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.

Identifying any Toolserver links[edit]

At the end of this month Toolserver ( //, supported by WMF-DE) will be shutting down, and all the tools are meant to have been migrated to Tool Labs (//, within WMF framework). Would all users please keep an eye out and check links for tools that you use on the site, and bring them to the attention of the community. Hopefully the tools have been migrated, otherwise we will have to have a mad scramble and get things moved. (PS. Not worried about anything that is sitting in a talk page archive.) Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is the sort of thing you are looking for, but your query prompted my curiosity and according to my browser logs this URL is being constantly polled (Probably once every page view? I have no real idea why, but the language selector is probably a bit of a hint too.):
AuFCL (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Exactly the sort of thing. That is the "WhatLeavesHere" gadget, and I have pinged User:Krinkle to see if he is migrating the required component of his script. If it isn't migrated, we will retire the gadget. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
@AuFCL: this one should now be resolved. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
@sDruwth Agreed: no more activity to turning up here (in last half-hour or so.) The slot formerly occupied now appears to be going to instead. AuFCL (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
It should have always been going there, as that is the gadget. The gadget now should be calling "//" which is the replacement box, and the upgraded set of scripts. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Has the Proofread Page Statistics tool been migrated? It is still linked from Help:Page status and possibly other pages. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes under phetools at Toollabs:. Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 16:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment — I've taken the list down to under 500 leaving us with mostly archived or talk-page instances of Toolserver usage/linkage for now, but there are at least 2 old toolserver account holders that really need to be ported over to wmflabs to retain consistency...

  • Inductiveload
  • ~vvv
...among a handful of possible others. You can see the current list HERE. -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The linked list contains four unused toolserver links with my name. They served no purpose. Should I remove the links from the archives?— Ineuw talk 07:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
{{Anontools/ipv4}} & {{Anontools/ipv6}} both currently contain (non-functional) hard-coded references to // This deficiency ripples up through MediaWiki:sp-contributions-footer-anon to affect non-logged-in Special:Contributions use. unsigned comment by Snippy (talk) .
No obvious replacements for the links, so I hve just commented them out. Thanks for the notification. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Vector skin: Thumbnail style update[edit]

There's an upcoming change to the thumbnail styling in Vector […]

The primary change is to remove the "box" border, which will bring the clean style that was recently added to <gallery> to all our thumbnails, plus consistency with our mobile view and the images on most Main Pages.

It will be arriving on non-Wikipedias [including English Wikisource] on August 12, and on Wikipedias on August 14, so there's additional time to acclimate. The design team will be available to discuss this, and other updates and ideas, with anyone interested at Wikimania in 2 weeks.

Please see documentation and details, at mw:Thumbnail style update

—Quiddity, Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list

Passing the information along. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer - looks like they've changed some pieces that are already possible with {{FI}} & {{FIS}} though. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

User global javascript and css configuration[edit]

I am excited to announce that on Tuesday, August 26, we will be deploying the GlobalCssJs extension, which enables per-user JavaScript and CSS across public Wikimedia wikis. Users will be able to create global.js and global.css subpages on Meta-Wiki and these pages will automatically be loaded across all public Wikimedia wikis.

There is documentation available if you want to load JavaScript on a subset of all wikis (e.g., all Wikisources, all French language projects, etc.).

Some users currently have manually set up global JavaScript/CSS by creating local user subpages (e.g., monobook.js/css subpages) to load their global scripts. For these users, the deployment of the extension will mean that modules will be loaded twice, and they will no longer be included in global scope. A script has been prepared to delete these page if they were created in the standard format. Users can signup at a Meta-Wiki page to have this done on their behalf once the extension is deployed.


—Legoktm, wikitech-ambassadors mailing list

For your information. As Wikisource users tend to be crosswiki contributors (both within interlanguage sites and across sister sites), and occasionally editors of js and css files, this information is possibly of interest to you. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Global preferences[edit]

As I was editing my Preferences (replicating from the English) in the French Wikipedia, a silly question occurred to me. Why not provide a replication gadget of the user Preferences of global users on other Wikis. Access to this gadget on another Wiki where I plan to post/edit occasionally would be helpful and at the same time limit spawning the info to sites where there is little likelihood that I will be posting to, like Esperanto, but then who knows? — Ineuw talk 02:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Having just looked at the installation instructions, I was disappointed to find that it's not just a gadget or preferences switch. Understanding how to create and modify these files makes them inaccessible to the average user (I am barely able to follow the instructions myself). I guess that's for the future. Laura1822 (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@Laura1822: where are these installation instructions? Helder 18:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC) I was referring to the page target of the first link above in the quoted announcement. Laura1822 (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@Ineuw: what gadget are you referring to? Helder 18:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
BTW: I started a gadget for this task a few days ago (but it is still undocumented, sorry). Helder 18:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you got my drift, the gadget doesn't exist yet, and there is no rush. It was an idea for a gadget which copies preferences from my Home account to the one where I activate the gadget. Since my home account is on English Wikipedia. I also understand that not every setting here corresponds, which is fine, setting those manually anyone can easily live with that. — Ineuw talk 19:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Phabricator to replace bugzilla end of September[edit]

According to our plans, we are just a few weeks away from Wikimedia Phabricator Day 1. On that day, Bugzilla will be accessible in read-only mode, and all the bug reports will have been migrated to Phabricator. From that point, all bug reporting will be done in Phabricator.

We are very excited about this move. Phabricator provides a friendlier environment to new/casual users while offering a powerful collaboration platform for software development and project management in general -- all at once! For instance, users can edit task descriptions, one task can be assigned to more than one project (or none), and tasks can be organized in project workboards (i.e. ).

Learn about the launch at You can subscribe to this task to receive any updates.

This Day 1 is also relevant for other migrations (RT, Trello, Mingle, even Gerrit at some point) but first of all we want to make sure that the Bugzilla migration is well communicated and understood across all Wikimedia projects. For that, we need your help.

We are planning the communication activities at -- feedback and volunteers are welcome.

Learn more about Wikimedia Phabricator, and how we got to the point we are now after nine months of discussion and work:

If you need help using Phabricator or you see other users with problems, check/improve Support is provided at the related Talk page.

We will continue sending major updates to this list between now and Day 1. As always, we welcome your questions and feedback.

—Quim Gil, Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation, Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list

As a quick note. At a later point of time, once the migrations have occurred, there will be scope for the project management tools to be used for the non-technical aspects. Having used Trello, that type of tool will be interesting to see how functional we can make it; definitely something that we can use for managing maintenance. So the suite of tools has possibilities. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Query: Is Phabricator intended to always "stand apart" from the rest of the wiki-cluster (ala existing Bugzilla); or are logins intended to be eventually merged and/or OAUTH/login-by-credential access enabled? In other words, ought interested parties be applying for logins now, or would that be jumping the gun? (Or have I just missed something obvious?) AuFCL (talk) 11:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't create any account, as once it comes out of labs space then it will use your existing wmf credentials, as per mw:Phabricator/Help. (Labs environment tools purposefully don't utilise wmf credentials for security reasons.)

Please be kind to the cleaning crew[edit]

I've been going through the list of Queued to be validated and in case anyone knows of a book/work/project that's been proofread and waiting to be validated Please add it to the bottom of the list with the link preceded by the year and month as in YYYY-MM, (2014-09). P.S: I don't do windows - just in case it comes up. — Ineuw talk 21:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I may (probably) have missed the point, but are you perhaps really looking for Category:Index Proofread? AuFCL (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Or try something along the lines of (for a semi-automated list):
category=Index Proofread
addfirstcategorydate=ISO 8601
Sample output (limited to random 10 entries):
? AuFCL (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I was referring only to the list of the 50 titles at the above link. Only BWC can answer why they were listed there. All I wanted to do is add the year & month to the list to prioritize them by date.
Of course your list is the correct one for all works waiting to be validated, if we were planning to do validations based on the oldest proofread date. — Ineuw talk 03:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Oops. More fool me. I should have read your request more carefully before deciding what you really wanted. Pardons, please? AuFCL (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not an issue. Unwittingly, I butted into User:Beeswaxcandle's territory. I acted on the wrong assumption and will clear it up with BWC. — Ineuw talk 19:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Scroll-wheel in ProofreadPage[edit]

I'm not too sure if this counts as a proper announcement; and in any case not being a complaint it might result in culture-shock around these parts resulting in summary censorship.

Considerably to the contrary: I have just noticed that (presumably since the last version upgrade) the scan image may once more be resized using the mouse/scroll-wheel in Firefox during edit sessions. This feature has only been broken for me continuously for the last twelve months (or maybe more) so a big thank-you from me to whomsoever wishes to claim credit for the fix. AuFCL (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

More like 2 or 3 versions ago. See

Prior to that (& if I recall correctly), it was intentionally crippled for some reason or another and refinements since have allowed for its "recent" return. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I must have just become used to not expecting it to work, so simply never retried. I did notice on my very rare and occasional forays into μSoft/I.E. land that it has been working for several months there. AuFCL (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I used it for the first time in ages just the other day, and it was useful. But I must admit, I never realised it’d been broken! I normally am on a big wide monitor, and with the left sidebar completely removed, and so the scans appear rather big anyway. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 03:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


Automated import of openly licensed scholarly articles[edit]

The idea of systematically importing openly licensed scholarly articles into Wikisource has popped up from time to time. For instance, it formed the core of WikiProject Academic Papers and is mentioned in the Wikisource vision. However, the Wikiproject relied on human power, never reached its full potential, and eventually became inactive. The vision has yet to materialise. We plan to bridge the gap through automation. We are a subset of WikiProject Open Access (user:Daniel Mietchen, user:Maximilanklein, user:MattSenate), and we have funding from the Open Society Foundations via Wikimedia Deutschland to demo suitable workflows at Wikimania (see project page). Specifically, we plan to import Open Access journal articles into Wikisource when they are cited on Wikipedia. The import would be performed by a group of bots intended to make reference handling more interoperable across Wikimedia sites. Their main tasks are:

  • (on Wikipedia) signalling which references are openly licensed, and link them to the full text on Wikisource, the media on Commons and the metadata on Wikidata;
  • (on Commons) importing images and other media associated with the source article;
  • (on Wikisource) importing the full text of the source article and embedding the media in there;
  • (on Wikidata) handling the metadata associated with the source article, and signalling that the full text is on Wikisource and the media on Commons.

These Open Access imports on Wikisource will be linked to and from other Wikimedia sister sites. Our first priority though will be linking from English Wikipedia, focusing on the most cited Open Access papers, and the top-100 medical articles. In order to move forward with this, we need

  • General community approval
  • Community feedback on workflows and scrutiny on our test imports in specific.
  • Bot permission. For more technical information read our bot spec on Github.

We will have a Google hangout to answer any questions live on Sunday, June 15th 2014, at 6PM UTC. Please come and ask us questions. original link/new link

Daniel Mietchen (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Interesting idea, all sounds very positive, is there any opposition or reasons for not doing this? Jeepday (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
What users are going to proofread and validate all of these texts? A bot can't do that. ResScholar (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
This is going to sound trite, but I am quite serious. If these works are truly imported "born-digital" efforts, then proofreading is going to amount to generating some kind of digital hash of the originating (website?) and of the imported copy; and validation will become someone (or bot) verifying the two calculations coincide. Presumably if they do not that triggers (the possibility of) a new edition? AuFCL (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it's a very good idea, a serious step for the integration of the w:Open Access world with the Wikimedia one. Being born-digital content, I would support all kinds of "bot-hash" validation, but please do not tell me (somebody, in the past did) to upload the PDFs in the Proofread extension... :-D Aubrey (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we are talking bout born-digital documents, so the proofreading effort should be vastly below normal by Wikisource standards. We cannot guarantee that it will be zero, though, despite having tested the pipeline from several angles. There could always be unusual ways of formatting in the sources that may cause problems with the import. Such cases would have to be handled as bugs (see the bug tracker), and once these are fixed, the text would have to be re-imported (and images or media re-inserted). Some sort of automated quality check is desirable, but simple hashes won't do, since the materials are converted from one flavour of XML (JATS) - with quite some inconsistencies - into another (MediaWiki XML). -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that we are building both on-wiki and developer communities through en:w:WP:WikiProject Open Access and wpoa on github, providing a base for long-term sustainability of the project. In terms of proofreading and validation, we can also implement spot-checking and various other organic methods for general quality assurance on top of the bug-handling method Daniel mentioned above. Mattsenate (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a great project, Daniel! A few observations: there is some data in the original that is not being brought over, including the copyright information, author information, article notes, and full citation information (URL, DOI, publication date, etc.). This shouldn't just be on a WikiProject (non-main namespace). I'm not sure if this all belongs in the header, but since there is index of page scans for bibliographic information, it should go somewhere in the article page.

There should potentially be a PLoS One page, and similar created for each journal, like the general Popular Science Monthly which links to each article. I am also curious, if you have some minimal amount of author metadata (as [1] does), could the bot create minimal author pages on Wikisource? (If so, could it also create a new Wikidata item for them/update an existing one with the Wikisource link?) Will the new Wikidata items for the journal articles indicate in some way that the texts are cited in a Wikipedia article (is that an existing property?) I also think that there should be some kind of a template for any article cited on Wikipedia, perhaps as an additional parameter in {{plain sister}}, instead of just being used for Wikipedia articles that are about the text. Dominic (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dominic:, I like these suggestions. Yes, I think these should eventually go in the main namespace. As for organization, I don't mind having this done by Journal, or Publisher, or neither and just using Categories. We can do whatever the community desires on that front. As for author and other metadata, that information is available, and we can upload it to Wikisource no problem. We are not planning for Wikidata integration our first phase because Wikidata will not support arbitrary-item-lookup yet, but its in our long-term goals. Lastly, the fantasy of seeing which Wikipedia articles cite a given journal will be materialized in a hacky way, as we plan to publically expose the live database the bot makes of what-cites-what. Maximilianklein (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
fyi here is
Directory of Open Access Journals
lists freely accessible archives of serials
Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 03:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Based on our "hangout" video chat discussion, we would love some feedback on these motivations for the project:
Primary reasons to incorporate this content into WikiSource:
  • Signalling that a given reference has a mediawiki-marked-up copy on Wikisource is a clear indication that the source is actually Open Access (has a compatible license).
  • Providing full text, with in-context images, video, audio, and other media facilitates improving Wikipedia as a deep, rich, "free" as in "freedom" reference work.
  • Uploading source content including text, images, and other media closer to time of publication reduces the barrier to entry to cite academic works in Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects.
Mattsenate (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Did you mention what you intended to do about author pages? Charles Matthews (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I received an invitation to comment, but it was not addressed to me. The invitation posted to my user talk page was addressed to Billinghurst. When the invitation is addressed incorrectly, and contains typographical errors, I'm not impressed. How will giving this job to a bot succeed if the initial proposal isn't even proofread and sent out correctly? Is this just a proposal to have a bot dump stuff here, or all there qualified and skilled people somewhere willing to ensure this works that way it should? Also, are they proposing to upload the images, video, and audio here? That shouldn't happen, as that's what Commons is for. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey:, sorry I misaddressed your User talk message - I was sending out quite a few, and Special:MassMessage is admins only. In fact that quite highlights the need for automation in general, a bot wouldn't have got tired at the twentieth message, and made such a mistake. I hope we can address the proposal on it's own terms, not on my invitation-message-skills. In response to your questions, we are not 'just dumping' articles, we will first start with the most highly cited articles on English Wikipedia, and then link the references to Wikisource. So the articles will be receiving attention directed from English Wikipedia as well. Additionally, we will be using Commons for the images and videos, and our example articles already sport Commons-usage. Do you have any other concerns?
Maximilianklein (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
@Charles Matthews: the problem with starting author pages is that there is not yet a good system that would allow to (a) disambiguate between different authors spelled the same way (ORCID aims to solve that problem but has not been widely adopted yet) and (b) import information about the respective authors that goes beyond the name and perhaps affiliation. So it is not within scope for us at the moment. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
@Charles Matthews: +1 to what Daniel said. In this regard, we expect to utilize the "No author link" feature of Template:Header (or equivalent) to prevent the generation of author-page redlinks. Mattsenate (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, one reason I asked is because the author page information we give here on Wikisource is a reasonably distinctive feature of this repository. Another is that I'm aware of ORCID. A third is that author pages here are now connected with Wikidata, and we should be thoughtful about that.
Is there any chance you could think further about the decision to "dump" papers here without serious author information, for example by developing a view on ORCID? A couple of points on this are (a) my own view that WS should be looking to differentiate itself by "adding value" to its content, not simply hosting it; and (b) the announcement above of a WS panel at Wikimania, for which this project could provide a debating point: should WS folk be pro-active in promoting addition of metadata, rather than "relaxed"? Charles Matthews (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Questions and Comments—a) While hosting public domain scientific papers is certainly within our ambit, why do we need to host digital-native papers that are also hosted by their publishers? Is access to the papers in danger of being lost? b) I agree with Charles' concerns about not linking the authors. The main purpose of the "override_author" field is to allow for linking of multiple authors, and a secondary purpose is for authors that are unlinkable. It's not intended as a way to get away without linking authors. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
In response to Beeswaxcandle’s question A, "why should we host things that are hosted someplace else?". For the same reason we host works that are hosted by Project Gutenberg and/or Google Books. We are a library, not the library of things without another home. Jeepday (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if we're a good place for these things, but access is always in danger of being lost. Sites that were assumed to be permanent disappear fairly frequently, and publishers are hardly reliable sources; if it's not economically valuable, they'll toss it to the side in a second, or just let it decay and not notice or care. Massive mirroring is the best way to prevent stuff from disappearing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Other reasons to host these articles here are that citations from places like Wikipedia could actually link to a section or figure or other part of the source, rather than to the work as a whole, which makes it much easier to follow, understand and verify streams of argumentation (remember that we plan to import articles upon citation from Wikipedia). Plus, import of full articles here makes the images available for reuse across Wikimedia sites and beyond. Thousands of images from open access scholarly sources have been uploaded manually to Commons and reused from there, so why not support this process with a dose of automation? -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea and I think the author pages can be created via bot (in cases of authors with the same name they can be created manually, if bot creation is difficult, impossible, or problematic). Will the Wikidata item be classified as "work" or "edition"?--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The journal articles would probably be classified as article (Q191067). -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If we don't have author pages, how will we link together two or more works by the same person? Also, +1 for using ORCID (I'm Wikipedian-in-Residence at ORCID, and can help with that). Pigsonthewing (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

We would be interested in creating the relevant author pages automatically if there is sufficient information. @Pigsonthewing can you take a look at the sample uploads and see what you can find out about the authors through ORCID's channels and how that could be automated? -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
We don't want to circumvent policies but to improve reference management across Wikimedia sites and to facilitate the reuse of suitably licensed materials from scholarly sources. Volume 9 in the example above refers to the journal's content for an entire year, which has very little overlap with the content of that particular article, so there is no need to bring them over together. We are open to importing full issues or volumes of journals, but thought it better to filter in some way, preferably by usage on Wikipedia. Once the system would work as proposed, it could of course be extended to more comprehensive coverage of particular journals or publishers. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
How does what amounts to an unbacked, cherry-picked copy & paste improve reference management exactly? I understand you folks seek the ability to specifically target a line or lines in a work hosted here that supports the assertion or assertions being presented in a Wikipedia article, but then what? Devil's advocate says Wikisource is BS edited by BSers - without a hard copy backing up the article all you've done is introduce doubt rather than eliminate it completely. And when the entire body of a publication is available for inspection, its hard to argue the content has been tampered with at the same time. I'm not saying you need to proofread all 700 pages or whatever of a "Volume 9" into mainspace works for the sake of the 16 or so specifically needed either. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to "force" my opinion in a project (en.s) which I don't know well, but I would strongly suggest to weight pros and cons of this project. IMHO, this idea is fully into the scope and boundaries of Wikisource. Wikisource is a wiki digital library (hope we can agree on this) and it serves for access, referencing and linking of free texts. We are supposed to be a primary source, thus with reliable and accurate transcriptions of texts. The Proofread extension came 7/8 years ago and since it has change a lot the behavior of the WS communities, for better. But often it gives us the impression that everything needs to be backed up by scans and proofread and validated. We are talking about "born-digital" documents. I'm quite perplexed and confused by the idea that I need to treat a born-digital as it was made by paper. We have quite literally the "original copy" of the article (its XML source) and could see the PDF as a derivative work. If we put all these texts into the Proofread extension, we will lose the chance to have in a snap readable, reliable texts, and we will wait for ages for people patient enough to want to proofread a PDF.
I don't think it's worth it, for the sake of higher reliability, to sacrifice a ripe, sweet, low-hanging fruit. We already will have the PDFs on Commons, and are trying to set up a suitable workflow for all the data. We will earn readability, source for Wikipedia, increased readership, and maybe for the first time in the history of Wikisource we will be a real, up to date, and important source for Wikipedia. We will a real, important step in the integration and collaboration of Open Access and the Wikimedia world.
I'm sorry if I sound emotional, but this for me is a real breakthrough, and I would very much would like to see how it goes. And what we can accomplish with it. Aubrey (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Your points are all well taken here but I still beg to differ. Being born-digital, I expect we'll have less in the way of correcting and more in the way of simple formatting (wiki-markup) than usual. I don't see what we are losing by treating all types of hosted works as uniformly as possible while moving forward. History has taught us works backed by scans/docs hold up far better than any Project Guttenburg text-dump ever could and its the only real way to preserve the fidelity of the work over the passage of time as well. You can't weasel-word your way into an article when a side-by-side, page-to-page comparison of the original is just 1 click away. - George Orwell III (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
What scares me is the fact that if we put all in the Proofread workflow we will have hundreds of Index pages with red links and 25% and 50% pages, and moreover to waste volunteers' energy and time for proofreading something that is worth it. I think is more important not to waste volunteers time than being over-cautious on the reliability of texts, if we have a fair system to recall the source. I understand that the "original" copy is important, but that would be still one-click away, on Commons. That is enough, for me (of course, MVHO). I'm also in favor of any kind of automated tool/workflow/procedure to check the source, or have it one-click away. Aubrey (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
History has taught us that, huh? I assume you're talking about Project Gutenberg, which has tens of thousands of works and has been around since the start of the Internet, providing hundreds of thousands of copies of their most popular works, and comparing it to a project that doesn't have nearly that many completed books and has only been around for a decade. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1866)/Chapter 1 has less than one hit a day, whereas Project Gutenberg has recorded 23,826 downloads of their edition since they started keeping track; even if that were over the entire 24 years of the web, that would still be 1,000 downloads a year, not counting copies sent out on floppy, data CD, DVD or the Librivox transcription.
Looking at PG, I see the producers care much more about the fine details then the end users. Looking at Wikipedia, it seems pretty clear that people are not continually stressed about Wiki changes, even the much harder to track environment of Wikipedia. Looking at the world, I see that treating competitors who are much larger and more successful then you as if they were nothing because they don't use your latest and greatest ideas comes off as hubris, and in the open source world will annoy people who work on both projects.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
You assume too much. Project Guttenburg is an excellent repository - because no giblit can come in and edit the piece after the fact. This is contrary to current practice here, where once the immediate attention of producing the work disapates, the work is open for anyone at anytime. Tracking and reverting such stupidity is far easier when the work is backed by scans locally rather than having to go back to PG to verify the edit's fidelity. At that point, WS has become irrelevant - I might as well stick with PG altogether and not bother with WS at all.

