# Wikisource:Scriptorium

(Redirected from Scriptorium)
 ← Community pages Scriptorium Archives→
 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.

# Announcements

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

## User global javascript and css configuration

 “ 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. Thanks, ” —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

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

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

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):
<DynamicPageList>
ordermethod=lastedit
order=ascending
</DynamicPageList>
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

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 https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/153304

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 ( ) … 03:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

## mul: interwiki now exists

It quietly happened in the mediawiki release last week git #f0d86f92 - Add additional interwiki links as requested in various bugs (bug 16962, bug 21915) that the mul: interwiki has appeared for the wikisources to be able to point to wikisource.org. So we can now do mul:Scriptorium and it appears in interwiki links as "More languages". We will have a number of places, especially in the project namespace where we need to do some additions.

I am in the process of spreading this marvellous news to the broader community. I would like to thank for their coding and review to get this through and to for listening to thoughts about Wikisources' place in the WMF-sphere. Now to see how we can get mul: working for Wikidata. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

See The Lord's Prayer for an example of the language link in action. It would be easy to apply custom styling (e.g. bold, italic) to the "More languages" link in the sidebar on a global basis, if the community decided to do that. This, that and the other (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
billinghurst, do you know whether this was announced in m:Tech/News? I don't remember seeing it. If not, we should add it, as a subtle advertisement for Wikisource.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe so, is this something that should be added? I haven't had the time to look at the resolution across all wikispace, I just spoke about it in the wikisource and wikiversity universes. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

## A Unicode character map

I found this BabelMap software online from which community would benefit. This replaces my collection of web links to Unicode characters. — Ineuw talk 23:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

# Proposals

## A template that causes links to Wikipedia to appear in dark blue

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

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)

## Standard handling of Errata

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

# BOT approval requests

## Recitation-bot testing

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

I am not against this bot but I am a bit disappointed that I got no feedback on an issue I noticed some months ago, see Wikisource:WikiProject_Open_Access/Programmatic_import_from_PubMed_Central#New_Family_of_Bluish_Pyranoanthocyanins. I would have expected at least an acknowledgment, if they want to run a bot here.--Mpaa (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
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 .--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 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)

## User:Wikisource-bot

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 archivebot.py 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 want to wait until 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)
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)
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)

# Help

## Toolbar help needed

(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 . 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 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 https://test2.wikipedia.org first and then go to the Page: namespace there (https://test2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page:The_book_of_try_and_learn.djvu/2), 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

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! 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)

## Guidance on linking citations in a work

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

...in 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)
After looking through some of the past discussion, I can understand why there is no clear consensus. To summarize my understanding, the mission of Wikisource is to preserve the original works as closely as possible to what was published, and it's accepted that nobody should change original text or insert their own commentary (loosely analogous to w:Wikipedia:NOR). The logical (and I would argue very conservative) extension to the argument is that nothing new at all should be added to a work.
As this has been debated for years without resolution, I won't attempt to restart the discussion, but it seems to me that not adding links where appropriate is refusing to use the very resource that we are building. Taking into consideration djr13's examples above, my approach for now, will be to:
1. Link the author's name upon first citation only, per wikilinking best practice, even where that author page does not yet exist.
2. If the work exists and the citation is correct (i.e., page numbers haven't changed between editions) link the remainder of the citation directly to the page referenced.
3. Otherwise, link only to the main title, making a best guess as to how that page will be created in the future.
Perhaps a template could be used in the third case, like {{missing table}} and {{missing image}}, to flag that link for future maintenance? -Xpctr8 (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
You've summarised very well the tension between leveraging links (which are, after all, our value proposition) and reproducing the original work as it was (which is our mission).
I think a {{deeplink later}} template is an excellent idea — it could render the link as-is, but also check whether its target exists, and if so categorise into a maintenance category along the lines of Category:Pages with links to be retargetted.
Hesperian 02:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've written my first (very simple) template, but could definitely use some help refining it. It is called {{deeplink needed}} and it categorizes pages into Category:Pages needing deeplinks. The tagged link itself has a faint red background and a superscript reading "deeplink needed".

The biggest issue I see is that the category is listing both the transcription and the mainspace work. Is there a way to detect the namespace and only add the category under Page? If so, what about works without an associated source, that is where the template is directly used in the mainspace? There are a lot of other things that could be done to improve this (like Hesperian's idea to check if the linked page already exists) and I'm open to suggestions. -Xpctr8 (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally I'm opposed to the altered style and the "[deeplink needed]" text. It's unnecessary. As for altering behaviour depending on namespace, see {{missing image}} for an example of how that is done. Hesperian 12:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

## Commons file rename/deleted - How to handle here?

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)
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

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)

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)
As I have already stated, I could not find any info about this work at ws:cv-linked sites. And as can be seen from info I have already provided, this work was published at least from Calcutta, London and New York, all in 1927. So, subject to no contrary evidence, I think this work can be safely assumed as a case of PD-US-no renewal. Any thoughts? Hrishikes (talk) 04:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

## New International Encylopedia

Found Volume 2 which is missing from the Volume set Commons/Wikisource has - https://archive.org/details/newinternational02gilm

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)

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"→"Index: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)
Renamed.--Mpaa (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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)
https://archive.org/details/arabiannightsent09burtiala , 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)

## Duplicate scan sets?

The latter is a better fit with the other volumes listed (going by the cover design). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

## The Gall Wasp Genus Cynips: A Study in the Origin of Species/Key to Described Cynips

Someone, please, make the table look fine. I have an error in pages 485-487 (a cell vanishes) and I don't know how to fix it. Nonexyst (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the row with the page number added in the main ns spoils your rowspan scheme but I could not find out how to fix that.--Mpaa (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I must be a glutton for punishment. I had yet another go at this and think it now works (please check!) but am not quite sure I can explain why. In essence I added a dummy min-width:1em to the first column (local to page 485); the idea being to anchor the width of that column in the instance there is no actual content (the "5." being on the previous page). I also went mad adding, I was initially sure, too many {{nop}}s. However by carefully later removing them again and watching things break I think the ones remaining are essential but I really cannot justify them in any other sense than the result, which I hope works for you as well. AuFCL (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

