transclude transcribed pages from the Page:ns to main ns, so all main ns pages are small, and one that transcludes 1000 pages would be little difference in size to one that transcludes one page (we are talking a difference in 3 character … from=1 to=1 … compared with … from=1 to=1000 …). As a page of paper can only hold so much text, our page sizes in the Page: ns are pretty similar, so it comes about the work, its reproduction, and whether it is of interest. [Personally I dislike novels, as it is all the speech interaction, and short paragraphs which drives me to distraction.] What we have though, depending on your interests are:
  • small works that have been proofread in need validation, findable at Wikisource:Proofread of the Month/little works (manual list).
  • there is Category:Index Proofread which shows all works that have been proofread once, and are in need of validation
  • there is Special:IndexPages which will show a variety of works in their non-proofread/proofread/validated stages and their overarching process towards completion
  • Wikisource:Proofread of the Month which will show our current team work, and for November (each year) the focus is on validating works that have been taken to the proofread stage.
  • or sometimes I just look at Special:RecentChanges and see someone proofreading a work, and if it is vaguely of interest, I follow along behind them. (I believe that people appreciate someone validating their work as they do it, and to know that it is progressing.)
We have lots of work out there, so depending on what rocks your boat from historical, novel, biographical, poetic and musical, there is plenty available. Some of our curatorial and display of TO DO is less than perfect, so many of us will happily help you dig something out from some dark crevice, or help you do something new of interest to you. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and Wikisource:For Wikipediansbillinghurst sDrewth 23:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I already read though most of that and I know this is different from WP, but the short pages was mostly from the context of the new guy trying to learn things here. Searching through the links provided above will tell me the ones that need to be proofread and need work certainly, but as a new guy I would prefer to start by looking at some smallish pages rather than pages with paragraphs of text. If there was a way to simply pull up a few that were only a couple sentences or less, then I could rake through a bunch of those rather quickly while learning the ropes here. Thanks again. Reguyla (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately not. That would need something Page namespace specific, that interprets the proofreading status (1 or 2), AND then drills down to the size. We don't get that sort of service here. Numbers of the tools and special pages built for WPs aren't as functional here. <shrug> But don't sweat where you choose, we patrol newcomers edits, and if we see an issue then someone will usually politely say something helpful. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Another related question[edit]

I found a page Page:A Treatise on Geology, volume 2.djvu/8 with some writing on it that needs to be proofread. In these cases would we go ahead and add the text, do we mark it as blank (since its clearly not a "part" of the text, or do we do something else with it? Reguyla (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Reguyla: We leave it blank as the text itself is blank--we don't want to transcribe any hand-written notes or stamps from a library or stickers put on by a book club. The appropriate response is to leave it blank and when proofreading, check the light grey "Without text" radio button. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
KoafV is correct in our general approach where we are not interested in scratchings, library marks, etc. though there are annotations that are valid edge cases. The way that we look at it is the transcluded work, is the work of the author, and the remainder is informational and maybe notational.

What I have done previously where handwritten text is pertinent to the scan, eg. signed by author, or something of particular note, is added a {{user annotation}} (to the header or footer sections, or wrapped in <noinclude> with or you can put specific text on the Page talk: page so that it is findable by search engines. If the work is transcluded and you think that an annotation is worthy of note, you can add something to the work's note section, eg. front matter contains a personal note and signature of the author; if not transcluded then you can scribe something on the Index talk: page (and hope that someone sees it). Other components might be that it was a scan of 1 of 500 of a limited edition print run, which is another sort of valid note, but not something that we transclude as the "body of the work". — billinghurst sDrewth 23:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Great good to know thanks. Reguyla (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-45[edit]

17:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

What do we need to note and check?[edit]

My take on this note:

  • Check whether we have used Special:Cite anywhere and update if we do (though it does redirect). For information, this is a toolbar link that provides a citation for our WS page, though it cites our work, not the original author, and it is something which we should be considering for bugzilla now that metadata is better coordinated these days.
  • Review page and look at our "protection" templates, and the featured and nominated text templates, and look to migrate. Also see if other components can utilise this aspect.

