From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
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.



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.

A Unicode character map[edit]

I found this BabelMap software online from which community would benefit. This replaces my collection of web links to Unicode characters. — Ineuw talk 23:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Internet Archive Book/Flickr images[edit]

It's worth a look if you have the timeIneuw talk 01:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


Standard handling of Errata[edit]

Some time ago a question was posted in the Help section of Scriptorium as to methods of handling published Errata. Before I go overboard (as if I haven't already!) has anyone any objections to my creation and usage of this template {{errata}}? Right at this instant there is but one page Page:Investigationofl00boolrich.djvu/73 (and yes, it is a nightmare of formatting, but that is not the issue at present) making use of the new template, so there ought to be fairly minimal impact to removing it if any serious objections come up. AuFCL (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikisource:WikiProject DNB handled it with a footnote, see also template:DNB errata; i.e. Abbott, Edwin (DNB00). Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 23:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Utilising global spam filters[edit]

I put a suggestion to administrators at and about utilising global spam filters. These filters are a replication of what is used locally. If general users have a comment, or a question, it is probably appropriate to add them at the noticeboard. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

BOT approval requests[edit]


CharInsert and WikiEditor help needed[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A toolbar to dream about.jpg

A toolbar to dream about

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Guidance on linking citations in a work[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local upload licensing sanity check[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image rotation of plates in books[edit]

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

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

The link to scan page?[edit]

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

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

Not quite fractions[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

details note[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

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

Archimedes Quote from Shelley[edit]

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

Δος που στώ, καί κοσμου κιυησω.

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

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

Copyright information[edit]

This is related to #Copyright above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Correspondence between Gandhi and Tolstoj[edit]

Dear Madam/Sir,

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

Thanks for your cooperation and reply.

Best regards from Germany,

Heidi Hacker

François Millet Page 38[edit]

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

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

Paragraph break in footnote[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOC help[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Hyphenate or no?[edit]

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

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

Merging duplicates[edit]

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

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

Minor edits[edit]

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

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

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

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

History of Hungarian Literature Page 34[edit]

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

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

Works contained in other works[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Separating columns[edit]

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

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

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

Other discussions[edit]

mw:Extension:TemplateData utilising this locally[edit]

After moving in a version of Template:Phabricator from, I have become a little more acquainted with mw:Extension:TemplateData which is described as "introduce[ing] a <templatedata> tag and an API which together allow editors to specify how templates should be invoked. This information is available as a nicely-formatted table for end-users, and as a JSON API, which enables other systems (e.g. VisualEditor) to build interfaces for working with templates and their parameters." (Comment that the information page is not exactly simple, and a simpler guide is needed)

It would seem that we have been a little behind the times in utilising an available tool, and something that each of us should be looking to update our process(es). Might also be worth us looking for this as a maintenance task. Seems that WP is well into this and have information at w:Wikipedia:TemplateData, and if we ever get to the VE or similar experience it will need to be done. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I started to add templateData to my core templates at first but have stopped making this a priority since. The underlying "issue" in a nutshell is we'll never get to VisualEditor & similar tools that build upon such enhanced extensions until we master Dialogs & such in WikiEditor first (never mind just agreeing on a standard WikiEditor toolbar layout for WS).

In light of this apparent lack of will needed to finally cut the classic toolbar/user-only scripted tool cord once and for all, there really is no reason to discuss incorporating this as a new practice or policy by itself imho. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It sets good practice, it documents parameters, and one day it will be useful. Waiting until all the others ducks are in a row just increases the administrative burden. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
It's useful now; just not anywhere else save Wikipedia. We are unable to capitalize on that not just because we haven't been practicing it but because we are also unnecessarily behind the so called "basics" needed to truly implement what it and similar enhancements offer. And since our "mission" differs notably from Commons' or Wikipedia's, all the related development to date has been too infobox, citation or media specific for us to ever realistically capitalize on at the same time. Imo, without our own dog(s) in this fight, we're just dreaming about this being useful [here on WS] "one day". -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Overall, there's probably no need to rush. If you use citation templates very often, then I recommend getting those documented in the next month or two. Auto-filling citations (give it a URL or ISBN, and it gives you the complete citation) are on the way, and it's possible to use them in the existing wikitext editor.
TemplateData is brittle. If you have one comma out of place, then the whole thing breaks. There's a GUI editor in development that will simplify adding it. I don't remember whether the GUI editor is going to be provided here on 06 November, or if that's just the rest of the Wikipedias, and then non-Wikipedia projects will get access even later. I think it's everyone in early November. But if you want it sooner than scheduled, then let me know, and I'll ask James F to make it happen as soon as he can get to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checking ( Fancy dresses described : or, What to wear at fancy balls)[edit]

I found this:

If it's an actual author, I can't find anything on them. If it's a puesdonym - Section 57 here can be reasonably applied, ( )

So is it reasonable to consider this one acceptable for local upload? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Why local upload? And that Ardern Holt is a pseudonym? — Ineuw talk 23:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Some points that might help provide a partial answer.
  1. I can't find a date of death for Ardern Holt. (Hence my Refdesk enquiry), The work is Published pre 1923 (so is PD in the US), but can't be uploaded to Commons because I can't be sure if the author(Assuming not a pusedonym) died before 1944.
  2. In respect of the name being a pusedonym, I tried searching for it as an exact match on the 1911 census, which didn't seemingly find an exact match.
  3. Additional note, a source listed in the refdesk thread indicates that Ardern Holt wrote a column in a magazine called "Queen" (which later merged with another to become the UK version of "Harpers Bazzar".) The sources say they were active from 1866 to 1916. If it's one person, assuming they started writing when around 20 (they may have started earlier or later given the start date), that would suggest them being 70 or so in 1916. On those calculations they would have been about 80 in 1926, meaning that they would be around 98 in 1944. Whilst it's not implausible for someone from the 1840's to be alive in 1944, I'm reasonably confident that seems unlikely, the actual death being sometime between 1916 and 1946 (when on the above they'd be 100)
  4. If the Ardern Holt is a byline (used by more than one staff writer), within reasonable bounds it might not be possible to find the exact 'Ardern Holt' concerned with the 1877 edition.
  5. The publisher is "Debenham and Freebody" (they later became the Debenhams chain in the UK), so given the 1877 version was published under their auspices. If they are regarded as the creator (the other's identity not known) then I'm not sure when the work expired.
  6. Later editions (Such as one from 1896) credit a Lillian Youg for the illustrations, The 1877 edition doesn't. I've not been able to find any dates for Lillian Young either.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

