Wikisource:Scriptorium

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

Contents

Announcements [edit]

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.

MediaWiki 1.22/wmf1 here now, and 1.22/wmf2 next week [edit]

m:Requests for comment/Interproject links interface [edit]

At meta, those from Wikidata have opened a Request for Comment about interproject linkss interfacem and this includes Wikisource.

“ Interproject links are the set of links that convey to the user the existence of pages relative to the subject in other sister projects (Wiktionary, Wikisource, Commons, etc.). This RFC has the aim to ask the communities for their opinion on proposed interfaces that would allow storing the interproject links in a central location, such as m:Wikidata. See also bugzilla:708. ”

I invite all with an opinion about interlinking to at least read the proposal, and then either comment on the RFC, or if a little uncertain then maybe comment here. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not seeing a well thought out plan, no idea how this would work. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

From WMF:Change to section edit links [edit]

“ This is a quick heads up that there is an upcoming change to the way section edit links are generated, and a relatively minor design update as well.

There is a pretty comprehensive explanation of what this is, why, the timeline, etc. on Meta: Change to section edit links

 ”

—Steven Walling, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2013-April/000214.html

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.

At the link the page has information about the change, to provide editors who don't like it with a way of restoring the old appearance, and to provide guidance to developers (gadget authors, et al.) about updating code to be compatible with the new output. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

As a further comment it would seem to be rolling as a part of MediaWiki 1.22/wmf3 which for us is Wednesday 1 May. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposals [edit]

Changing the community collaboration? [edit]

Is there any support for changing the current community collaboration from NARA to Wikisource:WikiProject Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library? Technically this is only a sideways change, as the library is part of NARA. There is currently a Wikimedian in Residence at the library and many works ready to be proofread (some long; some quite short) on Commons. The mid-1970s period is interesting in itself and, due to diplomacy, the material is not limited to the United States. I've already added a few new authors based on this (such as Henry Kissinger, Deng Xiaoping, etc) and added the first works to empty author pages (like James Callaghan). There wasn't any response on the Wikisource:Community collaboration page, so this seemed the next best place to bring it up. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a worthy project, but I suspect many of the regular members here already have a lot on their plates (I could be wrong). What I suggest is posting an inquiry in a suitable discussion forum on Wikipedia, specific to the kinds of materials to be transcribed, describing carefully for the noobs what is needed and expected in terms of both effort and skills. This could be a good way to bring in and to train up new contributors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
i would leave a note with w:User:Dominic who was wikimedian in residence. he knows some of the institution issues. i think he's planning something this year, but a task group switch to the most active location could work. Slowking4 (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
There are already matching projects on Wikipedia and Commons, and I've seen a little cross-project interest (although not much). Part of my reasoning is that the NARA project looks like it has slowed down a bit recently. Assuming I'm right and haven't missed anything, having a static but dormant project on the main page doesn't look good for us. Even cycling through multiple projects might look better. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Tumblr update [edit]

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.

http://englishwikisource.tumblr.com/post/48383252175/news-update-1000th-index#disqus_thread

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


Password [edit]

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)

Wikisource wizard [edit]

i was talking to an archivist, who expressed the desire for a simplified method of uploading works into wikisource. is there interest in developing a wizard for interested editors? process flow = upload pdf to commons -> automatically convert to dejavu -> automatically create work & toc at source -> automatically match and split pages at source ? (a lot of work; but lowering the barrier would generate a lot of interest. Slowking4 (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

See this meta:Grants:IEG/Elaborate Wikisource strategic vision, It looks like the proposal was granted funding. Hopefully we will see something in the not to distant future. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The second largest grant of this batch (€10k) but the proposal was not for anything implementable, it's more an investigation into what Wikisource needs and how to achieve it. A second stage might result in implementation based on the vision developed. It's also mostly about metadata, citation and inter-project integration, from my reading. Nevertheless, it might be worth pointing this out to them. It might be included in the final vision. Another avenue would be suggesting it for the next Google Summer of Code or similar event. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Google Summer of Code is mentioned below but, for convenience, the link to the main Wikisource discussion is here. I don't know if it is too late or not for this year's event. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

WS:Periodicals [edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Closed as guideline.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I propose for WS:Periodicals to be formally recognized as either a policy or a guideline. Please give your support to a specific status (policy, guideline, or other disposition).--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Policy
  • ...
Guideline
Other disposition
  • ...

WS:Portal [edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Closed as guideline.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I propose for WS:Portal to be formally recognized as either a policy or a guideline. Please give your support to a specific status (policy, guideline, or other disposition).--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Policy
  • ...
Guideline
Other disposition
  • ...

WS:Red link [edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Closed as guideline.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I propose for WS:Red link to be formally recognized as either a policy or a guideline. Please give your support to a specific status (policy, guideline, or other disposition).--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Policy
  • ...
Guideline
Other disposition
  • ...

WS:Extracts [edit]

I propose for WS:Extracts to be formally recognized as either a policy or a guideline. Please give your support to a specific status (policy, guideline, or other disposition).--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Policy
Guideline
  • ...
Other disposition
  • I started a discussion about this page on its talk page. I don't think it covers any new ground here at WS, so I propose redirecting it.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

WWI Analytical and artistic works [edit]

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)

BOT approval requests [edit]

Notice of bot run: adding date category to validated indexes [edit]

I am in the middle of running a bot to add a categorisation template to fully validated index pages. I've partly run this to see if it works; the results are in Category:Indexes validated by date. If there are no reported problems I will continue up to April 2013. (NB: It is a template rather than just a category because I've noticed additional categories getting lost from index pages in the past.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have randomly checked several of the edits and they appear accurate and non-problematic. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
It would be worthy to check that the source list for changes is OK as well. I randomly checked and found no issues.--Mpaa (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Obviously they have not all been updated, but those I checked that had been updated appeared fine. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done . Plus a portal (Portal:Proofreading milestones) based on the same information. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Adam great job 
 :) JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • As User:Robbie the Robot will probably need to do this periodically, should the bot be "officially" approved? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    It might be better if the task was persistent rather than the bot. All Robbie did was a search-and-replace based on the information in the list Mpaa generated. Any AutoWikiBrowser bot, or user, could do the same and, if I'm away, there's no reason to wait if someone else can do the job. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    I agree, would you list it there? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Help [edit]


World Brain by H G Wells [edit]

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. [edit]

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 [edit]

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 [edit]

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 [edit]

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 [edit]

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 [edit]

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 [edit]

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 [edit]

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 [edit]

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 [edit]

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 [edit]

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)

Hash target link [edit]

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)

Translation laden Transcription Projects [edit]

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)

Other discussions [edit]

When Validated [edit]

Having finally started downloading from Wikisource and using Calibre to convert books for my Kindle, I started browsing Category:Index Validated for works to harvest for my library. There are 981 validated books available today (which is great), but when I come back in 3 months for more, how would I look for only the newest works. There is a link to Special:NewPages on the main page, but it does not offer me any help as it has lots of new pages, but does not seem to call out validated books. I see there is an archive of {{New_texts}}, but it requires a bit of wikiknowledge to find and I am not sure it is complete.