billinghurst sDrewth 00:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't find any mention of Special:Cite [22]. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure I ported the change to Special:CiteThisPage for the handful of affected pages last week so it shouldn't be any surprise we can't find anything using/pointing to the old Special: page now that the code for it has actually rolled out to all wikis.
  • as for the new indicator tags replacing what amounts to the old top-icon scheme - its also live now. I concur - the protection/featured type of templates need a revamp to utilize this new approach as do the tools at the top of the Index: page template. I'm sure there are others but I can't think of them at the moment & my free time has been limiting as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-46[edit]

15:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-47[edit]

18:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikisource on front page of en:Wikipedia[edit]

For info: In about an hour there will be a link to Encyclopedia of Needlework from the "Did You Know" section of the main page of the English Wikipedia. This is a part complete book by @Durova and the article is inspired by an article about an encyclopedist. Victuallers (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikisource:Proofread of the Month/Coding[edit]

Page needs updating. Studies of a Biographer 4 is complete and needs to be replaced with another title. I would do it myself, but don't want to mess things up. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done by BWC, thanks for the prod. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

A User with a message[edit]

I recently received an unhelpful message from a user who may or may not be the same user as User:Enjoymypresencelifewasters (contribs)—an account created just after the message was posted. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks to have been handled. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Thank you. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Epub ebook download[edit]

Hi. I'm new here. I downloaded some articles (books) as epub, but I noticed that they don't have covers. Is there a way to automatically create a simple cover just with the title and author name?

Mr White (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Most of the works that resurrect are library editions where the covers are non-attractive, as the libraries have bound them. Depending on the works, in the past few years we have been better reproducing title pages and tables of contents that lead to more attractive presentations. Which works are you looking at? Otherwise, we may need to talk to @Tpt: to see what can be done by his tool to give that option. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
A photo of an Kobo ereader device showing the cover page of Something New by P. G. Wodehouse.
I thought that all epubs had basic coverpages like the one at right. Maybe it depends on which book is exported… which did you try? In general though it would be pretty cool if the epub cover page could be the titlepage has transcribed from the book. Don't know how easy it is to identify that text though.

Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 03:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

That appears as the first page. A cover like that would be nice. I downloaded Agatha Christie's books and The Golden Man. Mr White (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I utilise EPubRead firefox extension and I get cover pages when I click the sidebar link. So I am not sure what you mean by a cover, well one that is separate/different. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I also get a cover with the epub exported for The Golden Man. Perhaps this is an issue with ereader compatibility? What device and/or software are you using, Mr White? Would you mind checking the same epubs on a different setup, to see where the problem might be? I know Kobos have a setting to turn the title page off, by the way; could that be the case with your device? — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 00:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I use Google Play Books on Android and on the web. Other books (uploaded or bought from the store) appear with cover. See: Mr White (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Fat-fingered key[edit]

Index:George Washington National Moument.djvu Would someone who has the knowledge please correct the spelling on the pages of the above book? —Maury (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@William Maury Morris II: There are only seven pages proofread so far, so I'll happily look at those. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I think perhaps Maury was asking someone to move the index and pages to a title in which "Monument" is spelled correctly. Hesperian 12:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@Hesperian: Right. Gotcha. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 12:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I thank you both. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-48[edit]

19:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Index:The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus, Volume I.pdf[edit]

Can someone check the copyright status on this? Archibald was still alive in 1955.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair dinkum SF. Would you mind paying attention to the copyright tags applied to works. Look at the tag applied, then come back and tell us how the date of death is relevant. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah fair enough. PD-US-Not renewed, and Archibald was in the US in 1927. This one's OK ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Every so often -[edit]

Every so often I see what appears to be works from Project Gutenburg here on Wikisource. Why does anyone need to take from Project Gutenberg, (other than it is easy), images or text or both images and text to promote Wikisource? Shame! I am strongly opposed to it. I have always thought that we are capable enough to create our own works. There is a feeling of pride and honor in that as opposed to a shame to taking (stealing?) someone's work from elsewhere. Am I mistaken? —Maury (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Preference versus scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Maury, Gutenburg does allow expressly that kind of use, as long as they are credited as the source. It's a quick-and-dirty method of getting a work into Wikisource. It has the advantages of (a) filling a gap in our coverage quickly, and (b) being easier for new editors to manage. I won't mention the disadvantages, as I expect you already know them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I know that Gutenberg allows free use as long as their ownership? text remains attached. That is as good as Google watermarks and various universities. Since it is okay then okay, - but I personally dislike it being on Wikisource. A few works from Gutenberg can cause one to wonder how much work do we do here on Wikisource. If we produce 1 million books and among those are added 10 quality Gutenberg books an outsider who browses may think we build with other project's works - and would not know what percentage is our work.

