User:Sanbeg/Wikisource:Scriptorium

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

Contents

Announcements[edit]

enws.org as short redirect to Wikisource[edit]

I've registered and set up http://enws.org to redirect to Wikisource in the same way that http://enwp.org redirects to Wikipedia; that is to say, the url http://enws.org/(whatever-is-here) redirects to http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/(whatever-is-here). - Htonl (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposals[edit]

Installation of mw:Extension:DynamicPageList (Wikimedia)[edit]

I would like to propose that we have Extension:DynamicPageList (Wikimedia) turned on for EnWS, which would allow wiki users to create a list of pages that are listed in a set of categories, and was discussed at a period greatly earlier and is widely installed on a number of WMF wikis. Probably should be turned on for all the WS wikis, however, how about we start here. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea; I am sure that many would find it useful.--Longfellow (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure, don't see why not. —Spangineer (háblame) 11:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree; let's get it running.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
How long should this discussion run? A week, a fortnight, or a month? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
See also the equivalent 2007 unanimous proposal, Bugzilla request, Wikisource News mention, and wikitech-l discussion. —Pathoschild 14:21:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
In talking to Bawolff (talkcontribs) about this, we may or may not get it if we push hard enough, however, it is still server intensive. So possibly not worth continuing the battle. He did point me towards research being done on better tools, and for those more technically literate than I the info is at http://brightbyte.de/page/Neo4j Also he said that there was hope for MW application upgrades at the end of January, so it will be interesting to see if other of ThomasV's fixes are involved. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to disable and hide the "Download as PDF" link[edit]

The download as PDF on the left hand side for our main namespace simply doesn't work with Wikisource:ProofreadPage and that is a severe disappointment, and presumably has to do with the order of the production of pages, and the generation of output. Requests to have the situation remedied have come to nought, as it seems that no developer has both the time and ability to get it fixed and the fix put into production. It seems a damn shame to have to ask, however, it seems ridiculous to have a link that misleads continue to be present.

Accordingly I would like to propose that the link be disable/removed from the left hand side panel. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree; the button is increasingly less useful as more of our works use ProofreadPage and those that don't are usually widely available in pdf elsewhere. —Spangineer (háblame) 20:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Other discussions[edit]

General problem about licensing[edit]

Good day, and sorry for disturbing the water.

However I was in process of updating (and thus cross-checking) the licenses of Hungarian Wikisource when I stumbled upon the wikisource:about page, and its English - same-content - counterpart, which basically defines what materials can and cannot be included in wikisource.

It says, quote: "Wikisource is a Free Library of source texts which are in the public domain or legally available for free redistribution."

Yes, "free" is a link to wikipedia's "free content", which explains that it doesn't mean "free as a beer" but "libre" (free as freedom), but it's just a link after all, nobody is forced to follow it, and the text without this background information suggest something completely else: Wikisource is the library of freely redistributable materials.

It is not. All the materials shall meet the requirements of CC license, which includes not only free of charge redistribution but freedom of modification and other freedoms, as we all know it. So the text is extremely misleading, and seems to be a source of confusion for including material which is distributable free of charge by attributing the author but their derivative works are forbidden.

I will update the Hungarian version to reflect this, but I advise you to consider doing something about it here, and since the license of the site is pretty much given by the universal forces the only possible way seems to be to fix the About page. :-)

Thanks for listening. --Grin (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the introductory text in the About page should or would be considered a wholistic policy of inclusion or exclusion, it is simply introductory. I could not agree that the distinction that you are trying to exemplify is that crucial or integral to people's decision-making. All that said, if you have a suggestion to the changes to wording that would resolve the matter to your satisfaction, then please do venture forth with those words. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Pleasure (since I already have worded huws), the smallest impact change could be:
Wikisource is a Free Library of source texts which are in the public domain or legally available for free redistribution and re-use.
Apart from possible misspelling. --grin 10:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an important issue that recently came up in this deletion debate. People must accept that if things are posted here, others are free to do more or less whatever they like with them.--Longfellow (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Questions[edit]

User:JackBot[edit]

Hello, apparently the frequency of the TalBot running isn't enough to warranty a permanent double redirections cleaning. That's the reason why I propose my robot to have the inherent flag. Moreover, I can have a look on Wikisource:Bot_requests, like I already do on the French wikis. JackPotte (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I am comfortable with the work that JackBot has been doing and it being assigned a bot flag. I ask that the tasks that it undertakes on permanent be listed on its page and any adhoc tasks be noted via that page and Wikisource:Bot requests. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- though I hope it tackles the Bot-request backlogs or something as useful here on WS instead of playing 'em-dash'\'comma-cop' across most the WikiFoundation sites all the time. George Orwell III (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 is Validation month[edit]

A prompt to those who are not usually partaking in Proofread of the Month that this is the month when we try work to complete works through validation, that many across the site have worked to get to Proofread stage. If you could lend a few minutes each day during November we can get a whole range of works completed. A great memento for all those who participate — billinghurst sDrewth 03:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've taken two books off of the list, since they are done. But they are still showing up? - Tannertsf (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't look like you modified the right page. The text on {{POTM}} is being generated from Wikisource:Proofread of the Month/Coding. Eight texts, a window of three per day, rotated on the hour. Make sure you change the bottom noincluded version too for consistency's sake. Prosody (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Successfully completed with eight proofread works taken to completion, and progress on another few works. Looks like approximately a thousand pages were validated in that time. Thanks to 20 or so people who took part. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

TOCs on articles which have their own numbering system[edit]

Wikimedia's numbering system for tables of content can be quite useful for most content but has a rather unfortunate side-effect on documents which have their own numbering system. Articles on Wikisource like the Constitution of Ireland end up with a table of contents looking like:

5.4 Legislation
    5.4.1 Article 20
    5.4.2 Money Bills
          5.4.2.1 Article 21
          5.4.2.2 Article 22
    5.4.3 Time for Consideration of Bills
          5.4.3.1 Article 23
          5.4.3.2 Article 24
    5.4.4 Signing and Promulgation of Laws
          5.4.4.1 Article 25
    5.4.5 Reference of Bills to the Supreme Court
          5.4.5.1 Article 26

The auto-generated numbers can be hidden using a bit of css and a template. I can create a template myself but I'll need an administrator to add the following line to MediaWiki:Common.css.

#hideTOCnumbers .tocnumber { display: none; }

Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 12:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ada and PD-US[edit]

newsgroup comp.lang.ada has a thread about this discussion

We have two documents in Category:Ada about the w:Ada (programming language). It would be lovely if we had more, and I've always assumed that the resulting language specifications were public domain, but then this worries me:

Copyright 1980, 1982, 1983 owned by the United States Government as represented by the Under Secretary of Defense, Research and Engineering. All rights reserved. Provided that notice of copyright is included on the first page, this document may be copied in its entirety without alteration or as altered by (1) adding text that is clearly marked as an insertion; (2) shading or highlighting existing text; (3) deleting examples. Permission to publish other excerpts should be obtained from the Ada Joint Program Office, OUSDRE (R&AT), The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-2081, U.S.A.

That is only on the online version, but I am surprised that they would claim copyright copyright unless it was true. If it is true, it would be interesting to find out how the DOD is allowed to be the copyright holder and require that the above conditions of use are enforced. Also, I think it would be useful for us to have a Author:DOD section or subpage which lists the DOD works which are not public domain. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Author:DOD or Portal:DOD? I thought that it was the intention to use Author: domain for natural authors, especially with the expanded use of Portal: namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, Portal:DOD it would be nowadays. ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 11:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • John, the United States can own copyrights that it obtains by contract or purchase, this is relatively common in the Defense Research field. It is only for works created by the US Gov't that no copyright ever exists.--Doug.(talk contribs) 16:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare's First Folio[edit]

Hi all,

I’ve taken the text from here, then used ThomasV’s match and split tool to put it into the pages; and then to adapt the text in the pages. I use a button which creates an old text from a modern one (this tool has been made by Marc on the French wikisource), it would be useful to have the same kind of button here too. My goal is to recover the exact music of the old text: rhythm punctuation, specific use of capital letters and so on, since we are lucky enough to have the First Folio reproduced. Can Shakespeare’s fans make templates for this kind of text (or do these templates exist on Wikisource?) Do you have ideas or hints about how to make editing this play by Shakespeare easier? Who’d like to participate? --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I would love to participate...contact me on it. - Tannertsf (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Tannertsf, I will  :) --Zyephyrus (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Sources and two different possible methods: see the Index talk page. --Zyephyrus (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism of Translation?[edit]

Here's a question that crops up from time to time when working on the Mishnah and other translations, and probably deserves a note at WS:T: When translating, is it permissible (i.e. legal) to consult other translations? If so, to what extent? I have been unsuccessful so far in finding an answer to this question online. Does someone have any knowledge of this issue or where to look for answer?

My personal view on the matter is that a copyrighted translation should be able to be consulted for possible translations of a single word or phrase, but not a complete sentence or a sentence clause. Also, if a translation uses a distinctive translation/interpretation (the two are often intertwined) of a word or phrase, that should not be used.

By the way, here is a funny article I came across in my search for definitions of plagiarism: [1]. --Eliyak T·C 05:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism is not illegal unless it imposes someones intellectual property, it is simply unethical. If someone refers to part of another text for a reference then we would be encouraging all users to reference what texts they would have consulted.

As a note, I am still have a level of discomfort with hosting Wikisource-based translations as it seems to have a level of contrariness to WS:WWI. I always wonder whether the works belong at Wikibooks, though strongly linked through from the original source. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I did find http://www.copyright.monash.edu.au/faqs/citations-plagiarism.html which gives some opinion that addresses plagiarism, and that it is a translation should not be of any difference with regard to intellectual property. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Where they are hosted[edit]

creating this into a separate thread …
As a note, I am still have a level of discomfort with hosting Wikisource-based translations as it seems to have a level of contrariness to WS:WWI. I always wonder whether the works belong at Wikibooks, though strongly linked through from the original source. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I would strongly agree that WS should not host original translations. Published (public domain) ones are fine, but WS shouldn't be in the business of allowing people to upload new, unpublished work, still less of allowing others to amend that new work.--Longfellow (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion Wikisource is the best location for free-content collaborative translations because of its goals of maintaining fidelity to the original text. Firstly, the translation can easily be cross-linked to the foreign language source text at <foreign language> Wikisource (as well as to other translations of the same text). Secondly and equally important, a primary goal of good translation is fidelity to the original text to the greatest possible extent. I don't have confidence that this would be the case at Wikibooks. If the translation paraphrased the text into modern vernacular, or gave an ideologically based translation (such as Artscroll does) I would agree wholeheartedly that the translation belonged at WikiBooks. Translations that are constrained to conveying the meaning of the original belong at Wikisource.
In short, I would like to see faithful translation continue to be a subset of WS:WWI. --Eliyak T·C 20:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Not including something doesn't mean excluding mention of its existence. If a foreign-language public domain work exists that is hosted on another wiki, we can have a page saying so, and also saying where an English-language translation of the work exists on Wikibooks. The work exists all the same, it is merely directed to the appropriate project for hosting it. BD2412 T 23:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the need to narrow Wikisource's scope. Furthermore, if the general course is users coming to Wikisource and being redirected to Wikibooks, instead of finding the material through Wikibooks, then it's a mistake to move it. Given the more general scope of Wikibooks, I find that likely. All the works of Tolstoy or Zamenhof, or Author:Arkady Timofeevich Averchenko should be here, not split between here and Wikibooks.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
A translation is an original work of authorship. My understanding was that those are not within the scope of this project. BD2412 T 01:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
WS:WWI specifically states that we include original translations, and last time I looked (there's a table of WS policies I can't find right now) virtually all the Wikisources, except German, do. The scope of Wikisource, as it is currently practiced and stated, includes original translation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)\
My mistake, then. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Eliyak, that is a useful point that you raise. Plus please don't take "a level of discomfort" to be that I am at the point of advocating their removal. It is more that with the movement of time, sometimes it is worth reflecting on what was said earlier, and comparing where the wmf wiki world is now