## Local upload licensing sanity check

I have just uploaded File:War of the Worlds page 279.png locally and would appreciate if someone a little more copyright-savvy than I (that's just about everyone) would be so kind as to cast an eye over the Summary block and let me know if I ought to have filled it out differently. As far as I can tell, as H. G. Wells, being British and having died in 1946, his works ought to enter into the public domain unencumbered in 2016 (life+70 years.) Is this a bad assumption or is there is anything else I need to check? AuFCL (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Any illustrations (if there is a listed illustrator) would have a separate copyright. Have you checked this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, but at least at this point the illustrator or illustrators remain unknown. No apparent signatures of any kind on images (From my reading elsewhere, reputedly this publisher, Harper Bros, was in the habit of getting its staff illustrators to sign "Copyright Harper Bros," but I cannot see even this, so that doesn't help either.) AuFCL (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Just need to make the template for" do not move to commons" to have an expiry of 2017, though I think that the artwork would have expired already with an 1898 US/UK publication with a US publisher and the artwork being unattributed, and not being Wells's work. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Done. Would you mind expanding upon your reasoning assuming this is beyond "playing it safe" with the author-death-year+70 years rule? Just asking the dumb questions now in hopes of saving a possible future re-education (by which time the rules will likely have changed anyway…?) AuFCL (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Unattributed illustrators were generally considered as works of hire, and the law in that regard gave the copyright to the publisher, and that then has a fixed number of years, rather than PMA. Still an aspect of modern law, and the wiser authors/illustrators these days would work out the IP as part of the creation. With the joint US/UK publication, the US law of pre1923 comes fully into force, and there is no means to not state the country of origin of illustrator, so basically it is US origin, US treated. Playing it safe as hosting here is free of Commonists, and we can move the work in 2017 without hassle from deletionists. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
That peculiar sound you just heard was the last of my confidence in ever properly understanding copyright arcana gasping its very last. Thanks for attempting to edumacate me, but from now on please just assume whatever I do in this area is going to be wrong and try to set me straight again each time. (In return I promise I'll try not to stray too far.) AuFCL (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Are there any wiki-specific training programs for copyright? If there aren't, would people be interested in it? We might be able to win an m:IEG] grant to pay for someone to teach it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I rather think everybody here would be interested. However I pity the potential teacher as I expect few of the questions asked will be quite what is expected from a "normal" class (i.e. we will probably be asking things about the very knife-edge of legality… Hmm. suspiciously pirate-like behaviour. That sounds bad?) AuFCL (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

## What do you do when scans are not enough?

Please pardon the fact the background to this is a bit long and involved:

Somewhat related to Local upload licensing sanity check, above, I have just completed proofreading of the scans in Index:War of the Worlds.djvu. The work is organised into two Books with Book I chapters running from I. to XVII., and Book II chapters running from I. to IX. Book I, and Book II Chapter I were already correctly transcluded when I started. Probably unwisely I replaced each subsequent Chapter (all were already populated with inline—i.e. direct/non-transcluded—text) with its transcluded-from-Page:-space equivalents as I completed proofreading enough pages to enable me to do so.

The problem is this. The scans clearly support there being nine chapters in Book II; but the main space text has a pre-existing tenth chapter for which I have absolutely no provenance.

How to proceed? Should this hold-over chapter be expunged; or should the (apparent) alternate version of the work be teased out and set apart; especially as I do not know from whence it originated. Some components date well back into 2005, and originated from non-logged-in sources (does IP: 71.96.170.245 ring any bells?)

Any suggestions (well civil ones anyway) gratefully received. AuFCL (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

There were no international copyright treaties in Wells' time. Anything published in the UK could legally be pirated into the US market, and vice versa. To prevent piracy of their works, some authors would submit a work simultaneously to a publisher in each country. Sometimes they would submit substantially the same work to both; but sometimes they would submit two distinct versions, each tailored to its target market. And then the two versions would go through independent review processes. See The Time Machine for a detailed example of this.
I suspect you have overwritten one "text" of The War of the World with a different "text". Best practice would have been to retain the text we already had, and set up your new text alongside it. But given the overwritten text was not supported by a scan, I wouldn't be inclined at this point to try to restore it.
Hesperian 03:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks; at least that explains the diverging texts. Unfortunately I simply did not notice until (some) of the damage was already done—and indeed I feel there is a good case a lot of it (the "damage") precedes my involvement. I am inclined to remove Book 2/Chapter 10 altogether as it really does not add significantly to the story, being largely a rehash of B2/Ch9 in any case. Does anybody object if I simply "orphan" its linkage from Chapter 9 (to indicate Ch10 may be discarded); or does this simply increase the difficulties for eventual clean-up? AuFCL (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
From what I've been able to find and infer, the epilogue was part of the original run in Pearson's Magazine, though it does not seem to have been included in the later book edition that you have procured. It does appear in the copy at Project Gutenburg Australia here, and it is referenced by several scholars of Wells' works that I have examined. However, I have not found an explicit explanation for the textual discrepancy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey may have just given and important clue regarding the solution of another small mystery about this work. Every chapter in the transclusion is linked back to the French WikiSource equivalent. I note that the Gutenburg Australia reference contains several images clearly relating to a French, rather than English issue, so maybe the "base" edition was in fact a PG cut/paste job prior to the scan being located/becoming available? AuFCL (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

