# Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help

 ←Scriptorium Scriptorium (Help) Archives, Last archive→
 The Scriptorium is Wikisource's community discussion page. This subpage is especially designated for requests for help from more experienced Wikisourcers. Feel free to ask questions or leave comments. You may join any current discussion or a new one. Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel webclient. Have you seen our help pages and FAQs?

## Correspondence between Gandhi and Tolstoj

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

Best regards from Germany,

Heidi Hacker

## Accessing (.edu - type) Open Courseware Materials

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

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

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

## Soft redirects to other Wikimedia sites

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

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

## When to use 'uc' template to transform text to uppercase

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

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

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

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

When should you use it? Never. Highlight example, copy it, paste it into a text editor: you get "example". Turns out it wasn't upper-case text at all, it was lower-case text masquerading as upper-case text. The template is evil. It should be deleted. Hesperian 06:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Disclaimer: some browsers are smart enough to push upper-case to the clipboard, so your mileage on my copy-paste demo may vary. I think my point stands. Hesperian 06:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
How does the 'evil' argument not equally condemn {{sc}}? {{sc|Example}} (Example) cuts/pastes as "Example", but it looks like E{{x-smaller|XAMPLE}} (EXAMPLE) which cut/pastes as "EXAMPLE". Not too sure where you are going with this argument? 121.218.57.230 06:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
"Example" is obviously styled, and I am comfortable with it decomposing to "Example" when that styling is removed. "EXAMPLE" has the appearance of unstyled text, it can easily be rendered using unstyled text, and I am not comfortable with it actually being completely different text with a surreptitious styling applied to it. Hesperian 00:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Not precisely a defence of this template, but there is a good case to be made for using the parser-function equivalent {{uc:example}} — which produces EXAMPLE — which does screen-scrape correctly and reliably as [EXAMPLE] — and that usage is within templates which may need to compare two strings in a case-insensitive fashion. Simply consistently uppercase/lowercase/capitalise both quantities to be compared (say) in a {{#ifeq:}} test.

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

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

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

## Between Two Loves Title page and TOC

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

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

## Bracketed limits in TeX formulae

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

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

## Custom layout

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

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

## Books without Indexes?

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

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

http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:15_decisive_battles_of_the_world_Vol_1_%28London%29.djvu/101&action=history

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

KenJ

• KenJ
*KenJ

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

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

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

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

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

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

## After Action Report 770th FA

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

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

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

    umberado@comcast.net


David Williams

## Problem with MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js in Ukrainian Wikisource

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

Works for me in Firefox. I can see the page number. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
That was sort of the point DixonD was making. I also use Firefox (and the page reference works) which is why I did not feel it worthy of mention before. Now can some kind Chrome user try/verify/analyse this issue? AuFCL (talk) 07:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it works in Firefox and IE. It doesn't work in Chrome and Safari (I guess because they both use WebKit). --DixonD (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Fwiw... it works in IE 11's F12 Developer Tools using Chrome emulation. Granted, that is not the same thing as running Chrome itself but its been fairly consistent with actual Chrome behavior in my experience.

Since I can't replicate the problem, I have to ask: are the embedded links for 59 on also not rendering?

And as an aside; my console is also reporting several instances of Use of "addOnloadHook" is deprecated. Use jQuery instead. (see here) which could be affecting things related to this particular issue. Someone who knows better than I should be able to help straighten that out. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

## User:Ignatus/Old Russian birch barks

I wanted to translate into Wikisource some birch barks from http://gramoty.ru. What do you think about this idea and the way I'm using for it? Ignatus (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Maybe have each artefact as a separate subpage, and put the "commentary" in the notes section of the header? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

## Update Easton's Bible Dictionary total pages and percentage

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Talk:Easton%27s_Bible_Dictionary_%281897%29#Status

I've updated the number of pages on the above, but could someone please update the total and percentage of pages. It has a maths percentage template and I'm not good at maths. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Something changed recently, so that the {{header}} template no longer seems to link correctly to categories whose name includes an apostrophe.

See this version where the problem is manifested. I have cludged a workaround for now by moving the category in question out of the header. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it has more to do with Module:String -- which is called by the header template to handle the category parameter -- than anything else. I'll have to ask someone over on Wikipedia to take a look so this might take awhile (unless somebody here has the chops to troubleshoot this of course). -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
(e/c)I would hazard it was this edit to {{header}} which is most likely responsible. I might further guess that the pattern group [%w%s-] which occurs twice therein should probably be amended to at least [%w'%s-] (i.e. add single quote to match element) as %s does not match any punctuation. Further analysis of allowed characters is probably justified.) AuFCL (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Made that change and it seems to work now. We'll deal other punctuation failures as they present themselves I suppose. Thanks for the fix, AuFCL. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Here is a short list of existing representative categories (a couple of whom are empty and perhaps ought to be deleted instead?) of cases which still trip up the LUA filters: I make no pretense this list is comprehensive, but bearing in mind the broad variety above may I make a case for replacing the overly-complicated coding (Honestly! One replace to remove the empty entry created in error by the other two?) in {{header}}:
-->{{#if:{{{categories|}}}
|{{#invoke:String|replace|{{#invoke:String|replace|{{#invoke:String|replace|{{{categories}}}|([%w'%s-]-)%s?/%s?|[[Category:%1]]|plain=false}}|([%w'%s-]-)\$|[[Category:%1]]|plain=false}}|%[%[Category:%]%]||plain=false}}
}}<!--
with the somewhat simpler (though still ugly)
-->{{#if:{{{categories|}}}
|[[Category:{{#invoke:String|replace|{{{categories}}}|(%s)/(%s)|%1]][[Category:%2|plain=false}}]]}}<!--
? I appreciate the output of the latter is not stripped of spaces like the original code; the wiki engine really does not seem to care and still finds the correct category (at least in all my experiments to date. Feel free to verify/repudiate, please.) AuFCL (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