WS-based translations are an oddity in that they have original thought, and the range of actions that we can undertake can be from: doing nothing; updating Wikisource:Translations to reflect our process; update WS:WII to explain the oddity and reasoning; to working out that as they have original thought that there needs to be a wider approach. I have no end game, I just wanted to express a reflection that I had had. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, billinghurst. I admit I panicked a little when I saw my question seem to become something else entirely. I appreciate the atmosphere and easygoing community at WS, and I know we're not going to take any impulsive actions, but think things through and come to a consensus to take action or not to. --Eliyak T·C 00:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Translations are a historical exception, not an obvious inclusion. I don't see why it is supposed they will 'stable' here, and why wikibooks is inappropriate for the creation of this new content. That hasn't happened here, later translators have disagreed with a work and changed it to what they believed was correct. The "integrity" of wikisource is based on a community transcribing text, which is a reasonably objective procedure. Translation is new content—or copyvio that is difficult to detect—and the source of a great deal of critical dispute; it is highly subjective and requires editorial judgement, usually reviewed by other experts. The evidence is seen in the expansive introductions in conventionally published translations, and the volumes of critical review. What would preclude something that was rejected by a publisher being hosted here, or is that within scope too? Should we include new poetry if it claims to be a translation, 'authentic' or otherwise, and create an editorial department to manage that. Do we start resolving literary disputes between authors with drawers full of rejections slips? Wikibooks have processes for creating new content, and the idea a translation can be indisputably accurate is fiction; it is quite beyond the scope of the site. cygnis insignis 04:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It may be an exception from the viewpoint of process, but from the viewpoint of a reader, it's a obvious inclusion to have all the works of an authors that we can host here, whether the translations are new or old. For most books, for most readers, translation is invisible; people read War and Peace, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Around the World in Eighty Days and don't care about translator. Most translations don't have expansive introductions; no translation of Harry Potter does, and many editions of Verne's works neglect to mention that they're translated at all. Only literary translations do, and only readers of literary translations really care.
I'd be much happier if this call was in response to real issues. During the time I've been an admin, translations haven't seemed really problematic. If the minor issues that have popped up about the Wikisource Bible concern others, I wouldn't object to setting up rules asking that new translations of works that have a free translation are justified, and translations like the Bible and the Iliad are rejected. But right now I don't see any issues with any translations that call for changing our behavior.
In any case, while WS:WWI says we include them, wikibooks:WB:WIW is pretty clear that Wikibooks considers them out of scope. It's not simply a matter of moving them to Wikibooks; we've got to convince Wikibooks to change their scope to include them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Prosfilaes correctly points out that the occasional comments and debates in recent years about the appropriateness of translations and/or annotations derive seldom derive from abuse or inappropriate material (and when they do that can easily be dealt with) but rather from concerns about "principle", especially by those who are bothered by any text not directly based on a scan using "Proofread Page".

While I agree that working from a scan is indeed the best procedure for most books, there are definitely cases where it simply doesn't make sense. Translation is one such category. Using scans is supposed to help expand the library and serve as a form of documentation. But to use it as a reason to exclude translations simply limits the scope of the library and its usefulness to users. Working with scans is a tool, not the whole purpose of Wikisource. Wikisource is using wiki tools in order to build a library, and translation is one area that the wiki-method can be uniquely effective in making literature more widely available through our library. Don't mistake the method for the goal.

Typical Wikisource is taking public domain literature and transcribing a scan of it, for instance something like Mark Twain or an old encyclopedia. But there are amazing ways our tools can be used that go way beyond that, and provide excellent value to the public. Here are some ideas we have implemented at Hebrew Wikisource. None of these ideas implement the "Proofread Page" extension because that excellent tool isn't the best tool for these purposes. (That the extension doesn't for for RTL languages is besides the point...) It's not wrong to think "out-of-the-box"!! Or "out-of-the-scan" in this case... :-)

  • Critical editions based on manuscripts. We have uploaded scans of multiple medieval manuscripts for a single work, which allows documentation for a critical edition based on manuscript evidence. A simple template allows for documentation of the variant readings within the edit page. "Wikisource:" pages devoted to each book in question allow the community to collaborate on formulating the appropriate procedures for editing each book in question. So both the textual evidence and the procedures are transparent and collaborative.
  • Critical editions based early printed editions. For Mark Twain, the differences between editions aren't terribly significant. But at Hebrew Wikisource we are dealing with books that have been published dozens of times, and no one edition is the best choice for our online edition. Here too, the title page can list the editions which the wiki-text has been corrected against, and documentation can be stored on the edit page and in links to scans at Commons.
  • Text-with-commentary. We are dealing with works that have been published with multiple commentaries, and some editions include different commentaries than others. The wiki framework allows for community collaboration towards defining the rules for how such texts should be presented with commentaries (sometimes in multiple wiki-editions when warranted), and also for working on the texts themselves. This cannot be accomplished with "Proofread Page".
  • Hyperlinks. We are dealing with literature where even the shortest works contain thousands of direct references to previous literature. Hyperlinks make our editions of such works the most useful ever re-published. "Added value" that didn't exist within the scanned edition, but must be within the same Wikisource library.

There is plenty of classical literature in English (or that has been translated into English or can be) that could enrich the library at English Wikisource as well and provide ever more treasures to readers that can best be developed right here. (I immediately think of Aristotle and the generations of commentaries on his works.) I think the above examples also show that Wikibooks, a wiki devoted to writing study guides for schools or hobbies, is certainly not the place for developing and serious collection of literature. The right place is the multilingual library built by the wiki method, namely Wikisource in its many languages.

I truly hope that English Wikisource will never turn into a slightly-more-useful clone of Distributed Proofreaders. What DP does is outstanding, as is the transcribing of scans that is done right here at en.wikisource. But don't limit the library just to what is standard for certain kinds of literature with certain specific tools. Think out of the box! Encourage and make use of any and all ideas to expand this library. The beauty of the wiki-method is that it allows new ideas and new methods, and thus leads to new valuable content that might not have been possible previously. Don't close the wiki off! Keep up the excellent work, and make sure the website's mission is formulated broadly so that it will remain open to new ideas in the future. Dovi (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Eliyak says above "In my opinion Wikisource is the best location for free-content collaborative translations because of its goals of maintaining fidelity to the original text. ... If the translation paraphrased the text into modern vernacular, or gave an ideologically based translation (such as Artscroll does) I would agree wholeheartedly that the translation belonged at WikiBooks." This seems to me a good argument for not allowing translations. Just because we have a goal doesn't mean it will be achieved. The Bible is an excellent example. We have no need to create our own translation as there are PD translations. And one person's good faithful translation of such a work is another person's "ideologically based" one, as the Bible project demonstrates. Longfellow (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, I think that it's a strength of Wiki-(source) translations, that they can be edited and improved by anyone. And, as these translations are in fact source-texts, they belong to Wikisource in my opinion. However, I asked the Wikibooks-community (see b:Wikibooks:Reading room/General#PD-Translations on Wikibooks?), what they think about this issue. --D.H (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
(copy of my response in case anyone isn't following along at Wikibooks) I think Wikisource is the place when the translation intends to preserve the original meaning with no other changes. If the intentions is to also provide an updated work of educational value, I think the answer depends on what form the work is intended to take. If the work is intended to take on an encyclopedia quality it should be forked to Wikipedia after translation. If the work is intended to take on a form that is within Wikibooks' scope than it should be forked to Wikibooks after translation. If the work is intended to be some other kind of learning material it should be forked to Wikiversity after translation.
Different language editions of Wikisource may have different inclusion requirements about translations too. Whether translations intended to preserve the original meaning belong at the target language Wikisource project or should be moved there after completion is best left up to Wikisource. --darklama (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I was directed here by the Wikibooks discussion. Straight translations would not be acceptable at Wikibooks (see WB:SOURCE). Specifically, Wikibooks does not allow original fiction or literature per policy. What would be acceptable? I would say a translation or modernization of a public domain textbook would be okay. Also, Wikibooks allows annotations of source texts for the purposes of study guides for students, similar to Spark Notes. A translated piece of literature could possibly be worked in via a loophole at [[b:WB:WIW#Wikibooks_includes_annotated_texts|]], which says that annotated texts are permitted and that annotated texts "are a kind of text that includes an original text within it and serves as a guide to reading or studying that text" (emphasis mine). So a person could probably place a translation at Wikibooks if such a translation is heavily annotated by the translator and the original text is freely licensed. Add pages on characters and settings and concepts and you have something like the text chapters of The Grand Inquisitor. Investiture of the Gods may be an abuse of that loophole in that it is likely a straight translation with no annotations. – Adrignola (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The Bible is a terrible example. It is indicative of the most useless Wikisource translation, IMO, given that we do have a host of PD translations. But there are a lot of works out there that don't have free translations, or in many cases have never been translated at all, and for the most part these translations are not going to be contentious. By killing Rat on a tray and Pinglopiketoj, you're taking away something unique, valuable, and completely unproblematic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • My contribution: personally I like the flexibility to allow Wikisource translation of PD works, as it gives us a way to give access to works that may otherwise be hidden away in XX.wikisource and in an different language. For example, the Berber Dahir (translated by myself, and proofread by a French speaker) may not have been otherwise accessible to a non-Francophone, depending on the PD translations that may or may not exist, may or may not be available on the Internet and may or may not have acceptable provenance, licence-wise.
  • However, I do think that Wikisource translations should be held to a high standard, so if a half-finished or poorly translated document is on Wikisource with no prospects of improvement, it can be deleted, or at least moved out of the "main" namespace. We also need to be vigilant against people "contributing" automatic translations. Having the Wikisource translations automatically tagged and categorised helps us to keep an eye on things as it is.
  • Possibly we could also consider a policy whereby you cannot have a translation on en.WS without the original text on the relevant other Wikisource, though this might be a restriction in the absence of scans, meaning that you can't host at e.g. de.WS.
  • I also think we could have an international forum where contributors can ask for help from other Wikisources on translations. Of course, we don't want to overwhelm the generally small WS communities, but I think it would be a good exercise in inter-Wikisource relations if it were possible for (say) an English user to request a (say) Spanish user check an original English translation of some interesting Spanish work. Likewise, a Spanish user could post his own English translation at en.WS and request an English proof-reader. These are both en.WS-centred, but I would think the cooperation could extend both ways. I would anticipate the rate of requests and fulfilments to both be pretty low, but in some cases, this may be a valuable resource.
  • I don't think it is a good idea to host at Wikibooks, as it would seem to be even further out of their scope than ours, except for textbooks. Even in the case of textbooks, it is questionable for Wikibooks to deliberately host out-of-date material.
  • In summary, I like having the option of a user-contributed translations at Wikisource, but I think we need to be careful to only host "good" translations. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
A couple of reflections. As WS-generated translations sit outside of the standard "published/peer-reviewed" works, do they belong in our main namespace? Or might this be something that puts them into another namespace, be that an existing namespace or yet another? If they stay where they are, do we look to emphasise their difference, well at least more than we do now. At the bare minimum it seems worthwhile each of the WS wikis to have a conjoined Wikisource:WikiProject Translations, and one wonders whether there needs to be a tie-together with oldwikisource: so this does not belong solely as an enWS directed project.— billinghurst sDrewth 23:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest the following templates, and depending on the article, one of them should be placed at the beginning:

To be validated.
This article or book was translated by Wikisource. As it was proofread by a native (or advanced) speaker of the original language, a second proofread by a native (or advanced) English speaker is desired.
To be validated.
This article or book was translated by Wikisource. As it was proofread by a native (or advanced) English speaker, a second proofread by a native (or advanced) speaker of the original language is desired.
To be proofread.
This article or book was translated and proofread by Wikisource. Another proofread by a native (or advanced) speaker of the original language, and a native (or advanced) English speaker is desired.
Validated.
This article or book was translated by Wikisource. It was proofread by a native (or advanced) English speaker, and also by a native (or advanced) speaker of the original language. The article is semi-protected now, so if you have suggestions for improving the article, please state them on the talk page.

What do you think? --D.H (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Two excellent suggestions[edit]

Above there are two excellent practical suggestions. Actually there are more than two, but there are two that can be developed immediately at en.wikisource, and which would settle nearly all of the real or perceived problems discussed above:

  1. Inductiveload: "However, I do think that Wikisource translations should be held to a high standard, so if a half-finished or poorly translated document is on Wikisource with no prospects of improvement, it can be deleted, or at least moved out of the "main" namespace." And billinghurst asked: "...do they belong in our main namespace?" This is a simple, neat, and highly intuitive solution which myself and others have suggested in the past. Having a "Translation:" namespace and an "Annotation:" namespace is a a clear and effective way to differentiate those works that are fully-verifiable transcriptions (down to each individual letter) from works that contain (at least in part) original Wikisource contributions or added-value. The latter namespace could also include the kinds of critical editions I described above, or any edition that for whatever good reason doesn't exactly conform to a previously-published edition.
    At this point in time, I am not suggesting another namespace, though wondering whether either the Wikisource: or the Portal: namespaces may be appropriate. Newbies have enough issues fumbling through those existing without getting buried in more. It would be good if we could first see what we can sensibly fit into the existing spaces. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    If we don't create a new namespace, we only have one that takes content: the main namespace. Wikisource is for the bureaucracy, and Portal is for portals, neither of which translations or annotations are.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    In terms of newbies, using appropriate names with clear purposes will be positive and effective enough. One or two more won't bother them as long as it is clear what they are for. In our experience at he.wikisource, the following method is extremely clear and works quite well (using Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy as an example): Meditations on First Philosophy (Jones) in the Main Namespace is a basic transcription of the book from a scanned public domain translation by "Jones" (with no added value). Annonation:Meditations on First Philosophy is a fuller edition (possibly created through transclusion) that might include helpful new titles for sections, or a digest of commentaries, or references to later philosophers who cite Descartes, in addition to the main text. A new translation from the Latin by Wikisource contributors would be called Translation:Meditations on First Philosophy (it might actually be an updated version of the Jones' translation instead of an entirely new one). And finally, Wikisource:Meditations on First Philosophy is a process page created by the community, which explains the reasoning behind the the various editions of Meditations on First Philosophy at Wikisource, the editorial rules and decisions governing those editions, and the current status of the work being done (e.g. transcription complete, translation-update halfway done, titles for subsections complete and digest of commentaries written for selected chapters). A link to the process page usually appears in the title page like this: About this edition. I think using "Portal" would be terribly counter-intuitive.
    Regardless, the essential question that should be considered is whether en.wikisource wants to use namespaces for this purpose. If the answer is yes, then deciding what to call them is a much smaller problem. Dovi (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  2. D.H suggested a regimen of appropriate templates for assessing the quality and peer-review of documents that contain some amount of originality. That is the normal and appropriate of dealing with issues like this in a Wiki framework. At Hebrew Wikisource we went a step further than that, and implemented the "Stable Versions" extension along with its built-in rating system for this purpose.

