# Wikisource:Scriptorium

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

# Announcements

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

# Proposals

## Tumblr update

The experiment with a Wikisource Tumblr continues. At the moment, it is limited to announcing PotM and featured texts. I have recently (that is, a few days ago) included the Wikisource:News headlines as part of the cycle. Another recent event is that the blog is now included as part of Planet Wikimedia, a blog aggregator that brings together posts from many assorted Wikimedia-related blogs. This might get more attention from other Wikimedians. We currently have two followers and have had three "likes" to date (two of which were for the announcement of the PotM for The Cycle Industry).

Nice job, can we at the end of the end month(ish) retrospectively note the completed texts from {{new texts}} from the month? Or we could note them when we transfer them to their archive at Wikisource:Works
I discovered it via the Planet. Thanks for getting it on there! Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Currently I am the only person with control over this Tumblr. Some organisation goes on via WikiProject Social media. I missed some things over the last two months as I was having various internet connectivity problems. There may be a problem in that everything we do runs on a monthly cycle, so it all updates on the same day. I am currently postponing the featured text announcement a little to (marginally) spread things out. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Spreading things out sound good, so what else an be considered for a rough schedule through the month. It may be worth looking to get some sort of text from the active projects at one a month, at least to spike some interest. DNB and PSM are always good candidates. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Good Job Adam :) JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
AdamBMorgan's Tumblr work silently and beautifully continues to grow. —Maury (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC) http://englishwikisource.tumblr.com/
More on update: AdamBMorgan's project on Tumblr is beautiful and well-organized. The man cannot be perfect but one would not know it by looking at his Tumblr website. Go there and look what has been done and what more one can imagine that can be done. Leave a message so the area will not look empty as far as comments are concerned.

—Maury (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Per this discussion "both Stewards and CheckUsers have wikis available where passwords can be stored for future recall as needed". I propose we make use of this solution, unless a better idea is offered. The best time for this type of housekeeping is at the beginning, else it gets put off until to late. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, and I have accounts at both. If you want me to create a page for it, I would recommend CUs. Another alternative is that you email the detail to info@wikisource.org, and it will be stored in the OTRS system. All of these have other eyes staring at them, so none of it is perfect security. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
In this case, Tumblr doesn't work that way. In order for the tumbleblog to, potentially, accommodate multiple people it is a "secondary blog" (personal blogs are "primary blogs"). The password protection is for the user account and not for any individual blog (the guidance mentions password protection for secondary blogs but this seems to refer to read-access rather than write-access). Anyway, secondary blogs have members and admins. Members can post and edit/delete their own posts; admins can delete anyone's posts, invite new members and remove them. Admins can promote members to admin status but once they have that status they can't be demoted or removed.(Tumblr FAQ).
It would help to have other people posting (if nothing else, just to cover for the semi-annual periods when I randomly lose all access to the internet). This is easy from the Tumblr side of things but the process for arranging this is on the Wikisource side is a little vague. Any such person will need a Tumblr account and I don't think they need to set up a primary blog if they don't want one. Presumably, some Wikisource community approval will be required. There is a voting section on WikiProject Social media but it doesn't get enough attention at the moment to fulfil it's own requirements. Member status should probably be easier to acquire than admin status but this is yet to be determined. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Well that certainly complicates my proposal. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
After thinking about this some more, I/we could create a new Tumblr account just for the purpose of recording the log in details somewhere. That way, if I should fall in front of a bus (or whatever), it can be revived, repaired or reclaimed using that account. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
This comment is to keep this article up beyond April 30. ResScholar (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

## WWI Analytical and artistic works

I have proposed a change to our policy concerning self published works. Wikisource_talk:What_Wikisource_includes#Self_Published JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

## Proposal for a WikiSource Project on Rees's Cyclopaedia (1802-1819)

I suggest this will be a suitable project, and will be interested to learn colleagues' views. The work is in 39volumes, and has 30,400 pages. The text is in double column with an average length of 1480 words per page, which makes it around 39 million words, allowing for short pages. There over 1000 plates and an atlas.

An edition was published in America from 1805-1822 with a number of the articles re-written to reflect American religious sensibilities, additional articles and more plates.

An account of the work can be found on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rees%27s_Cyclop%C3%A6dia.

As George Sarton said : [Encyclopaedias] 'offer one of the simplest means of recapturing the educated opinion of earlier times', A Guide to the History of Science, 1952, 82-3. Rees appeared during the second half of the Industrial Revolution, and contains a wealth of material about evolving developments in science and technology. In addition, there is a mass of other topics, and the work will be an invaluable resource for quarrying for use in Wikipedia articles

In contrast to the DNB, the text includes tables of figures, mathematical and scientific formulae, as well as musical notation, both orthodox and plainchant. All the articles have references to the appropriate plates, and it would be good if these could be hyperlinked. The editorial work will be challenging, but the editing tools developed for the DNB will be of great help in getting the job done.

2020 will be the bicentenary of the publication of the last part of the British edition of the work, and I suggest this will be an appropriate date to target for completion of the bulk of the work. Apwoolrich2 (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

## Mark Wikisource:Translations as Policy

Wikisource:Translations has been in place since 2005, it has been marked as a proposed policy since 2006. During an extensive discussion at Wikisource:Requests for comment/Annotations and derivative works significant details about community expectations where worked out. As these expectations govern a new name space, I believe it is only fitting to officially mark it as a policy.

On a related note, I am also beginning updates to the page based on the above mentioned discussion. I would expect those updates to be completed prior to marking the change from proposed to policy. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe I have captured all the consensus updates to Wikisource:Translations. Please feel free to Copy edit, or start a discussion at Wikisource talk:Translations if you believe the consensus from Wikisource:Requests for comment/Annotations and derivative works is not adequately addressed. Additionally a discussion about how to create the new name space is occurring at Wikisource:Administrators'_noticeboard#New_Name_Space. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

# BOT approval requests

## Bot flag request for BrandeisBot

I've created User:BrandeisBot, a pywikipedia bot that will help upload the missing U.S. Supreme Court cases. It uses a JavaScript program called lochner to pull text from Justia, and a Python program called brandeis to parse them into wikitext that can be uploaded by pywikipediabot's pagefromfile script. The bot produces an output quite similar to BenchBot's—it splits the pages into a main page, /Opinion of the Court, /Dissent [name], /Concurrence [name], etc. It also adds a talk page for each, and redirects the case number to the main case page. It will be manually-assisted—as the Justia files can vary in how they're formatted, the parser can't always keep up. It does check if the page exists before parsing, and won't overwrite any existing pages. There is more thorough documentation at User:BrandeisBot/Documentation.

I was told to demonstrate its uploads for a case, so I've (slowly) created Rice v. Cayetano. I've provided the oldid versions because I will be cleaning up the files to show what kind of maintenance is required. As a note, I did not do any editing of the text file output by brandeis before it was uploaded, just to give an idea of some of the errors it can make and things it can miss. Normally I plan to make minor changes to that before it's even uploaded.

The text file used to create it is at User:BrandeisBot/sampletext. 22:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

# Help

## World Brain by H G Wells

I've started a stub for World Brain. This is my first editing here, although I am active mainly on Wikiversity. Would appreciate any advice about bring over text - what should be considered or done next? Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I placed and updated welcome template on your talk page, it has a link to Help:Contents. The first goal would be to get a copy of a scan preferably with a text layer on to Commons. While this is not always possible, it is the best start. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
H. G. Wells' works are still copyrighted in Great Britain, so a scan should not be uploaded to Commons. If a scan is to be used it would be uploaded onto Wikisource. ResScholar (talk) 07:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

## Section 12-1 should have a paragraph break.

Can someone please explain why in passing a text block to a template, the parser chokes on what should be a straightforward paragraph break?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

wouldn't know where to begin.... but if you're editing within the wikicode and want something to behave like a pargraph normally would?
Just make it a paragraph regardless of the wikicode. Use <p> </p> -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

## Ye

What are the conventions for the word ye when it stands for the. For example, at the bottom of this page, in place of the text marked as illegible, should I write ye, þe or something else altogether? Abjiklam (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Use what will most closely replicate the text on the page. In this case, it will be ye. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Abjiklam (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to add for future reference that there is {{ye}} that can be used. Abjiklam (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

## Images of different editions of the same book

Life with the Esquimaux Vol. 1 & 2. contain the same images as Arctic Researches, And Life Amongst the Esquimaux since the two works are only different editions of the same book. Arctic Researches seems to have higher quality scans of the images, so would it be acceptable to use them for Life with the Esquimaux? Abjiklam (talk) 10:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

If those images are identical I would use the best ones. Further, in "Vanity Fair" or another work, there was an image that was black and white whereby I asked Bilinghurst (an administrator) if I could replace that with the same image but in color and he said "Yes". We also had that with a black and white Flower where we replaced it with one in color.—Maury (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick answer. Abjiklam (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
You are very welcome. Also take a look where I enlarged the image. We (I) try to get them the same size if the original isn't very small but often we enlarge them a bit so that a person can see what the image is about. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes I noticed. I didn't do this myself because I read in one of the guidelines that image sizes are supposed to be defined by the user and are better not forced to a specific value. Is it better then to ignore this guideline? Abjiklam (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

## Index of Titles transclusion

The Index of Titles in this work is not included in the TOC. Considering that I am using the header=1 transclusion, should I/how should I best transclude or link to the Index in the Main? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

## A question for enlightenment

I tried adding DEFAULTSORT parameter to an author's page and this triggered a sort overwrite warning. Where is this hidden parameter? Does it exist for all author pages? I am about to add numerous new author pages and/or update PSM contributions.— Ineuw talk 05:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

See Author Template page:
Overrides (for exceptions): {{{defaultsort}}}: Override the category sorting, which is normally "{{{lastname}}}, {{{firstname}}}".--Mpaa (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the enlightenment. :-) — Ineuw talk 01:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

## SCOTUS case with 2 majority opinions

How would one formulate the USSCCase and USSCCase2 templates for court decisions that contain two or more majority opinions (e.g., United States v. Booker (543 U.S. 220))?--Dlarmore (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

## Asking for help with the Custom regex tool

Searched the web for this but found no solution. How can I specify the \newline code in the Custom Regex 'replace' panel? The find parameters are clear and I use it, but replacing any 'find' value with \newline just doesn't work for me. Thanks.