A very good analysis, but please be reasonable, there is such a thing overdoing it. Just load it up to the commons. — Ineuw talk 00:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
What Ineuw said. Copyright Act, 1956 (United Kingdom)/Schedule 2 indicates that under that legislation it would have been out of copyright in at the date of that Act (t set 50 years after publication), though the 1909 Act is the reference point for its contemporary legislation. The author should be considered an unidentified pseudonym, and you should add your research to the author talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Licence {{PD-anon-1923|1877}}billinghurst sDrewth 03:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Done - Commons:File talk:Fancy dresses described, or, What to wear at fancy balls (1887).djvu
Can you advise on what to put in the Author: page? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
This is what I put, based on the information I had Author:Ardern_Holt, and I'm copying this thread to the talk page there ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-41[edit]

06:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Lowell Fg.VII..png[edit]

Uploaded locally because the scan appeared to be clip,, Does anyone here have library access to the original work? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

it would be helpful to have an author. i’m guessing, but is this it? [18] Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 13:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for Info on Wikisource GLAM collaboration[edit]

I'm the Wikimedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland, and one of the ideas that has recently progressed from being bandied about to being seriously considered is the prospect of working with Scottish Universities that offer Gaelic language courses to encourage their students to work with Wikimedia projects. In addition to translating articles on Wikipedia, I was thinking of getting the Library to release its collection of hundreds of Gaelic books, some written in Gaelic and some not, to Wikimedia Commons with the idea that Gaelic speakers could transcribe them to Wikisource to help improve language proficiency and access.

I don't have contact with many Wikisource volunteers and I was wondering if anyone had any ideas as to how to move forward with this kind of collaboration, and what would be the best approach? I notice that there's no Gaelic Wikisource but that it is a supported language, so I was wondering if adding Gaelic texts to the English Wikisource (under the appropriate category/ies) for the time being would be best, or starting a new language domain? I was also hoping someone with experience could give me pointers on training new volunteers on Wikisource, if possible. Basically any information or help would be fantastic! ACrockford (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be appropriate for the Multi-language wiki - mul:Main Page/Gàidhlig ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Failing that you'd need to lobby for subdomain ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
In terms of Scans, yes lobby as hard as you can for free scans :) should ideally be under a free license so that they can be uploaded to Commons.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@ACrockford: The guidance is m:Language proposal policy. I don't see that there is the call for a separate subdomain at this point, so it would be hosted at mul: and when/if there are sufficient works then it can be separated to its own subdomain. @Zyephyrus: can you assist here with the best means to take this forward at mul? — billinghurst sDrewth 22:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
i would suggest firming up what their formating capabilities are. the scans are nicely done, but could they add a dejavu option? having an editathon where there is some training on match & split would be good to fill the pipeline. then more events to train editors in wikicode transcription. seems doable, depends on institutional partners. the educational foundation has the tools to track work, and accounts. there dosen’t appear to be training materials, slide decks for wikisource w:Wikipedia:GLAM/Bookshelf, so you may be blazing the trail. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 01:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Even though the Library itself doesn't host dejavu versions of the scans on their website, they do partner with Internet Archive which provides dejavu options, so that wouldn't be the tricky part, it would mostly be getting the Library to agree to release the scans under a CC-BY-SA license at the most restrictive, and ideally a CC0 license. Thanks ShakespeareFan00 and billinghurst for the information on the multi-language wiki and the Language proposal policy - I think you're right that there's no call yet for a separate subdomain but it's good to know what the option would look like in the future. If there's no materials existing yet for training on Wikisource then it would be fantastic to get some put together; @Slowking4: do you know whether there have been any such editathons or training events in the UK thus far, or elsewhere? Even if I can't meet with someone in person, if I could make contact via email or Skype that would be helpful. I will try and teach myself for the time being, but pointers never go amiss! Thanks again. ACrockford (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
We have a number of pages locally that we believe and try to have helpful (left sidebar "Help"), and the tools are the same x-wikisource. Re training/editathon, maybe @Charles Matthews: has some information. I am comfortable doing stuff in Skype if that is helpful to you, though my timezone is reverse of yours, so may not be overly helpful. Usually one of the best ways to learn our basics is our proofread of the month (and you will find that from the front page) which we pick for basics, support and something with a bit of interest/difference. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks billinghurst, that is very helpful! I've been looking through the help pages and they are really useful in terms of getting myself orientated, so I think that it would mainly be great to get insight for training events or editathons, and potentially for GLAM collaborations as well. I might take you up on the offer of a Skype chat at some point as things move forward but I'll try and work things out without bugging you too much. The proofread of the month is a great idea, as well. ACrockford (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any UK training centred on Wikisource: a fairly obvious gap in the market. You can contact me if you want to talk this over. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
yes, i would strongly encourage you to make a slide deck and share at the GLAM bookshelf. another tool in the kit for GLAMs world-wide. and the easier we can make it for the average librarian, the better. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 22:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War[edit]

While categorizing (yet another) uncategorized book, I noticed that we have no category on the American Revolutionary War.

Do we really have nothing on that subject? Is there someone familiar with military, diplomatic, and historical works hosted here who could populate such a category?

It seems like a pretty big hole in our coverage not to have this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I confidently went here and—rather to my surprise—found but a single work by Kipling. I sort of doubt this is what you were looking for. Looks like you might be right? If so, might it be called something along the lines of the Continental.. (or perhaps Second Continental Congress...) And in any case is a Portal or a Category more appropriate? (Don't forget: "American Revolutionary War" might just as well apply to Simón Bolívar as it does to to George Washington. AuFCL (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I looked in several possible parent categories and found nothing. In Category:History of the United States there are subcategories for the US Civil War, and the two world Wars, but not for their war of independence, nor do there seem to be listed any items that would be appropriately placed into a category about the Revolution. What we choose to call the category is immaterial to me, but the complete lack of such a category and of items to go into it seems problematical. At your mention, I went looking and found that there is indeed a Portal:American Revolution, but it has had little editing activity in the last two years. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
There are too many Brits, and their old "God save the Queen" allies here, to start posting about how our colonials defeated them twice and saved them twice so long ago. :0) —Maury (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
well, i got back last month from the Bladensburg re-enactment. they unfortunately did not have a Congreve rocket to scare away the stout maryland militia with a loud bang. i take it you’re from new orleans. there are plenty of letters floating around, maybe we need to get w:Joseph Plumb Martin’s memoir [19] in the queue. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 01:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You cannot bring Martin's memoir here and edit it. I myself have never been in New Orleans - on purpose. —Maury (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

darn, i was going to make a special trip to LOC for the first edition [20] since the archive copy is so bad. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 03:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Bible (Jewish Publication Society 1917) and Tanakh[edit]