I was reading billinghurst's remarks about epub books and tried his epubreader. I saw a book *somewhere* that we already have here along with others like it. I refer to

and specifically to

I saw a version of A Comic History of the United States by by "Bill" Nye from Project Gutenberg. Now, I spent a lot of time with text and moreso with images on that same book. Several people took the time proofing the work, editing the work, and transcluding that work and for what when Project Gutenberg has a version pulled onto Wikisource? It negates our Wikisourcer's work does it not? We did not need to take from Project Gutenberg along with its mandatory retention of text. —Maury (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I don't follow you. We've got a sourced and proofread version of a text, then we don't include a Gutenberg text. There would be no reason to duplicate a text. We only have (or keep) Gutenberg texts when we have no sourced and transcluded copy of our own. When did you ever see a Gutenberg copy added after a Wikisourcer worked to transclude a text? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it was a link from the ereaderpub program I saw Billinghurst book of PG's book? I really don't know at this point. However, the book did belong to Project Gutenberg and I did the same one mentioned above without knowing what Gutenburg has. I never go to PG and I don't read there.—Maury (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Over time our culture has changed. Several years ago the focus was on getting up as many public domain texts as possible. Grabbing Project Gutenberg works was an effective and efficient way to achieve that, and was encouraged by the community. These days our focus is on reliable, validated, properly sourced texts; we see very little value in copy-paste jobs, and discourage grabbing stuff from PG. Maury I think nearly everyone agrees with you now, but it would be a mistake to judge the past by our present values. Hesperian 00:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well, I am still a beginner with lots of things. However, I was not judging anything by date (past or present) because even now I have not looked back at those dates. I am still (always) learning fellows and I thank you for your knowledge. With all due respect, —Maury (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