Example:

Search: /foo/g
Replace with: \n\n . . . this inserts the literal value \n\n. — Ineuw talk 21:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Just use Enter as in a normal editor, it will create newlines.--Mpaa (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Wow!!! Amazing, thank you, it worked.— Ineuw talk 02:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

## Score Deployed but won't pasre valid notation

User:ShakespeareFan00/scoretesting ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. You have entered a "raw" score, so you need the raw setting. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

## Page:The_Army_and_Navy_Hymnal.djvu/32/score

OK I've made a start to test things.. If someone can continue the transcription I should be able to pick up the syntax fairly quickly.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at Page:The Army and Navy Hymnal.djvu/33 where I've done the score already. I've deliberately not added the lyrics because putting them into the score makes them unsearchable. For example, "When morning gilds the sky" vs "When morn -- ing gilds the sky". No-one will search for the second phrase. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
OK I've spent the best part of day trying to get my head around the syntax and failed, I've thus blanked the sandbox attempt

linked to above, so that someone that is actually competent can typset it accordingly. Thanks ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Question http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Barzaz_Breiz,_huiti%C3%A8me_%C3%A9dition.djvu/644 has midi? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
And I've added Vorbis=1 to the proofread examples.. I think a full blown MIDI scoring version rendered using Fluidsynth is out of scope right? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

## Don't know what to do

Hi. I'd like to start editing here, but I'm having difficulty figuring out how it works. I get the idea that the stuff in mainspace isn't supposed to be touched (because the text doesn't change), but I'm not sure how to create new stuff. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Editing happens in the Index and Page namespaces. A good way to start is with the Proofread of the Month project. For example, try clicking on one of the red-highlighted pages in Index:Natural History, Birds.djvu and editing the text to match the page scan as much as possible. To try starting a page from scratch, try Index:Tales from old Japanese dramas (1915).djvu; click on one of the un-highlighted page numbers. The goal is, again, to edit the text to match the page scan. When you are done in either case, set the page status to proofread (yellow) with the radio buttons at the bottom of the screen and save the page. Look at Help:Proofread for some more instructions.
If you want to start your own work: you need to upload a scan to Wikimedia Commons and start a new index page for it (see Help:Beginner's guide to Index: files for that). Lots of scanned works can be found at the Internet Archive and similar websites. When all the pages are proofread, the text can be transcluded to the mainspace (see Help:Transclude).
Is there anything in particular you wanted to try? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I would like to create works for hymn texts. Is it absolutely necessary to upload the scan to the Commons? I can't access the Commons on my computer. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The scan (which is usually a DjVu or PDF file) needs to be available for the proofreading system to work. It can be uploaded to Commons or, in some cases, directly uploaded to Wikisource. If it is a problem, you can ask another user to upload the scan for you if it is available somewhere (like archive.org or Google Books).
However, you can write directly to the mainspace in some cases: if you are transcribing from a printed, unscanned book or if you are copying from another digital library (although that is not the preferred approach). You could also do this if you are going to copy and paste everything to a matching scan later. That will cause you more work though. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

## Versions of the same book

Hi! I'm new to Wikisource (but not to Wikipedia though) and I have a couple of questions. First of all, if there is a number of reprints of some particular classical book, is it fine to digitize any of these reprints? I mean, is it a good practice to upload and proofread, let's say, a publication of a Shakespeare's play in 2005? I guess the best thing would be to have scans of the original publication, but of course it is not always feasible. --DixonD (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikisource. Wikisource:Versions might answer some of your questions. In brief, yes, any version (or even multiple versions) of a book can be digitized on Wikisource, although we'd prefer the closest thing to a first edition where possible (and with high quality scans—again, if possible). Be careful with a 2005 edition, however, as sufficient editing can create a new copyright (although I doubt anyone would rewrite Shakespeare enough for that to happen). Also, if you don't work from scans, you need to state the source of the text on the talk page with a {{textinfo}} template. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Another question. I have a scanned copy of a book with a collection of works of one author. How should these works appear in Wikisource - as separate pages or as subpages of the page for the collection? --DixonD (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Subpages of the page for the collection. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

How can I make a hash target link, for example Amazing Stories/Volume 01/Number 01/Off on a Comet—or Hector Servadac#Chapter VI? Heyzeuss (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The link will work but you need to add an anchor at the other end. The easiest method is using a template, either {{anchor|Chapter VI}} or {{anchor+|Chapter VI}}. In this case, the anchor needs to be added to Page:Amazing Stories Volume 01 Number 01.djvu/14. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I thought it was automatic, as with ==wiki markup== type headings. I'll try those templates out in a few places. Heyzeuss (talk) 03:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The chapter headings are just formatted text, like the rest of the story, although inserting the anchors during proofreading makes sense now that I think about it. However, this has reminded me that there actually are some automatic anchors: the page numbers. Amazing Stories/Volume 01/Number 01/Off on a Comet—or Hector Servadac#12 would be the closest thing to the link you want. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm a college student in, Ireland and I am working on a proposal for a crowd sourcing transcription project, of items held in the United States. This one is different however, they documents are in 19th Century Puerto Rican Spanish, and potential transcribers are asked to transcribe from this to English. I was wondering if someone could point me towards a project that may have been done or is ongoing that involves translation at the sametime?--Fonzbob (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

## Abraham,_Robert_(DNB00)

The 'wikipedia article' link here points at a disambiguation page on en.wp. The correct article is "Robert Abraham (architect)". I don't know how to fix this, so... :) Revent (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

fixed Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

## Books with texts in multiple languages

What would be the policy in this case? Let's say we have a book with poems which is written mostly in English but contains also German text. Should we put English and German parts into English and German Wikisources, respectively? I tried to find something related in former discussions and in policies, but I didn't manage. --DixonD (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It varies; I don't think there is a hard rule on it. If it is a multilingual book aimed at English readers (for instance, a text book on a language or some translations) it belongs here on English Wikisource. If it is a true multilingual book it may be more appropriate for Multilingual Wikisource. In some cases, I have seen books split over different projects, as you describe. In your case, it sounds like it is an English work rather than multilingual or spitable; but I have not seen it and can't give any definite answer even if I had. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

## Annotation(s)

What was decided about annotations? Are we allowed to use them? I ask because I am using one. I thank you gentlemen, —Maury (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

We can use them but only in a separate, clearly marked annotated version. I will relaunch WS:Annotations as soon as I have enough time (which should be before the end of the month). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

## Noisy Scans

Index:Art of Cookery 1774 edition.djvu - Cleanup possible?

How can I edit in the index and page namespaces directly without using ProofreadPage? I am in the process of debugging Finnish Wikisource, and I need to turn the extension off briefly so that I can copy and paste. Heyzeuss (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Turn off javascript. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Thx. Even though I believe you about my crappy pdf, I still have to try it for myself. I'm also going to try to load up Emily Dickenson at Finnish Wikisource. Heyzeuss (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I disabled javascript in a few different browsers, and it still looks exactly the same all of the time. I'm trying to get just one big edit box instead of the form.
EDIT: It does not all look the same with javascript turned off. The index page and edit screen are unchanged, but the edit screen in the page namespace just has a big edit box. Heyzeuss (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain why it's a pain to get multi page table transcluding? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

## Footers & Other Questions

I am new to Wikisource (this week!), and am editing the Letters of Jonathan Swift, volume XIII. The title of the book and the page number are at the top of the page. Most pages have a footer which includes the first word or two of the next page. Should I put those in the footer when proofreading, or delete

Also in the footer are sometimes random letters and numbers, such as "D 3" or "XVIII". Should those be included?

If I include them, is there a special code that allows text in left, center and right justification? I have found {{RunningHeader}} useful in the header and in the text of the page -- can I use it in the footer?

For the three points above, it is your choice, depending on how close you want the look and feel be to the original page. If you choose to include them, you would insert them in the footer and they would not be transcluded anyhow. You can use {{left}}, {{center}} {{right}}, {{float left}}, {{float right}} or similar.--Mpaa (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes, in the text, the letter's address will be on the left and the place and date of writing are on the right. I use the running header for that. This page is an example: Page:The_Works_of_the_Rev._Jonathan_Swift,_Volume_13.djvu/66 I have two concerns about this one. First, the address is not quite on the left margin -- it is offset a bit. I've been ignoring that, as I don't know how to add an offset to the running header code.

I would not use {{RunningHeader}} within a page, but use the above templates. For the rest, it looks OK, the text is the main concern, a fac-simile of the original is nice to have but not the main goal.--Mpaa (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Second, the font is slightly different from the rest of the text. How much does that matter? If I do need to add a code to reduce the size of the font, how do I do it? I've tried adding |smaller| within the running header code, but that doesn't work.

You can use {{smaller}} or e.g. {{fsx}} or similar variations.--Mpaa (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for helping with these questions.Susanarb (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

## Index:The New Latin Primer (Postgate).djvu

I'd appreciate some advice on how to cope with the accented characters I can't find in the toolbars.

I'll do my best with it, but I'd appreciate somone that works with accented stuff extensively filling in the difficult stuff.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll do my best. Is it just the pages marked purple at the index? I'm not sure how to get a horizontal line over a group of several letters as with the Roman numerals on Page:The New Latin Primer (Postgate).djvu/217. I don't think there's a diacritic for it, but maybe there's some sort of HTML style setting that will do it. Angr 11:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
try {{overline}}. I've not used it with all-caps, so am not sure if it will collide with the tops of the characters. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Thanks for your help! Angr 14:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Some new script has made it possible to [mark this page as proofread] without editing. Unfortunately, it seems to also prevent the source text from appearing next to the text to be proofread. I've tried on several pages now, and can't get source text to display next to the Wikisource text unless it was a page that I edited last (which is no help). This is happening on half a dozen texts that previously had no such problem. I won't be able to proofread until the problem is resolved. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed. My process was to go to Category:Not proofread, and randomly click on a page. I tried this numerous times, and not a single page image displayed for me.
I am not seeing anything corresponding to the [mark this page as proofread] comment above, so I can't comment on the cause. All I know is I'm not seeing any page images. This is a critical outage, and needs to be resolved quickly. How to proceed?
Hesperian 03:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
There was some mention of that in the Tech newsletter to a change to patrolling, and it points to here. That said, I am not facing any issues in patrolling. New pages? Revised pages? Got more info? I can pull up pages and see text beside images in view and no images. I am poking Special:RecentChanges and yet to strike an issue. NOTE that I have different rights, but none that should override anything that affects local advanced editing rights. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
It has come good for me again. Hopefully it was an intermittent issue and working for Petey too. Hesperian 06:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I am no longer seeing this problem now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Follow the gerrit link and it says Update May 31, 2013 4:30 AM so presumably a fix. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

## Greek

I am editing letters to and from Jonathan Swift. Occasionally, there is a letter containing another language. I'm fine with Latin, French, and Spanish, but the Greek letters are quite beyond me. Here is the page: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_Works_of_the_Rev._Jonathan_Swift,_Volume_13.djvu/342. If any of you can read and/or transcribe Greek, I encourage you to take a look to fix it! And thank you! Susanarb (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

What you can do, if you wish, is mark the text with {{Greek missing}}, save the page as "Problematic", and move on. The template will place the page into Category:Pages with missing Greek characters, which, one would hope, is monitored by people with the skills you are looking for. Hesperian 00:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks! Susanarb (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I do know some Greek, but this text contains at least three printed forms of Greek characters that I'm unfamiliar with. If I can get hold of one of my Greek expert contacts, I'll have him take a look at it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I check this category once or twice a week (usually on a Sunday) and deal with any pages that are tagged. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I think we've got the Greek fixed now. A colleague at Wiktionary figured out what was going on and supplied me with the Greek script, which is now added to the page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

## Internal link to other ws

Stupid question: what am I doing wrong?