Namespaces and a template system would add clarity and promote healthy standards for both readers and editors. Dovi (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

What about Template:Translation (I've included some changes)? --D.H (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The case for translations at Wikisource[edit]

I started to write this over a week ago but my notes were scattered between work and home and I lost what I had started in a reboot. But there are a few points I would like to add to this discussion. Online collaborative translations are going to happen. People's conception as to what can possibly to done collaboratively has been altered in the past ten years and translations are an area that is particularly well suited to needing the internet to gather collaborators who are dispersed globally. Even people who have no known connection to Wikimedia are talking about this. I happened to read a book this year, and because I am a geek who reads books cover to cover I read the acknowledgments and was surprised to read the author suggesting that a wiki be used to translate Le Opere di Galileo Galilei into English (Acknowledgments page here ). I am certain that such collaborative translations are going to be undertaken successfully on the internet in my lifetime. I think Wikisource is well poised to the place for this breakthrough to happen. En.WS has a community that cares about texts and thinks a great deal about how to best maintain the fidelity of texts while digitizing them. In addition, we are well-connected to a network of such communities in different language traditions. We are also connected to a community of people who have broken a great deal of ground in how to manage the actual work of collaboratively translating messages online. The Wikimedia translators who work on with the fundraisers, board elections, and WMF official statements are a great resource that we haven't really consulted. I think we should ask their opinions before committing to any particular template system (It would probably be a good idea to wait till the fundraiser is finished though). I think the two terms that are technically used are "accuracy" for the proofread by the native of the source language and "fluidity" for the the proofread by the native of the target language. I believe that Wikisource will have to as innovative as Wikipedia was back in 2004 to make this breakthrough into collaborative translations succeed. There is a lot of work to be done in this area, both in technical solutions and in collaboration management, and not much of a road map on how to do it. However, whether we do that work or someone else does, I have no doubt that the breakthrough will be made. The only real question I think the there is over the future of collaborative translations is whether or not they will be free content. That is one thing that our work here can guarantee. If the breakthrough, however, comes by way of hundreds of special interest societies each translating there own special interest topic, I think it is likely that the translations will simply copyrighted in the same manner that those societies copyright the journals they currently produce. It seems mostly likely to me that it will bee either us or one of those societies (and then spread about to other such societies), that will make the breakthrough. We probably have the technical advantage, they probably have the collaboration advantage. So I really think the next steps are to talk to people who have been doing translations for Wikimedia and think hard about how we can best adopt the tools we have found to work for simple proofreading into a translation framework. If we can develop a strong and intuitive technical framework for collaborative translations we can attract the translators. If we can develop strong community backing and a networking system to support those translators, we can convince them to do the collaborative work here and release their work under CC-BY-SA. If we only manage the first, there is a possibility that a good number of potential contributors to Wikisource will simply start their own wikis with a much narrower focus and keep the resulting texts copyrighted. --BirgitteSB 20:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks collection of cables[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Clearly there is strong consensus amongst Wikisource contributors not to host the Wikileaks collection of leaked cables here at this time.
Is the collection of leaked diplomatic cables posted by Wikileaks suitable for hosting by Wikimedia Commons? Despite reports that the site is down, it can still be downloaded currently (I've described this at w:Wikileaks). I had the impression that new cables might still be being added over time, and I'm not sure whether this is a collection in final form. If it is to be hosted, how should it be hosted - should the individual cables be posted separately, like [2], or as a collection? Should they be trimmed down out of their HTML wrappers? The authorship of individual cables is somewhat cryptic - should the individual, embassy, or U.S. government be credited as the author? Wnt (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd rather it be hosted by some respectable organization that's not under legal threat for doing so before we put them on here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
So far as I know no one has pointed to any particular law that Wikileaks is supposed to have violated. The Guardian maintains an archive of the cables ([3]), though I haven't verified its completeness.
To answer my own question, I'm starting to favor the idea that they should be archived according to the date of release, with each day constituting the "publication" and Wikileaks being the "author". This corresponds to one of the folder organizations of the original downloaded archives, and allows comprehensive treatment of any one day's releases independently of whatever happens with the others. As Wikileaks has censored both snippets of text and presumably whole cables, and we don't know that every one is purely authentic without other changes being made for some noble ? purpose, I think it's easier to think of them for our purposes as the author of a highly derivative work rather than as purely a publisher, especially since the people at the embassy weren't seeking to become authors of public documents.
I also have to favor processing them to strip the HTML wrappers, leaving perhaps one set for each day's "publication". I think that the HTML organization implies a separation between document and wrapper just as a book is separate from its jacket. Usually Wikisource is content to archive the contents of the book without worrying if this outer wrapping is lost, and the same applies here. Wnt (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to inject a moment of political clarity into this discussion. In recent days I have been asked by many, many people whether Wikileaks is somehow connected to Wikipedia. My mother has asked, my coworkers have asked, friends, acquaintances, and distant relatives have asked. A few people I've spoken with have just assumed that Wikileaks is a Wikimedia project of some kind. Furthermore, many people, not necessarily in the same conversations, have expressed deep anger towards Wikileaks and its perceived attack on the United States through the release of confidential information. Wikimedia is suffering for having to constantly explain that we are not involved with Wikileaks. I urge, for the time being, that we avoid any steps that might further public misperception that Wikimedia is somehow blameworthy in this mess. We should wait at least for a few years - long enough for the controversy to remove to history - before posting up any of that material here. After all, it's not as though we are lacking for other things to post. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
At this point in time I don't favour their introduction to the site. Nothing to do with the (il)legality or whatever legal status. At this point in time I am not sure that they fall within Wikisource:What Wikisource includesbillinghurst sDrewth 16:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I would say that "They are evidentiary in nature, and created in the course of events.". There is no shadow of a doubt in my mind that this is a major historical event, and the Wikileaks collection is the key document. Even though other presentations of the documents exist via various newspapers, the press coverage focuses on this Wikileaks site. Wnt (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
If this gains the consent of the wikimedia community, I'll recreate Template:Cablegate. cygnis insignis 21:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Why, was something done to it? Note that community consensus isn't needed to start a new project, only to delete one. I made up a page for the 12-2 disclosures, but didn't post it yet on account of it being 853 kb in length (yikes!). The edit notice says 32 kb, but it looks like many documents here are substantially longer. What's the right length to make the parts for something like this? Wnt (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I really think we should slow down and at least see what WMF has to say about this before we post anything. I see no reason to rush to do so at this time. BD2412 T 23:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposed per both of BD2412's comments. Let's not add to the confusion. Hesperian 00:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  • I believe the works are probably in the public domain after their release (at least I think many of them are {{PD-in-USGov}}), and probably do fall into our remit, since they are a matter of public record and an important political and perhaps historical event, depending on the eventual fall-out. However, I think we should not host them here for the time being. That is a lot of potentially risky hassle we'd be causing ourselves by hosting a mirror of the cables here. Given that Wikileaks has been under DDoS for a week, and we are a public wiki, I think that we'd be risking attracting our own DDoS and vandalism. At the scale of the Wikileaks reaction and with only a handful of admins, we couldn't cope with the strain.
  • We also should think a little of our reputation as a repository of public texts for educational purposes rather than a sensationalist re-publisher of controversial information. While it's true that many controversial texts are PD and that we have several, it doesn't mean we should go looking for them to make a feature of. Especially since:
  • At a quarter of a million strong, they outnumber all our existing works by 100,000, and it would be a logistical nightmare to double our database in one go. Since the cables are strongly in the public now and are unlikely to disappear any time soon, as BD2412 said, there's no rush.
  • If/when the time comes, we'd have to consider how to organise the works before we started importing them wholesale, think about naming, authors, linking, templates, categories and the possibility of automatic bot importing (probably best since they are in a pretty uniform format). This is a process that I would expect to take several weeks, given the size of the dataset. We'd have to be sure it was near-perfect before we present 251,287 new works to the system in any length of time, let alone the few days or weeks it could be done in. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 03:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I should clarify that so far only about 600 cables have actually been released. I am not very confident that 1000 will really be released, let alone 250,000. Also note that newspapers such as The Guardian [4] have been hosting many of the cables without suffering DDOS attacks. While I can't rule out that Wikisource might be attacked in such a way, doing so would cross a conceptual Rubicon, emphasizing that the DDOS attackers are not "merely" trying to prevent journalists from breaking a news story, but declaring an open war of censorship by spam throughout the entire Internet.
I will say that after noticing that little 850 kb problem, I'm considering that maybe the cables should be posted one by one, with only index documents to define the larger collection. When posted one by one, the documents could carry a template that automatically sorts them by creation date and leak date and embassy. This also encourages the posting of some of the more publicized and historically significant leaks right away, independently of any other controversy. Wnt (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
No one is supposing that Wikileaks is somehow affiliated with or under the control of The Guardian. DDOS attacks and classification issues aside, we should for the time being discourage popular misconception conflating Wikileaks with Wikimedia. BD2412 T 16:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
You might try dispelling the misconception with a disclaimer. I for one don't find this particular objection to have any weight whatsoever. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I am similarly against hosting these items at this time. As stated above, the belief that Wikileaks is associated with Wikimedia would make Wikisource a target for attacks, and would also make these beliefs post-facto rooted in reality. If Wikimedia is suffering in the public eye when there is no basis, I don't think creating a basis is the way to go. I would also like to point out that (as far as I know) Wikisource does not have a mandate to publish all public domain documents. We can certainly decide that it is not in Wikimedia's best interest not to host them at this time, of course retaining the option to reconsider at a later date. Our goals are very different from those of Wikileaks. --Eliyak T·C 01:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The belief that Wikia is associated with Wikimedia makes Wikimedia projects a target for attacks, so by this logic, it is not in Wikimedia's best interest to host links to Wikia (or to host Jimmy Wales) at this time. -- Thekohser (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, are all the cables written by US Fed employees? I don't think they are, which means we can't archive them all, and shouldn't attempt to provide a gutted archive. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact they were all written by bona fide US federal government employees in the course of the performance of their official duties, and are therefore in the public domain because they have been inadvertently released. Government employees are allowed to ask that they be destroyed and returned, but there is no constitutional way for them to compel anyone to do so unless they can first convince a judge that there's a national security interest. 71.198.176.22 11:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Except that a lot of it is documented from contractors and not federal employees, and classified intelligence is not "official" business of the Federal Government. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how much is from contractors, but classified intelligence surely is official business of the Federal Government. Use of the diplomatic cables for anything but official business of the Federal Government is surely criminal Misuse of Official Resources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Just because you call it "official business" does not make it legally so, otherwise we wouldn't have "classified" documents. And there is no such thing as "criminal Misuse of Official Resources" regarding cables because that is laughable. That is like saying anyone with a government cell phone should have all calls online or cars tracked online. "Official business" means to be working on documents for publication regarding the government. It requires some sort of publication. Just like you can't steal an author's manuscript before he publishes and put it out yourself, you can't take these matters. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
No. Published or unpublished is irrelevant copyright-wise for works produced since 2002. These works were produced for the US government by employees thereof, so they're PD. As we note from the Pentagon Papers, the issue of copyright was never brought up, so it's pretty clear copyright does not bar us from publishing these papers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales has suggested hosting them on Wikisource. I am not sure whether this is a good idea at present because of the political pressure. I don't want to cause any headaches for Foundation employees until the British courts have had a chance to rule on the irregularities of the Assange extradition request. 71.198.176.22 11:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems like the goal for posting them on Wikisource is to provided mirrored access to materials that are available (and under attack) in other locations. Wikisource is a repository not a battle ground, if Wikileaks was not under attack I doubt anyone would be trying to post them here. If there is a real desire to actually post them at WIkisource. load them on a CD and bring them back to post when they are not part of a political battle. JeepdaySock (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
We don't bow to political pressure. If you're talking about possible legal problems, that's something that should be left up to WMF to consider. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I have to admit, it's very hard for me to figure out authorship for some of the cables. There is at least a plausible risk that some copyrighted content is incorporated somewhere, which will need to be taken seriously. This adds to the impetus to change my mind from my first idea of collating them as "books" compiled by Wikisource, and treat the cables instead as individual publications as I mentioned above.
The impulse to post them on Wikisource is not simply as a mirror. Mostly, it is the desire to see them Wikilinked to relevant material on Wikipedia and occasionally Wikisource or Commons. I've recently started w:Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative for this reason (in that case, my desire was a more encyclopedic article and not strictly a quote). The whole world has access to the list of crucial resources - Americans should too. The next time there's an argument about whether we should support Kurdistan and screw Turkey, we should be able to consult this document and see if there's anything on that list we miss. We should be able to look it over and see if there are monopolies over certain commodities which an enterprising individual could try to crack. We should be able to use its redlinks as clear evidence where Wikipedia is lacking articles about incredibly important corporations - so important that a foreign country calls their operations critical. So this is a hard core encyclopedic purpose, not merely a political position, though of course, it would be a lie to say that the would-be censors haven't provoked more effort where less might have been made. Wnt (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Then maybe the talk should not be about the collection per se, rather it should be about specific works. Our perspective on historical documents has always been to support evidence base for our own site, and sister sites. Though it is somewhat implicit rather than explicit, published works are here as by being published they have reach a notability and acceptability of peer-review, historic documents need to have some level of notability and relevance and that is they are used to link to an article at Wikisource, or at one of the sister sites (otherwise nothing to stop the upload of 1 000 000 wills of nonentities). So a particular historic document (be it Wikileaks or anywhere) I could see would have relevance to be introduced as a source if it meets our inclusion guidelines and demonstrated as source for an article. The collection in its totality for being a collection, doesn't meet that criteria IMNSHO., however individual documents are assessed on their merits, and similarly, each document could be proposed for deletion through normal processes. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Not in Public Domain, not acceptable in any regards. Top Secret classification related matters have to be released through official FOIA requests before they can be deemed acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we should be on the leading edge of stuff like this, nor do I particularly think we need the complete dump here--perhaps we should demand pen-and-paper publication. But it is public domain, and once it's out there in the public eye, it's out there, and there's no point in waiting for an official FOIA request to host it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks is linking to us