I propose that we create a categorization by month and year that a work is validated. This will allow readers to easily find the our newest best works since their last visit. Jeepday (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I support the idea in theory but maintaining it might be quite difficult without dedicated bots. That can be done, Wikipedia maintenance and vandal hunting replies on them, but we don't have any here yet as far as I know. Presumably someone here knows how to set that up (or knows how to find someone who does). NB: If you want to know the order works were added, dynamic page lists, as used in {{latest additions}}, can be of some use. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I posted a bot request at Wikisource:Bot_requests#When_Validated but so far no one is offering to take it on. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Categorisation to Index pages is problematic, predominantly due to the form being used and how and where the category is placed, and if it is later edited that it can drop cats. We can do an API query that shows what works were last edited in a period but it is not the prettiest, plus there is no specific way to know the reason for the change easily. I would suggest that you are looking for a tool that can do that dynamically. If you are looking to do the job properly, then it would need to do something with storing the data in the API. You could have a peek at the data in action=info — billinghurst sDrewth 16:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I think you are on the right track, I can use the suggest by you and Mpaa [1] for updating old ones, but the going forward would be best captured dynamically. Maybe adding ’date fully validated’ to the edit history and translating that into categorization. Most (all?) date categorizations I see on Wikipedia, get there by date stamp on a maintenance template. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Follow up Question - is this something that would add value to visitors in general, or is it just my OCD being over active? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Request help from anyone with access to Google books [edit]

Not being from the US of A, and a registered user of Google with a Canadian email and IP address, I am blocked from accessing Google books' pages and need the last two lines of the caption of this image to complete the proofreading. This is book link to Google. I ask because both copies of Internet Archive PSm Vol 78 have the same problem. My gratitude to anyone who can access and take a legible snapshot of the caption. — Ineuw talk 05:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've accessed the google books source and added the final lines of text that were missing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks EncycloPetey.— Ineuw talk 15:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

News template [edit]

I've only just found, and updated, this template:

{{news}}
Wikisource News

May 2013

ARCHIVES • DISCUSSION • PROJECT

So, if you want news delivered to your user page, feel free to use this. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Missing graphic character [edit]

I'm not even sure if that is the correct term, but I boldly created {{glyph}}, for use as a placeholder while proofreading (much like {{Missing image}}). See usage at Page:Things Japanese (1905).djvu/67 for example. Moondyne (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

"Glyph" is about right; though "character" might be better, unless the context indicates that an exchange of allographs would not be acceptable. You could also have used {{language characters|language=Chinese}}. Hesperian 13:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Or go straight to {{Chinese missing}}, if it is Chinese, though that is just a short cut of Hesp's example. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
'glyph' is easier to type and remember. Moondyne (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Then please just make it a redirect of {{language characters}}, we don't need more renditions of templates of single functions, and to where they categorise. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
There's something wrong the template logic when no language is given. See Page:Things Japanese (1905).djvu/67. Moondyne (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Put in a default for the category, it now pokes it in with symbols. {{Japanese missing}} and {{Chinese missing}} will apply them to the appropriate categories. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Questions on POTM Talk page [edit]

I have a couple questions on the POTM Talk page if anyone can help. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Addressed; thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Requesting permission to exceed editing limits. [edit]

I am willing with support from other contributors to try and set up page-lists to clear a backlog that's built up, to do this shouldn't exceed my current editing restrictions, but I would like the custodians here to keep a sharp eye on my edits.

Currently, I can't flag the items to which I've added a pagelist upto to 'Ready for Proofread' status, and I'd appreciate being able to do this. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm around for the next few hours. Go ahead. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
In addition, I've fixed Statutes at Large Volume 3 by re-ordering the pages in the DjVu file. Problem is, I can't seem to overwrite the old file on Commons with the new one. I made a request for somebody to copy/move/overwrite the file uploaded here on Wikisource over to Commons in the Help section of this Scriptorium page but nobody has taken up the challenge so far. Maybe you should (if you can). -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Prod on my user page here would have got my attention. Link would have helped. but I will dig it up. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Nope, I am too stupid. Which? Special:PrefixIndex/File:Ruffhead — billinghurst sDrewth 04:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Already taken care of. Thanks for the offer at any rate. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Closure on bot confirmations [edit]

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.[2] 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)

authors with no work [edit]

What is your policy toward those authors who have no work in wikisource while adding their works to this wiki is not against copyright law? Is it possible to make a page for them and add their bibliographical information? --217.218.67.253 11:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

There are many variables here, if you have one specific author in mind, please identify them and some of their works, so we can help you better. In General if an authors works fall into Wikisource:What Wikisource includes and there is an expectation that one or more of those works will or should be hosted here then creating an author page is appropriate. The author page should list the works. Jeepday (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Surely, it must be perfectly legitimate to add a presentation of an author here even if they have a few years left before their copyright expires. The author presentation can list the different editions and describe which ones are more wanted or better to digitize, and contain links to already digitized works on other websites. Has there been any controversy over this? --LA2 (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The IP comment implies the work is PD or CC currently. Without further clues, I did not want to assume PD-old and have it turn out to be CC Vanity post. We do host author pages for very notable authors like Author:Isaac Asimov, while we have history at Wikisource:Proposed deletions of deleting content and author pages not meeting WS:WWI where the work "is not against copyright law", but is CC Vanity. Jeepday (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Right now we're talking 6 years before any new works expire, and that will be the 1923 ones. Plus the rare work by the life+70 author who died 70 years ago but the works were published after 2002.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you have specific works or authors in mind? I checked Special:Contributions/217.218.67.253 and am not seeing any hints. Jeepday (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The approach has been if we are not hosting the works, then an author page can exist if the works are in the public domain and readily linkable; so hosted elsewhere in text and not behind a paywall. If an author page had work(s) listed and it was fully available, but not in the public domain, and hosted legally (ie. not breaching copyright), then I would think that listing it would be okay. If it is just going to be a straight text link of works, with no linking, then that is generally not what we have been about. If you are talking a modern author and listing there works and nothing that is going to be able to be hosted for many years, then generally the answer is no, as we see that misleading. Author pages are there to contain links to works, not solely for listing the corpus of works. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource improvements for Summer of Code 2013 [edit]

Hello! I am planning to submit a proposal regarding Extension:Collection for this summer's Google Summer of Code and Outreach Program for Women. I left a note about my ideas on the multilingual Wikisource at oldwikisource:Wikisource:Scriptorium#Wikisource_improvements_for_Summer_of_Code_2013, but wanted to mention it here. Any feedback would be most appreciated! – GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

As an update, I've started my actual proposal. Instead of focusing on Extension:Collection, I'm going to focus my proposal on Extension:BookManager. The problem with effectively printing an entire book is blocked by the need to organize a book's individual pages and chapters into a single unit, and I'm excited about the developments that solving this problem will allow: dependencies of bug 15071. I'm hoping to receive feedback on this, as it's an extension I'm really hoping to see deployed on Wikisource. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Maintenance of the Month for April 2013 [edit]

Crossed spanner and screwdriver overlaid on the standard Wikisource iceberg logo

 The current Maintenance of the Month task is:

Proposed policies and guidelines

Giving an agreed status to proposed rules

Previous maintenance: Portal classification review
The next scheduled collaboration will begin in June.

I have started submitting proposed policies and guidelines to the above #Proposals section. Please comment about WS:Periodicals and WS:Portal.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 05:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify? It sounds like you are saying that assigning a status for proposed rules is a Maintenance task. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
That's the final step. The task is getting the scattered half-completed drafts in working order. My half-completed drafts in the cases listed above, as it happens. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia blog post on PGDP's 25k books [edit]

I suggested to comcom that a WMF blog post go up concerning Distributed Proofreaders hitting 25,000 books - since encouraging other free culture projects is a good idea - and was told "great idea! Go write it." So it occurs to me that Wikisource should be mentioned (even if just "And also, at home, Wikisource does similar things, but with extra [whatever]"). But I have no idea what y'all are up to at all. Suggestions welcome. Sooner rather than later if possible :-) - David Gerard (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

For a possible "[whatever]", Wikisource's proofreading is more open than PGDP (which I believe is relatively closed and remote from the final product on PG). To expand on that: with our proofread texts, our source scans are always one click away from the text itself, anyone can double check them at any time, anyone can correct them if necessary, and anyone can read the history of each individual scanned page. (I would say we are also able to provide wikilinks and similar added depth but that policy is currently being debated.) NB: By comparion with the 25k, our fully proofread and transcluded documents are in the 900s at the moment (in terms of complete Index pages) and should hit 1k soon. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Great idea, David -- thanks for making the suggestion! While Adam's point about openness is worthwhile, I'd be wary of emphasizing it -- I'd rather see the main message being that our projects are aligned and support one another, with differences taking a back seat to alignment. Also, Adam, where did you find these numbers? Very interesting! -Pete (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The numbers partly come from the bot task mentioned far above but mostly because Category:Index Validated currently has 996 members. Ergo, four more indexes to the big 1K! NB: I didn't mean to sound antagonistic, that was just the first thing to come to mind. For another, apparently we seem to cover different kinds of texts (eg. I've heard we have proportionately more science fiction on Wikisource although I've never actually checked) and more use of more recent {{PD-US-no-renewal}}-licensed texts. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Couple questions [edit]

I recently started working on A Basic Guide to Open Educational Resources. It seems a couple things have changed since I was last active here:

  1. I no longer have the "cleanup" script in my lefthand navigation; this was a great script that would strip out extraneous carriage returns, as well as lots of other useful stuff. Any way to get (something like) that back?
  2. The {{nop}} template doesn't seem to be doing its thing. Several sections are not rendering properly, but instead showing double equal signs around normally-formatted text.