And to be clear, I have no problem testing the waters by increasing traffic via this new program but it's implementatio is contrary to what we already know and practice. No 'devil's advocate' gives a fuck a work was copy and pasted from PG because they know its too much work to prove otherwise just the same as it will be with some XML backed copy & paste. One must plan for the lowest common denominator and hope that never happens. But if it does (like history tells us), we'll be proactively prepared to easily counter it. I just can't fully support the proposal without further discussion/consideration is all. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@User:George Orwell III Re "unbacked": We are talking about importing articles from PubMed Central (PMC), which is one of the world's largest repositories of digital copies of scholarly articles. These copies are supplied there directly by the publishers in a dedicated XML format (JATS) that they produce from the authors' accepted manuscript, alongside (and often as the source of) the HTML and PDF versions. Both the publisher and PMC check the quality of the XML in various ways. Plus, PMC has as solid a long-term archiving strategy as is currently possible, and most if not all of the relevant publishers are members of long-term archiving schemes like CLOCKSS. Hard copies are not normally part of these workflows (though most publishers produce some for long-term archival purposes), and I do not see the point in introducing them for importing these articles into Wikisource. Such XML-based workflows are markedly different from digitization-based ones as used at Project Gutenberg, where a digital copy of an article is obtained (usually much later and without access to the authors' manuscript) from scanning or photographing a paper copy, followed by optical character recognition, which remains an erroneous process and requires careful proofreading.
Re "cherry-picking": I fully agree with your statement "when the entire body of a publication is available for inspection, its hard to argue the content has been tampered with at the same time", and we had not even thought of not making the entire body of imported articles available for inspection here. As stated above, "we are open to importing full issues or volumes of journals, but thought it better to filter in some way, preferably by usage on Wikipedia" (and perhaps Commons), which happens on a per-article (or per-figure) base, rather than per journal issue or volume. On the other hand, being able to link to a specific section, figure, table or other part of a cited reference through Wikisource would reduce the potential for inappropriate references to be cherry-picked as references in, say, Wikipedia articles.
Re "copy & paste": that's kind of our point here - since we are essentially (save the format conversion between JATS and MediaWiki XML, which may introduce formatting errors) talking about a "copy & paste" workflow of the article content, the need for proofreading will be much less than for materials that come here through digitization-based workflows. To facilitate side-by-side comparisons, we are open to import the PDF too and to embed it into the Wikisource page.
Re "How does [the above] improve reference management exactly?": in the long run, we envisage our import tool to be triggered once a suitably licensed scholarly article is cited on any page in any Wikipedia. It would then
  1. import the images and associated media to Commons
  2. import the full text into the appropriate Wikisource
  3. create a Wikidata item for the scholarly article, with links to its materials on Commons and on Wikisource
  4. update the citation on Wikipedia with links to the materials on Commons and on Wikisource as well as the metadata on Wikidata.
This means that - once arbitrary access to Wikidata is implemented - the metadata for a scholarly article (along with pointers to Commons, Wikisource and Wikidata) would become instantly available for use in all Wikidata-integrated wikis, and could be curated on Wikidata. That would be a marked improvement over the current situation in which the metadata may be managed in multiple places on any given wiki, with little coordination across wikis.
We could even think of starting Wikidata items for all the references cited in that imported article, thus laying the ground for more comprehensive coverage of the literature on Wikidata. That would also provide a possibility for annotating the bibliographies of articles imported into Wikisource.
To get things started, we do not aim at all languages, all Wikimedia projects and all scholarly articles (nor their references or possible annotations) initially, but start with the English Wikipedia and with English-language articles that are openly licensed and available in a format that can be uploaded to the English Wikisource. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
@Daniel: "I do not see the point in introducing [hard copies] for importing these articles into Wikisource." Then you do not understand Wikisource's Best Practices. I would also say that you are much more optimistic about WikiData than I am. I was rather optimistic about WikiData, until it went active; the editors there either (a) do not understand what is going on at the individual projects and are not open to feedback from those projects, or (b) understand other projects but have been banned from those projects and now have control of the link data for the projects from which they were banned. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
user:EncycloPetey user:George Orwell III What are "Wikisource's Best Practices" for born-digital works? Please stop reading here if I misunderstand you, but I think you are saying that Wikisource requires "hardcopy" versions to authenticate all works. "Born digital" works will not have hardcopies backing them up, and if I understand you correctly, you wish for uploaders of born digital works to artificially derive a new and original hardcopy version from that born digital work, then upload the hardcopy to Wikisource, and authenticate the born digital work against that. Is this what you are saying? Is this the process which would be most aligned with Wikisource practices?
What follows is more commentary on the availability of hardcopy versions: While this project is starting with some very well-funded digital publications like PubMed Central, many underfunded and now defunct open access journals, such as Zoologische mededelingen, have contributed thousands of images to thousands of Wikipedia articles, each reused in many languages now and potentially all languages in the future. This journal is not even registered with the usual DOI system, and even less so is there a "hardcopy" or metadata in order for it. I want authenticated versions also, but for many works, the publishers themselves do not authenticate what they publish in the sense that their works are subject to change without notice or indication and there might otherwise be no version control. Does Wikisource have policies in place for what sometimes could be archiving a webpage at a certain point in time? From the perspective of this project, the information to be collected is the best that exists for an academic field, but in a lot of cases, the policies for Wikisource seem to be requesting meta data which is ideal but does not exist in born-digital native formats. I think it is reasonable to suggest that Wikisource capture all extant information, but if I understand correctly, you wish to enforce a requirement that certain information must be provided without exception, and to block the Wikisource hosting of publications when the required information does not exist. What is the route to hosting a work with no "hard copy"? Should we artificially derive one from plain text, then authenticate our original text against its derivative? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks @Bluerasberry: for your clear comment. I second your doubts. To me a partial solution would be to host the first version of the articles in, or even more trivially take the first version of the History of the page as the "original copy". I suggest everyone also to read this essay, because born-digital documents are documents nonetheless and in IMHO they should belong to Wikisource. We have the technical and social infrastructure to create a beautiful, interconnected and open access digital library, it would be a pity not tap this potential. Aubrey (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments and questions: Good to see! I support the project and could help with routine review and validation if that's useful. Please comment on these flavors of "added value," and which ones belong on wikisource:

  • The footnotes and diagrams are great, and impressive! And, it's clear what goes onto wikisource and what goes elsewhere.
  • Hyperlinks to definitions -- when a medical research paper uses non-common terms, can we wikilink to definitions? Is that appropriate for the wikisource version of a PubMed paper?
  • The table of contents, I think, gets in the way of reading the content, and I would always want to collapse it or push it to the right, e.g. with {{TOCright}}. Do you have a standard in mind?
  • categories: I gather we can be inventive on wikisource. A medical specialist told me that the MeSH categories we can inherit from PubMed are not usually useful to him so there is maybe some possibility of helping here. I am not expert.
  • Commentary (my main question): User:Bluerasberry and I are working out a semantic-wiki project to hold human-curated relationships between scientific/scholarly/academics works. In the references you've got a key set of relationships, with "paper A cites paper B". It would be possible also to record that
  • paper B disputes the findings of paper A (examples, see report at bottom which lists other papers disputing the one described])
  • works A and B use the same data set or clinical trial (as in this example from WikiPapers which has papers-about-wikis and marks some as users of DBpedia)
  • that work B is said to be a literary or artistic adaptation of work A (example from literary adaptations wiki, see "works alluded to" and "publications talking about this work"),
  • or that work C makes claims about the relation of works A and B (example from same site; the infobox lists literary works about which it makes assertions)

This sort of added value can help scientists & scholars but is maybe not sufficiently neutral for wikimedia, or for wikisource anyway. Do you think that such commentary could belong on wikisource? Alternatively it could instead be in layers/sites somewhere else and could link to and depend on the wikisource hypertext you are developing. It would help our project to know what "layers" of value belong where, in the context of your project. Thanks for doing it! -- econterms (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. We certainly see the import of articles from PMC into Wikisource as a potential starting point for annotations like those that you described, as well as for other kinds of enhancements (be this the simple addition of links to definitions, as you suggest, or some more complex features). As for MeSH-term based categories, we use them on Commons and would be fine using them here too. Likewise, we would be fine with collapsing or right-shifting the TOC, and we are open to similar formatting requests and will do our best to accommodate them if they can be automated at reasonable effort and quality. As the TOC illustrates, any added value can also be distractive (though usually for different groups of users), and the question of the right balance between the two is probably better addressed to the Wikisource community more widely than to us specifically. I guess that gadgets or external tools could be part of striking that balance, but in any case, these are not part of our project to import full-text scholarly articles. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
One more thought on annotations: I like the detailed approach by WikiProject Fieldnotes very much, but I am not sure how it fits with the requirements in Wikisource:Annotations, which stipulate, for instance, that the presence of annotations would have to be signaled in the page title. Extrapolating that to journal articles, I see potential for confusion if we end up having page names like Journal article on topic X as well as Annotation of Journal article on topic X. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah! Thank you. The annotations policy is clear. Links to definitions would not be appropriate, but annotated versions can have them. The custom of making an /Annotated subpage is used several places and seems clear. (example) And opinion/commentary on the work is too non-neutral to be called annotation. -- econterms (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


So, there is consensus or there's gonna be a vote (I'm not even sure I can vote here on en.source :-) Aubrey (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


I propose for WS:Annotations to be formally recognized as policy. It is based on the 2013 Request for Comment about derivative works.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (very strongly) --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Mukkakukaku (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I know this is late (though there doesn't seem to be much support, so it may need to be written), but I think we need to contact Wikibooks and work out what types of annotated books Wikimedia should cover (at least under our domains) and how to divy it up. b:Wikibooks:Annotated texts says we take some of them and I think we need policy, joint with them to an extent, as to whether we do take them or not and what exactly what do take.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal withdrawn. I opened a Request for comment where the draft is split into parts so that it can be easily commented upon.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


I propose for WS:Wikilinks to be formally recognized as policy. It is strongly tied with the annotation policy since it describes which kinds of wikilinks count as annotations and which do not.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (very strongly) --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral/Symbol support vote.svg Support (weakly) except for all the bits about 'annotations'. Which is to say, I think it's a good idea to solidify policies about what should be or should not be linked (I thought these policies already existed), but I don't agree with the tie-in to the annotations policy suggestion (which I don't support). --Mukkakukaku (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal withdrawn. See above.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Propose search change in typeahead lookup[edit]

With Wikisource's page/subpage hierarchy, using the typing lookahed there is no current functionality to find works that are subpages for major works, eg. a poem published in a work, or an entry in a biographical dictionary. In talking to WMF's CirrusSearch guru, there is capability to have this functionality turned on and modified to meet our requirements if there is a community consensus.

I propose that the community approves the modification of our search functionality to allow for string search typeahead, rather than solely title start. I also propose that this be a pilot (max. 3 months) that could be reverted if our evaluation shows the search change is unsatisfactory. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I would also work with WMF to have this implemented, with any other people that volunteer. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Are you talking about autocompletion? If so, is the absence of such a feature a problem? If I search for new england reformers, the first result is Essays: Second Series/New England Reformers, which meets my expectations.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 10:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
It is to get these aspects without having to search, but in the typeahead/autocompletion. quite relevnt for biographical works. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Requested at Bugzilla:69658

Proposal to reduce the line height of references[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: request withdrawn
I propose that the line height of references be reduced from its current height of 140% (which is the line height of the regular text), to 120% to make it visually more apealing. --— Ineuw talk 02:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Probably worth a mock-up to demonstrate the comparison, and to show whether you mean <references/> and/or {{smallrefs}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no intention to touch the <references/> tag which is the standard font and line-height. I am only referring to {{smallrefs}}.

Currently, {{smallrefs}} has 83% font-size but the standard 140% line height as in:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

This is 83% font-size with 110% line height:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
unsigned comment by Ineuw (talk) .
Symbol support vote.svg Support—Low impact; good visual effect; contained change (if implemented as style within template.)

Remember {{reflist}} will be affected as well if you intend fooling around with CSS class="reflist". AuFCL (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If my proposal causes any complications, then just drop it. I am not interested to fiddle or interfere with {{reflist}}. {{smallrefs}} font size is specified in the template and does not seem to rely on .css. I thought that adding the line height would not interfere with anything else. All I am interested in is the visual effect of matching small refs to the original scans.— Ineuw talk 04:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not exactly an accurate depiction. I've already modified smallrefs to include a 110% line height setting and, as I suspected, the associated OL, LI, A & SPAN tags that make up "the references tag" via wiki-markup basically nullify any noticeable change in line-height thanks to their own class definitions & values. See the mock-up in actual REF usage.....

Without 110% line height:

  1. The party then represented in parliament by Ledru-Rollin, in literature by Louis Blanc, in the daily press by the Reforme. The name of Social Democracy signified, with these its inventors, a section of the Democratic or Republican party more or less tinged with Socialism.

With 110% line-height:

  1. The party then represented in parliament by Ledru-Rollin, in literature by Louis Blanc, in the daily press by the Reforme. The name of Social Democracy signified, with these its inventors, a section of the Democratic or Republican party more or less tinged with Socialism.

I don't see much difference. How 'bout youse? -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see any difference either. I wonder why.— Ineuw talk 04:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
This is what the smallrefs template produces html-wise...
<div class="reflist" style="clear:both; font-size:83%; line-height:110%;">
<ol class="references">
<li id="cite_note-1"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">[[#cite_ref-1|↑]]</span> <span class="reference-text">The party then represented in parliament by Ledru-Rollin, in literature by Louis Blanc, in the daily press by the Reforme. The name of Social Democracy signified, with these its inventors, a section of the Democratic or Republican party more or less tinged with Socialism.</span></li>
Not only are there other classes in play along with our inline styling but it suffers from the same wiki-markup ~ inherit quirk as the IMG tag does. You can't expect an inline element (SPAN) to inherit the setting thru another inline element (A or the up arrow wikilink) that's part of a list element (LI) all from main containing block element (DIV). We'd probably need to [re]define the class dealing with the LI tag if not one or both of the SPAN tags to get this to "work". -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Obviously you folks have been following along (and no doubt laughing at) my experiments here (in association with this CSS.) My most successful attempt so far (no guarantees this works on anything except Linux Firefox 31.0!):
.smallrefs>.references>li {line-height:110%;}
N.B. "smallrefs" here is an "invented" class as alternative to existing "reflist", and presumes {{smallrefs}} might be adjusted accordingly. AuFCL (talk) 05:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I would rather withdraw this proposal. I am sure that there are more important things for us to do. I am referring to the toolbar issues. :-) — Ineuw talk 05:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Its too much "work" to get that line-height setting to take & its not much in the way of any added benefit so I'd probably oppose it if you didn't withdraw it either way. --George Orwell III (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
O.K. with me too. George Orwell III had already improved my suggestion by the time I'd written it up anyway. AuFCL (talk) 05:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Update 'regex menu framework' gadget to TemplateScript[edit]

Hello! The regex menu framework has been merged into TemplateScript and is no longer separately maintained. TemplateScript includes an improved regex editor, simpler usage for creating text snippets, cleaner scripting support, more powerful features for advanced users, better gadget support, and it's better maintained to boot. I propose switching the gadget to use TemplateScript instead; I can update users' scripts accordingly if we do. —Pathoschild 06:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Is there any documentation by any chance? — Ineuw talk 06:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    Yep, there's user documentation at m:User:Pathoschild/Scripts/TemplateScript along with inline code documentation. Let me know if anything is missing. —Pathoschild 06:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    I added better non-technical documentation; feel free to edit it or suggest improvements. —Pathoschild 01:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- with the stipulation that you take it upon yourself to go through some of the key local tools/features/modules/etc. well-established Users have built using the old script. They frequently get copied over and over again as newly-arrived contributors discover them. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC
    Yep, I'll be updating regex menu framework-based scripts as part of the switch. If some of them are recopied often, we should consider making them gadgets too — any script built using TemplateScript gains its gadgetability. —Pathoschild 21:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mpaa (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support even with my equivocation in IRC, which was jocular, though not incorrect about more things to relearn, in more areas rather than getting on with transcribing. Thanks for the tools and toys that you bring us P/child, they are appreciated for the functionality that they bring, and the tedium that they remove. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Propose to keep {{nop}} sidebar tool[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: speedy keep — billinghurst sDrewth 00:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I am told that the {{nop}} insertion gadget will be(?) eliminated. The gadget inserted the template at the end of the previous page without having to open and edit the page. An ingenious idea implemented by Inductiveload before we lost him to the WWW. This tool is an absolute must for myself and I assume other editors. I am proposing to have this tool updated to current standards and keep it. — Ineuw talk 06:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Simple to use and a great time saving tool. Moondyne (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mpaa (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportClockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 14:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Just found out about it but it's awesome. Mukkakukaku (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Even though I don't use it myself, I can see the utility. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Though I think the only reason it would be deprecated is if it wasn't "updated" by someone who reliably knows it's ins & outs. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Closing. I don't believe that there is any proposal, so if there was anything, it may have been someone's though bubbles. Either way, community has no consensus to remove gadget at this point of time, under existing configuration.

Amend "process" for deletions, so that 'undercut' deletion is explicitly disallowed.[edit]

Recently, some contributors here have voiced to me strong concerns about some deletion requests made on Commons.

The proposals are as follows... 1) That any and all deletions of works hosted here are conducted via Wikisource:Proposed deletions.

2) That 'undercut' deletion (i.e posting of a DR at Commons, without a corresponding prior WS:PD outcome) is disallowed, considered 'disruptive', and grounds for administrative response if required.

3) An experienced administrator that is able to see deleted pages at Commons, reviews deleted djvu on that project for eligibility in respect of local hosting here (as the works are evidenced as being PD in the US, typical by virture of having been published prior to 1923), irrespective of Commons policy. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure this will work, Commons and WS have different criteria. Historically, If deleted at Commons, and ok here, we discuss here to confirm it is ok, then host it here. All things being equal everything that can be hosted at Commons should be, and Commons should do their own deletion process. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I support the concept, but at the same time have severe doubts this process is viable, productive or even necessarily enforceable. Giving the deleting administrator "a slap over the wrist" at Commons over what I am certain they will perceive as an entirely justifiable action is unlikely to make us friends…

This is only half a solution (I do not how to address Commons-initiated deletions without local consultation at all!) but may I suggest the first step in a local deletion-request discussion be to copy the considered work "local" before proceeding with any notification to Commons, so that the subsequent issues are at least somewhat contained. I make the distinction copy above rather than move; because what happens if that move in turn undercuts a third sister project (dual-language works? image sharing with wikipedia? et al?)

Considerations and scope creep… Lots of issues in this can of worms. AuFCL (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This is about ensuring stuff doesn't get broken as well. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not about rules, though we can probably do some guidance; this is about "eyes wide open" and awareness from experienced users

  • If a work at WS/Commons is seen to be a copyright violation, then let us have the conversation here, and if it is delete, then we action and put that request through to Commons with the result of our conversation.
  • If a work at Commons is seen to be a copyright violation, and someone identifies that the deletion has an impact here at enWS, then be overt in asking that once a decision has been reached that the deletion be heldover so that WS can evaluate the actions that they need to take, whether it be deletion of the parts, or moving the work to the WS if the copyright allows for that.

Simple fact is that for published works, we can often identify author details and to document, whereas at Commons, their admins don't consider that part of their due diligence process. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how the proposal can be considered practical, as admins at Commons do not always consider such issues. Speaking as someone who has worked on Wiktionary for years, we've all sorts of deletion and move issues with Commons. Wiktionary has the added wrinkle of case-sensitivity, so quite often, when an image was moved or deleted at Commons, no correction or notification was made at Wiktionary because the linkages would not show up in their global searches as they're supposed to. (Yes, a Bugzilla report went in, but no one ever did anything about it). We could complain to Commons, but there was no possibility of anything being done, because they (1) did not have the tools, (2) were a separate project, and (3) couldn't expect every admin taking action to be aware of all the complications. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

A template that causes links to Wikipedia to appear in dark blue[edit]

There is a lovely template here at Wikisource that causes links to terms defined at Wiktionary to show up as a subtle dark grey color. Why don't we create a similar that causes links to Wikipedia to appear dark blue or some similarly subtle shade? It would make heavily linked technical work easier on the eyes and help prevent unintended emphasis of linked terms less significant to the text. Abyssal (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Asking for input on category name for images of technical and instructional support of WS[edit]

Based on the principle of 1 picture is worth . . . . I have been uploading various images of

and looking to group them under a single category. I came up with Category:Instructional images about Wikisource but would prefer community input. — Ineuw talk 13:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

BOT approval requests[edit]

Reconfirm User:Cswikisource-bot[edit]

"Bot flag will be reconfirmed automatically unless; if at least three established users oppose with no users supporting, then the right will be removed; three or more oppose and one or more support this triggers a vote, with a decision by simple majority. Loss of flag does not prevent edits, only impacts recent change visibility."


Bot Username Tasks Last Confirmation Next Confirmation Status
User:Cswikisource-bot (in semi-manual mode) for interwiki changes. Feb 2012 granted bot flag 2014, July Inactive; last edit Jan 2013
  1. No, well not on the current circumstances of interwiki now residing in WD. Happy to hear from Milda if there are other circumstances to consider. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. No - Interwiki management should now be handled through Wikidata. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. No. Interwiki procedure is changing, and has changed a great deal since the approval. We'd need to see an appropriately modified bot process and approve that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Reconfirm User:LA2-bot[edit]

"Bot flag will be reconfirmed automatically unless; if at least three established users oppose with no users supporting, then the right will be removed; three or more oppose and one or more support this triggers a vote, with a decision by simple majority. Loss of flag does not prevent edits, only impacts recent change visibility."


Bot Username Tasks Last Confirmation Next Confirmation Status
User:LA2-bot Create raw OCR pages Feb 2012 granted bot flag 2014, July Inactive; Last edit March 2012
  1. I have no issue with the bot right for the purpose, if @LA2: is still receiving requests for the bot. So yes, if user confirms that request will be still be taken. If no response from the bot operator, then there is no point in the bot maintaining the right, and we can remove it, though allowing for a quick reinstatement if the operations are again activated. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. No - Unless User:LA2 proactively asks to keep the flag & demonstrates how the BOT will be used moving forward. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. No - As per GO3 & Billinghurst. Jeepday (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. No - I see no reason to keep an open flag for an inactive bot that was only used for one month. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    • LA2 has little activity here recently, still active at commons so I left a note on his talk page there. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Recitation-bot testing[edit]

Following on from the discussion #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 bugzilla (Product pywikibot)--Mpaa (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


Unknown character[edit]

Does anyone know what the letter is in footnote 4 on the bottom of this page? It looks like a reverse eth, but I can't find it in any alphabet I've searched for.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

ó? -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
No. That character is really obvious in the text. This is some kind of archaic Welsh/Celtic/English character that I can't figure out.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks Welsh based on a quick search. Also see p. xvi of the same text; it shows an alphabet. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

w:Welsh orthography strongly suggests that it should simply be ó, the acute being used to indicate stress on a syllable other than the penultimate.

I suspect this is another example of the problem tabled at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2009-10/Concerns about fidelity of Internet Archive DjVu files. Briefly, the DjVu compression algorithm works by clustering glyphs into a set of glyph classes, and assigning a single glyph to be the representative of each class. When it works well, there is only one "roman-a" glyph stored, and it is used to represent every "roman-a" in the entire book. When it fails, glyphs that represent different symbols may end up in the same class, and represented by the same glyph, resulting in corruption of the text in the very images we are relying on to proof!

In this case, it looks like the same glyph is being used to represent both "italic-o-acute" and "italic six". This hypothesis could be proved or disproved by downloading the, and extracting and examining the uncompressed page scan. Hesperian 01:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

More novice searching: Doing a search of some of the text from the footnote ("ar y geuyn ehun") resulted in the same text with a "w" substituting for the 6 ("arwest" for "ar6est", etc.), just like in the alphabet on p. xvi of the link mentioned in my first comment above under "w". Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The character as rendered here as well for "ar6est" (see highlighted line) as referenced from here as "arwest"... Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Here is the original page as suggested by Hesperian and you don't have to download the whole file: [2] just maximize the image and you can see the text clearly.--Ineuw (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe that link displays an image post-compression. Hesperian 03:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I have viewed the raw jp2, and the character looks like a 6 there too. So much for my theory.... Hesperian 04:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help, guys! I learned a new letter today. ỽ seems like it's similar to w, but I'm not sure under what circumstances you use one and not the other. Too bad the letter doesn't seem to show up right now in the browser.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
For those (like me) who can't see it, here it is: [3]. Hesperian 13:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I've checked with a Welsh friend who pointed me to w:Ỽ, which I think is the capital. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Well if (&#7932;}} is the capital letter, then according to the unicode tables (&#7933;}} ought to be the lower case equivalent. Both very similar and both visible here. AuFCL (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Am I the only person seeing little squares instead of whatever this mystery character is? Mukkakukaku (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
@Mukkakukaku: Don't be too surprised. You know this thing called "unicode"? Take it as an advertising term (i.e. a lie—it is anything but "universal".) Oh, and universal fonts? (Well you get the idea: none of this junk is generally portable betwixt browsers, operating systems, installed fonts, web-font support et al…) Here endeth the cynic's lesson.