See any of the cables;

If you click the "structure of a cable" links, a help paragraph is revealed that includes a link to:

It certainly bears watching. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I know this is an old discussion, but I think the arguments against including the cables (the threat of DDoS attacks and that people will mistakenly believe Wikileaks to be part of the Wikimedia Foundation) hold very little water. They are not valid reasons not to include certain content. Unless the office prohibits it, then I say go for it. --Ixfd64 (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Related discussion at EN-WP

I found the above discussion very interesting, along with several other related discussions around the project. I recently tried to write up a consensus decision for the English Wikipedia project, which is at WP:AN#On linking to classified documents. Since folks here have already discussed the matter, feel free to c'mon over and participate there as well! --Elonka (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons Creator ns vs WS's Author: ns[edit]

I recently became aware of Common's Creator: namespace and has some sort of similarity to our Author: ns, definitely some similar data. It might be an opportunity to have a two-way linking between works of both authors and illustrators back to WS, and for us to consider whether that makes a sensible linking place from our author pages, rather than to a variety of places through {{Commons}} or {{Commonscat}}unsigned comment by Billinghurst (talk) .

  • I agree, I was just discussing this with another user that we ought to have a way to embed the Sisterprojects links within the Creator template at commons or at least (or maybe in addition) have a Wikisource Author link and a Wikipedia Bio link similar to what we now provide on Author pages, where we have links to WP, WQ, and Commons. One thing to figure out though is how to track the changes at Commons, some authors have no Creator page and information about the author is on the authors cat; while others have a Gallery (mainspace) page with substantially more information (though it probably largely duplicates our author pages in its best form).--Doug.(talk contribs) 17:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

How to centre-align in table cells?[edit]

I am trying to format the table on page 39 of Miscellaneous Papers on Mechanical Subjects, but I cannot find any table style (in common.css or the MediaWiki stylesheets) that centres all table cells (i.e. not just headers). I've checked Wikisource:Style guide/Tables, but there's not much there. Can anyone suggest how I may do this? Should I propose the addition of a new style to common.css (something like table.centre-all-cells td { text-align:center })? Thanks! — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 02:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

There may be a better solution than this, but you can add |-align=center to each row. cygnis insignis 03:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
You don't need to feel constrained by the css classes. Table styles vary from book to book, and you can use whatever styles are appropriate (see my edit to that page). --Eliyak T·C 05:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both! It looks much better now. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 06:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It is rare for all cells of our tables to be centred, which is probably why no one has bothered. For reasons of ease I created {{t/ac}} & {{t/ar}} ages ago. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
merged into {{table style}} — billinghurst sDrewth 04:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Help requested to recover lost page text[edit]

Due to an unexpected interruption, I pasted the contents of the wrong page into Page:A Study of Mexico.djvu/203. Since I created the page initially, I cannot revert to an earlier version. Could someone help to recover the original? Many thanks. - Ineuw (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the page, and now you should have the original OCR available again. --Eliyak T·C 20:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Everything is there. - Ineuw (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Transclusion problem due to ignorance[edit]

I would like to transclude the four pages of the Table of contents in to the Index:A Study of Mexico.djvu. The pages are Page:A Study of Mexico.djvu/19 to Page:A Study of Mexico.djvu/22 inclusive and they are pasted on the Index: page for reference. Could someone take a look at it and advise? Thanks. - Ineuw (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Just change [[ brackets to {{ braces. Done it for you on the index page.--Xxagile (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Tried everything except that. :-) - Ineuw (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Text alignment in a table vs natural Page: justification.[edit]

I am currently working on this table and noticed that in the Page: namespace, the text columns of a table are also justified, when they should be naturally left aligned. I assume that this is an effect of the default justification of the namespace, and I am wondering whether I must specify each line to be left aligned? - Ineuw (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you have to do it....its not automatically done for you. If you go check out this page it has good examples of left alignment and how to do it. - Tannertsf (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

/* Justify */
body.ns-104
{
 text-align: justify;
}

It's coming from the above in MediaWiki:Common.css, which you seem to see; I've just added text-align: center; to the whole table, which fixes all the cells. We could add a rule such as:

/* left align tables in page namespace */
body.ns-104 table
{
 text-align: left;
}

to make this automatic, but it would have wide impact. Any tables relying on the current behaviour would suddenly break. I do expect these are few, but it would have to be hashed-out. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

As a measure for flexibility, it may be worth looking to create a class in common.css that simply does it, and we can hash it out in time. I would think that we would make it work that way for both main and page ns. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
That would be:
/* left align tables in page namespace */
body.ns-104 table.tblLeftAlign
{
 text-align: left;
}
with the name 'tblLeftAlign' discussable. Conversely, we could ditch 'justify' altogether; I don't know when that was introduced or why, but it seems just an arbitrary choice of look that prolly match a lot of works. I'm not seeing any issue in mainspace, as it's not getting an ambient justify rule. There is class="lefttext", which would need addressing... Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don’t consider changing or adding to the CSS. The "text-align:left;" is sufficient to give the proper alignment of the text by not stretching it out to justify. Now, it looks good in both namespaces. Luckily, in this particular table, the number columns are left aligned as well. Otherwise, I know that numbers must be aligned in each column/row when it differs from the global table alignment spec. Thanks for all the help. - Ineuw (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Convert to DJVU?[edit]

I've been working on the documents of the Webster-Hayne debate but I recently discovered a better source edition on Google. Unfortunately I can't find it on IA, and since my DJVU converter would turn this 88 MB pdf file into an even bigger djvu, I'm hoping that some one else would be kind enough to do the conversion. Thanks! —Spangineer (háblame) 17:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

One thing you could try is upload it to IA. I believe it will not only convert it to DJVU but also add a text layer to the file, thereby killing two birds with one stone. I could convert it, but it would likely take longer than IA to do so, and I don't have the knowhow to figure out how to add a text layer.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I did put it on IA ([5]) but it doesn't seem to be doing anything. —Spangineer (háblame) 18:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
You can derive files, if you go in via Patron Info and look at "Your Uploads and item changes", from there you can look at complete and pending jobs, and derive files. My guess is that the size of the file has meant that the generation of the jp2 file has pushed it over 2GB and it has stalled and is "waiting for admin". If it just didn't derive, then go into the complete tasks, find the file and click on the MGR link and from there you can DERIVE the other parts. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
and it has failed and and awaiting admin ... http://www.archive.org/catalog.php?identifier=RegisterOfDebatesInCongressVolume6billinghurst sDrewth 23:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Public Domain texts marked with "no source" tags[edit]

I have noticed that some public domain texts have been tagged with a "no source" template, e.g. The Black Arrow. Presumably the source of that text and many of the others is the Project Gutenberg electronic books. Why would there be a need to have a source for a public domain entry? How would one go about supplying such a "source indicator"? Would it be necessary to reenter the document in a sandbox. Please respond.--Drboisclair (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If the source is known, or can be demonstrated to be known, then on the item's talk page add {{textinfo}} and complete the source field. We would generally then add {{edition}} to the notes field in work's header. Source is considered important in a number of perspectives: so we can known editions of work, and a test of the veracity of the added edition, also if we get an image copy, then we know whether we can match it to an image. So we know whether the work may be copyright or not, especially important with translations. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Brace design help is asked for[edit]

Could I impose on someone to look at this attempt to design a top brace in a table HERE? I am missing something and can’t figure what I am doing wrong. The page link to the actual table is on the top of the same page. Thanks. - Ineuw (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Something wrong with the graphic forms available? Call me lazy, however, that is where I would be going. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Matt has rotated the existing gull braces, and we now have a version that points up File:GullBraceUp.svgbillinghurst sDrewth

Thanks billinghurst, it seems that the image rotation in the template doesn’t work(?). I will try to create the missing segments from Inductiveload’s existing gallery and add them. - Ineuw (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a whole new ballgame :-). Rather not wade into it and get distracted. Will wait until I understand more about it. - Ineuw (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The image points up, however, I would say that it is too thick for the task. Might be more appropriate to get someone to rotate this thinner gull brace and/or get it converted to .svg too. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this thin brace. If you were referring to Matt’s brace as being too thick, I already tried it :-). I will try to flip this File:GullBrace.png, but my morning’s efforts with Inkscape were fruitless. I only know Irfanview just to prepare the existing images for the commons upload. - Ineuw (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Ditto. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I consider this kind of approach to be a reasonable option. Hesperian 10:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Hesperian, I will leave the matter for now as you suggest. Nevertheless, it’s a challenge and User:Inductiveload’s segmented idea is the best idea so far. - Ineuw (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I created File:ThinBraceUp.svg not sure if it is helpful or not. Just thought I would mention it. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Black images[edit]

Hi!

I'm experiencing trouble to see the content of this djvu page. When I edit the page, it shows a black image, no matter what browser I use (I've tried Firefox 3.6.13, Chrome 8.0.552.215 and also IE 8).

The page is displayed correctly when I'm not editing and also here.

What could be the cause of this? Helder (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I untranslated the links, Page: -> Página and so on.
I get the same thing, the image doesn't load. I don't know why, but it is possible that the file is corrupted. The file had a page inserted (p. 160) by User:Alex brollo, talk with that user. You could revert the change and see if that helps, maybe ask Alex to recompile the djvu. cygnis insignis 19:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
This crops up every now and then. When it happens you just need to go to the Commons file and purge the file's cache on the server (and possibly your own browser cache at the same time). I tried that and it is now working for me.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah. Me too, when I cleared my browser (shift-reload) cygnis insignis 19:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
It works for me too (even whithout shift reload). Thanks! Helder (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

DjVu text layer present, but not appearing when I edit a new Page[edit]

File:EB1922 - Volume 31.djvu has a text layer (confirmed with djvutxt), but when I create a new page from it (this is the index; choose any random red-linked page) the edit box is not filled from the text layer. Anyone know why this might happen? It's not a huge deal, because I can extract the text manually, but it's a little irritating. - Htonl (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC) Oh, to add, the other two volumes (30 and 32) have text layers that work fine. - Htonl (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There was a caching problem, I believe. I purged the cache on the file over at Commons, and now the text layer shows up. (If it doesn't for you, also purge your browser's cache).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. It is indeed working now. - Htonl (talk) 11:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Search with transcluded text[edit]

archived discussion

I've noticed a seeming bug that prevents a potentially useful feature. The issue is this: transcluded text will not show up in search results. This means that we could not put an {{engine}} at the top of a work to allow searching within said work when it is transcluded from page-space. This would be extremely useful for dictionaries, encyclopedias, and other works as well. Someone has tried using it at Popular Science Monthly, but it only finds text which is actually on the main-space pages. I wanted to see if this is something the Wikisource community has a demand for, so that we could ask for an appropriate programming fix as a community. --Eliyak T·C 15:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A more robust search engine is something I've wanted for years. You can put me on that list, but I fear we'll be waiting forever for it to happen.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The first archive link contains a suggestion to make searches include the Page:ns as default; a workaround that is problematic, but an substantial improvement on the current situation. I have this checked as a preference because I know this a problem. Another proposal was to subst the pages, which creates a whole new set of problems, but still better than this situation.