## Image rotation of plates in books

There are many books where the original work has illustration plates - whole page landscape images - that are rotated through 90 degrees. Is there a view about the presentation on WikiSource? Keeping the original stays true to the source; adding rotated images look a bit odd in the context of the book but they are much easier to view. Added to this Wikimedia uploads that appear 'out of rotation' are occasionally flagged with {{rotate}} to 'correct' them. GreyHead (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

We prefer images to appear in their "natural" viewing orientation, rather than require them to remain in their printed orientation. In a printed volume, the reader can simply rotate the book. While this would be possible on a tablet or mobile device, it is not practical for someone reading the work on a laptop or computer monitor. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you - image rotations requested. GreyHead (talk) 09:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

## The link to scan page?

I remember there were links to the scan page in main name space articles using <page ... />. Now it disappeared. Is there any way to make it come back?--維基小霸王 (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you you point to a particular work? — Ineuw talk 15:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Another 'lack of awareness' of the options found in the left-sidebar's Display options menu? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Thank you. But my Firefox shows Display options without options until I cleaned my vector.js.
By the way, can anyone point out here how to make Chinese Wikisource show that? --維基小霸王 (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@維基小霸王: mul:Wikisource:Shared Scripts is where you will find the information about switches, and implementation through Mediawiki:Common.js or its includes. Sites will implement components differently. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. it's done.--維基小霸王 (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

## Not quite fractions

I'd like to get some assistance formatting a bit of text on this page.

In the footnote, there are lines of text where two words must appear together in-line, with one above and one below. The only method I know of for achieving this is to use [itex] tags, but this adds a fraction bar that is not present in the original.

Is there an alternative that someone can offer? --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like AuFCL Fixed it for you useing Dual Template.--Rochefoucauld (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
(recovery from edit conflict):
You have two choices; either:
1. substitute \tfrac with one or the other of \overset or (reversing parameters) \underset within the [itex] formulations. Drawback: the two words are rendered with dissimilar font sizes, so unless you want to represent a favoured choice…
2. {{dual}} might just be your friend (my recommendation). AuFCL (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Thanks. The {{dual}} template does just what I needed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

P.S. By the way there are a couple of ways of doing fractions without using math tags. {{over}}, {{frac}}, and {{sfrac}} all offer various lines. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

## details note

i need to know about country wife as a social doctrine unsigned comment by 182.66.55.226 (talk) .

I suggest that you read the article on Wycherley's play over at Wikipedia The Country Wife as a starting point. Ogden's introduction (listed in the bibliography in that article) is a good next step to understanding the play. Once you've done that, then start writing your essay from what you've discovered in the play itself. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

# Other discussions

## What do you want from search?

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)
https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania --Erasmo Barresi (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
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

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 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)

## Steps

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)
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)
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

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

07:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

### Highlighting points worthy of further discussion

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)

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

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

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

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

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?

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 ( ) … 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

09:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

## Licensing of a re-edition of Flora of Northumberland and Durham

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 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:The_Botanist%27s_Guide_Through_the_Counties_of_Northumberland_and_Durham_(Vol_1).djvu.Qgroom (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

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; [23] 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. [24] 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  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

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

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 ( ) … 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 ( ) … 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 ( ) … 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

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

Should really by at la.wikisource.org 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

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.

[25] 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)

It seems OK here with {{Pd/1923}}.--Jusjih (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

## EbyDict project

user:Ijon talked about his hebrew dictionary project at wikimania [26] 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

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

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

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 (http://prdl.org/author_view.php?a_id=952), or even pt:Autor:Jerónimo Osório (http://prdl.org/author_view.php?a_id=4642). Lugusto 14:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

## Change to the enhanced toolbar, again?

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 https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/157115

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)
Isn't the Charinsert in your setup is on the bottom? In my implementation - The code added by User:helder.wiki 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)
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)

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

Deprecated methods to be removed in MediaWiki 1.25:

• Remove mw.user.name() 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

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

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)
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)

### Observed Breakages

1.25wmf1 (ab89c52) is now deployed on enWS. As of this morning I am observing javascript errors from a couple of gadgets; notably:

The following items may be indicative of failure to load/changes in CSS:

• Some of the ProofreadPage icons have reverted to text-only forms (e.g. "Previous page", "Next page", "Index" tabs)
• The "thanks" and "add-to-watchlist" functions now break (e.g.) browse history flows (they used to be rather more discrete and return to the ongoing activity.)
• The Preferences function now presents as a monolithic list, without breakage into tab-groups as before.

This is all I have been able to analyse so far... AuFCL (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Please ignore the above. I am a victim of my own idiocy. I happen to be forced to use a banking application that refuses to work without a faked browser user agent. Guess what breaks when I forget to set it back to the default value? Yep: mediawiki… AuFCL (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

## Malaya papers

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?

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

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)
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

 “ 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

09:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

## Illustrated London News

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)

## Index:The Monkey's Paw.djvu

Drama copyright? 1910 work so PD-US. If published in UK dramtist died in 1944 and it won't be out of copyright until January. (Which isn't that long to wait).ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

For Commons purposes, it's derivative of a British work by an author who died in 1943, and co-published US/UK by a dramatist who died in 1944. It's free for WS purposes, and I would suggest just not bothering it for Commons purposes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

## Index:The Pilgrim's Progress.djvu

The underlying work is PD, (text clearly is), the illustrator around in 1943. Only remaining issue is when the edition was published, so it's correctly indicated in the metadata, IA source doesn't give an edition date :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The text is not self-evidently PD; I know that Shakespeare editions tend to be glued together from several originals, and I don't know the textual history of the Pilgrim's Progress, but sufficient editorial changes can be copyrightable. When did the illustrator publish the illustrations is a necessary question for copyright, too. I'm guessing the library got their copy in 1967--page 2 has 67-73312 typed into it, which is not in fact a LCCN, but follows the format, so I think it's a local library number of the same format. Thus I would assume this edition was published after 1950, which would leave the biography, for one piece, under copyright for sometime, even given only the anonymous 70 years and not the US 95. I think a well-dated edition should be found and this one deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

## Identfying authors

Was considering a transcribe on the work listed here to be done by October 31st. User:ShakespeareFan00/Halloween but having run into concerns about anthologies before, I felt it best to compile a list of stated authors (based on titles in the work.)