## Partial scan page in edit window

I am able to see only part of the scan page at this page, but the full page is visible on clicking the image button. Hrishikes (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I am sympathetic, as of right now the scan really does show up correctly for me. Did you perhaps purge the page (or possibly even the very act of your editing the page "fixed" the issue)? Is it still misbehaving for you? AuFCL (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The page is now OK. I did not purge or did anything, I did not understand the mechanics. Anyway, now it's OK. Hrishikes (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Sad to say sometimes these things "just happen" and after the problem goes away there is nothing really logged to indicate what had gone wrong. All I can suggest is, if it happens again try, in turn, each of the page operations "Purge", "Hard purge" and "Null edit" (all available from the tab-menu at the top of the page—may be hidden under the "More" tab.) I do not mean you need to execute all three operations; merely try one and see if the problem goes away and if not move on to the next choice and repeat. These tend to fix most problems, but of course in cases of stubborn failure ask again for assistance as the cause in that case might then still vary from server/database connection problems to system/javascript errors etc. etc. (Unlikely but possible.) AuFCL (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
No, the problem is still persisting in my tablet. Previously I had checked with my mobile, and there the page is OK. But not in the tab. I have tried all your given methods; null edit fails, and purge/hard purge does not give any result in this case. Sorry for bothering, but I am not able to fix it. Does not much matter, I think, as it is OK with other browsers. Hrishikes (talk) 11:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Right at present I have completely run out of useful ideas. However in order to assist anybody else who might be able to solve this issue here are some thoughts as to items it might be good to collect and report (in no particular priority; skip items which make no sense/are impossible):
• What make and model is the tablet?
• Are there particular pages which always show the partial scan problem (which ones?) or is it intermittent and/or random (i.e. sometimes works)?
• Do you know which browser it/you are using? Please report its name and version number.
• Does the tablet/browser have any kind of javascript or error console/log, and if so does it contain any messages which might help diagnose the problem?
• Are you using the standard browser referrer/user-agent? (This probably only makes sense if you have taken deliberate steps to change it.)
• Can you think of anything else which makes your tablet/browser "different" from a browser on which the problem never (or rarely) occurs?
Pardon the dump of questions and I hope somebody can take up this cause with more success than I. AuFCL (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
It's Galaxy Tab3, Chrome 38.0.2125.114. I think it's more to do with the cache from some earlier time, having some network problem at that time. This cache is not going away with purging. This is the only page where this problem is occurring. Please don't bother, it's not very important, this page being the only one. Hrishikes (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

## Apparent "automatic" edits in Page: space—Is there something going wrong with Show changes/Preview?

If I open any Page: name space containing pre-existing header or footer content for editing, and immediately select "Show changes" I am presented with a display which implies the "Page status" has been forced to "Not proofread" from whatever it was before; and that both the header and footer areas have been blanked. That is to say the "Difference" display acts as if they are blank, but the actual header and footer edit areas remain intact.

In similar fashion "Preview" always shows the salmon "This page needs to be proofread." band irrespective of the current or intended state of the page.

However insofar as I can tell, both of these displays are "lying," because when actually saved only content actually edited changes.

This "fault" only manifests itself when I am logged in. "Preview" and "Show changes" perform flawlessly when logged out (but of course it is then impossible to change validation states.)

I have tried disabling various preference/gadgets/local scripting to no avail, and am currently quite out of ideas.

Is this perhaps a known issue? I like to be able to check preview before saving changes but can I put any trust into what it is reporting? AuFCL (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not getting this behavior at my end. It may have to do with your preferences, cache, connection, or some such, but it does not appear at this time to be a general phenomenon. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I am also not getting any such phenomenon. Must be local problem at your end. Hrishikes (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks both for your observations. I remain at a loss. This is more of an annoyance than an outright disability. AuFCL (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Additional: George Orwell III isolated this. Side-effect of having Preferences/Live Preview selected. Thanks all! AuFCL (talk) 06:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

## Can pages with mixed up words be redone ?

Why do some pages have the words of the right column interspersed with the words of the left column while other pages have the words of each column clearly separated ?

Index:Woman's_who's_who_of_America,_1914-15.djvu

Robin2014 (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This has to do with how the text layer of the file was generated. Typically, this is done outside Wikisource, and whether the columns are mixed or not can depend on a variety of factors. Ultimately, it comes down to the quality of the scan and how smart the OCR software was. I have one work started that I have put onto a lengthy pause because of this problem, but in my case it's a result of the OCR having trouble with a text where there is a single block of body text and two columns of smaller font footnotes on every page. The body text came out fine, but the footnotes are all garbled together.
One option would be to use OCR on your own computer, copying and re-interpreting the text block by block. Anyone assisting you would probably be doing something similar. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
In general, we don't assemble as a column but as a page, which I recommend, as it was done here. Still it's a hell of a job to assemble the paragraphs line by line. I would follow EncycloPetey's advice and try both methods to find your preference.— Ineuw talk 23:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I have proofread a few pages of this book. If I understand the history tab of the index page it seems this book was added June 2011. I was thinking that perhaps the OCR process had improved so that it would be productive to redo this book. The book file is at wikicommons. Should I - for now [until I find this to be futile] - marked the pages where the words from right side are interspersed with left side as 'problematic' and continue to proofread the pages where the words are in alignment. ? Robin2014 (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
You could selectively work on pages, of course, but "re-doing" the OCR for the file would mean having the file reprocessed at the Internet Archive, where the file actually originated. It is not something we normally do here. The IA have a rather sophisticated OCR process that they use. However, there is no guarantee that running the process again would improve the results for a work in columns, and no certainty as to what sort of priority they would assign the task. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
There are for "different" copies available on Internet Archive. The 1st is the one you worked on (a Rutgers University contribution), the 2nd and 3rd are from Google/Harvard both of which are very poor copies, and this one donated by the Allen County Public Library Genealogy Center. with this text layer. Look at this text and if it's better, then we can replace the Index file. This means that you should copy out the proofread text pages and store them somewhere because they would be lost.— Ineuw talk 18:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
My guess is that text will not change, as pages have already been 'saved'. Concerned pages will have to be overwritten (or better deleted, so the new text layer will be fetched).--Mpaa (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure if it's by the same publisher with the same pagination. GO3 would be my source for accurate info in such matters. I meant that Robin2014 should copy the few proofread pages and place them in the user's subfolder just in case to save the past effort.— Ineuw talk 19:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Why is everyone talking only about the pre-existing text layer? WS text layer can also be generated by clicking the OCR button. I usually use this method and have found it to be reasonably accurate. Alternatively, the pdf file can be downloaded from IA and run through an OCR like ABBYY FineReader or some such. That may give result different from IA, although they also use this OCR. Hrishikes (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it can be done that way, but it means that the supporting Source file is missing that layer. We prefer to have a complete source file on Commons, with all the available layers in place. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘

While EncycloPetey is correct in saying there is no guarantee [re]running the derive process at the Internet Archive will improve the quality of the scan images, the embedded text or both, there are some clues one should look for in formulating the optimal selection for us to host. Typically, the choices facing possible contributors comes between the existing, multiple hostings of a work @ IA and/or the decision to re-derive any particular copy of those existing work(s). Since the particular work mentioned earlier happens to be the oddity rather than the norm @ IA, the following will be a short primer pointing to those clues.

Opening the index page for before-mentioned, IA hosted work, we get...

Without diving too deep into the details just yet, one thing is obvious -- the source file uploaded to Commons is approximately 4-years, 3-months old already. How old was the source file uploaded to Internet Archive that produced the file ultimately uploaded to Commons? Can't say with any certainty but for our argument's sake, lets say this book was scanned and the resulting file or files were uploaded for processing by IA on the same day.

So what does a 4.3 year difference make? You tell me. Our example file's derive history highlights on the left and a 2 day old file's derive history highlights to the right -- note the (v##### or version no. for each.

 <--- BookOp SetupMetaXML (v30094 Sep08 09:19) Starting PDT: 2010-09-08 09:19:58 ---- <--- BookOp DevelopRawJp2 (v30003 Sep08 09:20) Starting PDT: 2010-09-08 09:20:01 ---- <--- BookOp AbbyyZipToGz (v13154 Sep08 09:20) Starting PDT: 2010-09-08 09:20:01 ---- <--- BookOp DevelopMekel (v18767 Sep08 09:20) Starting PDT: 2010-09-08 09:20:01 ---- <--- Module ProcessJP2 (v30682 2010Sep08 09:20) Starting PDT: 2010-09-08 09:20:30 ---- <--- Module AnimatedGIF (v30465 2010Sep08 15:35) Starting PDT: 2010-09-08 15:35:55 ---- <--- Module AbbyyXML (v30243 2010Sep08 15:36) Starting PDT: 2010-09-08 15:36:44 ---- Updating meta.xml with ocr = "ABBYY FineReader 8.0" <--- Module DjvuXML (v28794 2010Sep09 01:28) Starting PDT: 2010-09-09 01:28:18 ---- <--- Module PDF (v21957 2010Sep09 02:26) Starting PDT: 2010-09-09 02:26:23 ---- <--- Module DjVu (v27253 2010Sep09 02:26) Starting PDT: 2010-09-09 02:26:23 ---- <--- Module JPEGCompPDF (v30180 2010Sep09 04:17) Starting PDT: 2010-09-09 04:17:53 ---- <--- Module HackPDF (v23989 2010Sep09 04:17) Starting PDT: 2010-09-09 04:17:54 ---- <--- Module GrayscalePdf (v29966 2010Sep09 07:22) Starting PDT: 2010-09-09 07:22:26 ---- <--- Module DJVUTXT (v23986 2010Sep09 11:19) Starting PDT: 2010-09-09 11:19:28 ---- <--- BookOp SetupMetaXML (v63345 Jan01 20:30) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 20:30:00 ---- <--- BookOp DevelopRawJp2 (v38364 Jan01 20:30) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 20:30:01 ---- <--- BookOp AbbyyZipToGz (v59030 Jan01 20:30) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 20:30:01 ---- <--- BookOp DevelopMekel (v38252 Jan01 20:30) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 20:30:01 ---- <--- Module ProcessJP2 (v54800 2015Jan01 20:30) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 20:30:02 ---- <--- Module AnimatedGIF (v50716 2015Jan01 20:41) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 20:41:35 ---- <--- Module AbbyyXML (v60634 2015Jan01 20:42) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 20:42:15 ---- Updating meta.xml with ocr = "ABBYY FineReader 9.0" <--- Module DjvuXML (v38071 2015Jan01 21:17) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 21:17:17 ---- <--- Module EPUB (v36000 2015Jan01 21:18) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 21:18:43 ---- <--- Module DjVu (v38041 2015Jan01 21:18) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 21:18:49 ---- <--- Module TOC (v39713 2015Jan01 21:34) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 21:34:07 ---- <--- Module ScandataXML (v35935 2015Jan01 21:34) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 21:34:07 ---- <--- Module PDF (v35935 2015Jan01 21:34) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 21:34:11 ---- <--- Module HackPDF (v35935 2015Jan01 21:34) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 21:34:11 ---- <--- Module DJVUTXT (v38312 2015Jan01 21:34) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 21:34:58 ----

Not only have the modules and software been updated in those 4 some-odd years but we are presented with an unusual opportunity in this case. Look closer at the Index of files for our example... notice the .PDF file (line 4) is not the "oldest" file of the bunch? This means it wasn't the original source file uploaded to IA for processing but one of the result products of the processing. The .tar archive (line 17) of presumably 1 .jp2 file for every 1 page scanned is the source file.