I have the idea that the ability to search main has worked (imperfectly and intermittently) since querying the situation last year, but that it no longer does. I have also had main-space hits in google results, and suspect that this changed, there may be other factors at work here. The proposal to change the default search is not without problems, we want a user to be directed to main, not the construction and verification namespace. There have also been proposals to give a link from Page to main, to the regular presentation, the marginal advantage to workers becomes very important to readers who would be given Page hits in search results. (This would work by detection of the only main transclusion, or offer a choice if the page is split) This would be manipulation of the site's architecture to fit our inelegant work-around, and this is why I hoped the problem would simple be resolved. Perhaps the best first step is to ask the question,

Is this problem likely to be resolvable, or do we focus on finding another way? —cygnis insignis 08:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Bugzilla:18861 is what I believe is the issue. I wonder if we can get any attention at Wikitech-L? — billinghurst sDrewth 12:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for locating that bug, I was not able to find it. It seems to me that it may be an easy fix, since wiki does seem to maintain transcluded versions of each page. On the other hand, I don't really have any deep understanding of mediawiki.
Good news, though: I have found a possible workaround using Google's cache of WS. For example, a search for Germany site:en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica gives the desired results, as does Palestine site:en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Jewish_State_(1917_translation). One small downside is that we must wait for Google to index the page. Another is that we must go outside of WS to display search results. And, I'm not sure how to set up a wiki search box for a given work.
Also, it won't do what I originally wanted, which is to take a non-vowelized Hebrew word and return any results of the vowelized version. (Wiki search does this). Too bad for me, but good enough for everyone else. --Eliyak T·C 14:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hoyt's New Cyclopedia Of Practical Quotations[edit]

I would like to ask the community if we can make a project of getting Index:Hoyt's New Cyclopedia Of Practical Quotations (1922).djvu done. Hoyt's is the last great book of quotations in the public domain. Because it is a reference book, it may be a particularly useful resource for Wikisource to host, and it provides a double benefit because entire sections from this work can be copied directly into the corresponding theme article on Wikiquote, or used to create such a theme (as with q:Grapes). I intend to focus the next few weeks, maybe months, getting this work done, and would appreciate the help of anyone wishing to dive in and work on a page here or there. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Public Domain Day 2011[edit]

Hi all. Last year, Wikimedia UK put out a press release celebrating Public Domain Day and the release of Yeat's and Freud's works into the public domain in the UK (70 years after their death). You can find a copy of the release at wmuk:Press releases/Public domain day. This press release was criticised here, as we were saying that the works could now be made available here. However, Wikisource generally follows US copyright law, ignoring the location of the author's birth/where the work was written/published first (probably not the correct interpretation of copyright, but let's not go into that). On the flip side, I believe it did see an increase in the number of new accounts here. From a personal perspective, putting together the press release was what started me editing here.

So: is there a way that we can celebrate Public Domain Day 2011 in the UK by putting out another press release/organising editing activity here? I know that works by Author:Neville Chamberlain and Author:Leon Trotsky will be coming out of copyright in the UK (are there also very notable/famous others?). Should we be making the point that UK contributors can now upload and work on these texts? Or do we need to bemoan the US copyright system, saying that although these works are now in the public domain in the UK, we can't have them on Wikisource as the US doesn't recognise them as PD? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this could cause problems. For example, William Henry Davies died in 1940 so his works come out of UK copyright. However, under US law his earlier works are already PD, and many are on WS already, whereas his later works probably remain in copyright. We don't want new people to come along and upload all his later works.--Longfellow (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Those that cannot be hosted here I believe may be hosted at Wikilivres under the 70 year rule. I would see that as long as there was a clear differentiation based on publications pre 1923, and post 1923, then they can be hosted accordingly. It doesn't make it as easy or as fortunate for enWS, however, we will survive the blow. That said, I would have thought that the restriction affects all the WMF sites in that none can host 1923-1940 works.— billinghurst sDrewth 06:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The copyright issue is due to the Wikimedia servers sitting in Florida (in Tampa, I think). That means that all Wikimedia Foundation sites are covered by the laws of Florida and the United States. If Wikimedia UK had their own server in the UK then UK copyright laws would apply to it but that's probably a little too expensive. Wikilivres is probably a good alternative though, its computers are in Canada and Canadian copyright laws are similar to British copyright laws. I have looked for a British wikisource/wikilivres equivalent in the past but couldn't find anything. United States copyright law is complicated and involves renewals (the files are all on the internet but, from experience, they can be time consuming to check); renewed works are also often only in the public domain after 95 years, regardless of the death of the author. You could link to this Cornell University page if you wanted to explain the US laws. I don't know if the situation is too complicated or not to explain in a press release (maybe just a brief editorial note). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally: If you want to solve this in the future, you may have to create a Europe-based physical sister site in some way. I don't know how philosphically, financially and (especially) technically feasible this is but the combined European chapters might be able to accomplish it. A standalone system (say, eurosource.org and eurocommons.org) might be easier but something integrated into the rest of the WMF (say, eu.wikisource.org etc) would be better. Without something on that scale, there will be no Public Domain Day at the WMF as the US public domain is frozen for the forseeable future. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
eu.wikisource.org would be a Basque-language Wikisource if it existed. Angr 13:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
There's no point in putting up a British wikisource/wikilivres, given that the UK is life+70 and Canada is life+50. I can't think of any case where a UK Wikisource would let you do things a Canadian one wouldn't. The US public domain is not frozen for the forseeable future; it will start moving again in January 1, 2019.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
It would be a bit extreme, yes, and I don't expect it to happen. I have seen it suggested elsewhere, at Commons I believe, to create something like a European site based in Amsterdam. I don't expect that to happen either but it applies to this situation so I thought it worth mentioning. Incidently, by "forseeable future" I meant most of the next decade. From the point of view of annual press releases, that's a significant period a time. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The restriction does in theory affect all the WMF sites, but at least in Commons there is willful denial of that fact; Commons:Template:Not-PD-US-URAA exists and gets added to new images. I've argued the case, but there's refusal to delete the files or openly (on Commons:COM:L) acknowledge that they're being kept. I suspect some of the smaller projects are simply unaware that there is anything but life+70.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Separate from the copyright issue, I think a press release might be a good idea but not one that claims Public Domain Day affects Wikisource. Anyone coming here under that impression may get severely disillusioned at the project when it turns out to be false (possibly having their contributions undone or deleted). Of course, that means that any press release would lack a strong statement and may not have any effect. The best I can think of is along the lines of "Today is Public Domain Day. That doesn't apply to Wikisource but there's still a lot you can do." (Which, I admit, isn't very good.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, following from this (& thanks for everyone's comments), I think there are three points I should make.

1) UK/EU life+70 does apply to this site, for works that were only published in the UK/EU and not the US. Unfortunately, the US doesn't seem to recognise when works become PD outside of the US anymore. Perhaps that's the point we should be pushing.

2) I also don't think that a UK/EU Wikilivres would work, given the presence of the Canadian death+50 rule. And believe me: I wish that wasn't the case, as I'd love to see/support such a site (and WMUK now has the capabilities/capacity to set such a site up if it were to be useful).

3) I would be more than happy to foster and help publish any press release in the UK that helps Wikisource. Unfortunately, outside of Public Domain Day I don't see a way to get the UK press interested. Even something like "Public domain day: fantastic, wish that helped us" wouldn't really get very far. I'd welcome any suggestions here. Perhaps one might be asking for the current copyright owners of the works that just became PD to release their rights under CC-BY-SA for the rest of the world? Could this work?

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Misalignment of contents in the main namespace[edit]

In the Index page, the sources are Pages 265 to 271. Page 267 and page 269 are offset by 5 pixels to the left, (or possibly the other pages are offset to the right), and I can't find the cause. Could someone shed light on what I've done wrong? Ineuw 03:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Each page is an independently centred table. If you want the entire index to be centred as a single block, you need to put the opening and closing table syntax into the headers and footers respectively, so that the tables aggregate into one big table when transcluded together. Hesperian 03:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Hesperian, I understand. Just for my knowledge since I’ve only done this once before and without a problem on these pages, where someone told me to use <noinclude></noinclude>. Was this a similar idea? Ineuw 04:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I had no choice but use <noinclude></noinclude> as in the PSM project indexes. Hiding the table headers and footers in the page headers and footers didn’t work for me. Thanks again for your quick reply.Ineuw 05:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the same thing. The headers and footers are just permanently segregrated <noinclude> zones. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I began to use as largely as I can "well-formed templates", t.i. templates splitted into a "start" and "end". The big advantage is that often the text modified by the template rests outside from the template code, and this is a very good idea! It's much simpler to manage such "external" text by automated scripts! Splitted templates are a great step towards any kind of any kind of automation. As a side effect, the habit to use splitted templates makes very simple to understand exotic issues as that one discussed here. Take a look to it:Template:Centrato; there's a trick that allows "usual" use of the template (for back compatibility) but allows "splitted" use too, simply avoiding to pass text as parameter 1. --Alex brollo (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikisource:Featured text candidates discussion and nominations[edit]

We are seeking further nominations and opinions on future featured texts for the Wikisource site. We would welcome if you have a validated work that you believe worthy of consideration, or you wish to come and share your opinion on the nominated works. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Galen's _On the Natural Faculties_, Book One[edit]

The edit that completed Book One of Galen's _On the Natural Faculties_ has been reversed because of the use of a "trigger word" (from the look of the edit, that word appears to be p*n*s.) The word is used in the context of a procedure Galen used to confirm the (largely) Hippocratic understanding of urology, not in any even remotely pornographic sense. As the ongoing contributor of this text, I respectfully ask that the edit be restored so that this important work of ancient medicine may appear complete.—70.112.178.180 AND 206.77.0.154, 18 December 2010

Done. Can I suggest the use of edit summary to assist clarify the additions and alterations to a work. Other means to help mitigate such errors is the use of a signed in account, as it becomes a means of recognition and where a user demonstrates the style guide we proactively assign autopatrol permissions. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Page contains image[edit]

Hello. I marked some pages filled with just an image (e.g. Page:Nicaraguan_Antiquities_(1886).djvu/133) with {{Page contains image}} template, but I've read again the documentation and that template is only for pages still without any image. Is that right? (I think I'll have to undo my own edits :S). Perhaps it would be more intuitive something like {{Missing image}} (I mean the name of the template). It also applies to {{Page contains sheet music}} (one thing is contains and other needs to be filled with). Another question (I don't find the previous discussion) is, pages with only image (transclusible image), should be marked as "without text", or has to be first "proofread" and then "validated"? Thanks! -Aleator (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Once the image is inserted, I mark the page as ’proofread’. It’s about content and this is how I learned from others, LIKE HERE. Then someone else checks it and if it’s OK, they mark it ’validated’. I hope it helps.Ineuw 03:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
As I am up to pages 12000-12999 of marked "Without text" converting non-blank pages to proofread, definitely what Ineuw said, any page that is to be transcluded is to go through the proofreading process. The combination of {{Page contains image}}/Problematic is to identify works that need more work, for whatever reason. For us, it is the "Problematic" is the key as something requires to be done, with the adding of the template is to just identify the task.