In a somewhat related note. I've been getting annoyed by a lot of text that are unsourced, no publication information etc... For example, Cur Deus Homo has the title and author but no other information. Was the text digitized by another source? Are there digital scans of it, and where? Or did the editor simply have an old copy of the book and digitized it the old fashioned way? I've seen this being done on a daily basis of users creating pages that aren't properly sourced, especially that relating to foreign material. At what point do we sacrifice quality over quantity? Also, at what point do we make it official policy? To allow users to go to a pages djvu file makes wikisource unique in it's verifiability of old text. At what point do we make it official policy for scanned material? What problems could occur with these considerations? I'm not looking for a debate, I would just like to hear user opinion on these matters. --Rochefoucauld (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Cur Deus Homo
@Rochefoucauld: I doubt that it will ever be a prerequisite to have a scan to go with a work, though it will always remain our preferred means, and the only means to proofread and validate an older work. To be a featured work, it will be close to the only means to achieve that status. We should always query an unsourced work and usually this is done during the patrol phase. In patrolling we challenge and request sources, and tag it and nag the contributor. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Any unsourced work should not be allowed. The person who brings a work to wikisource should provide that source and if not it should be removed. Nag the contributor, no, demand that the contributor provide the needed source materials. We must stay clean of any copyrighted works. —Maury (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
"Unsourced" and "copyrighted" are not synonymous. An unsourced work may still be in the public domain. It may also be famous and have an article in Wikipedia. Moreover, this is a volunteer service. No "demand" can be made here of anyone. Yes, the contribution may be removed, still, no "demand" can be made. There are plenty of unsourced works here, with original contributors now inactive. Instead of throwing a tantrum, objectors should be of a positive and constructive disposition and try to find sources for those works. If someone could add it, surely another one, if sufficiently laborious, can find a source in most cases. Hrishikes (talk) 09:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I know they are not the same. When I was writing about "unsourced" (I also provided a source for Cur Deus Homo ). When typing it also came to mind that copyrighted materials must not be allowed either. That is why I wrote "materials". No debate on my end about it. Discussion, yes, anything else - No. A "demand" can be made here on anything and anyone by our editors _voting_ if anything gets to far out-of-hand. Wikisource is democratic. Who is "throwing a tantrum"? Not I. Any person can be locked out of Wikisource by a majority vote. Yes, I know no older unsourced materials cannot be removed according to what Hesperian stated on the same. Just for the record, I do not get angry easily and especially not here on a computer. That would be silly. I don't get angry face to face either. I am old enough and capable enough to know what to do in any case. Luv ya bro, —Maury (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I haven't seen a convincing argument to change our scope, though I respect that some would like it to be tougher. I am more in favour of a process to work with users to get sourced material, and to have a deletion process that reviews whether a work is within scope. As has happened previously where we get a sourced version of a work, we have deleted an unsourced version, and maybe what we are looking to do is maybe highlight by text additions to {{no source}} and as part of our conversation with contributors of unsourced works. New contributors who bring unsourced work have plenty of potential to have demonstrated that the having a source for a Wikisource work is equivalent to having a citation for a Wikipedia work. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Maury, I think one of our biggest challenges here is our very high barrier to entry:— you have to learn an awful lot of complex stuff before you can become very effective here. Many of us started off with unsourced works, got comfortable with how that part of the site works, then "graduated" to the complexities of DjVu files, index pages, the page namespace and page transclusion. If accepting unsourced works is the price we have to pay to make ourselves tolerably accessible to new contributors, then I'm glad to pay it. Hesperian 10:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I fine that no source maintenance is an acceptable means to handle this matter.(I did not know such template existed, thanks.) Probably the best way to handle it, so that we don't scare off new contributors. I know that wikipedia says that any work that is not sourced can be deleted. Usually this never happens unless the article is of popular interest. It is best that we refrain from doing this, as it is most likely counter intuitive to our project. Unless of course there are fidelity issues. Thanks for everyones insight to this matter. --Rochefoucauld (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Good people all - above the work Cur Deus Homo was mentioned as unsourced material. I found a source for that work - Cur Deus Homo - so what will be done with that work now? Will this source I found be applied to that work? There isn't much we cannot do working together. Respectfully, I am, —Maury (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    In this case, I would hope that the DjVu you found for Cur Deus Homo is suitably complete and is uploaded to Commons (if it is properly in public domain; IA sometimes makes mistakes). Then, I would hope that diligent editors proofread and validate the work, and the results are transcluded over the previous unsourced edition. That's not always how I think it should happen, though. Some of the older "unsourced" editions can have their sources tracked down, and some of them should remain alongside other editions. Some of them are well-formatted and cleaned up better than the old print copies. However, in this instance, the existing copy of Cur Deus Homo has minimal formatting besides being unsourced. There would be no reason to preserve it if we had a properly sourced edition to replace it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    I do not think those ideas are realistic. "Who ya gonna call?" [GhostBusters] I assume everyone works on their own projects or they aren't here on wikisource. —Maury (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    I've found that they can be. I'll sometimes find an abandoned and incomplete transcription that I happily jump in to work on. Sometimes I help another person get started on a project they want to do. There are also lots of lists people have made of cool books that someone ought to do. People here do find those lists and will find projects listed that they eagerly attack. I know that my own lists have spawned work from a couple of new contributors looking for a project, and I likewise have found books to work on myself listed by others. The community here may be a little loose, but there are some nice interconnections like that, where editors inspire each other to achieve. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Successful Validation Month[edit]

A typical WS proofreader

We have just completed this year's Validation Month. During the month 6071 pages were validated and 26 works were moved into the completed status. 36 editors worked on the books that were displayed on the Main Page and there were several more editors who validated pages from other works. We are still working to get a complete list of all Wikisourcerors who validated during the month.

The additions during the month bring our completed Indexes to a total of 1,566 and the total validated pages is 186,779. If we continue to validate at our normal rate (ca. 100 per day), we should reach 200,000 towards the middle of next year.

Thank you to everyone who took part in the month and also to those who kept the other aspects of our Community going at the same time. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Huzza! This is terrific; good to see some stats. Thanks to everyone who keeps this running! I love being able to amble along here to do just a few pages. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 23:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It all started with my Doomsday Book. -William. (On mouse over.)