Any suggestions on either of the above? (I have already tried the extra CR before {{nop}} as suggested above; it didn't work.) -Pete (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pete. I've taken your project as far as I can for the purpose of demonstrating a semblance of organization, but there is a lot to be done. Recommend that you continue to proofread and then I will help you assign one main namespace page per each bolded entry of the Table of contents (TOC). That's because transcluding ~142 pages on one web page is too much, and the various sections indicated by a bolded TOC entry is of perfect length. The main TOC entries will have to be linked to the web pages and their sub entries to be anchored to the sub articles of the same web page. I hope this helps. — Ineuw talk 19:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Tremendously helpful, thank you! I am learning a lot from watching you work. I have completed the first of the 3 sections (not fully proofread, but at least basically wikified). The main impediment to me though is the lack of the cleanup script -- manually deleting extra carriage returns is getting very tiresome! I hope somebody has a better option. Do you know what became of that user script? -Pete (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I have no clue about the script because I clean and format & line wrap the text offline in TextPad (Windows). As for a reply, you will get one, I am sure, even if it takes a little while. — Ineuw talk 19:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Some suggestions [edit]

The editing window height setting in the Preferences\Editing tab affects namespaces other than the Page namespace, where most of our work is done. Specifically, it would only help those who proofread in the over/under setup (like myself). I am aware that there is a handle to adjust the lower window, but it must be set anew for each page. Furthermore, the top window is of fixed height. would it be possible to modify the two window heights as an option in in gadgets? Thanks. — Ineuw talk 16:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

An additional and related suggestion [edit]

Another problematic issue is the preview display of the Page namespace which is now Main namespace width, while our work needs to be judged as a Page namespace display width for accuracy. Having the preview display altered to match the Page namespace display would save a lot of unnecessary repeated saves which are now required to get the details, like images, etc. right. — Ineuw talk 01:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

A counterargument would be that the preview screen shows the page content more like it would appear after transclusion into mainspace. Hesperian 02:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The preview of the Page namespace should display work in the context of that namespace, just as the Main namespace has its own matching preview. This is especially necessary when working with images. Currently, this provides no meaningful information whatsoever. — Ineuw talk 05:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Bearing in mind Hesperian's point above, and treating this purely as a technical exercise, adding something like this to your personal Special:MyPage/common.css might give you at least something like the effect you desire:
div.pagetext {width:400px;margin:0 auto;}
Corrections/criticisms welcomed. MODCHK (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Billinghurst for correcting that. On the spur of the moment my brain failed and I could not recall the correct "Special:" page name.
Bearing in mind my javascript is rudimentary at the best of times, here is a string which may be saved as a local bookmarklet (is that the current term?) which achieves a similar, but temporary, effect which might be useful:

javascript:var%20testClass=new%20RegExp("(^|\\s)pagetext(\\s|$)");var%20divlist=document.getElementsByTagName("div");for(var%20i=0;i<divlist.length;i++){if(testClass.test(divlist[i].className)){divlist[i].style.cssText="max-width:400px;margin:0%20auto;border:3px%20dashed%20gold;max-height:15em;overflow:auto;padding:0%205px%200%2015px;";}};%20void%200}}

The "narrowing" effect may be completely removed again by use of this:

javascript:var%20testClass=new%20RegExp("(^|\\s)pagetext(\\s|$)");var%20divlist=document.getElementsByTagName("div");for(var%20i=0;i<divlist.length;i++){if(testClass.test(divlist[i].className)){divlist[i].style.cssText="";}};%20void%200}}

Of course, less crude approaches are sure to exist! MODCHK (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for the posts. I am studying it and will implement it. — Ineuw talk 07:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Billinghurst, its perfect! It really helps. Thanks a mill.— Ineuw talk 08:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Not my glory to claim! Those mods belong to MODCHK (the reluctant). @MODCHK I don't remember them, I have them listed on my user page at meta as I always forget them. However, as a gift ...
— billinghurst sDrewth 13:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

NASA technical translation [edit]

Regarding the following translation:

Since it is a NASA technical document (translated by Morris D. Friedman, Inc., 1960, see also GBS), I assume the copyright remark "public domain" is correct and it can be hosted here. (The German original published in the year 1911 by Philipp Frank († 1966) and Hermann Rothe († 1923) would be {Pd/1923|1966}). --D.H (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You can use {{PD-USGov-NASA}} for any NASA work that does not explicitly have a copyright declared. However, in this case you'll need to wrap it in {{Translation license}} and provide an appropriate license template for the original. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Kiwix android app — anyone played? [edit]

Just saw this WMF blog post that says is usable for the Wikisources too. Anyone played with it? — billinghurst sDrewth

Yes. http://kiwix.org/m/ (which the Android app uses) currently only offers Wikipedia, but you can see French and Malayalam Wikisource at http://download.kiwix.org/zim/0.9/ , and I believe its the French Wikisource that is being used in Africa. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
On a related note, there is Okawix on Android as well. Not good reviews, but the PC version is nice and they have all of the major projects. That is my 2 cents anyways. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I notice after a short (and terminated) play with Kiwix that it relies on the Book tool, and prepared versions of Books.

Apart from that OMG they both live! — billinghurst sDrewth 11:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Social bookmarks [edit]

Wikinews has Social bookmarks, with fair-use logos like wikinews:File:Digg-icon.png - I think they would be useful on Wikisource too. See also meta:Social media plugins. --John Vandenberg (chat) 23:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I would be OK with this; it might help Wikisource get some attention. That said, I know there has been opposition on other projects to anything even slightly connected to any social networking site. Practically: we could stealimport Wikinews' template, adapt it to Wikisource and make it an experimental gadget (in the sidebar, I suggest). If it's successful, it could be set to on by default, like some other gadgets. It depends if there is any support or opposition to doing so. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Interestingly I prodded about this on the Wikimedia-L mailing list this week. Tilman did a reply that talked about twitter bits coming for blog.wikimedia.org, but nothing else looks to be universal at this point of time. I have no issue with pushing to social media, the purpose of what we do is to share, and this is sharing. Comfortable with us testing it. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

April's Feature Text of the Month's odt file doesn't work [edit]

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 template — billinghurst sDrewth 14:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

More Failed down loads [edit]

1000 Validated Indexes! [edit]

1000!