The reason we have taken that direction is that we are trying to configure the system so that one only needs to do one longitudinal transclusion, without of blank pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanations. -Aleator (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Converting PDF to DjVU[edit]

Can someone try converting this PDF into DjVU? Strangely none of the text or graphics show up in the Commons thumbnails, but you can see it all if you load the actual PDF. The text is already OCRed and added into a text layer in the PDF. Let me know if I need to change anything about how the PDF is saved. Kaldari (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite a few of us just upload PDF files to archive.org as they have a great system to derive works. If you don't have a login there, and okay with this happening, just let one of us know and we can do it for you. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
With Linux I use pdf2djvu: it works very well. --Zyephyrus (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I tested nconvert (the prompt line version of XnView) on the pdf you linked, it runs (but I use a two steps procedure, pdf->jpg then jpg->djvu, I presume it's not so efficient... nevertheless in Italy there's a telling, ogni scarafone è bello a mamma sua that I can transate more or less as "any beatle is beautiful in the opinion of his mother" ;-) ) --Alex brollo (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I tried uploading the file to archive.org: [6]. What do I do now? Kaldari (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
@Alex brollo: If you could try using your method, that would be great as well. It is currently scanned at 400dpi, if that is useful. Kaldari (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
You wait for it to derive the requisite files. You can see where you are at http://www.archive.org/catalog.php?whereami=1 and the other file types will show up at your details link when it is done. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Internet Archive did an excellent "derivation". Now you have your djvu file, with an OCR layer; and if you like you have too the high-resolution jp2 images of every page. :-) --Alex brollo (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Serif font experiment[edit]

A notice: I changed the font family on Layout 2 to be serif. I feel that a serif font improves the feel of many of the texts at WS, and should be an option. If there is objection to this, it will of course be reverted. --Eliyak T·C 06:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds eminently sensible. If people protest about it being layout 2, then should be looking to make it the next layout option available, IMNSHO. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree, I think serif would lend itself well to layout 2. Maybe a line of CSS to turn it off could be a gadget for those who hate it? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 16:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Why bother to turn it off? As one can rotate through alternative layouts, just add another to toggle. If people hate it just toggle. — billinghurst sDrewth

Match and split (2)[edit]

Would a Match and split be possible for this work? I have proof read most of the text in the mainspace directly from archive.org. Index:More Tales from Tolstoi.djvu --P. S. Burton (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I would be willing to work on this work for you. - Tannertsf (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Just an observation. The current index is missing pp 10 & 11. It might be worth re-doing the djvu of the original PDF before undertaking a match & split. A complete transcription is always superior to an incomplete one IMHO. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I have found an other version on archive.org where pp 10 & 11 is not missing. Is it possible to insert the two pages from that edition, our to I have to start from the beginning with a new djvu file? P. S. Burton (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
As there are not many pages that have been proofread, then it is quite doable, and we won't need to move many pages. You should see whether there is any need to trim the preliminary pages so that they align with the existing file up to where the pages are omitted. When you have the file ready, upload the new file over the top of the old files at Commons ("Upload a new version of this file") and then purge the file at Commons (very important to do this). (Worth adding {{under construction}} on the Index page, just in case.) Then you will need to get an admin to shift the pages (after the missing pages) to align them. It needs to be an admin as they can move pages without creating a redirect, which is necessary for this operation. You should be okay to go, depending on whether the replacement file is a replica of the edition or another edition/publisher will indicate whether you should revert the existing pages to "not proofread" or not. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

When is an index 'Done'?[edit]

I'm starting to get a bit shirty about constantly having to demote index pages from 'Done' when they are (in my opinion) quite obviously not done. e.g. I've just demoted Index:1947SydneyHailstorm.djvu, which currently has more problematic pages than validated pages. I feel my position on this is the obvious, sensible one—an index isn't 'Done' until there's nothing left to do—but since there seems to be no documentation on this, I can't be absolutely sure that my position represents consensus.

Could we come up with some working definitions please?

What I expect to see when I look at a 'Done' index page, is a pagelist comprising entirely green ('Validated') or grey ('Without text') pages. However I have no objection to cases like Index:William Blake, a critical essay (Swinburne).djvu being marked as 'Done', because the 16 'Not proofread' pages are advertising end matter not transcluded into the mainspace work. This leads to the following definition:

  • An index should be marked 'Done' if and only if all pages worthy of tranclusion into a corresponding mainspace work are 'Validated'.
  • An index should be marked 'To be validated' if and only if all pages worthy of tranclusion into a corresponding mainspace work are 'Proofread' or 'Validated'.

What do you think? Hesperian 00:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable guideline to begin with to me. We would probably need to clearly differentiate/define non-transcluded sections due to lack of image files, unfinished tables, etc. {not "Done" in my view) from the sections lacking worthiness of transclusion (such as adverts and the like) at some point though.
Also - maybe there is a need to develop an additional class of page status along the lines of 'Reviewed; Non-Applicable'? or maybe 'Without Text' needs to be expanded to include these 'Without Need of transclusion' pages? -- something that doesn't leave the index place-holder blank/un-created or inncorrectly statused as "Not Proofread" (Red). -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I can understand the taking of the position, and we have no reasonable process to manage, and it is something that could be incorporated into Special:IndexPages, especially for ready check/review. Application of DONE should be in reference to the author's work, not necessarily all the pages in a typeset book. [Sidenote: While I know what you mean by "worthy", we may want another word that looks to defining the components of what is included or what is excluded]. I would also want for us to indicate that the supplementary material like advertising should not be marked as "WITHOUT TEXT", as while it is not part of the author's work, as it still has a historical & reference value.

I can see two approaches, either the information might be something that we can add to Help:Page Status maybe by broadening the scope of the page. Alternatively we could look to give better instruction on the creation, completion and the status of Index: pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Wiki table style shortcuts[edit]

First, I want to thank billinghurst for the wonderful implementation of the Table style shortcuts. They really help in reducing clutter in table design. — Second, I already added a series of shortcuts for borders, but with limited experience, I should ask those in the know as to which is a better option for tables which have a mix of black and transparent borders, (of which I have A LOT in the PSM project). Which is the proper inverse parameter in case where a visible border is border-left:1px solid black;? Should it be border-left:1px solid transparent; OR border-left:none;? Ineuw 22:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I just added to it, inductiveload is fully (ir)responsible. Not sure that I understand the question, though as the default for these tables is no border, that specifically adding the border is the inverse already, so to maintain the default is not adding anything just leaving it out. I find that we should tend to the KISS principle and only vary from it if and when necessary. Not sure what you are trying to achieve and unable to do, to me the changes introduced seem to reflect the default, and I am not sure when we would need to enforce something different. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The inverse codes are for tables which have more borders showing than hidden. A poor example is THIS TABLE. If the majority of the borders are visible, then the table parameters are include border="1" and the unwanted borders are hidden. It takes less coding and less clutter. By now I am able to do most, but an occasional ambiguity crops up and don’t know which is the correct option for hiding a border in this context.Ineuw 14:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC) —P.S: THIS TABLE is a better example but I didn’t have the template codes yet.Ineuw 14:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

To answer my own question: border-left:none; doesn’t work. Only border-left:1px solid transparent; works in a mixed tabe. I corrected the template and the results can be seen here: Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 12.djvu/59.Ineuw 02:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Advice needed on converting text/image[edit]

What is the threshold for preserving an artists work versus digitization? I am working on this book and I am having a difficult time finding a way to crop the S in such a manner that would allow for the remainder of the text to be seated next to it. I am considering excluding the S altogether but am hesitant; does anyone have advice? - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I consider the text an intrinsic part of the image. The only way to honour the intent of the original publication and capture the text, is to use an image of the entire plate, and include the text as |alt= text. Hesperian 05:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Books like that are both delightful to view and problematic to reproduce. They are also something that I could see that we could say need a non-standard approach to page transclusion in that we have both image and text. I have no answer, and would feel that a solution that preserved the images and tastefully produced a searchable text version would be a great solution. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
You could get good scans and remove the background, then arrange the sequence of images - not sure I see an advantage in transclusion for that. You could transcribe the text as well, but it is probably going to turn up in other works; creating a {{versions}} page would sort any or all of these options. cygnis insignis 07:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Just a couple of ideas.
  1. I found a someway similar problem into old engravings with some text inside (very difficult to read). I used ImageMap to solve the issue. But I don't know if an alternate text of a mapped image is searchable.
  2. I use sometimes display=hidden and display=none stiles. Is text inside a display=hidden dv searchable? If it is, this could be the solution; the trancsluded page could contain both the image, and the hidden text. --Alex brollo (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Dotted summary rows[edit]

I'm happy to let you know that there's a new (simple!) trick to solve the problem of "dotted summary rows", only requiring two new css classes. An example implementation can be found into the new template {{Dotted summary row}} (thanks to George Orwell III for suggestions and fixing!); you'll find needed css settings into the template doc. So far, the trick is being tested into it.source and vec.source. --Alex brollo (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

How to make Hidden-Table work[edit]

Hi.May I ask something about some code that don't work on th.wikisouce.org.(admin on that site cannot help me.)I cannot use hide-able table like this (en-sandbox/th-sandbox) on th.wikisouce.org,but it work just fine on en.wikisource.org. How can I make it work on th.wikisource.org.Thanks for any advice,and I'm sorry for bring some question that dose not relate to English version of wikisource.--Bpitk

Music![edit]

I'm working on a robust template for musical notation on pages like this one. A sample can be seen here. Right now I just want to make sure that the spacing between notes looks good. Can someone who is familiar with musical scores take a look? A little research tells me that this template will also require rests, beams, ties, slurs, crescendos and diminuendos (whew!). I am looking for someone with whom I can keep in touch as I add these features, to make sure they look right to a trained eye. --Eliyak T·C 17:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Angelprincess72 is the one knowledgeable about music. I also have some other pages from the same project tagged which require musical notes, however, I was not able to get to them since music is really way beyond me. Kindly let me know when the templates are completed. I would like to learn how to use them.Ineuw 18:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Eliyak, do you realise just how big a task this is? What you are embarking on is essentially the biggest type-setting challenge left in all of WikiMedia. It must be able to cope with a very wide range of musical examples such as the simple one you reference above through to this page, which I've randomly picked from Category:Pages requiring musical examples. Not only that, it must look OK in multiple browsers. There is an open-source product (w:Lilypond) that does what we need it to, but it has a security problem that no-one seems to have the time to sort or solve. See this archived discussion for more details.
With respect to your question about spacing, etc. The spacing for music is not constant as it depends on what else is going on in the bar. However, for a simple ascending scale on crotchets the spacing is fine. Unfortunately, though, on my browser (IE6 - I know, but I've got other software that won't behave with anything else) the bottom line of the staves is missing and there is a white bar after all the tails. This means that for notes with a descending tail, the note head is mostly obliterated and I would have difficulty in playing from the score. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Another way of explaining the same effect as above is that 'StemOfNote.svg' has about 4px of a white background to the right of the black line which should be trimmed from the image to avoid any artificial padding-right to be injected along with the stem image and/or, at the very least, the .svg should be made to have a transparent background - hopefully making the current whitespace to the right no longer an issue. View the svg on anything but a white background and you'll see the approx. 4px of "whitespace" [7] -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Fashinating challenge. :-) I'll follow your bold try with deep interest! --Alex brollo (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, yes - it seems IE6 does not work well with transparency. Even if the stem is fixed, the note-heads will create some white space as well. I guess things won't really display perfectly in IE6. (I will try to find some workaround) As far as complex examples like the one you showed, they will be made possible by the overlay abilities of this template. I think the template can be made with 2-300 components, most of which (the various notes) will be copied from each other with minor modification. --Eliyak T·C 14:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems to behave OK in IE6 now, though it still looks better in e.g. Firefox, IE7. --Eliyak T·C 16:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes the padding/whitespace issue is gone for IE6, 7 & 8. Something is still askew with the measure in the bottom line towards the end on your test page though -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I did notice that. I am using http://ipinfo.info/netrenderer/ to make sure things work right in IE6, and that problem was just taken care of. --Eliyak T·C 21:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Well that renderer sure seems to do the trick - problem is gone here too. i hope others take note and utilize that nifty tool!! -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Split[edit]

I see a "split" button in the top of this page. What would happen if I'd click on it? :-) --Alex brollo (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If it has been page matched Template button.png and they are on the page, then it will apply the text from the main namespace and put it onto the identified and labelled page namespace pages, then transclude the pages of the chapter/work back onto the page. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The reason it appears on this particular page is that there is a section called Page:Hoyt's New Cyclopedia Of Practical Quotations (1922).djvu/26. Apparently any page with a complete page link as a section title causes the split button to appear. As for what it would do, there's only one way to find out =) —Spangineer (háblame) 12:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
OK. The result is... nothing. ;-) --Alex brollo (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh that was the reference, I thought it had been forgotten. Removing the hypertext link in the heading doesn't seem to have had an effect. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Librivox[edit]