Moondyne (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You want this? it:Orlando furioso/Canto 1 Hesperian 01:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, ta. Moondyne (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

## Formatting a book's back index

I'm trying to format this index here: Page:Origin_of_Species_1859_facsimile.djvu/503. I can see that the page number should go in the header, and that the index is labelled by the first letter of the words. But the index here also includes the first and last index elements on the page ("aberrant" to "bees", for this example). Where should I place these so that the transcription is consistent with the original text, but they won't get in the way when the index is viewed together as a whole here: On the Origin of Species (1859)/Index? I was thinking in either in the header or the footer? Ozhu (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I would put them in the header. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I've put them in the same running header with the page number. There really isn't any reason to do otherwise, since the headwords are not going to appear in their published location anyway. Also, please look at the use I've made of the {{bar}} template. A parameter of "2" produces a single bar of the same length that you've tried to recreate with two dashes, but without the space in between. I think it makes the result look cleaner. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that tip. I'll go back and use that. Also makes it easier to edit with gvim on Windows, which doesn't handle special characters well at all. Ozhu (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

## How do I use plain sister to link to 2 wikipedia articles?

A Dictionary of Music and Musicians/Bärmann covers three members of the same family, two of whom have WP articles. w:Heinrich Baermann and w:Carl Baermann. How do I link to both of them from the same mainspace page without resorting to the deprecated {{wikipedia}}? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If you're trying to avoid using interwiki links, you could create an author page for them and link from there. The only other thing that comes to mind is the creation of a template like {{taxon}} or {{dated}}. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, if you use {{header}} instead of {{DMM}} (or modify the latter appropriately!), you could make use of parameter "related_author", which permits multiple (local) author links using the syntax (e.g.) related_author=Heinrich Baermann/Carl Baermann. MODCHK (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
H'mm. It's taken me all day to realise what you meant by using an interwiki link. I've obviously got too close to this project and can't step back far enough to look at it dispassionately enough. Oh well, at least I've got there now even if it is 9 hours later. There's also a hat note on Heinrich's WP article for Carl's. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be possible to modify the "wikipedia" parameter in header to accept more entries with the same syntax as " realted_authors"? I had the same need as BWC elsewhere.--Mpaa (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Template:Header just "calls" the Plain Sister template and that is where you'd need to add the capability for "extra" WP links. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Edit: btw... has anyone tried applying a stand-alone plain-sister template in the header's notes field in addition to using the "built-in" parameter? Done  ? -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
We come humbly and grovel at the feet of the master, who even in the deadest hours of the night always produces the goods! Thanks. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, I rephrase. Wouldn't it be better to modify Plain Sisters to accept multiple links? Even if a stand alone template call in notes produces the result, we are just distributing around info which should logically stay together.--Mpaa (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
One possible drawback of duplicating the "related_authors" approach on the wikipedia= parameter is that the internal use of {{#titleparts:}} would preclude links which contain a "/". I am aware this is a really silly example, but w:/etc/passwd exists, even if it is actually only a #redirect... MODCHK (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
How many times are we legitimately going come across something like BWCs example? I can just as easily take any recent executive order and bind it to 6 or 7 relevant existing pieces/persons on WP; the question then becomes if I should take it upon myself to make every work a 'top ten list' of what I think is most important to expand-upon / investigate further or not. Sometimes the perceived limitations on what or how much one can do turns out to be a good thing & I think this might be one such case. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Umm, I thought I was agreeing with this basic point.
Somebody also has to make this blindingly obvious comment, so it might as well be me: Whatever is wrong with embedding links in the article text at the point right where the eventual reader may want to look them up? Sure in this case it is a short piece, but who wants to scroll to the top of the article in case there is a relevant link, especially since the sister links don't exactly advertise where they point to: ((1) Wikipedia article) vs ((4) Wikipedia article)?
NoBoDy - that's who! (well... at least in my opinion that is). Personally, I don't practice the typical sister-linking thing much if at all. If I need Ickipedia at some point for some reason & we don't already host that person, place or thing on its/their own for a jump-point, I just point to WP in an inline-piped link. -= either it gets utilized upon arrival or folks will effortlessly read past it; not my problem =-.

This is why I'm hoping Wikidata at least manages to centralize the core info on proper people, places and things. When that info is sufficiently compiled, I'm guessing it will all be standardized and readily available through the Pageinfo (API?) thingy instead. Maybe then this circle-jerk with inter-language linking this & sister-linking that will finally start to fade (You might not have been around yet but I was never in favor of embedding stuff into the navigation header in the first place fwiw. I only work to "improve" upon it however I can because that is what the community wanted & decided; my PoV is over-ruled by that). -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Also what about multiple links, each to a local Author: page; each one of which links to exactly one wikipedia page... You know, the way it has been done for almost forever before? MODCHK (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Find a way to automate it - I don't believe people are against what you're saying but the realities of editing/profreading are all stacked against this. Having the capability in the same place, using the same practices makes it far easier to go back and link to WP as opposed to [re]proof-reading everything just for running down a half-dozen or so possible inline-link points. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
A simple "No, it's not" is enough.--Mpaa (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

## Request local file move to Commons

Once again, I am unable to upload a file to Commons for some reason. Can someone please take the local file...

...and overwrite my previous upload to ...

Thanks in advance. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

On it. Hesperian 02:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Done. Hesperian 03:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

## "Margin notice"

Hi, on Latin Wikisource, I imported this template la:Formula:Randnotiz rechts from the German version in order to display text written on the margin. It doesn't work so well (see la:Pagina:Hortus Malabaricus Volume 1.pdf/20 where the "Fig. 1" is displayed somewhere over the original page; while on la:Hortus Malabaricus/Liber I it appears over the rest of the text). Do you have a template which works better? :D (Unfortunately I don't know how this "concept" of writing on the margin is called in English, so I was a bit unsuccessful in searching). --MF-Warburg (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at {{sidenotes begin}} and its companion templates in either the sidenotes series or the outside series. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! --MF-Warburg (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

## Riders of the Purple Sage

This is a long-languishing item on my to-do list. Adam suggested that this edition, which is the first edition, ought to be the one uploaded, and the file is certainly the cleanest. I noticed that page 1 is one of those "Google notices" that needs to be removed, and page 2 is the book's cover. However, I need help adjusting the Djvu accordingly, since I have never understood how to remove the Google notice. The file in question is already on Commons here, and the local index file is Index:Riders of the Purple Sage.djvu. Note that the index file has been set up according to the way the file should look once the Google notice has been removed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Done -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! The second task I'll need help with is getting the four images prepped and uploaded (five, if you count the publisher's mark on the title page). The Index page has all the image locations identified, and there is a clean copy at the Hathi Trust. The images should be uploaded to commons:Category:Riders of the Purple Sage. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I take it back. The scans of the images at the Hathi Trust are terrible, with chromatic interference patterning that destroys the image. Wherever someone can find clean images, please use that. The original source of our djvu file at the Internet Archive appears to have been a PDF, so it's not a good choice either. If we can't find a clean copy online, we might have to rescan ourselves, if someone has access to an original edition. At least there are only four images needed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm doing an image run with HesperianBot as we speak. Let us see how it fares. There are a lot of ifs, but if it succeeds in following the trail from the Commons page to the archive.org page, identifying the right zip file, downloading it, identifying and extracting the correct image file for each page with a raw or missing image tag, converting it from tif to png, and, after all that, if the images therein are of an acceptable quality, then your problem will be solved. :-) Hesperian 06:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
It didn't work, and when I attempted manual extraction I found that the scan images in the zip are just as awful as they djvu images. Not worth pursuing. Hesperian 10:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
As I said, we might have to go with original scans or photos. I do notice that in commons:Category:Riders of the Purple Sage there is a photo of the title page and frontispiece. The user who uploaded that image has been active on Commons as recently as this past May. Someone who knows the requirements for images might contact them about whether they still have access to that copy of the book. I don't do work with images (yet) because I don't have image manipulation software suitable for dealing with quality images. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The original scans of the book come by the way of GoogleBooks' digitization project so the notion that there are other sources for this book are slim to none. The available full view GoogleBooks copies for the 1912 edition are all at least 5 years old or more to boot (you'll find the exact link way down near the bottom of the info found on Archive.org's host page).

A quick look through the images available thru GoogleBooks aren't much better than the those found on Archive.org but they are at least full sized ones & have a better chance of being workable than what we currently have (the image pages in the DjVu file are about a third of the size of all the other pages in case you haven't notice thanks to our thumbnail resizing in the Page: namespace). -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at all the options at GoogleBooks, but I have checked every copy at the Internet Archive, most or all of which seem to have come from GoogleBooks. They're all very old (in internet terms), all with extremely poor quality images, and some have even had the images stripped out. So, I don't put a lot of hope in finding on-line images either. I've left a message with the person at Commons whom I mentioned above. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, there are only 3 or 4 available full veiw versions of the 1912 edition available to me here in the U.S. on GoogleBooks; maybe other locales will have more options.