So this is kind of a mess with a storied history. The first link should go to a specific edition, the exact text of which we've had some copyright problems in the past over but which we're now working to replace with a clean text. In practice it sometimes (e.g.) redirects to pages from Tanakh. Those will be fixed to point to the new text in time. Tanakh though, I have no idea what to do with. As it is now, most of it is side by side English and Hebrew. The Hebrew all seems to be from here, and has an unclear copyright status (sourced from an XML file here which sources from text from this project, can't find any clear copyright statements on them). The English text is variously from the copyright problematic source of the JPS 1917 translation, a source which may or may not be the same depending on when it was fetched, some original translations and something from Also some pages redirect to Bible (Jewish Publication Society 1917) just to complete the picture. Do we just salt the earth with this or what? Prosody (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I really don't understand the issue? If the JPS 1917 publication is available from the IA, why bother with this goulash? — Ineuw talk 03:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah probably should have explained what I was thinking for ways forward, sorry.
We're already going to rebase Bible (Jewish Publication Society 1917) on a scan. Tanakh has some different things going on and I dunno what's worth doing, all of it takes contributor effort out of a finite pool of the stuff.
  1. Side-by-side English and Hebrew texts. What's there now has possible copyright problems and needs to be rebased. All the side-by-sides I've seen so far on WS were original translations, I don't know whether anyone's interested in doing that kind of work for a non-original text or whether anyone even thinks it's appropriate for WS.
  2. Parts of original translation which may be redundant with other original WS translation projects.
And I those are kind of orthogonal. Prosody (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
To clarify for those who don't understand, the Tanakh is the Old Testatment. Personally, I don't think we should host Hebrew text for all the right reasons. It will never get done. We don't have members, and we are an English language site. I saw the mess that was made with an attempt to translate the Talmud into English. If you insist on a Hebrew translation on this site, perhaps we can connect a Hebrew text from the Hebrew language wiki to be placed alongside. There is a very good chance that there they know the Hebrew source of the JPS translation, and if they don't, they have the resources to find the info. I glanced at the Biblical work they are doing and there are a number of Bible scholars there. — Ineuw talk 04:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Ineuw, the additional wrinkle is that there are published editions of the JPS translation with parallel English and Hebrew text side-by-side in the same volume. I own a couple of such volumes. So, it's not completely impossible that we might end up hosting something like that. Yes, it's not likely to be done soon with our current editors, but if there is a chance of getting a source, or if an original translation might be done, then I'm for preserving any work done thus far that does not violate copyright. Sometimes, just having the unfinished work lying around attracts someone with the special expertise to get it done. Where the material should be located, and how it should be formatted, is quite another matter, and on that I have no definite opinion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
This is the goulash! I am simply referring to the JPS version on IA and not another version! Please don't bring in other publications, translations etc. Just stick to this single PD version of 1917. We host numerous versions of many works and let this single work stand on it's own. If you wish to host another version with Hebrew translation, that has nothing to do with this particular version. We have the King James version, the Septuagint and The Vulgate, all versions of the Bible. They are all translations but you wouldn't think of mixing them together.— Ineuw talk 06:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
No, Ineuw, I mean that there is a JPS translation edition published in multiple hardback volumes, with the Hebrew on the left and English on the right. It's not another version that I'm talking about, it's the JPS. The mixing together of Hebrew and English was done in the printed copies. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

P.S: I happen to like the project because it's DjVu and not copy and paste, And if there are any pictures, I a volunteer to process and upload them as well. Perhaps we'll get to see a real young Charlton Heston Face-smile.svg. — Ineuw talk 06:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

"You wouldn't think of mixing them together." Perversely, we apparently already have and have done it. I guess that gets at the root of what I'm asking, as it's the greater part of Tanakh. Where do we draw the line on original synthesis of works? I can see for the case of original translations, doing side-by-side serves a editorial function in providing a specific source text. And if we were to start a new project to transcribe one of the editions that EncycloPetey mentioned which is multilingual, that would certainly be fine, as it's not original. But as for things like what's now in Tanakh, or the Bible translation comparison pages, or the Aesop's Fables translation/redaction comparison, which of these should we have on WS? Prosody (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I see your point, but in all honesty it's an unfair comparison. The Bible translations that you brought up as examples, they are all in English! If you go for a Hebrew translation, it's alien to most of the members of the community and they won't be able to contribute, so they will just avoid it because with a Hebrew translation they will not get a sense of accomplishment. I am being realistic to realize that in addition to loving literature in many forms, we are also contributing for the sense of accomplishment. The number of people who could contribute in Hebrew on this wiki is very limited. Myself, I read and speak a 50 year old common street Hebrew, and understand most of what I read, but I would never undertake translating even a sentence of the Bible, let alone a paragraph. I would not be able to translate the essence of what is intended to be conveyed. Not to mention the duplication of the right to left writing. — Ineuw talk 08:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Can you please provide the link to the English/Hebrew JPS publication of 1917? I don't think we are talking about the same publication and year. I am referring to the English only publication of 1917 in the public domain of which there are 4 (four) identical copies on the Commons under different names. And, it does not have a Hebrew translation. The four Commons copies are: Commons:File:JPS-1917-Universal.djvu, Commons:File:JPS-1917-Harvard.pdf, Commons:File:JPS-1917-Michigan.djvu, Commons:File:JPS1917-Torah.djvu.— Ineuw talk 16:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I can't provide a link to a physical object on my bookshelf. Sorry. The particular volume I own was put out in 1948, not 1917, and acknowledges use with permission of the JPS translation. I cannot find information concerning the Hebrew, but would be very surprised if it had been altered from the Masoretic text. Also, I was mistaken in my memory, the Hebrew is on the right, and the English is on the left of each page.
I have not looked through the various files uploaded to Commons, and so cannot comment on those. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Who's working on the Tanakh files? If someone wants to make a Wikisource translation, I'm not going to encourage them, but I don't see any reason to block them. We do need to make it copyright clean, and I would nuke the whole thing if no one is interested in helping us sort it out.
Edition copyrights are frequently obnoxious. We should probably upload a clearable Hebrew edition to Commons and work from that.

