# Wikisource:Scriptorium

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

# Announcements

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

# Proposals

## Switch header template foundation from table-based to division-based

The proposal entails the replacement of the current Header template familiar to most with a structurally redesigned new Header template. Replacement is a needed first step in series of steps needed to properly address the long time deficiencies behind several issues as well as enhance our mobile device presence.

There should be no significant operational or visual differences between the existing and proposed Header templates under normal usage (i.e. Desktop view). The change is entirely structural -- moving away from the existing HTML all Table make-up to an all Div[ision] based one.

Please examine the testcases where the current template is compared to the proposed replacement. Don't forget to also check Mobile Mode from the testcases page -- which is where the differences between current header template & proposed header template will be hard to miss.

For those who are concerned over the possible impact replacement might have on specific works, you can test the replacement on your own by entering edit mode, substituting the header tag {{header with {{header/sandbox and then previewing the work with the change in place. Saving the page with the change in place should not be needed but if you opt to save the page instead of just previewing it, please remember to revert the change soon after your done inspecting the results.

Your questions or comments are welcomed. At the same time I personally urge participants to support this proposed change. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Support – I have checked a few other unusual edge cases—e.g. Song of Songs (Bible), The miscellaneous botanical works of Robert Brown/Volume 1/A brief account of microscopical observations made on the particles contained in the pollen of plants—and am satisfied that the output is identical. Therefore I support the proposal. For those who have no idea why divs are better than tables, and why you should care, the first dozen or so slides of this might help. Hesperian 03:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Support Sounds like a good idea. Tables are for tabular data, not layout. :) — Sam Wilson ( ) … 06:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Support This is great.—Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Support I trust you and your ideas George. Just remember there are beginners here and I am one of them. —Maury (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Support--Mpaa (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Support I am encouraged to see in the examples for EB1911 that apparently Wikipedia links will be handled as before. Many times multiple links are required, and the icon approach with the non-transparent single link I don't think makes it in this situation. This is what we are currently stuck in with CNE, and it results in multiple links being handled asymmetrically, with one being unreadable. The other thing I would like to see handled for collective works is being able to specify an author for a section, with it clearly indicated that the author is just for the section and not for the work as a whole. Library Guy (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Authors of sections is already supported with the contributor field in header template. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. Library Guy (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
SupportIneuw talk 18:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Support — It looks better and it is simpler! This is like a dream :) --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Support—I've checked behaviour of a work-specific header that's based on the generic header and it looks good to me. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
SupportZhaladshar (Talk) 02:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Support—Looks like progress to me. Hywel Dda (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Support -- DutchTreat (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────┘

Update 1/19/2015: — Based upon the responses above, the proposed switch to an all-DIV based common main-space header has been implemented as of this post. Please continue to post your observations and/or questions - particularly for those visiting us in mobile mode - in a new sub-section(s) below this one as we move forward from this point on.

Thanks to all who have participated in this proposal and more is sure to follow in the coming weeks. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

## Import the Early English Books Online project (Phase I)

The EEBO phase I is a corpus of over 25,000 texts from the first books published in English in the 1400s up to the year 1700. These are high-quality keyed texts, not OCR. They have just released the whole of phase I under a Creative Commons License with limited XML markup. These can be downloaded from this repository. I suggest that somebody with the know how import them here.--Brett (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide an institutional link where the release under Creative Commons can be confirmed, the link you give is a file-share site NOT the actual institution responsible? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Will this do?--Brett (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. The reason for asking is to do with fussy people at Commons.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

# BOT approval requests

## User:Wikisource-bot

At my request, John Vandenberg is going to recreate the previous functions of user:JVbot/patrol whitelist in toollabs based wikisource-bot. I also plan to get some basic voluntary archiving available, predominantly for user pages. The bot will be using pywikibot. To do these functions, we seek the approval of the community to undertake some tests for evaluation. The bots would be persistant, and automated in that functionality. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ran some archiving runs using archivebot.py and some liitle issues with captcha they work fine. So not sure if anyone wishes to set up an archiving on their talk page, if they do, I can some more tests. I will set up some instructions on the bot user page (for the moment). Wikisource-bot (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I added it on my talk page. But I do not talk too much, so not too much to archive ...--Mpaa (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I have set the beast to run daily, now not sure whether our 'crats want to wait until gets the patrol component going or not. Noting that component will just patrol, not specifically edit. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• I'd like a few members of the community saying yay or nay about having this bot before I flag it. To get that started off, I'll support giving this bot the flag. One question: will it only be used for archiving or will it have expanded functionality in the future?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
At the moment archiving and patrolling to takeover from the defunct JVBot (same script). I would hope that we can utilise this WMF account for additional tasks that the community needs run on an automated basis, without much (any?) intervention. More info about scope of existing scripts is at mw:Manual:Pywikibot/Scripts. I would see that any additional tasks will be requested here, and added to the scope of the bot with approval of the community. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support As I am involved in pywikibot, if one notices something strange with edits done by this bot, I can assist. There is also the possibility to open tickets in bugzillaPhabricator (Product pywikibot)--Mpaa (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support – As interested in creating database reports -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