Regardless, the primary concern here should be reproducing/replacing the text, followed by securing quality images (if and when that is possible of course). -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't anticipate any further problems with the text, now that the source file is up and corrected. But, as the images may take some time to track down and process, I'd like to get a head start on that issue. Although our priority should be text first, that doesn't mean that the one must be completed before the other is begun. The text can proceed apace at the same time as a search for images, yes? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
To each his own... There is no "right" way to approach this; only the most logical or most efficient way (in my opinion). Since images are moot for most mobile device viewers anyway - and a general pain in the azz to secure & produce correctly - I prioritize them dead last in order to theoretically satisfy the largest number of potential readers with the most complete high-quality content that's possible. Otherwise; why bother with visiting WS at all? I can read what we're hosting now directly from IA (warts and all) or from Project Guttenberg. Of course, this is just my opinion; not policy. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
My own view is that the images we process serve a greater good. Once they're uploaded on Commons, they are useable not only here, but also on Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikispecies, and other MW projects. Their presence then serves to promote what we do here, and to raise awareness of this project, in a way that goes beyond the mere availability of the text which (as you say) may already be accessed from many locations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
All points well taken and am 100% in principled agreement with here... but I just don't see any evidence of that approach outpacing [my] the view that complete and accurate transcribed text, albeit wikified instead of pure HTML/XML, is still the only current "advantage" WS has over similar outlets. The benefits of producing high quality images in addition to the goal of providing complete and accurate transcriptions as near as possible to the original seem marginal at best (at least for me that is). Had we the traffic comparable to the kind enjoyed by Wikipedia, imho you'd be absolutely in the driver's seat here with your POV. But when auto-logins out pace main page views somewhere in the ratio of 10 to 1, I become more concerned with proving ourselves as useful to the potential reader/researcher than I am with rounding out what I consider the more aesthetic aspects of hosting works.

Don't get me wrong, sometimes the inclusion of a diagram or a map is indeed paramount to remaining true to the original content in our transcriptions; how blurry it is another matter altogether for me however. Again, there is no "right" answer regarding any of this, I'm just glad that we have regular contributors who care enough to voice such nuances in the first place. Prost. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

## A poem with a reference which also contains a poem

Can someone please help and look at this PAGE? The poem at the end of the page contains a second reference which also contains a poem and I can’t seem to place the reference number to match the original. — Ineuw talk 03:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Done . Don't use poem tags is the simple answer. I'm sure there's a more complex one, but let's not go there. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Great - thanks for the advice and the help.— Ineuw talk 05:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

# Other discussions

## Closure on bot confirmations

The 90-day warning to owners of idle bots has now passed. The discussion thread was archived to Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2013-03#90 day warnings posted, and rather than bring it back here I edited the outcomes straight into the archive.[1] No bot owner responded. With one exception, I have closed as not confirmed, and de-flagged the bot.

The exception is MediaWiki default. This is not a normal bot account. It is the default username to which content diffs are ascribed whenever internal changes to MediaWiki, or the running of internal MediaWiki scripts, result in apparent changes to content. It appears that we do have the ability as a community to determine whether we want to flag this account as a bot or not. However it has no owner/operator, so a 90-day failure to 'show cause' means nothing. I think this is a special case, outside our usual confirmation processes, and I would like further guidance from the community before I take any action.

Hesperian 01:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No owner/operator = security risk.
No activity since 2007 = not all that much being ascribed to it, eh?
Last activity in 2007 = deleted everything it's ever contributed to Wikisource pre-2007; and I do mean EvErYtHiNg.
I would think the first point is enough and the crux of the matter for us in relation to the rest of the Wikiworld & it's practices / policies. Without an actual user to be held accountable for whatever reasons, I don't see how anyone can vote other than to adhere to the current standards in place - without exception - and de-flag the account.

If this becomes the minority view - I'd rather see some activity on the account so at least we ascertain it is not an account who has had it's password lost to history before any action is sanctioned either way.

If even that becomes tossed aside by further community consensus to still keep the Bot around - I'd say at least block it as a precaution until proof of an actual operator or the need-for-its-use one day magically materializes. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe the account cannot be logged into. I believe that it isn't really a user account at all; it is a faux username that internal script edits get assigned to. So I'm not sure in this case that "No owner/operator = security risk".
I am happy to de-flag: presumably this would merely cause any edits to appear in RC. I would be reluctant to block without an assurance from the devs that this would not have the potential to disrupt internal database maintenance.
Hesperian 04:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
... and I believe that approach to update/add items to & for the local "MediaWiki" namespace is no longer done locally on a project by project basis via a Bot & its scripting. "It" comes "down" from code on the servers automagically. Need to overwrite the server dumped default? Then you, me or some bot would edit the local "MediaWiki" namespace's equivalent to override those "dumped" defaults, no?

Anyway, if you can find me some evidence that bot has been used for anything since early 2007 for something positive rather the deletion of old static method in preparation for the current server based method on any wiki project never mind just en.WS, I might reconsider. Until then, all we are debating here is our own POVs and not the facts (i.e. - not a shred of activity - as far as I can tell - for over 5 years now).

I say that means the account & its bot has been superseded by better coding and as a result was made obsolete sometime early in 2007. What you say amounts to the idea that not a single thing relating to the MediaWiki namespace has been refined, amended or improved by the higher power of the Wiki-developers for over 5 years now. We frequently joke about being left-out of the overall development scheme, but I don't think its been that bad. (or is it?) -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, an old MediaWiki installation of mine (version 1.18 I think) had a user called MediaWiki Default (which set up the default main page during installation). A new installation (1.22alpha) does not have any such user – I think it can be safely blocked (although I see no use for that). Inkbug (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I don’t see a reason for it to keep the bot flag, or block to block it. Removing the bot flag just makes the edits more visible if/when the account becomes active, at which time the community can decide what to do about it. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
NO requirement for a bot flag; remove, That aside I see no requirement for action, it is no different from hundreds of other quiescent accounts. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will remove the bot flag for this account. Hesperian 00:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

## April's Feature Text of the Month's odt file doesn't work

The ODT text for April's Feature Text of the Month is pretty well blank besides a table with some numbers and the copyright notice. I just thought I would report it. I don't know if any other text are affected. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

On a related note, Wikisource:Books is also affected including PDF, ODT, and MediaPress. I wish this worked because I would love to print on demand. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
EPUB is also affected. I downloaded War Pictures with EPUB and got it all, so presumable, the problem is just with A Jewish State (1917 translation)?
A bit more research… Same Problem with The English Constitution (1894) seem to be related to books with Parenthesis in the title. Jeepday (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Has someone chatted with Tpt? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I have only had conversations posted here. Just downloaded The Time Machine (Heinemann text) as EPUB. Seem to have gotten it all. Jeepday (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Can you check it now to see if it is the same or better. I added class="ws-summary" to the ToC. The work that Matt pasted seems fine to me. Well except the fact that the titles and the poems are on different pages. Seems that we are going to need to look at how we format works with a centred component, that then has stuff wrapped in other non-breaking type formatting. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Tried A Jewish State (1917 translation) as EPUB again, still getting the same little bit. Jeepday (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Can I start by saying how much I detest Template:Dotted TOC page listing and how it so bloats code on page, and anyone who uses it on any of the works that I start will be beaten about about the head with it. okay, got that off my chest. I have added class="ws-summary" to that template, and it seems to have had the desired effect BUT the individual page numbers in the output, rather than chapter headings makes it less than effective. I really would recommend that we we look to chapter names as they they give good chapter headings. [Note that I am using the Firefox add-on EPUB READER for this checking]. So it should right now, and we will have to look at what frWS has done, or what Tpt said about this at an earlier time. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we deprecate it before it spreads even more? I often use it but I am unaware of the nasty effect as it is not written anywhere. And who knows how many more I am not aware of. User assumption is: if the template is there, then there is no problem in using it.--Mpaa (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm no fan of the bloat that template brings with its usage either but it is only written up that that way because it has to "overcome" the issues with Dynamic Layouts & its execution in the load order to ultimately render pretty much the same for everybody @ 1st page click-in. Its overkill - no question about that - but the true fault lies elsewhere & deprecating it now imho wouldn't really solve anything in the long run. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I downloaded the two problem books with the WS EPUB tool and opened both in Calibre, the problem seems to be corrected. Jeepday (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I got Tpt in IRC, and subsequently added the class to MediaWiki:Proofreadpage header templatebillinghurst sDrewth 14:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

## Score extension (a big thank you)

It would appear that the Score extension has been deployed on this wiki. I would like to say a big thank you to all the people who picked up the threads where real life snatched me away from this project, as well as the folks whose threads I could pick up back then (most notably, Johannes, River, and Tim), and Mark and Sumana who helped me get into the Wikimedia development process. There are surely a lot of other people who should be mentioned here, and that they're missing is entirely my fault, for I haven't really been following. So, again, a big thank you to everyone involved. It always leaves a strange feeling to leave something unfinished, but then to see it finished in the end by the caring hands of such a great community made we weep tears of joy, literally.--GrafZahl (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I started a talk about hiding the vorbis player when using score with vorbis=1 [4], feel free to comment if you think about a better user interface. — Phe 23:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking for an excuse to have a play? There are plenty of pages out there tagged as needing a score. Unfortunately their categorisation is a bit of a mess: you'll find them in Category:Pages requiring musical examples, Category:Pages containing sheet music and Category:Texts with missing musical scores. Hesperian 00:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

A manual on the Lilypond notation language can be found at http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.16/Documentation/notation/index.html Hesperian 00:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Woohoo! Thanks to GZ we got through a major hurdle. To note that it was originally bugzilla:189 and now we are up in the 45k range. We need to run around like headless chooks and fix up some of the bits that we have dismantled due to the lack of the functionality. It would be good to bring back the project, and we need to fix up our instructions. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

For reference Help:Sheet music. There have been people sharing information about how they use lilypond. I will try to capture it and stick it on the corresponding talk page, and we can sort through what is useful. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I am delighted to see this. Thanks to everyone involved. If anyone wants me for anything I'll be playing with music. Here's my first page with 7 examples of it being used: Page:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians vol 1.djvu/24 Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
FYI, an example on the French-speaking wikisource : fr:Page:Barzaz Breiz, huitième édition.djvu/641.
A question : what is the best place for language neutral scores ? (like fr:Suite pour violoncelle BWV 1007, not using the extension right now). Oldwikisource or the home-wikisource of the author ? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The elements of musical scores are themselves a language. There might be a case for a new language domain: music.wikisource.org. In the absence of such, I guess oldwikisource would be the place. Hesperian 02:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Very interesting question! We can do some level of interwiki display, and it is one that we should investigate (and one to play). We should also investigate #LST and ensure that this functions well, and whether it is possible in parts, both breaking and joining. Fun! — billinghurst sDrewth 02:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be an obvious way to change the rendering size. Certainly "smaller block", "larger block", etc, have no effect. Hesperian 02:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