By the way a genuine thank-you for the feedback. Which browser+version+operating system are you using because {{unicode}} was supposed to provide some degree of Internet Explorer support (and clearly doesn't quite cut it in this instance.) AuFCL (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Chrome 36.0.1985.125 m, Windows 7. Also tried on Firefox 30.0 and IE 11.0.9600.17207. -- Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
This wikipedia page seems to indicate that I need to install a special Windows update for Win7 to enable unicode support. That's probably the step I'm missing. Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
It is extremely likely you already have unicode support. This website tells your browser "display my body text in Helvetica Neue font if you have it installed, otherwise Helvetica if you have it installed, otherwise Arial if you have it installed, otherwise whatever your default sans-serif font is." Your browser follows those instructions and selects a font, and you can only hope that the selected font contains a glyph for every unicode character on the webpage. If your font doesn't contain a glyph for a unicode character, it displays that 'little squares' glyph instead. So depending on what fonts are installed, some of us will see the character, some the square. Me, I'm seeing the squares like you are. Hesperian 01:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I just took a peek at the font-family declaration in that template, and the intersection between the font-family and the ones installed on my computer are Microsoft Sans Serif and Lucida Sans Unicode. Probably the glyph in question is present in one of the other fonts that have higher precendence than those two (which don't contain the glyph.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

New unknown character[edit]

I have a new unknown character appearing here in the footnote. It looks like a 7, but its placement isn't right. It seems to show up in old Welsh poetry examples. Does anyone have any idea what it is? Someone figured out this strange writing system called an ogham that I had an issue with earlier in the text...maybe someone has an idea what this is.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen that in Welsh texts before but, off the top of my head, it looks like the Tironian ampersand. It's more common in Irish and Scottish but see if that fits the context. In any case, if you're just transcribing, you can certainly use its unicode symbol—;—it looks close enough. — LlywelynII 10:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! That's exactly what I'm looking for.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks like a square to me. But then again I think it's been established that my vanilla Windows 7 install doesn't come with the fancy fonts that contain most of these unicode characters. Can you try using the {{unicode}} template when you proofread it? Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I do all my proofreading on a Chromebook. Apparently it has a wider variety of glyphs in its fonts than Windows (I have the same problem on my Windows-based computer). I wish that font selector worked because maybe we could force it to load the glyph from a font in one of those for the benefit of everybody.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome! — LlywelynII 13:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:British Flowering Plants.djvu[edit]

Process deletion of this and pages, file is damaged (i.e missing pages). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Why delete it instead of fix it up? It's a shame to lose such good work.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
If you can find the missing pages;) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Flipping through the pages of the work at, pagination is fine (inclusive) up until [actual] page 160, then it jumps to page 177 (so it is missing [actual] pp. 161-176); from there, it includes pp. 177-192, but then jumps back to p. 177 and is inclusive till the end of the book. Couldn't find another copy on IA or Google books, but that's not to say that another one won't come along in the future. I'd just make a specific note on the Talk page or the Index page and let it be for now. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I support leaving it be for now, too. Abyssal (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
This is actually how the physical book is. smiley Signature 12 has been bound into the book twice (16 pages per sig, so 16 pages missing and 167 pages duped). To confirm this is not a scanning issue compare in two tabs Index and Index, the first page of the index has a ripple in both cases, but in a slightly different place (top left). Rich Farmbrough, 14:03 23 August 2014 (GMT)
Copy for sale here at a rather steep £36. Rich Farmbrough, 14:14 23 August 2014 (GMT)
Library copies in Oxford (Radcliffe Science Library), University Library Cambridge, NLS, Edinburgh and University of Chicago. Also of course, the British Libary. Rich Farmbrough, 14:42 23 August 2014 (GMT)


Here and one would imagine in many volumes, one wishes to have text in a margin. How is this done? Rich Farmbrough, 12:49 23 August 2014 (GMT)

The most common approach is to use {{sidenote}} and related templates ({{sidenotes begin}}, {{left sidenote}}, etc)). But there's also {{MarginNote}} (examples) and {{marginal summary}} (examples). Mukkakukaku (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
TYVM! Rich Farmbrough, 16:17 23 August 2014 (GMT)


What is the SOP for a.) notified errata, b.) other typographical errors? Rich Farmbrough, 13:16 23 August 2014 (GMT)

We haven't yet fully compiled guidelines on how to deal with errata, and what are the best practices, but some work is underway. You'd need to be a bit more specific about what it is you are asking, because there are lots of different sorts of errata and errors. For a misspelled word, you can use {{SIC}}, but bigger issues may not be solvable through the use of that template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking specifically of this errata page. Rich Farmbrough, 16:29 23 August 2014 (GMT)
I haven't seen a standard method proposed for dealing with that sort of situation, and so would be very interested myself to hear what people have done (or think could be done) to handle errata like those. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I remember that User:AuFCL did some work on A History of Mathematics, which included an errata page. Have a look? —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 16:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
He used {{SIC}}, but without knowing that there is an Errata page while reading, there is nothing to indicate that use of the template is based upon published errata versus suspected error on the part of the WS editor. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
If {{SIC}} might be misleading, one can always use {{tooltip}}, adding a remark like {{tooltip|text_1|text_2, see errata}} or something like that.--Mpaa (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Neither of those templates "work" on mobile devices because they require a hover action. Just throwing that out there. Mukkakukaku (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Hm, I am inclined to correct where the errata are bound-in with the text, as this represents the intended form of the book at the time of publishing. Of course bibliographic needs differ from the general reader's needs, but those readers will presumably resort to the image. Rich Farmbrough, 02:52 24 August 2014 (GMT)
The guidance I was given a few years back was to indicate errata in the notes field of the header template for the relevant mainspace page. However, for DMM as the Addenda and Corriegenda are in a 300-page Appendix, I've been adding a note in brackets at the relevant point in the article. See A Dictionary of Music and Musicians/Missa Papæ Marcelli for an example of this. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
That's some useful alternatives. Thanks for that. Rich Farmbrough, 20:02 24 August 2014 (GMT)

This one is another example. Someone may have a look and offer guidance. Hrishikes (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: If we are talking published errata, then two other works that I did ages ago are

Of course, there is also the errata that we have done for the DNB entries where we have transcluded the errata in later volumes to the original (corresponding) article. There will be no standard due to the nature of the errata, either published in the same work, later works, and the form and amount of the errata. We would look to keep the original page as is, then somehow hook-in the errata in the least defacing means. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


I would like to be able to use asterisk and obelisk for footnotes, I can't see how to do this in the help page for footnotes, nor work out my own method. Probably it would require some change in the underlying software, but maybe there is CSS solution. Comments? Rich Farmbrough, 02:52 24 August 2014 (GMT)

Use {{ref}} and {{note}} per Help:Footnotes and endnotes#Alternatives. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, it appears that the choice is between having this flexibility, and having the dual footnotes/endnotes capability automatically. Hm. Rich Farmbrough, 20:01 24 August 2014 (GMT)
@Rich Farmbrough: We usually don't replicate *, †, ‡ reference labels and just have the default. 1) it is easier, 2) we are reproducing the work with endnotes, rather than footnotes, so hanging onto a typographic archaism seemed fruitless, and probably pointless. What it requires is a requested change to mw:Extension:Cite to have this done tidily, and even then not too nice in endnotes (and I think hell freezing over will come first). — billinghurst sDrewth 04:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes indeed, I was puzzling over the endnotes solution to multiple asterisks and obelisks. It does seem a shame to loose those lovely typographical creatures altogether though. Thanks for your response, and also the one on Errats, which is just as helpful, and more satisfying. Rich Farmbrough, 07:17 28 August 2014 (GMT)

Toolbar help needed[edit]

(Request moved from above where it was likely to be unnoticed)
I’d be grateful for some assistance with my editing toolbar. I just disabled prefs for the edit toolbar and enabled enhanced editing toolbar but am not sure whose common.js I should be stealing, if any. If possible, I’d like to keep the current cleanup script, plus a button or something to run the running header script. Moondyne (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I've given you the same buttons that you had in the old version, plus a hyphenated word script from InductiveLoad. For the cleanup and running header scripts you'll need to talk to @Pathoschild:. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
edit conflict ... and the old toolbar should be available again late Tuesday. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Please excuse the interruption @Billinghurst: by Tuesday you mean September 2nd? — Ineuw talk 16:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@Ineuw - Probably meant Sept. 2nd (= 1.24wmf19) but, as of today, if you select just the old toolbar option in your User Prefs on first and then go to the Page: namespace there (, the problem remains (1.24wmf19). This is not to say a "patch" hasn't been constructed yet (quite the opposite - more than one fix &/or partial reversions have been submitted concerning this bug both directly and indirectly), its just that they haven't been sorted out, approved and applied for some [valid] reason or another.

The one thing I noticed now that I'm not sure was true before this past Tuesday's release (1.24wmf18) or not is that if you enable both 'show editing toolbar' and 'enable enhanced editor' at the same time in your user prefs, WikiEditor loads above the noinclude'd header field in the Page: namespace while selecting just the enhanced Editor, the WikiEditor toolbar loads above the main text (or body?) field instead. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I am composing the reply, please bear with me for a few minutes.— Ineuw talk 00:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The answer is simple. The advanced wiki toolbar is working as you intended with the drop down lists gone and I thank you for that.

I was testing all kinds of Preference\Edit setting combinations, and checking the results in the page ns: and discovered that when both settings are on, the "Chainsert" displays on top, which is perfect for MY EDIT REQUIREMENTS because I don't need to scroll down to access my limited CharInsert requirements. Thus both BWC and I seem to be content.

I did not bring it to your, or the community's attention, to avoid further muddying the issues and frankly, I didn't want to loose it. How you discovered it is a mystery to me at the moment. — Ineuw talk 00:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I test combinations/settings whenever something changes like a core update or the PR extension is patched out of habit (that is what beta/testbeds should be used for btw) so that's why I "noticed" the behavior this round.

At any rate, I doubt CharInsert will "stay up top"; that phenomenon ceased from happening this session as soon as I cleared my cache and ran through edit/submit, edit/create, etc. a few times in the Page: namespace - also probably due to some subtle difference found from this past Tuesday's core update & the handful of relevant changes that came with it. Once all the editing scenarios synched to the current code, CharInsert then loaded below the edit window once again. 'Enjoy it while it lasts' in other words - sorry. Maybe "we" (hint, hint to Helder) can find a way to add that position to the CharInsert gadget as a valid option so don't get too discouraged over any of this just yet either. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand, absolutely. I don't expect it to remain on top, but if it happens, fine. However, if I announced it to the community and others would try it and then lost it - it would have been a disservice. At this moment as I edit, I am happy to report that it's still on top.— Ineuw talk 01:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

A toolbar to dream about.jpg

A toolbar to dream about

UD = User defined.— Ineuw talk 01:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Well the following should be good news...

To load the CharInsert toolbar above the WikiEditor toolbar regardless of the namespace you're editing in, just add the highlighted line in the below snippet to your .js file.

/* CharInsert specific */
window.charinsertDontMove = false;
window.charinsertMoveHigh = true;window.editToolsRecall = true;
window.charinsertCustom = { User: '|  =  {\{+}}  [\[+|]]  —  “+”  ‽  Æ  æ  Œ  œ  ℩  {\{hws|+|+}}  {\{hwe|+|+}}  <section.begin="+"_/>  <section.end="+"_/>' };
if(window.updateEditTools) window.updateEditTools();
I modified the CharInsert Gadget to make that a valid option (of course I'm not sure if my addition was the most elegant way to make that a reality). Anyway it works for me - please report back either way if you opted to apply it. Improvements welcome!. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Splendid! --Zyephyrus (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Ditto, brilliant! @George Orwell III: Sorry for the late reply. Swamped with watchlist emails — Ineuw talk 17:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
See bugzilla:70233. Helder 00:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Helder, I'm not sure if that bug was even related to the remaining issue mentioned in the closing comments of Bugzilla:70431 or not but it also seems to be fixed now according to the original reporter. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

< pages > and Templates[edit]

I was trying to speed things up with {{EB9 Transclusion}} by using template parameters in the < pages > term to reduce all the typing and redundancy, but nothing I try seems to work. I thought the problem might be the initial call and did {{EB9.7 Transclusion}} in the hopes I could at least get one template per volume to work, but no luck there either. Am I missing something in the formatting? would I have to do it page by page using the old {{page}} template? or is this just impossible? — LlywelynII 06:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: I am going to guess on what you are talking about as you haven't provided a sample. Try using a {{#tag:}} or if you want to push a substitution then {{subst:#tag:}} . (See mw:Help:magic words). This will look something like

{{subst:#tag:pages||index=index namespace title.djvu|from=nn|to=nn|fromsection={{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|tosection={{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}}}

This is one that I utilise all the time, and if you are having issues getting something to work, then feel free to {{ping}} me. You can also look at {{d}} which is a cheat's way of using {{DNB00}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The sample was at the links, but thanks for the code. I'll try using that instead. — LlywelynII 04:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
As a side note, the issue failure of templates inside <pages ...> will also occur similarly in <ref>, and #tag used in the same way resolves most issues in refs; well except the w:Help:pipe trick that fails miserably in refs whichever way you try.
I obviously need to keep learning since formatting that should work the same (same-line form of the template versus the multiline one) is behaving differently but at least one format of {{EB9 Transclusion}} now works, so thanks! — LlywelynII 05:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I added name parameters, and I don't think that I broke it. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

For Sale: A slightly used OAuth token, used to file transfer from IA to the Commons.[edit]

Some time ago, I purchased (was assigned) a working OAuth token to transfer files from Internet Archive to the Commons. Drove it once or twice, but for some unknown reason it died. The red indicator on the dashboard said #403, which means it no longer recognizes the token's validity. I contacted the salesman Tpt for help, since it was his product, but he no longer seems to deal in tokens. I tried to disable/delete it in my preferences and ask for another working token, but it's as if it was tattooed on my account, (or another choice body part), and I can't get rid of it. I don't remember how I got the original either. Tpt must have been selling them in some dark alley in my neighborhood. I then turned to Mediawiki which has lots of pages marked "out of date" and 0 info, (Just like the toolbars I bought in another dark alley transaction. - a dig which I could not forgo). Can anyone tell me what my options are? — Ineuw talk 00:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Test-drive the link at the bottom of User:Beeswaxcandle/Works. If it operates fine, I'll let you have one of the spare keys (copy it somewhere useful to you). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks. It works!!! I will borrow it.— Ineuw talk 01:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I should say that you must use it only as a link and only while logged in at enWS. It cannot be used as a favourite and it will attribute the upload to your username on Commons. Attempts to use it in other ways will result in a return to the dark alley where arcane rude words will be yelled at you by cyborgs. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I was concerned but tried, and it recognizes me as the uploader. It should be no problem Thanks again.— Ineuw talk 02:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Laura1822[edit]

Isn't there anyone here smart enough to help this near blind girl see by changing the colors in common.js for her? She needs a black background. I have a medium grey background with black text.

—Maury (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

George is already working on it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I saw that he was but did not know if he still is. I don't use the new editor and my set-up works fine. Using my common.js it seems just changing the color codes would work. I also know I use both the gadget color, whatever that color default may be, plus what Inductive Load placed in my common.js which is medium grey/gray and black text. Sometimes old things work better than new things. Mine works fine. Thanks Beez, —Maury (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you all for the help! Mr. Orwell fixed it. Laura1822 (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Guidance on linking citations in a work[edit]

I've looked through Help:, but haven't found any guidance on exactly what to link in the footnote references of a work that I'm proofreading. For example, the original work has a note reading:

Lecky, "Rationalism," ii. pp. 293, 294 reference to William Edward Hartpole Lecky's History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe. What I've done is linked the name to his Author page and the title to the not yet extant work, like so: Lecky, "Rationalism," ii. pp. 293, 294

Here is the specific scanned page I'm asking about: Page:Popular_Science_Monthly_Volume_25.djvu/12

  1. I'm assuming this is correct, please advise if something different should be done (e.g., don't link the author's name at all, link to the Wikipedia article on him instead, etc.)
  2. Is there a way to link to the specific page/passage being referenced, particularly considering that the referenced book doesn't exist yet? (I did find a scan on Google and will import it at some point, and the footnote does point to the correct volume and pages for the quote.) Should it be linked at all?
  3. If there is already a documented style guideline for this example, please point me in the right direction.

Thanks. -Xpctr8 (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I've figured out the "how" part, for anyone else that wants to know how to deep link. The pagenumbers in mainspace works are links wrapped in divs, and each one has an ID like "pagenumber_90". Note that it is the page number specified in the index and matching the link text, not the DjVu file page number. So, to link directly to the passage I was asking about above, you would write [[Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_25/May_1884/The_Sins_of_Legislators_I#pagenumber_4|Citation text]] in the citation.
Regarding style, I'd still like to know if there is an established guideline, or if anyone is even doing this. -Xpctr8 (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe there is an established guideline specifically concerning this type of anchored-linking but I have seen it applied before using this variation...
[[Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_25/May_1884/The_Sins_of_Legislators_I#4|Citation text]] ( no "pagenumber_" )
... which, of course, is easily broken if by some chance there is an anchored-link appearing before the intended one that is also labeled #4 so your way is a bit better in that regard and seems like the way to go imo (barring any further comments objecting to such practice that is). -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
There's no point in linking pages for a work which isn't yet on Wikisource, as it assumes quite a bit about the ultimate structure of transcluded content that is likely to prove false. Chapters are possible, though unless it's just that chapter that isn't yet on Wikisource, it's not very helpful and just redundantly adds to the red links. Here's two examples of attempts to guess.
The first one is simplistic yet extreme, taking each item at individual face value.

[[Author:William Edward Hartpole Lecky|Lecky]], "[[History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe|Rationalism]]," [[History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe/Volume 2|ii.]] pp. [[History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe/Volume 2#293|293, 294]]

Lecky, "Rationalism," ii. pp. 293, 294

The second one I actually browsed scans to make, and thus has a much more likely structure. Notice how the work is in two volumes, with chapters that continue between the two. Further, since the reference does not explicitly mention a chapter, I condensed it into a single link, at the usually minor cost of not linking to the main page of the work in favor of the referenced page. However, that minor cost becomes a major cost when this is a red link, because all those extra layers of non-existant pages/subpages/sections only make it less and less likely that the red link will be useful.

[[Author:William Edward Hartpole Lecky|Lecky]], "[[History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe/Chapter 6#293|Rationalism]]," ii. pp. 293, 294

Lecky, "Rationalism," ii. pp. 293, 294

Either way consists of a lot of guessing and assumption about how "Rationalism" will end up like if anyone ever gets around to adding it, and if it's different, hoping someone will find these mistakes and correct them. Thus, for non-existent pages, be careful how you do it. I've done similar multip-part-link edits with existing works, consisting of multiple blue-links. I may have even red-linked a chapter next to a blue-link for a work title. I'd be happy to see an established guideline on this, among many other things. :) djr13 (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
We've been wrestling with this issue of deep-linking into non-existent works for years. See Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2010-02#Naming_convention? and follow the links to a stalled discussion and an naming convention that never got beyond draft form. Hesperian 13:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

War of 1812 documents[edit]

I've made a transcription of a pension grante[e], signed by Henry Burbeck:

Can someone proofread the text and move it to the right place? --Ecruelvia (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ecruelvia: I have created an Index: page and then put the transcription onto a Page: ns page at Page:Battle of Chippawa-New York Pension Roll-1815.png which allows for side-by-side proofing. I had a quick text hack, but did not mark it as proofread. See how you go with proofing it, then one of us can validate, and show you how to transclude to the main namespace. As the work is for a specific person, we will need to fix the name that we use for the piece on the main namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Thanks, now marked as proofread. --Ecruelvia (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding appropriate hyperlinking in jargon-dense technical works.[edit]

I believe but cannot find to verify, that Wikisource's style manual says that if you're linking to a term in a work, you should only link to that term once. However, I'm not sure this is appropriate for the work I'm proofreading now, Synopsis of the Exinct Batrachia and Reptilia of North America. Part 1.. This work is quasi-encyclopedic in that much of its content consists of "self-contained" descriptions of various different kinds of prehistoric animal rather than being part of an over-arching narrative. As such, most readers are likely to be interested primarily in portions of the work rather than reading it overall from start to finish. The work is also very dense with obscure technical jargon (eg "diapophysis"). In light of all this I've been linking to terms that may confuse readers once per section about a given genus of animal rather than only once in the entire work. I would like to request comments on whether or not you guys agree that this is the right approach and about the hyperlinking as it exists so far (especially starting from page 34). Abyssal (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The right amount of linking has always been one of those tricky questions in a work. We don't want a sea of links. we want the level of linking appropriate to the work (technical work versus fictional work), of a higher order relevance, something that aligns the expected level of readership to the presented level of the work. Then we have internal linking versus external linking, the linking indicated in the work itself, ie. internal explicit cross references (q.v.) and maybe a link to a glossary of terms, and external links to other works.
So my first glance at the page showed quite a few links, and more than I would normally expect for one of our works. They look external, and not to any references, nor to any internal references within the work itself. So rather than me to judge, for someone reading the work, what would expect why are they reading it? how have they arrived at the work? what is their expected level of knowledge on the subject? why are they reading it, and what are you expecting for them to do with the component that they are reading? Can we expect them to have another reference available? I know that numbers of the words that I saw were unknown to me, so I could see myself clicking on some of the links to learn a little more. Some words were clearly used in common English and I felt not required for linking. Sometimes I think a link only where it gives pure value to link off through making the work clearly more understandable or ore in context, and I here I doubt that I would click every link. What value will I get, what will I learn from clicking a link? I would expect explicit value for any link clicked. So with those reflections, maybe you can look at your linking and see whether you think that you have it right. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I've removed a few links from page 34. Is it starting to look more reasonable? Does anything else stand out as being in need of removal? Abyssal (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
As a biologist, I still think this is over-linked. There is no reason to link "Kansas" or "limestone", for example. Most people likely to read the article will know what a "plesiosaur" is. Linking in a technical article should help the user: (1) find additional relevant info, such as works by a mentioned individual, or referenced works. In this instance, Fort Wallace and the Smoky Hill River are significant as locations, and someone would appreciate being able to follow a link to quickly get more information. (2) clarify terms or concepts that are likely to be obscure to the sort of person who would visit the article. In this instance, a person reading this article ought to know what a "neural arch" or "foramina" are, so those ought not to be linked. These are just general principles I use, and only a couple of examples where I think linking is done correctly or incorrectly. One other point: a link should be obvious, so linking the word "of" to an article on the paleontology of Kansas is not likely to be helpful. The user at this end will not spot that unless they know to first hover over the link. Hiding a link behind text that isn't immediately relevant, obviously connected, or purposefully leading to that link is not especially helpful in my view, and ought to be avoided. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

190th Fighter Squadron, Blues and Royals friendly fire incident - Transcript of the 'friendly fire' incident video (28 March 2003)[edit]

Wikisource, very usefully, provides access to audio and video from the 190th Fighter Squadron, Blues and Royals friendly fire incident. It also offers a transcript. I am part of a team of four sociologists, specialising in studies of interaction, who have been working on this incident since the video was first released to the public in 2007. As part of our work, we have produced a transcript that significantly improves on the one released to the public and that currently on Wikisource (which reproduces mistakes in the original). We'd like to make that work available through wikisource - how do we go about it? unsigned comment by Michaelmair (talk) .

Please do correct any errors in the transcript, and provide a text summary that makes that apparent, eg. correcting errors made in previous transcription from audio. The associated talk page is also useful to add a comment if you need to explain what and why you have done certain edits, or to link to pertinent, and relevant other sources. The purpose of this wiki and our proofreading processes is to present accurate texts from the original edition.

On a similar note, if you have other works in the public domain, we would be interested to hear from you about those, and we can provide assistance to bring them online. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Text rotation / vertical text[edit]

Hello. I'm sure I'm not the first who asks this question, but is there a way to display vertical text (e.g. in table headers)? Maybe using <math></math>, or any other way? Nonexyst (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Presumably you are referring to this page? If this is acceptable (and works universally—will need to check if some browsers infarct on that!) then adding to {{table style}} should be a comparatively easy step. AuFCL (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Works on FF 31.0 (and looks great) but not IE8—both under Windows 7 (Enterprise Service Pack 1). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC) P.S. Should say that the table still looks fine on IE8, it just doesn't have rotated text.
BTW Template:Table-rotate exists. (Not mine and I've never used it.) Template:Rotate exists too, explicitly "experimental." djr13 (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I was kind of afraid of that. For the record, {{rotate}} did not work in the current version of Firefox (didn't contain the CSS transform:rotate() or display:inline-block clauses.) I have added these, so if that template now (still?) works in I.E. then there might be a way forward. AuFCL (talk) 08:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Same pattern. Works in FF 31.0 but not IE8. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
O.K. That's me officially out of ideas. AuFCL (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Once more for luck: I quite forgot @George Orwell III:'s 90-degree rotation CSS classes ("rot90", "rot180" and "rot270": which ought to work in I.E. as well as Firefox at least.) Would somebody please be so kind as to verify if this version fails in their browser (and if so please make a note here)? 10:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone, especially AuFCL. Both methods work in Chromium 30.0.1599.114 and Firefox 25.0.1. I tried to do something like first method, but maybe made some syntax error. Nonexyst (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I applied the second method to this page and some columns did not shrink in width. (For example, the second one with vertical header). What I did wrong? Nonexyst (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
This is outright cheating and serves merely as a demonstration: (page 50). The columns previously took their "width" from the unrotated text: well-now-height (are you confused yet?) By enclosing each entry in {{zfloat left}}s (which as a side-effect declares its contents as zero-width) and then adding min-width styling to stop empty columns collapsing too much…

Well I admit this is really ugly, needs further tweaking at least and possibly substitution of an even better approach… AuFCL (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah the text is rotated under IE11 here but those class definitions mentioned earlier need to be "calculated" on the fly somehow (or re-worked altogether?). Without that I agree - it looks rather "ugly" though its better than anything else I've seen in this area. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I "simplified" a bit further (still pretty ugly.)