I could not find this in past discussions, but I am wondering if we are allowed to truncate audio files from Librivox. One which I have found begins with mentioning the Librivox site, then the name of the reader and her personal site. I would prefer if none of this where in the recording. The file information could point to the source, and mention the name of the reader. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The files are not specifically hosted at Wikisource, so that is more a question for Commons and the licence that is applied to the Librivox contributions. I would think that it is less likely for much of the work that Wikisource hosts that we would be using Librivox as the basis for a contribution or a transcription, as would normally be looking to go back to the earlier and original source. Librivox would add value/sit beside a contribution that we have as text, alternatively it would be linked to from the Author: namespace page to the file at Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
The work I have found (here) is for The Velveteen Rabbit; however, with the files released by Librivox as PD (in place of CC) I do not think I can modify them. - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
According to their website and wiki, they release the recordings into the public domain. As that is the case, you can do anything you want with them. As the wiki page I linked says, "LibriVox takes texts already in the public domain, asks volunteers to make audio recordings of that text, and then releases the resulting audio back into the public domain. This means that if you volunteer to record for LibriVox, you are agreeing to release the audio files you make into the public domain. This means that anyone can use those audio files however they wish.". - Htonl (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for finding that. - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree you can edit the Librivox recordings mercilessly. I think it would be nice however, if you added in any information removed from the recoding to the metadata on the Commons page for that file.--BirgitteSB 18:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

please undelete Robert Elise translation[edit]

we now have permission to use the translations from Robert Elise, can we please undelete the work? User_talk:Prosfilaes#Permissions thanks mike Mdupont (talk)

At this moment, I will allow the person who deleted the work the opportunity to undertake the undeletion. That said, we need to go through a permissions process to keep the works, and it is a process that is aligned with Commons process, especially relevant if you are planning/have uploaded files to Commons to transclude here. Have a look at Commons:OTRS. The differences that apply here reasonably obvious, you would need to state the urls where the works are located at enWikisource [[wikisource:en:(name of work in main namespace)]] and generally we would ask that you send the email to mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org . Noting that you can bundle a Commons and a Wikisource permission into the same email. The tag to use here is {{OTRS pending}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Exporting from Wikisource / making Wikisource more accessible[edit]

Hi all. Since I got involved here almost a year ago, one thing in particular has been particularly worrying me about the sustainability and long-term role of this project. How do you export finished works, and make use of them in other situations? (and, in a lot of cases, the question of how you [get a work finished / decide when it is finished] also applies.)

An example: works completed by Project Gutenberg are currently freely available on the iPhone/iPad via Apple's book store. More generally, you can download their works as raw text files, and reuse them however you want. This means that works processed there have a much greater impact than those processed here. To read a work proofread here, you either need to be using an internet browser, or you need to download a PDF of the work. Neither of these fit in with how people commonly access books, and without a significant mindset change that's unlikely to happen. Compare to Wikipedia, where before 2001 you would need to pick up a physical book, and afterwards you'd just need to do a Google search no matter where you were in relation to the closest library/bookshelf. That approach is very unlikely to apply to Wikisource, where you typically need to become absorbed by a book rather than wanting to access it randomly wherever you happen to be.

What I'm wondering is: is there a way to make Wikisource works more accessible? If so, would that be via increasing its accessibility e.g. via Apple's bookstore/other online outlets of eBooks? or would it be making physical books derived from the proofread works easily obtainable? or is it a case of just proofreading more books here, and making them available via Google/Wikipedia links/etc.?

I don't mean to depress/worry anyone active on the project by asking this. I merely want to help Wikisource have a much bigger impact than it currently does, via thinking about this sort of thing. If it's already been thought about, then I'd love to see some pointers to those discussions. Regardless: if there are ways of increasing Wikisources' visibility/impact, then I'd love to hear them - and I'd love to help bring them about, either via Wikimedia UK or by lobbying the WMF etc. to help. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If the book tool bug is ever resolved, then it will be possible to create paper & ink books of Wikisource texts via PediaPress. From there, it shouldn't be too much trouble to adapt the tool to create files like .epub and .mobi e-books (you can copy and paste for text but adding that to list shouldn't be hard if required). As for when books are "done," proofread books have a "done" setting and others have Template:100%. That would be the contents of Category:Index Validated and Category:Validated. Publicising Wikisource is more complicated. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I, too, would like to see us able to export an ebook type text from a Wikisource book. However, there is a big difference between a Wikisource book and a PG book: the formatting. We have a very rich formatting style here, replete with CSS and some Javascript. Your average PG ebook has no formatting except line breaks, and doesn't even try to do most special characters or illustrations like drop initials. So, we'd need to make decisions about how we deal with our formatting.
  • I have tried to use Calibre to convert the HTML saved by Firefox from a WS book to the MOBI format, and it works, more or less, but it didn't copy some the more interesting features like dropcaps (I got a black square) or some more unusual formatting, though it was still readable. So, we'd need to look into how to convert in an acceptable manner.
  • Second, we have (or should have) a lot of linking, to authors, to mentioned works, to Wikipedia, and so on. How will we deal with this? Do we need to strip out the links, but what about links internally to the work? And how will a script find, from the base page, all the linked pages and assemble them into the right order. We have a lot of "non-standard" works: some books don't have the whole TOC on the first page, for example, and a two level BASEPAGE/Book 1/Chapter 1 structure. And that's before we even consider the works like DNB and EB1911! Perhaps we could have a BASEPAGE/Index (or whatever) with a flat list of the pages, in order, so that a script doesn't need to guess where the pages are and where they go. This could be a condition of "doneness" perhaps!
  • But, yes, we do need to step up the mobile accessibility of WS. I've tried to access it by phone before now just to check a message, and it was miserable! Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 01:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
What is the "book tool bug"? I'm going to be working with the engineers at PediaPress on some usability issues next year (as part of my job with the Foundation). I'm not very knowledgable about Wikisource, but if there are any issues that I can bring up with the PediaPress developers next year, I would be happy to. Kaldari (talk) 02:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
See Bug 21653 --BirgitteSB 01:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
To summarise, the tool reads the <pages> tag but then just prints "<pages>" rather than transcluding the pages from the Page: namespace. The tool is fine with straight text, it just doesn't play well with the proofreading extension. However, the book tool already solves some of the problems InductiveLoad mentions. For example, it removes wikilinks and creates its own table of contents. It's a little more complicated than a single button click at the moment but pre-generated books in Wikisource:Books will partially fix that. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
With the Page mode tools it is very simple to obtain the entire text on one page, like this, with only one line:
<pages index="Essays in librarianship and bibliography.djvu" from=19 to=363 header=1 />
and what’s more, you have the choice of three different layouts in the options menu in the left of the screen.
--Zyephyrus (talk) 10:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Mike

From my point of view, one of the things that WMUK could do is to wave, kick, scream, bite to get attention advocate within the WMF family to get some of the blocks to internal system developments/application that hamper our external growth.

  • Bugzilla:21653 (as discussed above). Until we can have tools that parse the transcluded, rather than display the underlying code, we cannot put the output into other forms
  • Bugzilla:18861 which is due to WS's own search engine that cannot parse transcluded pages so it will only find text if you manually select the Page: namespace, and that is not where we wish to display our work
  • To note that we finally had bugzilla:21526 implemented, and such a simple fix took multiple months to get attention. We still have programming that needs to be done to get Lilypond implemented. In short, it seems that we aren't sexy enough to capture the attention of developers, though there is a general malaise surrounding developments across WMF.

Things that might also be of value

  • At this point of time we do not have a ready means to push news of new works and activities to the world. Some ready ability to have feeds on some of the activity around WS:FT, WS:PotM and Template:New texts to the larger world. The world uses Facebook, Twitter and blogs/newsfeeds, so us having some means to simply populate some of those forums in an informative means would be excellent.
  • We would do well with archive.org/openlibrary.org to be added into their sites as hosting some of those works, or as links for the works and for authors. We offer a niche area within that operation set.
  • We need to better coordinate activities with Wikipedia. I am sure that if WP better knew of the ability to get the historical data hosted in full, that would be of interest, plus if there was a means to set up WP so it could transclude portions (as labelled sections?) of WS text, then that would attractive, and drive traffic. Our presence as a site over their is minimalistic, and we would do well to setup a project there about what we do here, and to help people to utilise WS. I would suggest that each of the xxWS try and do something similar.
  • We could do more with Commons, especially in seeking interest in helping extract images for pages in Category:Problematic, and it seems a place where the joint xxWS could run a multilingual project, or at least have a combined effort to promote our wares.

billinghurst sDrewth 00:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

  • One thing I don't understand is why WikiSource adopted using the <pages> transclusion method if it causes so many problems. Why not wait until the bugs are worked out before adopting it for widespread use? Kaldari (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
That transcription method is part of the ProofreadPage extension. Which is basically the only thing that allows us to validate anything longer than a poem with any confidence. (And is the greatest thing since sliced bread)--BirgitteSB 05:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
You also have to look at the order of things and their development.
  • ProofreadPage pre-dates the Book tool
  • Waiting for developments to get done by WMF is like toasting bread with a cold fork. It goes stale very quickly. No-one knew that WMF development was going to get stuck in the mire, and that reflects that they had a reliance on a couple of key people, rather than a good system.
  • One cannot identify all bugs until a development takes place, and if there is no identified need for a change it won't happen (chicken v egg). Plus the developments have to be done in the production space, as there is no dedicated staging area where all the bits are available. Also volunteers don't usually want to do hundreds of pages of ProofreadPage for the joy of no output. Most of us are here to try to achieve something. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Help editing my first djvu[edit]

After much trial and error (and assistance from the Wikisource community), I have successfully created my first djvu on Wikisource: The Salticidae (Spiders) of Panama. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find much documentation on how to properly set it up and edit it. Am I using the mysterious pagelist tag correctly? What exactly do I put in the Table of Contents for the Index? How do I make it so that the header and page number appear correctly on all the pages? If this is all explained somewhere else, please direct me to the proper place. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You have identified one of our major weaknesses: documentation. We are working on it, slowly! It looks like the pagelist is OK, there are tricks to getting roman numerals in them if you need. As for the contents, you need to proofread the contents pages of the book and then transclude them into the box on the index page. You can see Index:Picturesque New Zealand, 1913.djvu for an example of both of those. For the headers, you can either fill them in by hand on each subpage, or you can transclude your pages like this:
<pages index="The Salticidae (Spiders) of Panama.djvu" from=56 to=57 header=1 />
If the index page has a fully linked table of contents, and the gods smile on you, a header will appear by magic, with the fore- and back-links filled in for you. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 01:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I finally figured out how to edit headers and footers by digging into the HTML and Javascript. It looks like you have to click on the [+] button. I have to consider this an interface FAIL, as I never would have guessed that one. Kaldari (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Even the tooltip for that button gives no hint as to what it is for: "toogle noindex sections visibility". It might as well have been written in Klingon :) Why not "Edit headers and footers" or just replacing the button with a link that says that? Kaldari (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you were talking about {{header}}s in the main namespace.
There's a gadget in your preferences (under Gadget->"Editing tools for Page: namespace") to turn them on permanently. Also there's a note above every newly created Page: page's editbox saying "To open and close the header and footer fields, toggle [+]." ;-) Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 02:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, guess I didn't read that when I created the page. My bad! Kaldari (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by "transclude your pages"? Kaldari (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
You write the contents of the page into the Page: namespace, and "transclude" into the relevant page in the main namespace using the code like this:
<pages index="The Salticidae (Spiders) of Panama.djvu" from=56 to=57 />
This will make the pages appear in the mainspace, but they remain next to the original scan in the Page: space. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 02:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, that's useful to know! I was creating two copies of each page before. Kaldari (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
H:SIDE has useful information about the page-wise editing workflow. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 06:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the toolbar button, I've created MediaWiki:Proofreadpage toggleheaders, which changes the text appearing as the tooltip. If other wording is desired, let me or another administrator know. —Spangineer (háblame) 00:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

A possilbly controversial upload[edit]

While dragging into human-animal relationship, particularly about man/horse relationship, I tried a new way: to study literature about slavery - the pro-slavery side of the controversy. I didn't find so far what I was seaching for - something like a "training manual" for slaves but I found this ver interesting booklet: The duties of masters and slaves respectively: (1845). It's so a controversial, and potentially hurting topic, that here I am to ask you some comments and permission of your community to upload it. --Alex brollo (talk) 09:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

  • No problem by me, we already have some w:Anti-Tom literature here, I came across it while cleaning up templates. This is a place to store historical documents, and not all of history is erudition and daring exploration. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok thanks. I'll post a brief explanation of the aim of my upload into its Talk page; feel free to edit it and/or add comments based on community rules and feel. --Alex brollo (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Text Size Toggle[edit]

I started working on books for children and intentionally enlarging the text, primarily due to our standard text size being, in my opinion, fairly small. This can be changed many ways, ie in the browser or even in the PC settings. However, computers are typically shared, so something internal to WS should take care of that. I also enjoy consistency among the pages, so editing each work for a specific text size seems tedious, and for some, unnecessary as they may have the setting outside of WS to enlarge the text in their browser or computer. In fact, one large work (that I can't recall at the moment) which was validated offered very large font and looked great on my PC, but after viewing it on a different computer with a smaller resolution, the text size was largely unnecessary, and made the page length gigantic as roughly 10 words fit per line. I think that if all of our pages were constructed in the default text size there would be some benefits:

  1. Uniformity among the appearance of pages
  2. One less parameter to consider when building
  3. Give users the option of size regardless of their browser/PC settings

There are also some problems with compatibility I imagine on existing pages which already define text sizes, as well as page widths. But maybe we could start with some test pages if you like the idea? Let me know what you think. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

We generally recommend that people under-format rather than over-format, though where a work is more artistic, then there has been a tendency to be follow the trend. Some do like to go towards a replica rather than a transcription. Most of our size changes are done as relative rather than fixed. We also see that issue with page widths, especially with the emergency of wide screens. It is all a challenge and one where we need vigilance. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

A (bold; mad?) idea[edit]

What about the idea of a Index:Sandbox.djvu page, pointing to a locally uploaded "anthology" djvu file collecting a series of texts, sorted for increasing difficulty? IMHO, it would be great both for beginners, and for expert users. Perhaps more useful than many help pages. I'd just need it for some tests about the issue of "splitted p element into two pages" :-) --Alex brollo (talk) 10:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sound like a good idea to me; knock yourself out. File:Sandbox.djvu already exists as a testing page, feel free to overwrite it and replace with a longer, more complex work or collection of works munged into one big DjVu. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 20:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for appreciation. Really I think it is better to write an example text from scratch, with increasing difficulties of formatting and rendering, in html or word, then converting it into a djvu image; I know from experience that it is very tedious to find good, existing pages to use as a model. But - the file djvu itself IMHO can be a "test file", since boldest users could be encouraged to edit it appending more djvu pages, so testing their skill using DjvuSolo or DjvuLibre routines. So, building djvu file would turn into a useful exercise for any interested user! --Alex brollo (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, I got a start to this strange project: Index:The book of try and learn.djvu. Its design and aim is written... into Page 1 of the text, since the fresh idea is to insert into the text both help and examples. Please consider it only a try and a temptative project; and simply delete it if anyway disturbing! --Alex brollo (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Perseus open texts now cc-by-sa[edit]

Have people caught wind of their December 13, 2010 announcement: [8]? It seems like a fabulous opportunity for us and for them to promote the classics. I understand that the cleaned up format of the Plutarch texts is easier to deal with than previous versions have been, as well. -- ArielGlenn (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Header template upgrades[edit]

I have prepared a version of {{header}} which includes a "section author" and "editor" field. It also includes an update to prevent {{plain sister}} being called when no parameters are given. I have listed the new version at Template talk:Header, fixed or improved issues raised there and I think it's ready for roll-out. If others would like to have a poke and look for bugs, that would be appreciated, since the template is used on a lot of pages.

Comments, suggestions or thoughts? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment -- They look fine to me, though not sure if there is enough of a need re: editor parameter. Turning off 'Plain Sister' unless needed is worth the changes alone. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikisource:Alternate accounts[edit]

Proposal to upgrade Wikisource:Alternate accounts from a proposed policy to an accepted policy. JeepdaySock (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer that we start from a clean slate, and write a very simple policy along the lines of
Alternative accounts must be disclosed publicly. or privately to all 'crats (and checkusers?) who are individually and separately empowered and responsible for publicly disclosing the link at any time they deem it appropriate to inform the community, and this responsibility overrides any expectations of the account holder or a third party.
Public disclosure covers nearly all normal situations (bots, public and maintenance accounts, old accounts, etc) and the private disclosure ensures a) all responsible people must be informed, and b) nobody can place expectations on them to remain silent. Not telling them is inappropriate; telling them means they are responsible for disclosure if/when they think it is necessary. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
There needs to be something more rigorous. If we go with what John says, it needs to be a permanent disclosure, and an elevated test
Alternative accounts must be disclosed publicly and permanently, or in cases of extenuating (exceptional?) circumstances, there is the provision to privately inform all 'crats (and checkusers?) who are individually and separately empowered and responsible for publicly disclosing the link at any time they deem it appropriate to inform the community, and this responsibility overrides any expectations of the account holder or a third party.
Public disclosure has to be more than "I said publicly, somewhere, at some point in time ..." So we would need to designate accepted minimum standards of exposure, though that should be outside of the policy as it is procedural. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's let the Longfellow issue play out at WS:AN - hopefully we will gain some insight into what should be done in such situations. Then, that decision can be added to WS:ALT and it can be upgraded to policy. --Eliyak T·C 16:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
We could stipulate that userpages must be linked bidirectionally, permanently. I agree with Eliyak that we should wait until after the Longfellow issue has concluded before changing policy. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who has an undisclosed past account (no interesting story there; I wouldn't mind disclosing it if it wasn't being considered as a condition for my continued participation here), I can't see how a blanket rule of the nature suggested by JV would improve WS. It is, I suppose, a legitimate concern for prospective admins. For the mass of users though, unless they're using alternate accounts in a problematic way (which is probably actionable already), it isn't anybody's concern but their own.
That's not what I'm writing for though. The proposal was made in reaction to current affairs on Administrators nominations and Administrators' Noticeboard. Jeepday posts this proposal here, JV and billinghurst discuss it, none of them make mention of this. The first reference to it is by Eliyak after the previously mentioned posts. And this is a reference to it in relation to the proposal, rather than a framing of the proposal in relation to it (to their credit, though, they do link AN). Moreover, on AN an involved user put forward a vote of non-confidence against certain involved administrators. BirgitteSB (very admirably) suggested this as a discussion which should be had by the community. On AN, with no notice on Scriptorium. Then later, things got a little out of hand and the user was temporarily banned. The ban was described afterwards by Cygnis as "the community's clear consensus." That whole particular exchange took place over something like 9 hours on AN and some talk pages and involved that user and five or six administrators.
To be clear, I'm not some sort of radical transparentist or wikianarchist. Discussions which start somewhere are hard to bring elsewhere and a lot of decisions can only be made on privileged information. What troubles me is what I perceive as the germ of Wikipediac oligarchism that is a forgetfulness of common users. I only request that our administrators keep in mind that out of 323 active users, 283 of us are not administrators and probably don't read AN and follow Recent Changes. Providing sufficient information when inviting public consultation, actually extending invitations to the public when inviting public consultation, and properly labeling independent administrative decisions as such rather than claiming they're community consensus would be nice. Prosody (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Please add your comment on the block (not a ban) to the section at AN, I will respond to it there. cygnis insignis 02:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I did not make the suggestion in response to the current events that you describe, though I can easily see how it may look that way. At the time I made the suggestion, I was not aware of the Longfellow event as it was unfolding other then as passing admin nomination. This edit brought it up on my watch list, I noticed it had been a year or so with no significant conversation, and then I made the suggestion. Other events were farther up my watch list and I was not aware of them until after I made the suggestion. Had I checked the watch list in a different order, I would not have made the suggestion at this time. Things being what they are this is not the best time for this discussion. I support the suggestions to defer this debate. Jeepday (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
If there is a well known wikiboard, like AN, and there is a decision made there clearly with the narrow interpretation of the scope of that board, I don't think it unreasonable to claim community consensus for that decision of those on the board support it. There are a lot of cases when an administrator does something, like blocking someone or deleting a page, and it's not fair to call it an independent decision because they have communicated with others on AN or Proposed Deletions or whatever the appropriate board was before making that decision.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Following on from Prosody's comments. Good point about other accounts, and someone could easily have them on other sites, and very casually edit from either via a unified login session. Th principle, about other accounts, how we look to a statement along the lines of a declaration of owning other (unnamed) accounts and a principle for their use. Probably all something that should be transferred to the talk page of the statement, before it comes back here. The balance between principles, good practice and procedural fairness. With regard to the topic matter, I think that you will find that Jeepday and myself regularly participate on that subject here. To the other matter, at this moment there isn't a no confidence vote, and if it gets to that point it has been the practice (in my time here) for the 'crats to make that announcement here. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
(response to all) Between what I was wholly mistaken about and what I expressed poorly I seemed to have caused some confusion. I do not and did not object to administrative actions mentioned, but rather what seemed to me like people appealing to public processes as a legitimizing technique without applying them, or applying them minimally. This now appears to a greater or lesser degree unfounded. Sorry. Most importantly, I don't mean to give anyone pause in performing what would otherwise be standard-fare administrative actions. Happy New Year's to all. Prosody (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I think all accounts should be made public automatically if one applies for anything that requires trust (adminship, for example), and any policy going forth must have that for my support. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Image for toolbar button help requested[edit]

First my best wishes to everyone for the coming New Year. Second, would like to use this image from the commons in my vector.js toolbar, unfortunately don't know what I am doing wrong. There may also be a possibility that something is wrong with the image itself. Could someone please help? Thanks.Ineuw 23:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

my .js page

the image file web link

My failed effort:

 if (mwCustomEditButtons) {
  mwCustomEditButtons[mwCustomEditButtons.length] = {
      "imageFile": "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fecha_predefinicao.png",
      "speedTip": " }} ",
      "tagOpen": '}}',
      "tagClose": '',
      "sampleText": ""};
 };
try http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Fecha_predefinicao.png for the file path maybe? It worked for me (edited your's as well). -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it works. Many thanks and have a happy one. Ineuw 00:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ineuw, with EditButtons, one needs to dig down to the actual url of the graphic, so copy the url for the linked title under the image. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This was my first encounter with such an occurrence, and as usual, I was lost and couldn’t figure out why there was a script running on that commons page - a message popped up to that effect on my first two visits to that page. Now, this is added to my knowledge bag. Thanks.Ineuw 18:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting naming conventions & disambiguation[edit]

After separately watching a discussion at Wikisource:Featured text candidates, being asked questions, and seeing works around the site, it would be worthwhile reviewing a piece of work that we started a while ago on how we name works; how we name subpages, how we disambiguate and differentiate. For a review at the previous thought bubbles see Wikisource talk:Naming conventions. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Heads-up to administrative happenings[edit]

Prosody (above) expressed a concern that there the admins hadn't brought a matter to the community's attention a recent request for admin rights and the resultant fall-out. If the matters are not resolved within their respective forums, then a more formal approach to the broader English Wikisource community would be the usual next step. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC) (administrator and checkuser at enWS)

{{Largeinitial}} template tweak[edit]

I would like to tweak the template output closer to the size which appears on this page, but so far no luck. Also, tried to set the appearance to non-serif, if it’s possible. - Happy New Year.Ineuw 04:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done for my monitor {{largeinitial|140%|font=sans-serif}} seems to give what you want. The template is butt-ugly in my opinion, and needs to be on inductiveload's hit list for making useable. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It correctly displays on my monitor as well, and agree about its lack of aesthetics.Ineuw 17:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts about gadgetising parts of our active components for user's talk pages[edit]

A while back we had discussions about the welcome message as it was looked to simplify it. One of the consequences is that some of our active announcement/broadcast boxes are now no longer actively displayed to users, let alone new users. Here I am talking {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} and {{CotW}}.

I am wondering whether maybe there is an opportunity to look to have a gadget option that displays these active functions, and one that would be ON by default, though lets the users to turn them off either collectively or individually. This would allow the simplification of the welcome message, yet still allow the gentle broadcast of some of our more active components, components that have been demonstrated as being useful community activities, and to draw in new users. Before I spend time trying to nut out stuff out (actively ask people to help), I thought that I would float the concept first. It seems that we can do a lot more about providing active information through the use of gadgets that people can toggle off as they become more aligned with the system, and keeps the clutter down on talk pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of Proabivouac[edit]

Hesperian has proposed a ban on Proabivouac. As many users with various needs only have this page for their general help, it seems discourteous and less that desirable affront all users, with the discussion. I am moving the discussion to a subpage, and all people who wish contribute to the discussion are invited to do so at /Proposed community ban of Proabivouac. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I must add a caution on the possible consequences of adding any comment, view, vote or opinion. Please read through the section carefully, familiarize yourself with the reasons given for this user's ban elsewhere before posting. cygnis insignis 10:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference between Wikisource and Wikipedia?[edit]

can anyone tell me the difference between Wikisource and Wikipedia?(www.wikipedia.org)There ran by the same people and look the same. unsigned comment by 77.101.197.185 (talk) .

Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia; and Wikisource is the library (fiction and non-fiction sections). As an example,
  • here you will find books by Alfred Tennyson, or articles about the person. If it has been published and is in the public domain, then we can host a copy, see Wikisource:What Wikisource includes.
  • At Wikipedia you will find the encyclopaedic article about the person; you will find encyclopaedic articles about some of his works. Being an encyclopaedia they have a requirement for notability. What Wikipedia thinks it is
We are sister sites, though joined through one mega-family. I hope that this nutshell helps. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)