The assistance of other contirbutors used to doing authorship confirmation would be appreciated.

The reason I am checking before uploading is because although the work is a US Pre 1923, I couldn't be certain some extracts and poems had a subsisting non-us copyright.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Globally speaking, might be the case: "non US-copyright" covers many jurisdictions. Is this a Wikisource concern, however? PD in the USA is certainly the criterion used for the DNB and other big collective works here. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Well it is a concern because it determines if the djvu has to be uploaded locally (instead of at Commons), and if there are parts of the work I can't (being UK based) transcribe owing to authors works still being copyright here, even though the book is around 1910. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm all for being scrupulous on IP matters where necessary. On the former point, the Commons page on licensing reads "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media [...] that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." That is therefore a necessary condition. Here the US is the country of publication. So that necessary condition about public domain is fulfilled. My understanding, which of course may be deficient (this being a treacherous area) is that US public domain would be taken as sufficient by Commons. I'm citing the page that is not for lawyers, knowingly.
On the other point, I would take that to be a personal choice, rather than a policy matter. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Just upload the thing at Commons. If it becomes problematic we will transfer it over here as we know that it is hostable. As attributions are made to author pages, you will work out whether you want it pushed here. Dropping all that I am currently doing to assist with lower priority author pages isn't going to happen. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
OK. I really doubt that a pre 1923 US work is going to have major issues. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

## Index:The young Moslem looks at life (1937).djvu

Query, is this license on this correct? The author according to Wikisource died in 1964, so I don't see how it can be PD-70 which is what Commons claims.? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

No, if you look at the work here you will see how we have tagged it. I have retagged the File: with c:Template:PD-US-not renewed. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks , should really have done that check myself :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Ineuw talk 21:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

A reply that says nothing, and is somewhere between "three wise monkeys" and an ostrich or Sergeant Schultz in Hogan's Heroes. — billinghurst sDrewth
Exactly, and when looking at the "Rights statement" only the films are PD. and I quote:

https://archive.org/details/prelinger

Descriptions, synopses, shotlists and other metadata provided by Prelinger Archives to this site are copyrighted jointly by Prelinger Archives and Getty Images. They may be quoted, excerpted or reproduced for educational, scholarly, nonprofit or archival purposes, but may not be reproduced for commercial purposes of any kind without permission.

## Tech News: 2014-40

09:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

## Talmud seems a need to be tidied

When I have a look at "Talmud"'s subpages we seem to have a bit of a hotchpotch. Some looks like it belongs in Talmud (Wikisource) but wasn't moved (and which should be moved to Translation:Talmud) and some maybe deleted, or moved to heWS. Anyone have any knowledge of the work to be able to advise the community? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems OK to me, but it's missing tractates. I believe there are 64 of them. What do you see wrong? Can you elaborate?— Ineuw talk 02:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Ineuw, if you look at the base page Talmud, you'll see that it's a VERSIONS page, so it shouldn't have these subpages. I think that's what billinghurst is getting at. The pages listed in the link all have Talmud as their base page, so they do not seem to be associated with any main page or any particular source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the explain. However, I also know that the Talmud's organization is idiosyncratic (not my words) and I also have to track down the source. In other words, I'll look into what's missing. unsigned comment by Ineuw (talk) .
Apologies for being implicit, not explicit. It seems that we have disambiguated the root page of the work, and not the subsidiary pages. We probably need to move the disambig page of the way, move in the ..(WS) page, then move that branch to the Translation: ns, then put the disambig page back in place, and update. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I just finished looking at the very pages you mentioned, (the head is clearer this morning, so the typos are less). Besides the disambiguation page, I also know that the whole layout needs updating. I want to study and think about it a bit longer. — Ineuw talk 14:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
What a mess! — Ineuw talk 16:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
This being my first "complex" page moves, can you check somehow if it is OK?— Ineuw talk 22:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Seems okay. I did make some {{dated soft redirect}}s as IMO longer existing pages are better suited to pointers, and MPAA's bot cleans up later. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

## mw:Extension:TemplateData utilising this locally

After moving in a version of Template:Phabricator from mediawiki.org, I have become a little more acquainted with mw:Extension:TemplateData which is described as "introduce[ing] a <templatedata> tag and an API which together allow editors to specify how templates should be invoked. This information is available as a nicely-formatted table for end-users, and as a JSON API, which enables other systems (e.g. VisualEditor) to build interfaces for working with templates and their parameters." (Comment that the information page is not exactly simple, and a simpler guide is needed)

It would seem that we have been a little behind the times in utilising an available tool, and something that each of us should be looking to update our process(es). Might also be worth us looking for this as a maintenance task. Seems that WP is well into this and have information at w:Wikipedia:TemplateData, and if we ever get to the VE or similar experience it will need to be done. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I started to add templateData to my core templates at first but have stopped making this a priority since. The underlying "issue" in a nutshell is we'll never get to VisualEditor & similar tools that build upon such enhanced extensions until we master Dialogs & such in WikiEditor first (never mind just agreeing on a standard WikiEditor toolbar layout for WS).