English Wikisource now has 1000 complete and validated index pages. The thousandth index, Index:Address on the opening of the Free Public Library of Ballarat East, on Friday, 1st. January, 1869.djvu, was validated earlier today by MODCHK. You can see the time stamp along with the other validations this month on the API. (As noted above, Project Gutenberg Distributed Proofreaders hit 25,000 complete texts this month too.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've tumbled the occasion too (and that post should also soon be appearing on Planet Wikimedia.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Most Looked at books on en WS [edit]

I think that not long ago someone posted a list of books on en.WS that passers-by apparently looked over the most. Where is such a list? What do readers seem to like reading the most? I would prefer to work on the type of books people like the best as opposed to any someone has little or no interest in. Thank you to whomever may reply to this. Kind regards to all, —Maury (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The list is at the very top of this page under WS:S#Wikisource top page hits for works 2011-2012. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't go by that list (2011-2012); its based only on a two-day sampling. I don't know why the normal top-page-views list hasn't been updated since 2010 either. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
It also looks bad on us when works like #1 and #5 show they were deleted because of copyright. The DNB files and the Popular Science works are excellent. My curiosity was about our many books we all struggle to re-create though. Is there anyone who has volunteered to do the updated top page hits you have mentioned? Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Well I like what I see (even though they are 2 or 3 months behind current) at...
... but those don't seem to be the same "project" as the really simple list last updated in 2010...
I really don't have any idea who to reach out to for updating that one (seems like its been set on "auto-pilot" for quite some time now) - George Orwell III (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems that quotations in File/Page name screw up page numbering display in main ns [edit]

In A Critical Examination of Dr G. Birkbeck Hills "Johnsonian" Editions the original file that I uploaded I kept the quotations Index:A critical examination of Dr G Birkbeck Hills "Johnsonian" Editions.djvu. Seems that when I now transclude the pages into the main namespace that is screws up the page numbering on the left hand side. Basically kills all the links from pointing to the relevant pages and instead they point to the stem (main page). It will presumably be a component in MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js and those who are technically skilled it would be great if we could fathom this. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I had a go but nothing has changed and I can't figure out if that is a caching issue or failure. Hesperian 04:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The problem isn't in MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js. That page is trying to pull the title attribute out of the pagenum spans, and your page simply has none. The problem must be further upstream. Hesperian 04:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


Fixed with [5] this edit. Hesperian 05:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Mercy buckets. This work with this name managed to challenge the system in a few places. :-/ — billinghurst sDrewth 11:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Implementing Easier and More Efficient Metadata Tags on Wikisource [edit]

Disclosure: I am contracted by Creative Commons LRMI Project.

I would like to propose adopting the use of a by-default-disabled Mediawiki metadata feature that would greatly improve the organization and search engine visibility of the content of Wikisource. These metadata tags are part of Schema.org which was developed by Google, Bing, Yahoo, and Yandex, and can be viewed here. The benefit of these tags is that when used within educational content such as on Wikisource, the information contained on the page is made into a way that is easily intelligible to machines by changing just one line with the Mediawiki configuration. An example of MediaWiki using Schema can be seen by using Google's testing tool. These metatags were originally developed by LRMI but their recent adoption of Schema.org is a huge milestone that has great potential to improve the efficiency of the way we are able to search educational resources and content on places like Wikisource. Maximilian.Klein.LRMI (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I would think that we would be most interested. The vast bulk of us are transcribers, and know our local product, but lack the expertise of the curatorial and technical side. I will try to spread this further so those who are more adept can assist. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Max, I think you should consult with User:Tpt which is the best way to deploy it. The schema.org microformat can be the replacement of the custom-made Wikisource:Microformat, but as it is used for the epub export, the best would be that you contact Tpt and ask him what is the best way to transition to the new system.--Micru (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
To note that I raised the matter at Wikidata, hence why Micru has popped over. To see what is happening from the "Wikidata books task force" and the conversation please see d:Wikidata:Project chat#Meta data for creative works — schema.org.

To note that Phe has indicated that Tpt is tied up with RL for the moment, and probably less able to devote some time here for a few weeks. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Score extension (a big thank you) [edit]

\relative c' { f d f a d f e d cis a cis e a g f e } 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 [6], 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 [edit]

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? [edit]

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)

Request for comment on inactive administrators [edit]

(Please consider translating this message for the benefit of your fellow Wikimedians. Please also consider translating the proposal.)

Read this message in English / Lleer esti mensaxe n'asturianu / বাংলায় এই বার্তাটি পড়ুন / Llegiu aquest missatge en català / Læs denne besked på dansk / Lies diese Nachricht auf Deutsch / Leś cal mesag' chè in Emiliàn / Leer este mensaje en español / Lue tämä viesti suomeksi / Lire ce message en français / Ler esta mensaxe en galego / हिन्दी / Pročitajte ovu poruku na hrvatskom / Baca pesan ini dalam Bahasa Indonesia / Leggi questo messaggio in italiano / ಈ ಸಂದೇಶವನ್ನು ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ಓದಿ / Aqra dan il-messaġġ bil-Malti / norsk (bokmål) / Lees dit bericht in het Nederlands / Przeczytaj tę wiadomość po polsku / Citiți acest mesaj în română / Прочитать это сообщение на русском / Farriintaan ku aqri Af-Soomaali / Pročitaj ovu poruku na srpskom (Прочитај ову поруку на српском) / อ่านข้อความนี้ในภาษาไทย / Прочитати це повідомлення українською мовою / Đọc thông báo bằng tiếng Việt / 使用中文阅读本信息。

Hello!

There is a new request for comment on Meta-Wiki concerning the removal of administrative rights from long-term inactive Wikimedians. Generally, this proposal from stewards would apply to wikis without an administrators' review process.

We are also compiling a list of projects with procedures for removing inactive administrators on the talk page of the request for comment. Feel free to add your project(s) to the list if you have a policy on administrator inactivity.

All input is appreciated. The discussion may close as soon as 21 May 2013 (2013-05-21), but this will be extended if needed.