### Proposal: Project for musical scores

What do you guys think about starting a separate language-neutral version of Wikisource for scores? The Muscogee Wikipedia was closed so I doubt there would be any objections about using the mus. prefix. Scores with lyrics in some specific language could be placed there and transcluded into their language version using {{iwpage}}.--Micru (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Objection for the prefix mus (ISO code have to be ISO code ; the 5-6 projects with prefixes that aren't ISO code but looks like ISO code are always troubling/confusing me), why not with a simple and explicit music prefix ?
I see two ways to do it :
• only the langage neutral music (and iwpage to import the others) ;
• all the music (and iwpage to export the not“langage neutral”) ;
I don't know which one is best. In the second case, all the music is in the same place and the community could be specific and more efficient. But it doesn't seems logical to put everything there since there is books with only a few pages of music sheet. Eg. fr:Livre:Barzaz Breiz, huitième édition.djvu/br:Livre:Barzaz Breiz, huitième édition.djvu : this book is already on two wikisources with iwpages, is it really a good idea to add pages on a third wikisource for the forty last pages ? (I’m not sure but why not).
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I think this should be discussed in meta and involve more users. It is not only about "books containing scores", but also about scores in general, like those in IMSLP. Books that have scores can be in both sites if seen appropriate. In the case that you describe maybe it would be enough having in the French version only. Anyway, here is the Request for comments in meta.--Micru (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
We only just got the score extension turned on. Also, the vast majority of works with scores are going to be predominantly written in some natural language. There will only be a very small number of works that are, first and foremost, a score, and cannot properly be hosted in any particular natural language subdomain. I think these should be hosted at the language-neutral Wikisource for now. Once we have a thousand such works, we might revisit this. Hesperian 02:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Before every project opening, there is a incubation test. There is no other possibility than waiting to have a active community on scores/music/songs/etc. Nonetheless, we could think about it and how to do it (eg. about the perimeter which is not clear to me). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

### Help with a blog post?

I'd like to highlight Wikimedia's new usage of Score with a WMF blog post that points to specific scores on Wikisource, Wikipedia, and any other project that's using them. I hope this post will also be suitable for circulating to music teachers, music historians, and the musicology community to encourage them to come and use Score to share their knowledge and archives with us. And in this post I'd like to also link to LilyPond notation documentation, and thank volunteers Brian Wolff, GrafZahl, Markus Glaser, Beau, Anja Ebersbach, River Tarnell, Johannes E. Schindelin, and the WMF staffers who worked on this. Would one of you like to volunteer to cowrite this post with me? Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps writing such a post is not my forte, but I would like to cheer you on! This is awesome. -Pete (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I like the idea of such a blog post, however with the parser choking on even relatively straightforward snippets (for example, Page:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians vol 1.djvu/452 where I've had to comment out the lyrics so that at least the notes will show) it's too early to circulate an invitation to the wider music community. Once it's working as per the tin, then I'd be happy to assist. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Beeswaxcandle - ok, let's wait to publish the blog post until that bug is fixed, but will you help me write it and then hold it in readiness to publish? Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Anyone who wants to pitch in, please go ahead and add prose or ideas or links to this blog post draft on meta. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Beeswaxcandle: Thanks for reporting this here! The problem you are reporting sounds like an issue in the code of the MediaWiki software or the server configuration. I have copied the issue to the Bugzilla bug tracker at bugzilla:48779 (anybody can do this, see How to report a bug for more info). This is needed to make developers of the software aware of the issue. The link and number of the bug report is on the right, so everybody can inform themselves about status and progress. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but this is the same bug as bugzilla:48465 and bugzilla:47534. Hence my not bothering to report it separately. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

## GLAM Boot Camp workshop

Doug and I may give a presentation this weekend on Wikisource, which may involve teaching how to edit in Page space. Just a heads up, if there are bizarre edits and such, and not to get involved in proofing/validating a work or anything. We may pick a short work to be validated in the given time or maybe pick up on an abandoned index. I'll post which one here if it gets to that. Thank you! - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

A short work considered to edit is The Yellow Wall-Paper, depending on the number of attendees and the nature of the presentation. A nice scan is here, with cover and all (unfortunately at the end of the work). If someone has a chance, could you remove the Google pages, put the cover in the front for me and convert to DjVu? - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll get on that for you folks. Check back here for progress. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Done -- see File:The_Yellow_Wall_Paper.djvu. I didn't create an Index: 'cause the whole thing might get proofread before your presentation even starts if I did. Good Luck. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much George. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
No worries... & a "shout-out" would be nice. :) -- George Orwell III (talk)
Shouted :) I also had a chance to talk with a board member who was interested in holding an edit-a-thon for wikisource, I suggested the city because there are a few of us in the area that came to mind. I mentioned you and LJB to maybe be trainers, and I apologize for not consulting either of you beforehand for your interest :) - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Wow, that is a big note. BTW, that missing line, as well as several other errors and the use of ALL CAPS in stead of italics, were all errors in the Gutenberg version that Ijon linked (I hadn't caught the missing line but I checked it following your post); it looks like someone just copy pasted that over from PG in 2006 - basically the version he linked is a prime example of why Wikisource is better for a reliable text. ;-) --Doug.(talk contribs) 01:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

## OED1

The first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, actually having the title "A new English dictionary on historical principles : founded mainly on the materials collected by the Philological Society", was published in 12 volumes between 1888 and 1928, with later supplements. Several of these volumes can be found at the Internet Archive, e.g. the last one vol. 10 part 2. Would it be legally okay to import them to Commons and Wikisource? Are they now considered to be in the public domain? And if so, would it be a good idea, or has someone else already proofread the text? --LA2 (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Looks to me like the works published prior to 1923 could be placed on en.ws as they are PD in the US but any of the volumes that Craigie (d. 1957) or Onions (d. 1965) were editors of cannot go on Commons as they are not PD in the UK (and won't be until 2035 in the case of Onions). The Volumes that are post 1923 publication would have to be evaluated separately for US copyright but most likely could not go here (though they could be placed on Wikilivres). This breaks up the work, so it might be preferable to put the whole thing on Wikilivres.--Doug.(talk contribs) 02:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• The extra consideration of the copyright law is whether the works were commissioned. If they are commissioned works of the organisation then they just had 50 years from the year of publication, not posthumous. Issue is knowing the contractual arrangements, so look to see who is claiming copyright. Though to stop any fuss on the matter and arguments at Commons, if they are needed, then would say upload them to Wikisource and tag not to be moved. One wonders how many volunteers we would get to edit the work, those sorts of work usually need someone to drive a standard formatting type, and if it has lots of quirky formatting that tends to make things not happen. It would definitely need a project to manage it and someone willing to drive it. If that isn't there, I wouldn't be hurrying to do it. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there any chance that we could get in touch with the OED editors and have their approval, or at least a comment? --LA2 (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think they are much interested in free competition from themselves. I concur with Billinghurst, I wouldn't put the 1923 to 1928 volumes on here until we have a strong claim that the copyright has expired on those volumes. You may want to discuss with Dan O'Huiginn on GitHub who seems to be interested in such a project. --Doug.(talk contribs) 01:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Besides the OED people themselves, I don't know of anyone who has transcribed it. There's at least one person at PGDP who has had it on his to-do list for years, but they're monsters; they have their own phonetic alphabet and ridiculous amounts of text per page. The general opinion was that the copyright on the post-1922 volumes was not something that needed to be worried about; by the time you reached them in the transcription process, they would be out of copyright. The 1928 volumes will be PD in the US in 2024. w:OED cites a now missing page on the OED website for "According to the publishers, it would take a single person 120 years to "key in" text to convert it to machine readable form which consists a total of 59 million words of the OED second edition, 60 years to proofread it, and 540 megabytes to store it electronically." The OED1 is a bit smaller, 12 or 13 volumes instead of 20, so only 30 or 40 million words.
I think it would be incredibly cool to have, but it's not something I'd start without serious consideration.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

## Help test the new account creation and login

Hi all,

After many weeks of testing, We (the editor engagement experiments team) are is getting close to enabling redesigns of the account creation and login pages. (There's more background about how we got here and why ‎our blog post.)

Right now are trying to identify any final bugs before we enable new defaults. This is where we really need your help: for now, we don't want to disrupt these critical functions if there are outstanding bugs or mistranslated interface messages. So for about a week, the new designs are opt-in only for testing purposes, and it would be wonderful if you could give them a try. Here's how:

If you have questions about how to test this or why something might be the way it is, I'd definitely check out our step-by-step testing guide and the general documentation.

Many thanks, Steven (WMF) (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Quick heads up that we enabled this today. There is one red link to fix, but I assume someone will notice it who knows whether Wikisource either has an appropriate link to redirect to, or wants to comment it out. Steven (WMF) (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The red link is in Special:UserLogin and goes to Help:Logging in, not sure if we have an appropriate page or not. Does anyone know if we have a good redirect or if we need to create this one? Jeepday (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
If you don't want to create it (even a simple page helps, I think, and you can crib from another wiki if you like), you can always "blank" the message by creating it with a hidden comment as the only content. Steven (WMF) (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I have amended the underlying link to point to meta's equivalent page, which may not be perfect as it takes them off our wiki, though is better than a red link. We probably want to look to some minimal text, and then point them to meta as a better solution, though I hate the idea of having to maintain the text. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I did think about that, however, I did create a simple page that points to meta for the general information, and then through in our 4 general quick links. People can hack away. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

## File:Goody Two-Shoes (1881).djvu

In the scans pages 136 and 137 appear to be transposed. It would be appreciated if this was resolved quickly, as most of the text of the book is complete. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Done -- I wish they were all that easy to fix. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Update- The text for this is now transcribed, but needs proofreading/validation. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

## Warning on leaving edit page with unsaved changes

The implementation varies with mw. software updates. I noticed the following combinations of behaviors after updates:

1. No warning when leaving a page edit view without editing - which is correct (previous versions but didn’t track which).
2. Warning is not triggered when leaving an edited header or footer - which is incorrect (previous versions but didn’t track which).
3. Warning is triggered by opening the page in mode and then leaving - current behaviour in the current version (1.22wmf2 (506e233)) - which is incorrect.

