From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
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?

CharInsert and WikiEditor help needed[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A toolbar to dream about.jpg

A toolbar to dream about

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

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

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

Update: After working with some folks over Wikipedia and coming to the conclusion that adding 'user' to the list of dependencies for this gadget properly resolves issues with where the CharInsert bar could be loaded and how, there are some new nuances that should now be considered if not just noted when customizing this application.

Using the below as the new template of all currently valid options . . .

  1. /* CharInsert specific */
  2. window.charinsertDontMove = true;
  3. window.charinsertMoveTop = true;
  4. window.editToolsRecall = true;
  5. window.charinsertCustom = { User: '|  =  {\{+}}  [\[+|]]  —  “+”  ‽Æ挜℩  {\{hws|+|+}}  {\{hwe|+|+}}  <section.begin="+"_/>  <section.end="+"_/>' };
  6. if(window.updateEditTools) window.updateEditTools();

. . . the most important change is that Line 6 is no longer required to be present for the Gadget to load properly. From now on, it should be-applied/in-effect for troubleshooting purposes only if for anything at all.

Line 5 remains as was prior to this refinement and Line 1 should continue to always be present as well for the sake of uniformity if nothing else.

Line 2, Line 3 and Line 4 should only be present (or in effect) from now on if the desired functionality is contrary to the gadget's default state. Note for Line 3 -- old option window.charinsertMoveHigh is now window.charinsertMoveTop


  • To automatically keep the CharInsert bar loading where the "old" EditTools bar did completely below the gray-ish edit form field, add the line as depicted above in Line 2
  • To automatically generate the CharInsert bar between the edit field and edit form, add nothing. Do not use window.charinsertDontMove = false; anymore.

Any comments, question or observations are welcome. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Questions (left field; interest only; all regarding line 5 example):
  1. What if any is the effective/technical difference between a space entered via "." and "_" in <section.begin="+"_/>?
  2. Presumably separate elements on this line have to be separated by precisely two spaces?
  3. Is it essential (or simply good practice) to "protect" braces and brackets with a leading backslash? Does this imply any kind of regular expression handling capabilities (present or future)?
AuFCL (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The only one that I can answer with any authority is #2 - ans = Nope. I just double spaced it for my own ease of reading and have been blindly copying the same to these examples without really thinking about it. If we go by the approach used in MediaWiki:Gadget-charinsert-core.js, it seems spacing is more of a cosmetic thing than any sort of rule but that might not be true from one entry (a character) to the next (either another character or maybe a template?). We can always mirror the recent changes on Wikipedia's implementation that pseudo-buttonized each entry, regardless of it being a character, a string or a template.

The other stuff is kind of beyond my understanding to confidently weigh-in on but I document what I can in hopes that someone who knows better will come along and make those kind of refinements - sorry. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

No need to be sorry. I knew the questions were rather unfair as I asked them (and should have thought to look at charinsert-core; Mea culpa,) but thought if I threw them out there somebody might know or maybe even suggest a future change. (BTW I had already taken the liberty of adding to the "other half" of this discussion at w:Wikipedia_talk:Notifications#Typos—if anyone else is interested in the linkage.) AuFCL (talk) 05:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Guidance on linking citations in a work[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Either way consists of a lot of guessing and assumption about how "Rationalism" will end up like if anyone ever gets around to adding it, and if it's different, hoping someone will find these mistakes and correct them. Thus, for non-existent pages, be careful how you do it. I've done similar multip-part-link edits with existing works, consisting of multiple blue-links. I may have even red-linked a chapter next to a blue-link for a work title. I'd be happy to see an established guideline on this, among many other things. :) djr13 (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
We've been wrestling with this issue of deep-linking into non-existent works for years. See Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2010-02#Naming_convention? and follow the links to a stalled discussion and an naming convention that never got beyond draft form. Hesperian 13:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
After looking through some of the past discussion, I can understand why there is no clear consensus. To summarize my understanding, the mission of Wikisource is to preserve the original works as closely as possible to what was published, and it's accepted that nobody should change original text or insert their own commentary (loosely analogous to w:Wikipedia:NOR). The logical (and I would argue very conservative) extension to the argument is that nothing new at all should be added to a work.
As this has been debated for years without resolution, I won't attempt to restart the discussion, but it seems to me that not adding links where appropriate is refusing to use the very resource that we are building. Taking into consideration djr13's examples above, my approach for now, will be to:
  1. Link the author's name upon first citation only, per wikilinking best practice, even where that author page does not yet exist.
  2. If the work exists and the citation is correct (i.e., page numbers haven't changed between editions) link the remainder of the citation directly to the page referenced.
  3. Otherwise, link only to the main title, making a best guess as to how that page will be created in the future.
Perhaps a template could be used in the third case, like {{missing table}} and {{missing image}}, to flag that link for future maintenance? -Xpctr8 (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
You've summarised very well the tension between leveraging links (which are, after all, our value proposition) and reproducing the original work as it was (which is our mission).
I think a {{deeplink later}} template is an excellent idea — it could render the link as-is, but also check whether its target exists, and if so categorise into a maintenance category along the lines of Category:Pages with links to be retargetted.
Hesperian 02:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local upload licensing sanity check[edit]