In light of this apparent lack of will needed to finally cut the classic toolbar/user-only scripted tool cord once and for all, there really is no reason to discuss incorporating this as a new practice or policy by itself imho. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It sets good practice, it documents parameters, and one day it will be useful. Waiting until all the others ducks are in a row just increases the administrative burden. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
It's useful now; just not anywhere else save Wikipedia. We are unable to capitalize on that not just because we haven't been practicing it but because we are also unnecessarily behind the so called "basics" needed to truly implement what it and similar enhancements offer. And since our "mission" differs notably from Commons' or Wikipedia's, all the related development to date has been too infobox, citation or media specific for us to ever realistically capitalize on at the same time. Imo, without our own dog(s) in this fight, we're just dreaming about this being useful [here on WS] "one day". -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

## Copyright checking ( Fancy dresses described : or, What to wear at fancy balls)

If it's an actual author, I can't find anything on them. If it's a puesdonym - Section 57 here can be reasonably applied, ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48 )

So is it reasonable to consider this one acceptable for local upload? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Why local upload? And that Ardern Holt is a pseudonym? — Ineuw talk 23:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Some points that might help provide a partial answer.
1. I can't find a date of death for Ardern Holt. (Hence my Refdesk enquiry), The work is Published pre 1923 (so is PD in the US), but can't be uploaded to Commons because I can't be sure if the author(Assuming not a pusedonym) died before 1944.
2. In respect of the name being a pusedonym, I tried searching for it as an exact match on the 1911 census, which didn't seemingly find an exact match.
3. Additional note, a source listed in the refdesk thread indicates that Ardern Holt wrote a column in a magazine called "Queen" (which later merged with another to become the UK version of "Harpers Bazzar".) The sources say they were active from 1866 to 1916. If it's one person, assuming they started writing when around 20 (they may have started earlier or later given the start date), that would suggest them being 70 or so in 1916. On those calculations they would have been about 80 in 1926, meaning that they would be around 98 in 1944. Whilst it's not implausible for someone from the 1840's to be alive in 1944, I'm reasonably confident that seems unlikely, the actual death being sometime between 1916 and 1946 (when on the above they'd be 100)
4. If the Ardern Holt is a byline (used by more than one staff writer), within reasonable bounds it might not be possible to find the exact 'Ardern Holt' concerned with the 1877 edition.
5. The publisher is "Debenham and Freebody" (they later became the Debenhams chain in the UK), so given the 1877 version was published under their auspices. If they are regarded as the creator (the other's identity not known) then I'm not sure when the work expired.
6. Later editions (Such as one from 1896) credit a Lillian Youg for the illustrations, The 1877 edition doesn't. I've not been able to find any dates for Lillian Young either.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

A very good analysis, but please be reasonable, there is such a thing overdoing it. Just load it up to the commons. — Ineuw talk 00:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
What Ineuw said. Copyright Act, 1956 (United Kingdom)/Schedule 2 indicates that under that legislation it would have been out of copyright in at the date of that Act (t set 50 years after publication), though the 1909 Act is the reference point for its contemporary legislation. The author should be considered an unidentified pseudonym, and you should add your research to the author talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Licence {{PD-anon-1923|1877}}billinghurst sDrewth 03:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Done - Commons:File talk:Fancy dresses described, or, What to wear at fancy balls (1887).djvu
Can you advise on what to put in the Author: page? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
This is what I put, based on the information I had Author:Ardern_Holt, and I'm copying this thread to the talk page there ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2014-41

06:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

## File:Lowell Fg.VII..png

Uploaded locally because the scan appeared to be clip,, Does anyone here have library access to the original work? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

it would be helpful to have an author. i’m guessing, but is this it? [83] Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 13:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

## Request for Info on Wikisource GLAM collaboration

I'm the Wikimedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland, and one of the ideas that has recently progressed from being bandied about to being seriously considered is the prospect of working with Scottish Universities that offer Gaelic language courses to encourage their students to work with Wikimedia projects. In addition to translating articles on Wikipedia, I was thinking of getting the Library to release its collection of hundreds of Gaelic books, some written in Gaelic and some not, to Wikimedia Commons with the idea that Gaelic speakers could transcribe them to Wikisource to help improve language proficiency and access.

I don't have contact with many Wikisource volunteers and I was wondering if anyone had any ideas as to how to move forward with this kind of collaboration, and what would be the best approach? I notice that there's no Gaelic Wikisource but that it is a supported language, so I was wondering if adding Gaelic texts to the English Wikisource (under the appropriate category/ies) for the time being would be best, or starting a new language domain? I was also hoping someone with experience could give me pointers on training new volunteers on Wikisource, if possible. Basically any information or help would be fantastic! ACrockford (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be appropriate for the Multi-language wiki - mul:Main Page/Gàidhlig ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Failing that you'd need to lobby for subdomain gd.wikisource.org ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
In terms of Scans, yes lobby as hard as you can for free scans :) should ideally be under a free license so that they can be uploaded to Commons.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The guidance is m:Language proposal policy. I don't see that there is the call for a separate subdomain at this point, so it would be hosted at mul: and when/if there are sufficient works then it can be separated to its own subdomain. can you assist here with the best means to take this forward at mul? — billinghurst sDrewth 22:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
i would suggest firming up what their formating capabilities are. the scans are nicely done, but could they add a dejavu option? having an editathon where there is some training on match & split would be good to fill the pipeline. then more events to train editors in wikicode transcription. seems doable, depends on institutional partners. the educational foundation has the tools to track work, and accounts. there dosen’t appear to be training materials, slide decks for wikisource w:Wikipedia:GLAM/Bookshelf, so you may be blazing the trail. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 01:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Even though the Library itself doesn't host dejavu versions of the scans on their website, they do partner with Internet Archive which provides dejavu options, so that wouldn't be the tricky part, it would mostly be getting the Library to agree to release the scans under a CC-BY-SA license at the most restrictive, and ideally a CC0 license. Thanks ShakespeareFan00 and billinghurst for the information on the multi-language wiki and the Language proposal policy - I think you're right that there's no call yet for a separate subdomain but it's good to know what the option would look like in the future. If there's no materials existing yet for training on Wikisource then it would be fantastic to get some put together; do you know whether there have been any such editathons or training events in the UK thus far, or elsewhere? Even if I can't meet with someone in person, if I could make contact via email or Skype that would be helpful. I will try and teach myself for the time being, but pointers never go amiss! Thanks again. ACrockford (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
We have a number of pages locally that we believe and try to have helpful (left sidebar "Help"), and the tools are the same x-wikisource. Re training/editathon, maybe has some information. I am comfortable doing stuff in Skype if that is helpful to you, though my timezone is reverse of yours, so may not be overly helpful. Usually one of the best ways to learn our basics is our proofread of the month (and you will find that from the front page) which we pick for basics, support and something with a bit of interest/difference. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks billinghurst, that is very helpful! I've been looking through the help pages and they are really useful in terms of getting myself orientated, so I think that it would mainly be great to get insight for training events or editathons, and potentially for GLAM collaborations as well. I might take you up on the offer of a Skype chat at some point as things move forward but I'll try and work things out without bugging you too much. The proofread of the month is a great idea, as well. ACrockford (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any UK training centred on Wikisource: a fairly obvious gap in the market. You can contact me if you want to talk this over. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
yes, i would strongly encourage you to make a slide deck and share at the GLAM bookshelf. another tool in the kit for GLAMs world-wide. and the easier we can make it for the average librarian, the better. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 22:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