Could we/should we, bring these to the attention of the developers for future releases? Thanks. — Ineuw talk 22:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Page warnings are configurable to be on or off in your editing preferences. From my experience it tracks a change of of url {{PAGENAME}} and I am unaware of any recent change. Personally mine is set to off, and I hate that wretched default is on. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the nuisance factor and it’s setting in Preferences\Editing. However, the option was probably added for people like me (but I won’t elaborate). Previously, it was implemented differently. After software update, the implementation is altered and currently it’s incorrect. In this particular case, I check pages validated by others and even when I don’t touch anything it is triggered which is wrong.— Ineuw talk 02:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

## Anyone else lose customised buttons old toolbar?

Today I have found that my customised buttons situated in the old toolbar are no longer functional/visible. I just get the old unmodified toolbar, very inconvenient. WMF say that they cannot think of things that have changed in the past few hours to break things. So anyone else having issues? When did your's start? — billinghurst sDrewth 00:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I lost them a long while ago and posted about it here several times. In one of the posts (archived), I also mentioned the version number when the failure began. Experimented by removing everything (all code), and then added a single customized button and this worked, but only one. The addition of more caused the disappearance of all. The presence, or the absence of the unrelated code which hides some of the standard buttons did not affect the customization, so re-added them. Please see my common .js. — Ineuw talk 02:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Mine were all there last night when I went to bed, but are not there now. Very much a nuisance. My guess is that someone has played somewhere with the monobook skin. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Same as BWC.--Mpaa (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Ahem, My problem mentioned above was in the Vector skin and the old toolbar.— Ineuw talk 06:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting. The consolidation and elimination of the various "skins" available to Users has slowing been progressing now for more than just the last few WmF releases -- but most negative changes are typically weeded out in testing long before roll-out or are quickly identified & reverted post roll-out, so I don't think the root of the problem will be found there.

By chance however, I've been deep diving into the .CSS and .JS revisions & developments ranging from some of the more recent WmF releases as well as those from back in the old .svn hub days in an attempt to try and make sense of it all before addressing our own little mess of settings. About a week ago (maybe less), I took the liberty of spitting up our rather stupidly huge single Mediawiki:Common.css file into seamlessly loading sub-sets with the aim of testing & eliminating of some of the more redundant/obsolete crap we still manage to have lying around in there.

The only real difference now is that Common.css now loads these "sub-sets" ( Mediawiki:Common.css/Tweaks.css, Mediawiki:Common.css/Mainpage.css, Mediawiki:Common.css/Boxes.css, Mediawiki:Common.css/Lists.css ) in addition to anything still being set within Common.css itself. Nearly all the previously defined settings and values were kept on; but everything -- whether reorganized or not -- has been reformatted in the process to provide some resemblance of consistency across all the pages affected. I tested it all & at every stage against the W3 "JigSaw" tool to make sure it wasn't just CSS 2.1 complaint but CSS 3.0 compliant as well. It is possible something I did while making these modifications is only now being exposed for what it is with the latest WmF upgrade being rolled-out on top of it. Please take a look at those files and smack them around around some until they talk to you - I hope nothing comes back to implicate me here. Thanks & let me know asap if "trouble" is indeed found. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry GO3, tried to blame you, but FAIL!. It is a wikilove fix that fouls other things bugzilla:47457#c64; fix is at bugzilla:47872. I am told that they are looking for a fix ASAP, though it may be days. Keyword that I was looking for and couldn't think of was mwCustomEditButtons. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I had thought as much but my doubts kept creeping along in spite of all the "care" I took in the break-out. I figured better to speak up now and have others put my mind at ease instead. Thanks.

Some interesting stuff going on in the various bugzillas -- the most important point being...

> The mwCustomEditButtons interface has been deprecated in favor of
> mw.toolbar.addButton, which [was] created especially for the legacy toolbar users
> last year to address the many declined bug reports for mwCustomEditButtons
> which could not be otherwise addressed because mwCustomEditButtons is beyond
> repair, it is a flawed concept and it keeps breaking for many reasons.

In the same "loading order" vein as the custom toolbar buttons now face, I'm wondering how many other preferences and/or gadgets we have in use around here that are only "working" by happenstance rather than by design. I know its probably unpopular to say so but I'm putting out there anyway - the loading and expansion of All editmode tools for WS members is contrary to nearly every other sound practice being observed on the sister sites. As if initially expanding the entire set of tools only to have folks force them closed again [closed is the default every place I checked btw] wasn't potentially problematic enough, it seems like loading only the essential tools via the selected skin will become the new standard some day soon. Folks who want any of the extras (and any overhead & junk that may come with them), would then opt to activate it/them in their individual preferences as needed rather than the current 'all of them on and on all the time' defaults.

Some of the other scripts and gadgets we've had around for good amount of time now probably should be vetted against the current coding environment as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I also lost my buttons. What to do? Without i cannot work! --Aschroet (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It has obviously escaped our notice previously as this has been addressed and is covered as updated scripts at Wikisource:Tools and scripts/More editing buttons. Rather than show the code here, it is probably more prudent for those who need to code update to copy and paste their requirements from the list on that page. I will be adding more of my more customised components to the list, and would encourage others to add their custom fixes to the list. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That's nice, but it hasn't worked for me. Any other solutions available? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Got it to work now, but I've had to wrap each button in an if statement. No idea why it works. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Possibly because you have it in monobook.js, I long ago moved mine to common.js. You should just be able to wrap it in one all encompassing if statement, rather than one per statement.
• Anybody know of a domain or sister site that sets WikiEditor as the default for all (annon. & Users)? That would be one way to see if you our your settings are effecting the basics being provided by the wikicode on the servers. I tripped over just such wikimedia site roughly a week to 10 days ago while poking around where I remember I was suprised to see the WikiEditor come up by default . . . but damn if I just didn't spend nearly and hour trying to re-trace my steps in looking for it! Anyone? -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I am pretty certain that the Wikieditor (so called beta) toolbar is the default. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
It is default ON, new wiki at which to and play at Wm2014:billinghurst sDrewth 01:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

NOTE : that changing to this methodology appears to resolve the issue of the buttons not working in headers and footers in the Page: namespace. Please try it and let me know if it doesn't work for you, as I will need to hit the corresponding bugzilla request. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

some days I really want to fly down there and give you a long overdue slap

Obviously a recent patch has chipped away another small nugget of our mountain of accumulated shit and [re]balanced the "load order of things" back across the virtual line that lets that old "focus" problem resolve itself somehow, yada, yada, yada..... embrance & enjoy it while you still can <suckers>.

More importantly, the WikiEditor the rest of the planet seems to be using has finally got their menu overflow/overlap bugs straightened out in that same batch of patches as well - now there really is no excuse not to try moving over and using it some so you won't have to go 'cold turkey' when the current house of cards finally collapses (no-pun intended) & gets removed for good.

My previous still stands, however - we have too much junk standardized, gadgetized, or what-not, loading as part of our so called defaults and nobody has kept up with their routine maint. nor the pace of the now bi-weekly code changes. I bet if we removed the redundant Edit-mode Characters/Tools from the below the edit summary & save button for the ones embedded in the drop-down menus in WikiEditor, that problem would have been resolved weeks ago instead of yesterday. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

## [en] Change to wiki account system and account renaming

Some accounts will soon be renamed due to a technical change that the developer team at Wikimedia are making. More details on Meta.

(Distributed via global message delivery 03:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC). Wrong page? Correct it here.)

To note that this only applies to those who do not have global accounts, which is only one or two. If you are not sure if you have a global account check Special:CentralAuthbillinghurst sDrewth 14:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Which brings to mind a little title/emblem prejudice I have noted. "Global" accounts, pretty limiting if you ask me, also notice that several WMF logos appear in the shape of a globe, even though the claim is that "anyone can edit". What about the other inhabitants of the solar system, the galaxy and the universe? Not to mention cross dimensional and parallel universe entities. Then there are also the souls caught in different astral planes, the list goes on (Limited list; failure to mention does not discount importance). I say it is time to stop the hidden bigotry, the wiki-world is not just one world or one existence, embrace them all! JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Doing interwiki link updating across multiple dimensions is a pain in the ass. Trust me. EVula of Earth Prime // talk // // 18:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Every link has it’s issues, at least with multiple dimension linking you don’t have to contend with light speed issues. You either have to initiate the link prior to the link be requested (significant timing issues, don’t get me started), or you have to use faster then light communication, and talk about bandwidth issues. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

## [en] Change to section edit links

The default position of the "edit" link in page section headers is going to change soon. The "edit" link will be positioned adjacent to the page header text rather than floating opposite it.

Section edit links will be to the immediate right of section titles, instead of on the far right. If you're an editor of one of the wikis which already implemented this change, nothing will substantially change for you; however, scripts and gadgets depending on the previous implementation of section edit links will have to be adjusted to continue working; however, nothing else should break even if they are not updated in time.

Detailed information and a timeline is available on meta.

Ideas to do this all the way to 2009 at least. It is often difficult to track which of several potential section edit links on the far right is associated with the correct section, and many readers and anonymous or new editors may even be failing to notice section edit links at all, since they read section titles, which are far away from the links.

(Distributed via global message delivery 18:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC). Wrong page? Correct it here.)

## Index:The Relations Tolstoy.pdf

A new contributor has transcribed the Tchertkoff translation of Tolstoy's The Relations of the Sexes, based on a PDF file that is itself merely a print-to-file of a modern transcription. I think this defeats the purpose of transcribing against a source... but I don't want to scare this new contributor away. How should we proceed, please? Hesperian 01:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Obviously the source file should be replaced for one that is made up of actual scans of the original book as first published. Unfortunately, after a quick look, this particular Tolstoy-related work seems to be an "exotic" one and not so easy to find a free on-line equivalent so far. Google Books gives me all the specifics. ...
• Title: The Relations of the Sexes.
Transl. by V. Tchertkoff and A.C. Fifield Principally from Private Letters, Diaries, and Unpubl. MSS.
Volume 20 of Free Age Press ed. of Tolstoy
• Authors: Lev Nikolaevič Tolstoj, Vladimir Grigor'evič Čertkov, A. C. Fifield
• Published: 1901

... but no full-view download [USA]. Maybe another region will have full access.

Without a replacement (and strctly in my humble opinion) - the best accommodation I would offer up here (since it seems to be all proofread already) is to subst:itute the existing content into a new stand-alone & non-transcluded mainspace work, delete the Index: and related Pages, delete the incorrectly WS domain uploaded PDF file and explain to the User why all that is being done. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I presume that your subtext is that creating a faux scan of text is of no real value, and we may as well just have the text. Agreed that substituting the text is the way to progress, and remove the index and page ns after that. I don't see a full text version at Google, and presume that Hathi Trust doesn't have it. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I've just looked on Hathi Trust and can't find a copy there. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Can I suggest moving the last item suggested by GO3 to the top? i.e. tell the user what is up first then tell them we'll gladly do that all for them if they don't know how.--Doug.(talk contribs) 01:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

## Button icons required

If there are any image button makers out there, it would be great if someone could make some in the same style as Commons:Category:MediaWiki edit toolbar formatting buttons. I would like buttons

Then we can add these to the scripting tools. Thanks if anyone can. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

and

DoneIneuw talk 03:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ultra Kool, but how do I attach them to my toolbar and get them to function? Add a script? —Maury (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Done it for you. I have also updated Wikisource:Tools and scripts/More editing buttons. Thanks Ineuw, you are a champ. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
You’re most welcome. This, being my first attempt at using Inkscape, didn’t want to promise until I succeeded. But now, I’m on a roll. :-) — Ineuw talk 23:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Ineuw, thanks!  :) --Zyephyrus (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

## Transclusion of text from within "poem" tags

I recently found that text labeled within <poem></poem> tags cannot be transcluded. The text that is called simply doesn't appear.