Now a bad scan is bad scan and no amount of re-jiggering will dramatically improve on resulting quality of files derived. The flip side being a good-scan is a good scan and re-running the latest derive modules and updated software against it will likely improve results one way or the other - maybe even all around (i.e. better thumbnails and a superior text-layer).

So what should you take away from all this... INVEST SOME TIME and RESEARCH into what you select for upload & hosting by us and stop letting the 'eye candy of the moment' guide your decision making for you!!! -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Oops, a full-scale Ph.D. thesis! Anyway, good scan and good OCR software is needed for good OCR text, no argument about that. But after that, the human element is also important, otherwise, bots could have done all the proofreading. However good your text layer may be, it is not likely to be perfect; some pains has to be taken by a member of the human species too! The works I am doing at present (list at my user page), while notable in their own fields, most are very difficult to render digitally, what with bad scan, diacritical marks, unicode characters, problematic formatting, lots of pictures, nearly illegible pages, even missing pages -- which I have to hunt out from alternate sources. But, to tell the truth, with all your blessings, I am doing fine, with time-to-time help from the experts. Not being techno-savvy at all, I rely mostly on the human element. Moreover, if machines can do all the work bar the finishing touches, then where is the challenge for the human mind? Hrishikes (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
It was not my intention to step on anyone's toes or to belittle someone's point of view -- merely to offer my learned approach to this particular subject matter. The fact the work in question was the exception to the norm was the real reason I felt more detail would only enhance comprehension.

Nevertheless - I beg to differ with your point. "Bots" should be doing as much -- if not all -- the proofreading and layout as possible. Had some smart soul developed a way by now to use the coordinate mapping found in basic XML formats that are compiled from dimensions set in stone at the time of scanning and then re-addressed again when characters are associated with those coordinates (OCR'd), then all us humans would be concerned with is just validating the work of Bots. The way things stand now (and for the foreseeable future) we get a plain text dump by what can never be mistaken for a Bot and have to do both the proofreading And the validating never mind the layouts.

Q: When will humans rise up and demand Bots do more for Wikisource?
A: Not any time soon; they are still too busy compensating for typewriter-era line-feeds, carriage returns, non-breaking hyphens and unwanted whitespace every session to stop long enough to formally protest anything. :) -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I have learned a few things from this discussion. There seem to be 2 items - First - the IA copy from Allen Co Public Library says digitized in 2014 BUT I noticed that it is missing pg 22 and pages like 824-825 have a few letters cut off in the binding fold. However, its text file has some pages that have better ocr results, e.g. p36 that I could use to cut and paste paragraphs as I proofread the existing file on Wikisource.

Second - "we are presented with an unusual opportunity in this case .." What does it take to re-run the latest derive modules ? Robin2014 (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

## Page:A_Treatise_on_Electricity_and_Magnetism_-_Volume_1.djvu/123

Currently as text, but marked as problematic as there was a penciled Erattum?

Correct using pencilled erattum or not?. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No. The pencil marks are not the text as published. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
OK , Might be worth an annotation though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Only in a separate version of the text, per the annotations policy. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

## Legal status of Wikipedia "public domain" designation

Gentlemen:

I have recently written a short book on the early history of aviation. This book contains many images from Wikipedia which bear the designation "Public Domain". The publisher with whom I am negotiating the publication of this book has taken the position that the label of an image as in the public domain because Wikipedia is subject to editing by any interested party, and the 'public domain_ designation may be invalid because of external editing.

Is this indeed the case? Can the "public domain" designation be the result of editing by unauthorized parties?

Robert L White

rlwhite450@gmail.com unsigned comment by 67.180.74.79 (talk) .

Hello Robert: This is not Wikipedia. However, I believe you will find the information you are looking for at w:Wikipedia:Image use policy#Public domain.—Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Robert. First of, let me quickly apologize for rather vague language I'm about to use (and that some others might also use). The main reason for this is that if I say anything which turns out to be wrong, and this would be considered legal advice, all sorts of punishment might be my share. Possibly even if I'm not wrong, as since I'm not a lawyer, I'm not qualified to give legal advice, and may not allowed to give any legal advice at all in some jurisdictions, even if it's correct. I'm not sure about all of that, I'm not a lawyer. All this stuff is rather icky.
So the following is expressly not legal advice and only my understanding of public domain images on the Wikimedia projects. As I understand it, images according to US law in the public domain can be reused legally in the United States without any further copyright obligations. If our images are tagged as public domain, that means "some dude(tte) on the internet" determined that the image is in the public domain. That's not a very strong claim. The community around our image database, which is called Wikimedia Commons, are very aware of copyright and follow a very strict interpretation of it. These particular people on the internet care a great deal about copyright and correctly identifying public domain, and I'm convinced that the vast majority of images is tagged correctly. But it's true; anyone could have changed that label, and somehow escaped scrutiny, and the label might be wrong. This doesn't seem to be true for a particularly large fraction of images, but I'm quite certain there exist images that are incorrectly tagged. I would consider it prudent to always double check. If an image has a public domain tag, it will show why the image supposedly is in the public domain. You can check if what the label says is indeed true for yourself. I hope you will then find that all images are correctly tagged, but you might find exceptions, which would be really regrettable, and not our aim at all, but it is nevertheless possible. I hope this at least somewhat helps.grammared for edit, since I can't language Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
You speak the England gooder than many. ;-) — billinghurst sDrewth 14:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
In short, you will need to due diligence on any image that you use, though hopefully we (Commons) have sufficient provenance on the image to allow you to confirm that fact. To also note that there is a difference between English Wikipedia, and Wikimedia Commons. Many of the images used at enWP are from Commons, though some will be locally stored, though each should have a copyright statement. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