1500 validated indexes[edit]

I was just looking at our counts, and I noticed these two stats

  • No. of validated works = 1,500
  • No. of proofread only works = 801

which are nice numbers to celebrate. Firstly a good round number, and that we do seem to be moving our works to the validated status. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-42[edit]

08:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Index: namespace fill gadget should now be functional[edit]

I managed to grab Phe in IRC and he has been able to resolve the issue that we have had with the failure of the Index: ns fill gadget populating from the Commons file book templates. smileybillinghurst sDrewth 13:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that this gadget refers to populate (create) the non existent pages, I would most happy to use it. But, I can't find it anywhere in the Gadgets. Creating pages manually is an unnecessary waste of time. — Ineuw talk 17:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Preferences/Gadgets/[section]Development (in beta):
down near end of list: "Upon creation of an Index: page enables addition of metadata from the file at Commons."
All good now? AuFCL (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
as per Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2013-02#Announcementsbillinghurst sDrewth 23:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I must try it.— Ineuw talk

So, this gadget "enables addition of metadata"? What, in practical terms and common language, does that mean? I tried activating the gadget and could not find anything different, so I'm not sure what this gadget is supposed to do or how it is supposed to function. Please respond without using the word "metadata". --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe it only works at the moment of import. Did you import anything?— Ineuw talk 17:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: When you create an Index: ns page it autofills the the fields with the corresponding fields from the {{information}} or {{book}} templates in use locally or at Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Re metadata usage, we use the term at these pages in Help: ns, though as you allude there could be some more clarity. As usual,/support help pages are our undoing. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
So, the information about the edition, such as author, date, publisher, etc., which appear on the Index page when those fields are filled? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The pertinent mapping is …
billinghurst sDrewth 09:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Author:Emily Dickinson[edit]

What's the source of our Emily Dickinson material? There's a serious concern in that the public domain editions are all heavily edited and the first edition to be faithful to the originals was published in the 1950s and was renewed. We have original editions, but we also have a lot of poems that aren't sourced.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

perhaps you could be more specific? i see only the 1890, 1891, and 1896 editions. no 1955 edited by Thomas H. Johnson, or 1998 edited by R.W. Franklin. (although you could make the argument that unpublished manuscript copyright had passed.) Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 23:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Look at the author index template at the bottom of the author page and its contents. The individual poems by Dickinson in the main namespace are listed there. Many are unsourced. Prosody (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no copyright concerns here. The original poems are the creative work of Dickinson. I accept the argument that the heavily edited versions published in the 1890s are derivative works, and that the originals weren't published until 1955. Johnson copyrighted that 1955 work, but Johnson was not the owner of copyright in the original poems, so his copyright in that 1955 work extends only to his notes, commentary, etc. I suggest that the formalities necessary to register copyright in the original poems were not met. Even if they were, copyright law makes it very clear that only the author or the author's heirs can renew copyright in a work, regardless of any transfer of rights. Johnson's renewal of copyright in his 1955 compilation is utterly meaningless when it comes to the original poems themselves, because Johnson never held copyright in those works in the first place, and even if he did he was not authorised to renew that copyright. Dickinson's poems are in the public domain. Hesperian 04:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If you read the introduction to the 1955 edition--which, let's just say, is not nearly so careful as we are--you'll find that there is a chain of custody wherein Harvard ended up with a claim to the copyrights of Dickinson, and as per the Copyright Office's Circular 15: "Only in the case of the following four types of works may the copyright proprietor (owner) claim renewal: Posthumous work (a work published after the author’s death as to which no copyright assignment or other contract for exploitation has occurred during the deceased author’s lifetime). Renewal may be claimed as proprietor of copyright in a posthumous work." says the Renewing Entity is "The President and Fellows of Harvard College (PPW of Emily Elizabeth Dickinson)" (where PPW is proprietor of copyright in a posthumous work) and New Matter: "new front and end matter, editorial notes, some new text of prev. pub. poems, and 41 poems pub. for the first time." I don't know that they dotted every i and crossed every t, but they do have copyright on the face of it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Well I can't argue with that! I think you've made a pretty solid argument for the removal of all our unsourced Dickinson poetry. Hesperian 06:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking at this link and the limitations seem pretty limited and I wouldn't say it calls for "all our unsourced" material to be removed. Also i'm curious how does duel authorship work? would all material have to be from both authors?(Emily Elizabeth Dickinson & Thomas Herbert Johnson.) or could they be separate? And it looks like its a copy right to just this work and not the literal poems themselves. So we would only have to avoid whatevers in that work. it's only 41 additional poems.... --Rochefoucauld (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
If it's unsourced, it's virtually impossible to tell whether it falls into "some new text of prev. pub. poems, and 41 poems pub. for the first time" or not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
It is either published or it is not. If it is unpublished, then it is now out of copyright. If it is published prior to 1923, it is out of copyright. If it is published after 1923 in the US it has its rights renewed specifically for a publication and is in copyright, or it didn't and it is out of copyright.

We check the 1955 work, and we remove what was in there as "first published", and we note what else was published in the work which can be discussed in time. It is both simplistic and wrong to say that unsourced means copyright, and the scope of the issue faced would be better determined and explained. At the moment everyone has to do their own digging and can easily be operating on a different understanding. We should be looking to get scans, and migrate the works. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The easiest way to know that we got things right is to source all the poems we can to clearly PD editions. I didn't say unsourced means copyright, but unsourced means we don't know its provenance. It's much more reliable to work from what we know to be PD, then to try and figure out what is copyrighted from the 1955 work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Author:Thomas Edison[edit]

Why do we have an entry for Author:Thomas Edison when he is not the author of any of the works listed? I was told that we do not have subject pages but this is really Subject:Thomas Edison. Is the rule to create a page called Author:Thomas Edison when we mean Subject:Thomas Edison as a work-around? Why don't we have Subject:Thomas Edison so we can have all the articles related to one person listed on a page even if they have no works they are the author of? As a first time user it makes sense to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Edison wrote patents, etc. and as such able to be listed as an author at enWS, even when we do not yet have works for the author. The protocol is to have {{no works}} used in the ==Works== section. It was a discussion that the community had to not separate works about authors to a separate page in the Portal: ns, and to have the practice of a section ==Works about /surname/== on the author page. Authorship is our defacto "notability" equivalent as per WS:WWI otherwise for historical records, it is a more traditional notability for inclusions, and still we are less likely to create a specific Portal: ns page, and instead curate the work based on subject matter, depending on the number of works in play. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Huh? Sorry, your explanation isn't clear at all. It is no clearer here than when you responded at the Edison talk page and responded at my user talk page and at the Susannah Lattin page. I came here to find someone else, someone that can explain it in plain English. Can you please let someone else respond, or are you the only person here? "Edison wrote patents". Edison holds patents, but that does not mean that he wrote them. They are usually written by the patent attorney or similar person with a patent/scientific writing background. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It's very simple, Edison was an author. i.e. he wrote things down and they have been published. The first hit in a Google search leads to a list of books, albeit posthumously published but nonetheless containing his written works. At the time you created the Susannah Lattin page I looked for evidence that she wrote and that it was published. I could not find any evidence, but by that time Billinghurst had responded to you and there was no need for me to make the same response. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, that was amazingly clear and simple. So you are an author if you have works listed say in worldcat. Can you point me to the conversation where Subject:John Smith was rejected? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
That is one of the criteria for authorship. You are an author here if a work that you wrote is able to be included by Wikisource:What Wikisource includesbillinghurst sDrewth 02:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Every page header gone awry[edit]