# Help

## Correspondence between Gandhi and Tolstoj

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

Best regards from Germany,

Heidi Hacker

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

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

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

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

## Soft redirects to other Wikimedia sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

## Between Two Loves Title page and TOC

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

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

## Bracketed limits in TeX formulae

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

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

## Custom layout

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

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

## Books without Indexes?

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

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

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

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

KenJ

• KenJ
*KenJ

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

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

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

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

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

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

## After Action Report 770th FA

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

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

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

    umberado@comcast.net


David Williams

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

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

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

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

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

## User:Ignatus/Old Russian birch barks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it has more to do with Module:String -- which is called by the header template to handle the category parameter -- than anything else. I'll have to ask someone over on Wikipedia to take a look so this might take awhile (unless somebody here has the chops to troubleshoot this of course). -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
(e/c)I would hazard it was this edit to {{header}} which is most likely responsible. I might further guess that the pattern group [%w%s-] which occurs twice therein should probably be amended to at least [%w'%s-] (i.e. add single quote to match element) as %s does not match any punctuation. Further analysis of allowed characters is probably justified.) AuFCL (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Made that change and it seems to work now. We'll deal other punctuation failures as they present themselves I suppose. Thanks for the fix, AuFCL. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Here is a short list of existing representative categories (a couple of whom are empty and perhaps ought to be deleted instead?) of cases which still trip up the LUA filters: I make no pretense this list is comprehensive, but bearing in mind the broad variety above may I make a case for replacing the overly-complicated coding (Honestly! One replace to remove the empty entry created in error by the other two?) in {{header}}:
-->{{#if:{{{categories|}}}
|{{#invoke:String|replace|{{#invoke:String|replace|{{#invoke:String|replace|{{{categories}}}|([%w'%s-]-)%s?/%s?|[[Category:%1]]|plain=false}}|([%w'%s-]-)|[[Category:%1]]|plain=false}}|%[%[Category:%]%]||plain=false}} }}<!-- with the somewhat simpler (though still ugly) -->{{#if:{{{categories|}}} |[[Category:{{#invoke:String|replace|{{{categories}}}|(%s)/(%s)|%1]][[Category:%2|plain=false}}]]}}<!-- ? I appreciate the output of the latter is not stripped of spaces like the original code; the wiki engine really does not seem to care and still finds the correct category (at least in all my experiments to date. Feel free to verify/repudiate, please.) AuFCL (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC) ## Partial scan page in edit window I am able to see only part of the scan page at this page, but the full page is visible on clicking the image button. Hrishikes (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Whilst I am sympathetic, as of right now the scan really does show up correctly for me. Did you perhaps purge the page (or possibly even the very act of your editing the page "fixed" the issue)? Is it still misbehaving for you? AuFCL (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC) The page is now OK. I did not purge or did anything, I did not understand the mechanics. Anyway, now it's OK. Hrishikes (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Sad to say sometimes these things "just happen" and after the problem goes away there is nothing really logged to indicate what had gone wrong. All I can suggest is, if it happens again try, in turn, each of the page operations "Purge", "Hard purge" and "Null edit" (all available from the tab-menu at the top of the page—may be hidden under the "More" tab.) I do not mean you need to execute all three operations; merely try one and see if the problem goes away and if not move on to the next choice and repeat. These tend to fix most problems, but of course in cases of stubborn failure ask again for assistance as the cause in that case might then still vary from server/database connection problems to system/javascript errors etc. etc. (Unlikely but possible.) AuFCL (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC) No, the problem is still persisting in my tablet. Previously I had checked with my mobile, and there the page is OK. But not in the tab. I have tried all your given methods; null edit fails, and purge/hard purge does not give any result in this case. Sorry for bothering, but I am not able to fix it. Does not much matter, I think, as it is OK with other browsers. Hrishikes (talk) 11:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Right at present I have completely run out of useful ideas. However in order to assist anybody else who might be able to solve this issue here are some thoughts as to items it might be good to collect and report (in no particular priority; skip items which make no sense/are impossible): • What make and model is the tablet? • Are there particular pages which always show the partial scan problem (which ones?) or is it intermittent and/or random (i.e. sometimes works)? • Do you know which browser it/you are using? Please report its name and version number. • Does the tablet/browser have any kind of javascript or error console/log, and if so does it contain any messages which might help diagnose the problem? • Are you using the standard browser referrer/user-agent? (This probably only makes sense if you have taken deliberate steps to change it.) • Can you think of anything else which makes your tablet/browser "different" from a browser on which the problem never (or rarely) occurs? Pardon the dump of questions and I hope somebody can take up this cause with more success than I. AuFCL (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC) It's Galaxy Tab3, Chrome 38.0.2125.114. I think it's more to do with the cache from some earlier time, having some network problem at that time. This cache is not going away with purging. This is the only page where this problem is occurring. Please don't bother, it's not very important, this page being the only one. Hrishikes (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC) ## Apparent "automatic" edits in Page: space—Is there something going wrong with Show changes/Preview? If I open any Page: name space containing pre-existing header or footer content for editing, and immediately select "Show changes" I am presented with a display which implies the "Page status" has been forced to "Not proofread" from whatever it was before; and that both the header and footer areas have been blanked. That is to say the "Difference" display acts as if they are blank, but the actual header and footer edit areas remain intact. In similar fashion "Preview" always shows the salmon "This page needs to be proofread." band irrespective of the current or intended state of the page. However insofar as I can tell, both of these displays are "lying," because when actually saved only content actually edited changes. This "fault" only manifests itself when I am logged in. "Preview" and "Show changes" perform flawlessly when logged out (but of course it is then impossible to change validation states.) I have tried disabling various preference/gadgets/local scripting to no avail, and am currently quite out of ideas. Is this perhaps a known issue? I like to be able to check preview before saving changes but can I put any trust into what it is reporting? AuFCL (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC) I'm not getting this behavior at my end. It may have to do with your preferences, cache, connection, or some such, but it does not appear at this time to be a general phenomenon. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC) I am also not getting any such phenomenon. Must be local problem at your end. Hrishikes (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Thanks both for your observations. I remain at a loss. This is more of an annoyance than an outright disability. AuFCL (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Additional: George Orwell III isolated this. Side-effect of having Preferences/Live Preview selected. Thanks all! AuFCL (talk) 06:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC) ## Can pages with mixed up words be redone ? Why do some pages have the words of the right column interspersed with the words of the left column while other pages have the words of each column clearly separated ? Index:Woman's_who's_who_of_America,_1914-15.djvu Robin2014 (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC) This has to do with how the text layer of the file was generated. Typically, this is done outside Wikisource, and whether the columns are mixed or not can depend on a variety of factors. Ultimately, it comes down to the quality of the scan and how smart the OCR software was. I have one work started that I have put onto a lengthy pause because of this problem, but in my case it's a result of the OCR having trouble with a text where there is a single block of body text and two columns of smaller font footnotes on every page. The body text came out fine, but the footnotes are all garbled together. One option would be to use OCR on your own computer, copying and re-interpreting the text block by block. Anyone assisting you would probably be doing something similar. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC) In general, we don't assemble as a column but as a page, which I recommend, as it was done here. Still it's a hell of a job to assemble the paragraphs line by line. I would follow EncycloPetey's advice and try both methods to find your preference.— Ineuw talk 23:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC) I have proofread a few pages of this book. If I understand the history tab of the index page it seems this book was added June 2011. I was thinking that perhaps the OCR process had improved so that it would be productive to redo this book. The book file is at wikicommons. Should I - for now [until I find this to be futile] - marked the pages where the words from right side are interspersed with left side as 'problematic' and continue to proofread the pages where the words are in alignment. ? Robin2014 (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC) You could selectively work on pages, of course, but "re-doing" the OCR for the file would mean having the file reprocessed at the Internet Archive, where the file actually originated. It is not something we normally do here. The IA have a rather sophisticated OCR process that they use. However, there is no guarantee that running the process again would improve the results for a work in columns, and no certainty as to what sort of priority they would assign the task. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC) There are for "different" copies available on Internet Archive. The 1st is the one you worked on (a Rutgers University contribution), the 2nd and 3rd are from Google/Harvard both of which are very poor copies, and this one donated by the Allen County Public Library Genealogy Center. with this text layer. Look at this text and if it's better, then we can replace the Index file. This means that you should copy out the proofread text pages and store them somewhere because they would be lost.— Ineuw talk 18:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC) My guess is that text will not change, as pages have already been 'saved'. Concerned pages will have to be overwritten (or better deleted, so the new text layer will be fetched).--Mpaa (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC) I am not sure if it's by the same publisher with the same pagination. GO3 would be my source for accurate info in such matters. I meant that Robin2014 should copy the few proofread pages and place them in the user's subfolder just in case to save the past effort.— Ineuw talk 19:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Why is everyone talking only about the pre-existing text layer? WS text layer can also be generated by clicking the OCR button. I usually use this method and have found it to be reasonably accurate. Alternatively, the pdf file can be downloaded from IA and run through an OCR like ABBYY FineReader or some such. That may give result different from IA, although they also use this OCR. Hrishikes (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Yes, it can be done that way, but it means that the supporting Source file is missing that layer. We prefer to have a complete source file on Commons, with all the available layers in place. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC) ┌───────────────────────┘ While EncycloPetey is correct in saying there is no guarantee [re]running the derive process at the Internet Archive will improve the quality of the scan images, the embedded text or both, there are some clues one should look for in formulating the optimal selection for us to host. Typically, the choices facing possible contributors comes between the existing, multiple hostings of a work @ IA and/or the decision to re-derive any particular copy of those existing work(s). Since the particular work mentioned earlier happens to be the oddity rather than the norm @ IA, the following will be a short primer pointing to those clues. Opening the index page for before-mentioned, IA hosted work, we get... Without diving too deep into the details just yet, one thing is obvious -- the source file uploaded to Commons is approximately 4-years, 3-months old already. How old was the source file uploaded to Internet Archive that produced the file ultimately uploaded to Commons? Can't say with any certainty but for our argument's sake, lets say this book was scanned and the resulting file or files were uploaded for processing by IA on the same day. So what does a 4.3 year difference make? You tell me. Our example file's derive history highlights on the left and a 2 day old file's derive history highlights to the right -- note the (v##### or version no. for each.  <--- BookOp SetupMetaXML (v30094 Sep08 09:19) Starting PDT: 2010-09-08 09:19:58 ---- <--- BookOp DevelopRawJp2 (v30003 Sep08 09:20) Starting PDT: 2010-09-08 09:20:01 ---- <--- BookOp AbbyyZipToGz (v13154 Sep08 09:20) Starting PDT: 2010-09-08 09:20:01 ---- <--- BookOp DevelopMekel (v18767 Sep08 09:20) Starting PDT: 2010-09-08 09:20:01 ---- <--- Module ProcessJP2 (v30682 2010Sep08 09:20) Starting PDT: 2010-09-08 09:20:30 ---- <--- Module AnimatedGIF (v30465 2010Sep08 15:35) Starting PDT: 2010-09-08 15:35:55 ---- <--- Module AbbyyXML (v30243 2010Sep08 15:36) Starting PDT: 2010-09-08 15:36:44 ---- Updating meta.xml with ocr = "ABBYY FineReader 8.0" <--- Module DjvuXML (v28794 2010Sep09 01:28) Starting PDT: 2010-09-09 01:28:18 ---- <--- Module PDF (v21957 2010Sep09 02:26) Starting PDT: 2010-09-09 02:26:23 ---- <--- Module DjVu (v27253 2010Sep09 02:26) Starting PDT: 2010-09-09 02:26:23 ---- <--- Module JPEGCompPDF (v30180 2010Sep09 04:17) Starting PDT: 2010-09-09 04:17:53 ---- <--- Module HackPDF (v23989 2010Sep09 04:17) Starting PDT: 2010-09-09 04:17:54 ---- <--- Module GrayscalePdf (v29966 2010Sep09 07:22) Starting PDT: 2010-09-09 07:22:26 ---- <--- Module DJVUTXT (v23986 2010Sep09 11:19) Starting PDT: 2010-09-09 11:19:28 ---- <--- BookOp SetupMetaXML (v63345 Jan01 20:30) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 20:30:00 ---- <--- BookOp DevelopRawJp2 (v38364 Jan01 20:30) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 20:30:01 ---- <--- BookOp AbbyyZipToGz (v59030 Jan01 20:30) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 20:30:01 ---- <--- BookOp DevelopMekel (v38252 Jan01 20:30) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 20:30:01 ---- <--- Module ProcessJP2 (v54800 2015Jan01 20:30) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 20:30:02 ---- <--- Module AnimatedGIF (v50716 2015Jan01 20:41) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 20:41:35 ---- <--- Module AbbyyXML (v60634 2015Jan01 20:42) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 20:42:15 ---- Updating meta.xml with ocr = "ABBYY FineReader 9.0" <--- Module DjvuXML (v38071 2015Jan01 21:17) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 21:17:17 ---- <--- Module EPUB (v36000 2015Jan01 21:18) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 21:18:43 ---- <--- Module DjVu (v38041 2015Jan01 21:18) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 21:18:49 ---- <--- Module TOC (v39713 2015Jan01 21:34) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 21:34:07 ---- <--- Module ScandataXML (v35935 2015Jan01 21:34) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 21:34:07 ---- <--- Module PDF (v35935 2015Jan01 21:34) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 21:34:11 ---- <--- Module HackPDF (v35935 2015Jan01 21:34) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 21:34:11 ---- <--- Module DJVUTXT (v38312 2015Jan01 21:34) Starting PST: 2015-01-01 21:34:58 ---- Not only have the modules and software been updated in those 4 some-odd years but we are presented with an unusual opportunity in this case. Look closer at the Index of files for our example... notice the .PDF file (line 4) is not the "oldest" file of the bunch? This means it wasn't the original source file uploaded to IA for processing but one of the result products of the processing. The .tar archive (line 17) of presumably 1 .jp2 file for every 1 page scanned is the source file. Now a bad scan is bad scan and no amount of re-jiggering will dramatically improve on resulting quality of files derived. The flip side being a good-scan is a good scan and re-running the latest derive modules and updated software against it will likely improve results one way or the other - maybe even all around (i.e. better thumbnails and a superior text-layer). So what should you take away from all this... INVEST SOME TIME and RESEARCH into what you select for upload & hosting by us and stop letting the 'eye candy of the moment' guide your decision making for you!!! -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Oops, a full-scale Ph.D. thesis! Anyway, good scan and good OCR software is needed for good OCR text, no argument about that. But after that, the human element is also important, otherwise, bots could have done all the proofreading. However good your text layer may be, it is not likely to be perfect; some pains has to be taken by a member of the human species too! The works I am doing at present (list at my user page), while notable in their own fields, most are very difficult to render digitally, what with bad scan, diacritical marks, unicode characters, problematic formatting, lots of pictures, nearly illegible pages, even missing pages -- which I have to hunt out from alternate sources. But, to tell the truth, with all your blessings, I am doing fine, with time-to-time help from the experts. Not being techno-savvy at all, I rely mostly on the human element. Moreover, if machines can do all the work bar the finishing touches, then where is the challenge for the human mind? Hrishikes (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC) It was not my intention to step on anyone's toes or to belittle someone's point of view -- merely to offer my learned approach to this particular subject matter. The fact the work in question was the exception to the norm was the real reason I felt more detail would only enhance comprehension. Nevertheless - I beg to differ with your point. "Bots" should be doing as much -- if not all -- the proofreading and layout as possible. Had some smart soul developed a way by now to use the coordinate mapping found in basic XML formats that are compiled from dimensions set in stone at the time of scanning and then re-addressed again when characters are associated with those coordinates (OCR'd), then all us humans would be concerned with is just validating the work of Bots. The way things stand now (and for the foreseeable future) we get a plain text dump by what can never be mistaken for a Bot and have to do both the proofreading And the validating never mind the layouts. Q: When will humans rise up and demand Bots do more for Wikisource? A: Not any time soon; they are still too busy compensating for typewriter-era line-feeds, carriage returns, non-breaking hyphens and unwanted whitespace every session to stop long enough to formally protest anything. :) -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC) I have learned a few things from this discussion. There seem to be 2 items - First - the IA copy from Allen Co Public Library says digitized in 2014 BUT I noticed that it is missing pg 22 and pages like 824-825 have a few letters cut off in the binding fold. However, its text file has some pages that have better ocr results, e.g. p36 that I could use to cut and paste paragraphs as I proofread the existing file on Wikisource. Second - "we are presented with an unusual opportunity in this case .." What does it take to re-run the latest derive modules ? Robin2014 (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC) ## Page:A_Treatise_on_Electricity_and_Magnetism_-_Volume_1.djvu/123 Currently as text, but marked as problematic as there was a penciled Erattum? Correct using pencilled erattum or not?. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC) No. The pencil marks are not the text as published. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC) OK , Might be worth an annotation though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Only in a separate version of the text, per the annotations policy. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC) ## Legal status of Wikipedia "public domain" designation Gentlemen: I have recently written a short book on the early history of aviation. This book contains many images from Wikipedia which bear the designation "Public Domain". The publisher with whom I am negotiating the publication of this book has taken the position that the label of an image as in the public domain because Wikipedia is subject to editing by any interested party, and the 'public domain_ designation may be invalid because of external editing. Is this indeed the case? Can the "public domain" designation be the result of editing by unauthorized parties? Robert L White rlwhite450@gmail.com unsigned comment by 67.180.74.79 (talk) . Hello Robert: This is not Wikipedia. However, I believe you will find the information you are looking for at w:Wikipedia:Image use policy#Public domain.—Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC) Hi Robert. First of, let me quickly apologize for rather vague language I'm about to use (and that some others might also use). The main reason for this is that if I say anything which turns out to be wrong, and this would be considered legal advice, all sorts of punishment might be my share. Possibly even if I'm not wrong, as since I'm not a lawyer, I'm not qualified to give legal advice, and may not allowed to give any legal advice at all in some jurisdictions, even if it's correct. I'm not sure about all of that, I'm not a lawyer. All this stuff is rather icky. So the following is expressly not legal advice and only my understanding of public domain images on the Wikimedia projects. As I understand it, images according to US law in the public domain can be reused legally in the United States without any further copyright obligations. If our images are tagged as public domain, that means "some dude(tte) on the internet" determined that the image is in the public domain. That's not a very strong claim. The community around our image database, which is called Wikimedia Commons, are very aware of copyright and follow a very strict interpretation of it. These particular people on the internet care a great deal about copyright and correctly identifying public domain, and I'm convinced that the vast majority of images is tagged correctly. But it's true; anyone could have changed that label, and somehow escaped scrutiny, and the label might be wrong. This doesn't seem to be true for a particularly large fraction of images, but I'm quite certain there exist images that are incorrectly tagged. I would consider it prudent to always double check. If an image has a public domain tag, it will show why the image supposedly is in the public domain. You can check if what the label says is indeed true for yourself. I hope you will then find that all images are correctly tagged, but you might find exceptions, which would be really regrettable, and not our aim at all, but it is nevertheless possible. I hope this at least somewhat helps.grammared for edit, since I can't language Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC) You speak the England gooder than many. ;-) — billinghurst sDrewth 14:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC) In short, you will need to due diligence on any image that you use, though hopefully we (Commons) have sufficient provenance on the image to allow you to confirm that fact. To also note that there is a difference between English Wikipedia, and Wikimedia Commons. Many of the images used at enWP are from Commons, though some will be locally stored, though each should have a copyright statement. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC) ## Image/Caption formatting Seeking the best way to format the image and caption on this page. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC) The last thing you tried looks good to me. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Ok, thanks. I wasn't sure about using {{running header}}. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC) ## Starting/ending sections mid-paragraph I need to start a section (for the purpose of transcluding) in the middle of a paragraph, but everything I've tried either fails to create the section or creates a paragraph break. Is this possible somehow? If not, could it be implemented? --Jellby (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Keep second portion of the paragraph within noinclude tag. Then put section tag and repeat the second portion within includeonly tag. However, if the author had intended separate section, would it have been put in the same paragraph? Hrishikes (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC) That shows fine in the Page: namespace, but when transcluding the whole page (no section restriction) I see the paragraph break anyway. As for the use, this is in the "Thousand and One Nights", whith stories within stories that end in the middle of a paragraph (there are no paragraph breaks), but I want to tag the sections, so I can transclude the stories separately. --Jellby (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC) A pointer to an example might be appropriate here and a good practice to follow in the future - all I find on my own is stuff set up for a match n' spit. If I somehow miss your reply, I'd try adding opening and closing <P tags to the paragraph where the split (or whatever you mean) occurs. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC) @Jellby: Paragraph split should not occur in pagespace, but it should occur in mainspace, otherwise how would you indicate section demarcation? You can either transclude the sections separately as different articles using the normal fromsection/tosection method, or, if you want multiple sections within the same article, you can use the wikipedia method, as for the section Nil Durpan/First Act#Second Scene. In case you want to transclude the whole page at a time without employing section tag, then you can put the section marker items within includeonly tag, e.g. {{dhr}}, {{rule}}, section header (section name, centered, larger, bold etc.) If you don't want paragraph break in mainspace, how do you propose the section demarcation should look like? Please specify the djvu page, the articlespace, and exactly what your desire is, so that the members here can understand what to do; then someone may come along with the "how" part. Hrishikes (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC) An example is Page:The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night, Vol 1.djvu/42, which belongs to three different stories. The first part is in The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night/The First Old Man’s Story#24, the second in The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night/The Merchant and the Genie#24, the third in The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night/The Second Old Man’s Story#24. The problem is the separation between the first and second parts is implicit. If the different sections are only transcluded separately, as it is done right now, there's no real problem; but If I wanted to transclude the whole page as-is, an unwanted paragraph break would appear in his blood.’ Quoth the genie. I've noticed that if I include the ## label ## tag at the end of a line (with no linebreak before), it works, but the text is reformatted such that when I edit the page again I have to remove the linebreak, otherwise ## label ## is placed in its own line and the paragraph break occurs. --Jellby (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC) I don't see the first problem, see here. Second problem is caused because label tag creates its own line, you need to remove the line-break every time you open the page in edit window. Hrishikes (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Yes, the problem is fixed with the trick I mentioned. But the "second problem" means one always has to remove the linebreak every time the page is modified, even if the modification does not directly affect the label tag (or even if there is no change at all). This makes me think that maybe this solution is only a side effect, and not guaranteed to work in the future. --Jellby (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Yes, your page is unstable and may change even during validation if the validator does not know the problem. Matter for code-experts like GO3. Hrishikes (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC) This is one of the reasons that I don't use the "easy LST" version of sections. I recommend turning off the gadget and using the "old" style of section markers. See Help:Transclusion for some details. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC) It doesn't help if someone else edits the page later and he/se has "easy LST" on, does it? --Jellby (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC) ## Blanks Index:The museum, (Jackson, Marget Talbot, 1917).djvu, pp. 243 to 253 are 'form' blanks and I'm not sure how to format these, suggestions would be appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC) It might be best to handle these forms as images. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC) ## Interrupt page highlight When I use the <pages ... /> tag, hovering the mouse over the name of the last transcluded page highlights not only the page's content, but everything after that. For example see The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night, Vol 1, hovering over the little "[i]" on the left highlights the TOC and the PD box, but only the Arabic text comes from the transcluded page. Is there anything I can do to highlight only the page content? --Jellby (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC) The problem you are having is that there is a list fictional pages without an actual source in the Index, thus everything relates page 7. The Table of contents of the book is not the list of volumes. Unless I am wrong, there is no volumes' list in the book. Also, your page numbers in the layout of the index page were overlapping. I took the liberty to identify the pages with my notations.— Ineuw talk 23:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC) You should also organize yourself and decide if it's going to be The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night, Vol 1 or The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night/Volume 1? — Ineuw talk 23:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the suggestions. As you see, it is still a work in progress, so yes, some reorganization was (and is) needed. The book has multiple volumes, I just have not uploaded them yet. As for my question, do you mean that happens because the (approx.) second half of the book still has no text? In any case, the page is transcluded with from="7" to="7", why should it matter what happens after that? --Jellby (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC) I've made a test transcluding a page from some other finished work, and I get the same: the highlight extends to the bottom. So my original question remains: Can I do something to interrupt the highlighting? --Jellby (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC) As you've discovered, this happens on the last page of every transclusion. Developer assistance will be needed to change it. You can mitigate the effect by reducing the amount of white space above and below the text—we don't need to reproduce the printers' tricks for vertically centering text. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC) ┌───────────────────┘ The core of this problem lies with Dynamic Layouts. Top "Header matter" and bottom "Footer matter" should never have been included in the dynamic layout scheme (e.g. these elements should not have ~3.00em left margin). I've managed to get the bottom navigation footer that is built using the top header's previous & next links out of the Dynamic Layout scheme but dual-translation license banners, single banner licenses and authority control banners still become part of Dynamic Layouts when they are not suppose to be (they are not content). Part of the problem is that our header template scheme is not very flexible (built using table rows) in addition to being part of the Dynamic Layout scheme. I've proposed changing the foundation of the core navigation header to an all Div based one in the Proposals section of Scriptorium as the first step out of the many steps needed that [hopefully] will straighten out the issues once all of them have been implemented. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC) • NOTE - I temporarily "moved" the single banner licenses out of the Dynamic Layout scheme just to prove that its at the root of these problems. I'll bet your highlight stops where it's suppose to now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Thanks. You are of course aware that "footer matter" is not the only problem. I already mentioned the case where non-transcluded content comes after the transclusion, and I just noticed that in The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night/Volume 1 the "edition" label highlights only one line, and not the full transcluded page. --Jellby (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Why would anyone add content along with transcluded content and expect the integrity of the ProofreadPage extension to still work? The whole point is to faithfully reproduce the work and be able to verify it against a scanned page in the Page: namespace. I'm sorry but what you're attempting just was not what was envisioned when that feature was dreamed up (and its creator is long gone I'm afraid). -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC) "Why would anyone add content along with transcluded content and expect the integrity of the ProofreadPage extension to still work?" One pressing example would be the use of {{Auxiliary Table of Contents}} to supplement a sorely limited or absent TOC in a work, and these are often shoved in between transcluded pages. I guess that stuff could all be shoved into a header (but it'd be ugly) or maybe transcluded anyway via <includeonly>. Then again, "This template uses the same class as {{header}}, which separates the table of contents from the proofread text derived from the Page: and Index: space." So maybe there's some neat workaround already built into it. djr13 (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC) That's partly why AuToC remained "based" on the normal header -- so one day it too may be treated as other matter that does not belong under influence of dynamic layouts if need be. All these highlight issues are kind of far down on list of stuff that needs to be done before a solution or solutions can present itself (or be developed). Like I said earlier - it all starts with moving away from html table based headers to all div{ision] based ones (see the Proposals section). -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC) ## Editions page We have : How do I set up an editions page? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Editions pages are for the Mainspace and in this case should use the {{Translations}} template. See WS:STYLE#Disambiguation, versions and translations page for guidance. The transcluded mainspace pages should be disambiguated with the translator in parentheses. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Done : One Thousand and One NightsBeleg Tâl (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC) ## Double hyphen for hyphenated words across pages with hyphen In Page:The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night, Vol 1.djvu/245 there is a page break at "eight-|and-fifty", which I coded as {{hws|eight-|eight-and-fifty}}, but in the page view the first part appears with double hyphen: eight--. Can I avoid that or should the code be improved to deal with these cases? --Jellby (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC) {{hws|eight|eight-and-fifty}} Hesperian 14:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Doh! ... Thanks --Jellby (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC) No problem. I recall puzzling my puzzler over the same thing. Hesperian 05:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC) ## Image on a dedicated page, no paragraph break Is it possible to include an image (or {{missing image}}) that appears on a separate page such that it doesn't cause a paragraph break? Example: Page:The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night, Vol 1.djvu/177, which sits between 176 and 179. When transcluded in a range (see User:Jellby/Sandbox) it causes a dangling line above the missing image ("went out to-day to buy stuffs, with thy leave, a camel laden" is out of the tag). --Jellby (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC) I had a similar problem with The Indian Dispossessed, and ultimately you will have to use one of a few somewhat crude workarounds to avoid an even cruder unwanted paragraph break. One possibility is to use <noinclude> tricks to force transclusions to place the image where and how you want them, but the downside is this creates duplicate segments of code and possibly text to maintain. Another possibility, which is what I went with for that work, is to simply force the image to be transcluded out of order somewhere more appropriate. See also original help discussion. I really wish there were a good way to turn plate images into floated thumbnails or something similar, if the presentation format/layout is suitable for it, but I doubt there's a reliable way to do that. djr13 (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC) ## How to clear 'Error: No such file' I did my first add text which has Error: No such file. I've read all the help pages. I've added the djvu to wikicommons as File:Annalsoffaminein00nich.djvu where the display shows Title Annals of the Famine in Ireland in 1847, 1848, and 1849. What do I need to do to clear 'no such file' error on wikisource ? en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Annals_of_the_Famine_in_Ireland Robin2014 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Your file in Commons is named File:Annalsoffaminein00nich.djvu. Therefore, your index here has to be named Index:Annalsoffaminein00nich.djvu. Index here is aligned with the Commons file, so name must be same. Hrishikes (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Thank you. I've done the index with the full file name and it shows all the page numbers. Do I need to do something to remove the entry Index:Annals_of_the_Famine_in_Ireland ? Robin2014 (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Mark it with {{sdelete|Recreated with Commons-aligned name}}. Some admin will take care of it. Hrishikes (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC) ## Multiple references to the same footnote How should I code the case there are several calls to the same footnote in the same page? For instance Page:The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night, Vol 1.djvu/403 (the calls are in lines 10 and 13). Nevermind, found the answer in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Footnotes --Jellby (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC) ## correct mistakes I want to help. What is the best way to correct current errors on pages here? KenJ7 @KenJ7: A good start would probably be Wikisource:Proofread_of_the_Month. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC) ## Correct mistake in TOC Is it possible to mark up a miskate in TOC, when using TOC templates? See for instance Page:The Book of the Thousand Nights and One Night, Vol 4.djvu/16, where the entry in page 213 is actually in page 214. Using the djvupage and djvupageoffset arguments, I've made it point to 214, but I'd like to make it clear that the "213" is a mistake. In normal text I'd use {{SIC}}, but I cannot use it in the djvupage argument, or can I? --Jellby (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC) I would use the alterative {{sic}}. It doesn't show as a tooltip, but does show that there is an acknowledged error to the editor who is validating. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC) ## Goliad Declaration of Independence.djvu Haven't done this before and need assistance to get it to the indexing stage. Got the above file uploaded at Commons. It uploaded 28 pages, most of which are just blank, as was the source. All I really need is Pg. 9 (the title page) and Pgs. 11-14 (the document itself). Technically, it's not a book; it's an historical document. Can anyone at Wikisource please get this to the Indexing stage for me? Thank you. Maile66 (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Done at Index:Goliad Declaration of Independence.djvu. I'll leave filling in the fields to you. Help on how to do this is at Help:Index pages#Parameters. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Thank you. Hope I did it correctly. Maile66 (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC) ## Can not insert characters I am suddenly not able to insert characters (accents, ligatures, etc.) when using the Insert toolbar. I click on the desired character, and nothing happens. It fails in the Main namespace as well. Any ideas? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC) CONFIRMED - I'll start looking into it. We just had the core updated to 1.25wmf14 earlier today and I suspect the answer lies with that somehow. Admittedly, I added some characters yesterday - but it was working then 'cause I tested it afterwards. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC) ┌──────┘ Just an FYI, the problem is not local because the same thing happens on www.mediawiki.org. I opened a ticket on it - 'squeaky wheel gets the grease' applies here; the more folks post to both the bug ticket and the home talkpage, the more likely a solution will come to us quickly. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC) I don't have an account with the former, but FWIW I left a comment at the latter. Thanks for looking into it, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC) ┌──────┘ -- They found the fix and its in place. Character insertion is ☀ working ☀ again. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Thanks much, GO3! Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC) ## Delayed loading of the scan in edit mode. On initial opening in edit mode, the scan appears as a tiny image in the upper left corner of the screen. Then, after clearing the cache and reloading the page (and closing and reopening), it shows up properly sized, but incomplete. The lower part of the scan fails to materialize. Does anyone know the solution to this problem? — Ineuw talk 01:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC) This problem is not really an incomplete scan, but a delay in the scan loading. Every touch or move of the vertical scroll bar blanks out the page and must wait 20-30 seconds for the page to load the scrolled rows. I use Firefox 35.0 but this problem existed with an earlier version above. — Ineuw talk 02:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Status of Preview and Media Viewer in your User: Preferences please. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Preview is 'Show preview before edit box' and MediaViewer is disabled.— Ineuw talk 02:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Those are as they "should" be and assuming only one of the 3 edit toolbar "options" is enabled at the moment as well, there is not much more I can think of not running FF myself (check for these however; they have come up as causes for x,y, & z over WP's Village Pump recently). If the same happens under some version of IE, F12 Developer Tools is what I would try to use to narrow possible causes down some. Sorry. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC) ┌─────────────┘ Thanks for taking time out, but don't concern yourself any longer. It seems to be one of the add-ons but I haven't narrowed it down which. Reset FF and using 2 different profiles, one with and the other without add-ons, and I am adding one by one to see which cause the problem. I will let you know. — Ineuw talk 04:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Okie-dokie & please don't forget to let us in on your findings @Ineuw:. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC) It was a Firefox Add-on named Wired-Marker which uses a .JSON database to store marked web text (or for that matter, any selected object on a web page). Since I am running Windows 7, and Linux on my desktop, and occasionally an Old MacBook with identical browser setup, the developers of Wired-Marker suggested to install Dropbox and store the JSON database in the cloud and link it from Firefox, so all three OS's can have the same data. The slowdown was because Dropbox constantly synced the database and this in turn affected Wired-Marker and slowed down the browser. The moment I disabled the Add-on, the problem went away. The other tried solution was is to suspend Dropbox syncing. Both work equally well. — Ineuw talk 07:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC) ## Table across pagebreak This is about the appendix at the end of The History of the Bengali Language/Lecture 5. The pages are not getting transcluded properly. There are extra line spaces and all the pages not getting transcluded in Chrome. Help requested. Thanks. Hrishikes (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Take a look if it's any better. — Ineuw talk 04:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Yes, now it's better. Many thanks. Hrishikes (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC) ## Index:The London Gazette 19345.djvu How to turn pp. 49. around? Tried using Djvu libre tools, but the rotation didn't happen or remain on re-viewing. Suggestions are welcome. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC) The page is better kept as an image, I think. Please have a look now. Hrishikes (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC) That's all well and good but is only a a temporary soloution until someone transcribes the table. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC) And that's now been done. Turning the page around in the source file was relatively easy to do. ## Ancient large DjVu files no longer register as valid on Commons I suspect the reason the following 2 files all-of-the-sudden stopped rendering properly (generating well over a thousand orphaned Page: namespace pages as a result) is because they used DjVu Digital or some other non-DjVu Libre [core] program to patch this or that prior to the latest/last uploaded version of the DjVu file. Note the 0 × 0 file-size dimensions being reported by each; I've only seen this happen when some other DjVu-ish, non-Libre program has manipulated the file in some way (corrupted might be a more appropriate term imho). Even if I could manage to download these, I doubt I could re-upload over them with "fixed" versions as Commons does not seem to like me in particular much when it comes to files over ~50M (or takes longer than an hour to upload). Anyone with DjVu Libre familiarity willing to take these on? -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC) p.s. - There is a newer version of EB1911, Volume 25 available on Internet Archive IN HERE. A straight replacement that is only ~2 years old vs. the existing one that is already ~6 years old -- even with bulk moves required -- is still better than fixing up 'old crap' imho. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC) ## Index:Our Sister Republic - Mexico.djvu Basic issue is that a new version of this was uploaded recently, requiring a block of pages to moved upward. I noted there was a bot request to do this, so in good faith I attempted to perform some manual moves, as it wasn't a huge number of pages. Because of the nature of the move this was done from the last page of the block to be moved towards the start (decrementing upward move). However, Medaiwiki has a limitation that doesn't let you move a page over a pre-existing one (in this instance the redirects) left by moving pages, which means that after having moved about 5 pages over the gap created by the source file changes, I hit the limitation. It would be appreciated if someone could sort out the resultant mess, namely by following up on the speedy deletion requests made in respect of the redirects created by the moves, and by completing the page moves in a manner that doesn't as someone elsewhere's described it 'break stuff unintentionally'. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC) It appears that this is now being taken care of, Thanks.17:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC) ## Help would defeat the triumph of ignorance I am trying to float this index list to the center and it's a no go (for me that is). Help would certainly bring salvation (and salivation). Please note my failed efforts in both namespaces: Page:Palestine Exploration Fund - Quarterly Statement for 1894.djvu/7 and Palestine Exploration Fund - Quarterly Statement for 1894/Articles indexed by authors.— Ineuw talk 08:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Reset it as a real table instead of the manufactured one that the TOC templates create, then you should be able to simply centre the table. Basically what's happening is that you are wrapping divs inside other divs and the inner ones that are at 100% width are over-riding your outer divs. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the advice, Should I restructure it? I ask because this was not my doing, and would loathe to destroy User:Abjiklam's effort. I never learned to use TOC dot leader templates, and use only tables because I don't think that the effort is worth it and rather put the time towards anchoring indexes entries. Though entry-width was reduced to 500px but that didn't help.— Ineuw talk 09:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Here's the lazy way to do it? unsigned comment by 121.216.85.246 (talk) . No such thing as CSS float:center... now that sounds familiar :) -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Just keep adding to my confusion.— Ineuw talk 09:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC) ## May I submit my own Illustrations? I'm an illustrator. As a personal project, I illustrate texts from the public domain. I'm currently illustrating Hans Christian Andersen's The Elf of the Rose (alt. title: The Rose Elf). Here's the blog entry about my Rose Elf artwork: http://vdyej.me/eating-the-filling-first/ unsigned comment by IllustratorVDyeJ (talk) . Generallly Wikisource aims to be true to original texts meaning high quality versions of the original illustrations are typically what's desired, thusly under most circumstances new illustrations would not necessarily in my view be appropriate to this project. I would also have concerns that they may also fall outside the scope of works accepted at Wikimedia Commons. However these are personal views, and I would wait for further responses before making any decision.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC) unsigned comment by IllustratorVDyeJ (talk) ., My opinion is that your kind of art (too modern) would not be allowed here on wikisource unless perhaps you write a good book and donate all of it for free. Still, I do not believe that would be acceptable. I have sons that get into various kinds of art including ray-tracing, 3-dimensional, virtual reality, and more -- the "bleeding edge" as they used to refer to it. However, there is a possibility that you could place such work on your User page but not on your talk page. Please sign your name by using 4 tildes at the end of whatever you write. Tilde= ~ . Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC) For the most part, Wikisource has nowhere to put new artwork, and doesn't host custom-illustrated editions. However, much of Wikisource is public domain, or at the very least under a CC-BY-SA license, so if you had the inspiration to illustrate a work, you could copy and/or edit the text to a document or website to do so. Alternatively, there are a few specific things we could use help from artists on. One is vectorizing graphics that get used a lot, with a careful eye for matching the original scan. Another is helping clean up any sloppy scans of photographs and illustrations, using digital editing or finding an exact copy to rescan, again with a careful eye for matching the original. Finally we do have a very marginal use of topical images mainly just on Portal pages, but for that we just draw from what works best from Commons, much of which was originally uploaded with Wikipedia in mind. Which leads me to my last point. Wikipedia is looking for illustrators, although the most in-demand work to be done is using SVG. djr13 (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Thank you, everyone, for your quick and helpful feedback. I will look into the Wikipedia call for illustrators mentioned. IllustratorVDyeJ (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)VdyeJ ## May I submit paid old news article? There is an old news article "FORMOSA KILLINGS ARE PUT AT 10,000" on New York Times. It was reported in 1947, 68 years ago. New York Times now charges some money for people to download the PDF version of the article. (Although a search on Google shows many results which allow people to read the full article, like this one.) If I purchase the PDF version of the article, may I create a page for it?--Matt Smith (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC) We cannot publish it on Wikisource. The material has to be prior to 1923 to be in the public domain. That is why they are selling it.— Ineuw talk 10:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Thank you for the information. Does the "be prior to 1923" rule only apply on news articles? I see the "posterior to 1923" United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. And on Chinese Wikisource I also found an old Chinese news article, which was reported in 1951.--Matt Smith (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Actually, I want to translate that article into Chinese and then submit it onto Chinese Wikisource. English Wikisource isn't the place I want to submit an article to.--Matt Smith (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Articles that are in the public domain in the US may be freely hosted here. "The material has to be prior to 1923" is not quite correct: texts published before 1923 are almost definitely in the public domain in the US; texts published after 1923 probably are not. I don't know about this particular article. But even if it turns out that we can host the text, that does not imply that you have the right to post the text. If in purchasing an article you enter into a contract that forbids you to redistribute it, you may find yourself in breach of contract if you post it here. Hesperian 11:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Thank you. It looks like the article isn't in the public domain otherwise New York Times wouldn't sell it.--Matt Smith (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC) My last two cents. It would be best to look up and read Wikipedia and Wikimedia commons articles about the subject. Both have extensive copyright information. — Ineuw talk 16:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC) I really hope the article can be posted on Wikisource and your advice is inspiring. However, since New York Times is still selling the article, is it possible that there is some copyright rules allow the article to be posted on Wikisource?--Matt Smith (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC) ## May I submit a book which was published in 1965? There is a book named "Formosa Betrayed", which was published in 1965. It is now legally available free online. Everyone can read it at here. May I submit the book? If so, what template should I add on each page?--Matt Smith (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC) It depends how they released it. I looked at the text on romanization.com (linked from Wikipedia) but it just says it is "appears with the permission of the Taiwan Publishing Co." That could mean just that website has permission; it might not be free to distribute. They probably did intend to make it free but we need more information to be sure. This is assuming the publisher has the copyright rather than Kerr's estate (the copyright won't expire until 2059). Do you have more information? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC) According to Chinese Wikipedia, here is the link for freely downloading PDF file. And according to the PDF's url address, I found this page, which shows copyright information.--Matt Smith (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC) ## Title page formatting Help required for formatting of the page Page:Rajmohan's Wife.djvu/1. Thanks. Hrishikes (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Updated. Tweak or revert as you wish. Moondyne (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC) It's perfect. Many thanks. Hrishikes (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC) # Repairs (and moves) # Other discussions ## Epub ebook download Hi. I'm new here. I downloaded some articles (books) as epub, but I noticed that they don't have covers. Is there a way to automatically create a simple cover just with the title and author name? Mr White (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Most of the works that resurrect are library editions where the covers are non-attractive, as the libraries have bound them. Depending on the works, in the past few years we have been better reproducing title pages and tables of contents that lead to more attractive presentations. Which works are you looking at? Otherwise, we may need to talk to @Tpt: to see what can be done by his tool to give that option. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC) A photo of an Kobo ereader device showing the cover page of Something New by P. G. Wodehouse. I thought that all epubs had basic coverpages like the one at right. Maybe it depends on which book is exported… which did you try? In general though it would be pretty cool if the epub cover page could be the titlepage has transcribed from the book. Don't know how easy it is to identify that text though. Sam Wilson ( ) … 03:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC) That appears as the first page. A cover like that would be nice. I downloaded Agatha Christie's books and The Golden Man. Mr White (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC) I utilise EPubRead firefox extension and I get cover pages when I click the sidebar link. So I am not sure what you mean by a cover, well one that is separate/different. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC) I also get a cover with the epub exported for The Golden Man. Perhaps this is an issue with ereader compatibility? What device and/or software are you using, Mr White? Would you mind checking the same epubs on a different setup, to see where the problem might be? I know Kobos have a setting to turn the title page off, by the way; could that be the case with your device? — Sam Wilson ( ) … 00:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC) I use Google Play Books on Android and on the web. Other books (uploaded or bought from the store) appear with cover. See: http://postimg.org/image/6u1mt29fr/ Mr White (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC) ## Index:The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus, Volume I.pdf Can someone check the copyright status on this? Archibald was still alive in 1955.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Fair dinkum SF. Would you mind paying attention to the copyright tags applied to works. Look at the tag applied, then come back and tell us how the date of death is relevant. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Ah fair enough. PD-US-Not renewed, and Archibald was in the US in 1927. This one's OK ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC) ## Every so often - Every so often I see what appears to be works from Project Gutenburg here on Wikisource. Why does anyone need to take from Project Gutenberg, (other than it is easy), images or text or both images and text to promote Wikisource? Shame! I am strongly opposed to it. I have always thought that we are capable enough to create our own works. There is a feeling of pride and honor in that as opposed to a shame to taking (stealing?) someone's work from elsewhere. Am I mistaken? —Maury (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Preference versus scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Maury, Gutenburg does allow expressly that kind of use, as long as they are credited as the source. It's a quick-and-dirty method of getting a work into Wikisource. It has the advantages of (a) filling a gap in our coverage quickly, and (b) being easier for new editors to manage. I won't mention the disadvantages, as I expect you already know them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC) I know that Gutenberg allows free use as long as their ownership? text remains attached. That is as good as Google watermarks and various universities. Since it is okay then okay, - but I personally dislike it being on Wikisource. A few works from Gutenberg can cause one to wonder how much work do we do here on Wikisource. If we produce 1 million books and among those are added 10 quality Gutenberg books an outsider who browses may think we build with other project's works - and would not know what percentage is our work. I was reading billinghurst's remarks about epub books and tried his epubreader. I saw a book *somewhere* that we already have here along with others like it. I refer to https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Edgar_Wilson_Nye and specifically to https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Nye%27s_History_of_the_USA.djvu. I saw a version of A Comic History of the United States by by "Bill" Nye from Project Gutenberg. Now, I spent a lot of time with text and moreso with images on that same book. Several people took the time proofing the work, editing the work, and transcluding that work and for what when Project Gutenberg has a version pulled onto Wikisource? It negates our Wikisourcer's work does it not? We did not need to take from Project Gutenberg along with its mandatory retention of text. —Maury (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC) [edit conflict] I don't follow you. We've got a sourced and proofread version of a text, then we don't include a Gutenberg text. There would be no reason to duplicate a text. We only have (or keep) Gutenberg texts when we have no sourced and transcluded copy of our own. When did you ever see a Gutenberg copy added after a Wikisourcer worked to transclude a text? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Perhaps it was a link from the ereaderpub program I saw Billinghurst book of PG's book? I really don't know at this point. However, the book did belong to Project Gutenberg and I did the same one mentioned above without knowing what Gutenburg has. I never go to PG and I don't read there.—Maury (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Over time our culture has changed. Several years ago the focus was on getting up as many public domain texts as possible. Grabbing Project Gutenberg works was an effective and efficient way to achieve that, and was encouraged by the community. These days our focus is on reliable, validated, properly sourced texts; we see very little value in copy-paste jobs, and discourage grabbing stuff from PG. Maury I think nearly everyone agrees with you now, but it would be a mistake to judge the past by our present values. Hesperian 00:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Okay, well, I am still a beginner with lots of things. However, I was not judging anything by date (past or present) because even now I have not looked back at those dates. I am still (always) learning fellows and I thank you for your knowledge. With all due respect, —Maury (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC) In a somewhat related note. I've been getting annoyed by a lot of text that are unsourced, no publication information etc... For example, Cur Deus Homo has the title and author but no other information. Was the text digitized by another source? Are there digital scans of it, and where? Or did the editor simply have an old copy of the book and digitized it the old fashioned way? I've seen this being done on a daily basis of users creating pages that aren't properly sourced, especially that relating to foreign material. At what point do we sacrifice quality over quantity? Also, at what point do we make it official policy? To allow users to go to a pages djvu file makes wikisource unique in it's verifiability of old text. At what point do we make it official policy for scanned material? What problems could occur with these considerations? I'm not looking for a debate, I would just like to hear user opinion on these matters. --Rochefoucauld (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Cur Deus Homo https://archive.org/details/curdeushomowhyg00ansegoog I doubt that it will ever be a prerequisite to have a scan to go with a work, though it will always remain our preferred means, and the only means to proofread and validate an older work. To be a featured work, it will be close to the only means to achieve that status. We should always query an unsourced work and usually this is done during the patrol phase. In patrolling we challenge and request sources, and tag it and nag the contributor. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Any unsourced work should not be allowed. The person who brings a work to wikisource should provide that source and if not it should be removed. Nag the contributor, no, demand that the contributor provide the needed source materials. We must stay clean of any copyrighted works. —Maury (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC) "Unsourced" and "copyrighted" are not synonymous. An unsourced work may still be in the public domain. It may also be famous and have an article in Wikipedia. Moreover, this is a volunteer service. No "demand" can be made here of anyone. Yes, the contribution may be removed, still, no "demand" can be made. There are plenty of unsourced works here, with original contributors now inactive. Instead of throwing a tantrum, objectors should be of a positive and constructive disposition and try to find sources for those works. If someone could add it, surely another one, if sufficiently laborious, can find a source in most cases. Hrishikes (talk) 09:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC) I know they are not the same. When I was writing about "unsourced" (I also provided a source for Cur Deus Homo ). When typing it also came to mind that copyrighted materials must not be allowed either. That is why I wrote "materials". No debate on my end about it. Discussion, yes, anything else - No. A "demand" can be made here on anything and anyone by our editors _voting_ if anything gets to far out-of-hand. Wikisource is democratic. Who is "throwing a tantrum"? Not I. Any person can be locked out of Wikisource by a majority vote. Yes, I know no older unsourced materials cannot be removed according to what Hesperian stated on the same. Just for the record, I do not get angry easily and especially not here on a computer. That would be silly. I don't get angry face to face either. I am old enough and capable enough to know what to do in any case. Luv ya bro, —Maury (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC) I haven't seen a convincing argument to change our scope, though I respect that some would like it to be tougher. I am more in favour of a process to work with users to get sourced material, and to have a deletion process that reviews whether a work is within scope. As has happened previously where we get a sourced version of a work, we have deleted an unsourced version, and maybe what we are looking to do is maybe highlight by text additions to {{no source}} and as part of our conversation with contributors of unsourced works. New contributors who bring unsourced work have plenty of potential to have demonstrated that the having a source for a Wikisource work is equivalent to having a citation for a Wikipedia work. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Maury, I think one of our biggest challenges here is our very high barrier to entry:— you have to learn an awful lot of complex stuff before you can become very effective here. Many of us started off with unsourced works, got comfortable with how that part of the site works, then "graduated" to the complexities of DjVu files, index pages, the page namespace and page transclusion. If accepting unsourced works is the price we have to pay to make ourselves tolerably accessible to new contributors, then I'm glad to pay it. Hesperian 10:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC) I fine that no source maintenance is an acceptable means to handle this matter.(I did not know such template existed, thanks.) Probably the best way to handle it, so that we don't scare off new contributors. I know that wikipedia says that any work that is not sourced can be deleted. Usually this never happens unless the article is of popular interest. It is best that we refrain from doing this, as it is most likely counter intuitive to our project. Unless of course there are fidelity issues. Thanks for everyones insight to this matter. --Rochefoucauld (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC) • Good people all - above the work Cur Deus Homo was mentioned as unsourced material. I found a source for that work - Cur Deus Homo https://archive.org/details/curdeushomowhyg00ansegoog - so what will be done with that work now? Will this source I found be applied to that work? There isn't much we cannot do working together. Respectfully, I am, —Maury (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC) In this case, I would hope that the DjVu you found for Cur Deus Homo is suitably complete and is uploaded to Commons (if it is properly in public domain; IA sometimes makes mistakes). Then, I would hope that diligent editors proofread and validate the work, and the results are transcluded over the previous unsourced edition. That's not always how I think it should happen, though. Some of the older "unsourced" editions can have their sources tracked down, and some of them should remain alongside other editions. Some of them are well-formatted and cleaned up better than the old print copies. However, in this instance, the existing copy of Cur Deus Homo has minimal formatting besides being unsourced. There would be no reason to preserve it if we had a properly sourced edition to replace it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC) I do not think those ideas are realistic. "Who ya gonna call?" [GhostBusters] I assume everyone works on their own projects or they aren't here on wikisource. —Maury (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC) I've found that they can be. I'll sometimes find an abandoned and incomplete transcription that I happily jump in to work on. Sometimes I help another person get started on a project they want to do. There are also lots of lists people have made of cool books that someone ought to do. People here do find those lists and will find projects listed that they eagerly attack. I know that my own lists have spawned work from a couple of new contributors looking for a project, and I likewise have found books to work on myself listed by others. The community here may be a little loose, but there are some nice interconnections like that, where editors inspire each other to achieve. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC) ## Successful Validation Month A typical WS proofreader We have just completed this year's Validation Month. During the month 6071 pages were validated and 26 works were moved into the completed status. 36 editors worked on the books that were displayed on the Main Page and there were several more editors who validated pages from other works. We are still working to get a complete list of all Wikisourcerors who validated during the month. The additions during the month bring our completed Indexes to a total of 1,566 and the total validated pages is 186,779. If we continue to validate at our normal rate (ca. 100 per day), we should reach 200,000 towards the middle of next year. Thank you to everyone who took part in the month and also to those who kept the other aspects of our Community going at the same time. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Huzza! This is terrific; good to see some stats. Thanks to everyone who keeps this running! I love being able to amble along here to do just a few pages. — Sam Wilson ( ) … 23:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC) . (On mouse over.) I would like to know how many books have been downloaded & which are the most popular downloads. —Maury (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC) ## What is the mediawiki code editor's font-style and size? The code editor of our personal javascript & CSS has a very interesting font style and size. How can I implement it for my textarea editing? — Ineuw talk 23:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC) CodeEditor is an extension now installed by default. I guess you can browse the file tree for the .css modules handling the formatting but I'm not so sure its as simple as that - some that is based in ACE or GeSHi (like our LUA is really Scribunto) and again, may have quirks under the Wiki mark-up. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Actually, all I was curious about is, if I could affect the #textarea1 font, with another monospace font other than Courier New. I am not sure if it can be done and my efforts were unsuccessful. If it's possible to do, and you have time, do you mind taking a look at my CSS page? — Ineuw talk 07:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Yeah Wiki mark-up isn't going to like that but I suppose you can force [some] of the settings using !important; (already done & used correct anchor id). The other thing to remember is, when in doubt, wiki mark-up will look to your editing prefs for a fallback font and that is usually set to 'the browser default'. Now most browsers set a default family and have fallback(s) as well -- Wiki mark-up might go through a bunch of font families before it decides what to render & when without any predictability. You might want to try some other fallback family in your preferences just to be able to usurp it in your .css is what I'm getting at in a nutshell. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Very helpful and a terrific explanation. Thank you. — Ineuw talk 07:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC) I have alternate editing fonts working in my stylesheet with this: body.action-edit #wpTextbox1, body.action-submit #wpTextbox1 { font-family:DPCustomMono2, monospace; font-size:10pt } I would’ve thought your "Liberation Mono" would work, but maybe the font is called something a bit different internally? By the way, I recommend the DPCustomMono2 font for proofreading! :-) — Sam Wilson ( ) … 09:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Sorry for the late reply but I really wanted to put this matter to rest, so I tried in Windows 7 using three browsers, Firefox 34.0, which is my working browser, Opera 25, and Internet Explorer 11. In all three browsers the #Textarea1 font was controlled by the browser, regardless what was specified in the CSS. The next order of font style control is the Preference/Edit setting of "Browser default", "Monospace font", "Sans-serif" or "Serif". For example, if the Wiki Preference/Edit was set to Sans-serif but the browser monospace font was Liberation mono, then the font-style changed to the proportional font specified in the browser. The only font settings I could change in the Common.css was the line height and the font-size. So, GO3 is right again. — Ineuw talk 06:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC) That's very strange. I’ve got it working fine under Windows 7 FF 33 and Ubuntu FF 34. Must be something else at work. :( — Sam Wilson ( ) … 06:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Could kindly upload a screen shot of the #Textarea1 to Wikisource? Since email contact through WS does not provide for attachments and I would very much like to see it. — Ineuw talk 19:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Please don't bother to upload an image, finally managed to locate the font and download it. — Ineuw talk 20:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Final note. You were right about the css font specifications. My earlier mistake was that I selected Liberation Mono in the browser, so, I couldn't tell from which setting affected the text area. Thanks for your directions. — Ineuw talk 21:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC) ## Display Middle Age text's capital U as V What's the best way to display a Middle Age era font that display what we now call capital U as it was, which looks like V? Therefore, if people copy paste it and turn it into plain text, it will still be "u", not "v". I tried looking for a font that will do it, but I couldn't find any. Bennylin (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC) If the source uses a "V", then that's what should appear in the text. We don't modernize spellings or alter texts like that; we reproduce the text as it was printed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC) French WS implemented a way to switch between original and modernized spelling (e.g. ſ/s). I haven’t looked into how they do it, but maybe it would be a nice feature to have? See fr:Gargantua/Édition Juste, 1535 as an example. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 19:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC) That's not a difference in spelling; that's simply different orthography. It's like a change in font from ɑ to a. The symbol ſ was how "s" was rendered in the middle of words in handwriting. For some texts, we choose to preserve that orthography, but most search engines recognize ſ as an s. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Sorry I’m unclear as to the difference between spelling and orthography (they both translate to the same term in French). In any case, I still think an easy way to switch between ſ and s, uu and w, þ and th, etc. would be useful. While it is important to keep a faithful transcription of older texts, a character modernization option could be very useful for legibility. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 02:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC) orthography = conventional spelling system of a language. —Maury (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC) A rough distinction is: orthography is how the letters look when printed, while spelling is which letters are used to make up a word. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Sadly no. c.f. w:orthography vs w:typography: I think you will find you are describing the latter, not the former. 58.168.74.59 05:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC) OK, poorly worded. I meant the general shape of the printed letters rather than serif vs san-serif, &c. i.e. a capital P vs a capital Π. They are the same letter in spelling, but not the same in orthography. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Beeswax, you were correct. The IP was linking to encyclopedia entries, and not to definitions. See wikt:orthography to note that there are multiple meanings of the word orthography, and that the WP article treats only one of those definitions, because Wikipedia articles concern ideas, not words. Hence, the article on w:Plant covers only green living organisms, and not the manufacturing sort. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC) So it's technically impossible to do that? Bennylin (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC) It could be possible, for example if you create a template similar to what {{ls}} does. However, I think the point is that you should just use V. Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC) "ſ" is another way to write s; I'm not a huge fan of bothering with it at all since it conveys so little information over just writing an s and letting those few who might care look at the scans. þ doesn't appear in modern English basically at all (see w:þ), and Middle English has much worse things then that. U/V as positional variants of each other is complex, but is certainly not something that should be handled at the font level. I'm all for modernized spelling editions of our works; they're useful and relatively noncontroversial. I don't see much point in work at such a low-level as stressing about a few characters.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC) My opinion on the matter depends on the work. When transcribing a philosophical treatise by John Locke, I see no point in worrying about ſ because almost no one will care. But when transcribing a copy of Shakespeare's First Folio, I fret over every possible point of presentation because people going to that work may very well care. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC) ## Search engine visibility of wikisource content I posted the same question on the multilingual wikisource, but it looks like there is nobody active on the local scriptorium, so I am reposting here. Hi, I am wondering why wikisource content is not at the top of search results. I have this experience from my language search results but I doubt there will be much difference in different language search results. Why does major search engine after input of exact name of a book, that is fully published on wikisource gives instead of a link to the books text here on wikisource (which I would expect since I didnt state "where to buy exact name of the book or something else) some other results such as bookshops to buy it and articles on the author etc. I know that exact algorhytms for ranking pages are known only to employees of the search engine companies, but I wonder if there is any information publicly known about this "problem". Thanks --Wesalius (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC) 1. Many books we digitize come from other top sources such as • Google books • Internet Archive • Both sites have huge traffic and have hosted the content much long than we've had it. • They use OCR, so all content is transcribed(poorly) but enough to show up on search results. This goes for many other book sellers too, they have previews of the book that show up in search results. 2. Google tracks book sites on price, availability, and review ratings, right on search results pages. (wikisource currently fails to adhere to these guidelines.) • This enables sites to: • Attract potential buyers while they are searching for items to buy on Google. • Control product information and maintain the accuracy and freshness of product information, so customers find the relevant, current items they're looking for. Source: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/146750?hl=en --Rochefoucauld (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC) I went and did some reading at Google, then Schema.org, then played with the JSON-LD version, failed, asked some people who could explain. The response is 1) mediawiki disallows the use of <script ...> for security reasons (JSON-LD), and 2) disallows the addition of microformats (the inline components). So basically at this point "checkmate". I have been a little pushy and emailed wikitech-l, and cc'd wikisource-l to see if they can better address the matter and assist to get better search results per the Google webmaster instruction. One could see that we could template into {{header}} for works, and {{author}} for authors either the microformat, or the JSON methodology, or pull the data from wikidata, or some better method, it is just being recommended on the best means, and being allowed to do so. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Thank you for clearing it up for me. Its too bad it is beyond our possibilities (if I understood it correctly) to make the content here more search engine visible. Compared to archive.org it is stored in a way more readable way and availability compared with google books, well that depends a lot on country you are viewing the content from :/ I know that google is not a public serviec, but a for-profit company, so I cant really blame them to prioritize content, that can be monetized. --Wesalius (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC) ## Validated works' category browser I’ve had a little crack at compiling a basic single-page category-tree browser for works that are in Category:Index Validated (well, the ones that have corresponding mainspace pages, which is maybe not all of them). I mainly wanted an easy way to find books to read on my ereader, but it makes for an interesting way to browse the structure of things. If anyone’s interested, it’s at: http://static.samwilson.id.au/2014/ws/ (warning: in a completely ridiculous move on my part, it's a single 12.6MB HTML file, so I don't know, maybe save it offline or something... I’ll get around to making it more ajaxy if I can be bothered!). :) Oh, and the data I used is from 26 November (in case it looks out of date; it is). — Sam Wilson ( ) … 02:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC) ## Copyright Sanity Check This work: https://archive.org/details/castlekirbymuxlo00peerrich is a 1917 Guidebook published under HMSO Auspices. It's written by am author that died in 1952 , seemingly in an official capacity? Would it be reasonable to apply Crown Copyright rules to this? - If so the work is copyright expired and can be put on Wikisource. Opinions sought. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC) On the front cover of the work it says "Crown Copyright Reserved" so that is what it will be. Presumably written in the course of employment. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Which as it was written seemingly in 1917 . It can be put on Commons :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Copyright Act, 1956 (United Kingdom)/Part 6#53billinghurst sDrewth 01:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Index:Kirby Muxloe Castle near Leicester (1917).djvu and the file needs 2 duplicate pages removed, and the images uploaded, other than that I can have this proofread very quickly :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Kirby Muxloe Castle near Leicester- Hows that for efficency :) ? No images though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC) ## Tech News: 2014-50 17:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC) ## Index:US Senate Report on CIA Detention Interrogation Program.pdf Will continue later, but any hints? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC) ## Forth Bridge (1890) I think it would be possible to finish Index:Forth Bridge (1890).djvu by Christmas with a little help on validation, formatting and tables. It's already had some great input from others and the lion's share of it is complete. RandomPerson137 (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC) may be worth slipping into the PotM remnants. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC) ## Help with drop initail image 1. " Is there any way I can get the [1. "] that is before the drop initial Image to be in the top left corner as per the source at la:Pagina:DELITIAE SAPIENTIAE DE AMORE CONJUGIALI.djvu/2? I've used "expand template tool" to get it as it is since there is no template for it at the Latin wikisource, so I don't have a clue what the code I'm using means and how to use it. I'm new to wiki and would appreciate any help. Thanks. Here done this way: " 1. Hrishikes (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC) I can't help you much with that problem, but it appears that this is entirely in Latin, and would be better suited for the Latin Wikisource.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Umm, Zhaladshar, it is on the Latin Wikisource. Look at the link. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC) If you could specify the page where you need this to be done, and precisely what it is you need, we might be able to help. You've shown us an example where it is done, so you could copy the code and paste it in to wherever it is you are doing whatever it is you are doing. The details of what happens would depend on what it is you're trying to accomplish and where you're trying to do it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC) See if this is OK for you. I watched at the HTML code ("view source") generated here and tried to replicate it there.--Mpaa (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Yes Mpaa that's perfect. Thank you very much! --Jpez (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC) ## The Condor title page I've created a title page for The Condor, and you can see it at Page:Condor5(2).djvu/1. Before I go ahead and use it on all ~100 issues, does anyone have any criticism or suggestions for how to do it better? Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC) Instead of a standard hyphen, I suggest using an en-dash ( – ) between the month names. Otherwise, it looks fine to me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC) Looks jolly good. I think the illustrator's signature is part of the illustration and should have been left there rather than extracted and rendered as text. Hesperian 03:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC) ## Tech News: 2014-51 16:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC) ## Index:The Botanical Magazine, Volume 2 (1788).djvu Is it just me going crazy or are Index's not previewable right now? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC) also when doing a preview of a page I KNOW is a proofread (Yellow band) I get a RED one? Anyone? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC) All looks fine. Sounds like you have a connection issue, and where a page exists but cannot connect it is serving a cached version. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC) I'm having a similar problem right now in that the text layer of files is not showing up in the edit window. It isn't a connection or cache issue at my end, as far as I can determine. Could it be a result of today's software update? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Eventually this turned out to be related to live preview 17:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC) ## Category:PD-UN <striking original to put in something more neutral> Apparently there was a policy change at Commons concerning PD-UN licensed materials Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-UN., back in June. Would someone here be willing to review what's potentially affected here if anything? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC) ## Wikilivres down? Maybe I haven't looked hard enough, but I am just wondering what became of the site (not French Wikibooks): all the links are dead at the moment, earlier there was a notice that payment for the domain name was overdue, and it's definitely worrisome that a legal Canadian site for PD-old-50 books would go down so suddenly. Mahir256 (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Seems to be up now. Maybe someone forgot to pay the bills? :) — Sam Wilson ( ) … 05:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Still down, as far as I can see. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC) It looks like it was a DNS issue, which is fixed now and the fix will finish propagating sometime soon I would imagine. This was posted on the Wikilivres Community Portal: Recent outage. For those of you who have been wondering why this site was off line for more than a week, a little explanation order. The payment for hosting or for the domain was never in question. The "unpaid" account was for nameservers, the service that allows the site to be found on the internet. Since our last transfer of hosts this was be done by DNSever, a South Korean company. The choice of that company was a technical one, beyond my technical understanding. Initially DNSever provided a free service. More recently they decided to commercialize their service. The amount of money in question was trivial, less than1.00 per month. What was unacceptable was terms of service that included compliance with United States copyright laws and having those terms subject to Korean law. All this necessitated a change of nameserver, and this is now being handled by Interglider.