## Image/Caption formatting

Seeking the best way to format the image and caption on this page. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The last thing you tried looks good to me. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I wasn't sure about using {{running header}}. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

## Starting/ending sections mid-paragraph

I need to start a section (for the purpose of transcluding) in the middle of a paragraph, but everything I've tried either fails to create the section or creates a paragraph break. Is this possible somehow? If not, could it be implemented? --Jellby (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep second portion of the paragraph within noinclude tag. Then put section tag and repeat the second portion within includeonly tag. However, if the author had intended separate section, would it have been put in the same paragraph? Hrishikes (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
That shows fine in the Page: namespace, but when transcluding the whole page (no section restriction) I see the paragraph break anyway. As for the use, this is in the "Thousand and One Nights", whith stories within stories that end in the middle of a paragraph (there are no paragraph breaks), but I want to tag the sections, so I can transclude the stories separately. --Jellby (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
A pointer to an example might be appropriate here and a good practice to follow in the future - all I find on my own is stuff set up for a match n' spit.

If I somehow miss your reply, I'd try adding opening and closing <P tags to the paragraph where the split (or whatever you mean) occurs. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jellby: Paragraph split should not occur in pagespace, but it should occur in mainspace, otherwise how would you indicate section demarcation? You can either transclude the sections separately as different articles using the normal fromsection/tosection method, or, if you want multiple sections within the same article, you can use the wikipedia method, as for the section Nil Durpan/First Act#Second Scene. In case you want to transclude the whole page at a time without employing section tag, then you can put the section marker items within includeonly tag, e.g. {{dhr}}, {{rule}}, section header (section name, centered, larger, bold etc.) If you don't want paragraph break in mainspace, how do you propose the section demarcation should look like? Please specify the djvu page, the articlespace, and exactly what your desire is, so that the members here can understand what to do; then someone may come along with the "how" part. Hrishikes (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

An example is Page:The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night, Vol 1.djvu/42, which belongs to three different stories. The first part is in The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night/The First Old Man’s Story#24, the second in The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night/The Merchant and the Genie#24, the third in The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night/The Second Old Man’s Story#24. The problem is the separation between the first and second parts is implicit. If the different sections are only transcluded separately, as it is done right now, there's no real problem; but If I wanted to transclude the whole page as-is, an unwanted paragraph break would appear in his blood.’ Quoth the genie. I've noticed that if I include the ## label ## tag at the end of a line (with no linebreak before), it works, but the text is reformatted such that when I edit the page again I have to remove the linebreak, otherwise ## label ## is placed in its own line and the paragraph break occurs. --Jellby (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the first problem, see here. Second problem is caused because label tag creates its own line, you need to remove the line-break every time you open the page in edit window. Hrishikes (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the problem is fixed with the trick I mentioned. But the "second problem" means one always has to remove the linebreak every time the page is modified, even if the modification does not directly affect the label tag (or even if there is no change at all). This makes me think that maybe this solution is only a side effect, and not guaranteed to work in the future. --Jellby (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, your page is unstable and may change even during validation if the validator does not know the problem. Matter for code-experts like GO3. Hrishikes (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
This is one of the reasons that I don't use the "easy LST" version of sections. I recommend turning off the gadget and using the "old" style of section markers. See Help:Transclusion for some details. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't help if someone else edits the page later and he/se has "easy LST" on, does it? --Jellby (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

## Blanks

Index:The museum, (Jackson, Marget Talbot, 1917).djvu, pp. 243 to 253 are 'form' blanks and I'm not sure how to format these, suggestions would be appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It might be best to handle these forms as images. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

## Interrupt page highlight

When I use the <pages ... /> tag, hovering the mouse over the name of the last transcluded page highlights not only the page's content, but everything after that. For example see The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night, Vol 1, hovering over the little "[i]" on the left highlights the TOC and the PD box, but only the Arabic text comes from the transcluded page. Is there anything I can do to highlight only the page content? --Jellby (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem you are having is that there is a list fictional pages without an actual source in the Index, thus everything relates page 7. The Table of contents of the book is not the list of volumes. Unless I am wrong, there is no volumes' list in the book. Also, your page numbers in the layout of the index page were overlapping. I took the liberty to identify the pages with my notations.— Ineuw talk 23:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
You should also organize yourself and decide if it's going to be The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night, Vol 1 or The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night/Volume 1? — Ineuw talk 23:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. As you see, it is still a work in progress, so yes, some reorganization was (and is) needed. The book has multiple volumes, I just have not uploaded them yet. As for my question, do you mean that happens because the (approx.) second half of the book still has no text? In any case, the page is transcluded with from="7" to="7", why should it matter what happens after that? --Jellby (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I've made a test transcluding a page from some other finished work, and I get the same: the highlight extends to the bottom. So my original question remains: Can I do something to interrupt the highlighting? --Jellby (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
As you've discovered, this happens on the last page of every transclusion. Developer assistance will be needed to change it. You can mitigate the effect by reducing the amount of white space above and below the text—we don't need to reproduce the printers' tricks for vertically centering text. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘

The core of this problem lies with Dynamic Layouts. Top "Header matter" and bottom "Footer matter" should never have been included in the dynamic layout scheme (e.g. these elements should not have ~3.00em left margin). I've managed to get the bottom navigation footer that is built using the top header's previous & next links out of the Dynamic Layout scheme but dual-translation license banners, single banner licenses and authority control banners still become part of Dynamic Layouts when they are not suppose to be (they are not content).