I would like to know how many books have been downloaded & which are the most popular downloads. —Maury (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the mediawiki code editor's font-style and size?[edit]

The code editor of our personal javascript & CSS has a very interesting font style and size. How can I implement it for my textarea editing? — Ineuw talk 23:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

CodeEditor is an extension now installed by default. I guess you can browse the file tree for the .css modules handling the formatting but I'm not so sure its as simple as that - some that is based in ACE or GeSHi (like our LUA is really Scribunto) and again, may have quirks under the Wiki mark-up. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, all I was curious about is, if I could affect the #textarea1 font, with another monospace font other than Courier New. I am not sure if it can be done and my efforts were unsuccessful. If it's possible to do, and you have time, do you mind taking a look at my CSS page? — Ineuw talk 07:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah Wiki mark-up isn't going to like that but I suppose you can force [some] of the settings using !important; (already done & used correct anchor id).

The other thing to remember is, when in doubt, wiki mark-up will look to your editing prefs for a fallback font and that is usually set to 'the browser default'. Now most browsers set a default family and have fallback(s) as well -- Wiki mark-up might go through a bunch of font families before it decides what to render & when without any predictability. You might want to try some other fallback family in your preferences just to be able to usurp it in your .css is what I'm getting at in a nutshell. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Very helpful and a terrific explanation. Thank you. — Ineuw talk 07:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I have alternate editing fonts working in my stylesheet with this: body.action-edit #wpTextbox1, body.action-submit #wpTextbox1 { font-family:DPCustomMono2, monospace; font-size:10pt } I would’ve thought your "Liberation Mono" would work, but maybe the font is called something a bit different internally? By the way, I recommend the DPCustomMono2 font for proofreading! :-) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 09:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
@Samwilson: Sorry for the late reply but I really wanted to put this matter to rest, so I tried in Windows 7 using three browsers, Firefox 34.0, which is my working browser, Opera 25, and Internet Explorer 11. In all three browsers the #Textarea1 font was controlled by the browser, regardless what was specified in the CSS. The next order of font style control is the Preference/Edit setting of "Browser default", "Monospace font", "Sans-serif" or "Serif". For example, if the Wiki Preference/Edit was set to Sans-serif but the browser monospace font was Liberation mono, then the font-style changed to the proportional font specified in the browser. The only font settings I could change in the Common.css was the line height and the font-size. So, GO3 is right again. — Ineuw talk 06:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
That's very strange. I’ve got it working fine under Windows 7 FF 33 and Ubuntu FF 34. Must be something else at work. :( — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 06:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@Samwilson: Could kindly upload a screen shot of the #Textarea1 to Wikisource? Since email contact through WS does not provide for attachments and I would very much like to see it. — Ineuw talk 19:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Please don't bother to upload an image, finally managed to locate the font and download it. — Ineuw talk 20:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@Samwilson: Final note. You were right about the css font specifications. My earlier mistake was that I selected Liberation Mono in the browser, so, I couldn't tell from which setting affected the text area. Thanks for your directions. — Ineuw talk 21:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Display Middle Age text's capital U as V[edit]

What's the best way to display a Middle Age era font that display what we now call capital U as it was, which looks like V? Therefore, if people copy paste it and turn it into plain text, it will still be "u", not "v". I tried looking for a font that will do it, but I couldn't find any. Bennylin (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If the source uses a "V", then that's what should appear in the text. We don't modernize spellings or alter texts like that; we reproduce the text as it was printed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
French WS implemented a way to switch between original and modernized spelling (e.g. ſ/s). I haven’t looked into how they do it, but maybe it would be a nice feature to have? See fr:Gargantua/Édition Juste, 1535 as an example. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 19:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
That's not a difference in spelling; that's simply different orthography. It's like a change in font from ɑ to a. The symbol ſ was how "s" was rendered in the middle of words in handwriting. For some texts, we choose to preserve that orthography, but most search engines recognize ſ as an s. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I’m unclear as to the difference between spelling and orthography (they both translate to the same term in French). In any case, I still think an easy way to switch between ſ and s, uu and w, þ and th, etc. would be useful. While it is important to keep a faithful transcription of older texts, a character modernization option could be very useful for legibility. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 02:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
orthography = conventional spelling system of a language. —Maury (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
A rough distinction is: orthography is how the letters look when printed, while spelling is which letters are used to make up a word. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Sadly no.