There is of course, in the last resort, the choice of making each rotated title into an image… advantages are: "official", compact, works broadly and can be made cut-and-paste friendly through use of alt text on said images. AuFCL (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

In IE8 this table has the rotated text albeit shifted to the right as if there is a linebreak before each header, but the headers on the other table doesn't rotate and, interestingly, the not-rotated headers over-write the page image, while the rest of the table is underneath the image. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

TOC formatting help[edit]

If anyone is willing, I need help formatting the first page of this TOC. I have already proofread the text. I do have some requests, however. Please:

  1. Use simple table formatting (as basic as possible... something I can understand and replicate myself for the remainder of the TOC)
  2. Use limited (and only if necessary) templates
  3. Do not replicate the dots
  4. Simplify, simplify, simplify

Thank you, thank you, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've done it as simply as I know—which is how I would do this table anyway. The {{ts}} templates are either "ar" (align right) or "ac" (align centre) and the colspans are to spread the text across more than one column. I haven't used anything else. I've assumed you'll look after the rest of the linking. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Beautiful, thank you, BWC :) I'll take it from here, but I might check back with you if I hit any bumps along the way. Thank you so much, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle: Bump #1: How do you format the indentation of sections I & II present at the top of this page? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Use {{ts|it42}} if that's not sufficient, I will add the code. — Ineuw talk
My apologies but the design is fundamentally incorrect. @Londonjackbooks: I will redo the table. 21:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Now? Simpler than reworking the whole table; and if I didn't point it out would you have noted the imprecision? AuFCL (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy with the results— Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I am happy too. Face-smile.svg A neat solution AuFCL! Although, reworking the table is not a big deal using the tools I have. Also, a single right align in the table header would have eliminated the numerous declarations of {{ts}ar}}. @AuFCL: This is not a dig, it's more like a bit of a scrape. :D. — Ineuw talk 08:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Fair point. I was trying to work with the cards as they happened to have been dealt with minimal consequent disruption. AuFCL (talk) 08:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Educate me. How would putting a single right align in the header have only right-aligned the left and right fields, but left the main "text" field left-aligned? Also, I don't understand AuFCL's solution. Could we not have simply used : indenting? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I shall have to let Ineuw address his own part, but as for "my solution" it was a simple rip-off of your own overall table formatting, applied as a sub-table within the (pair of) cells formerly occupied by "Body and Soul:—" and its (non-existent) page number. AuFCL (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle: Please store this with my other apologies. I overlooked the fact that it's a horizontal layout to which I am not used to. What I would have done is declare (ar) right align in the table definitions because they are the majority of the alignments, and apply (al) align left to the text. If I am not mistaken, if there is no left alignment declaration the text may end up justified, perhaps in the Page: namespace. As for the line wrap on the second page I would have used the "it42" padding-left:4.0em;text-indent:-2.0em; hanging indent shortcut or an indent that matches the text sample. — Ineuw talk 15:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
<Standing by quietly trying to learn from you all, and thanking you for whichever outcome you deem best :)> Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

TOC with Horizontal Ellipses[edit]

Is there any good way of doing TOC with horizontal ellipses? Of my current projects, two works (This and this) have this type of TOC. I have transcribed the pages as I could, but the pages look quite ugly and appear differently in diff. browsers. Any solution please? Hrishikes (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. You just beat me replying here; so I am guessing you already know the rest. AuFCL (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks once again. I'll keep this as a guideline for future projects if needed. Hrishikes (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Planning to autoarchive this page (30 day post last contribution per section)[edit]

Unless I hear comments to the negative, it is my plan to set this page to archive on a daily basis using @Wikisource-bot:, with the criteria to be set that if a section has not been edited within past 30 days, taht section is archiveable. It will be possible for any person to put on a hold on a section, and if it is auto-0archived, then I will point to instructions on how to do that. I plan on using the existing archiving structure. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not a negative; however being a page frequented by newer users who might want to refer back to earlier questions and answers is it worth considering (if the bot either is or may readily be made so capable) of at least leaving links to the archived entries for ease of reference? AuFCL (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
It would be much preferable if instead of leaving these topics hidden in various past conversations, archived or not, they were distilled into definitive guides and such. Of course, I realize me saying this isn't helping build those pages. djr13 (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
We already have about a 30-45 day archiving done manually due to the size of the page, so I was jut looking to replicate what we are doing. If you see that there is a better time elapsed on which to archive, then some feedback on what is most appropriate is welcomed, in a page that is long enough to give comfort, but not too long to scare. I have added {{engine}} to the top to allow for searching of the archives particularly, with those who come via WS:S already have the search box. I have also updated the content listing for 2014 on Archives.
If we/you think that a list of recent posts is pertinent, then we can look to either "LST" in the section for 2014 as either a list, or convert it to a hot list. What Djr13 says is actually the most pertinent, look at the list of questions, and make sure that our help pages/FAQs address the lists. Noting that I am a "page tail" denizen in that I only look at the past couple of days posts and only pay attention to sexy or unanswered questions, so I am the wrong person to know. Getting someone to actively curate would be fantastic, and even if we pick out the most important question for the past month or so, and had that better addressed would seem to a significant improvement. All that said, sometimes the human touch of answering questions is nice and adds connectiveness to and for newbies, and the human element of WS has always made usually makes this a more attractive feature. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Set the page to archive at 31 days, and we will see how it proceeds today. Feel free to revert if it doesn't work as expected. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Help pages[edit]

To note that we didn't have a link to our help pages here, which I have just added. How silly are we? For those who wish to see a list of pages in the Help: namespace, an up-to-date list is here. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions are sought on how to organize the subpage levels[edit]

In this book in the main namespace I would like to omit the "Section" as a subpage because each section contains only one chapter. Mexico in 1827 Vol 1/Book I/Boundaries, Geological Structure, Climate. But I am not sure. Can anyone suggest an acceptable alternative please? — Ineuw talk 04:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I would ditch the volume level in the Mainspace. The Book numbers are continuous between the two volumes. So, Mexico in 1827/Book 1/Section 1. There's no need to include the "boundaries, ..." wording in the page title. This makes inter-work links easier to manage. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I would go further and ditch the books, and volumes, and just do a straight chapter numbering (and later create redirects). I did something similar at My Life in Two Hemispheres, though replicated the book/chapters in the sections. My reasoning is not to be a slave to a form of the presentation, and in our WS world, the extra subpage levels are a nuisance as they basically became nude levels, the relative linking is a nuisance, especially when we can concatenate the respective ToC onto the lead page. Don't be a slave to a bookbinder! — billinghurst sDrewth 06:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both. Much enlightened. — Ineuw talk 14:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

copyright tag not on list - texas court documents[edit]

I'm trying to upload the court file from when Howard Hughes, Jr. had his disabilities of minority removed at age nineteen. There is no selector to say "This is a work of the State of Texas" like there is for federal government works. Anyway, the Court case is public record and I want to upload it.

I'm not a lawyer or anything, but just Googling around it it looks like things are fairly complicated copyright-wise for Texas government stuff. As far as I can tell there are laws that mandate citizens have to be granted access to see records for themselves, but that's not the same thing as waiving copyright or having the right to redistribute copies of records. This public information act guide from the state Attorney General mentions in a footnote
Open Records Decision No. 660 at 5 (1999) (Federal Copyright Act “may not be used to deny access to or copies of the information sought by the requestor under the Public Information Act,” but a governmental body may place reasonable restrictions on use of copyrighted information consistent with rights of copyright owner).
and also specifically requires that
provision of a copy of the information in the requested medium will not violate the terms of any copyright agreement between the governmental body and a third party.
so for example here's a lawyer complaining that he has to pay a publisher to access copies of court documents he himself wrote and filed.
If I understand it all correctly, I think this unfortunately means that you'll need to determine which government body owns the copyright to the documents you've got and find out whether that particular body allows them to be freely redistributed in a way that qualifies as copyrighted, but "free" as defined by Wikisource:Copyright_policy. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 22:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Or alternatively, if these are documents that would count as having been "published" under the legal definition between 1923 and 1977 without any copyright notice, you could mark them as {{PD-US-no-notice}}. Maybe someone else knows whether court documents count as having been "published"? ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 22:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyright is the "right to make a copy", which should not be confused with access to documents, information, etc. or should not be deemed to be giving anyone a right to reproduce. Publishers have been publishing court proceedings for years, and still there has been some discussion recently [4]. That said, something used in evidence in a court case would not lose its original copyright for appearing as evidence. Is it published? Interesting question., though I would say not. No ISBN, not sold, no copy given to the national library.

For the work that you are looking to upload, I would suggest that if it is uploaded that the decision of the court sounds like we would licence as {{PD-EdictGov}} as the court is making a decision on behalf of the State, and thus acting for government. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Page image not showing[edit]

The page image doesn't show up on Index:Alerielorvoyaget00lach.djvu. Oddly enough it worked for the first page I edited. Any ideas? (I've tried it using Firefox and Explorer). Misarxist (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't know why but "Scan resolution in edit mode" was set to zero on the Index: template. Removed that and all page images seem to display now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. My mistake, trying to work out what it did. Misarxist (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@Misarxist: that page allows some modification of the size of the scan. The text/image works on a 50/50 %width so for those with lower res monitors on high intensity scans, the resolution can be lowered. Generally there is not a large need to make a mod. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:Hillsborough Taylor Interim Report Cm765.pdf[edit]

A problem has arisen,

Whilst the text may be OGL, the images, currently marked as problematic might not be, and there's nothing in the doucmennt to indicate a possible source.

I've used a temporary placeholder, but would appreciate someone with some experience tidying up.

BTW The following may contain other material that could help trace the status : of the images concerned. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Commons file rename/deleted - How to handle here?[edit]

A file that I uploaded (commons:File:Memoirs of a Trait in the Character of George III.djvu) has been proposed for deletion because the first page is the Google Books notification (which I thought had to be retained, rather than removed). commons:User:Edaen created a copy of the file w/out the Google page at commons:File:Memoirs of a Trait in the Character of George III2.djvu (thank you!) and proposed deletion of the original.

My question: what needs to happen on this end with the Index page? If the original is deleted at commons and then the new copy is moved to the old name, will everything work out? Do I need to move the index to the new file name, and then back once it is renamed at commons? I don't imagine that a change at commons would delete anything here, but I'm not sure how the linkage (if any) works between the projects and I would hate to lose the work already done. Thanks! -Xpctr8 (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The page count and position has to be the same. Having said that, I will download the original and remove Google claim, and append a blank page at the beginning, which I keep for that reason.— Ineuw talk 15:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Please check the proofread pages if they match. — Ineuw talk 16:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Everything appears to match up, thank you. -Xpctr8 (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome, in case they delete it, I kept copies and upload them to here (there was another file, beside yours). — Ineuw talk 20:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Forth Bridge (1890) help with tables[edit]

Is anybody good enough with tables to be able to help at Index:Forth Bridge (1890).djvu? There's quite a few, and I can't get them to look nice. Jamesx12345 (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It would better if you insert some of the tables as images. — Ineuw talk 22:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Guidance about copyright[edit]

I am in the process of adding here a series of physical research papers by Jagadish Chandra Bose. I am identifying the components of the series from a secondary source, the author's Collected Physical Papers, published in 1927 by his institute, which is now owned by the Govt. of India. I am trying to add the items from primary sources. But when I can't find primaries, I am adding from the 1927 collection, reasoning that a reprint cannot have a separate copyright and the primary copyright should hold. Now I have reached a snag. This work was previously unpublished, published for the first time in this collection, but acknowledged there as a 1895 work. This is part of this series, so can it be added here? Hrishikes (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If published in India in 1927 and not published in the US at that time, for an author who died in 1937, then the work would be {{Pd/1996|1937}} with the works coming out of copyright on 1 Jan 1988. If published after death, then enter the public domain 50 years after the end of the year of publication (for India). — billinghurst sDrewth 06:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh wait, if 1927, then we may have 95 years, depending on the copyright detail in the work. If without proper details, it would have been 1937+50. If proper copyright then it is 95 years (all presuming that it was not published in US at same time). It is a tricky one. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Link for the 1927 work given in the author page. Details can be checked from there. It's a govt publication now that the institute is owned by govt. I have not started transcribing the article; if not allowed here, then pse delete the djvu file. Hrishikes (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: I have checked. Like this author's other works, this collection was also simultaneously published in the U.S. as per publisher details given in this page. As for PD-India, it's author's life + 60 yrs, not 50. For U.S. publication verification, see this page and this page, both at sl. no. 8 of references. Hrishikes (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
At this point of time I cannot get the DLI site to respond to me (time out issues). We need to know what copyright statements were put into the work, if any, as that impacts how the US law will regard it. If there was coincident US publishing (requirement is within 30 days) then we need to check the US system for copyright, and subsequent renewals (see WS:CV for some of those links). — billinghurst sDrewth 02:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Mirror site for DLI here. I have uploaded the initial pages here. I could not find any relevant info at ws:cv sites. Hrishikes (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

New International Encylopedia[edit]

Found Volume 2 which is missing from the Volume set Commons/Wikisource has -

Small issue is that I can't seemingly use IA-upload as it's too big. Can someone that has a "sledgehammer" upload this so that the volume set is complete? .ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Index:The New International Encyclopædia Vol 2.djvu Hrishikes (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You might want to move/rename the file and the index for consistency with the rest: "The New International Encyclopædia Vol 2.djvu"→"The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 02.djvu" (PS, I did a couple tweaks to the description pages for Volumes 1 and 2. I'm feeling a bit too lazy to replicate that across the rest...) djr13 (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I have done the manual labor of adding it here. Now I leave the cosmetic surgery at your able hands. Hrishikes (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night - Volume 10.djvu and others[edit]

1 volume absent (namely volume 9), Any suggestions? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Please go and look for it.— Ineuw talk 19:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC) , Want me to add this to the upload list, when i have the bandwidth?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
And done, Cover design is diffferent, but the issue here is the text :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Repairs (and moves)[edit]


The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Rename completed and companion volumes uploaded.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
{moved from Scriptorum)

This should probably be renamed, Also I note it's volume2, where is Volume1? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Uploaded
Index:Characteristicks of men, manners, opinions, times Vol 1.djvu
Index:Characteristicks of men, manners, opinions, times Vol 2.djvu
Index:Characteristicks of men, manners, opinions, times Vol 3.djvu

And now pagelisted (If someone's able to check the index as being contiguous in Vol3 it would be appreciated, if not I'll add it to my own todo list).ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Volume 3 pages are OK. — Ineuw talk 22:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves[edit]


It is requested that Index:A605352600puseuoft.djvu be retitled or moved to Index:Law of Marriage as relating to the prohibited degrees of affinity.djvu because: The current title for the work does not conform to current titling guidelines.. This move is requested here because to retitle/move an entire work may require the renaming of source media at Wikimedia commons, and needs the assistance of experienced contributors.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed:Marriage with a deceased wife's sister prohibited by Holy Scripture, as understood for the church for 1500 years.djvu


It is requested that Index:A623078500mccauoft.djvu be retitled or moved to Index:The ancient interpretation of Leviticus XVIII. 18 - Marriage with a deceased wife's sister is lawful.djvu because: The current title for the work does not conform to current titling guidelines.. This move is requested here because to retitle/move an entire work may require the renaming of source media at Wikimedia commons, and needs the assistance of experienced contributors.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed:as received in the church for more than 1500 years ; a sufficient apology for holding that, according to the word of God, marriage with a deceased wife's sister is lawful.dvju


It is requested that Index:Abbotdec161916x.jpg be retitled or moved to Index:Assistant Secretary Abbot to Secretary Walcott on Goddard's Proposal(December 20 1916).jpg because: The current title for the work does not conform to current titling guidelines.. This move is requested here because to retitle/move an entire work may require the renaming of source media at Wikimedia commons, and needs the assistance of experienced contributors.


It is requested that Index:Againstprofanede00kebl.djvu be retitled or moved to Index:Against profane dealing with holy matrimony.djvu because: The current title for the work does not conform to current titling guidelines.. This move is requested here because to retitle/move an entire work may require the renaming of source media at Wikimedia commons, and needs the assistance of experienced contributors.

Removed:in regard of a man and his wife's sister : a tract for all English churchmen and churchwomen


It is requested that Index:Armatafragment00ersk.djvu be retitled or moved to Index:Armata - A Fragment.djvu because: The current title for the work does not conform to current titling guidelines.. This move is requested here because to retitle/move an entire work may require the renaming of source media at Wikimedia commons, and needs the assistance of experienced contributors.


It is requested that Index:Atreatiseonstea00bourgoog.djvu be retitled or moved to Index:A Treatise on the Steam Engine (1847).djvu because: The current title for the work does not conform to current titling guidelines.. This move is requested here because to retitle/move an entire work may require the renaming of source media at Wikimedia commons, and needs the assistance of experienced contributors.

Index:Broadcasting Act 19810068 en.pdf[edit]

It is requested that Index:Broadcasting Act 19810068 en.pdf be retitled or moved to Index:Broadcasting Act 1981 (United Kingdom).pdf because: Legislation should indicate which Jurisdiction?. This move is requested here because to retitle/move an entire work may require the renaming of source media at Wikimedia commons, and needs the assistance of experienced contributors.

It is not clear to me what you are requesting to whom.--Mpaa (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It's a re-title request, and it's made in this way because the move process may need to rename the source file and Pages as well as Index, something that a normal user can't necessarily do by themselves.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The wording is in {{move work}} and if you know of a better phrasing feel free to edit that template. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Then you need a Commons admin to pass by and read the request, to rename the source file at Commons. IMHO, you should trigger the process by asking for renaming of source file at Commons. Once that is done, you can either move pages locally by yourself or post a bot request if the number is consistent. The only purpose of posting it here is if you want to collect feedbacks on the new name before posting the request at Commons.--Mpaa (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
That was the general idea. Get consensus here, Commons rename, Page moves here (It's more complex than a simple page move of the index page though.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of which, there ought to be an admin-level re-title tool that does the third part of that. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested Move Index:Botanistsguidet00wauggoog.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Non-admin closure - move completedShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
==== Index:Botanistsguidet00wauggoog.djvu====

It is requested that Index:Botanistsguidet00wauggoog.djvu be retitled or moved to Index:The Botanist's Guide Through the Counties of Northumberland and Durham (Vol 1).djvu because: The current name appears to be the IA catalouge number as opposed to actual title.. This move is requested here because to retitle/move an entire work may require the renaming of source media at Wikimedia commons, and needs the assistance of experienced contributors. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Now moved at Commons -File:The Botanist's Guide Through the Counties of Northumberland and Durham (Vol 1).djvu


The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Non-admin closureFile was restored. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Seemingly deleted at Commons:

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:MALAYSIA BILL (Hansard, 26 Juli 1963).djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Non-admin closure, File was restored. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Missing file? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Non-admin closure, File was restored. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Miassing file?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:MALAYSIA BILL RHODESIA AND NYASALAND BILL (1) (Hansard, 11 Juli 1963).djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Non-admin closure, File was restored. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Missing file? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:MALAYSIA BILL RHODESIA AND NYASALAND BILL (2) (Hansard, 11 Juli 1963).djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Non-admin closure, File was restored. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Missing file?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:Creole Sketches.djvu to be fixed[edit]

See index page, some remarks done there. There might be more. If someone will fix this, if you post move request, I'll deal with it.Bye--Mpaa (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done


Scans won't display in Page mode. Please fix file so that they do. Can't apparently flag the file as bad because Mediawiki won't save the page. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested rename Index:Confedmilhist05evanrich.djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Move completed ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
:From: Index:Confedmilhist05evanrich.djvu
To: Index:Confederate Military History - 1899 - Volume 5.djvu
Reason: Consistent naming in line with other volumes, also requesting file rename at Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
File now moved at Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --Mpaa (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move Index:Selkirkmountains00whee.djvu[edit]

It is requested that Index:Selkirkmountains00whee.djvu be retitled or moved to Index:The Selkirk mountains (1912).djvu because: Commons move criteria-2, "Change from completely meaningless names into suitable names, according to what the image displays". This move is requested here because to retitle/move an entire work may require the renaming of source media at Wikimedia commons, and needs the assistance of experienced contributors.

If there's no objections within 48 hours, a request in respect of the undetlying file will be made at Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Resuested move[edit]

Index:Singapore Act 1966 (ukpga 19660029 en).pdf[edit]

It is requested that Index:Singapore Act 1966 (ukpga 19660029 en).pdf be retitled or moved to Index:Singapore Act 1966 (United Kingdom).pdf because: The titling of law should indicate which Jurisdiction it applies to, This move is requested here because to retitle/move an entire work may require the renaming of source media at Wikimedia commons, and needs the assistance of experienced contributors.

If there is no objection in 48 hours a move request will be filed at Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move Index:Shirley.djvu[edit]

It is requested that Index:Shirley.djvu be retitled or moved to Index:Shirley (Vol 2 of 3).djvu because: this appears to be the second volume of a 3 volume set. This move is requested here because to retitle/move an entire work may require the renaming of source media at Wikimedia commons, and needs the assistance of experienced contributors.

If there are no significant objections within 48 hours, a move request will be filed at Commons.

Index:The American Woman's Home.djvu[edit]

Found alternative scans that maybe of higher quality, see note on index talk. If the other scans are better aulity and a similar edition, then they should be used in preference. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Other discussions[edit]

Constant script errors[edit]

Ever since the jQuery update and its console tracking, I've been getting script errors. They don't typically cause a crash but they do seem to screw up loading/caching.

The most common error message is: Expected identifier
and it points to: targetFn.super=originFn
in something starting with var targetConstructor=targetFn.prototype.constructor;

The announcement message (up top) said to list issues in the "Help" section - so here it is. I'm not sure anybody involved with this part of the code will see this however. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Found the cause with a fix in Bugzilla: 67565. I sure wish they would patch it asap rather than next week -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
How odd that Bug id: 67404 seems to have been addressed (the latter doesn't appear to be happening to me at least for a couple of days now) and yet this one is apparently resolved but still left for deferred implementation? Squeakier wheels perhaps? AuFCL (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Interwiki links[edit]

It seems interwiki links have not been working, e.g. wːPhilosophy. Heyzeuss (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

They work fine. You are using ː (IPA triangular colon) instead of a : (normal colon) is all. Ex. - w:Philosophy -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Strange. There is something wrong with my keyboard. It does the same in English entry mode as well as Finnish. Heyzeuss (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-27[edit]

06:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Attention template developers: Changes to entity reference handling in #ifeq and #switch[edit]

Just to let you all know there is a small change to how the #ifexist: and #switch parser functions work.

Previously entity references (& > " etc.) were considered different from the characters they represented. For example:

{{#ifeq:&|&|the same|different}} outputted "different"

This has changed so that they are now considered the same. In particular, this means that pages with certain special characters (ie. * ' " = ;), will now have {{PAGENAME}} "equal" to the actual page. For example, on a page named "*foo"

{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|*foo|the same|different}} used to output "different", will now output "the same".

Change goes live on testwiki/ on the July 3, non-wikipedia projects July 8, Wikipedia on July 10. You can test right now

—bawolff, Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list

Thanks to @Bawolff: for his general notification to communities that I am sharing above. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

...and the last point in the newsletter above..
  • You will soon be able to use {{!}} as a magic word to produce the pipe character, for instance for use in tables. [24]
... is kind of related when it comes to template development. I don't believe there will be any issues with the switch to a formal magicword but I figure best to highlight the change just in case I'm wrong. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
We will need to delete the template, and we should put a pertinent note in place. Though maybe some of the developers will do a global removal as that could be considered a universal template. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Might I strongly recommend deferring any considerations of deleting {{!}} until after such time as the change is "officially" implemented (at which point all being well the template will no longer be eligible for transclusion—i.e. hopefully the parser will be smart enough to preferentially expand the magic word before the template)?

Then only should the template be cautiously modified to "prove" it is no longer effective/necessary; and finally only then delete it (or not? will anybody really care at that stage?)

Absolutely no sense in exposing WS to failure conditions on the mere promise of a change? AuFCL (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Right; the more I think about it the less I'm inclined to think the transition will be a smooth one in all cases. And with the July 4 U.S. Holiday typically causing a "week off" for developers, we won't see any of this for at least 1 week from this past Tuesday at best.

I'm left wondering why they just didn't make the pipe symbol itself {{|}} a magicword and leave poor old exclamation point completely out of the mix once and for all. Sure, serious bot work would probably be needed after the change but its a small price to pay to recover from what started out as an ugly hack to begin with. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Cheap shot warning…
…because Heaven fore-fend somebody interfere with clever usage of parameterless nameless templates?
AuFCL (talk) 09:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
If you are going to use logic GOIII, you will surely be run out of town. To AuFCL, sure to deletion with testing. It was more a note for us to do and see, rather than having it done by SKS as a blind global deletion. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I am told that {{|}} would not work as the pipe isn't a valid page title character, so it's not a valid magic word thing either. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Cripes, I was teasing guys. I did not at all intend the last comment to be taken seriously, and I get (and pretty much agree with) Billinghurst's point regarding the first. AuFCL (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah - now that makes some sense. At any rate, the switch is on for somepoint on this coming Tuesday (no week off for developers) in 1.24wmf12. That build is already up on the testbed (see HERE for a template using it). I can't find any instance of "trouble" between original & current usage - though the testbed is kind of lame when it comes to actual "works" to verify that 100%. I guess we'll find out next week & go from there. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The idiotic protection over on test2 won't let me test this, but I would be happier if the template were deliberately damaged (say: by adding prefix {{deprecated}}) so that we don't have to take on faith the "Templates used on this page:" section is really telling the whole truth. Yes, I am a suspicious … too. AuFCL (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You brought up a good point there; the change took place but thanks to caching(?), usage still showed (for the most part) the ! template still in use. Only a null edit (a save without editing anything) refreshed the page to reflect the correct status/usage. This led me to think to use the API to purge the ! template instead and viola - the transcluded usage of the template went from in the hundreds down to less than 50.

So when the change takes place here, "somebody" needs to execute...

