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)

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

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

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

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

Forth Bridge (1890) help with tables[edit]

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

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

Guidance about copyright[edit]

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

If published in India in 1927 and not published in the US at that time, for an author who died in 1937, then the work would be {{Pd/1996|1937}} with the works coming out of copyright on 1 Jan 1988. If published after death, then enter the public domain 50 years after the end of the year of publication (for India). — billinghurst sDrewth 06:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh wait, if 1927, then we may have 95 years, depending on the copyright detail in the work. If without proper details, it would have been 1937+50. If proper copyright then it is 95 years (all presuming that it was not published in US at same time). It is a tricky one. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Link for the 1927 work given in the author page. Details can be checked from there. It's a govt publication now that the institute is owned by govt. I have not started transcribing the article; if not allowed here, then pse delete the djvu file. Hrishikes (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: I have checked. Like this author's other works, this collection was also simultaneously published in the U.S. as per publisher details given in this page. As for PD-India, it's author's life + 60 yrs, not 50. For U.S. publication verification, see this page and this page, both at sl. no. 8 of references. Hrishikes (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
At this point of time I cannot get the DLI site to respond to me (time out issues). We need to know what copyright statements were put into the work, if any, as that impacts how the US law will regard it. If there was coincident US publishing (requirement is within 30 days) then we need to check the US system for copyright, and subsequent renewals (see WS:CV for some of those links). — billinghurst sDrewth 02:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Mirror site for DLI here. I have uploaded the initial pages here. I could not find any relevant info at ws:cv sites. Hrishikes (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
As I have already stated, I could not find any info about this work at ws:cv-linked sites. And as can be seen from info I have already provided, this work was published at least from Calcutta, London and New York, all in 1927. So, subject to no contrary evidence, I think this work can be safely assumed as a case of PD-US-no renewal. Any thoughts? Hrishikes (talk) 04:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

New International Encylopedia[edit]

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

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

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

You might want to move/rename the file and the index for consistency with the rest: "The New International Encyclopædia Vol 2.djvu"→"Index:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 02.djvu" (PS, I did a couple tweaks to the description pages for Volumes 1 and 2. I'm feeling a bit too lazy to replicate that across the rest...) djr13 (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I have done the manual labor of adding it here. Now I leave the cosmetic surgery at your able hands. Hrishikes (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Renamed.--Mpaa (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Duplicate scan sets?[edit]

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

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

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)