c.f. w:orthography vs w:typography: I think you will find you are describing the latter, not the former. 05:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, poorly worded. I meant the general shape of the printed letters rather than serif vs san-serif, &c. i.e. a capital P vs a capital Π. They are the same letter in spelling, but not the same in orthography. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Beeswax, you were correct. The IP was linking to encyclopedia entries, and not to definitions. See wikt:orthography to note that there are multiple meanings of the word orthography, and that the WP article treats only one of those definitions, because Wikipedia articles concern ideas, not words. Hence, the article on w:Plant covers only green living organisms, and not the manufacturing sort. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
So it's technically impossible to do that? Bennylin (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
It could be possible, for example if you create a template similar to what {{ls}} does. However, I think the point is that you should just use V. Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
"ſ" is another way to write s; I'm not a huge fan of bothering with it at all since it conveys so little information over just writing an s and letting those few who might care look at the scans. þ doesn't appear in modern English basically at all (see w:þ), and Middle English has much worse things then that. U/V as positional variants of each other is complex, but is certainly not something that should be handled at the font level.
I'm all for modernized spelling editions of our works; they're useful and relatively noncontroversial. I don't see much point in work at such a low-level as stressing about a few characters.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
My opinion on the matter depends on the work. When transcribing a philosophical treatise by John Locke, I see no point in worrying about ſ because almost no one will care. But when transcribing a copy of Shakespeare's First Folio, I fret over every possible point of presentation because people going to that work may very well care. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Search engine visibility of wikisource content[edit]

I posted the same question on the multilingual wikisource, but it looks like there is nobody active on the local scriptorium, so I am reposting here.

Hi, I am wondering why wikisource content is not at the top of search results. I have this experience from my language search results but I doubt there will be much difference in different language search results. Why does major search engine after input of exact name of a book, that is fully published on wikisource gives instead of a link to the books text here on wikisource (which I would expect since I didnt state "where to buy exact name of the book or something else) some other results such as bookshops to buy it and articles on the author etc. I know that exact algorhytms for ranking pages are known only to employees of the search engine companies, but I wonder if there is any information publicly known about this "problem". Thanks --Wesalius (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Many books we digitize come from other top sources such as
  • Google books
  • Internet Archive
  • Both sites have huge traffic and have hosted the content much long than we've had it.
  • They use OCR, so all content is transcribed(poorly) but enough to show up on search results.
This goes for many other book sellers too, they have previews of the book that show up in search results.
2. Google tracks book sites on price, availability, and review ratings, right on search results pages. (wikisource currently fails to adhere to these guidelines.)
  • This enables sites to:
  • Attract potential buyers while they are searching for items to buy on Google.
  • Control product information and maintain the accuracy and freshness of product information, so customers find the relevant, current items they're looking for.

--Rochefoucauld (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I went and did some reading at Google, then, then played with the JSON-LD version, failed, asked some people who could explain. The response is 1) mediawiki disallows the use of <script ...> for security reasons (JSON-LD), and 2) disallows the addition of microformats (the inline components). So basically at this point "checkmate". I have been a little pushy and emailed wikitech-l, and cc'd wikisource-l to see if they can better address the matter and assist to get better search results per the Google webmaster instruction. One could see that we could template into {{header}} for works, and {{author}} for authors either the microformat, or the JSON methodology, or pull the data from wikidata, or some better method, it is just being recommended on the best means, and being allowed to do so. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing it up for me. Its too bad it is beyond our possibilities (if I understood it correctly) to make the content here more search engine visible. Compared to it is stored in a way more readable way and availability compared with google books, well that depends a lot on country you are viewing the content from :/ I know that google is not a public serviec, but a for-profit company, so I cant really blame them to prioritize content, that can be monetized. --Wesalius (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Validated works' category browser[edit]

I’ve had a little crack at compiling a basic single-page category-tree browser for works that are in Category:Index Validated (well, the ones that have corresponding mainspace pages, which is maybe not all of them). I mainly wanted an easy way to find books to read on my ereader, but it makes for an interesting way to browse the structure of things. If anyone’s interested, it’s at: (warning: in a completely ridiculous move on my part, it's a single 12.6MB HTML file, so I don't know, maybe save it offline or something... I’ll get around to making it more ajaxy if I can be bothered!). :) Oh, and the data I used is from 26 November (in case it looks out of date; it is). — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 02:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright Sanity Check[edit]

This work: is a 1917 Guidebook published under HMSO Auspices.