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

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


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

I rather think everybody here would be interested. However I pity the potential teacher as I expect few of the questions asked will be quite what is expected from a "normal" class (i.e. we will probably be asking things about the very knife-edge of legality… Hmm. suspiciously pirate-like behaviour. That sounds bad?) AuFCL (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing - there are a lot of copyright materials on English Wikipedia and Commons that are of varying quality; none that I'm aware of that are specific to Wikisource, though. For a variety of reasons I'm not sure IEG is the best outlet for this - simply because it is big enough that the kinds of lawyers you'd want for this would either (1) do it for free or (2) want more money than makes sense for IEG :) (Though that's not guaranteed to be true - I could think of some young, hungry, very smart lawyers who might not be able to do it for free but might be able to do it for a very reasonable, IEG-able price.) Can I suggest taking an informal poll of Wikisourcers of what kinds of questions/topics might be asked? That might help get a sense of the scope of the project, who might be good to bring in for it, etc. LuisV (WMF) (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you do when scans are not enough?[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image rotation of plates in books[edit]

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

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

The link to scan page?[edit]

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

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

Not quite fractions[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

details note[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

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

Archimedes Quote from Shelley[edit]

Help with Greek characters and translation. While working on the poem "QUEEN MAB" by Shelley on page 754, I found a quote by Archimedes in Greek:

Δος που στώ, καί κοσμου κιυησω.

Requesting another set of eyes to help encode the proper text and decode this quote. Are there any Greek speakers to lend a hand? The last word "κιυησω" doesn't appear as a word in the Greek dictionary. After removing the second letter, the word "κυησω" (pregnant) could be workable, yet unexpected phrase. I get the translation Give to whether or not, and secular conceptions. Does that phrase make sense? - DutchTreat (talk) 08:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean the word κινήσω the υ was actually a ν, slight difference hard to tell. You should have better results looking it up on a translator now. --Rochefoucauld (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I fixed the other issues with the text (including the nun is cosmon being rendered as an upsilon and the type of accent used on the iota in kai.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@Zhaladshar: and @Rochefoucauld: Wonderful! Thanks for the expert assistance. DutchTreat (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I've de-italicized the quote; the apparent italicization is the result of the particular font used; the text in the original is not italicized—it's just what Greek looks like in books of that era. I've also swapped out for the {{polytonic}} template, which seems to render better than {{Greek}} for at least some users. As I understand it, the {{Greek}} template is for modern Greek, and {{polytonic}} is for Ancient Greek. The latter includes many diacritical marks that do not exist in the modern language. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright information[edit]

This is related to #Copyright above:

If you could have someone – perhaps an attorney who specializes in copyright or related publishing issues – come to Wikisource and talk about copyrights, what topics would be most interesting? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

If someone came to Wikisource to talk about anything, where would they be, and how many people would be there with them? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Probably either in an online video conference, like Google Hangouts, or maybe in IRC. I don't know how many people would be there. It might depend on the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's another option that might interest people who are serious about copyright. It's a 12-week class, so it's a much bigger commitment than just a one-hour talk with someone.

Harvard Law School is offering a free "CopyrightX" class for people who want to learn about the US copyright system. It is designed for non-lawyers and accepts both teenagers and adults. One of the WMF staffers took it last year, and he said that there were librarians, doctors, engineers, and students from around the world.