Part of the problem is that our header template scheme is not very flexible (built using table rows) in addition to being part of the Dynamic Layout scheme. I've proposed changing the foundation of the core navigation header to an all Div based one in the Proposals section of Scriptorium as the first step out of the many steps needed that [hopefully] will straighten out the issues once all of them have been implemented. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• NOTE - I temporarily "moved" the single banner licenses out of the Dynamic Layout scheme just to prove that its at the root of these problems. I'll bet your highlight stops where it's suppose to now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. You are of course aware that "footer matter" is not the only problem. I already mentioned the case where non-transcluded content comes after the transclusion, and I just noticed that in The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night/Volume 1 the "edition" label highlights only one line, and not the full transcluded page. --Jellby (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Why would anyone add content along with transcluded content and expect the integrity of the ProofreadPage extension to still work? The whole point is to faithfully reproduce the work and be able to verify it against a scanned page in the Page: namespace. I'm sorry but what you're attempting just was not what was envisioned when that feature was dreamed up (and its creator is long gone I'm afraid). -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
That's partly why AuToC remained "based" on the normal header -- so one day it too may be treated as other matter that does not belong under influence of dynamic layouts if need be. All these highlight issues are kind of far down on list of stuff that needs to be done before a solution or solutions can present itself (or be developed). Like I said earlier - it all starts with moving away from html table based headers to all div{ision] based ones (see the Proposals section). -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

## Editions page

We have :

How do I set up an editions page? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Editions pages are for the Mainspace and in this case should use the {{Translations}} template. See WS:STYLE#Disambiguation, versions and translations page for guidance. The transcluded mainspace pages should be disambiguated with the translator in parentheses. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Done : One Thousand and One NightsBeleg Tâl (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

## Double hyphen for hyphenated words across pages with hyphen

In Page:The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night, Vol 1.djvu/245 there is a page break at "eight-|and-fifty", which I coded as {{hws|eight-|eight-and-fifty}}, but in the page view the first part appears with double hyphen: eight--. Can I avoid that or should the code be improved to deal with these cases? --Jellby (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

{{hws|eight|eight-and-fifty}} Hesperian 14:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Doh! ... Thanks --Jellby (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
No problem. I recall puzzling my puzzler over the same thing. Hesperian 05:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

## Image on a dedicated page, no paragraph break

Is it possible to include an image (or {{missing image}}) that appears on a separate page such that it doesn't cause a paragraph break? Example: Page:The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night, Vol 1.djvu/177, which sits between 176 and 179. When transcluded in a range (see User:Jellby/Sandbox) it causes a dangling line above the missing image ("went out to-day to buy stuffs, with thy leave, a camel laden" is out of the tag). --Jellby (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I had a similar problem with The Indian Dispossessed, and ultimately you will have to use one of a few somewhat crude workarounds to avoid an even cruder unwanted paragraph break. One possibility is to use <noinclude> tricks to force transclusions to place the image where and how you want them, but the downside is this creates duplicate segments of code and possibly text to maintain. Another possibility, which is what I went with for that work, is to simply force the image to be transcluded out of order somewhere more appropriate. See also original help discussion. I really wish there were a good way to turn plate images into floated thumbnails or something similar, if the presentation format/layout is suitable for it, but I doubt there's a reliable way to do that. djr13 (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

## How to clear 'Error: No such file'

I did my first add text which has Error: No such file. I've read all the help pages. I've added the djvu to wikicommons as File:Annalsoffaminein00nich.djvu where the display shows Title Annals of the Famine in Ireland in 1847, 1848, and 1849. What do I need to do to clear 'no such file' error on wikisource ? en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Annals_of_the_Famine_in_Ireland Robin2014 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Your file in Commons is named File:Annalsoffaminein00nich.djvu. Therefore, your index here has to be named Index:Annalsoffaminein00nich.djvu. Index here is aligned with the Commons file, so name must be same. Hrishikes (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I've done the index with the full file name and it shows all the page numbers. Do I need to do something to remove the entry Index:Annals_of_the_Famine_in_Ireland ? Robin2014 (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Mark it with {{sdelete|Recreated with Commons-aligned name}}. Some admin will take care of it. Hrishikes (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

## Multiple references to the same footnote

How should I code the case there are several calls to the same footnote in the same page? For instance Page:The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night, Vol 1.djvu/403 (the calls are in lines 10 and 13).

Nevermind, found the answer in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Footnotes --Jellby (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

## correct mistakes

I want to help.

What is the best way to correct current errors on pages here?

KenJ7

@KenJ7: A good start would probably be Wikisource:Proofread_of_the_Month. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

## Correct mistake in TOC

Is it possible to mark up a miskate in TOC, when using TOC templates? See for instance Page:The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night, Vol 4.djvu/16, where the entry in page 213 is actually in page 214. Using the djvupage and djvupageoffset arguments, I've made it point to 214, but I'd like to make it clear that the "213" is a mistake. In normal text I'd use {{SIC}}, but I cannot use it in the djvupage argument, or can I? --Jellby (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I would use the alterative {{sic}}. It doesn't show as a tooltip, but does show that there is an acknowledged error to the editor who is validating. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Haven't done this before and need assistance to get it to the indexing stage. Got the above file uploaded at Commons. It uploaded 28 pages, most of which are just blank, as was the source. All I really need is Pg. 9 (the title page) and Pgs. 11-14 (the document itself). Technically, it's not a book; it's an historical document. Can anyone at Wikisource please get this to the Indexing stage for me? Thank you. Maile66 (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Done at Index:Goliad Declaration of Independence.djvu. I'll leave filling in the fields to you. Help on how to do this is at Help:Index pages#Parameters. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Hope I did it correctly. Maile66 (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