... to properly reflect usage under the new condition. Doing this purge prematurely, however, may or may not suck in the long run if some template or string of templates goes bad as result of the switch (e.g. there won't be any "What links here" listing to fall back on for troubleshooting, etc. at that point). -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Honesty compels me to admit that wasn't quite what I was railing against (I was annoyed by the staged-release mechanism making short, relatively painless change-test-revert cycles impractical) but nevertheless glad if I could trigger a useful result. AuFCL (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
A bit of a late thought: whilst Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:! works now, it won't after the change goes through. Anybody thought about capturing the current list as a starting point for the bot run later? AuFCL (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Special:MostTranscludedPages says the template is used on 126,399 pages! - I wouldn't know how to save all that or even if its worth saving. I did save "what links here" only for Template namespace thinking those are where trouble is likely to originate (if at all). I also edited all the other linkage for the template except of course the usage on this page to reflect plain-text instead. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Eek! I knew it would be a lot (I was thinking something just over 50,000) but that is rather frightening. Put it down as just a silly idea. AuFCL (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Template:! is no longer transcluded anywhere, and is no longer linked from anywhere except here. Special:MostTranscludedPages is cached and hasn't updated yet; Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:! is the authoritative source. The template is ready for deletion. If anyone is worried about breakage, let me know what's necessary to relieve those worries. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Old work needs some modernising[edit]

I am doing some disambiguating, and find the work Index:Oxford Book of English Verse 1250-1918.djvu using some methodologies that are out of date and disrupt the display of the work to our current standards. Example Page:Oxford Book of English Verse 1250-1918.djvu/45 and its transclusion to Piers Plowman (Langland, Oxford Book of English Verse 1250-1918) where the references are old style, and do not display clearly as notes when transcluded. The sections don't include the name of the work being transcluded. So to me, a reasonable way to approach an update would be to include the headings, convert the notes to refs (possibly after the name of the work, which is different from the original display), and to add the relevant references to the required transcluded works in main namespace. So if there is anyone who would like to work on fixing it, it is there for the offing, otherwise, I will get to it some time in the next few weeks, once I have finished other tasks. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Video and audio transcripts?[edit]

There is discussion of making somewhere transcripts of WMF audio and video available. All input is more than welcome at wikipedia:Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost#Transcripts of audio interviews. John Carter (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I have made comment that I thought that it fits within the overall content that Wikisource includes, though one of our colleagues was less certain. To me it fits within the overall principle of published works, and if pre-1923, we would include, like we have done for some early movie files that we have transcribed. That said, our colleague is correct that WS:WWI is somewhat vague on post-1922 works, and if we look a little harder, it is truly vague on contemporary works (multimedia +) released on a free licence that don't fit within the print-world model. My overarching question to myself was that a transcription of the video should occur, and if it is to be hosted within WMF, then where, and to me it is clear that it is our responsibility to have such works clearly within scope where they are published and meet our licensing requirements. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
[As Devil's Advocate]: Part of the discussion also considers the idea of having translated captioning in several languages. My experience is that, if it's a multilingual work, then the community doesn't want it here, preferring it to reside in the no-man's-land of the multilingual wikisource. I do not agree with this approach, but that is my experience. The question of how to handle such captioning is a very real question, since we have to address the desire of multiple language speakers to see such a video and read its transcripts. Wikisource (not just this one) is very ill-equipped to handle multilingual media; Commons does it already, and also handles video and audio files well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
We are the English version, and for works that are broadly multilingual, mulWS has always be the home. I haven't seen an impetus for change, here or on the mailing list <shrug>. Video captioning of a work, is a separate issue to us hosting a transcription, as a transcription is a derivative of the original work, and both should exist at Commons. People can take a hosted transcription and do as they please with it if the licence allows it. I would agree that the derivative work aspects are for Commons, that doesn't separate us from the original transcription of a published work. To be clear, I don't see that we are doing more than hosting the English language transcription. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
In this case, however, the only place the work was "published" was at Commons. Are we willing to extend what we host to transcripts of files that were only published on Commons? --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
[cont'd]And were such a file here, then the question becomes how to interface, catalog, and curate such an animal. Part of the impetus behind the Signpost discussion was the dissatisfaction with the problems of finding such files on Commons. We have no mechanism for cataloging such files, and frankly our categorization of what we already have is so poor that I can't imagine it being easier to find a particular interview here as opposed to finding it on Commons. Couple with that the idea of hosting original content not published elsewhere, and of having translated captions in multiple languages, and you've got an idea that's dead before it ever gets started. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Portals, wikiprojects, authors … numbers of ways. They are issues, not insurmountable, and like anything else, drive us to improve. The original content is the audio, or the audio-visual and that is what is published, we are transcribing a published work in its original language. We would also be using something like {{listen}} as I did with Sumana'a recent works, and we have done for works that Theornamentalist did in Category:Film and other works like Category:Works with videos‎. It is hardly different to some of the transcripts of US presidential speeches that we host which have been done from recordings. There are clearly new things to consider, and some changes that we may need to make, with all that in mind, the transcription of a published work falls within our remit. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't particularly see it as in scope. Would we keep these if they were from TED or Apple? If not, then I would say they belong on, not here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I don’t have an issue with the idea of expanding our scope. We are a library, and it least in my experience library's house all types of consumable media. There remain several hurdles to this proposal that would need to be addressed prior to expanding the scope to include these works. WS:WWI needs to accurately describe what is in scope, we are not a vanity press, and I don't expect anything to change that. Also the whole catigorization thing, which presumably would follow the WWI discussion, or at least occur in tandem. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I think Wikimedia projects do better when they separate out Wikimedia stuff and non-Wikimedia stuff. If we take this type of stuff, we should make it under non-Wikimedia specific rules.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo has indicated that he doesn't think the WMF would care which WMF entity hosts transcripts, so long as one of them does. As an individual, I think that the fact that there are probably a few radio broadcasts that could reasonably be transcribed, including both fiction and news or other nonfiction, at least some of which will be as or more significant as some of the works of the same basic type of several already included here, this site would be the logical place to host them all. John Carter (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

British Library books[edit]

Hi all,

A year or two ago I posted about the British Library's nineteenth-century book collections - these were sort-of-available for distribution at the time, but in a very convoluted way involving my having to get them and upload them without a clear index available. Time has moved on, and now:

a) the electronic versions are available online (hurrah!) without having to be inside the BL network;
b) there is, sort of, an accessible search engine restricted to the digitised books;
c) the books have been used to generate the (remarkable) million-image Mechanical Curator collection

Not all plain sailing, though. First, the method originally used to generate the PDFs does not work well with MediaWiki - page images don't display properly - and so they need to be converted to djvu before uploading. (An example, with image-description tags, is here)

Secondly, searching for them is still a little clunky. They can be found using the main catalogue search, then refining the access options to "online" and the format to "book". (This rules out any on-site resources) The result is a strange combination of publicly-accessible government/EU documents and pre-1900 public-domain books available for download as PDFs...

Anyway, have a dig around! Some good material in there even if it's not amazingly well catalogued. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

. . . Phew, (wiping the sweat off my eyebrows), I was worried that there are no illustrations left for me to clean and upload to the commons.— Ineuw talk 09:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray:Great news, thanks for bringing it to us. I will add the link to Wikisource:Sources, probably with a little pointer to this text. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible topical WikiProjects?[edit]

So far as I can tell what WikiProjects which have been created here have tended to be on specific works, not broader topics, like those at wikipedia. Has there ever been an attempt to create such projects here? I imagine one thing they might be able to do is develop content on "classic" or widely useful PD works, which could also be used in developing content at wikipedia and the other WMF entities. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@John Carter: WikiProjects have followed people's interests. There are plenty of projects that cover broader topics … Special:PrefixIndex/Wikisource:WikiProject though without critical mass they simple wax and wane. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I was somewhat more thinking along the lines of having maybe 2 to 3 dozen WikiProjects on broad topics, like history, military history, philosophy, religion, visual arts, music, and similar, with maybe an equivalent number of "geographial" projects. They might even have similar naming to similar WikiProjects at wikipedia to maybe help encourage and bring more editors from there to here, and maybe be between them broad enough in scope to cover most everything we see here. The majority of the project page might just be a list of relevant extant works or indexes here, with maybe a list of relevant articles/pages from Britannica and the like. But I very much think making it easier for the numerous wikipedia editors to find something useful and of interest to them here would probably help both entities. John Carter (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Have you had a look at the way we use Portals here? It's different to enWP and is probably more akin to what you're thinking. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:, though we haven't coordinated works in such a place, which would be due to the lower numbers of participants. It you add works to those pages, even if just names of the works, then we would ask that you add them to author pages too. If a work is uploaded to Commons, and the index page is started then we have {{small scan link}} which indicates that the work is available to participants. If you have identified a scan of a work off-site then we have {{external scan link}} that can be used. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking of adding any, just listing those that already exist in one central location for easier access. John Carter (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council Resolution category names[edit]

I noticed that all United Nations Security Council Resolution documents have "United Nations" spelled out in the title, but Category:UN Security Council Resolutions and its sub-categories (like Category:UN Security Council Resolutions in 2000) do not. They are all spelled out in the corresponding Wikipedia categories, and I would think our practice here would be to have them spelled out also. Can we do a mass move? I'd be glad to make the fixes on the affected pages if the categories are renamed, or this could all be done by bot. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that it is really necessary. Wikidata them, and that should align them. Xwiki there is variation after variation in naming of articles and categories. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Aren't things like that usually spelled out on this wiki? It is not just an interwiki inconsistency, but an internal inconsistency here, since all of the actual document page titles spell out "United Nations", and several Wikisource categories also spell it out. BD2412 T 16:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-28[edit]

07:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not attack the admins[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: No idea what is going on here, but it is not constructive and this does not seem to be the place for discussing what ever it is. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 19:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Index transition between pages[edit]

Anyone have any good ideas how to best transition between pages 253 and 254 so that it translates better in the Mainspace? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe wrap the continuance in a <noinclude>, or put it in the Page: header so it doesn't transclude? Eg the very first item in the index on page 254 that says "Department of Propaganda in Enemy Countries—cont." which is just a continuation of the item/header introduced in the previous section? Unless there was something else you were concerned about and I'm just being willfully blind at the moment... Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Not sure how to explain it, but the formatting of the text also seems to shift between pages (paragraph style, etc.). I'm not sure how to tie the two sections together. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I found a solution to one issue using hanging indent. Seems to have done the trick. I also used your recommendation of noinclude for the other issue. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: I would actually use {{hanging indent inherit}}, and holistically. It is an open formatting template, which can be closed as required. You may also consider using {{anchor+}} on each alpha anchor, and we can add a ToC template in the header when it transcludes to allow easier navigation. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I might just make a mess of things, but I will try it when I have time. If anyone wants to have a go with it before I do, please feel free! Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for online Edit-a-thon event for Complete Works of Lenin[edit]

Is it possible to arrange an 2-3 days online Edit-a-thon event to create complete works of Lenin at English Wikisource? The source of all the works of Lenin is in this link. There are 45 volumes of work, too difficult and time consuming for a single editor. If some online Edit-a-thon event can be arranged, it will be great, as more and more will participate. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't see any scans in that link. Am I missing something? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The 45-volume Collected Works was completed in 1977 and translated by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism. Since it was a consistent translation body, it's logical to assume that the translations were made around, and as late as, 1977—too short a time ago for any of the copyright to have elapsed even under a publication date plus fifty years copyright span. ResScholar (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The works of Lenin are under public domain. It can be seen here. It clearly says, Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive (2003). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
No need to shout. We have already discussed's unique copyright perspective at Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations/Archives/ It turns out we didn't agree with it. ResScholar (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey man, I was not shouting. I was just telling. Was it due to the bold font, you said, I was shouting? My fault. Ok, I have changed it to Italics. I think its Ok now. Really very sorry, if I unintentionally hurt you. No hard feelings. :-) -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
@Bodhisattwa: Don't sweat it. There are individuals around here so delicate and sensitive that a misplaced "^" cuts them. You are doing fine. AuFCL (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, so there are no scans, and (assuming the English translations are indeed PD) as a result this would just be a big text dump without the ability to verify the text against publication. While I commend the idea behind this proposal, without scans to back up the works I can't support it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, ResidentScholar, I did not mean to delete your message. I did not realize I had.
[re-posted] @ Bodhisattwa, as Beeswaxcandle stated, "I don't see any scans" (either). But if there are scans then perhaps you can do the earliest volumes and let the others wait? Especially since it will take a long time to do the first ones. Wikisource or something like it may still be around. Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC) —Maury (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Our purpose for edit-a-thons IMO should be new works, not already transcribed and supported with scans, rather than copy and pastes of existing transcribed works. Anyone is welcome to set up a wikiproject to coordinate, but I don't see the purpose for the community to put the effort into Lenin's works where they already exist. — billinghurst sDrewth
I agree with what billinghurst has stated because when I first read about the idea about Lenin as all text as far as I could see from the posted link, I thought that it would too much like Gutenberg's all text files. Just copy their all text files. Too, after doing so many books, especially illustrated books, all text of the length of 45 volumes on Lenin seemed to me terribly boring which is why I (and perhaps others) here don't go to and remain with Gutenberg. —Maury (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Marxists Internet Archive: "The Former U.S.S.R. did not abide by copyright laws until 1973, so works published in the U.S.S.R. before that date are public domain." In the link I inserted above, WS:CV determined that statement was dubious at best and refused to acknowledge it. There's no need for everyone to flout the precedent simply because a humble admin like me was involved in setting it. ResScholar (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
As a pointer to @Bodhisattwa: we are not averse to the works being linked externally on Author: ns where they are freely accessible. So we could add the works to Author:Vladimir Lenin, though with so many, we may wish to create a template that clearly indicates that they are external links and to where. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-29[edit]

07:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Dotted TOC series of templates can be problematic[edit]

We have number of situations where the "dotted ToC" series of templates are blowing out over the limited for transcluded pages and turning up in Category:Pages_where_template_include_size_is_exceeded, usually the case of long ToC. I have resolved some, however, we need to look at that series of templates to see if we can lighten the load that they are putting in place. I am presuming that we have complicated nesting or conditions in these, though as they are not mine, and I haven't looked inside, I will leave it to who favour their use. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

When I initially created the original version of this template it didn't have sub-template calls and was written to generate the dots with simple CSS border-styles, IIRC partly because I anticipated that using characters for the dots might require recursion or some other resource-intensive legerdemain. I was stymied back then by cross-browser problems in getting some details correct and by the CSS standards and implementations not being sufficiently developed, but many of those issues may have been resolved now and with new things like border-image and border-image-repeat, which are (supposedly) supported cross-browser, it may be possible to accommodate whatever application the {{{symbol}}} parameter is for; so exploring a move back to CSS-generated dots might help with the resource consumption.—❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 17:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Dotted TOC page listing/1-9 full of bloat[edit]

I have been trying to resolve issues with certain pages blowing out the post-expand include size, which basically means that not all pages of a work transcluded. I notice some particular issues with the Dotted TOC page... templates, and I narrowed it down to Special:PrefixIndex/Dotted TOC page listing/ template 1 through 9. These templates are about 2kb each, and when used multiple times on a ToC over multiple pages they are an issue. (we can have 2048 * 1024 = 2048000 bytes, and these pages have blown that limit). In short when we fill these templates with either &nbsp; or &#160; we get severe bloat. To put that into context, we have can fail on 5 or six transcluded ToC pages, yet, we can often transclude 100 normal pages in a chapter without issue. This is an issue of heavier coding in ToC due to tables, but also the really heavy burden of the current form of dotted leaders.

Examples of what was happening (and the figures are taken from the show source of a page) and here I have taken one page from The Army and Navy Hymnal/First Lines of Hymns

Page:The Army and Navy Hymnal.djvu/12 (with Template:Dotted TOC page listing/5 and all &nbsp; and dots)
Post‐expand include size: 410233/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 10246/2048000 bytes
so at about five transcluded pages of ToC it fails

Page:The Army and Navy Hymnal.djvu/12 ((with Template:Dotted TOC page listing/5 without the spaces and dots)
Post‐expand include size: 109273/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 6880/2048000 bytes
basically a little over a quarter of the size due to use of the dot leader effect

Page:The Army and Navy Hymnal.djvu/12 ((with Template:Dotted TOC page listing/5 instead with 2 &emsp; and dots)
Post‐expand include size: 235597/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 10246/2048000 bytes
still less than perfect with just over half the size, so we may get 8-9 pages of ToC

So in short, I have resolved the current problem with a less ugly hack for Template:Dotted TOC page listing/5 of exchanging five &nbsp; (multiples of 30 characters) for two &emsp; (multiples of 12 characters), and for Template:Dotted TOC page listing/1 exchanged the &amp.#160; (6 characters) for a simple space (1 character). I am not certain that the spacing is correct, and would invite someone who cares about the look of the template series to have a look, and to address parts /2 /3 /4 /6 /7 /8 /9 and look to get the spacing consistent across the range. If we need half spacing, we are better of to use the combination of a normal space, and &ensp; and &emsp; and to try and minimise the number of characters used. Ultimately we need a programmed approach, and someone more skilled with lua, may have an idea that is less clunky. @Eliyak:billinghurst sDrewth 03:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The one LUA solution I knew of was already tried and failed...
Ex call = {{#invoke:String|rep|{{{1}}}&#160;|244}}
...for basically the same reason - instead of achieving css letter-spacing (or even magicword-ish padding left/right somehow) we rely on one type of "space" character or characters or another to fill in between the "dots", which of course, causes x number of character bloat. The solution seems pretty simple either way if the LUA know how to feign css letter-spacing &/or white-space settings were somehow worked into all this. Getting LUA to accept simple "space-bar" spaces would even help. Long story short, I've tried to recruit folks from WB & WP to spend some time here for just this type of support with little interest shown (Maybe its me?). -- George Orwell III

Google Search and[edit]

Hello! We in the Russian Wikisource have found that Google had stoped to index new pages starting from May 2014. For example, I had created page about Lithuanian Statut in 9 July 2014, but this page is absent in Google search results now, 14 July 2014. It seems that the problem also applies to other sections of the Wikisource. It requires something to do with it, because without text indexing by search engines all the work is not available for outside users and we can forget about attracting new members.--Вантус (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that. I find that, for a search it is showing me a page created on 30 June

The English Peasant/John Clare - Wikisource, the free ...
Jun 30, 2014 - 1668129The English Peasant — Types of English Agricultural Life — John Clareby Richard Heath. II. A Peasant Poet. (Golden Hours, 1873.).

billinghurst sDrewth 16:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Very intretsing. You can see in Russian Wikisource my page Статут Великого княжества Литовского 1566 года and Google result. Moreover you can see search for last week and find only 4 pages when actualy more then 100 was created.--Вантус (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Index:WALL STREET IN HISTORY.djvu upload[edit]

Index:WALL STREET IN HISTORY.djvu Why is it that this will not upload here to WS as it usually does? I used the same process to upload. File:WALL STREET IN HISTORY.djvu is located on WikiCommons. Thank you to whomever answers this mystery. —Maury (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Just click here and create it!--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that the implicit question was why wasn't the template self-filling with the meta data. I converted File:WALL STREET IN HISTORY.djvu to use the {{book}} template, and it imported the meta data fine, and Index: ns page is created. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you guys! May we all continue creating a wonderful Wikisource Library together as all people here should. I suppose a tl|book is a tough luck book? I have never had to use that when uploading books here. smiley —Maury (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Template:Book has been recommended for books for a while now. It is also the default when you use Tpt's toollabs:ia-upload tool that takes Internet Archive works and adds them to Commons. Takes a moment longer to complete, though I think that it is or more value, especially as it inhales more data into the Index: pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Since you like this method it is obvious to me it is the best way to handle uploading a new book. However, *I* do not understand it but I easily understand the previous method as well as removing a Google page (all Google watermarks) from a .PDF file, uploading it to IA to derive to a .djvu (if need be) without "Google" (as you asked another here to do with the 1st pg of a djvu) even mentioned and upload to commons then place the book here which I would guess is a long process but it is do-able. I have done several books the older way and very recently and I do hope the older option will be at least an option. I have more very good books by this same lady authoress to upload including the book on Early America Houses and architecture, and more. Now I find a blockade before me. The older method was best for me. I dislike learning "How to" over-and-over as another upgrade process. I back off from that and do not engage in more upgrading processes. I don't mean to sound like an asp, it is just a matter of a poor learning curve of an old guy. Please, if possible, leave the older way as an option.

I understand, this new method is better -- yes, for those who work with all sorts of scripts perhaps, but not for everyone. I recall what a fellow on WikiPedia told AdamMorgan about WikiSource -- it is convulated. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why Template:Information didn't work, I simply converted the data to Template:Book and it did work. <shrug>

With regard to asking for no change, while that is your desire it isn't reasonable, and I don't think that there was any direct change to Tpt's metadata import. Developers are fixing lots of things at lots of times, and sometimes a change has a greater impact than expected. You can always populate the Index: template manually. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

That's okay, perhaps next time I can get it to work. It is an enlightening book and much more than I expected. Thank you kindly for the help and for the reply. —Maury (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Annotation policy[edit]

I recently opened a Request for comment about the annotation policy. I would appreciate everyone's input.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Chronicling America[edit]

hi, i have been asked if there is interest in uploading some Chronicling America newspapers from Library of Congress. it has a microfiche view, and an ocr text layer, that allows text search; but wikisource would be better to read for phone or tablet. is there interest in some selective ones as a pilot? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 23:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Huh that's kind of cool. I didn't know such a thing existed. (Though the site and its search functionality does have a strange concept of geography. It seems to think Salt Lake City is in Colorado.) Maybe a historically relevant edition as a trial run? Like something related to the Spanish-American War or World War I?
I'm going to go through this one and see how difficult and/or time consuming it would be to extract to a single djvu file. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • One thing I'd be concerned about would be the fact that stories that came across the news wire (eg via the Associated Press or the like) will likely have large sections of duplicated content. This is something I noticed while I was canvassing old newspaper articles for primary sources while writing regular wikipedia articles. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • So the PDFs I downloaded for my test newspaper were all corrupted so I couldn't convert them to DJVU and my pdf fixing mojo is apparently not good enough for this scenario. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
thanks very much i will mention this example at the w:Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Chronicling America and with User:Taylordw. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 22:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Fwiw.... in my expierences, using common PDF/TIFF/JPG/etc. methods for OCR &/or .DjVu conversion of a typical single newspaper "page" has always produced less than optimal results for me. The issue has to with the typical height and width dimensions of such scans - not to mention those instances where 3 or more columns appear on a single page to boot. Most of the current [free] services or software seem to be able to handle such nuances just fine but only if adjustments are made to the default settings of such entities (never easy). Rumor has it that this is possible even on IA - if you know how to properly manipulate/customize the derivative settings when you begin the derive process that is (and of course that linked table doesn't even list all the currently available options).

I've given up experimenting with this but someone like Nemo bis might know how to achieve this specifically for newspaper scans. It might be worth bringing him into the discussion before coming to any solid conclusions on our own. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Another comment: even the original OCR from the Chronicling America site was pretty pathetic for my test case and woefully incomplete, so it wasn't even a viable copy-paste job from the text layer available on the site itself. Maybe I just picked a bad test case and there are other newspaper editions that have better text layers. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Index:Great Speeches of the War.djvu[edit]

I've done some proofreading on this, of the three remaining unproofread searches, I can't do these for copyright reasons. Perhaps someone US based can?. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Which speeches, exactly, are you concerned about? Mukkakukaku (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Speech by Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill starting on p282 ( he died in the mid 50's so it's not out of UK copyright.)
Speech by M. Paul Hymans starting on p 258, ( They died in 1941) so nominally expired in 2011 , but wasn't sure origin country here (Belgium) applied an extension for those involved in the war.
Speech by M. Sazonoff starting on 263, I can't find a death date online, so can't be sure of the UK status.

All are pre 1923 publication as far as the US is concerned though.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Sasnoff would appear to be w:Sergey Sazonov, (d. 1927) so this one is OK. :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-30[edit]

07:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Mainspace styling?[edit]

Did something change in the space of the past 5 days in terms of the styling of transcluded works? (That is, works transcluded using the <page> tag?) Or is this once again one of those weird side effects of using the MonoBook styling where things happen spontaneously because the rest of the world uses Vector?

This is what I observed:

  • Five days ago, when I was on WS last, the styling of those pages was specific: font was serif, text was a narrow stripe about 500px down the center of the screen, paragraph indicators were on the far left separated from the text by a big gap.
  • Today I show up again and the transcluded text is in sans-serif font, stretches almost the full width of the screen, and the paragraph indicators are in danger of being overlapped by the regular text.

Is anyone else seeing this or am I having a moment? -- Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Check if you have selected Layout 1, 2 or 3 on the left Tool panel. The Wikisource cookie seems to store an initial selection. Delete the cookie, Log out and in and try again.--Ineuw (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
PS. Post the page you were looking at.--Ineuw (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I am using monobook and not having issues of difference. Tried flushing your cache? (ctrl-F5) As Ineuw said, a page as an example would be helpful. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It's happening on all pages, as far as I've noted. But if you want an example, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Inc.. I never knew the 'layout' thing existed, but it's set to Layout 1. Is that a new feature? I'm pretty clueless about most WS-specific things. I will try flushing cache and clearing the layout cookies when I get back from work. Mukkakukaku (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm using Vector, and when it says "Layout 1", I see full-width text in a sans serif font. When I click that, it switches to Layout 2, and it's more like what Mukkakukaku describes above: narrow column of text in a serif font. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Layout has been used for numbers of years, so if the toggling through the layouts generates one that you saw is presumably what is the issue. Otherwise, all that I see that has changed related to the page is an edit on 22 July 2014 to Template:Indent/s‎ by George Orwell III, though doesn't seem likely to undertake the difference that you note. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Well I am rather unobservant. :) I never noticed the 'Layout' options until now.
I toggled through all the layouts, then cleared my cache, shut down the browser, cleared temporary internet files, restarted the browser and finally now it looks ok. Clearly my browser has gremlins or something.
Thanks, all. Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Editor Bar[edit]

1/2 of my editor bar, the beginning, is gone. I ask that someone please restore the 2nd half -- where "zoom in" and "zoom out" plus "expand page width" options for editing be restored. (Please). Thank you to whomever assists. —Maury (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No issue for me (monobook). Reloaded your cache? Have you or others being editing any of your javascript (.js) files? — billinghurst sDrewth 08:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Nothing out of whack here either. As for Maury's common.js file, to me, parts of it look outdated. I'm guessing it could use a review & rewrite by somebody who is actually fluent in javascript.