The course is 100% free, and all the material used is CC-licensed, but I believe that enrollment is limited. There is more information at The bit labeled "an online course divided into sections of 25 students, each section taught by a Harvard Teaching Fellow" is the relevant one for US copyright law. It looks like there are also some similar options for other countries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Transclusion of TOC on Index page shows a large gap[edit]

For some unknown reason (by me) THIS INDEX has the TOC pages showing on the right of the page number map, but there is a large gap between top title and the beginning of the list. The border lines are turned on only temporarily. My concern is that this will also appear in the main namespace when transcluded.— Ineuw talk 19:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done A mystery contributor fixed the problem. Thanks.— Ineuw talk
(Too fast) Needed a few "bites at the cherry" but how about now? Issues/methods of attack were:
  1. Move all leading items on top of Contents page into table structure;
  2. Remove (some) "cosmetic" newlines within "Remarks" field of Index: page. Believe it or not the wiki-parser was turning each and every one of these into <p><br></br></p> series and then effectively floating them to the top of the display in the <div> with class name "mw-kollapsible-kontent". Either ze developer german does speak; or has an unhealthy obsession with the Keystone Kop monster in nethack… 21:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Got it, thanks.— Ineuw talk
N.B. Slight correction of detail above (second <br> in set ought in fact to have been </br>. Change made above.) per 10:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Correspondence between Gandhi and Tolstoj[edit]

Dear Madam/Sir,

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

Thanks for your cooperation and reply.

Best regards from Germany,

Heidi Hacker

François Millet Page 38[edit]

How should we deal with the Latin quote and its annotation on page 38 of the book? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done by Hesp. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph break in footnote[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOC help[edit]

Can someone help with this TOC User_talk:Mpaa#TOC_err? I do not understand why, when transcluded, parts of it can be seen for a few secs and then disappear.Thanks.--Mpaa (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, nevermind, I manged to fix it.--Mpaa (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

TOC of "The Tsar's Window"[edit]

While I'm proofreading the pages of The Tsar's Window, an epistolary novel (maybe?), somebody needs to fix the page that the chapters of the novel will be transcluded to. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and just transcluded the entire thing on one page for now for editing purposes. If its to much of a load to handle let me know.--Rochefoucauld (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I just got through all the chapters AND I came across an image of a horseshoe at the last page of the last chapter. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hyphenate or no?[edit]

Opinions sought—last line—this page: Should "sea-birds" remain hyphenated? Another version online does not help, as it breaks in the same spot. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Seabird can only be used in two ways 1."seabird" and 2."sea bird", is an alternative form of spelling as because it's a noun. Because there's a hyphen the author meant to spell it as "seabird", therefore it's "seabird." Although I will admit I have no idea of the history in the use of a hyphen considering it's from 1908...--Rochefoucauld (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
In my humble opinion and experience, I found numerous instances of end of line hyphenated words meant to justify the text. Although justification is not the case here, but end of line is, therefore I would not hyphenate this word in WS.— Ineuw talk 02:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Hyphenate it, per the last line of Page:The poems of Richard Watson Gilder, Gilder, 1908.djvu/47 Hesperian 02:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that find! I was just searching WS for support, but you can't really argue with support from within the same text. All input appreciated! Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Good call Hesperian.— Ineuw talk 02:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Calling from London, Jack. Leave it as the book shows it and keep on booking. —Maury (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Good call Hesperian.— —Maury (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Merging duplicates[edit]

I found a copy of Soctates Scholasticus' Ecclesiastical history here, and another copy here. Both of them are transcriptions of the same published work, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series. I assume they should be merged somehow, but how is this done? Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The latter looks more complete. I would just delete the first one.--Mpaa (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
You've redirected the primary page, but the three subsidiary pages have not been attended to. These should also be redirected, or perhaps deleted, depending on whether there are links to them (either on or off WS). --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted.--Mpaa (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Minor edits[edit]

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

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

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

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

History of Hungarian Literature Page 34[edit]

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

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

Works contained in other works[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Separating columns[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

requesting upload help[edit]


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

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

Thanks and regards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again and seasons greetings

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

Creating a Page[edit]

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

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

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