## Can not insert characters

I am suddenly not able to insert characters (accents, ligatures, etc.) when using the Insert toolbar. I click on the desired character, and nothing happens. It fails in the Main namespace as well. Any ideas? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

CONFIRMED - I'll start looking into it. We just had the core updated to 1.25wmf14 earlier today and I suspect the answer lies with that somehow. Admittedly, I added some characters yesterday - but it was working then 'cause I tested it afterwards. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

┌──────┘
Just an FYI, the problem is not local because the same thing happens on www.mediawiki.org. I opened a ticket on it - 'squeaky wheel gets the grease' applies here; the more folks post to both the bug ticket and the home talkpage, the more likely a solution will come to us quickly. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an account with the former, but FWIW I left a comment at the latter. Thanks for looking into it, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

┌──────┘
-- They found the fix and its in place. Character insertion is ☀ working ☀ again. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much, GO3! Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

On initial opening in edit mode, the scan appears as a tiny image in the upper left corner of the screen. Then, after clearing the cache and reloading the page (and closing and reopening), it shows up properly sized, but incomplete. The lower part of the scan fails to materialize. Does anyone know the solution to this problem? — Ineuw talk 01:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This problem is not really an incomplete scan, but a delay in the scan loading. Every touch or move of the vertical scroll bar blanks out the page and must wait 20-30 seconds for the page to load the scrolled rows. I use Firefox 35.0 but this problem existed with an earlier version above. — Ineuw talk 02:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Status of Preview and Media Viewer in your User: Preferences please. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Preview is 'Show preview before edit box' and MediaViewer is disabled.— Ineuw talk 02:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Those are as they "should" be and assuming only one of the 3 edit toolbar "options" is enabled at the moment as well, there is not much more I can think of not running FF myself (check for these however; they have come up as causes for x,y, & z over WP's Village Pump recently). If the same happens under some version of IE, F12 Developer Tools is what I would try to use to narrow possible causes down some. Sorry. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────┘
Thanks for taking time out, but don't concern yourself any longer. It seems to be one of the add-ons but I haven't narrowed it down which. Reset FF and using 2 different profiles, one with and the other without add-ons, and I am adding one by one to see which cause the problem. I will let you know. — Ineuw talk 04:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Okie-dokie & please don't forget to let us in on your findings @Ineuw:. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
It was a Firefox Add-on named Wired-Marker which uses a .JSON database to store marked web text (or for that matter, any selected object on a web page). Since I am running Windows 7, and Linux on my desktop, and occasionally an Old MacBook with identical browser setup, the developers of Wired-Marker suggested to install Dropbox and store the JSON database in the cloud and link it from Firefox, so all three OS's can have the same data. The slowdown was because Dropbox constantly synced the database and this in turn affected Wired-Marker and slowed down the browser. The moment I disabled the Add-on, the problem went away. The other tried solution was is to suspend Dropbox syncing. Both work equally well. — Ineuw talk 07:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

## Table across pagebreak

This is about the appendix at the end of The History of the Bengali Language/Lecture 5. The pages are not getting transcluded properly. There are extra line spaces and all the pages not getting transcluded in Chrome. Help requested. Thanks. Hrishikes (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Take a look if it's any better. — Ineuw talk 04:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, now it's better. Many thanks. Hrishikes (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

## Index:The London Gazette 19345.djvu

How to turn pp. 49. around? Tried using Djvu libre tools, but the rotation didn't happen or remain on re-viewing. Suggestions are welcome.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The page is better kept as an image, I think. Please have a look now. Hrishikes (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
That's all well and good but is only a a temporary soloution until someone transcribes the table. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
And that's now been done. Turning the page around in the source file was relatively easy to do.

## Ancient large DjVu files no longer register as valid on Commons

I suspect the reason the following 2 files all-of-the-sudden stopped rendering properly (generating well over a thousand orphaned Page: namespace pages as a result) is because they used DjVu Digital or some other non-DjVu Libre [core] program to patch this or that prior to the latest/last uploaded version of the DjVu file.

Note the 0 × 0 file-size dimensions being reported by each; I've only seen this happen when some other DjVu-ish, non-Libre program has manipulated the file in some way (corrupted might be a more appropriate term imho).

Even if I could manage to download these, I doubt I could re-upload over them with "fixed" versions as Commons does not seem to like me in particular much when it comes to files over ~50M (or takes longer than an hour to upload).

Anyone with DjVu Libre familiarity willing to take these on? -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

p.s. - There is a newer version of EB1911, Volume 25 available on Internet Archive IN HERE. A straight replacement that is only ~2 years old vs. the existing one that is already ~6 years old -- even with bulk moves required -- is still better than fixing up 'old crap' imho. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

## Index:Our Sister Republic - Mexico.djvu

Basic issue is that a new version of this was uploaded recently, requiring a block of pages to moved upward.

I noted there was a bot request to do this, so in good faith I attempted to perform some manual moves, as it wasn't a huge number of pages. Because of the nature of the move this was done from the last page of the block to be moved towards the start (decrementing upward move).

However, Medaiwiki has a limitation that doesn't let you move a page over a pre-existing one (in this instance the redirects) left by moving pages, which means that after having moved about 5 pages over the gap created by the source file changes, I hit the limitation.