—Eclecticology 10:57, 19 December 2014 (PST)

It seems it's down again at this moment.— Ineuw talk 06:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikilivres is back. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

## Index:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 24.djvu

Which volumes exist on archive.org?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

## The display options of the main namespace are in the garage for repair?

I was just wondering. Also, I am curious what is the purpose of the new option of hiding the the page layout of the Index page? — Ineuw talk 06:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has changed re: Display Options. If it's gone rogue on you, you most likely need to do the full-blown cache clearing thingy thanks to something in the last core update conflicting with the 'cookied' version. Same thing happened to me a couple of days after the upgrade before this last one fwiw.
As for the collapsing thing on Index: pages - just me tinkering. When more people notice it, I guess we will go from there (keep or kill it). -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

## Index:The cutters' practical guide to the cutting of ladies' garments.djvu

Any "volunteers" to typeset the adverts at the back of this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Per comments left on my talk page ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2014-52

16:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

## Multiple translations with different title

Three with the Moon and his Shadow, Drinking Alone in the Moonlight, and Drinking Alone by Moonlight are three different translations of the same Chinese poem, originally titled zh:月下獨酌四首. My understanding is that there should be a disambiguation page that links to the three, and that page would be linked from each version and from the other-language Wikisources or Wikidata. Is there any protocol about how that should be titled? Is there a policy page that addresses issues like this? Rigadoun (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

A {{versions}} page not a disambiguation page. I don't think there is a policy page. You would have to take guidance from the template documentation together with pertinent examples such as The Iliad. Hesperian 05:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Why would you use a {{versions}} page and not a {{translations}} page? My understanding is that, since you are disambiguating translations, you would use the latter? (for example, see Veni Creator Spiritus (Maurus)). Help:Disambiguation seems to agree with you, but I don't understand why. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, I just noticed that User:Chris55 asked the same question in 2012 on Help talk:Disambiguation with no response. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Because the translations are considered different versions of the same work. So you would want the different translation pages inside versions.--Rochefoucauld (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
So what's the point of a {{translations}} page? From what I understand, it is a versions page, specifically for works where all English versions are translations of an original. If we want "the different translation pages inside versions", by which I understand "the different translations listed on a versions page", then there will never be a need or use for translations pages, so we shouldn't have that as an option.
In my opinion, it would make a lot more sense to use a {{translations}} page to list different translations of a work. For example: Dies Irae is a {{translations}} page, which lists translations by Coles, Crashaw, Dillon, Dix, Irons, Johnson, and Slosson. Then, you would use a {{versions}} page to list versions of a particular translation—for example, Dies Irae (Irons) lists different verions of Irons' translation: one published in 1902 in The Seven Great Hymns of the Mediaeval Church, and another published in 1912 in the English Missal. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry apparently I wasn't very clear; translation pages are used for works that are translated by wiki users. For example, a page like Translation:Catullus 30 was translated by wikisource users. For instance Three with the Moon and his Shadow(E. P. Dutton & Co., New York, 1922)., Drinking Alone in the Moonlight(translated by Amy Lowell published in Fir-flower Tablets by, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1921), Drinking Alone by Moonlight( published by Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1919).) are works that have been published in the united states and are out of copyright. If we did not use the current method there would be no separation between works translated from wikisource users and works translated by respected translators and publishers. Published translators, translate the entire work themselves and as a result tend to be more persistent in their translation throughout the work. They also use a certain set of standards and rules. It's important that we separate the two.--Rochefoucauld (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The distinction is made by having Wikisource original translations placed in the "Translations:" namespace. We use {{translations}} pages for all manner of translated works, including those that have been published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I think a {{translations}} page is more appropriate here than a {{versions}} page; when I replied earlier I momentarily forgot about {{translations}}. Hesperian 23:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, I made the page Yue xia du zhuo, under the transliterated title (along the lines of using the Latin titles of these hymns for the translation pages). Thanks for the help and suggestions, everyone. Rouchefoucauld, I think you're mixing up the {{translations}} template with the Translation namespace. I agree with the others it makes sense to use translation instead of versions here. Rigadoun (talk) 05:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-01

16:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

## What to do with a work that has no source scan, when a sourced copy is added

I realise this question is often asked, usually with respect to particular works (e.g. #Books without Indexes?). Since I have a feeling this question will come up for me over and over again, I would like to make sure I understand the right way to go about this in general. When I add a text to Wikisource, transcluded from a DJVU file as usual, and I discover that this text already exists on Wikisource but has no scan attached to it, what is the preferred way to determine whether to delete the unsourced one or to disambiguate between the two? Should there be a separate discussion on the Scriptorium for each work?

