Wikisource:Scriptorium

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

Contents

Announcements[edit]

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

If you think a gadget is broken … aka jQuery updating[edit]

With the next week's upgrade of MediaWiki (1.24wmf8) there has been an alert announcement for communities relating to an upgrade of one of the library packages (software) that Mediawiki utilises. In short, the jQuery upgrade has culled some old legacy components, and that may break old gadgets, or gadgets written with old query language, with the full impact of this occurring in the next local upgrade, Tuesday next week.

Users[edit]

If there is an impact, one of the gadgets that you utilise will not work as expected. If you think that a gadget is broken by this change

What you can do:

  • check your browser's console log to see if there are any warnings tagged "JQMIGRATE". If you don't know about browser console … Firefox or Chrome or a more generic
  • start a new message in the help section (below) and report your problem giving gadget details, page of problem, and what you were trying to do.

Developers[edit]

There has been a stepwise change to jQuery at Mediawiki as they migrate from JQuery 1.8 to 1.11. With wmf6 the change was to 1.11 with a jQuery migrate package, and with wmf8 that migrate package will be then be removed.

Further reading (noting that they are mediawiki — not wikimedia — targeted messages)

And maybe we will have no effect, and we can all cruise along. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Identifying any Toolserver links[edit]

At the end of this month Toolserver ( //toolserver.org, supported by WMF-DE) will be shutting down, and all the tools are meant to have been migrated to Tool Labs (//tools.wmflabs.org, within WMF framework). Would all users please keep an eye out and check links for tools that you use on the site, and bring them to the attention of the community. Hopefully the tools have been migrated, otherwise we will have to have a mad scramble and get things moved. (PS. Not worried about anything that is sitting in a talk page archive.) Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is the sort of thing you are looking for, but your query prompted my curiosity and according to my browser logs this URL is being constantly polled (Probably once every page view? I have no real idea why, but the language selector is probably a bit of a hint too.):
  • https://toolserver.org/~krinkle/I18N/export.php?lang=en-gb
AuFCL (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Exactly the sort of thing. That is the "WhatLeavesHere" gadget, and I have pinged User:Krinkle to see if he is migrating the required component of his script. If it isn't migrated, we will retire the gadget. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
@AuFCL: this one should now be resolved. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
@sDruwth Agreed: no more activity to toolserver.org turning up here (in last half-hour or so.) The slot formerly occupied now appears to be going to https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Krinkle/Tools/WhatLeavesHere.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&smaxage=21600&maxage=86400 instead. AuFCL (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
It should have always been going there, as that is the gadget. The gadget now should be calling "//tools.wmflabs.org/intuition/load.php?env=mw" which is the replacement box, and the upgraded set of scripts. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Has the Proofread Page Statistics tool been migrated? It is still linked from Help:Page status and possibly other pages. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes under phetools at Toollabs:. Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 16:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment — I've taken the list down to under 500 leaving us with mostly archived or talk-page instances of Toolserver usage/linkage for now, but there are at least 2 old toolserver account holders that really need to be ported over to wmflabs to retain consistency...

  • Inductiveload
  • ~vvv
...among a handful of possible others. You can see the current list HERE. -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The linked list contains four unused toolserver links with my name. They served no purpose. Should I remove the links from the archives?— Ineuw talk 07:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
{{Anontools/ipv4}} & {{Anontools/ipv6}} both currently contain (non-functional) hard-coded references to //wolfsbane.toolserver.org/~overlordq. This deficiency ripples up through MediaWiki:sp-contributions-footer-anon to affect non-logged-in Special:Contributions use. unsigned comment by Snippy (talk) .
No obvious replacements for the links, so I hve just commented them out. Thanks for the notification. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania panel[edit]

So the Wikisource panel is on the programme:

https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programme

on the Friday, mid-afternoon, Data I strand. What next? Well, who would be there and would like to take part in some fashion? Charles Matthews (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

i will be there, (but conflict with Lila) programme in flux ;-( Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 21:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I will be there, though haven't waded through the programme as of yet. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Vector skin: Thumbnail style update[edit]

There's an upcoming change to the thumbnail styling in Vector […]

The primary change is to remove the "box" border, which will bring the clean style that was recently added to <gallery> to all our thumbnails, plus consistency with our mobile view and the images on most Main Pages.