Thanks, Billinghurst (thanks to all the translators!) 04:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Distributed via Global message delivery (Wrong page? You can fix it.)
An "inactive administrator" is not an administrator. —Maury (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
An inactive administrator is still more of a net gain for a project than a non-administrator. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I bow to your intelligence and experience, EVula. In such a case I should have become an administrator and do nothing to promote a net gain and do nothing to assist a project. I am not arguing, I just don't understand how what you've stated is accurate. How can anyone who is inactive be a net gain for any project? This is interesting. Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 05:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
@maury: I am in your camp, rather than EVula's. IMNSHO two years inactive is "missing presume departed".— billinghurst sDrewth 08:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
@billinghurst|sDrewth if I had a "camp" no such administrator who does nothing in that camp would be around for 2 months much less two years. Fire them or replace them. What good does it do in keeping them? Replace them when possible. Heck, hire me as an administrator and I will do nothing for only one year. <smile> Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
"Heck, hire me", Umm we tried, you turned us down. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Just to qualify my camp: there does come a certain point where someone's inactivity overlaps with serious changes with the community and so they aren't necessarily a net gain to the project; if someone has been inactive for a couple of years, they can pretty safely be removed. I'm just saying that there's a better chance of an editor making positive administrative contributions with the bit than without, but this is also coming from someone that lurks a lot more than he edits.
For what it's worth, I think this project's policy towards inactive admins is pretty spot-on, and my opinion is more of a general sentiment; there really isn't as much administrative busywork here as, say, enwiki or Commons. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
EVula, if they "can pretty safely be removed" then please do whatever you can to remove them. Of what use is a lazy person holding an administrative position for two years? There may be someone on standby awaiting to do whatever needs to be done. Whatever position all of us take here I think we should consider it seriously and have enough honor to try hard to do what what the individual was elected for by we the people. "two years inactive" is more than confusing to me because inactive is not active meaning nothing gets done which means the person holding that particular position is useless in that position. This is just my honest view of it as I understand what I have read about it here. If it were a paying job and you were his boss that pays out money would you let him do nothing and pay him for it? He is getting something out of that position or he wouldn't be holding on to it. And how does he hold on to it? Here "we the people" vote for our administrators. Name names, everything else is placed in the open -- who has done nothing as an administrator for two years -- and for one year? I want to make sure I never vote for the person or persons. I do thank you for your explanation and mannerable reply. Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that this proposal, if enacted, will not override any existing measures, such as we have in place already, and therefore there is no impact on the English Wikisource. Hesperian 06:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hesperian, it is an interesting conundrum. / In some ways it is like a form of an American way of life of do nothing and get paid and/or "You can work yourself out of a job." But now the economy is hurting, the people are wailing, and few are the jobs while trillion$ are owed. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Hesperian's comments are correct, this community would be excluded from actions permitted by the proposed guidance due to our existing processes. The decision on circulation of the alert was made universal rather than to exclude communities with identified processes. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
When I replied to Hesperian I understood his statements and I agree with him. I hope that my statements did not look otherwise. I continued thinking and writing about the idea of the value of any administrator who does nothing being of more value than our editors here who are most always working. In my view the "lower class", if you think as another who posted much earlier, here is far more valuable than anyone who climbs the ladder to get awarded a position of administrator and does nothing for two years. How did that person get voted for a second term? I was talking TO Hesperian not against anything Hesperian stated. Hesperian is one of the many people I admire here. He is a very calm, intelligent, and polite worker. That's as good as one can get. Here is an example, and I hope I don't get slapped with a fish for stating this;, No way can I imagine any administrator who does nothing of being of more value that our many editors. Take the ghost-administrator you, billinghurst, have mentioned who does nothing for "two years". Compare that with one of our top editors (in my opinion), say Londonjackbooks who works apparently non-stop and highly accurately. The last work I saw her doing was on our book of Flowers writing out poems and adding {{nop} to many of them that I had validated -- but not validated properly due to leaving out {{nop} [as in nope!]. So, she edits, validates, and teaches me, and the rest of us by our mistakes. Now, how in the name of brand X can any administrator doing nothing for "two years" be considered of more value that her position as editor? It is impossible for any administrator who does nothing for two years to be more of value than that? There is the conundrum I was writing to Hesperian about. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I understand EVula's position to be that a person who has proven themselves a good and trustworthy administrator, yet no longer makes much use of their administrative tools, is still of more value to the community as an administrator than not. Ultimately, this comes down to a cost-benefit analysis: on the one hand, we have the risk of a dormant account being compromised and misused, and the risk of an administrator returning to administrative duties after a long hiatus during which they have lost the feel for community consensus and expectations; on the other hand, we have the prospect of getting at least some administrative service out of them, and the prospect of them retaining the sense of being a valued and trusted member of something belonging to, and perhaps coming eventually coming back to us. We are all entitled to run that cost-benefit analysis in our own way, and on that basis to agree or disagree with EVula. Hesperian 07:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • My 2 cents; as our standards for adminship now stand there is no obligation to do anything with the tools. There never has been and hopefully never will be. When I was offered the tools the statement "Wikisource grants administrator access to those members who are known in the community and whose edits and contributions have proven trustworthy", held the meaning, "Thanks for hanging around with us, your doing a great job and we don’t think you are likely to doing anything really stupid with the extra tools". IMHO, that is still the expectation, and I always enjoy using my tools here much more then at the other place. The main reason for removal of the tools is security. Just because you have not done anything here for a while, does not mean we don’t like you, or we think less of you. If you have not been around a while we don’t know if you are still alive, or if your computer has been stolen. We would still enjoy seeing you again, and would love to have you contribute to the project, but we understand that real life (or death), has a way of intruding on the digital world. Because we don’t know what is going on, for the security of the project, we are deactivating your tools. When you wake up from the comma (because what else could have kept you from the family?) and get your fingers warmed back up to the keyboard, we would be glad to have you back. —unsigned comment by JeepdaySock‎ (talk) .
    As an aside to Jeepday's comments, as his comments reflect a community of significant size. At a small community with up to a handful of administrators to have some or all of your administrators or bureaucrats missing can be problematic. Protocols restrict outside actions where administrators and bureaucrats are in existence, which may mean that these tasks are not undertaken, or not undertaken for an extended period, eg. administrator promotions, or local bot management. House is open, but no one home. Communities look for people who lead, especially in a way that aligns with their vision. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

GLAM Boot Camp workshop [edit]

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)
Yes check.svg 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)

Tumblr article [edit]

Maury placed a comment on the February Scriptorium section about AdamBMorgan's English Wikisource Tumblr project in March, but it got erased. In consequence the article was archived at the end of March. I have restored the comment and the article above at Scriptorium#Tumblr update. ResScholar (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Addition to Blocking Policy [edit]

I have started a discussion at Wikisource_talk:Blocking_policy to consider adding a new section to the beginning of our blocking policy. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

OED1 [edit]

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 [edit]

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)

Wikisource vision development: News April 2013 [edit]

Wikisource-logo-fr.svg

I apologize if this message is not in your language. Please help translate it.

Dear Wikisourcerors, it has been almost a month since we have started with the Elaborate Wikisource strategic vision grant and we would like to share some news with you:

And that's it for now! During the month of May, we (Aubrey and Micru) would like to organize at least one Skype or Google Hangout meeting for the users of each one of the 10 biggest wikisources plus another one or two for the other languages (depending on interest). We want to know your opinion on what Wikisource should become in the next years.

Thanks! --Micru and Aubrey 00:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Distributed via Global message delivery. (Wrong page? Correct it here.)

An inquiry about users' OS and proofreading tools [edit]

Currently, I am working with Windows XP and also tried Windows 7 extensively, coming to the conclusion that after thirty years of MS-DOS and Windows computing, it would be best to explore better options. Are there any editors/proofreaders here on WS using any flavour of Ubuntu, or Mac OS X? If so, which editing/proofreading tools? I am only seeking the names of apps so that I can test them. Thanks in advance. — Ineuw talk 03:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I do everything with Firefox. Jeepday (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll make an assumption about what you mean by "editing/proofreading tools", that you're mainly looking for something that allows you to easily view and manipulate pieces of text…but if you mean something different, please let me know. To me, the most important component of that (especially with regard to wiki editing) is search-and-replace, and the best approach I know to search-and-replace is regular expressions.
  • On Mac, I heavily use TextWrangler. It has a nice point-and-click implementation of RegEx, that was pretty easy to learn, and I have become pretty reliant on it. This is an app that is free to use, but not free/open source. It's a lightweight version of BBEdit, a commercial program with more extensive features for coders. I haven't used BBEdit in many years, so can't comment on that.
  • For a very long time, I've been meaning to learn vi or the related vim. This is useful because, as far as I know, it exists for every computer platform in existence, and it's lightweight so it works fine on older computers, etc. I have no excuse for not having learned it already, and I expect if I did I would probably "graduate" from TextWrangler. If you want to learn this program, please let me know, maybe we can share notes.
Finally, if what you're talking about is more like spell checking and grammar checking, looking things up in the dictionary, etc., you may want to consider MacOS's "Services" model. MacOS offers a number of built-in services, and also (I think) a model where others can create plugins that offer services. These services are then available to all applications. I think they are generally considered pretty good; so on Mac, you can generally expect to get good spell checking, for instance, in whatever application you choose to use.
Personally, I am a longtime Mac user, very gradually transitioning toward Ubuntu or Lubuntu Linux. This is mainly philosophical, but might be useful to know for any followup comments/questions. -Pete (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for the comments. To keep this short and still coherent, I've been recently blessed with several computer hardware additions from family and friends, which now gives me the ability to test my options for future computing. Acquired a used 13" MacBook (circa 2009) with OS X 10.75, and this gives me mobility. Then with the desktop, I re-installed the dual boot between XP and Xubuntu 12.04 LTS. Even keeping notes of the steps taken to make the three environment somewhat similar so that switching is as painless as possible. Given time, I will post details on my user page, so as not to stray too far from the generally discussed topics here. — Ineuw talk 19:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Goody Two-Shoes (1881).djvu [edit]

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)

Yes check.svg Done -- I wish they were all that easy to fix. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Warning on leaving edit page with unsaved changes [edit]

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? [edit]

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)

Solution — mw.toolbar.addButton
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)

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

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:CentralAuth — billinghurst 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 [edit]

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 [edit]

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 [edit]

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)

Hyphenated word start.svg and Hyphenated word end.svg

Yes check.svg Done — Ineuw 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 [edit]

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 ? [edit]

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!