Right now I am looking at The New Method of Evaluation as Applied to Pi (unsourced) vs. The New Method of Evaluation as Applied to π (sourced). Other examples I have worked on recently include Dies Irae (Irons, 1902) (sourced) vs Dies Irae (Irons, 1902) (unsourced), which I disambiguated, as well as Aeterni Patris (Leo XIII), the original of which I unilaterally deleted as I was pretty sure the translation was copyvio as well. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Case by case by discussion at Wikisource:Proposed deletions as there so many variables we decided to treat by the standard process. What we will basically do is look for variations, and see if we can give some provenance to the unsourced version. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
See The American for an example. We have long had an unsourced edition copied from Project Gutenberg. Recently we completed a sourced version: The Novels and Tales of Henry James/Volume 2/The American. The sourced version uses the "New York Edition" text, whereas textual analysis of the unsource version indicated that it was uses the "first American book edition" text. Since the sourced version is not quite a replacement for the unsourced version, the latter was kept but moved to The American (unsourced edition). Should we ever obtain a sourced transcription of the "first American book text", then I would expect the unsourced edition to be deleted. Hesperian 12:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree with all of the above, but to clarify further: In the case of the Lewis Carroll article, a replacement / redirect would probably be best. The two articles appear identical, aside from formatting and font choice, and a sourced edition is much preferred to one that is unsourced. Duplicate copies of works are only valuable if they are different editions, different translations, etc. Identical works are not worth keeping when one of them is unsourced. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

## Requesting scan of missing Mary Wollstonecraft work

Over at w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#The Lives They Lived: Wadewitz there's discussion about the notice of the recent passing, this past year, of the editor named. She seemed to have some interest in the work of Mary Wollstonecraft, given her user page there at w:User:Wadewitz. I still have trouble figuring out exactly how to create a scan page, but if anyone wants to set one up for one of the missing or incomplete Mary Wollstonecraft works, preferably one she did one of her FA or GA quality articles there about, I can try to start a transcription of it. John Carter (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's one that exists alreadyBeleg Tâl (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Index:Original stories from real life 1796.pdf Anyone? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Adrianne is a friend of mine. I started on the easy parts. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

## Pardon my ignorance.

What's the difference between these two categories?

Thanks, --Rochefoucauld (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

There isn't any, they can be merged. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Done --Mpaa (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

## Index:The Book of the Damned (Fort, 1919).djvu

Typed this up a while back, any one care to write an editions page or compare it with the existing version in Article Space? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

To me it looks the same. I would replaced the current one with the transclusion of this scan.--Mpaa (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

## Trevor Allen

Who was (and when did he live) Trevor Allen, author of Underworld : The Biography of Charles Brooks, Criminal (1931) and Ivar Kreuger : match king, croesus, and crook (1932)? The years of his birth or death are missing from the British Library, the Library of Congress, and Worldcat. These two books are biographies of criminals, published in London. Perhaps he was an English journalist? Three Google Books snippet hits indicates that "His books include We Loved in Bohemia, Roads to Success. Jade Elephants, Ivar Kreuger, Underworld, London Lover" and that he "was formerly editor of London Opinion and features editor of The Daily Chronicle" and "reporter with Westminster Gazette, News Chronicle and The Observer". Is there a register of British journalists or a list of members of some guild or trade union? --LA2 (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Full name Albert Thomas Trevor Allen, died in 1983. See here for more info. Hrishikes (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, very useful! --LA2 (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

## Copyright Sanity check (Protect and Survive)

We don't on Wikisource appear to have a copy so I went looking for one on Archive.org Found one here:- which claims to be PD. - [https://archive.org/details/ProtectAndSurvive_94

So I checked the rear page, which says it's a 1980 Crown Copyright work.

Whilst this has not expired, would it be covered by OGL? (There was also a concern that this wasn't necessarily formally published as such, even though other archive sites have reproduced it.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You love to make life complicated. The IA page specifically states that it is released under Creative Commons license: Public Domain Mark 1.0. Also, I believe you live in the UK, and this being a Crown Publication, you would be in a prefect position to check if such publications are in the public domain. — Ineuw talk 18:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's fully PD. As I said I think it's OGL at best. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The IA page is completely not authoritative. The Community Texts section of the Internet Archive is user-uploaded and every bit as reliable license-wise as if someone had uploaded it straight here, probably less since the uploaders know that IA doesn't police that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

## Survey

Speaking for myself - one of the worst things about discovering the wiki-world was its inability to fully match some of the most basic of basics out there -- simple HTML. Probably one of, if not the worst thing I came to realize early on was wiki-markup's inability to incorporate <COL> & <COLGROUP> tags into the backbone of whatever it is they are running like sane people do everywhere else. You entered formatting parameters just once and the entire column of table cells would be formatted with those inputs. Easy peasy lemon squeezy -- you were done with setting up a frame &/or the table foundations and could go right to 'tweaking it' before moving on to something more enjoyable.

Which brings me to the reason I had to stopped myself before I got too giddy again (only to be let down when I find out it was only me who was seeing 'this, that or the other' this time too). Anyway, I think the recent advancements in CSS3 have made overcoming some of this longtime headache a possibility and I need your feedback to insure that -- at the worst -- I've only wasted the last couple of hours invested in this.

All I ask is for folks to open THIS page, look over the "Basic" section's test-table and report back (with the OS & browser version you are using) ONLY if you did NOT see with your own eyes something very close to the eight descriptions put to word that follow.

Ignoring the top-row of the table containing bold-face text and counting from left -to- right, is it NOT true that...

1. Column 1 has all right-aligned text and all their table-cells have a yellow-ish background
2. Column 2 has all right-aligned text and all that text is rendered in small caps
3. Column 3 has all centered text and all that text has slightly larger letter-spacing than you'd normally come across
4. Column 4 has all right aligned text, a smaller font-size than the rest and are all vertically aligned to "text-top"
5. Column 5 has all right aligned text
6. Column 6 has all left aligned text
7. Column 7 has all centered text; and finally
8. Column 8 has all right aligned text and all their table-cells have a green-ish background.

If one or more of the above descriptions is not what you've observed on the linked page with the test table -- I'd like to know it about along with your OS and browser version. The rest of you are welcome to add your OS and browser versions along with a short blurb affirming as much but I rather you poke my eyes out on my talk page than in this survey's section. Thanks in advance. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

### Survey findings

Week 1

Week 1 will close on Sunday, January 10th.

• Windows 7 -- I checked the page with my "toys" (installed browsers in Windows 7) and all I can say that everything is as it should be.
• Firefox 34.0.5
• IE 11.0.15
• Opera 26.0
• Comodo Dragon Version 36.1.1.21 (Google Chrome)
Ineuw talk 21:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• × Firefox Nightly 37.0a1 (2015-01-04). Column 4 is left-aligned not right-aligned for me.
Hesperian 00:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- tsk my fault. No matter how careful I thought I was during my last attempt at further "refinements" I still managed to screw up Column 4. Please check it again at your leisure. I suspect you'll have 8 out of 8 this time. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
WFM. Hesperian 01:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• billinghurst check
• Firefox 34.0.5 (W8.1)
• Chrome 40.0.2214.38 beta-m (64-bit) (W8.1)
• IE 11.0.9600 (W8.1) (64-bit)
• IE9 (some version, W7)
I will see if I can find PC running IE8 and run a check. To note that as WMF has turned off active (javascript) support for IE6 and IE7 I don't think that it is a major issue for us to follow suit. It is maybe the ability for us to identify browsers that we know are broken, and let people to know why. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm nearly passed out from giggling to myself with so much delight -- no scripting involved Its all done by using new pseudo elements from CSS 3 (imagine my disbelief when I saw it "work" for the first time > > > had to run a survey).

Granted an old browser is just that and there's little we can do about it -- but it won't be the fact that "active" javascript is no longer supported around here that's causing it to fail. :) -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I was more trying to indicate that the alignment of columns of a table will be among the least of their concerns if they are on IE6/7.
• ASUS default android browser at en.m.wikisource.org mobile site expectedly, though desktop site displays table properly, though chops off right border of table.
billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Ohhh lord-y, lord-y - don't get me started on Mobile Mode. Anyway, I added overflow: scroll; for the highly unlikely chance its presence is needed to invoke scrolling as I recall it being a legitimate bug at some point and, I forget if those things run on firmware or some form of crippled bios. but you'd be doing yourself a favor by flashing to the latest version if not there already.

I did set the width at ~1000px rather than the usually more dynamic 100% to insure as many alignments as possible would not be "questioned" as center when its really left or right. You can try changing that to see if there is any difference as long as you don't forget to change it back. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Tested it because I could and that it provided a baseline, not b/c it is the tool of choice. If I browse off the tablet it is usually a FF derivative. We still need an Apple iThing test. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Umphf. You reminded me of my uncharacteristically un-locatable iPod. Pretty sure it runs the same OS & browser as the iPhone does so hopefully I'll remember to verify this w/that when I come across it again (That Is what you meant by "iThing(y)" right? anything with internet connectivity made by Apple and sold as i-Whatever or is there really an app or suite of mobile tests marketed with that name?) -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• IE8 (W7) , shows every column left aligned, same text size and no background.
• Firefox 34.0.5 (Mac OS 10.9.5)
• Safari 7.1.2 (Mac OS 10.9.5)
• Safari 5.0.6 (Mac OS 10.5.8)
• Firefox 16.0.2 (Mac OS 10.5.8)
Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
TY! IE8 (and lower) "failing" is not all that unexpected, although IE8 still has more users than 9 or 10 apparently. No worries (its Microsoft remember? :) -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Sony's version of Android (2011) in B&W
--Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• On Ubuntu 14.04
• Firefox 34.0
• Chrome 39.0.2171.95
--Mpaa (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• iOS 8.1.2 on a 5th gen. iPod ( have no idea what ver. of Safari its running )
• Safari - Mobile Mode (en.m.wikisource.org) fails - but not much works there to begin with (ongoing issue)
• Safari - Desktop en.wikisource site is a-OK on all points however.
• Windows 8.1 (64 Bit)
• IE 11.0.9600.17498
-- George Orwell III (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

## Plans to move Cite configuration from wikitext messages to CSS styles

I would just like to point out to an email to a mailing list last December that talked about some of the technical plans to deal with updating the creaking mw:Extension:Cite

• References made using Cite will be configurable with a different system
• New approach being prototyped in Parsoid's native implementation of the Cite extension

For all the detail, please see Wikitech-l: BREAKING CHANGE Plans to move Cite configuration from wikitext messages to CSS styles

billinghurst sDrewth 11:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Its not clear to me if they mean the Special:CiteThisPage thingy or the RefTools bundle like they have on Wikipedia (which I'm not sure if anybody here is actually using). If its the latter... here's how to bypass the whole thing -- works on WP; should work here too.
/* refToolbar specific */
window.refToolbarInstalled = 'bypass';


George Orwell III (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No, Extension:Cite is <ref> and <references/>, so this is our footnotes and endnotes.— billinghurst sDrewth 12:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Tsk, is that all? My initial complaint from wiki-birth 'till today -- "no way to switch current alpha & roman counter items with trailing (the suffix) dot to use parenthesized ones instead" because ⚠ Warning: @counter-style currently works only on Firefox 33+ problem?

Are you telling me this parsoid thing is not only going make the language specific counter-styles work for everybody but also for the types like I've needed for too many years now? I really only need

@counter-style alpha-modified {
system: extends lower-alpha;
prefix: "(";
suffix: ") ";
}

...to work. I've tried every 3 to 4 months with no luck (under IE) every time.
How you smoke or burst into flame is your own business. All I am is the bearer of a message, not more (see opening statement). Follow the links, ask the questions for the reality of it all. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

## Wikisource Community User Group

Aubrey and Micru are seeking feedback about the m:Wikisource Community User Group to which many in the English WS community have not paid much attention. The second report for the user group is in preparation, and both Aubrey and Micru have needs for other commitments, so are seeking further input and leadership from others in the WSes.

Please read his email in the mailing list January archives and please consider adding any broader achievements to the report in preparation at m:Wikisource Community User Group/2014 Report. We are a community of significant size in the Wikisource space, and we have led in many ways by the sheer fact of our number of contributors. There are many learnings that we can share with our interlanguage cousins, and there is more that we can do to advocate the value and benefit of the Wikisource community. If you feel that you want to assist in the development of the community, then the mailing list is a good place to contribute. Success in WsCUG promotes our site in the popularity, and the outcomes, which is why many of us are here. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

## LST

"Easy LST is now a default enabled Gadget -- The simplified syntax for section labeling in the Page: namespace is now a selectable Gadget in your User: Preferences. If you've been contributing to Wikisource using this "easy" method for labeling prior to this - you don't need to do anything in response to this change. Easy LST will work just as it did before. For those User:s who prefer contributing to Wikisource using the standard (or Old) section labeling syntax, simply disable the Gadget in your User: Preferences. Please post any questions or comments to the Central discussion page."

I have always used the old method. I did suggest and use the script to protect eyes though. I do not know what the new editor looks like and I have a big concern about trying new things here (codes) that I don't use. My concern is that if I try to change anything I will mess something up and lose what I do have now.

Maury, this is not like previous instances where "code" was manipulated in the "raw". Gadgetizing something just means all of that raw-code type of nonsense has already been whittled down for you and all that is required is selecting or deselecting a checkbox more often than not.

Go to your User: Preferences HERE, scroll down until you see section dealing with tools for the Page namespace and un-select the entry for Easy LST: Enable the easy section labeling syntax in the Page: namespace. Remember to save your changes at the bottom of that page before you leave it. Thats it; you are done. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand and have always understood the word "Gadget" and what they are here and I use them. Throw codes into a "BAG" name it, squeeze it to hear it scream. —Maury (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

(1)Old way or new way, I am concerned about code and the acronym that goes with new codes developed under each acronym. Therefore, what is "LST" and whatever it is it should not be written as "Easy LST" unless that is it's full name.

The culprit behind the terms used is long gone. Fwiw... Labeled Section Transclusion is not Wikisource specific -- just about every Wiki____ whatever can do it -- but we rely on more than the others.

The hope was using symbols (### & such) instead of beginning and ending section tags (in 2 below) would be easier to work with because symbols don't need translating into any other language. They sold that lack of initiative as some sort of "enhancement". All it did was eat resources and compound the translation issues for every Wikisource. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

(Have read) —Maury (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

(2) "method for labeling" -- "labeling" what? I don't know the meaning of it here.