It will be arriving on non-Wikipedias [including English Wikisource] on August 12, and on Wikipedias on August 14, so there's additional time to acclimate. The design team will be available to discuss this, and other updates and ideas, with anyone interested at Wikimania in 2 weeks.

Please see documentation and details, at mw:Thumbnail style update

—Quiddity, Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list

Passing the information along. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer - looks like they've changed some pieces that are already possible with {{FI}} & {{FIS}} though. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposals[edit]

Automated import of openly licensed scholarly articles[edit]

The idea of systematically importing openly licensed scholarly articles into Wikisource has popped up from time to time. For instance, it formed the core of WikiProject Academic Papers and is mentioned in the Wikisource vision. However, the Wikiproject relied on human power, never reached its full potential, and eventually became inactive. The vision has yet to materialise. We plan to bridge the gap through automation. We are a subset of WikiProject Open Access (user:Daniel Mietchen, user:Maximilanklein, user:MattSenate), and we have funding from the Open Society Foundations via Wikimedia Deutschland to demo suitable workflows at Wikimania (see project page). Specifically, we plan to import Open Access journal articles into Wikisource when they are cited on Wikipedia. The import would be performed by a group of bots intended to make reference handling more interoperable across Wikimedia sites. Their main tasks are:

  • (on Wikipedia) signalling which references are openly licensed, and link them to the full text on Wikisource, the media on Commons and the metadata on Wikidata;
  • (on Commons) importing images and other media associated with the source article;
  • (on Wikisource) importing the full text of the source article and embedding the media in there;
  • (on Wikidata) handling the metadata associated with the source article, and signalling that the full text is on Wikisource and the media on Commons.

These Open Access imports on Wikisource will be linked to and from other Wikimedia sister sites. Our first priority though will be linking from English Wikipedia, focusing on the most cited Open Access papers, and the top-100 medical articles. In order to move forward with this, we need

  • General community approval
  • Community feedback on workflows and scrutiny on our test imports in specific.
  • Bot permission. For more technical information read our bot spec on Github.

We will have a Google hangout to answer any questions live on Sunday, June 15th 2014, at 6PM UTC. Please come and ask us questions. original link/new link

Daniel Mietchen (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Interesting idea, all sounds very positive, is there any opposition or reasons for not doing this? Jeepday (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
What users are going to proofread and validate all of these texts? A bot can't do that. ResScholar (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
This is going to sound trite, but I am quite serious. If these works are truly imported "born-digital" efforts, then proofreading is going to amount to generating some kind of digital hash of the originating (website?) and of the imported copy; and validation will become someone (or bot) verifying the two calculations coincide. Presumably if they do not that triggers (the possibility of) a new edition? AuFCL (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it's a very good idea, a serious step for the integration of the w:Open Access world with the Wikimedia one. Being born-digital content, I would support all kinds of "bot-hash" validation, but please do not tell me (somebody, in the past did) to upload the PDFs in the Proofread extension... :-D Aubrey (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we are talking bout born-digital documents, so the proofreading effort should be vastly below normal by Wikisource standards. We cannot guarantee that it will be zero, though, despite having tested the pipeline from several angles. There could always be unusual ways of formatting in the sources that may cause problems with the import. Such cases would have to be handled as bugs (see the bug tracker), and once these are fixed, the text would have to be re-imported (and images or media re-inserted). Some sort of automated quality check is desirable, but simple hashes won't do, since the materials are converted from one flavour of XML (JATS) - with quite some inconsistencies - into another (MediaWiki XML). -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that we are building both on-wiki and developer communities through en:w:WP:WikiProject Open Access and wpoa on github, providing a base for long-term sustainability of the project. In terms of proofreading and validation, we can also implement spot-checking and various other organic methods for general quality assurance on top of the bug-handling method Daniel mentioned above. Mattsenate (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a great project, Daniel! A few observations: there is some data in the original that is not being brought over, including the copyright information, author information, article notes, and full citation information (URL, DOI, publication date, etc.). This shouldn't just be on a WikiProject (non-main namespace). I'm not sure if this all belongs in the header, but since there is index of page scans for bibliographic information, it should go somewhere in the article page.