The other thing that comes to mind are your User: Preferences settings. The developers have made changes to the defaults as well as added/removed some options over the recent months without much testing actually being done on "smaller" projects like Wikisource so you might have a "conflict" coming from there (this week, Threshold for stub link formatting won't collapse into a drop-down menu like its suppose to for example). I'm willing to spend some time at least reviewing your User: preference settings if you are; can't say if it will help any. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


Maury, I made an edit to that .js file by replacing the RegEx Menu Framework utility with it's recommended replacement, TemplateScript. See if that restores your built-in edit bar/tools. If that helped, the problem then becomes how to import all your old tools n' stuff into the new framework.

Either way, if it didn't help just undo my edit. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I see no need to undo your edit, George. It does no harm and I do not tinker with common.js because I don't know what I am doing. The scripts are over my head. BTW, Billinghurst asked if I were using Monotone as he was but I was using vector which presently has been to monotone and I see no difference in functions. It still works. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Parts of my common.js are outdated. I was told this by an administrator Mark>[User:Ineuw] here who seems to know what problems exist. I have no use for Hesperian's Script, I never have used it but it did not affect my editor. My editor still works except for what I asked for. I think it is best not to tamper with what does work because I have been using my editor as is with no problems for a few weeks. This is now added Abc = and I don't need it since I am in the long-time habit of doing this by hand.

, Ditto with
, {{hyphenated word start}}, {{hyphenated word end}}. Thank you for trying to add what I wanted back. —Maury (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually you do use at least one of Hesperian's scripts when you invoke the clean-up one using alt-shift-x during proofreading or validating. At the time I put that one into your .js I wasn't sure which of the others you would eventually use, so I gave you the lot. Also my javascript is very rudimentary, so I'm not very sure what does what within the whole collection. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@William Maury Morris II: I'm not clear on what exactly you are most comfortable with (or want?) at the end of the day. Is it the the old "blue button" toolbar or the newer toolbar? I just got done loading your .js contents in my .js file and - other than the Contrast adjustment thing - I don't see what "benefit" any of those settings/scripts/add-ons actually give you. I'm sure the "Hesperian" additions are useful - but they don't exactly seem to work (at least not with my system). And it seems like the newer toolbar (called WikiEditor) and the CharacterInsert tool can handle those bits & pieces if they don't already.

I guess the first thing to ask is which approach you'd rather be using the "old" or the "new" and then review your Preference settings....

NOTE.-- the "User prefrence checklist" originally posted here was later moved to Help:WikiEditor/Troubleshooting for future reference & refinement. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you everyone who has sought to help. I have all I need at this point so please do not change anything. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Not to rub you the wrong way or anything but what was the point of raising your toolbar's issues in the first place if you really didn't plan on going through the motions in working towards a solution? I'm just curious to what changed, if anything, to make you go right back to the settings you had prior to opening this discussion?

Did the problem go away? Did the edits I(we) made to your settings make the situation worse? In what sense? Was the approach leading to a session of troubleshooting Just a put-off? Over your head maybe? I'm left a bit puzzled is all. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@ George Orwell III - I apologize to you for not answering your questions earlier but it is only at this moment I have returned to this area. Nothing ever changed. It is still the same situation. I had figured that someone (code talkers) would immediately know what to do and could fix the java script. I feared the loss of what I do have left so I let it remain the same when it wasn't solved with my first post here. "Better safe than sorry", I can work with what I have but it is sometimes more difficult. You are not and have not "rubbed me the wrong way". I had supposed a repair would be simple but it didn't so I just left it like it was because "better safe than sorry and I can work with what I do have left. I can upload a screen shot made small if that would help and you can see what is missing such as the ability to widen the screen, the ability to click a button and zoom in or out of the screen and go back to normal screen. The rest of what used to exist were things I never used or wanted anyhow after exploring them once long ago. P.S. What are these pings I keep seeing? I hear nothing from them. I listened to U S Navy "pings" for a very long time at nights when at sea (Sonar pings though) Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 05:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The New Yorker[edit]

Anyone want to use the access oppurtunity to grab pre 1923 material? 09:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh well :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Sadly, the first publication of The New Yorker was February 21, 1925. (I read it on w:The New Yorker so it's gotta be true.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
renewals appear to begin for 1950 works [93], they consistently renewed, but maybe a trip to the reading room would be worth it, for pre-1978 renewals. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 22:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
So possibly all the works between 1925 and 1950 have expired copyrights? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think so, I'm afraid. The first issue was renewed in 1952 (scan, see third column) along with what looks like every issue in the first year. They may have missed some but it's likely they were all renewed from there on. (FYI: The first copyright renewals for periodicals list is pretty handy for this sort of thing). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


In case you missed it....

The Wikipedia Library has new free signups available for American newspaper database, British genealogical database, philosophy and women's writers collections at Past Masters and several large collections from Adam Matthew. Medical editors can sign up for BMJ and Cochrane. Other accounts available for JSTOR, British Newspaper Archives, Credo, Questia, HighBeam, and Oxford University Press. Sign up! -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
GO3, JSTOR requires 1000 edits on "wikipedia" and I doubt I have that many under this name. I probably have that many when I used several names and I started many articles as well as added to them. It does not state anything I saw about USE for WikiSOURCE. Do any of them? They all relate only to WP and not WS —Maury (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I have access to Squeaked in and got account # 97 out of 100. I'm not sure about what the rules are about sourcing that data to WS, but I'm almost positive it'd be text-only at most. Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Mukkakukaku, my interest is being able to use text from any source listed above on Wikisource. In reference to Newspapers, they are a fantastic source for dates and other data. I have used them as often as possible. Presently I have an interest in Carlotta Maury (paleontologist), the sister of Antonia Maury (astronomy) who are the daughters of Rev. Mytton Maury related to Rev James Maury and Matthew Fontaine Maury. The daughters are also descendants of J W Draper and Henry Draper. All are on Wikipedia except Carlotta Maury who is not listed there. All are authors in various scientific fields. It is interesting to me to find and then to be able to see the commonalities within any relationship and all the more so when they are all related and have done similar works plus authored books. Too, much can be gleaned to fill in gaps of history in the Obituary pages of Newspapers. Congratulations to you for that last minute access to Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-31[edit]

08:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The Film Daily[edit]


With the help of McZusatz, I uploaded some issues of this US magazine: The Film Daily. One issue doesn't have a DJVU, which I could make manually if there is interest. Anyone interested? Yann (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Does that really matter? You already went to the trouble of archiving a large swath, if not all, of the other issues - why take the chance you'll be flying with Malaysian Airlines one day and somebody who'd be interested in taking up the project shows up a day or two later? What then?

Seriously, the source .pdf is 250Mb to begin with. We should not expect my theoretical newcomer to somehow wrangle that into a .DjVu on their own, navigate Commons for 100Mb plus uploads successfully and then still be left with the task of compiling a ~2000 page pagelist here on WS, should we? Please, if you have the time, complete the series regardless of any interest (or lack thereof) being shown at any given moment. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for un-deletion of pages[edit]

Re: Index:Book of record of the time capsule of cupaloy (New York World's fair, 1939).djvu

Hello, I recently became interested in transcribing the Book of Record of the first w:Westinghouse Time Capsule which, through non-renewal, has fallen into the public domain. It seems User:Cygnis insignis had started a little bit of work on it, but then deleted it without explanation. I already re-created Index:Book of record of the time capsule of cupaloy (New York World's fair, 1939).djvu and Page:Book of record of the time capsule of cupaloy (New York World's fair, 1939).djvu/9, but I don't want to re-create any more deleted pages, and I certainly don't want to do so if there is a legitimate reason why this shouldn't be on Wikisource.

If there is no reason not to include this text, on the other hand, it would be great if someone could resurrect these pages so that I could build off of them. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I can find the original 1938 copyright registration but not any clue that there was a renewal...
  • Pendray, G. Edward. Book of record of the Time capsule of cupaloy deemed capable of resisting the effects of time for five thousand years, preserving an account of universal achievements embedded In the grounds of the New York World's fair, 1939. © Sept. 23, 1938; 2 c. and aff. Oct. 8; A 121912; Westinghouse electric & manufacturing coEast Pittsburg.  13026
... anyone verify that? If so, undeletion should not be an issue. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Check that. After inspecting CI's edit summary prior to deletion, it appears the source file is missing pages (i.e. incomplete) -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Not from my end. The main part of the book contains numbered pages 5 through 51, and there are 46 pages of content there. Also, I read the whole thing, so unless I'm missing something staring me in the face... Phillipedison1891 (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Grrrr... check that as well but you beat me to it.

On a hunch, I jumped through the DjVu on IA and I didn't find any missing pages (or images) in the file there either. So we're back to somebody else verifying no copyright renewal. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If my understanding of US copyright is correct, a 1938 publication would require renewal in 1965 or 1966. I used the resource at [106] to check all 4 relevant catalog sections (one for each half of each year), did a text search for "cupaloy" and "time capsule" and came up with nothing. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, the best resource for this is the Stanford Copyright Renewals Database. Hesperian 00:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
It isn't listed under an author surname search. @Phillipedison1891:. I will add a comment to the file at commons to cover that aspect. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
@Phillipedison1891: That is exactly the kind of vetting we're hoping for. Thanks. But now something else seems to be a potential issue.

I started restoring the previously deleted pages and began to notice pages marked as 'Proofread' that had entire sections or paragraphs missing so I stoppped to check back with you before going any further. Is it easier to manually insert/correct these [apparently consistent] drop-outs or is it better to just discard sloppy work and start pages from scratch instead? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

My mind must be playing tricks on me - the content seems to be all there but not up to par with the given PR status. I'll keep restoring but one should disregard the existing PR status'. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Index:The Lost World.djvu[edit]

And another on my Adventures list proofread. Anyone want to do format and add the images?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-32[edit]

07:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you want from search?[edit]

I had the opportunity to discuss local search with WMF's search guru here at Wikimania. Some of my questions were about some of the improvements that I would like to see occur, and what, if anything, could we do to improve our data structure for search (of which I now have some homework, and thinking).

The challenge back to us, was what more did we want from search? What can't it do, that we want it to? So the question to the community ... What searches have you tried that have failed? What searches have you tried that only partially met your needs? What more would you like to be able to do with local search? — billinghurst sDrewth 15:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

When you search for jules verne, Author:Jules Verne is the 22nd result (you do not see it unless you click on "next 20" or choose to show more than 20 results at a time).--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussed at WM2014, and for us the Author: field can be given a higher weighting. Just needs to have bugzilla done, which I will do when I am at home and have access to my passwords and a little more free time. — billinghurst sDrewth 19:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
@C: not sure what has changed, however, when I do the search the author page is the top link for me. So unless you can replicate something else, this is a WORKSFORME (WONTFIX) — billinghurst sDrewth 11:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I totally agree with Erasmo in the context that I prefer more than 20 results at a time. In fact, I prefer all 500 search results shown. It is easier to look down a full list and a search from my browser will help spot the result I want but 20 at a time is far too short. Also, I would like to be able to search for a book's name that is under construction without having to try placing "Index" in the search. What is the url for WM2014? (looks like my initials and this year) —Maury (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC) --Erasmo Barresi (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@Erasmo Barresi, William Maury Morris II: There is a range of page display links from 20 to 500 on a search, so you can display them as you like ...
I know. I somewhat stated it above but not as well as "default 500" above. —Maury (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
...If you are wanting this to be a remembered default, then I would encourage you to put in a new bugzilla request against the Mediawiki product line. Where the request would be that there be a means to remember a personal search preference, that is residual either for a session or as a permanent preference. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
billinghurst, preference default 500 is what I was trying to explain in my archaic way. But it is not any sort of a necessity -- just a preference -- which perhaps may be good for everyone here to have under setting our "preferences" if it is not too difficult. If it is difficult then abort the idea.["ping" must be for mobile devices but I have none.] Thank you for your reply and better wording than mine. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
When I search for a word or phrase, I do not want a gajillion Catholic Encyclopedia returns swamping out the few items that were not in the CE. I'm not sure what approach would work best, but possibly some sort of subgroupings of search results whose "directory" is the same, or a means of filtering out selected directory groups once I've gotten search results. --EncycloPetey (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I have entered a bugzilla for WMII about his preference for the ability to set a results display preference. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Something has changed... Author:Jules Verne is now the 23rd result rather than the 22nd! Okay, seriously, I can no longer find the "search options" section in my preferences, so I can't tell you why we get different results.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, I just repeated the search while temporarily logged out, and the author page was still the 23rd.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

May I confirm precisely the same results: position 23 here: both logged -in and -out. AuFCL (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Weird, today I am back to getting a result on the second page. I will complete a bugzilla for this component. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
bugzilla:69771 that asks for author: ns to be given same weighting in search results as main ns. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
On a similar vein of thought, I have asked whether there is more that we can do to align our main and author ns header templates to better function/interact with CirrusSearch. As we utilise parameters with microformat data there may be good opportunity to align aspects, or get some advice about how we can configure for better alignment. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

News on Bugzilla:69771, author ns: rating[edit]

Nik reports in the bugzilla that he has made some code changes that should go live in a couple of weeks. We should watch the CirrusSearch sections in the roadmaps for rollout and @Erasmo Barres: do our testing. We should also ping wikisource-l on the completion of our request and the results of testing. It is pertinent to their efforts. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


Question: Is there any longer a reason to use {{ls}} instead of simply inserting a long-s character? The former reasoning was primarily that the long-s wasn't recognized as an "s" by search engines, but it is recognized as such now. So, does using the template provide any meaningful benefit?

I realize there are some works where preserving the long-s isn't worthwhile, and occurrences can simply be replaced by "s" in editing. I'm not asking in regard to those situations, but rather asking only in regard to situations where preserving the orthography might actually be of interest to readers and scholars, such as the first editions of 17th-century literature, e.g. Paradise Lost, the First Folio of Shakespeare's works, the original King James Bible, etc. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Is the long-s character recognized as an 's' by screen-readers for the visually impaired? I ask because I honestly don't know. Mukkakukaku (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a keyboard way of entering a long-s and I can't see the character in any of the various character-entry drop-downs below the edit window. {{ls}} is simply the most practical way of entering the character. Also, the original intention of the template was to allow readers to choose whether they see an s or a s when reading a particular text—and to be able to toggle the display between the two. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I also think it's useful for those two reasons. I don't think there's a problem with entering it directly either though—it's just about consistency within a work, I reckon. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 06:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The use of the long s in a work has been treated as one of preference, chosen by the person who started the work and set the editing style. — billinghurst sDrewth 19:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-33[edit]

07:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

A question about templates being specified in the Index page[edit]

Do we have a bot that removes unused {{smallrefs}} from the footers of pages without <Refs>. I noticed that several Indexes assign this template to be inserted in the footers which generates numerous unused links to the template. Should there be a template assigned for the footers and left unused? --— Ineuw talk 02:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no bot, not that it is too hard to create one, as I have a regex in my common.js file that does that already. That said, I don't think that a bot is needed, as the footers are not transcluded so that component is generally ignored, and editing all the pages to do it seems of little value. If the template is in the footer field for an Index page, just remove it, and it will stop being added. If you editing a page anyway, and you want a script to remove it, then grab my code. — billinghurst sDrewth 19:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The reason I brought this up is because I am given contradictory info. Having an unused template in the footer still makes a link to the template. This was the reason I asked - unused links. Of course on the other hand using a template makes things easier. — Ineuw talk 19:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Popup note/tooltip[edit]

I found some places where both templates fail to show the suggestion. See e.g. Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part I.djvu/255. If someone knowledgeable with template feels like to look into it, that's appreciated.--Mpaa (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If you are referring to the "ACTION: WE SEA," fragment, the fault is not in your most recent template conversion; as no edit on that page has been correct even back when {{popup note}} was used. As the page is (to me) uneditable I cannot advise how to go about correcting it, but the fault manifests itself as generating:
<span style="cursor:help; border-bottom:thin dotted cornflowerblue;"><s>WE</s> SEA</span>
<span title="SEA" style="cursor:help; border-bottom:thin dotted cornflowerblue;"><s>WE</s> </span>
is surely intended? AuFCL (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I noticed there was no difference between tooltip and popup note. I was wondering if there is something wrong (and if so if there is a way to fix it) if this text:
{{tooltip|<s>WE</s> SEA|Crossed out, replaced with handwritten "SEA"}}
cannot render as one would expect. I can only guess that <s> and other tags will not make the template working as it should.--Mpaa (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Well here is a test right here:
Source HTML {{tooltip}} {{popup note}}
Result WE WE WE
As you can see all cases work when correctly requested. I am guessing (unseen because as I pointed out above Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part I.djvu/255 is uneditable to me) that {{tooltip}} et al has the wrong number of "|" separators (too many or too few) specified internally? AuFCL (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The text is exactly as I copied it here (I wonder why you cannot edit, just a curiosjty ...).
I think it is the quotes around SEA ...--Mpaa (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Source HTML {{tooltip}} {{popup note}}
Result WE WE WE
Aha! Got it! (@Mpaa: Did you purge the page or something, because now I suddenly can edit again and see what I am doing.) You are right: the first double-quote in the "SEA" text is terminating the title attribute within the generated span; and everything else gets thrown away as invalid HTML. Result: the browser never even gets the 'title' attribute; thus no pop-up. SQL-injection anybody? AuFCL (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Now that I know what to look for; this is a known, documented issue with {{tooltip}}—see the second point (and even an example of this very failure!) within Template:Tooltip/doc#Notes. AuFCL (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. As usual the solution is in reading the docs first or plug-in the power cable ... :-)--Mpaa (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Just a note to say that now that replacement is done, all examples use tooltip ...--Mpaa (talk) 10:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Help please: "Bringing in the books"[edit]

Index:A La California.djvu

How does one get this .djvu book from commons to wikisource? It's an illustrated beauty. —Maury (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

How does one get this .djvu book from commons to wikisource? It's an illustrated beauty. —Maury (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not in the slightest joking: you were so close. The steps are:
  1. Add brackets to your Index line above to turn it into a link.
  2. Follow that new link (to Index:A La California.djvu)
  3. Check the djvu link on the new page and ensure all the pages are present as expected; in order etc.
  4. Create a new <pagelist> entry (in box under "Progress")
  5. Change the "Progress" drop-down on the new page from "Pagelist needed" to "To be proofread", and you are off!
Come back here if there is anything still odd. AuFCL (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
It was missing <pagelist /> notation. Still needs pagelist verification, but it is up and running. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow. The hard work was easy but the easy work was hard. "For the want of a nail the shoe was lost, For the want of a shoe the horse was lost, For the want of a horse the rider was lost, For the want of a rider the battle was lost, For the want of a battle the kingdom was lost, And all for the want of a horseshoe-nail.” -- Ben Franklin.

I thank you all very, very much. —Maury (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes it just takes a second pair of eyes. I once became very frustrated that an Index wasn't working for me, until someone pointed out that I hadn't set the "scans" to dvju. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I have brought books here in the recent past but this one befuddled me. What I do not want to do is bother other people with my bad situations. It isn't a matter of being prideful on my part as I am not like that - but rather a situation of just plain bothering people. So, I don't usually have that 2nd set of eyes. We have wonderful people here on wikisource and that is what makes any and all wikis grow. EncycloPetey, I didn't know you make mistakes. <smile> —Maury (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
i would encourage the thought and development of a wizard, that automated this process, making it accessible for GLAM users, to make it easier to bring texts to us. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 17:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Proofread of the Month[edit]

Where is the icon for "Proofread of the Month" for July? I like to collect them like some people collect stamps and I contributed to "Proofread of the Month" for July. —Maury (talk) 04:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

If they awards have been given out, then you can usually find them via the related links of the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The awards had not been given out which is why I asked. However they (three of them) have been given out since I asked. —Maury (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wellcome library 19th-century medical books digitisation project[edit]

Possibly of interest to some: Wellcome library 19th-century medical books digitisation project Hesperian 04:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I Get a 404 error on the link provided. Jeepday (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
    • It still works for me. Hesperian 12:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Grey edit background code for the Page namespace[edit]

I noticed that several users have in their common.js code for the grey editing background. Isn't this the same as the Colour the page background and text boxes in edit mode to lower contrast and reduce eye-strain. in the Gadgets Editing tools section? — Ineuw talk 05:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks the same - though some folks went with tans or greens instead of the Gadget's greys. This too will soon be pointless as the skins are finally being pruned from the core into their own modules. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Bugzilla for blackletter font[edit]

Previously under the old webfonts setup we have the ability to display blackletter through the use of Template:blackletter, whereas the new ULS system has stopped its ready use. At WM2014 I found the right people to talk to, and have now submitted a bugzilla for a blackletter type font to be added back into the font set. See bugzilla:69655billinghurst sDrewth 08:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a fix in the wings for this matter which will be great. The font already exists within the system, and it is a use issue that is supposedly going to remedy the issue. What is also of interest is that from the bugzilla, I stumbled from there to find a sort of list of other fonts at the git repository. I am asking if there is a good list, and samples around, in case we need something similar for display purposes of characters for other works. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Is it your understanding that that list is the collection of fonts served out by wikimedia as webfonts(/whatever)? Or is it a merely a proposed list? I ask because there is no way some of those glyphs are currently being served out (e.g. blackletter requests UnifrakturMaguntia, and that clearly isn't currently functional.) AuFCL (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
It is a list of fonts served through webfonts, and yes they are broken in the same way that fraktur is broken. Following further discussion with WMF's Language and Internationalisation team, I have converted the bugzilla to simply be "give us back webfonts" for enWS, rather than specifically target just fraktur fonts. At that point, that whole list of fonts should work for us, and this would align us with heWS, which previously had webfonts re-enabled for them. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Was there a resolution to this? Because {{blackletter}} has spontaneously started working for me today. (Not that I'm complaining, of course.) Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Yup. See bugzilla:69655 -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
And at some point, sometime soon(ish), I will look to develop a local help page about the fonts. Hosted here as we are now one of only two wikis where this presentation would be currently presentable. At some later point we would shift the help pages to a better site, eg. oldwikisource, or mediawiki. Such a decision can be made later. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:Calcutta, Old and New.djvu[edit]

This appears to have a Google front page, I thought these were normally removed?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they should be. In practice, sometimes they aren't removed, but you are correct that they should be. I would offer to help with removal, but have never learned the skill. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: I removed the Google page and replaced the file. Just check if the page numbers are sequential.— Ineuw talk 04:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


This looks like a test file, was there a reason for it's retention?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Please can you transfer this to WS:PDbillinghurst sDrewth 01:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Administrator votes of confidence[edit]

In accordance with the conditions laid out in our restricted access policy, votes of confidence are called for in two current administrator confirmations, those of ResidentScholar and Inductiveload. All established community members are invited to vote and share their thoughts at WS:ADMIN#ResidentScholar and WS:ADMIN#Inductiveload respectively. Hesperian 23:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-34[edit]

07:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:Common Sense in the Nursery.djvu[edit]

Another work with a Google style front page.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneIneuw talk 17:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Google Lead Pages[edit]

Easier to put a composite list here as they are found?

Index:Wuthering Heights (Novel).djvu ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done @ShakespeareFan00: As we quietly bear our burden of servitude for the higher good. — Ineuw talk 04:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Index:Dombey and Son.djvu ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Index:Far from the Madding Crowd.djvu ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Index:Fasti ecclesiae Anglicanae Volume 3.djvuShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Userfying that list per comments on my talk page. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A note for brother ShakespeareFan00[edit]

I feel obliged to tell you that its time for you to do your own work. Removing unwanted pages is easy if you work in Windows.

  1. Download from the DjVuLibre program and install. The program has extensive and clear help.
  2. Using the command line in a batch file (djvm.bat) set the path to the directory where the software djvm.exe is. This lets you work in any folder of your choice. The path in the sample below is for Windows XP.
  3. The command is "djvm", -d is the delete switch, the file name to be enclosed in "" and 'n' stands for the page number.
  4. Pause is to see any generated messages.

path %path%;C:\Program Files\DjVuZone\DjVuLibre 

djvm -d "filename" n 


Download the file from the commons, delete the unwanted pages, and re-upload them. As for removing watermarks on a page by page basis you have to ask someone else, as I never done it. — Ineuw talk 00:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Next question, does deleting the page in DjVuLibre also shifft the text layer pages? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Everything realigns properly, but remember that if you delete Page 1 then the previous Page 2 becomes page 1 etc . . . Thus, when I deleted the first four pages all I did is run the script four times because. I didn't check the documentation if it does page ranges like 1-4. You can always click on the file and check the results with DjVuLibre GUI. — Ineuw talk 08:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Google Watermarking[edit]

Index:Essays of Francis Bacon 1908 Scott.djvu
Is the watermark really a problem? If it is, this IA version looks to be the same edition and is not from Google originally. Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@Mukkakukaku: Thanks, I will upload and replace it. Robarts Library from U of Toronto is far better source than Google. — Ineuw talk 02:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done . — Ineuw talk 03:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Adminship question[edit]

I'm trying to put the 9th edition EB into better shape. Part of that project is going to be setting up categories and part of that is going to be making mistakes (e.g., creating Category:Athletes instead of Category:EB9:Athletes). Being able to delete those bad cats seems to fall under adminship.