A simple experiment here makes the behavior clear.

To say the least, this is a major practical limitation on the ability to transclude sections of text in Wikisource. Does anyone know if this behavior is intended? Can it be fixed? Is there any way to work around it? Dovi (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you will find the problem to be the placement of section tags within poem tags. If you place the poem tags within the section tags, I bet they transclude just fine. Hesperian 06:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply, and yes that is precisely the problem. If you have a poem or a song within <poem></poem> tags, and need to transclude specific stanzas from it that are labeled with section tags, nothing appears. Why don't section tags work within poem tags? Dovi (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Something to do with tags not being re-entrant in their "<" forms—the same problem as discussed in w:Wikipedia:REFNEST. Therefore it may be possible to solve the problem by replacing the "<poem>Blah</poem>" tags with "{{#tag:poem|Blah}}". Hesperian 07:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Due to the nature and shortcoming of custom <tag>s. I bet that it will work if you use the form ... {{#tag:poem|<section begin="text" />here is my text that I want<section end="text" />}}. Read more about Magic words.

As an aside, same reason why templates inside many <ref> tags don't substitute. Also why I use #tag for my refs, though I do substitute. mw:Extension:Cite is the most problematic tag in that sense. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much to both of you for the suggestion!

I tried it, but things didn't go smoothly and I may be making some silly mistake. Please glance at my example again: "Part Three" and "Part Four" still don't transclude. However, strangely, during one edit "Part Four" did briefly transclude (at least during the preview), but I wasn't able to reproduce the behavior again. Can anyone suggest a fix? Please feel free to edit the example. Dovi (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That looks like a NADA to me. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, thanks anyway. If anyone else has suggestions please let me know. Is it worth filing a bug? Dovi (talk) 05:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I found the bug. It is also mentioned on the page for the LST extension. Please vote for the bug. Dovi (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

## button button whose got the buttons ?

AE, ae, OE, oe, (n-dash but I don't use this), m-dash are missing. I haven't changed anything and only started editing a short while ago for today. What happened? It sure would be nice if we could remove some buttons and replace them with things more often used (like the English pound symbol) -- a personal customized toolbar instead of useless buttons and having to scroll down and look around to get a British pound symbol, etc.. —Maury (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed this one. If anyone else wants intervention, please ask. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
It's still kaput. I think it's the fuse. I must go to bed now. Will B Back asap. "Calling out, "Mayday, Mayday... —Maury (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Fixed it. My not recognising }} against })
I have done this, copied from French wikisource: it works, though I don't understand how  :) --Zyephyrus (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The first part is sets the framework, and the second part is the respective definitions. The syntax omits the individual labels as they are set out in the framework. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Can I please see a link to the code? Thanks.— Ineuw talk 15:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
It's back! I never noticed before but my # button gives me the English pound sign -- something I use often. Thanks fellows!

## Index:The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha.djvu

Where are the subsequent volumes? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Holy crap. I knew work was being done, but I didn't expect it to be so fast. I can upload the other two later tonight. - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Here you go: Volume 2, Volume 3. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
VOlume 3 has missing pages :( , Can you confirm this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

## Music-Hall Selection...

Hi, it would be appreciated if the knowledgeable people here would be able to assist in suggesting poems and items that could be used to re-construct a music hall like revue. I'd be really interested in developing this is as an offshoot project assuming there is material available?

Inspired by a poem I found, which I found myself trying to figure out how it might be sung!ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

## Natural History Museum transcription project

Hi all

I'm working on something with the Natural History Museum in London where I am currently the Wikimedian in Residence.

The museum is scanning huge drawers full of species at very high resolution and I want to set up a transcription project for the labels, I'm thinking there are 2 options. I'd like to know, is there an automatic way of transferring pages of a transcribed pdf from wikisource to commons as seperate files? Also is it possible to add custom fields to a page or a document as a whole? The other option is to upload them straight to commons and use hidden categories to for unread proofread and validated. As far as i know this would be first citizen science project on a Wikimedia project.

Many thanks

--Mrjohncummings (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

@Mrjohncummings Sounds like some fun you have got yourself into there. It is post pumpkin hour, so I am probably a bit slow, however, I am not catching the gist of your example of work, or what you are looking to do. Generally for works that are out of copyright, and in the public domain we put the scans at Commons, only hosting scans here where they are not in the public domain in their home country, so cannot be at Commons. Are you talking specimen images alone, or specimen and text? How many pages are we talking to the PDFs? I would think that it would be worth getting the opinion of Dominic (talkcontribs) as he did Wikimedian in residence at NARA and has plenty of experience in the field. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

## Index:History of the Anti corn law league.pdf Text complete

Any one want to play hunt the hyphen? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
It need's red (Non-proofread) pages turning into green (validated ones). I've spent a while cleaning up the OCR, but I don't

trust my ability to spot every typographical or ocr error. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

## GLAM query

Hi, I'm Wikimedia UK's GLAM organiser, (that's Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums in the real world) and I've had a query from one of our potential GLAM partners. Would we be willing to accept a publication of a museum's digital catalogue? That would include what it has and hopefully the metadata or at least the part that was digitised? Obviously it would have to comply with our licensing requirements, and I think it would fall within "source documents of historical importance; in this case Wikipeda-style notability requirements apply". I'm pretty sure that if such documents were published here then they would be cited as sources on other wikis. But I'm also confident that only a subset of any such catalogue would be physically printed, hence my query. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not certain that I understand what is being suggested, or what is being envisioned. Our scope is at Wikisource:What Wikisource includes, so if it fits within that, I don't see an issue with it being housed, and if it doesn't fit there, then we need to talk about how it is or isn't there. How useful, functional, navigable, relevant, and interlinkable it becomes there is no way to know without more details and understanding. If it is needing volunteers, or needing work, will depend on how sexy it may be, and whether it will entice contributors, and/or operators from other wikis. OR whether it is just going to be bot applied, and becomes set and forget, and a resource for people to use. <shrug> For me, I need more information before venturing into comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. My view is that it would fit into "source documents of historical importance", but I'm a near novice on WikiSource, even my volunteer account has barely enough edits to be autoconfirmed. I'm hoping that having such documents online would be useful to Wikipedia as some information could be sourced to these. also I think there would be interesting opportunities in linking them. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you have an example? It might help. I think something slightly similar was proposed (by The Land as it happens) a few years ago. That was a catalogue of ships compiled by the National Maritime Museum, rather than the museum's collection, but there were objections because it had not been formally published. Personally, I think that catalogue and this one would be OK, especially as I would count museums themselves as publishers, but community consensus has been undecided so far. One thing in your favour is that museum catalogues have been published in the past and could, in theory, be transcribed onto Wikisource as well (eg. Louvre 1883, Met Museum of Art 1905, etc); your documents would not be out of place in the grand scheme of potential content. NB: They would probably need to have fixed dates, both because Wikisource does not host "living" documents and to improve their historical value for the future. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I will look into getting an example. May I'm assume that one of the publication issues is the extent to which the museum has checked their metadata? I had hoped that people would consider these "source documents of historical importance" and therefore welcome these into WikiSource, if this isn't the applicable project for such source material can you suggest one what is? Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
The accuracy of the original source material is not a problem for Wikisource (the accuracy of the transcription or equivalent is, of course). For example, if this page of the Louvre catalogue claimed the Mona Lisa was painted by Michelangelo, that would be the publisher's problem. Wikisource will not correct it and if it were transcribed here it would show Michelangelo as the painter of the Mona Lisa; even though it is obviously an error, we would be faithful to the original and host the error.
The inclusion rules are mostly to stop vanity publishing. However, if it is just metadata, you might have a problem with another of the exclusion rules, on reference material, and as far as I know there is currently no Wikimedia project that would host it (this has been a problem with deletions in the past). I think the debate on reference material was mostly about excluding things like stand-alone tables of prime numbers. Without seeing the example, it is hard to tell but I think a catalgue should be alright in that respect. Talking of metadata, it might help to think that the catalogues themselves should have their own metadata: title, author, publisher, location, date of publication, etc. They should be distinct, fixed publications; so if you get a new one in a year's time, that would be a completely different catalogue with its own metadata and page on Wikisource.
Regarding "source documents of historical importance", I agree. For example, the history of artefacts can be tracked between collections using old catalogues. An amateur historian recently claimed a viking map was a fake based on similar material and the descriptions they contained. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

## Translation

Is it a common thing between Wikisource users to translate source materials of other languages into English? Are there any guidelines for that? Could you please show me an example? --Yoosef Pooranvary (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Translations are permitted and encouraged in Wikisource. We are just finishing up discussions on the topic at Wikisource:Requests for comment/Annotations and derivative works. Here is the basic expectations. I don’t think we have the separate name space set up yet, but translations can be created in the main space and moved later. The works Here have been translated by Wikisource, many of them may not meet our current expecations for new work, if you have any questions just ask. Jeepday (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
• Wikisource user translations are appropriate for Wikisource. They will be hosted in their own names space (per Special_namespace). There should only be a single translation to English per original language work. A scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki, where the original language version is complete at least as far as the English translation. There was much conversation about language competence, but a clear definition and measure was not achieved. Lacking a clear guideline for language competence, the general expectation for accuracy of translation here, is the same as it is at any sister wiki work.
And of course Wikisource:Translationsbillinghurst sDrewth 05:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

## Extract illustrations by OCR software

Has anybody been able to use the page layout analysis in ABBYY Finereader to extract illustrations (or their coordinates) from page images? The program does detect (not always correct, but still) where text columns and illustrations are. From this, I only save the text, for future proofreading. But often you also want to extract the illustrations, like I did in Eskimo Life/Chapter 3 and Page:Eskimo Life.djvu/66. Could the OCR software assist in this? Have you heard of anyone trying that? --LA2 (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

LA2, I know this is off course with your question. However it may be helpful to someone. Using Adobe Acrobat one can take a PDF file and save every page to an image of a chosen format. I extract all pages as .jpg and do whatever cleaning of text pages I want and/or gather all images to work with. George Orwell III (a WS wizard) can also do this-and anything else. —Maury (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

## Edittools

Can someone please explain why my edittools customisations have stopped working, or where the current manual page is for this beast of a thing. Moondyne (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have them set in your gadget? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
"Edittools: Enhance the existing edittools with additional groups of insertable characters as sections of a dropdown menu." is ticked. Browser cache purged. Moondyne (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

## Tech news: 2013-23

Hi, apologies for posting this in English, but I wanted to alert your community to a discussion on Meta about potential changes to the Wikimedia Trademark Policy. Please translate this statement if you can. We hope that you will all participate in the discussion; we also welcome translations of the legal team’s statement into as many languages as possible and encourage you to voice your thoughts there. Please see the Trademark practices discussion (on Meta-Wiki) for more information. Thank you! --Mdennis (WMF) (talk)

## Universal Language Selector to replace Narayam and WebFonts extensions

On June 11, 2013, the Universal Language Selector (ULS) will replace the features of Mediawiki extensions Narayam and WebFonts. The ULS provides a flexible way of configuring and delivering language settings like interface language, fonts, and input methods (keyboard mappings).