Every page header (the colored rectangular box) has suddenly gone wonky and disappeared, both for Portals as well as for works. Is this just me, is it the result of something gone wrong, or yet another side effect of a software change? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Not seeing anything like that here fwiw. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not seeing now either, so it must have been just me or something transitory. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

HHVM revealing new weirdness[edit]

Is anybody else forced into using the simple labeled section editing ( ## John Smith ## ) mode instead of the "old" style <section begin="John Smith" /> labeling - no matter the gadget setting to disable/restore it is set to - when HHVM (HipHop Virtual Machine) is enabled or is it 'just me' again? -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You haven't indicated the type of issue that you are seeing. I can add section labels (in Page: ns), and I can view existing pages (main ns) with section labels. I am using HHVM and have seen no quirkiness. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The issue is unless I disable HHVM, every edit/creation needing a begin or ending section tag is converted/saved as is depicted in the first gray box. I've never used this format (with the # number signs) nor was it ever "enabled" here - manually or otherwise - and if it ever was somehow enabled, I could "switch back" by using the gadget enabling the "old style" labeling (of course its confusing, its is another ThomasV piece of garbage left over from days long gone. Proper <section begin & <section end tags are actually the "default" or the "norm" loaded via core extension(s). That was overridden site wide in Base.js long ago only to be disabled site wide again via a default selected gadget).

I'm not saying it doesn't work - I'm saying its never been my preference and I'd never adopt using that resource wasting, load corrupting method of labeling on principle alone. Turning off HHVM restores my years old preference when it comes to section tags in short. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless you have since "fixed" something I am not seeing these issues (I currently have both HHVM enabled and "Use the old syntax in the Page namespace" selected. Old (<section> syntax seems to work and is not apparently "rendered" into #### upon opening edit session. In fact I deliberately took no steps to protect that #### above if that may serve as a test-case.) AuFCL (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I've never set any preferences or disabled anything, but I have always had my section labeling converted to hashtags when I insert them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The 'enable-just-to-disable' hash tag nonsense was put in place probably before you got here so that is why you believe it is normal behavior. The particulars can be found in MediaWiki:Base.js which is basically forced to load before anything else does in our MediaWiki:Common.js file. Any doubts? Let's stop forcing Base.js altogether and see what happens then shall we? -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
i was having section problems in IE (before HHVM) forcing me to use <section begin="John Smith" />. is this a pseudo-improvement? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 17:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I had LST issues the first or second day HHVM was rolled out too but that issue went away by itself. That was nothing like what started [for me] yesterday however.

I just want to be clear - I'm sure HHVM is merely revealing never before seen issues that were always lurking about rather than the outright or primary cause of them. Obviously it will become the standard once the bugs are all stopped out so there is no reason to "fear" using it while its still in beta. I've retitled this section so it hopefully doesn't come off so "accusatory" as it initially may have been. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

As for using <section begin="John Smith" /> - that goes back to my original point - regardless of having/using the hash tag approach to section labeling or not, the LST and [to an extent] the Proofread page extensions use & recognize section tags by design & nothing else. Period.

Hiding/converting/applying section labeling using hash tag syntax is a cosmetic or maybe comforting thing for editors I guess but a big honking waste of resources imho when it comes to the extensions themselves -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The hashtags were put in to make it easier for people who didn't understand the begin and end section tags, which do have their own quirkiness, and were causing some issues for some users. For some they will be easier as they are just required at the start of a section and automatically close a section at the termination of a page, unless a hashtag terminator is used. So while I prefer the old style, the alternate style was introduced for good reason as a display case, so condemning it is a little harsh when you are a vastly experienced user. People are given choice, and that is a good thing. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Nobody condemned the premise for using hash tags to make life easier for newbies - only in the manner it was implemented...

  • tags from extension is default -> automated conversion to hashes forced by Base.js site-wide -> return to default tags via gadget by per user preference
  • tags from extension is default -> automated conversion to hashes enabled universally for all via gadget initially -> restoration of default tags possible via disabling gadget by per user preference

The difference between the two instances is only the latter fulfills the premise without penalizing the "resources" of those who prefer the extension's default(s) in the process. The attempt to paint this condition as somehow a net increase in choice leading to a overall gain in benefit falls flat [again] if one examines the nuances of the facts at hand.

The Gadget interface was in place at the time and could of just as easily served as the vehicle for [java]scripting hash tags into a "reality" as forcing it via Base.js did - the promised uptick in traffic by a quick acceptance of hash-conversion prevailed over common sense and preferred practices is all. Too bad that promise played out like the search for WMD's did in Iraq.

This isn't the first time 'administration thru appeasement' has turned out to under-serve the community-at-large's interests in the long run but I consider it one of the most egregious examples of it to date. And fwiw, that was the only condemnation made in my previous comments, Neville. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, (although no one asked for it), replacing section tags with hash tags were/are a most idiotic idea. When I began using them, I was also a newbie and I was not confused by section tags, but certainly was by the hashtags. GO3, Is Neville a reference to Papa (Joseph) Chamberlain's infamous boy? — Ineuw talk 02:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
well, ok, could we get a better solution, say button on edit toolbar? a section button with a pop-up fill-in section name would be really useful. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 23:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-43[edit]

13:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Image licensing paperwork[edit]

Have any of you seen this report on image licensing documentation here at the English Wikisource?