Now, I have been involved and I don't mind keeping a look out every few days and helping clean up other people's messes as well as my own, helping reduce your workload as well, but I've mostly just done things by myself and (I presume) don't have a strong posse of automatic support. Are there any things I should be aiming towards that would make me a better fit? [As far as language skills, I can get around on my own in Mexico and China but I wouldn't say my Spanish or Mandarin are good enough to curate literary texts without falling back on Google most of the time. Ditto Latin.]

If not, my apologies for the extra work I'm giving you guys. I'll try to keep it to a minimum. — LlywelynII 09:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

hmm, i see 9th edition has some some selected typed articles, but does not have transcribed match and split. appears to be dormant. i was thinking more of a 1911 effort, since that is the one cut and paste in wikipedia, and match and splits are available to transcribe. lot’s to do which would improve references at wikipedia. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 17:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Yep, that's what I'm working on in my free time atm. In particular, right now there doesn't seem to be anywhere on the internet this side of the paywall that even has a list of articles. — LlywelynII 13:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

{{w:outdent}} Renaming section to reflect original location and focus of question. — LlywelynII 13:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Rename Request[edit]

Consider rename of Index:The Patents Act 1970.pdf to Index: Patents Act 1970 (India).pdf, to make it clear which country this applies to? It may need to be renamed at Commons though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

That file is actually local, it looks like, not from Commons. .... Mukkakukaku (talk)
It's in the process of being renamed. please wait. — Ineuw talk 01:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Did you mean Index:Patents Act 1970 (India).pdf? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneIneuw talk 02:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That is what I wanted to do but something went wrong. Pls see my note on the admins noticeboard.— Ineuw talk 02:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Page:Presentation Wikipedia for India.pdf/1[edit]

Hope this looks ok. Would appreciate feedback. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

nice, might mention teahouse. oh, is there a reason to duplicate from commons c:File:Presentation Wikipedia for India.pdf Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 12:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Letter petitioning WMF to reverse recent decisions[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation recently created a new feature, "superprotect" status. The purpose is to prevent pages from being edited by elected administrators -- but permitting WMF staff to edit them. It has been put to use in only one case: to protect the deployment of the Media Viewer software on German Wikipedia, in defiance of a clear decision of that community to disable the feature by default, unless users decide to enable it.

If you oppose these actions, please add your name to this letter. If you know non-Wikimedians who support our vision for the free sharing of knowledge, and would like to add their names to the list, please ask them to sign an identical version of the letter on

-- JurgenNL (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, I don't like the use of the delivery tool to propound a political approach. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't like that either. --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
May I broaden this by stating that I am beginning not to like most uses of the broadcast delivery tool at all. One person's interpretation of "an important announcement" is by no means universal, and indeed as often as not simply exercises my "suspect agenda" glands. AuFCL (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
There has already been some comment on meta about political campaigns, and I started one particularly about this specific use of the distribution tool. The use of tool within a scope has seemed to have moved/slipped/... and it certainly has been more widely used of recent times, and I think that there is a case to review the usage scenarios, and to ensure that it is not being used outside of scopes. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Style points aside, this particular cause is worth forming an opinion on. Lately, WMFers seem preoccupied with satisfying/developing with an eye towards "externals -n- exotics" at the expense of the traditional Foundation projects IMHO -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
With regard to the issue raised. If there was a balanced NPOV presented, or alternate perspectives, then that is a worthwhile call, whereas at this stage it seems more the battle between rutting deer. I am aware that the Foundation is looking to find a means to better address this matter, as it can act at least act as an entity.

We should definitely be aware of the issue, form and express opinions; though, I don't think that it is an immediate, paramount concern to the Wikisources. I definitely don't think it is a time of panic, or a time to be woebegone. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

i did my talk on meta, maybe a "can’t we just get along" petition is in order; i suspect that no minds will be changed. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 12:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Process ideas for software development[edit]


I am notifying you that a brainstorming session has been started on Meta to help the Wikimedia Foundation increase and better affect community participation in software development across all wiki projects. Basically, how can you be more involved in helping to create features on Wikimedia projects? We are inviting all interested users to voice their ideas on how communities can be more involved and informed in the product development process at the Wikimedia Foundation.

I and the rest of my team welcome you to participate. We hope to see you on Meta.

Kind regards, -- Rdicerb (WMF) talk 22:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

Thanks @Rdicerb (WMF):. As I said at WMF2014 when we managed to catch up, numbers of us here at the WSes are more introverted and love our works that we reproduce, and tend not to bite into the furore that can be Wikimedia. We have had a history of feeling whelmed/ignored with the bigger scope and presence of WPs. That all said, we should not be ignoring the opportunity to bring the WS needs to the bigger WMF world. That is about how we can exist as a place of citation and source, especially in light of some of the project ideas floated at WM2014, and the fact that new editors can always do new things at Wikisource without having to be subject matter experts (reflecting here on Raph Koster's presentation). — billinghurst sDrewth 01:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi @Billinghurst:, I definitely hear you. We would like to be more aware of the needs of the WS communities, so do feel free to reach out. We want to ensure that we hear your voices too, and thank you all so much for your work here! I pose this question to everyone here: How do we ensure you feel informed and engaged in product development, especially if you are not highly active in other wiki-projects? -Rdicerb (WMF) (talk) 06:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:On the Various Contrivances by Which British and Foreign Orchids are Fertilised by Insects, and on the Good Effects of Intercrossing.djvu[edit]

Erm, this looks like someones transcription to PDF, and not orgiginal scans, is there a way to mark this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It still comes from a scan of some edition, it just needs to be sourced properly here and at Commons. Is it perfect that is it not the original work, probably not, and a copy of that would be welcomed too. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
This isn't a sourcing issue, it's an enquiry as to the correct template to use on the Index page to mark it as not-original. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Any later reprint is not an original. We identify it as it is, with the detail that exists. Be it a reprint, be it a gutenberg transcription, whatever. Just curate the detail as known, and if you think that it is suspect then we tag it accordingly. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
(Moved from wrong entry) Also it seems to have inline footnotes as opposed to refs. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
But As you state elsewhere that shouldn't be an issue :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Direct question - What template do I use to mark secondary provenance? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
We don't have one. We cite the source, presumably we work on the premise that the source data has been sufficient, ie. we are silent on the original source of gutenberg texts. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC) has 2 versions of an 1877 Second edition of this as scans :), by comparision with the scans, the PDF noted appears to be missing chapter headers making it harder to compare. ( at the bottom are the links to the 1877 Second Edition) , cant find a 1st edition yet. Will the 2nd do ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I've now given this a preliminary proofread. Would appreciate a sanity check? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:Memoirs of the Queensland Museum Vol VI.djvu[edit]

This would appear to be Volume 6 of a multivolume work/journal?. Keeping as a book for now but would appreciate a second opinion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Vol. VI, would seem to confirm that it is a volume and number 6. Noting that a name in index: ns is just a label, it does not necessarily replicate the transclusion to the main namespace. Curate the file with the detail that is known. If we need to do more then we can, when we need to do so. If you have a specific question about something that needs to be done, or a means to achieve an end, then ask away. Otherwise, vague open questions, get vague open answers, or sometimes specific irrelevant answers as we misunderstood the vague question.
Re inline footnotes ... and? ... We have many works like that. What is the question? — billinghurst sDrewth 01:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
That comment was mistkanely entered here instead of the previous entry. Removed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Rename Index:Oliver Twist.djvu to Index:Oliver Twist (Vol-1 of 3).djvu[edit]

This is the first volume of 3 volume set - The other2 are on IA also.

Perhaps they should also be uploaded? :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done though to a different name. If you can identify the corresponding two volumes at IA, that would be helpful. I just need the IA details components, and we can import them to Commons pretty easily. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Vol2 - IA code- olivertwistorpar02dick File:Oliver Twist (1838) vol. 2.djvu
Vol3 - IA code- olivertwistorpar03dick File:Oliver Twist (1838) vol. 3.djvu
Files above, I will let you create the indices. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Will do so this evening :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Work is complete, pagelist filled out and volume cross links added :)

Index:Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices (1973).pdf[edit]

Uploaded to Commons, created an index, But NO pagelist. Erm What broke? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, pagelist and everything... Mukkakukaku (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Problem existed beyond computer, I.E I forgot something. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Spam activity[edit]

Noticed some recent activity. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done thx — billinghurst sDrewth 05:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-35[edit]

09:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices (1973).pdf[edit]

Any interest in getting this typed up before the 3rd one is made public?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Is this the most complete version? It's missing a lot of stuff; Page:Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices (1973).pdf/7 shows that most of the material in the table of contents isn't in this volume.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
This was what was on the Copyright Office site, and a front sheet notes sections as being under preperation. If you know of a more complete version of Compendium I, let me know :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices, II (1984).pdf[edit]

Now also uploaded. - I'd apreciate some discussion because my intital format thoughts didn't work out.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

does use of the sidenote solve the problem? (wish it looked better in side by side.)
alternatively <div style="margin-left: 5em"> seems to work better; needs an editor guide.
we’re going to have a lot of this with federal register, and United States Statutes at Large. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 18:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is {{sn-paragraph}} which is a Div based approach. It's somewhat complex to use though so it may need to be looked at carefully by an experienced contributor and template coder. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

BTW If you are serious about this don't forget to use {{anchor}}s liberally :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Vol. II with the div style would seem to be short work. Vol. I would require some fidgeting to settle on the right tab settings. pasting them in liberally should work. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 19:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Works on pages, doesn't on the Transclusion, a different approach is needed. (see User:ShakespeareFan00/Sandbox}}ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
ok, can we then go back to {{sidenotes begin}}? i see this was discussed before [158], has anyone worked on a CSS solution? [159]. they seem to have a solution at The_Solar_System/Chapter_1 Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 21:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
This works partially : Page:Compendium_of_US_Copyright_Office_Practices,_II_(1984).pdf/42 but somewhere the logic is getting confused when there is no anchor needed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

New font style/size in edit mode, etc.[edit]

It appears that the font style and size have changed in edit mode recently. While preferences gives limited options (4) for font style, there are no options for font size. In my case, the font size is too small. Will font size ever be an option as these changes are being made? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Your best option for now is to see what happens in a different browser, or to see what you can change in your browser settings. I had similar issues when I was forced to start editing with a different browser because of software problems at my end. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Tried IE, but it is the same... Not liking the change, but will deal with it and hope for more options in the future. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


What are the steps to create or submit a 100 year old document in wikisource, i'm new here? (Monkelese (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the source document? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@Monkelese: What stage is the work that you are considering? Is it just in book form and need scanning +++? Is it scanned and in either a DjVu or pdf file? Or maybe individual jpgs, and if the latter, how many pages? Typed or written? Depending on its stage is going to very the length of the advice. So a little extra information is going to be helpful. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Thought you could copy and paste an article that is more than a hundred years old, its a memoir located at pbs website and it was published in the 1800s. (Monkelese (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@Monkelese: You could just copy and paste an article, but the best practice here is to have the transcription and the scan side by side. What's the title of the document you have in mind? Who's the author? Maybe there's a scan available somewhere on the Internet.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Internet Archive releases 2.4 million images scanned from pre-1923 books[edit]

The Internet Archive has just released 2.4 million images to Flickr, extracted from scanned pre-1923 books (with perhaps five times that more to come, in the next few weeks)

I have started a project on Commons to explore and understand the set, and start uploading relevant batches, at

c:Commons:Internet Archive/Book Images collection

with the initial thought of proceeding along the lines of the existing

c:Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection

But it could use some advice at this, the blank page stage, from people who know about book resources as they exist already across the Wikis.

For example, how much is there already from the IA that's been uploaded to Commons or Wikisource or Wikidata ? And how is it being held / described ? Are there already quite good automated approaches for extracting metadata from the IA and/or Open Library ?

Initially, I've been thinking to use quite a simple link-back template on book-image category pages, along the lines of eg c:Template:BL1million bookcat as used at the top of this category; but I'd welcome advice on this.

The advantage of such a simple template is that it is easy for users to apply by hand, with very little input being required, until such a time as templates can be created that can automatically draw all relevant information from Wikidata (which probably requires Phase 3 on Commons). But if people think the project should be being more ambitious, and especially if there are already any easy ways to draw the relevant data automatically from IA to fill out more advanced templates with minimum effort, that would be very valuable to know.

Please do join in and sign up on the Commons page now if you would be interested in mapping and understanding this collection. Jheald (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Good news for Internet Archive, Flckr and the Commons, bad news for me. — Ineuw talk 18:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Ineuw: Why??? Is there something I'm not understanding? Jheald (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Jheald: Sorry, it's my humor. I've done almost all of the images for the commons:Category:Popular Science Monthly illustrations project and numerous other books, and am attracted to working on 19th century images. An additional 2.4 million images conflicts with my other - previously made commitments on WS. Can the Commons wait until I catch up? On a more serious note - I foresee numerous duplicates between this and earlier contributions. — Ineuw talk 20:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, if we can identify which books have previously been most heavily uploaded, that would help with not re-uploading them. Is there a category tree on Commons for material sourced from the Internet Archive? I couldn't find one; but often with commonscats, first you need to know where to look...
One thing I should note about these Flickr uploads is that there is often very little metadata, very little machine-readable description, very little machine-readable basis for categorisation, not even a meaningful file name -- so all the work you've done remains invaluable, and any suggestions as to how we can get even a little of this data more automatically would be brilliant. Jheald (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
the metadata is pretty bad, so lots to cleanup manually. it should be familiar to WS’ers since it’s all OCR’d unclear what the value of an engraving of a painting already uploaded is, or if anyone scanned a book page at higher resolution; but there will be lots of images to illustrate an article without an image. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 14:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-36[edit]

07:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Highlighting points worthy of further discussion[edit]

From the above post it is worth highlighting and starting discussions on some of these aspects as they have some bearing on our approach, or they could. There are a number of significant changes there.

Sister links in sidebar in beta

In the past few years we have utilised the adaptive template {{plain sister}} to display our xwiki sister links, and these have displayed within the respective namespace headers (top right, generally in the notes section equivalents). With Tpt's script in beta, there is now the ability to have sister links displayed, for an example turn on the beta and look at Author:William Shakespeare. So the community should be discussing whether we a) want just the existing header links, b) want just sidebar links, or c) allow both to exist as people will get used to sidebar links, however, more overt linking is useful, especially in the eyeline — billinghurst sDrewth 15:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, what a cleverly designed, useless feature.

For example, when enabled {{gap}} reveals that it is apparently equivalent to wikipedias {{spaces}} (because some clever-clogs has determined it to be so in wikidata…) Whether you check or just trust my call, they are not remotely the same template or coding, so:

Choice 1: How do we go about fixing this sort of linkage error?

Choice 2: How do we prevent some well-meaning (you know you want me to say one of the other words for this) nincompoop from trying to merge incompatible objects?

My 2¢. AuFCL (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sort of in agreement with AuFCL here but if some Users: enjoy being the dog chasing it's own tail by hunting down inconsistencies between sister-sites or being led down the wrong roads altogether, I don't see why this could not be a User enabled preference or gadget if need be.

But try add something like this WOT as a forced site-wide default extension or something and I'd be 1000% against it. Plus, I'd sort of like to see what possibilities in the personal-bar/side-bar areas present themselves from the expected pruning of "skins" from the core code first - positioning stuff like that might become obsolete in an instant. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Gap & Template:Spaces fixed; however, I'd like to see a more positive attitude to sister-project volunteers.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Linksto: search filter

This new search query allows us to undertake a new series of criteria for search based on the target, and also allows us to use -linksto: which may be a useful maintenance tool. Also useful for research searching, eg. -linksto:"Author:Banjo Paterson" "Banjo Paterson" which would return pages that mention Banjo Paterson but do not link to the author page. As a community, I think that there is definitely work for us to do to explore the options in mw:Help:CirrusSearch and put some local spin on how to exploit the new power, and also with some of the Extension:DynamicPageList uses. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This looks worthy of further exploration; count me in. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices, II (1984).pdf[edit]

One more chapter of the original and the Index.

Anyone want to help get this finished? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Grants to improve your project[edit]

Greetings! The Individual Engagement Grants program is accepting proposals for funding new experiments from September 1st to 30th. Your idea could improve Wikimedia projects with a new tool or gadget, a better process to support community-building on your wiki, research on an important issue, or something else we haven't thought of yet. Whether you need $200 or $30,000 USD, Individual Engagement Grants can cover your own project development time in addition to hiring others to help you.

Status check. Index:The Great Secret.djvu[edit]

Do they adverts count for validation ready? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No, adverts are outside the scope of the text that we use to indicate an index is validated. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:A History of Hindu Chemistry Vol 1.djvu[edit]

I have just added this work. It's an acclaimed masterpiece in 'history of science' genre, by India's foremost chemist of the modern era. I am now working on other items that I have started here, so all of you are welcome to try your hands at this work. I'll add the pictures to Commons which can be accessed from this work's category. If no one else gets interested, then of course I'll start work on it after finishing my current projects. Hrishikes (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Where is everyone?[edit]

I see no new messages, edits, &c being posted. The place looks abandoned. Is everyone watching football? That is over here in the US. —Maury (talk) 04:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm here, most days. Just don't have anything to say. Wikisource doesn't seem quieter than usual, to me. :) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 03:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I check my watchlist daily. Hi Maury. :) Abyssal (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-37[edit]

09:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Licensing of a re-edition of Flora of Northumberland and Durham[edit]

I was informed that Flora of Northumberland and Durham is about to be re-published in a re-edited version based on the Wikisource version, and the question arose what the licensing should be. The original book is obviously in the public domain, but publisher and editor plan to go for CC BY, since the re-editing is a significant effort. Yet because the book went through Wikisource, would CC BY-SA play any role here? -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't clause 7h. (Modifications or additions to material that you re-use) under the Terms of Use apply in this case? AuFCL (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but I have been under the impression that transcribing a work verbatim from the original is not enough to create a copyright claim. Hence, the edits can't be relicensed under Wikimedia's umbrella CC-BY-SA because converting the image to text isn't adding any new creativity to the work. All the edits are public domain in that regard. I don't think it matters what the editor uses (so long as it's a legitimate claim) because they're really just using a public domain endeavor already.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Wot Zhaladshar said! Sweat of brow doesn't invoke a change of licence, so the only components that are new are the header templates, and the data contained; so the existing licensing is what to use. That said, they can give credit for our efforts. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
oh, go put "all rights reserved" on it, everybody else does. if they’re going to use the images in the linked articles, they are CC-BY-SA. are they publishing in US or UK? sweat of brow is dead in US given Bridgeman, but there is no case law yet in UK. we also don’t have any case law about the CC-BY-SA transcription of PD works (that i know of, & ianal). i see someone needs to transcribe pages 147-435 quick to complete. ;-p Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 15:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the images were made by the Biodiversity Heritage Library and although I would have liked help on Wikisource, I did all the proofreading myself. Wikisource will be credited as the place where the proofreading was done. So I'm not trying to take anything from Wikisource. The project had to be copied out of Wikisource, because there doesn't seem to be a way to georeference locations effectively and there were many other annotations I wanted to add that would have been difficult or impossible in Wikisource. The only reason we want to make the licence more open is because additional licence restrictions hinder scientific use of the document. Please feel free to help me out with my next flora project (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
love your work; i’ll help you anytime. i note you have linked to the wikipedia articles and wikispecies, for only the first three pages of plants. (are you planning on using those in the publication?) i would suggest more use of the template:smallcaps and template:center. i’ll make some notes on the work talk page, about the usual WS transcription norms. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 00:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Slowking4 for helping with those pages. You are a lot faster than I am, so you may have to change your name. I'd like to finish adding links to wikipedia articles and wikispecies, I think this adds a lot to the document. Please do comment on transcription norms, I have a lot to learn!Qgroom (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
To sum up, it seems to me that Qgroom can go ahead with publishing the re-edition under CC BY. Of course, would be nice to see this new version here on Wikisource at some point, but this seems difficult technically at the moment. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The re-edition is now live at doi:10.3897/ab.e4002. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Echo and watchlist[edit]

Special:Notifications & Special:Watchlist substantially overlap in functionality, except the former also contains extra (some non-public) events and doesn't provide with passive usage options (means to turn off web-nagging or email-nagging and to just keep visiting the page whenever I'm free), while the latter doesn't provide with options of active web-nagging notifications (but already provides email interface). Partly, in my personal view, the Echo/Notifications project was driven by low usability of watchlist; [182] comes to mind. It's also perhaps worth noting that Echo users aren't exposed to Special:Notifications unless thy have JavaScript disabled — in which case it's their only means of reading the notifications.

I'd like to get this done:

  1. Merge these two pages into one.
  2. To remedy large inflow of information, introduce multiple levels of importance of the web-nagging notifications (red for mentions, orange for thanks, blue for new watchlist items, etc and configurable in your settings).

Thoughts on both, please? --Gryllida (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

i thought they were migrating features to notifications; from echo to flow. [183] i.e. it’s threaded conversations, not workflow. watchlists and recent changes are a failed work task model. maintenance categories are slightly better. it’s a replacement for talk pages. this is a project of the WMF, are you in touch with them? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 03:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Slowking4, "from echo to flow" makes no sense to me (not even after reading the link provided). Flow items are currently in both the watchlist and notifications.
well, my analysis, opinion is that notifications incorporated features of echo, but could be / will be migrated into flow. put a reply button there, or ping user other than thanks, and it looks like threaded conversations. (parallel; independent of talk pages) it sounds like you want to change the notifications interface; that sounds like a WMF project, and i’m sure they would love your feedback; interactive prototype. i’m not sure WS should have a custom one; i’m afraid WS’ers will have a big meh. maybe an essay about your wants, needs, philosophy, and then an action plan, would clarify how to move forward. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 00:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
This is a "would we like this done?" discussion; means to do it (through WMF Engineering or a Chapter) are a different beast... --Gryllida (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
For me there is absolutely no functional overlap between the two. Notifications tell me when someone has thanked me, left a message on my talk page, or reverted an edit I've made. The Watchlist tells me about edits that anyone has made to the pages that I'm interested in monitoring. I'm quite happy with it this way and cannot see the point of merging the two. I don't want to have the little red box appear immediately upon anyone editing one of the pages on my watchlist. When I'm logged in, I check RC relatively often and when I first log in I check my watchlist immediately. In respect of the "large inflow of information", we are a small wiki and there isn't a large enough volume to warrant a series of little coloured boxes spread across the top of each page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
This would be configurable. I can see a need in different terms for the two notification modes ('watchlist' mode is passive, 'notifications' mode is web nagging or email). To me, the lack of ability to set up watchlist to be active, or notifications items to be passive (I can't get them to appear on Special:Notifications without the web nagging in the corner), makes no sense. -Gryllida (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm with Beeswaxcandle on this for basically the same reasons & I just don't see the point or even possible a need for merging the two. Plus there are several combinations of User preference settings that can refine the interaction (or separation) of the two functions even further. Sorry Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I am even more simplistic. These are global functionalities, and are meant to be consistent across wikis (no surprises). Any discussion about functionality belongs at the respective pages, and in more global discussions, even if there was discussion about local customisation, it would and should belong in the bigger picture, and about how a user configures it, not something designated at a local level. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Change in renaming process[edit]

Part or all of this message may be in English. Please help translate if possible.

-- User:Keegan (WMF) (talk) 9 September 2014 16.22 (UTC)

If necessary, I can answer questions, and assist any lost souls. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Link templates that change default colours — seeking opinions[edit]

Philosophical question. I am wondering what the community thinks of templates like Template:WiktGray and Template:WikiDark that change the colour of links, and forces them to a determined colour. It is my understanding that the community has put forward a position that we prescribe less, rather than more, and that if there is particular looks that users want, they are free to define them in their personal common.css setting. The rationale for such templates is to remove the visual impact of the applications of the templates. Which might be a solution masking a problem of overlinking.

So do we have an issue that forcing link colours is an issue? Is masking of links an issue of overlinking? Is it time to review our guidance on linking? My personal opinion probably comes through a little in the means that I am addressing this matter, however, my opinion is just one among many, and probably good to start a thread where opinions are sought on these matters. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Philosophical answer: One should never attempt to remove useful functionality. (Begging of course the question of what is "useful." Topic for entirely another day.)

The capability of link colour changing after visitation is well-established and should not be lightly stomped upon. As pointed out, individual users are entirely at liberty to suppress this kind of behaviour without adverse effect upon those who like or rely upon it occurring.

This is one of those "Damned if you do; damned if you don't" situations, and the best anyone can do is to try and determine if the majority of users in any given situation can stumble along without disruption. The remainder will be "hurt" (for, one hopes only a minor buffetingly amount of "hurt") in any case; and it is merely human nature that the thus inconvenienced will howl the loudest. Kind of makes judging a non-trivial task.