Ineuw, who are you asking about a link to code?

Thanks again fellows, I figured it would be the fusebox. Americans should have kept the British spellings and the metric system! ££££$ —Maury (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment on the (new) edit link [edit]

The new [edit] link to me is a fraction on the small side. I was wondering on others' opinions. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It is small, but not overly small. I would say it is net improvement. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The previous method was to define .editsection to universally appear far right regardless of the level of the section heading and the word ( [edit] ) itself had font settings in proportion to the particular heading's font size. Obviously they've done away with pushing the term all the way to the right (conflicted with too many settings where topicon or collapsible feature were in play at the same time), but I'm not so sure going with that single font size for all the heading levels was best. Currently, it does seem 1 variant too small to me personally but maybe all it needs is a 1px letter-spacing to make it more obvious while keeping it just as "small"? -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
meta:Change to section edit links suggests that the "mw-editsection" class can be adjusted via Common.css if we want to do so. I have no personal problem with the size of the new edit link, I just keep looking to the right and have a moment of confusion before remembering that it has moved. As a project, it probably isn't that important either way as most content pages don't seem to use sections. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


Moot point as it turns out - there is already a request to merge a change from 'x-small' to 'small' in place. See Here.

It should go from...

[edit]

to...

[edit]

... at some point. The server cached stuff has been mad slow to refresh of late so it might be awhile before we actually see the change. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

New button images added and an old unresolved issue [edit]

I created three new toolbar images Ligature ae.svg, Ligature oe.svg, Degree symbol 2.svg and implemented them in my Common.js. I caution anyone using my functions as they are, because I am using the Vectra skin with the legacy editor toolbar, and the code termination is a bit different from the Wikisource:Tools and scripts/More editing buttons.

The old issue is that toolbar actions still don’t work in the headers and footers whereas some versions ago they did. Should I file a bug report?— Ineuw talk 07:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ineuw, the code is different for the Wikeditor toolbar (described at mw:Manual:Custom edit buttons) which is itself used within Vector skin and I am surprised that you have some functionality. Headers and footers are a separate problem and there is a bugzilla, see via bugzilla4WS. From my reading it will be a won't fix in the current form, but yes as part of other rebuilds requested. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. The fact that it suddenly works is a great surprise for me as well. Complete functionality was restored only in this mw release. With various versions, either nothing worked, or only a single button functioned and when I added more everything died. After reading the above discussions, tried again with nothing to lose, and now all my custom buttons work, albeit the function termination is different. This code style was copied from Inductiveload’s custom toolbar buttons.
As for the header/footer I will wait for the solution whenever it happens. [Ineuw's sigature missing] (—Maury (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Dynamic image sizing unlocked? [edit]

First version; only worked with < IE7 - Disregard

For as long as I can remember, we've been limited to manipulating the following image file parameters to try and get images to display as desired....

[[File:Name|Type|Border|Location|Alignment|Size|link=Link|alt=Alt|Caption]]


Well there is one more parameter that I don't recall being documented anywhere (last one)....

[[File:Name|Type|Border|Location|Alignment|Size|link=Link|alt=Alt|Caption|class=CSS class]]


After playing around some and defining a css class for it, I think I've found a way for images to re-size themselves on-the-fly based on their container's size. See the image in Temp Image Testing for the re-sizng in action as you play with your browser's settings or change the dynamic layout.

All you need to do is slap |class=freedImg at the end of your File: statement to help start testing the feature.

So if you normally type ....


[[File:Amazing Stories April 1926.jpg|center|400px|alt=Cover of Amazing Stories volume 1, issue 1 for April 1936.]]


... to render image files, now you'd type...


[[File:Amazing Stories April 1926.jpg|center|400px|alt=Cover of Amazing Stories volume 1, issue 1 for April 1936.|class=freedImg]]


... instead. Feedback is welcome as this is still in 'beta' testing. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Not working as expected for Firefox, on Layout 2 I have a huge image left aligned that extends way beyond the right margin. Should we really be playing with an article that recently was written up at enWP's Signpost? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
<img class="freedImg thumbborder" width="2627" height="3959" src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/The_Yellow_Wall_Paper_pg_1.jpg" alt="The Yellow Wall Paper"></img>

What about now? I created a new temp test page at Temp Image Testing. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't work for me in Chrome, unless I'm late to the example. I have a (potentially) related question to what you're working with: there are times where I want an image to define the width of a box that also holds text. If you can indulge my preference for a moment and look over my reasoning for using "frameless." I was wondering if there was basically a way to set a table to "frameless" as well; take a look at this page, currently I use breaks so that the cell with text doesn't create a wider border around the image. Defining the box width as 220px wouldn't be good either, cos I like to believe that if the image is too small for someone (or too large, in theory) that they would simply go into their preferences and change the thumbnail size, and I'd want the text below it to reflect their desired image width.
And only marginally related, I think most editors (and in most cases, not all for sure as it pertains to formatting) would like to remove our preference for sizing the images and really are concerned with how it looks for the reader. Would it be possible to set our sites "frameless" parameter to something larger than 220px by default? I mean, most editors don't use frameless because it is small, but I imagine if it defaulted to say, 300px, it might be more attractive for editors to free up the hardcoded image widths. A simple -/+ Image size in the display options could make us one of the best sites for viewing images on any device. - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
You mean like...
[[File:The fall of Ulysses pg 6.jpg|frameless|396px|center|link=|alt=]]
?? -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
No.. I am trying to avoid using a defined width. I like using frameless only with the knowledge that someone can make it larger or smaller by going to their preferences.
It seemed that since you were working with sizing images based on their containers, I was hoping there might be a simple way to size a text cell based on its container. So for the page you edited, the frameless image parameter (default 220px) sets the width of the text box beneath it. Currently, if I were to remove the breaks from the text cell, it would expand the image cells border too; instead, I hope that when removing the breaks the text will wrap by the border set by the image size, which is dynamic from use of frameless. - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Then I don't understand why you are pining your hopes on any table or series of tables acting as a functional container - that has not been my expierence with tables at all. And Users are generally stuck with the default (220px) unless "we" override the defined values of the various divs involved (which was what I thought I was working towards but it seems only IE loads the class= last and the alt= firt in the resulting HTML img tag line). -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for introduce my request amidst your work, what you were trying to do with image width I believe would help me with limiting text width too. Like if you succeed with having an image width span by the container its in, I believe that I could too use something similar to have a text cells wdith limited by some other factor too, essentially limiting it to the width occurring in another cell, an image.
I know most people don't go in and change their thumbnail settings, but that they can has always erred me towards using frameless. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
but text that shrinks and grows with the image is the built-in thumbnail caption! -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
"Ulysses was now ready to begin his literary researches."
The page in question has those green borders which I wanted to include... I know, it's not necessary, but I like how it looked in the book and wanted to reproduce it. I couldn't get them with the use of the thumbnail caption. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

More on unlocking images [edit]

2nd version

After playing around some more and defining a 2nd css class for it, I think I've found a way for images to re-size themselves on-the-fly based on their container's size. See the image in Temp Image Testing for the re-sizng in action as you play with your browser's settings or change the dynamic layout.

No template yet but the raw html pretty much goes like this....

<div class="freedImg2" style="  width: 100%;   [or  ### px ] ">
<p   class="freedImg2" style="  width:inherit;               ">[[File:The fall of Ulysses pg 48.jpg|link=|alt=]]</p>
<p class="imgCaption" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:1.75em;">{{Lorem ipsum}}</p>
</div>


The width needs to be set to 100% in the first div class="freedImg2" line for dynamic resizing to really work. You can still force a fixed px size if you wish.