You know it as... <section begin="blah blah" . . .text text text. . . <section end="blah blah . The blah blah is the label of the section we wish to transclude in certain cases. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)(Have read)—Maury (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

(3) I still cannot widen the book's pages I edit. I have had to do without it and that was a very good option. —Maury (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thats a reality for everybody. There is a Bug report already filed asking if it can be restored but its not likely to happen any time soon -- if ever -- I'll paste it here the next time I trip over it looking for something else to fix. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC) (I did not know others here are missing the option of widening to transcribe! I felt like I was the only person here with that problem. I had been using it often because, alas!, my eyes are giving out at times due to diabetes. So, a larger page to transcribe was a grand cup of tea for me and then it disappeared. I thought I had messed something up. When enlarging a .jpg page I have to move the page.jpg around or as I prefer and do, I download the page.jpg and use an image reader to enlarge that .jpg page and look at that as half screen and look here on WS for the area to transcribe. I thank you kindly, George, and again I hope and pray that not only do you and your loved ones have Happy Holidays -- a happy rest of your life -- for everyone here and their families as well. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment where was the discussion about this change? I wasn't aware that we stopped having discussions and arriving at consultation prior to making a change. This is a very clumsy implementation as there is ZERO guidance on what is LST, what is easy LST, and what is old LST. This is exactly why we should discuss and plan things, than just into an implementation based on the consensus of one. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
+1 Billinghurst. Ironically this is also how I felt when "easy LST" was first foisted upon us. That too was done without discussion; and we had no recourse, as no amount of community opinion can force an extension developer to roll back a code patch. Very frustrating. Hesperian 12:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Merry Christmas? Consider this the roll-back 5 years in the making (I not all that smart; just persistent). The only thing that has changed is attention has been drawn to something that's been in effect for ~5 years and in the manner in which it now loads. When this was first pushed on us, regular (or "old") LST was just an extension available to all on WS whether it was used or not (of course its key to doing our transcription work).

Easy LST came along and overrode that default -- one that could not be stopped from loading -- again whether one used it or not. The only alternative was to opt out via a gadget (so everybody loaded "Old" LST only be overriden without choice by Easy LST only to be opted out of by choice by most -- I say "most" cause I can't get hard numbers on who-uses what-gadget thanks to Developer Dept. of Secrets).

Now that Easy LST is a gadget itself rather than a choice to opt-out-of after the fact, nobody is forced to accept the resource "hit" unless they want to use it. More choice is always better and that is what we get with this change.

Recap for those technically retarded like myself:

• BEFORE - Tick (enable) the user preference to turn off Easy LST
• AFTER - unTick (disable) the user preference to turn off Easy LST
Everything else to be said (or already said) in this matter are just semantics. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
┌──────┘
Comment2 I.C.B. If either Billinghurst or Hesperian were remotely serious regarding their objections (and not grandstanding) they would use their rights to reverse this change (its a wiki!) and risk taking the heat for their actions. Every user who is really interested has long since found out what LST stands for (and probably at least some of the easyLST controversy); and those who were not interested… on the whole remain uninterested as of right now.

Give praise for good work where it is due, and stop punishing a wholehearted attempt to publicise a legitimate change. Lets be honest, how many people would have noticed if it were not for the banner notice and this very discussion?

Using senility to suggest that the conversation bubbling along for as long as I can remember had lapsed/didn't happen is not a good look either. AuFCL (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That is just ridiculous AuFCL and you are being needlessly provocative. There are many ways to contest the means that an action has been undertaken without a declaration of war with a revert. The rest of argument is unsubstantiated verbiage that is neither helpful nor supported by evidence

There is simply a due process and due courtesy of having the conversation in a community before undertaking an action, and GOIII knows it and chose not to undertake that process. There was neither necessity nor urgency to undertake the actions at that time, or in that way, and it is not unreasonable to ask for that consideration.

I commented that the change in the means that it has been made is uninformative and lacks context. Please explain how the statement "Easy LST" is self-explanatory to any new or occasional user. LST is not a widespread concept, and in that sense should be explained as labelled section transclusion, and preferably off to a wikilink. There is neither context, nor pointer to the means to undertake either means of transclusion which could have been done. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You may be right on that last point. The problem, again, was whether or not to assume opting-out is the majority Gadget setting or not & there is no current tracking of such user preference data. The choice was either piss off the people opting-out or confusing the Easy-users; I made a call and now I will have to live with it. Does anyone contest the outcome however? -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much for the personal abuse Billinghurst. So often the resort of an unscrupulous scoundrel. I can only conclude you are actually trying either to make this easy for me or perhaps this is an inept attempt at entrapment? I could debate you and even possibly win; frankly that would not either serve the project nor do I value your opinion or that of your sycophants sufficiently highly enough to so bestir myself.

The facts remain these: for good or bad reasons George Orwell III has done a good thing in the long-term interests of the project as a whole and for such I applaud his actions. For whatsoever your own reasons you (and here I suspect largely to protect your steward status, and certainly not in any way to promote project progress) make protest that correct procedures were not followed. Your further unwillingness to back out GOIIIs changes pending resolution of your fatuous call for debate prove you lack the courage to follow through upon your so-called convictions.

Final points and take-home messages:

• Don't rock the boat; this is far more important than attempting to improve any situation, and it makes the bureaucrats (cringe!) actually think.
• Don't advertise future "improvements"—you will be punished for having the temerity to do so.
• The emperor does rather appear to be lacking in apparel.
AuFCL (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
AuFCL, it is not acceptable for you to speak to other contributors this way, regardless of what you think of them. This is not the first time and Billinghurst is not the first person you have targeted. It is past time you reviewed the way you interact with people here. You are regularly dragging the tone of discussion down to the level of personal attack and it is bad for the project. Hesperian 01:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
To corroborate: I am a reasonably new user, and I use this Easy LST all the time, but I didn't know it was called that, and had to do quite a bit of searching to figure out what this announcement and discussion were about. Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
And now, sadly you have learned more than you ever wanted to know. "They" say learning should be fun. "They" were clearly lying… AuFCL (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree mostly with what Maury said above. I am new and have not yet learned the politics here. But it seems to me that there are a few interfighting camps here. This is a good project and we should not sabotage it by fighting amongst ourselves. There is so much to do here, you know, everyone can do or find something to do here without colliding with others. Let us work peacefully and in harmony. Merry Christmas to you all. Hrishikes (talk) 03:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Amen to peace and harmony. Merry Christmas! May we find common ground... Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Peace and harmony comes from a community approach to moving this site forward. I asked for a consensus approach for such a change and the consideration to be given to the community to have an opinion on a change prior to a change being made. Review what I have said, and I have not expressed an opinion either way on whether I am for or against the change. I did express an opinion that I thought that change had not been handled well, and is not informative.

Re being bold, that is about editing and at enWP, and I can point you to the other rules talking about consensus, and consensus has always been our preferred methodology here. I ask that we look to a consensus and informed approach for making changes at our site. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ... you yourself asked for exactly what was delivered - albeit ~4 years ago (2nd to last and last paragraph quoted below):
Is it possible to still leave it as a gadget, though default to ON? I would prefer that we set it up so that it is easy to turn it off. Doesn't seem right to have the instructions not readily available, ie. you have to have read this thread on the wiki. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
sure, we can have make it a gadget. ThomasV (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Comments since then (October 2010) only reinforce the notion that forcing 'Easy' LST for everyone and allowing folks to opt out after the fact was inferior to making it a Gadget with the default state as "enabled" (ON) for everybody -- which also allowed folks to opt out if they wished so. The upside was 1.) as a Gadget, the function(s) within East LST would have the benefit of ResourceLoader management, and; 2.) Folks opting out of the Gadget recovered the resources forced to be used when loaded the other way via Base.js. There were no discernable downsides to the Gadget approach that I could find at the same time.

Now, to be clear, is the expectation to re-visit consensus established in the past (or the accumulated consensus reached over time) before implementing changes in the here and now that meet that consensus? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

### 'Easy' Labeled Section Transclusion

perhaps you may have missed it, but there is a banner for non-logged in users touting this feature. perhaps someone could explain it, since i see no tab, nor tool, nor is it easy. a good place to add such an explanation would be at the banner, or on the preference page. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 13:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, could probably get away with a link to Adding Section Labels This should help clear confusion. --Rochefoucauld (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
you can get away with wasting a lot of people’s time. show where you have a consensus for this banner; show where it is dismissable; show how it meets usage guidelines [28]; show where it is on the meta central notice schedule [29]. you need to provide links on your banner that land on specific landing pages or sections, that do not astonish the user; have you read about the SciencesPo fiasco. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 21:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
My apologies. I'm handling the "LST" fiasco and got online just now for today. I moved this section to a subsection of #LST, the previous discussion regarding this. Look over the debacle there and post back any questions you still might have, but in a nutshell -- Easy LST is the labeling method that uses symbols ## Chapter 9 ## to sectionalize content, while "traditional" LST (or Old LST) uses begin and end <section begin= / tags. Now its possible to prevent the loading of eLST is all...
• BEFORE - Tick (enable) the user preference to turn off Easy LST
• AFTER - unTick (disable) the user preference to prevent Easy LST from loading.
- - George Orwell III (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
i do appreciate the cleanup of legacy code. but do you think it’s appropriate for every ip newbies to get a banner about an obscure "feature"? wouldn’t it be better, for a banner about "wikisource game" micro contributions that on board the new user? it’s astonishing to me how quickly insider jargon is plastered in a prominent place that can only turn off the newbie. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 14:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
My decision (or 'course of action' if you like) was based on the limited stats available and the situation at hand. Could it have been introduced and implemented "better"? - probably. But the idea that it was so awful, so obscure, so confusing and all the other negative connotations it may have been painted with to date has caused both the IP & member communities such grief and anguish that its apparently rendered them incapable of posting a question or comment over it has been a bit "much to take" to say the least.

And just so that its clear - this was no mere 'cleanup of the legacy code' but a fix to a problem forced upon those who opted out of eLST after its implementation. I regularly had enough cached copies of MeadiaWiki:Base.js (the previous host file of eLST prior to being made a gadget) being generated to build a bridge to China; preventing the feature from being enable as opposed to disabling it after the fact puts an end to that.

At any rate, I was going to leave the banner in place for 30 days but with 10 days still to go and only a handful of "comments" on this so far, I will take it down earlier unless somebody has an objection to that. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

## Meaning of the phrase"pursuit of happiness" in the preamble U.S.Constitution?

What is the literal definition of ''pursuit of happiness in the U.S.Constution preamble? cliffg7hotmail.com Cliff Grannum

## Pagelists

User:ShakespeareFan00/Indicies Is a diminishing list of works with a <pagelist /> situation.

Much as could work through the list manually, I'd appreciate some effort to render the list un-needed

So are there people here willing to do the boring task of checking page numbering against scans? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You mean go through the indexes in Category:Index - File to check? Is that what your list is based on? I shall try to help! — Sam Wilson ( ) … 02:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I meant the list on the linked page specifcally... which appears to be mainly works that were upload prior to the pagelist checking status being introduced.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah right. Will do. :) — Sam Wilson ( ) … 05:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I have access to a large number of old PD Anatomy Atlases that are scanned at the somewhat unusual 348dpi resolution (with OCR searchable text). Some of the books are in excess of 500 pages, which makes them over 1000mb in size. I'd really like to upload these in the maximum possible resolution because they are full of valuable images. Is this possible, do I need to apply for any new upload rights? CFCF (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

P.S. They are in pdf format. I also have access to single page images, but these are cumbersome to work with. CFCF (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Have you tried down converting to djvu?
Also you would need to check what Commons limits are, (seem to recall some previous works having to be split by Chapter.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@CFCF: It is my understanding that large files of that size can only be uploaded by staff. I would think that a phabricator: request for assistance and a process would be the most appropriate and most likely bring about the requisite assistance. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

## Index:Our Sister Republic - Mexico.djvu

Am I being crazy or are there some missing page scans on this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks broken. The paragraph split on either side of the missing pages don't even make much sense joined like they are. You'd think one of the prominent editors who worked on that one would have noticed that and at least left a comment about it? djr13 (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I think was one was commenced before the current pagelist check process was in place. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
There are three pages that need to be validated. —Maury (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Done. Moondyne (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-03

16:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

## Index:The origin and deeds of the Goths in English version.djvu

The way sidenotes are done needs an overhaul - It doesn't work correctly for this work, I'd set them out on the pages in a specfic way with good reason but the transclusion doesn't want to behave. {{sn-paragraph}} exists, but it's not a full answer for works like this with sidenotes on bothe sides of a page.

I am interested in a solution that actually works , rather than might work suggestions. This needs to be looked at and resolved once and for all. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I've brute-forced an approach here - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_origin_and_deeds_of_the_Goths_in_English_version.djvu/61, it would be nice if someone could at some point combine this code with the parent into readable Lua code, as the parent is a nightmare to maintain..

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

And the brute forced code doesn't seem to want to behave either :( OK folks, what am I doing wrong here? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
You had a small error in the CSS for {{sn-paragraph/dual}}; I fixed it. It seems to work now; you may need to clear your cache to see it —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I found that in the /s version as well... Now if you can figure out why the parser or browser isn't seeing a paragraph break, which is a long standing issue, with this approach. 22:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The non line break issue has been raised here - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T86716
Per GO3 this discussion has been handled.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to sum up (for the benefit of others who read this): people should avoid working on works with sidenotes, especially complicated ones, because there are known issues in the ProofreadPage extension and the dynamic layouts (and probably WikiMedia's parser too) which will break whatever workarounds you come up with when they get fixed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Any of you guys knows who's the person behind facebook.com/Wikisource? Somebody did a good faith share of Time (Shelley), but at that time the mentioned text unit wasn't with originals. I've proofread and embed the digitized page quickly as I can, but the post was 7 hours old. IMHO featuring pages without originals only will reinforce the general view that Wikisource is a disposable trash can with tons of CTRL+C CTRL+V texts, but maybe I'm wrong. Any thoughts? Lugusto 17:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There is 29 persons behind the Wikisource Facebook account.
This post was made by Dmitrismirnov (talkcontribs) (who just edited Time (Shelley) before you).
I don't really see a problem to feature pages without originals from time to time. This specific poem is interresting because it exists in several languages, it compensate the lack of originals.
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Has this been removed, I don't see the tool-button when editing Pages ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see discussion on talk page of GO3.Hrishikes (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

## New effort to help "wikiprojects" and collaboration

There is a new initiative through a grant to work on subject area collaborations at wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject X. One of the leading editors in that effort has indicated he would be willing to help in developing similar efforts in other WMF entities. I suppose anyone interested can feel free to take part. John Carter (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-04

18:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

## PDF generation problems

Years ago, I learned that the <pages index=...> syntax would not permit exporting PDF files via the Book Creator. This seemed like a big problem, but manageable if it was going to be fixed some day, and also if there was another option for creating PDF-friendly pages (i.e., transcluding pages with {{Page:Text.pdf/1}} syntax).

Just now, as Guidelines for Open Educational Resources in Higher Education nears completion, I've tried to generate a PDF. But it seems that neither syntax works. I have tried to narrow down what page is the problem (see my edit history, both to that page, and to User:Peteforsyth/test, from today). But I only seem to be able to generate a PDF when I remove all but a couple of the pages. It seems to me that the size of the document, not any specific syntax error, is the problem.