## Maintenance of the Month (June 2013)

 The current Maintenance of the Month task is: Work index revision Revising the purpose and structure of Wikisource:Works Previous maintenance: Categorization The next scheduled collaboration will begin in July.

The current MotM task is about Wikisource:Works. It should be our work index, but it is actually an illustrated subject index today. You are encouraged to share your ideas for improvement on the relative thread.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

## Index:CIA World Factbook(1982).djvu

Any Volunteers to help get this OCR clean? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

No offence but why bother? Its out of date and will always be way inferior to the official website[32]. Per WS:SCOPE: "… works whose content is expected to constantly change over time, for the purpose of keeping the work updated, to improve the content matter of what has already been published, or to make the text more comprehensive, are excluded from Wikisource's scope." Moondyne (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I count 1982 as Historical archive... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Was 1982 a significant edition? Moondyne (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Everything becomes significant if it survives long enough. I can see where there could be interest in these as historical reference. The web page is always in flux, while the print editions are time capsules. I don’t have enough time/interest to actual work on the book, but I can see it’s appeal. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This happened to be the earliest available edition I could find on archive.orgShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a parallel to the similar British publication, Category:The Statesman's Yearbook. Even if we can't handle every year's issue, a good sample should be interesting. --LA2 (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

## Wiknic

I know that not everyone stops at Wikipedia on a regular bases, so for those that don’t check out w:Wikipedia:Wiknic

The Great American Wiknic is an annual wiki-picnic held in cities across the United States on or around a common day every summer. This year's Wiknic will be on Saturday, June 22 and nearby dates, with a local raindate generally the following day.

Having attended several, I can tell you that you need not be a devote Wikipedian, anyone who lives anyplace in the Wiki family will be welcomed. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

## Tech news: 2013-24

20:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

## Casper's Keyboard

Since yesterday I have encountered Casper the friendly ghost's Keyboard, including now to my right and colored white whereas I have a soft grey background (for serious eye protection). Casper's Keyboard is around every place I go and in every page I edit. I myself do not need nor want it the bloody thing. It is highly similar (to me) to "pop-ups" that people try to avoid and will purchase programs to negate the annoying pop-ups. In the honourable name of Henry VIII please do away with it. —Maury (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I expect you have just encountered this. If it is really bothering you, may I suggest you:
1. Select the "toothed gear" symbol beside "Languages" in the left pane;
2. then select "Input" in the panel which should pop up;
3. click on "Disable input tools" and
4. Finally "Apply settings".
That should put paid to your "Casper" problem (at least until the next time the software changes...) MODCHK (talk)
Hello, MODCHK, and a hearty thank you. It worked! You use a moniker here but is your real name, and vocation, Bill Nye —— the Science Guy? After all, that program won nineteen Emmy Awards. Seems like the same fellow to me! Thanks again, Casper's Keyboard was popping up everywhere—more than Popeye's Popcorn. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
No; but curiously I was a fellow student of one of the subsequent co-hosts of Sleek Geeks. Not exactly sure how happy I am about that. MODCHK (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Rather late, I have just stumbled over the "official" answer to Maury's question. Here is the reference: FAQ #16, if anybody wants to make use of it. (Hint hint: see also FAQ #21 on the same page.) MODCHK (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
<re: FAQ#21 Where can I report a problem? Please report problems and suggestions in Bugzilla. Please ensure to report as much detail as you can.>

(1.)I don't know anything about MediaWiki. I come to Wikisource to edit books and do not spend time roaming about looking at everything elsewhere. I knew of no FAQ there since I work here.

I am familiar with Wikipedia and Commons but I started in Wikipedia in 2006 and Commons became a necessity for uploading images -- after they were no longer to be uploaded to Wikipedia.

(2.) I would have had to wait a long time asking for help by following FAQ#21 and *perhaps* eventually getting an answer from Bugzilla. (3.) There is no social interactions with sending a message to people unknown to me. Look to the social areas on Internet (Facebook) &c; &c. to learn how important social interaction seriously is. However, we here have very limited social interactions due to the many problems we encounter and work out together. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I quite agree. The point I thought about making earlier but held back on was that I feel introducing new "features" which apparently have no controls under the centralised "Preferences" (and I looked here and on wikipedia without success!) menu spanks of poor(ly thought out―read this both ways) interface design. The tool may be pretty, but if it quacks like a (Prefences/)Gadget(s), why ever cannot it be switched on/off like a gadget?
There I've said it. Now somebody embarrass me by proving me wrong. MODCHK (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I agree too. Further, there's a rather serious Commons/Wiktionary linking problem that I posted on Bugzilla two years ago, that has not been resolved. The bug was caused by someone implementing another of those bright ideas that wasn't fully thought out. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
"Two Years"? EncycloPetey <--which of your parents named you that? write once again to Bugs-villa and complain that you are still waiting just to see what, if any, answer is given--perhaps something like, "We're still working on it". My take with places like Bugs-villa is that I would have a much better chance of getting President Obama's digital signature immediately from him.—Maury (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm in full agreement as well. The theft of valuable screen real-estate in the left bar for something I neither need nor want (and cannot turn off) is frustrating. One wonders if the designers of these things all have 30" monitors and assume that everyone else does as well. Alternatively, they enjoy constantly scrolling up and down a screen while editing. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

## Blackletter is broken

{{Blackletter}} is broken. I reckon it has something to do with the announcement above: #Universal Language Selector to replace Narayam and WebFonts extensions. Any volunteers to sort it out? Hesperian 14:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Same for me. I installed UnifrakturMaguntia font and worked. See {{Blackletter}} doc page, there is the link where to get the font.--Mpaa (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Likewise, the template was recently broken for me (Mac), but now works after downloading per Mpaa. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Reported as bugzilla:49499. I checked this yesterday but forgot I had downloaded the font to test it a while ago (I didn't see a problem). It shouldn't be difficult to just add it to ULS too, so it should be back up and running soon. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for reporting this. I similarly checked yesterday, but already had UnifrakturMaguntia installed locally so saw no problems.
If/when ULS incorporates the font, would somebody please also make a note to then check if turning off ULS per my hints above to Maury Casper's Keyboard above ends up re-breaking it... It would be a shame if the two functions (keyboard and fonts) turn out to be toggled inseparably... MODCHK (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Not fixed yet but apparently it "will be in 1.22wmf7." - AdamBMorgan (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
In case anybody missed it, 1.22wmf7 is now installed. Is anybody still having problems (with {{Blackletter}}) who doesn't have UnifrakturMaguntia installed locally? Unfortunately, my set-up here is too non-standard to be a representative test. MODCHK (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Works for me; thanks folks. Hesperian 00:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2013-25

EdwardsBot (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

## Template:Documentation

Does anybody know why top links are shown now on the left side? --DixonD (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Because they are defined (by Template:Documentation/start box) as belonging to class "editsection", the same class that Mediawiki uses to handle section edit links. That class was recently restyled, and you're seeing a side-effect of that. I'm inclined to think that it is not correct for us to be applying chrome css classes to content. Hesperian 06:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

## World War One

2014 is the centenary of the start of World War One. I know there will be lots of events to commemorate the anniversary in the UK and I suspect the same will be true elsewhere. I think some of the Wikipedias, and definitely the Wikimedia UK chapter, are trying to do something for the event too. So, do we as a community want to do anything for WW1?

I don't think whatever we try should be that ambitious as that would probably mean it doesn't actually get done. The easiest commemoration would probably be timing some appropriate featured texts and proofreads of the month. A slightly more ambitious plan, but one that I think might work, is to use the Community Collaboration section on the main page as a duplicate of PotM, running concurrently with a WW1 theme (and organised via a new WikiProject). It is simple enough to set up and we have the existing precedent of PotM to use as a template. There is a danger this could dilute user attention, so that neither regular-PotM nor WW1-PotM get completed, but I think it would be OK. More ambitious collaborations are possible if this seems too conservative. WW1-themed featured texts could either way.

Of course, we don't have to do anything for WW1. I don't think we have ever done anything similar for any other historical event. However, WW1 is useful as it is still important, this is the first centenary, it is in a period when a lot of works are in the public domain, and it marked a period of increased literacy, so there was a lot written about it at the time. So, what do people think? Should be do something and, if so, what? (There's no rush just yet, we have a year, but it would be useful to at least get some rough ideas sketched out.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

A few thoughts:
• Remembering that the war extended from July 1914 through to November 1918, we've got over four years to cover this event.
• The PotM works could easily include works that are related to WW1 without being explicitly there. For example, one of the Geography months could cover the Balkans and another could do Belgium.
• We could also use the excellent collection of WW1 poetry that LJB has done (I'm gradually working through the validation) with, say, Poem of the Week on the Main Page.
• Now that the score extension has been implemented (and hopefully shortly will work fully) we could also add some of the songs of the war (Run, Rabbit, Run; It's a long way to Tipperary; Pack up your troubles; &c.). I have scannable scores of several collections of these, if they're not already available.
• We should certainly try to host copies of all the declarations of war and of the various armistice documents.
• w:WP:MILHIST may well have members who would be willing to assist, both with suggested works and with proofreading. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

## Very modern authors

What is our policy on author pages for authors whose works have no chance at all of being in the public domain, such as those who have written in the very late 20th century only? I ask because of Special:Contributions/2.33.233.47, who is creating author pages that, although they are well-formatted and contain no links, list works not likely to be hosted here in my lifetime. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I would say delete them. Their works can be listed at Wikipedia, and can be recreated if they are released under CC. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)