It would be appreciated if someone could sort out the resultant mess, namely by following up on the speedy deletion requests made in respect of the redirects created by the moves, and by completing the page moves in a manner that doesn't as someone elsewhere's described it 'break stuff unintentionally'. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears that this is now being taken care of, Thanks.17:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

## Help would defeat the triumph of ignorance

I am trying to float this index list to the center and it's a no go (for me that is). Help would certainly bring salvation (and salivation). Please note my failed efforts in both namespaces: Page:Palestine Exploration Fund - Quarterly Statement for 1894.djvu/7 and Palestine Exploration Fund - Quarterly Statement for 1894/Articles indexed by authors.— Ineuw talk 08:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Reset it as a real table instead of the manufactured one that the TOC templates create, then you should be able to simply centre the table. Basically what's happening is that you are wrapping divs inside other divs and the inner ones that are at 100% width are over-riding your outer divs. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, Should I restructure it? I ask because this was not my doing, and would loathe to destroy User:Abjiklam's effort. I never learned to use TOC dot leader templates, and use only tables because I don't think that the effort is worth it and rather put the time towards anchoring indexes entries. Though entry-width was reduced to 500px but that didn't help.— Ineuw talk 09:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's the lazy way to do it? unsigned comment by 121.216.85.246 (talk) .
No such thing as CSS float:center... now that sounds familiar :) -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Just keep adding to my confusion.— Ineuw talk 09:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

## May I submit my own Illustrations?

I'm an illustrator. As a personal project, I illustrate texts from the public domain. I'm currently illustrating Hans Christian Andersen's The Elf of the Rose (alt. title: The Rose Elf). Here's the blog entry about my Rose Elf artwork: http://vdyej.me/eating-the-filling-first/ unsigned comment by IllustratorVDyeJ (talk) .

Generallly Wikisource aims to be true to original texts meaning high quality versions of the original illustrations are typically what's desired, thusly under most circumstances new illustrations would not necessarily in my view be appropriate to this project. I would also have concerns that they may also fall outside the scope of works accepted at Wikimedia Commons. However these are personal views, and I would wait for further responses before making any decision.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
unsigned comment by IllustratorVDyeJ (talk) ., My opinion is that your kind of art (too modern) would not be allowed here on wikisource unless perhaps you write a good book and donate all of it for free. Still, I do not believe that would be acceptable. I have sons that get into various kinds of art including ray-tracing, 3-dimensional, virtual reality, and more -- the "bleeding edge" as they used to refer to it. However, there is a possibility that you could place such work on your User page but not on your talk page. Please sign your name by using 4 tildes at the end of whatever you write. Tilde= ~ . Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
For the most part, Wikisource has nowhere to put new artwork, and doesn't host custom-illustrated editions. However, much of Wikisource is public domain, or at the very least under a CC-BY-SA license, so if you had the inspiration to illustrate a work, you could copy and/or edit the text to a document or website to do so.
Alternatively, there are a few specific things we could use help from artists on. One is vectorizing graphics that get used a lot, with a careful eye for matching the original scan. Another is helping clean up any sloppy scans of photographs and illustrations, using digital editing or finding an exact copy to rescan, again with a careful eye for matching the original. Finally we do have a very marginal use of topical images mainly just on Portal pages, but for that we just draw from what works best from Commons, much of which was originally uploaded with Wikipedia in mind. Which leads me to my last point. Wikipedia is looking for illustrators, although the most in-demand work to be done is using SVG. djr13 (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone, for your quick and helpful feedback. I will look into the Wikipedia call for illustrators mentioned. IllustratorVDyeJ (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)VdyeJ

## May I submit paid old news article?

There is an old news article "FORMOSA KILLINGS ARE PUT AT 10,000" on New York Times. It was reported in 1947, 68 years ago. New York Times now charges some money for people to download the PDF version of the article. (Although a search on Google shows many results which allow people to read the full article, like this one.)

If I purchase the PDF version of the article, may I create a page for it?--Matt Smith (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

We cannot publish it on Wikisource. The material has to be prior to 1923 to be in the public domain. That is why they are selling it.— Ineuw talk 10:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. Does the "be prior to 1923" rule only apply on news articles? I see the "posterior to 1923" United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. And on Chinese Wikisource I also found an old Chinese news article, which was reported in 1951.--Matt Smith (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I want to translate that article into Chinese and then submit it onto Chinese Wikisource. English Wikisource isn't the place I want to submit an article to.--Matt Smith (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles that are in the public domain in the US may be freely hosted here. "The material has to be prior to 1923" is not quite correct: texts published before 1923 are almost definitely in the public domain in the US; texts published after 1923 probably are not. I don't know about this particular article.

But even if it turns out that we can host the text, that does not imply that you have the right to post the text. If in purchasing an article you enter into a contract that forbids you to redistribute it, you may find yourself in breach of contract if you post it here.

Hesperian 11:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks like the article isn't in the public domain otherwise New York Times wouldn't sell it.--Matt Smith (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
My last two cents. It would be best to look up and read Wikipedia and Wikimedia commons articles about the subject. Both have extensive copyright information. — Ineuw talk 16:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I really hope the article can be posted on Wikisource and your advice is inspiring. However, since New York Times is still selling the article, is it possible that there is some copyright rules allow the article to be posted on Wikisource?--Matt Smith (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

## May I submit a book which was published in 1965?

There is a book named "Formosa Betrayed", which was published in 1965. It is now legally available free online. Everyone can read it at here. May I submit the book? If so, what template should I add on each page?--Matt Smith (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It depends how they released it. I looked at the text on romanization.com (linked from Wikipedia) but it just says it is "appears with the permission of the Taiwan Publishing Co." That could mean just that website has permission; it might not be free to distribute. They probably did intend to make it free but we need more information to be sure. This is assuming the publisher has the copyright rather than Kerr's estate (the copyright won't expire until 2059). Do you have more information? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)