Can anybody confirm or refute this? Am I missing some simple fix here? -Pete (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Fairly certain this is due to a known bug which boils down to any use of "tags" like <ref> or <pre> will cause the PDF "thingy" to fail at some point or another - especially in those cases where the content is transcluded-in just like we do here on en.WS.

I guess you can try removing/nullifying any refs the content might have and see how much "further" you get (if at all) to see if my recollection about "tags" is still true or not followed by any usage of other wiki-mark-ups like === foo === heading sectionalizing. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for that. I didn't consider that the ref tags themselves were the problem -- you're probably right (I suspect it was only when I happened to remove all pages with footnotes that I was successful). I'll test a bit more as you suggest.
If this is the case, it seems like something should be done...at minimum, perhaps the error code generated by the book creator could be improved. You say this is a known bug -- do you happen to know a bugzilla ticket I should read up on, or discussion somewhere eles? -Pete (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
It was known; of that I'm sure. But now that Bugzilla has been usurped by Phabricator, I couldn't begin to tell you where to start looking for either a closed ticket or an open related one; sorry.

One thing to try comes to mind -- although admittedly unrelated at face value. Just like we use NOP to get around paragraph starts at exactly the point of a Page: start for the transcluded page to follow for proper rendering, try the "same approach" for this ref-tag processing thing. It's a long shot but no harm in trying. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Will try in the morning -- thanks. -Pete (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
So I don't think it's as simple as that, because the most recent test I had successfully generated a PDF (with 4 pages of the document), and it included a footnote. Hmm. I will enter a phabricator bug, and see what comes of it. -Pete (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you feel it was a waste of time. Pretty sure your footnote at the bottom of that page is completely different on your screen (refs here typically start after ALL the pages have rendered) no?

I'm still fairly sure it will boil down to something like that however: the application of hyphenated word start & end spanning a page break; the embedded pagenum links sharing a page with starting, spanning or ending of a table when transcluded. Inline-block refs being "interrupted" with higher level block element or similar.

Please; let us know the bug task # if you open one and/or any other findings you might make/feel relevant. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I certainly don't feel it's a waste of time -- sorry if I gave you that impression. I'm just a little frustrated not seeing a clear path forward. But I do want to sort through this and hopefully make it a little easier for the next 'pedian (or PDFian)... I see you did a little experimenting of your own, did you learn anything useful? I did try your code, but it didn't seem to help. I'm stuck right now on two things:
• I haven't used phabricator yet, and need to learn it (you don't need to worry about that part), and
• I'm not sure I yet have a clear enough understanding of what's going on to write a useful bug.
I'll work on the first part...if you have any insights for the second, I'd love to hear 'em. Thanks for your help on this. -Pete (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I couldn't resist fiddling with it; but I did come away with some new observations.

First, there are issues both with the .PDF Collector (or whatever it's formally called) as well as our local formatting practices. After taking a look at some external sites w/similar "conversion-to-PDF" features, one particular facet kept coming up -- we frequently lack the basic document structure/outline/semantics that those type of programs look to in the conversion process regardless of transclusion being involved here or not (e.g. even straight copy & paste dumped text in our mainspace have issues). Some of the hurdles I identified seem rooted in our role in developing locally established practice(s) over time; some of it is "out of our hands" thanks in large part to the current configuration of mediawiki parser/parsoid (wiki mark-up).

To the point(s) that "we" have control over - the ToC (Page 5?) is one galactic screw up thanks to that god damn Dotted TOC List template. Some 40% to 60% of the processing time used to render your milk-toast test page is consumed by the "generation" of just that single ToC page. Open the hidden list below to see the specs I generate for the page (Win 8.1 / IE 11 )...

Test page's limit & expansion reports
<!--
NewPP limit report
Parsed by mw1047
CPU time usage: 0.266 seconds
Real time usage: 0.360 seconds
Preprocessor visited node count: 4518/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 0/1500000
Post‐expand include size: 109012/2097152 bytes
Template argument size: 6679/2097152 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 8/40
Expensive parser function count: 0/500
-->
<!--
Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template)
100.00%  226.964      1 - -total
31.47%   71.431      1 - Page:Guidelines_for_Open_Educational_Resources_(OER)_in_Higher_Education.pdf/5
28.36%   64.357     18 - Template:Dotted_TOC_page_listing
10.32%   23.419     18 - Template:Dotted_TOC_page_listing/1
7.24%   16.440      1 - Page:Guidelines_for_Open_Educational_Resources_(OER)_in_Higher_Education.pdf/1
6.24%   14.169      1 - Page:Guidelines_for_Open_Educational_Resources_(OER)_in_Higher_Education.pdf/32
5.55%   12.595      1 - Template:Smallrefs
4.01%    9.093      1 - Page:Guidelines_for_Open_Educational_Resources_(OER)_in_Higher_Education.pdf/7
3.82%    8.676      1 - Template:FI
-->
Now I'm not all that tech savvy but even simple logic tells us if its taking our built-in "system" that much effort to process a fraction of one of its own [pages], I can only assume 3rd party entities will have just as much issue with that particular aspect if not more (= conversion failure).

That said, some of the other "things" we are at fault for are basically minor formatting "infractions" -- for lack of a better term that is. Your use of the deprecated <center> tag is but one example here.

And as far as "document outline detection" goes; I was right earlier - all our troubles begin with wiki markup's handling of heading elements (H1 thru H5). Never mind the === foo === heading sectionalizing the parser (or Parsoid?) does back n' forth from wikitext to HTML (and back?) confusing the matter, but all that auto id= assignment and mw-headline class assignment nonsense makes most conversion progies suffer a brain-fart and skip over our heading because its not the "norm" its set to look for.

There's more but this is already long winded - I'll stop here. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

[arbitrary outdent]

Well , this is some progress indeed! Thank you for taking the time and providing all that detail. I only understand about 70% of what you say -- I'm less tech savvy than you -- but that's OK, it was enough to get me moving forward.

I removed all the ===equalsign=== header syntax, and replaced with h# tags, following your example. And, what do you know -- now the PDF finally renders!

It's a weird rendering, but at least this gets us a good step closer. Here are the oddities:

• It presents the document in two columns. (This is sort of nice for readability, but makes no sense on the early pages, up to the table of contents!)
• The TOC doesn't render -- surely another result of whatever the problem is with the dotted-entry templates.
• The PDF introduces additional, unwanted section numbering.
• The "Footnotes" section header (which I inserted manually on the document's main page) shows up in entirely the wrong place -- some weird column thing, I suppose.

Several sections at the end are there, but shouldn't be (clearly designed for more "encyclopedic" uses of MW):

• the document has no images of any significance (just a couple logos).
• I suspect the license info is only correct by chance -- that this happened to be a CC BY-SA doc.
• No reason at all that I should be listed as a contributor.

So...I am feeling satisfied to make some progress...but also, I am starting to despair that PDF generation might be practical on Wikisource, which seems like a pretty major shortcoming. Your thoughts, as always, would be most welcome. -Pete (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sneak post / Back in a bit... but had to tell you to open book maker(?) after you open the sidebar option to save as PDF to further adjust columns/internal ^&\$@*^ ToC etc. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
George Orwell III, good suggestion. That does nicely with the columns. It doesn't really do what's needed for TOC (and I'm guessing you're not surprised). Manually creating a TOC without the templates seems possible, if labor-intensive... But I remain mystified by the placement of the "Footnotes" header, and I think the auto-numbering might be a show-stopper too. At any rate, bedtime approaches...I think that's all for me tonight. Thanks again for all your help! -Pete (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘

I'm free; lets re-cap; & don't worry - you'll get to this when you get to it. First thing I'd like to do is thank you & then take a bit of a "victory-lap" here 'cause its so rare that someone else actually follows the bits & pieces in any of my 'nutty observations' (beyond just giving them lip service) to a meaningful end - let alone one that verifies the initial observation. To have a 3rd party come to the same conclusion(s) in the end that I did (or at least hoped for) is just icing on the cake. I am happy to report I too am now able to replicate Pete's successful PDF generation all the way thru (along with the same p.5, dotted ToC / complex image drop outs). Warts and all, the take away here is that PDF generation failure seems to have stopped as a result of applying as many wiki mark-up "free" refinements in the content formatting as possible.

That out of the way; I want make sure its clear what we've hypothesized so far: the crux of this .PDF generation issue, to a large degree, has to do with the way wiki-markup (mw-parser), Parsoid or a combination of both "handle" the H1 thru H6 html heading elements (the whole === foo === sectionalizing thing) by default. For those who haven't quite connected all the dots yet as to why H1 thru H6 are so integral to the issue at hand here, here's the simple reality we should all accept when it comes to matters concerning document structure and a link detailing it further....

The next thing to make note of here is all the other fiddling around mediawiki (mw-parser &/or Parsoid) does by design &/or settings beside the mark-up of heading elements (the whole === '3 equal symbols' is the wiki markup of <H3> === thingy) when it comes to the creation of article sections.

During wiki-sectionalizing, the heading elements can be subject to the auto-numbering of said headings, the automated creation of the  link per heading, the detection and accounting of all headings found on a page and subsequent creation of the built-in ToC, double-clicking on a heading to initiate the edit session and I'm sure I'm forgetting some others. All of those seemingly harmless enhancements or add-ons are just great for the typical Wikipedia purposes.... but here on Wikisource, they seem to screw with the expected document outline more than anything else. The earlier content refinements & PDF generation testing afterwards seem to soundly support that theory.

Its not all great of a leap to see how any operation depending upon the presence of a "minimum standard" in heading-level rank -to- outlining document structure can get befuddled by all that default 'auto-crap' being imposed on headings by the wiki mark-up or how that can "choke-off" bits & pieces at any given critical processing moment to ultimately produce failure in the end. Throw on top of that the nuances involved when it comes to the transclusion of content to begin with and its even easier to see why something like this rather straight-forward PDF generation can consistently fail (if heading level rank detection and accounting doesn't begin completely after transclusion is "done", are we likely to get false "re-starts" in the accounting as one Page: to the next is tallied as individual works instead of the pieces of a single work? - sounds plausible to me).

What we need -- not only for this PDF generation issue -- but for countless other possible benefits down the road -- is to prevent most <if not all> of those standard wiki mark-up items that currently screw with those six heading html elements to one degree or the other from running at all. Even if we can manage to secure that kind of environment just for the Page: namespace along with just those instances where transclusion from the Page: namespace is/has taking/taken place, we might finally make some meaningful progress here (it sure would be uplifting on the personal note). And I stress the term prevent; not mask, not cloak, not run-in-the-background, not hooked out/in... none of those sub-satisfactory developer solutions applied at times to meet requests like this one would be. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you yet again for all the detail. Yes, I'm very glad to follow your suggestions to the extent I'm able to -- I really would like to see this stuff resolved or improved! Without reliable PDF output, IMO the utility of Wikisource is heavily limited. I'm again at about 70% understanding, but again, no problem -- I can tell you have taken the time to document things in a way that will be meaningful to those who understand the technology better than myself. Yes, some way of preventing these "enhancements" before they happen does seem like the right way to go. I am hopeful that what you have written above contains the making of a phabricator ticket that will be useful to developers. It also seems like I could do a worthwhile blog post on this topic, concentrating on the needs of Wikisource and how they are different from other projects. I'll bounce that idea around. -Pete (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm of the same mindset, fwiw. Everything one needs to "connect the dots" here can be found at the links in my previous (which should all work now btw), but it sounds like you're almost there on your own already. Still - everything I link in one of these diatribes is for good reason so if you tried before and the link went nowhere; please re-read it from the start and take the time to stop & visit every link when you come across one.

That blog post on 'why everything good-for-Wikipedia is not necessarily good (or even useful) for Wikisource et al.' is a message that really needs to get out there... and soon! All the current development crack (Media Viewer, Flow, Visual Editor to name a few) that folks are getting high on today on are completely useless for our purposes. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The link to add New Texts on the Main page is gone. I would like to add a new text, but do not remember the direct link to that page. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

See here Is that what you meant? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
That's the one. Thanks. The link should be made available on the Main page again though... Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
It went missing in this recent edit.

I've put the link-line back to where I think it is suppose go under the same recent re-design of the template but should re-check that in case I'm wrong. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

D'oh. That is right. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

## Template:{{Ollist}}

In doing some spring cleaning, this has become unused as I rewrote the single template which was dependent upon it to use a different approach.

I am therefore opening a discussion here, on what uses this template might still have before I propose it for deletion.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I am really trying to be kind here as I realise a lot of effort has been expended upon this template; but for goodness sakes, after addressing the remaining dependencies here please, please kill this monstrosity (with fire if necessary!) 120.146.88.143 22:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

## Page:The_Army_and_Navy_Hymnal.djvu/32

In , it was suggested that as the lillypond content already had the lyrical content, there was no need to include them twice.

This was reverted, but I'd like a second opinion.

The verses here were originally transcribed as text because at the time the relevant extension for doing scores didn't exist. As the relevant extension now exists, and the titles could be picked up from header information I'd like views on whether there should be a "style" guide recomendation to:

i) Retain lyrics as a duplicate text version when they are present in scores.. or ii) Remove duplicate text lyrics when they are already present in scores. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I added the text to the LilyPond markup, because this is how it is written in the source. I didn't remove the {{hymn/verses}} because I am not familiar with that particular template. I believe that it is wise for the text to be available, for machine-readability and accessibility purposes (esp. since LilyPond renders as an image), BUT I also think that the extra text should NOT be visible since we are trying to replicate the original source, and this text is not displayed thus in the source. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) I see this as a work-specific issue. The conversation should be had on the Index talk page with the editors who are involved with the work. If from that discussion there is a proposal that could be generalised to other music-heavy works, then a RfC can be created here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Let's move this discussion to here then; I've already started it off. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Resolved as (for now) Index- specific. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

## May I submit my own illustrations?

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

I think that would fit the criteria for upload at Commons: it could definitely be of educational value to have illustrations to accompany classic literature. Thanks so much for sharing! —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds like a really cool project. Uploading to Commons would almost certainly be a good fit -- but that would be best for individual illustrations. If you want to create books, you might look at Wikibooks. I'm not terribly familiar with Wikibooks, so don't take my word for it, but I think it would be a good fit for what you're proposing. -Pete (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for your quick and helpful feedback. I will look into Commons. IllustratorVDyeJ (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)VdyeJ

## section edit options are missing

The  option to edit sections in Mainspace (the  option that follows a section title) are not present. Same issue in Chrome and IE, and whether logged in or out. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, probably me again. I'm betting I found the problem ( a single mis-placed comma believe it or not) and now I'm hoping its just a matter of some nodes still caching the old 'environment' -- [sooner or later] everybody should get 'caught up' cache-wise and this "drop out" of the section heading  links thing should soon be over at that point. Sorry for the inconvenience folks (and boy is scrolling all the way down to the bottom of this page the epitome of inconvenience !!!!).

Let's move up that archive BOT's schedule a bit shall we? -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The  links are back for me here on the east-coast of the U.S.

Drop me a line if a crazy long amount of time passes from now and they still haven't 'come back for you'. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Back for me :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2015-05

16:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)