## American Revolutionary War

While categorizing (yet another) uncategorized book, I noticed that we have no category on the American Revolutionary War.

Do we really have nothing on that subject? Is there someone familiar with military, diplomatic, and historical works hosted here who could populate such a category?

It seems like a pretty big hole in our coverage not to have this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I confidently went here and—rather to my surprise—found but a single work by Kipling. I sort of doubt this is what you were looking for. Looks like you might be right? If so, might it be called something along the lines of the Continental.. (or perhaps Second Continental Congress...) And in any case is a Portal or a Category more appropriate? (Don't forget: "American Revolutionary War" might just as well apply to Simón Bolívar as it does to to George Washington. AuFCL (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I looked in several possible parent categories and found nothing. In Category:History of the United States there are subcategories for the US Civil War, and the two world Wars, but not for their war of independence, nor do there seem to be listed any items that would be appropriately placed into a category about the Revolution. What we choose to call the category is immaterial to me, but the complete lack of such a category and of items to go into it seems problematical. At your mention, I went looking and found that there is indeed a Portal:American Revolution, but it has had little editing activity in the last two years. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
There are too many Brits, and their old "God save the Queen" allies here, to start posting about how our colonials defeated them twice and saved them twice so long ago. :0) —Maury (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
well, i got back last month from the Bladensburg re-enactment. they unfortunately did not have a Congreve rocket to scare away the stout maryland militia with a loud bang. i take it you’re from new orleans. there are plenty of letters floating around, maybe we need to get w:Joseph Plumb Martin’s memoir [84] in the queue. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 01:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You cannot bring Martin's memoir here and edit it. I myself have never been in New Orleans - on purpose. —Maury (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

darn, i was going to make a special trip to LOC for the first edition [85] since the archive copy is so bad. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 03:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

## Bible (Jewish Publication Society 1917) and Tanakh

So this is kind of a mess with a storied history. The first link should go to a specific edition, the exact text of which we've had some copyright problems in the past over but which we're now working to replace with a clean text. In practice it sometimes (e.g.) redirects to pages from Tanakh. Those will be fixed to point to the new text in time. Tanakh though, I have no idea what to do with. As it is now, most of it is side by side English and Hebrew. The Hebrew all seems to be from here, and has an unclear copyright status (sourced from an XML file here which sources from text from this project, can't find any clear copyright statements on them). The English text is variously from the copyright problematic source of the JPS 1917 translation, a source which may or may not be the same depending on when it was fetched, some original translations and something from about.com??. Also some pages redirect to Bible (Jewish Publication Society 1917) just to complete the picture. Do we just salt the earth with this or what? Prosody (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I really don't understand the issue? If the JPS 1917 publication is available from the IA, why bother with this goulash? — Ineuw talk 03:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah probably should have explained what I was thinking for ways forward, sorry.
We're already going to rebase Bible (Jewish Publication Society 1917) on a scan. Tanakh has some different things going on and I dunno what's worth doing, all of it takes contributor effort out of a finite pool of the stuff.
1. Side-by-side English and Hebrew texts. What's there now has possible copyright problems and needs to be rebased. All the side-by-sides I've seen so far on WS were original translations, I don't know whether anyone's interested in doing that kind of work for a non-original text or whether anyone even thinks it's appropriate for WS.
2. Parts of original translation which may be redundant with other original WS translation projects.
And I those are kind of orthogonal. Prosody (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
To clarify for those who don't understand, the Tanakh is the Old Testatment. Personally, I don't think we should host Hebrew text for all the right reasons. It will never get done. We don't have members, and we are an English language site. I saw the mess that was made with an attempt to translate the Talmud into English. If you insist on a Hebrew translation on this site, perhaps we can connect a Hebrew text from the Hebrew language wiki to be placed alongside. There is a very good chance that there they know the Hebrew source of the JPS translation, and if they don't, they have the resources to find the info. I glanced at the Biblical work they are doing and there are a number of Bible scholars there. — Ineuw talk 04:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Ineuw, the additional wrinkle is that there are published editions of the JPS translation with parallel English and Hebrew text side-by-side in the same volume. I own a couple of such volumes. So, it's not completely impossible that we might end up hosting something like that. Yes, it's not likely to be done soon with our current editors, but if there is a chance of getting a source, or if an original translation might be done, then I'm for preserving any work done thus far that does not violate copyright. Sometimes, just having the unfinished work lying around attracts someone with the special expertise to get it done. Where the material should be located, and how it should be formatted, is quite another matter, and on that I have no definite opinion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
This is the goulash! I am simply referring to the JPS version on IA and not another version! Please don't bring in other publications, translations etc. Just stick to this single PD version of 1917. We host numerous versions of many works and let this single work stand on it's own. If you wish to host another version with Hebrew translation, that has nothing to do with this particular version. We have the King James version, the Septuagint and The Vulgate, all versions of the Bible. They are all translations but you wouldn't think of mixing them together.— Ineuw talk 06:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
No, Ineuw, I mean that there is a JPS translation edition published in multiple hardback volumes, with the Hebrew on the left and English on the right. It's not another version that I'm talking about, it's the JPS. The mixing together of Hebrew and English was done in the printed copies. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