The goal is to standardize documentation so that bots and scripts can keep track of it and so that people are more likely to re-use images correctly. It looks like there are a lot of images here that have no machine-readable information on their pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Many of those are the higher quality images extracted to be aligned with djvu files where the page placeholders are marked with {{raw image}}. They are marked way and need to be trimmed/tidied/cleaned then moved to Commons with the metadata improved as part of the production process. Maybe we should be talking to Commons at c:Commons:Graphic Lab about assisting cleaning and migrating. We probably need to wikiprojectinate (I love creating words) at this side first. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
In for a penny, in for a pound. I have start a conversation at c:Commons:Graphics village pump (for prosperity archive link)billinghurst sDrewth 00:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I already cleaned and categorized and identified this image. How can I remove the hidden categories, to be transferred to the commons?
Fixing the broken template helped, and I will have to dig through other help pages to work out what is broken there. I may just be a local implementation to one of our templates. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.— Ineuw talk 00:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
With the greatest (possible) respect to all concerned, I keep hearing this expression "machine-readable…(whatever)" bandied around with no apparent attempt to define what is required. Are we talking binary information embedded within (say) a JPEG/PNG/DJVU etc. file here; or merely some kind of parameter in a wrapping template… or both or neither? In short: what to fix/how to fix/at least one little concrete example of a before-and-after would be really nice! (Apologies to Ineuw if this is a rewording of his question above.) AuFCL (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
@AuFCL: It is a bit like starting a book half way through. There has been previous components on this page, and other pages. The basic concept is "Machine-readable data makes it easier to reuse Wikimedia content consistently with best practices for attribution." and it is achieved by having class components in our templates. You have seen bits that we have had added to {{Author}}, but this is for files, so includes {{information}}, {{book}}, {{license}} and the project in play is explained at m:File metadata cleanup drive and the specific data at c:Commons:Machine-readable data. There is no single good place to find the explanatory, and that is the inimitable wiki-way. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, well I appreciate your attempted explanation, and have read those references. However my questions still stand in form unchanged; and I consider my ability to assist in this matter to be utterly compromised until such time as realistically addressed. (Also, as one Colonial to another I am uncertain as to the terminology most applicable to this effort: should it be properly referred to as apparently being "half-arsed" in conception; or was an entire arse involved somehow? I can see some real pitfalls in the careless (or indeed caring and unskilled) use of that "tool." AuFCL (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Before everyone dismisses my earlier remark (for flippant I freely admit it to be,) there is another fundamental issue going on here—and that is one of scale. If the related discussion is accurate, then there are of the order of a million files currently in breach of this requirement…

Admittedly pulling some figures out of the air, an individual might be prepared to address up to (say) 100 items, yet will baulk at higher job-lists and will possibly not even get started on any of them. In similar fashion a community (like the enWS membership?) might be prepared to attack up to a 10000-item task list; but will almost certainly quail long before that. See a pattern here? Million-entry lists ought to be shaved down radically by completely automated process—prob/possibly quite crudely—before even contemplating hitting humans with the remaining detailed clean-up. The current approach could almost be designed to fail. Listen guys, we can do this the smart way or not at all; because what I'm seeing at present is the really, (chronically) really dumb approach. AuFCL (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a wiki, we have to start somewhere, and you have to know when you are finished. Some will be template fixes like here, some will be the addition of templates. It is good that the WMF is taking the step to allow for the appropriate licensing, and the ability to grab metadata and botify. Yes, some aspects are suboptimum, not new, not a surprise. (Re arses. Virtual arses (metaphorical or empirical, full or half) will be what they are. It is not the virtual that have my attention.). If you want good answers, then ask "Guillame (WMF)", he knows WS well, and is a good bloke. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe i'm not understanding this correctly but would it make more sense to make the {{raw image}} template to produce better machine readable images? if that is at all possible... --Rochefoucauld (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
i think they’re just talking template wrapper to get "machine readable", since the template will have the machine code. i’ve personally handled 10000 item backlogs; there have been community backlog drives for 100000 items. but as you see, it’s ad hoc, either threaten mass deletion, or cheer lead people; very little planning and team building. as for "completely automated process" i kinda made that request, and got a link to VisualFileChange.js they’re going to have to triage, sort by user upload, and automate like cases, but they haven’t figured that out yet. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 19:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
(portentous drumroll) It begins… It is just as I feared. I am already seeing diagnostic screen captures being tagged here to be "moved to commons." The no-brain crew are at work. AuFCL (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there any need to be abusive to our fellow volunteers? It doesn't make the process of getting things done any easier.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I apologize I'll just sit here and do nothing for now on and watch you do all the work. I'm so excited! I can't wait to watch your contribution page. --Rochefoucauld (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
My comments above have absolutely nothing to do with you or your laudable efforts, and everything to do with what I consider the near-criminal misuse of volunteer efforts in what I consider to be a misguided, mal-timed inappropriate abuse of valuable volunteer resource in a matter far better addressed through moderately intelligent programmed pre-processing followed by submission for ratification by the volunteer pool.

And frankly @Prosfilaes, you are being deliberately baiting of an unduly and inappropriately politicised activity. You can be 'so much better than this. How about trying just a little bit?

No, you will not see any contributions to this travesty executed in my name until such time as the project is (sanely) defined; delineated and reasonable machine effort intelligently deployed where appropriate.

Get it? I am really passionate about this. I'd mark this as "Could do better (with any effort; because to date I can see evidence for so very little.) My 2¢. AuFCL (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

don’t know why you’re so passionate about the usual mismanagement, it’s the wiki-way. volunteers will do what they want, not what is most effective. but the only criminal thing around here are the potty mouths which cross the line (not you, and don’t look at Arbcom) i don’t share the zeal to transfer to commons either, given the propensity for capricious deletions there. but it is the trend, many libraries putting up book image scans with CC. i would encourage the use of artwork template, not information template for these transfers. i have uploaded book scans for people lacking images on a case by case basis though. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 23:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm being deliberately baiting by suggesting that we don't call our fellow volunteers "no brains"? No, I can't be so much better by standing by when personal abuse is being thrown around on Wikisource.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
+1+1+1 it is inaccurate and unhelpful. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Files with no machine-readable license[edit]

Okay, I have found an issue that we need to resolve.

Files categorise to Category:Files with no machine-readable license when the class licensetpl is not present in a license template (as described at c:Commons:Machine-readable data#Machine readable data set by license templates). We could fix this simply by adding that class to {{license}} which is the basis for our licences … BUT there is at least one licence {{Copyright author}} that uses the template that is not public domain.

To make things clean to upgrade, and minimise a great hierarchy change, I suggest that we look to add a public domain parameter to {{license}}, eg. PD = yes that will include the required class; and we add that parameter to all existing templates that require it, which will be the vast majority. While we could go the reverse and have it as a default component, and exclude non-compliant licences, I think that it is a better practice to mindfully add it. This is a community decision, not one admins, so I put it out there for comment.