It's written by am author that died in 1952 , seemingly in an official capacity?

Would it be reasonable to apply Crown Copyright rules to this? - If so the work is copyright expired and can be put on Wikisource.

Opinions sought. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

On the front cover of the work it says "Crown Copyright Reserved" so that is what it will be. Presumably written in the course of employment. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Which as it was written seemingly in 1917 . It can be put on Commons :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Copyright Act, 1956 (United Kingdom)/Part 6#53billinghurst sDrewth 01:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Index:Kirby Muxloe Castle near Leicester (1917).djvu and the file needs 2 duplicate pages removed, and the images uploaded, other than that I can have this proofread very quickly :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Kirby Muxloe Castle near Leicester- Hows that for efficency :) ? No images though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-50[edit]

17:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Index:US Senate Report on CIA Detention Interrogation Program.pdf[edit]

Will continue later, but any hints? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Forth Bridge (1890)[edit]

I think it would be possible to finish Index:Forth Bridge (1890).djvu by Christmas with a little help on validation, formatting and tables. It's already had some great input from others and the lion's share of it is complete. RandomPerson137 (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle: may be worth slipping into the PotM remnants. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Help with drop initail image[edit]

1. "P

Is there any way I can get the [1. "] that is before the drop initial Image to be in the top left corner as per the source at la:Pagina:DELITIAE SAPIENTIAE DE AMORE CONJUGIALI.djvu/2? I've used "expand template tool" to get it as it is since there is no template for it at the Latin wikisource, so I don't have a clue what the code I'm using means and how to use it. I'm new to wiki and would appreciate any help. Thanks.

Here done this way:

" 1.



Hrishikes (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't help you much with that problem, but it appears that this is entirely in Latin, and would be better suited for the Latin Wikisource.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Umm, Zhaladshar, it is on the Latin Wikisource. Look at the link. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If you could specify the page where you need this to be done, and precisely what it is you need, we might be able to help. You've shown us an example where it is done, so you could copy the code and paste it in to wherever it is you are doing whatever it is you are doing. The details of what happens would depend on what it is you're trying to accomplish and where you're trying to do it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

See if this is OK for you. I watched at the HTML code ("view source") generated here and tried to replicate it there.--Mpaa (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes Mpaa that's perfect. Thank you very much! --Jpez (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The Condor title page[edit]

I've created a title page for The Condor, and you can see it at Page:Condor5(2).djvu/1. Before I go ahead and use it on all ~100 issues, does anyone have any criticism or suggestions for how to do it better? Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Instead of a standard hyphen, I suggest using an en-dash ( – ) between the month names. Otherwise, it looks fine to me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks jolly good. I think the illustrator's signature is part of the illustration and should have been left there rather than extracted and rendered as text. Hesperian 03:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-51[edit]

16:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Index:The Botanical Magazine, Volume 2 (1788).djvu[edit]

Is it just me going crazy or are Index's not previewable right now? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

also when doing a preview of a page I KNOW is a proofread (Yellow band) I get a RED one? Anyone? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
All looks fine. Sounds like you have a connection issue, and where a page exists but cannot connect it is serving a cached version. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm having a similar problem right now in that the text layer of files is not showing up in the edit window. It isn't a connection or cache issue at my end, as far as I can determine. Could it be a result of today's software update? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


<striking original to put in something more neutral>

Apparently there was a policy change at Commons concerning PD-UN licensed materials Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-UN., back in June.

Would someone here be willing to review what's potentially affected here if anything? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikilivres down?[edit]

Maybe I haven't looked hard enough, but I am just wondering what became of the site (not French Wikibooks): all the links are dead at the moment, earlier there was a notice that payment for the domain name was overdue, and it's definitely worrisome that a legal Canadian site for PD-old-50 books would go down so suddenly. Mahir256 (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be up now. Maybe someone forgot to pay the bills? :) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 05:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)