P.S: I happen to like the project because it's DjVu and not copy and paste, And if there are any pictures, I a volunteer to process and upload them as well. Perhaps we'll get to see a real young Charlton Heston . — Ineuw talk 06:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

"You wouldn't think of mixing them together." Perversely, we apparently already have and have done it. I guess that gets at the root of what I'm asking, as it's the greater part of Tanakh. Where do we draw the line on original synthesis of works? I can see for the case of original translations, doing side-by-side serves a editorial function in providing a specific source text. And if we were to start a new project to transcribe one of the editions that EncycloPetey mentioned which is multilingual, that would certainly be fine, as it's not original. But as for things like what's now in Tanakh, or the Bible translation comparison pages, or the Aesop's Fables translation/redaction comparison, which of these should we have on WS? Prosody (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I see your point, but in all honesty it's an unfair comparison. The Bible translations that you brought up as examples, they are all in English! If you go for a Hebrew translation, it's alien to most of the members of the community and they won't be able to contribute, so they will just avoid it because with a Hebrew translation they will not get a sense of accomplishment. I am being realistic to realize that in addition to loving literature in many forms, we are also contributing for the sense of accomplishment. The number of people who could contribute in Hebrew on this wiki is very limited. Myself, I read and speak a 50 year old common street Hebrew, and understand most of what I read, but I would never undertake translating even a sentence of the Bible, let alone a paragraph. I would not be able to translate the essence of what is intended to be conveyed. Not to mention the duplication of the right to left writing. — Ineuw talk 08:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you please provide the link to the English/Hebrew JPS publication of 1917? I don't think we are talking about the same publication and year. I am referring to the English only publication of 1917 in the public domain of which there are 4 (four) identical copies on the Commons under different names. And, it does not have a Hebrew translation. The four Commons copies are: Commons:File:JPS-1917-Universal.djvu, Commons:File:JPS-1917-Harvard.pdf, Commons:File:JPS-1917-Michigan.djvu, Commons:File:JPS1917-Torah.djvu.— Ineuw talk 16:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I can't provide a link to a physical object on my bookshelf. Sorry. The particular volume I own was put out in 1948, not 1917, and acknowledges use with permission of the JPS translation. I cannot find information concerning the Hebrew, but would be very surprised if it had been altered from the Masoretic text. Also, I was mistaken in my memory, the Hebrew is on the right, and the English is on the left of each page.
I have not looked through the various files uploaded to Commons, and so cannot comment on those. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Who's working on the Tanakh files? If someone wants to make a Wikisource translation, I'm not going to encourage them, but I don't see any reason to block them. We do need to make it copyright clean, and I would nuke the whole thing if no one is interested in helping us sort it out.
Edition copyrights are frequently obnoxious. We should probably upload a clearable Hebrew edition to Commons and work from that.

## 1500 validated indexes

I was just looking at our counts, and I noticed these two stats

• No. of validated works = 1,500
• No. of proofread only works = 801

which are nice numbers to celebrate. Firstly a good round number, and that we do seem to be moving our works to the validated status. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2014-42

08:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

## Index: namespace fill gadget should now be functional

I managed to grab Phe in IRC and he has been able to resolve the issue that we have had with the failure of the Index: ns fill gadget populating from the Commons file book templates. billinghurst sDrewth 13:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that this gadget refers to populate (create) the non existent pages, I would most happy to use it. But, I can't find it anywhere in the Gadgets. Creating pages manually is an unnecessary waste of time. — Ineuw talk 17:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
down near end of list: "Upon creation of an Index: page enables addition of metadata from the file at Commons."
All good now? AuFCL (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
as per Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2013-02#Announcementsbillinghurst sDrewth 23:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I must try it.— Ineuw talk

So, this gadget "enables addition of metadata"? What, in practical terms and common language, does that mean? I tried activating the gadget and could not find anything different, so I'm not sure what this gadget is supposed to do or how it is supposed to function. Please respond without using the word "metadata". --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe it only works at the moment of import. Did you import anything?— Ineuw talk 17:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
When you create an Index: ns page it autofills the the fields with the corresponding fields from the {{information}} or {{book}} templates in use locally or at Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Re metadata usage, we use the term at these pages in Help: ns, though as you allude there could be some more clarity. As usual,/support help pages are our undoing. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
So, the information about the edition, such as author, date, publisher, etc., which appear on the Index page when those fields are filled? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The pertinent mapping is …
billinghurst sDrewth 09:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