Hmm, it is probably more complex that first envisage (he says after reading m:File metadata cleanup drive/How to fix metadata). I haven't the time presently to bury myself in the detail, so those who may be more attuned to these things (@Slowking4:?) please chip in and express opinions. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
my impression is that they are trying to migrate all text metadata into information templates, which makes it machine readable. this is so it will render in the media viewer, lol. commons appears to have over 1 million of these files (too many to count) there is a tool that adds an information template wrapper on file’s metadata
i’m not sure how much of a priority it is, or should be for wikisource. not sure if you must have PD license, merely machine readable. english wikipedia has the same condition. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 03:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Fwiw... I applied a bastardized version of Commons' licensetpl PD scheme to our core {{license}} template and it seems to do the trick when it comes to excluding any other [PD] license templates based on that core one ('Bastardized' because we can't exactly mirror Commons' approach to license template layouts since they've taken into account on the fly language translations as well as LTR vs RTL based languages while we are specifically concerned with LTR / EN).

If others can verify the addition "works" (Ex. File:400hans.djvu), I guess the next question is how many license-type of templates do we have that are based on the core {{License}} template BUT are not technically/directly of the PD vein/status? -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like these recent changes to templates over at Wikivoyage have solved about half the "problems" at the English Wikivoyage. I wonder if those fixes would work here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
As it that concerning to you, I have included the pertinent licence components into Template:Raw page scan. The template is applied to page scans of files in the public domain as the scans of the works are already hosted here or at Commons. We can continue to tidy them as we can. My check of the first 3k files showed that well over 90% were such files. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Some confusion about images processing[edit]

I was trying to make sense of the instructions on adding the metadata and frankly its more than confusing. Downloaded this image, trimmed, grayscaled, and re-titled it properly and when I uploaded it File:The octagonal court between the churches at Kal'at Sama'an, Syria.png The metadata was created. The images on the list should be processed anyways. Why bother with the suggested convoluted process to add the metadata?

Convoluted process? Just complete the template and you meet requirements. Our templates weren't (aren't fully?) up to the suggested specifications, and in lieu of that, the files were labelled to identify that, until the templates are fixed.

Related to this, is my processing this image yesterday, and then finding the identical image on the commons with a slightly different name File:Interior of Sta. Sophia, Constantinople (p10 of 1909historyofdec04gibbuoft.djvu).jpg. What are the rules for duplicate images??? — Ineuw talk 03:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

c:Commons:Deletion policy#Duplicates. As your file type is different, it is fine. And with regard to duplicates, I wouldn't overly fuss it, it will get worked out, and often it is me that is processing. The other of interest is probably c:Commons:Overwriting existing filesbillinghurst sDrewth 04:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The fourteen images from the list have been cleaned and uploaded to the commons, categorized and stored in the c:Category:The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1909 edition). I will delete these images here.
  • It's a waste of effort to tag images which require offline cleanup and upload to the commons. Only images which are transferred directly from here need to use the metadata tag. The tag itself is incomplete and I added the image date.
@Ineuw: Are you complicating a discussion? If templates we use are adapted, then all the classification takes place quietly and painlessly. (problem solved) For items that need cleanup, they may or may not be tagged, however, our focus should be on cleaning and transferring to Commons, not putting tags on them here. If we want to make that bleeding obvious, we just state that in {{raw page scan}} with what is the purpose and how to comply. Please can we speak about solutions, rather than just problems. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't wish to complicate matters for anyone, but the information given was incomplete. In other words, if we download, clean and upload the images to the Commons (using the Upload wizard), the template above is of no use. That's where my confusion sets in. If the template is to be used to transfer images directly from Wikisource to the Commons, as some images may qualify for direct transfer, then that pig doesn't fly for me. As for the template I pasted above, I just didn't see how the Commons would accept images without a date. Rightly on wrongly, that's why I added it. As for the link to the {{Raw page scan}} thanks - for I have never seen that template before. — Ineuw talk 02:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I have been reading and hopefully learning from the above conversation. I think too much is better than too little. I also had forgotten about a program Ineuw had told me about and now I have installed that program. From it I have searched and learned some more information important to me. Kind regards to all, —Maury (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


How important is it in keeping the metadata of images when placing them on commons? I don't see where it is needed for an image and my program allows me to strip out all metadata. —Maury (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It is important, especially for the next person who downloads it. There are many images on the Commons that have a section displaying the metadata on the page. Please don't strip it. The previous discussion was all about metadata which in this case it's about identifying the image. — Ineuw talk 16:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
It was the metadata from the previous discussion that caused me to wonder specifically about the metadata in an image. I know it is shown on the page, along with camera orientation and more. I often have looked over images and their metadata including your images. I thank you for your reply and for the mention of you using DDG in the previous discussion. I installed the program and have been using it since you mentioned it in the above discussion. I also wish you could have continued that discussion. When you talk/write people learn. BTW, I knew about that Template Billinghurst mentioned. People learn from each other and thus silence is not always "golden". Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
it is important to model good archivist behavior. a good provenance is useful for future image curators. the problem with some joe’s blog with no metadata is that follow-on re-users don’t know what or how to reuse, limiting the utility. even bad metadata can be improved with scholarship. the broken image transfer process from wikipedia to commons has now caused a lot of rework. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 18:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Some of the images have a lot of metadata while others have very little metadata. I have looked at so many embedded within images but I don't recall much within Ineuw's images whereas mine contain even the name of the program which I had determined as mere advertising. Photos show a lot too as well as the camera used and more. It doesn't bother me either way other than being curious as to what might be important. I';; look back at Ineuw's images because all I recall at this moment was very little information. That imformation is also interesting to decode. One can also add metadata in images. Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Two types of metadata are under discussion here
for us at enWS, the first are pertinent, and the second are interesting but not usually pertinent as we are usually not dealing with originals. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Meta RfCs on two new global groups[edit]

Hello all,

There are currently requests for comment open on meta to create two new global groups. The first is a group for members of the OTRS permissions queue, which would not contain any additional user rights. That proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Creation of a global OTRS-permissions user group. The second is a group for Wikimedia Commons admins and OTRS agents to view deleted file pages through the 'viewdeletedfile' right on all wikis except those who opt-out. The second proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Global file deletion review.

We would like to hear what you think on both proposals. Both are in English; if you wanted to translate them into your native language that would also be appreciated.

It is possible for individual projects to opt-out, so that users in those groups do not have any additional rights on those projects. To do this please start a local discussion, and if there is consensus you can request to opt-out of either or both at m:Stewards' noticeboard.