Here endeth the lesson. AuFCL (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Which says somewhat, if it is a needed functionality … widespread, then we should gadgetise such a behaviour … some individuals, then we give instructions and code on how to make that change in Special:MyPage/common.css. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. And this brings us to the other side of the overarching issue: over-linking. This is also another DiydDiyd situation, however one in which I personally lean the other way. Too many links for one audience is not enough for another and vv. I vote we send a message of appreciation to those who put in the effort of researching and making linkages; and hold our tongues in criticism of those who don't even bother. Harsh words? Well you posed the question, so don't blame me if you don't like the response… AuFCL (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
And if the link-er is a complete boob? Then what? Play periodical policeman for each link on top of the existing proofreading scheme? And at what price? The body of work-integrity we are all suppose to be striving for? No thanks. I'll take my content with the least amount of 3rd party influences as possible - especially when it comes to those that take you completely off project. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
And the cycle is complete. See "Begging the question… above. Wash, rinse, repeat.

You could add something along the lines of "complete idiocy aside" but why bother? See difficulty of judging above.

Well that went off the rails even faster than this little cynic expected. AuFCL (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

George's "off-project" comment captures my main concern. We editors all grok the Wikimedia sister project structure, and we're accustomed to it, so we aren't impacted by suddenly finding ourselves at Wikipedia or Wiktionary. But for a visitor unfamiliar with Wikimedia, they click on a link and suddenly find themselves at a different site that kinda sorta looks the same but kinda sorta doesn't. They may not be aware that they have changed sites, yet their searches pull up completely different content. Bewildering. For this reason, I don't like to see cross-wiki links embedded in work texts at all — link to key sister project information in the header notes, and redlink conservatively to local portals within the text. Hesperian 02:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with what Hesperian says here. We go to such lengths to replicate the originally-published look of books, but then throw in completely non-fidelitous hyperlinks. Confusing. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 03:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
"Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made." I quite agree rubbish links should be removed. I just don't necessarily agree that we possess enough facts to categorically rule out certain cases.

We should be wary of conflating contexts. We (editors, sysops and bureaucrats) all happen to be effectively curators of the works on WikiSource, and are thus subject to the "familiarity breeds contempt" syndrome. As such none of us may be taken as a trustworthy/impartial audience in this kind of matter. Because we happen to see too many links does not imply the end-consumer will, in a properly constructed system flow. After all why use mediawiki (whose raison d'être happens to be easy creation of linkages) if the aim of the exercise is not to use that very feature? Are we (or more accurately the system designers) insane? If the EPUB generation process were indeed sane (nobody will quite agree that in its current form it is) then virtually all links will be stripped out on the basis that they do not actually make a lot of sense for that class of consumer.

As for lacking "periodical policemen," how can anybody exist in the wiki-world without agreeing there are a surfeit of self-appointed volunteers for the rôle? The problem has always rather been to usefully occupy all that enthusiasm more productively. And links to other wiki-family members are a similar conversational non-starter: most outsiders do not even know there is a difference between the various WMF sister projects. They think we are just WikiPedia, so we all might as well swallow our pride and just get used to it.

However, EPUB is not the only end-consumer. A web-based reader might expect links to be present for terms we consider quite unimportant. WikiData cross-references stuff you would not believe; and perhaps one day links may be automatically/mechanically inserted in places we cannot currently imagine. (Ever heard of something I believe is called a "dictionary?")

Who are we to stipulate works we have been involved in may never be used in such a fashion? I am not saying stripping links is necessarily bad policy; I am merely emphasising this is not a simple arm-chair critic issue, and that absolutely no matter what choice is eventually settled upon somebody will be disappointed so just get yourselves prepared to be wrong no matter how this matter is resolved. AuFCL (talk) 08:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

And in a related note to AuFCL's query "why use mediawiki (whose raison d'être happens to be easy creation of linkages) if the aim of the exercise is not to use that very feature?", I have to ask what good does it do to archive some kinds of texts here if we're not integrating them with other Wikimedia content through links? My own archiving here is focused on public domain scientific papers. Since they're public domain they're freely available, but their technical nature implies the inclusion of contents like tables, leader boxes, footnotes, diagrams, etc requiring complex and tedious formatting during the proofreading stage of archival. If the final Wikisource archive offers no more functionality than the original and already freely available PDF, then what benefit to the world will my efforts produced?
Archiving a scientific paper dense with the aforementioned complexities can take enough time for me to write multiple articles for Wikipedia's DYK program, each getting 2,000-5,000 views while on the main page, and more traffic afterward than a Wikisource archive would get. I see integration with other Wikimedia content to be the extra layer of functionality and value that justifies the effort involved in archiving the text and distinguishes it from the original source PDF. Abyssal (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I think links should be standard colours. It's easy enough to override things in one's own stylesheet. The other factor that comes up with these for me is that lots of ereaders (eink ones anyway) don't support changing font colours or even text-decoration. This means that links appear as underlined and so appear to have greater emphasis than the writer intended. @AuFCL, I am very grateful that people go to the effort of researching and adding links, but I do sometimes find them distracting, that's all. (Hmm... maybe all I need to do is add an option to the epub export tool to strip all links! That'd solve the problem for me. I never use the links.) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 02:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
There is a mediawiki PRINT option (of which I need to read more, and will find the link later) that removes certain components of a work. It sounds like that could be of use for any non-screen version at a bare minimum. Otherwise, it may be something that we ask of Tpt that the epub versions strip non-WS links. Epub forms output is something that we also need to readdress as numbers of us are now more familiar. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
These pages may address some of the print issues ... w:Help:Printable, mw:Manual:Skinning, and mw:Manual:FAQ#How do I disable external links from showing in the printable version of a page?billinghurst sDrewth 13:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the epub export uses much that's common with the built-in print view stuff. It basically concatenates the HTML output of the Page NS pages of a work and wraps it up with some metadata. But you're right, epub output should become much more of a priority now that many more people are using it. I reckon the option to remove links would be great. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 04:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@Tpt: are you able to offer some authoritative guidance on this? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:The London Gazette 28314.pdf[edit]

The scan quality on these leaves a lot to be desired, so I am considering leaving this for someone else who can get access to better scans. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No real point putting it here. Mark the index file in some way that indicates that the File is going to need an update. It is such a specialised work of which you want the scan, it is unlikely anyone is going to see it here in passing and just go hunting for it for you. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:Q Horati Flacci Carminum librum quintum.djvu[edit]

Should really by at also, but doesn't currently seem to be present there. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It may be, however, the English pages have been set to be here, which is correct for a twin language work. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:John Wycliff, last of the schoolmen and first of the English reformers.djvu[edit]

Anyone want to take on the tables at the end of this work? Other than the tables and the images this ones ready for validation. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Tables complete.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Statutes of Wales.[edit]

[184] OK For wikisource? 1908 Work, seemingly published in the UK. Author died in the mid 1930's. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

EbyDict project[edit]

user:Ijon talked about his hebrew dictionary project at wikimania [185] beginning at 40:00. he has some interesting pdf partioning for non-wikicode editors. is it possible to incorporate this in a wikisource wizard more generally? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 14:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:The statutes of Wales (1908).djvu[edit]

Uploaded this and in the course of constructing the page list found 2 missing pages.

Not too much of a problem, given that IA has 2 different versions, namely:

Both of which have the 'missing' pages.

I know that the file can be patched (and I could "patch" these myself, but wanted someone else to do this to confirm that they are in fact all the same edition, and so that the relevant underlying text layer was also patched, which I wasn't sure how to do yet.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

File here(and Commons) patched with 'placeholders'. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-38[edit]

08:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

To note that next week (Thursday is the plan at the moment) that there will be a new beta feature. This feature will allow you to use the new php servers (HHVM) to call up your pages, and this new setup is meant to be quicker than the current call (Varnish). So if you plan to turn it on, find a big page and call it up, and time its appearance, then turn on the beta and rerun the test. Record your data somewhere if you can be bothered, and we can provide back back to WMF about how we see it work with out multi-transclusion pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
THe HHVM beta preference actually rolled out within the last 24 hours, and is now available. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been noted elsewhere but in case anyone else is interested the following link selects all Page: namespace edits performed recently using HHVM (I note the curiosity just at this instant only Billinghurst seems to show up even though at least five local users appear to have enabled the feature. I appear to have embarrassed the system daemons; or perhaps they are out to embarrass me. This very item was tagged as processed by the VM, and just about every single edit I have made since as well. AuFCL (talk) 05:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC) Does anybody know if only certain types of user—or perhaps only a certain proportion of edits—are eligible for processing by the new method?):

Recently changed Pages on enWS processed via HHVM AuFCL (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

All edits using the HHVM are being tagged by WMF as a means to identify issues. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Post-Reformation Digital Library[edit]

I've just added support for d:Property:P1463 on Module:Authority control. This property is particularly very interesting because their website lists book digitizations for a given writer in many languages. See for example Author:Hugo Grotius (, or even pt:Autor:Jerónimo Osório ( Lugusto 14:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Change to the enhanced toolbar, again?[edit]

Who is changing the layout of the enhanced toolbar . . . again? and why? and why is it called "enhanced"? GO3 and BWC won't be happy when they return from their camping trip.— Ineuw talk 20:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for noting this. I thought I'd gone loopy…again. AuFCL (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
It got changed as part of 1.24wmf21. I've given up and reverted to the "normal" toolbar and will reinstate my buttons shortly. When that gets deliberately broken again, I'll probably find something else to do in my spare time. There is patently no interest in enabling editors to actually work. All "they" seem to be doing is experimenting with code and creating new toys that aren't wanted, don't work as advertised and replace things that did work. Why? Because they can. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both for confirming that I am not crazy either. — Ineuw talk 02:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Can't speak for BWC, but surely you meant "as well"? AuFCL (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The only thing that I can see relating to WikiEditor in the last update is this and it only seem to relate to on/off in the Page: ns. If there is a specific problem, then we need to lodge a bugzilla. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC) who doesn't use it, so doesn't know the issue
Speaking strictly selfishly I have no ongoing problem with this change short of it adding momentarily to my background level of confusion. I have a couple of private scripts which depend upon certain DOM constructs which it turns out have not fundamentally changed this time anyway. AuFCL (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Here I go again - a day late and a dollar short... What exactly is the problem? Maybe my cache needs to catch up but afaict, all that has changed is the move to WikiEditor-like icons for button images in the page namespace and the quirk about one or both User prefs being selected now produces the same WikiEditor toolbar above the noinclude header field regardless of the selection(s). What specifically did I miss here? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

When I first wrote the post the mdash was missing, but it showed up mysteriously and miraculously. Now my only comment is that the magnifier set of icons is so pale that I need a magnifier to see them, and the icon to switch between side by side and over/under editing looks like a gallows. Otherwise, everything is OK. — Ineuw talk 00:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The icon change took place in

While I don't think he/they got the end rendering size quite right for the toggle-header/footer & layout buttons either, I'm not seeing any issue with the three magnification buttons like you seem to have.

I'd bring it to Tpt's attention first and see if a bugzilla is necessary from there. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not complaining - my comments were to entertain you. Let's see if others share my observations. — Ineuw talk 01:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
the only thing that stays the same is the constant change. it’s unclear if it’s improvement. it’s small beer. are we not trying to model best practices of communicating with the community? where is the outreach and inquiry? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 03:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) For me it has nothing to do with the look of buttons, but where they live on the screen. Up until the change was released, the beta toolbar sat comfortably between the header and the body fields and the CharInsert was where it should be "under the edit window" (to quote the gadget text in Preferences). Afterwards, the first thing on the page was the CharInsert, followed by the toolbar, then the usual fields. However, press TAB twice to move into the Body and *poof*, CharInsert and toolbar both off the top of the screen and into pointless existence. In addition, the leading in the body field seemed have increased further, which in turn extended that field further down the screen. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle: Isn't the Charinsert in your setup is on the bottom? In my implementation - The code added by window.charinsertMoveHigh = true; is only effective, (if at all,) if I have BOTH editors selected in Preferences. Otherwise it stays in the bottom. Although, I haven't neutalized this code to test - but will now do so and report to you. Just in case, pls check your Preferences. — Ineuw talk 13:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Here are the results: window.charinsertMoveHigh does nothing! Left it at true, then neutralized it, and then set it to false, it had no effect on Charinsert's placement with the all the toolbar selections. Mind you, I am using the Modern skin to gain some additional space. These were the final results:
  • Charinsert below the edit window exists only with the legacy toolbar. Just switching toolbars in Preferences, changes nothing.
  • To force Charinsert to be below the edit window, disable both toolbars and save Preferences. Enable legacy toolbar, save, and Charinsert stays at the bottom.
  • If the enhanced toolbar is enabled, Charinsert moves above the edit window, regardless if the Legacy toolbar is also selected or not.
  • Note, I cleared the caches between each test. But then, who knows? Now I have the enhanced toolbar selected, the code line window.charinsertMoveHigh is set to False, and Charinsert is above the edit window. — Ineuw talk 14:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I see the same now that I've focused just in the Page: namespace. Everywhere else, my attempt to legitimatize "load high" in the CharaInsert core .js seems to behave as desired (when set) just as it works when not setting it (loads above edit summary instead of completely after the edit section [or Old EditTools]).

I said it when I announced it - somebody needs to double check my work. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Woe is me, I never bothered checking any other namespace, like here. I changed the common.js code reference to true it still shows on the bottom here, (Not that I care). 18:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
@George Orwell III: About the icon change, I agree with you. The new icon are not very nice (but I think better than the old toolbar icons that looked wired in the WikEditor). Feel free to open bugs on bugzilla about it. Tpt (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Nah. What we need is somebody really into graphics/images to take a stab creating/improving the WikiEditor style buttons (rarely is an author also the illustrator to put it another way). -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we can advertise on the Commons Village Pump - sort of a contest? — Ineuw talk 18:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I think getting some options, and a swell of opinion/support for one (something approaching a consensus) would be a good way to progress, then lodge the bugzilla. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
+1. Could you organize a such thing? Tpt (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Hold up a sec. While I agree discussion and consensus is worth doing on this point, I don't think the point actually focuses on where "we" would like to arrive someday in the future. Deciding which images to use for toolbar buttons is rather minor in the larger scheme of things the way I see it.


The main sticking point is, of course, the "old" toolbar (Classic) versus the "enhanced" toolbar (WikiEditor). Recent events have made it rather clear that the primary hang up between the two camps is the amount of screen area each one takes up and how that screen space is utilized and/or rendered. The "Classic" toolbar, with its smaller buttons and tighter layout (only 8? buttons by default), obviously lets you load up on buttons, cuts down on the amount of back & forth scrolling needed when editing and, being in place for so long now, is well understood by many tweakers. WikiEditor, in its current out-of-the-box form, is generally thought of as having the opposite characteristics of those traits.

It seems to me that if experienced Users could do away with the drop-down sub-menus and extra dialogs of WikiEditor altogether into a single "row" of buttons then filter which buttons are generated in which namespaces instead, it would go a long way in resolving the current 'back & forth' between the two camps while also staying mindful of the implementations yet to come. Let's get some "manually added" buttons to execute some of the more common functions first and then worry about what that button "looks like" afterwards. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Javascript changes coming soon ("All your scripts are going to break" edition)[edit]

This information has been sent out for weeks, if not months, but I'm not sure if it's reached this project in a way that makes sense to the people who need to know about it. This message is for you if you could be described (even a little bit) by one of these categories:

  • Volunteers developing gadgets (such as Twinkle, HotCat, etc.).
  • Users that maintain their wiki's MediaWiki:Common.js scripts.
  • Users that have their own personal scripts.
  • Users who get questions when other people's scripts break (like you).

Several deprecated methods in MediaWiki's JavaScript modules will be removed soon (early October). Please check your code to ensure it won't break with these changes, and update it if needed. Please also check and fix any gadgets or scripts you or your wikis rely upon, to prevent breakage.

What's going to break[edit]

Deprecated methods to be removed in MediaWiki 1.25:

  • Remove method. 1 Use mw.user.getName() instead.
  • Remove mw.user.anon() method. 1 Use mw.user.isAnon() instead.
  • Remove mediawiki.api methods' "ok" and "err" callback parameters. 2 Use the returned Promise interface instead.
  • Remove mediawiki.api.category "async" parameter. 2 The ability to override $.ajax() to not be asynchronous has been removed. The default (asynchronous) behaviour remains. Use the Promise interface to retreive the fetched data from the API.
  • Remove jquery.json module. 3 Use standardised JSON.stringify and JSON.parse methods. And depend on the "json" module to ensure a polyfill is lazy-loaded for cross-browser support.

If your script contains these functions, then they're going to break. If you use a script, and the author isn't active any more, and you don't know whether it's going to break, then I believe that all you need to do for the first couple is read (or search) the script and see whether the bold-faced words appear in them. If not, then it should be okay. I saw some of the cleanup over at the English Wikipedia a few weeks ago, and it didn't look too difficult.

When it's going to break[edit]

These removals will land in MediaWiki 1.25alpha in early October 2014, being deployed to Wikimedia wikis in October 2014 (probably 1.25wmf2 or 1.25wmf3).

How to stop things from breaking[edit]

If nobody here can figure out what needs to be done, then you can ask for assistance on the the wikitech-ambassadors mailing list.

If you know more, if you've already updated certain scripts, or if you're able to help people, then please feel free to post that information here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

With such news, we usually shoot the messenger.— Ineuw talk 12:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
We have nothing to do with the UK-Scotch referendum - why are we being treated this way? -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Over the weekend, I will see if I can search through all local mediawiki: and user: ns .js files for the identified components. I will also see if I can generate a list of all called external files within the same files, and see if I have the skills to identify how big an issue that we have. I will probably have to beg for help in the pywikibot irc channel, however, that is within my skill set. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Ineuw, I had a very similar feeling when I saw the e-mail message about this. The only difference is, if I shot that dev, they might have to delay this set of changes by a couple of weeks. Shooting me wouldn't be very productive. (The people I feel particularly sorry for are people running private wikis. For some of them, it's going to be like upgrading your computer's operating system and discovering that your favorite software application no longer works.)
User:Billinghurst, were you able to find out what you needed to know? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: I haven't get to it, sleeping at the keyboard last night was ineffective for my nascent pywiki-coding (and gave my forehead an interesting pattern). — billinghurst sDrewth 08:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Malaya papers[edit]

In respect of some of the above files now deleted at Commons I'd like a FORMAL apology in respect of my time having been wasted, given that my efforts have seemingly been wasted because of the whims of certain individuals.

The undeletion request at Commons was closed as being stale. Nobody seemingly reads Undeletion requests at Commons it seems. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Settle petal … patience. You know that this is political, contentious, and where I have been causing a ruckus, and I have more political capital than you. Sometimes people will need to quietly change their minds when the focus is removed. If you want an apology, go to the user talk page of the person involved and make your case. Excuse us if we don't wish to join in, and wish to explore other avenues. The blunderbuss is a one-shot piece of equipment. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
well, i’m sorry, but commons will never be, since it’s a morally broken place. "stale" gamesmanship is nothing compared to socking in order to vote stack. or templating peoples talk pages. get in line, (see also wikimania talk about wikimedia israel & URAA). i have my own fights; i bet i’ll get blocked before you. i have been known to upload under a new name using commonist, so it’s not blocked by wizard, teehee. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 00:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
That aside, the deletion of those files (plus several others in this case) causes orphans for us in the Page: namespace. This happens every so often with a file here and a file there; no problem. But when its like this - multiple files deleted around the same time - the list becomes unmanageable with orphans running into the hundreds. Add to that the unwillingness of our ever mysterious Page: namespace caching to properly recognize all the newly orphaned files in the latest list refresh, sometimes files can appear weeks after the fact causing unnecessary investigation, etc. more often than not.

If commons is going to delete one of the source files that has Page:s created under an Index: here on en.WS, they should delete any existing pages created in the Page: namespace first, followed by deleting the Index and finally the File: itself in that order not just the File:, while quietly absolving themselves of the problem(s) that creates. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I completely disagree GOIII. These files should not have been deleted. There has been sloppy process, and poor decision-making at Commons. Simple fact is that the files should not have been deleted. And, it is my contention where Commons feels the need to delete djvu/pdf file that are in use at enWS, they should be contacting us about this, though this is an obligation that they deny having. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Its exactly that denial that leads me to hold the above position - otherwise I'd probably be in the same camp as you on this (especially after following your efforts to date on this point). Plus I don't have any conflicting interests to tip-toe through either; I'm only concerned with fulfilling my duties here (I'm always trying to operate with a mindset of Wikisource rules while other projects drool in short).

That said, the logical path to pursue now in light of their lack of acceptance of some sort of modified notification or timetable to date is to attempt to force these additional deletion tasks upon "them" here when a source file is deleted there.

They already do something like this when an image file (.jpg, .png, etc.) is renamed/deleted on Commons; a bot comes through and diligently amends or removes the File: statement as the new file-status dictates. How can they argue any different when it comes to .Pdf or .DjVu files? Any argument that the current routine merely edits existing pages for File: usage while the additional tasks require full-on deletion are mere mechanics - the ultimate point/cause behind both scenarios is exactly the same....

'Something you shmucks on Commons did there stopped the display of an image here. Its up to the same offender to either formalize that stoppage with the needed housekeeping (i.e. delete all existing Page: and/or Index: pages created under that source file just like when your Bot removes any "calls" to render image files when those are deleted) or implement some new set of guidelines between Commons and WS on how to handle this issue once and for all; enforce said guidelines across the board.'
To reiterate - the obligation cannot be disputed since it is already in practice. Its up to them to completely follow through on that obligation. We propose they handle/automate the additional deletions needed for proper housekeeping; the fact page deletion rather article editing would then be involved is par for the course. At the same time, we are open to discussing alternatives IF (in the end) they will be enforced/practiced without the need to go 12 rounds every other week over every single file in question (like it seems to be now).

Heck, even if they agree to automatically move the file to local Wikisources instead of simply deleting it there - leaving it up to us to follow up on copyright, etc. - would be an improvement over what we have now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I have undeleted these files at Commons, and relicensed them. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

good work, perhaps we need a clearing house for like minded admins at commons, and then only as a backup, a migration to a local copy. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 00:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Future Alternative Work-flow?[edit]

I do not want to distract unduly from the above discussion, but may I float the idea of reordering the sequence and location of workflow for future projects?

Maybe instead of initially uploading the composite image/scan file, be it .PDF or .DJVU directly to Commons, might it make more sense to upload it instead to the relevant primary language WikiSource and perhaps transfer it only later in the transcription process when more "eyes" have reviewed it and its consequences, be they copyright or whatever?

I am not pushing this approach so much as pointing out there are perhaps other ways of approaching the issue. If Commons regards the WikiSources as "too hard" to support, perhaps some other form of push back along the lines of their diminished relevance might find a better balance point? (This last line can surely be less confrontationally worded—suggestions welcome; anyone?)

Even (worst case) if this is an already known bad-idea™ perhaps the very fact the community is entertaining such thoughts may be of itself useful leverage? "Too hard" can cut both ways. AuFCL (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

i doubt that commons would care. keep in mind there are people who upload images to english, with a no transfer tag, image gets transferred anyway, and file gets deleted. but the local wikisource version should be in preparation. the WMF is well aware of the common "problem", but it will take a lot more to motivate change. some culture change is desperately needed; it will be a long time. in the meantime, we will need to route around problem. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 03:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Depressing but true. And there is the entire problem in a nutshell: how to go about idiot-proofing the process, bearing in mind just how perversely clever the average idiot can be. AuFCL (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Localisation needed File:Survival of the Fittest, JC Squire, 1916.djvu[edit]

This file is hosted on Commons, but the author seems to be by an author who died in 1958, meaning the file is not necessarily compatible with the licensing zealots at Commons.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I will do it later today. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Sitting locally with {{From Commons}} awaiting conversion to local version wtih {{do not move to Commons}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

m:File metadata cleanup drive[edit]

The File metadata cleanup drive is an effort started in September 2014 by the Wikimedia Foundation. Its goal is to fix file description pages and tweak templates to ensure that multimedia files consistently contain machine-readable metadata across Wikimedia wikis.

m:File metadata cleanup drive

This is relevant to us as we still own numbers of files in this space, and need to tidy to get them to commons, or properly retained here, or discarded. So it would be worthwhile those who have maintenance wishes to review the page. 01:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-39[edit]

09:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Illustrated London News[edit]

Hello, a german user has collected some links to digital copies of The Illustrated London News. Would it be possible to transfer them to english wikisource? I don't know if it is common to collect such links here, it looks like you are only collecting source texts, because you have no templates for linking to Google Books or Internet Archive.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sinuhe20:. A page of links, and information like that, for us would belong at Portal:The Illustrated London News which is curatorial, rather than in our main namespace, which we reserve for reproduced material. We have such information like that for other newspapers, and it is one of those tricky items where there is a grey area between curated, and links, and one that we have yet to perfect. You can see Portal:Notes and Queries as an example of a similar work. With regards to the deWS page and transfer here, we can host an English language version at the suggested portal link.

For links to external source material we use {{ext scan link}}, though we do have {{IA}}, and have no real need for Google Books outside of the former template to this point of time. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. So there seems to exist some differences between english and german wikisource. As a service to the reader we try in addition for newspapers to collect all electronic files which can be found in the internet (and which can spread out in many different sources). For that we have what we call theme pages, which are maybe equivalent to your portal pages and which will then be linked in our corresponding wikipedia articles.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)