## Author:Emily Dickinson

What's the source of our Emily Dickinson material? There's a serious concern in that the public domain editions are all heavily edited and the first edition to be faithful to the originals was published in the 1950s and was renewed. We have original editions, but we also have a lot of poems that aren't sourced.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

perhaps you could be more specific? i see only the 1890, 1891, and 1896 editions. no 1955 edited by Thomas H. Johnson, or 1998 edited by R.W. Franklin. (although you could make the argument that unpublished manuscript copyright had passed.) Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 23:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Look at the author index template at the bottom of the author page and its contents. The individual poems by Dickinson in the main namespace are listed there. Many are unsourced. Prosody (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no copyright concerns here. The original poems are the creative work of Dickinson. I accept the argument that the heavily edited versions published in the 1890s are derivative works, and that the originals weren't published until 1955. Johnson copyrighted that 1955 work, but Johnson was not the owner of copyright in the original poems, so his copyright in that 1955 work extends only to his notes, commentary, etc. I suggest that the formalities necessary to register copyright in the original poems were not met. Even if they were, copyright law makes it very clear that only the author or the author's heirs can renew copyright in a work, regardless of any transfer of rights. Johnson's renewal of copyright in his 1955 compilation is utterly meaningless when it comes to the original poems themselves, because Johnson never held copyright in those works in the first place, and even if he did he was not authorised to renew that copyright. Dickinson's poems are in the public domain. Hesperian 04:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If you read the introduction to the 1955 edition--which, let's just say, archive.org is not nearly so careful as we are--you'll find that there is a chain of custody wherein Harvard ended up with a claim to the copyrights of Dickinson, and as per the Copyright Office's Circular 15: "Only in the case of the following four types of works may the copyright proprietor (owner) claim renewal: Posthumous work (a work published after the author’s death as to which no copyright assignment or other contract for exploitation has occurred during the deceased author’s lifetime). Renewal may be claimed as proprietor of copyright in a posthumous work." http://collections.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals/bin/detail?fileID=671852961X says the Renewing Entity is "The President and Fellows of Harvard College (PPW of Emily Elizabeth Dickinson)" (where PPW is proprietor of copyright in a posthumous work) and New Matter: "new front and end matter, editorial notes, some new text of prev. pub. poems, and 41 poems pub. for the first time." I don't know that they dotted every i and crossed every t, but they do have copyright on the face of it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Well I can't argue with that! I think you've made a pretty solid argument for the removal of all our unsourced Dickinson poetry. Hesperian 06:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking at this link and the limitations seem pretty limited and I wouldn't say it calls for "all our unsourced" material to be removed. Also i'm curious how does duel authorship work? would all material have to be from both authors?(Emily Elizabeth Dickinson & Thomas Herbert Johnson.) or could they be separate? And it looks like its a copy right to just this work http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674676008 and not the literal poems themselves. So we would only have to avoid whatevers in that work. it's only 41 additional poems.... --Rochefoucauld (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
If it's unsourced, it's virtually impossible to tell whether it falls into "some new text of prev. pub. poems, and 41 poems pub. for the first time" or not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
It is either published or it is not. If it is unpublished, then it is now out of copyright. If it is published prior to 1923, it is out of copyright. If it is published after 1923 in the US it has its rights renewed specifically for a publication and is in copyright, or it didn't and it is out of copyright.

We check the 1955 work, and we remove what was in there as "first published", and we note what else was published in the work which can be discussed in time. It is both simplistic and wrong to say that unsourced means copyright, and the scope of the issue faced would be better determined and explained. At the moment everyone has to do their own digging and can easily be operating on a different understanding. We should be looking to get scans, and migrate the works. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The easiest way to know that we got things right is to source all the poems we can to clearly PD editions. I didn't say unsourced means copyright, but unsourced means we don't know its provenance. It's much more reliable to work from what we know to be PD, then to try and figure out what is copyrighted from the 1955 work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

## Author:Thomas Edison

Why do we have an entry for Author:Thomas Edison when he is not the author of any of the works listed? I was told that we do not have subject pages but this is really Subject:Thomas Edison. Is the rule to create a page called Author:Thomas Edison when we mean Subject:Thomas Edison as a work-around? Why don't we have Subject:Thomas Edison so we can have all the articles related to one person listed on a page even if they have no works they are the author of? As a first time user it makes sense to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Edison wrote patents, etc. and as such able to be listed as an author at enWS, even when we do not yet have works for the author. The protocol is to have {{no works}} used in the ==Works== section. It was a discussion that the community had to not separate works about authors to a separate page in the Portal: ns, and to have the practice of a section ==Works about /surname/== on the author page. Authorship is our defacto "notability" equivalent as per WS:WWI otherwise for historical records, it is a more traditional notability for inclusions, and still we are less likely to create a specific Portal: ns page, and instead curate the work based on subject matter, depending on the number of works in play. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Huh? Sorry, your explanation isn't clear at all. It is no clearer here than when you responded at the Edison talk page and responded at my user talk page and at the Susannah Lattin page. I came here to find someone else, someone that can explain it in plain English. Can you please let someone else respond, or are you the only person here? "Edison wrote patents". Edison holds patents, but that does not mean that he wrote them. They are usually written by the patent attorney or similar person with a patent/scientific writing background. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It's very simple, Edison was an author. i.e. he wrote things down and they have been published. The first hit in a Google search leads to a list of books, albeit posthumously published but nonetheless containing his written works. At the time you created the Susannah Lattin page I looked for evidence that she wrote and that it was published. I could not find any evidence, but by that time Billinghurst had responded to you and there was no need for me to make the same response. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, that was amazingly clear and simple. So you are an author if you have works listed say in worldcat. Can you point me to the conversation where Subject:John Smith was rejected? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
That is one of the criteria for authorship. You are an author here if a work that you wrote is able to be included by Wikisource:What Wikisource includesbillinghurst sDrewth 02:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

## Every page header gone awry

Every page header (the colored rectangular box) has suddenly gone wonky and disappeared, both for Portals as well as for works. Is this just me, is it the result of something gone wrong, or yet another side effect of a software change? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Not seeing anything like that here fwiw. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not seeing now either, so it must have been just me or something transitory. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

## HHVM revealing new weirdness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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