Thanks and regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-44[edit]

05:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a way to view short pages needing reviewed?[edit]

I was looking through some of the stuff here and I noticed from the community portal that there are a lot of pages that need to be proofread. Some are very long though and have foreign language characters that need to be converted. I wanted to ask if there was a way to see the shortest unreviewed pages? A lot of headway could be made fairly quickly by doing those small pages first. Reguyla (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh and I found several pages like Page:The Oxford book of Italian verse.djvu/99. With both the needs proofread and does not need proofread note. Reguyla (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The Oxford Book of Italian Verse is mostly in Italian. Since this is the English Wikisource, and since we do not host Italian text, only the English portion (prefatory material) of that work is hosted here. The rest is available at the Italian Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
"Short pages" in the WP sense are less relevant here, especially in the main namespace. As we transclude transcribed pages from the Page:ns to main ns, so all main ns pages are small, and one that transcludes 1000 pages would be little difference in size to one that transcludes one page (we are talking a difference in 3 character … from=1 to=1 … compared with … from=1 to=1000 …). As a page of paper can only hold so much text, our page sizes in the Page: ns are pretty similar, so it comes about the work, its reproduction, and whether it is of interest. [Personally I dislike novels, as it is all the speech interaction, and short paragraphs which drives me to distraction.] What we have though, depending on your interests are:
  • small works that have been proofread in need validation, findable at Wikisource:Proofread of the Month/little works (manual list).
  • there is Category:Index Proofread which shows all works that have been proofread once, and are in need of validation
  • there is Special:IndexPages which will show a variety of works in their non-proofread/proofread/validated stages and their overarching process towards completion
  • Wikisource:Proofread of the Month which will show our current team work, and for November (each year) the focus is on validating works that have been taken to the proofread stage.
  • or sometimes I just look at Special:RecentChanges and see someone proofreading a work, and if it is vaguely of interest, I follow along behind them. (I believe that people appreciate someone validating their work as they do it, and to know that it is progressing.)
We have lots of work out there, so depending on what rocks your boat from historical, novel, biographical, poetic and musical, there is plenty available. Some of our curatorial and display of TO DO is less than perfect, so many of us will happily help you dig something out from some dark crevice, or help you do something new of interest to you. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and Wikisource:For Wikipediansbillinghurst sDrewth 23:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I already read though most of that and I know this is different from WP, but the short pages was mostly from the context of the new guy trying to learn things here. Searching through the links provided above will tell me the ones that need to be proofread and need work certainly, but as a new guy I would prefer to start by looking at some smallish pages rather than pages with paragraphs of text. If there was a way to simply pull up a few that were only a couple sentences or less, then I could rake through a bunch of those rather quickly while learning the ropes here. Thanks again. Reguyla (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately not. That would need something Page namespace specific, that interprets the proofreading status (1 or 2), AND then drills down to the size. We don't get that sort of service here. Numbers of the tools and special pages built for WPs aren't as functional here. <shrug> But don't sweat where you choose, we patrol newcomers edits, and if we see an issue then someone will usually politely say something helpful. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Another related question[edit]

I found a page Page:A Treatise on Geology, volume 2.djvu/8 with some writing on it that needs to be proofread. In these cases would we go ahead and add the text, do we mark it as blank (since its clearly not a "part" of the text, or do we do something else with it? Reguyla (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Reguyla: We leave it blank as the text itself is blank--we don't want to transcribe any hand-written notes or stamps from a library or stickers put on by a book club. The appropriate response is to leave it blank and when proofreading, check the light grey "Without text" radio button. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
KoafV is correct in our general approach where we are not interested in scratchings, library marks, etc. though there are annotations that are valid edge cases. The way that we look at it is the transcluded work, is the work of the author, and the remainder is informational and maybe notational.

What I have done previously where handwritten text is pertinent to the scan, eg. signed by author, or something of particular note, is added a {{user annotation}} (to the header or footer sections, or wrapped in <noinclude> with or you can put specific text on the Page talk: page so that it is findable by search engines. If the work is transcluded and you think that an annotation is worthy of note, you can add something to the work's note section, eg. front matter contains a personal note and signature of the author; if not transcluded then you can scribe something on the Index talk: page (and hope that someone sees it). Other components might be that it was a scan of 1 of 500 of a limited edition print run, which is another sort of valid note, but not something that we transclude as the "body of the work". — billinghurst sDrewth 23:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Great good to know thanks. Reguyla (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-45[edit]

17:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

What do we need to note and check?[edit]

My take on this note:

  • Check whether we have used Special:Cite anywhere and update if we do (though it does redirect). For information, this is a toolbar link that provides a citation for our WS page, though it cites our work, not the original author, and it is something which we should be considering for bugzilla now that metadata is better coordinated these days.
  • Review page and look at our "protection" templates, and the featured and nominated text templates, and look to migrate. Also see if other components can utilise this aspect.

billinghurst sDrewth 00:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't find any mention of Special:Cite [65]. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure I ported the change to Special:CiteThisPage for the handful of affected pages last week so it shouldn't be any surprise we can't find anything using/pointing to the old Special: page now that the code for it has actually rolled out to all wikis.
  • as for the new indicator tags replacing what amounts to the old top-icon scheme - its also live now. I concur - the protection/featured type of templates need a revamp to utilize this new approach as do the tools at the top of the Index: page template. I'm sure there are others but I can't think of them at the moment & my free time has been limiting as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-46[edit]

15:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-47[edit]

18:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikisource on front page of en:Wikipedia[edit]

For info: In about an hour there will be a link to Encyclopedia of Needlework from the "Did You Know" section of the main page of the English Wikipedia. This is a part complete book by @Durova and the article is inspired by an article about an encyclopedist. Victuallers (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikisource:Proofread of the Month/Coding[edit]

Page needs updating. Studies of a Biographer 4 is complete and needs to be replaced with another title. I would do it myself, but don't want to mess things up. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done by BWC, thanks for the prod. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

A User with a message[edit]

I recently received an unhelpful message from a user who may or may not be the same user as User:Enjoymypresencelifewasters (contribs)—an account created just after the message was posted. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks to have been handled. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Thank you. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Epub ebook download[edit]

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 ( TalkContribs ) … 03:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Fat-fingered key[edit]

Index:George Washington National Moument.djvu Would someone who has the knowledge please correct the spelling on the pages of the above book? —Maury (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@William Maury Morris II: There are only seven pages proofread so far, so I'll happily look at those. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I think perhaps Maury was asking someone to move the index and pages to a title in which "Monument" is spelled correctly. Hesperian 12:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@Hesperian: Right. Gotcha. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 12:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I thank you both. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)