An example of 33% of the textarea/screen (or 33% of the container[=100%]) follows....

<div class="floatnone"  style="     width:  33%;      margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;">
<div class="freedImg2"  style="     width: 100%;     ">
<p   class="freedImg2"  style="     width:inherit;   ">[[File:The fall of Ulysses pg 48.jpg|link=|alt=]]</p>
<p class="imgCaption" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:1.75em;">{{Lorem ipsum}}</p>
</div>
</div>

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim. Donec pede justo, fringilla vel, aliquet nec, vulputate eget, arcu. In enim justo, rhoncus ut, imperdiet a, venenatis vitae, justo.

Hope that worked - delete if it screws up the page. No tables or File: settings involved. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

h-h..Hello?      Is there anybody out there?
It appears to work with Chrome, IE8 and IE6. I have not had a chance to test using this myself but it looks like it could be useful in a lot of situations (I have found that "frameless" is usually too small by default and have had trouble picking a useful alternative image size). I don't think this will work when captions need to be overlayed on the image but the current system will be fine for those situations. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for takin' a look. The more feedback - the better (and I don't believe the full 100% setting alone will work on anything lower than IE8). -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it works for me on Chrome and IE8, I can check Firefox tonight. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Both image here and sandbox work in Firefox 20.0 :) When can we expect a template? - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Ignore the IE6 comment. That was a work computer that was running IE6 last time I checked but has apparently been updated since and I just didn't notice (I don't use IE a lot). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't put too much faith in the IE6 comment having to deal with it almost daily, but thanks for checking. I'm already thinking about how best to template-tize this but I'd like more than just the three of us to go on. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


I'm having a hard time figuring out the best approach to template-tize this. On the one hand, it seems best to just apply the container with the 100% setting alone and then have that plug into templates that would apply percentages/positions to that container like in the 33% example above. On the other hand, folks would most likely prefer an all-in-one template too. Then there is the other possibility of making all this a module first and build templates from there. Thoughts? Comments? -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe wrap the template in a 400px container or something; I think that the template can only really be useful in something like Layout 2; otherwise using a 25% or something of the screen width works on a desktop, but would obviously be too small on a tablet. The opposite, a 100% on a tablet would be great, but on a desktop, obviously too large. 400px is somewhat arbitrary, but it at least has some value according the enwp on image formatting for browsability, and it goes along with our layout 2. Just some thoughts... And can we get rid of that damned forced font on layout 2? - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
That is kind of backwards imho - I'd just add a line to the Dynamic Layout to impose a percentage of the full image container if need be rather than having the template perform resizing tricks based on which layout is in effect. Plus your rather large viewscreen is the exception; not the rule - even the extra large malaria poster looks fine here in Layout 1 for example. Its the font size being too small that throws layout 1 off and not so much the lack of margins imo. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I apologize, I may have not understood exactly what you were asking so please forgive any ignorance. As someone who intends to use this, I wanted to give an input. I've made an example in a sandbox with my concerns, and with the point that I was trying to make; that it might not be a bad idea to cap off the 100% width somewhere. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Input appreciated but I'm afraid its skewed by current practices. If the standalone image was created based in proportion with its caption size to its printed text size and the border trim turned into padding or margin instead of cropped, you'd see all this quite differently. Look at your sandbox again to see what I mean. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Still afraid I don't understand. The change you made still shows the same case regardless of trimming and caption, that for a monitor, 100% image width not contained by a layout or table will simply be too much image for a desktop (yet decent for mobile), and that reducing the size to say 33% will simply be too little for a tablet or mobile device (yet decent for a monitor). I suspect neither of us is helping each other out, so for now I withdraw my input. - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Impo'tant!!!
If your browser has anything like an "enable Automatic Image Resizing" setting or settings, please make sure to disable them while you test anything related to the FreedImg initiative being introduced/discussed in this section. It will greatly reduce the chances of 'false' positives but don't forget to renable it when your done (or not). -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

More buttons for edit custom toolbar [edit]

I’ve uploaded additional extended Latin character buttons which may be of interest to Wikisource users:

Ansi 0163.svgAnsi 0198.svgAnsi 0228.svgAnsi 0232.svgAnsi 0233.svgAnsi 0235.svgAnsi 0239.svgAnsi 0241.svgAnsi 0246.svgAnsi 0252.svg

I also offer my services to provide other custom character buttons at a special very low introductory price. :-) — Ineuw talk 15:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

fyi... it seems you can "steal" all the buttons you want from the Special Characters menu in WikiEditor. You'd just need to paint? them Vector Tab blue (like the above) afterward.
I wish somebody was up on modifying WikiEditor instead of finding limited new ways of preserving the past; it would make the entire bottom edit menu & gadget thing-ys redundant for example. -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I would like one of each please and Master-charge it to George Orwell III. I see ae AE oe OE in text at the top and I have one that shows as the number symbol # that produces my beloved English Pound symbol £ that I encounter often. I don't need the # button but it connects to the £ symbol. Why cannot these be color coded? There is a large yellow Trumpet that I never use as well as several other symbols I dislike and never use. Having the correct symbols is an advantage. Those buttons George mentions could be placed at the top, or some of them, instead of buttons we do not use. Useless to me for years are the symbol for square root Insert formula here, Embedded file, Horizontal Line, Red circle around letter W (ignore wiki formatting) and n-dash, and signature with time stamp , and [poem], and [br/] where useful buttons could be placed. —Maury (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Your redcoat Pound button should be straightened out by now but thats not what I'm talking about when I mention "WikiEditor". To see WikiEditor, visit WikiMania 2014 page, click edit like you normally would and give it a few to load - once it does, you should get the WikiEditor interface. I've had it on for a few days now and it actually learned to load just as fast as the button-o-rama thing ever did for me. It depends upon an internal resource loader rather than the java[script] installed with your operating system that the current toolbar needs to work. Still has its bugs and nobody seems to know how to easily customize it --- but I've seen ones that were and they look & work just as good as the old button bars ever did for me. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
GO3, I agree. Until there is a true user customizable toolbar available, all these attempts are just patch jobs. I also forgot that my setup is different from the standard Vector skin/Vector editor setup which allows me to use the above buttons. These characters (+ a few more that I didn’t upload) are based on the PSM project which uses these extended characters extensively - and little else. That’s why I made the above collection.
Also, I am teaching myself the basics of Inkscape, because of the need for occasional diversion from proofreading, and because haven’t had any luck in finding additional employment in the PDF split and merge & upload industry. — Ineuw talk 19:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Missing authors [edit]

I don't know if people will find this useful, or if it's redundant with some other mechanism I don't know about, but I have created Category:Works with non-existent author pages to help locate red-linked author pages from headers. It is based on this edit to the header template, which places texts in that hidden category if the author page being linked to does note exist. There are nearly 800 of these, mostly some combination of truly missing authors, "authors" which probably do not merit links, or variant spellings/phrasings of existing author pages. It's worth perusing. Dominic (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, it's still actively populating. I just noticed it is over 2000 now. Dominic (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
In the case that we can't find information on the author, is there a preference to leave it redlinked or to use override_author= ? - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Leave them red. I am pretty good at finding Aus & UK 19thC and early 20thC authors; and reasonable for US authors of the same period. If anyone needs a hand, I have yet to refuse a reasonable offer. To also note that the VIAF search tool is helpful, though can need you to manually invert names. Also Phe prepared a script to check and pull available data from enWP (needs sane use), and you can get that from my common.js file. —unsigned comment by Billinghurst (talk) .
The category approach based on an {{#ifexist}} within the header template is going to be problematic. Basically the category populates as {{header}} changes, they are removed from the category when the individual files are updated, not due to the redlinks being converted to active links. There is benefit in the condition as it has shown up a whole lot of misapplied headers parameters, but isn't really going to solve the redlinks. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

What to do about employee authors? [edit]

While having a thump at reducing this list of missing author pages, it highlights a bit of a conundrum with regard to press releases, and works of primarily corporate authorship. On pages like E-3 damaged while landing at Nellis the page has been prepared by an employee of the defence force, as part of their duties, and the article in itself is not a view/opinion of the author. We can try to look to maintain author pages for people for whom we may not get any data, or we can look to a different approach. I am thinking and would like to propose that we can just list these in the portal namespace noting the author's name, and use override_author parameter to nullify the author's wikilink. None of this would later prevent an author page being created if there were more works, or the person became 'notable' for other works. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Highlights [edit]

The "highlights" box on the main page doesn't contain highlights at all; it merely gestures at our scope. I would like us to start using that box for genuine highlights. But first we have to figure out what our highlights are.

For example,

and so on. But these examples are made up; we haven't actually achieved any of these.

So... what are our biggest, boldest, most significant achievements? What should we be proud of? What should be we celebrating on our front page? I'm thinking bold projects of epic scope and great significance, completed to a very high quality.

Hesperian 08:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The DNB bullet point is valid, I think. I'm not sure about the state of the PSM project but some variation on it could work, eg. "The first X years of Popular Science Monthly". The classics don't appear to be very popular here (they are a lot of work for little gain as they are already widely available, so not a very fulfilling activity to pursue). I'm not sure if it's what you want but our translations of Catullus seem to get some attention online. Otherwise, I can't think of any complete "epic scope" stuff at the moment. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Oi! We do have all 63 vols of DNB, + all three vols of 1901 supplement completed. Sure not all yet validated; that said, I get your point. I care not about Dickens, nor Shakespeare, nor Byron, ... the pig swill iggorant that I am; though I still get your point. I have proofread poetry, but not read any of it; but I see your point. There are many reasons to be here, sometimes it is not the features, but the benefits. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Can we randomize things deemed by the community as highlights? So that quality and complete high brow works can be mixed with pig swill... Yeah, it is another thing to keep track of for us, but I think that's what we're getting at anyway. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
For example, Author:Florence Earle Coates to me is worthy of highlighting; I think LJB has cataloged all her works. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Rotating components through is definitely possible, the pun on my user page does that daily; so does {{active projects}}; and it is one of the things that we do during validation month with texts Wikisource:Proofread of the Month/Coding. The biggest issue that I have found is ensuring standard formatting and sizes. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Chrome shortcut manager [edit]

I searched talks and I didn't find any mention about Chrome Shortcut Manager. If you are using currently Chrome browser, and you are not afraid about some javascript, you'll love it: you can link keyboard shotcuts for any existing or new js script, and you can import or export them to share them with other users. I use it too as a fast and simple tool to test new scripts. --Alex brollo (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I would think that such information could be added to Wikisource:Tools and scripts — billinghurst sDrewth 00:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Please open a thread there - presently I'm unfamiliar with en.source and its style rules; then I'll be happy to share some scripts if any of you is interested. --Alex brollo (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't use Chrome at WS, not sure what the manager is about, so it isn't something for which I will be starting a thread. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
This is precisely why I posted only here a brief mention of such tool. I'll not mention it any more but someone is interested about. :-) --Alex brollo (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Some Score issues [edit]

I've encountered some problems with Score and I don't think I'm the only one. I've already mentioned this on Extension:Score but it's worth repeating it here in case anyone has similar problems or can think of a solution. Complicated or just long pieces of music appearing to be hitting an error. Initially I thought I might be doing something wrong but now I think it's software related.

I started Index:National Anthems of the Allies.djvu as a way to learn Lilypond notation (it was a short work with a few different pieces, so I thought it would work well). However, pretty much every page I've tried hits an error message eventually. For example, Page:National Anthems of the Allies.djvu/16 shows this error (in other pages I have commented out the error-causing elements). However, at a wikimeet over the weekend I talked with someone who has a non-Wikimedia wiki with the score extension enabled and found out that the same code, when copied and pasted over, worked properly: WikiTranslate. I've tried the code in a sandbox on Wikipedia and I get the error again. Therefore I think the problem is not necessarily with Score itself but with Wikimedia's handling of Score; possibly some incompatibility or maybe WM is capping the extension's resources in some way.

I have mentioned this on the extension page, as I said above, but I haven't filed a bugzilla bug report yet. I want to see what's happening with other people first. Has anyone else had the same, or similar, problems? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

NB: I anticipate another problem but haven't got far enough to actually test it: I can't see a way for the extension to continue over pages. This is not a big problem but it will cause a discontinuity (the extension breaks and wraps bars automatically, so multi-page pieces are likely to awkwardly and obviously break at the end of each transcluded page) and it will prevent complete midi/ogg generation (again, just a page at a time). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm having the same issue with scores in Index:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians vol 1.djvu. A straightforward snippet of a few bars is fine, but once there are more than 2 staves or more than 3 systems or several instances of split voices or lyrics or a figured bass line the parser seems to choke.

wrt to the multi-page issue I don't know how transclusion is going to work yet (as I've hit the same barrier as Adam) but I wonder if the midi/ogg generation issue would be best solved by uploading to Commons as a file and transcluding from there. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

BUGZILLA them. Adding comments to the extension talk page is going go next to nowhere. The only means to get some action is to bugzilla these pieces. If the examples are long, then add them to the talk page and link to them from bugzilla. Have you tried it without Vorbis turned on? I am presuming that it is some part of the Timed Media Handler extension. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I haven't even tried to apply vorbis to these scores yet. I'll file a bug report later today (I need to find my bugzilla log in details, which are not at my current location). I was hoping there was something I missed or was doing wrong after all but it doesn't look like it. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
There are a number of issues already reported, feel free to check the list of open Score bugs. If the specific problem that you face is reproducible, it would be great if you could send the software bug to Bugzilla by following the instructions How to report a bug. This is to make developers of the software aware of the issue. If you have done so, please paste the number of the bug report (or the link) here, so others can also inform themselves about the bug's status. Thanks in advance! --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
bugzilla:48465 reported. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
After re-reading the other bugs, bugzilla:47534 might be the same thing (although the description is slightly different). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Page numbers for works with no scans [edit]

I was wondering what the best practice is for including page numbers in works with no scans (for example, if I were to want to add Todd v. Thompson). The page numbers are valuable, but it doesn't seem like it would make much sense to use the Page namespace if there aren't any scans. Is there an existing template to emulate the auto-generated page numbers, or would it be worth creating one? – GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I like the variation of {{page break}} that was set up. {{page break|121|left}}, though it does require that one use <div class="indented-text">. And from memory I believe that the anchors are also there for direct linking. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Ooh, thank you! This is exactly the sort of template I was looking for. Unfortunately, it would appear that the anchors were removed from the template a few years ago. Perhaps I'll look into why that happened—they would be nice to have. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Examples of big jpg-indexes with content? [edit]

I have some problems with the view of index-pages built by many jpg-files on svws. I am now looking if the same problem is found in other projects. Do you have any examples of large indexes made by many jpg/png-files, where the pages has content? -- Lavallen (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we have many indexes based on images alone. Even where they do exist, they are usually only 1-2 pages long. I tried searching for an index that matches your requriements but couldn't find anything. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
How about this? - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The pages on svws I have problems with, have 700-1000 pages. I have seen a jpg-index here with 2000+ pages but the pages had no content. I guess it's the rendering af the matrix of colors that gives a hiccup in the javascript. But I cannot verify if it is limited to svws or if it can be found on other projects. It was when the computer installed IE10, that the problems came. -- Lavallen (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Second eyes requested [edit]

This was a recent US ruling I transcribed. Index:11-796_c07d.pdf I'd appreciate some second eyes and category assistance. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Scriptorium&oldid=4439525"