There should potentially be a PLoS One page, and similar created for each journal, like the general Popular Science Monthly which links to each article. I am also curious, if you have some minimal amount of author metadata (as [1] does), could the bot create minimal author pages on Wikisource? (If so, could it also create a new Wikidata item for them/update an existing one with the Wikisource link?) Will the new Wikidata items for the journal articles indicate in some way that the texts are cited in a Wikipedia article (is that an existing property?) I also think that there should be some kind of a template for any article cited on Wikipedia, perhaps as an additional parameter in {{plain sister}}, instead of just being used for Wikipedia articles that are about the text. Dominic (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dominic:, I like these suggestions. Yes, I think these should eventually go in the main namespace. As for organization, I don't mind having this done by Journal, or Publisher, or neither and just using Categories. We can do whatever the community desires on that front. As for author and other metadata, that information is available, and we can upload it to Wikisource no problem. We are not planning for Wikidata integration our first phase because Wikidata will not support arbitrary-item-lookup yet, but its in our long-term goals. Lastly, the fantasy of seeing which Wikipedia articles cite a given journal will be materialized in a hacky way, as we plan to publically expose the live database the bot makes of what-cites-what. Maximilianklein (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
fyi here is
Directory of Open Access Journals http://doaj.org/
lists freely accessible archives of serials http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/serials.html
Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 03:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Based on our "hangout" video chat discussion, we would love some feedback on these motivations for the project:
Primary reasons to incorporate this content into WikiSource:
  • Signalling that a given reference has a mediawiki-marked-up copy on Wikisource is a clear indication that the source is actually Open Access (has a compatible license).
  • Providing full text, with in-context images, video, audio, and other media facilitates improving Wikipedia as a deep, rich, "free" as in "freedom" reference work.
  • Uploading source content including text, images, and other media closer to time of publication reduces the barrier to entry to cite academic works in Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects.
Mattsenate (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Did you mention what you intended to do about author pages? Charles Matthews (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I received an invitation to comment, but it was not addressed to me. The invitation posted to my user talk page was addressed to Billinghurst. When the invitation is addressed incorrectly, and contains typographical errors, I'm not impressed. How will giving this job to a bot succeed if the initial proposal isn't even proofread and sent out correctly? Is this just a proposal to have a bot dump stuff here, or all there qualified and skilled people somewhere willing to ensure this works that way it should? Also, are they proposing to upload the images, video, and audio here? That shouldn't happen, as that's what Commons is for. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey:, sorry I misaddressed your User talk message - I was sending out quite a few, and Special:MassMessage is admins only. In fact that quite highlights the need for automation in general, a bot wouldn't have got tired at the twentieth message, and made such a mistake. I hope we can address the proposal on it's own terms, not on my invitation-message-skills. In response to your questions, we are not 'just dumping' articles, we will first start with the most highly cited articles on English Wikipedia, and then link the references to Wikisource. So the articles will be receiving attention directed from English Wikipedia as well. Additionally, we will be using Commons for the images and videos, and our example articles already sport Commons-usage. Do you have any other concerns?
Maximilianklein (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
@Charles Matthews: the problem with starting author pages is that there is not yet a good system that would allow to (a) disambiguate between different authors spelled the same way (ORCID aims to solve that problem but has not been widely adopted yet) and (b) import information about the respective authors that goes beyond the name and perhaps affiliation. So it is not within scope for us at the moment. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
@Charles Matthews: +1 to what Daniel said. In this regard, we expect to utilize the "No author link" feature of Template:Header (or equivalent) to prevent the generation of author-page redlinks. Mattsenate (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, one reason I asked is because the author page information we give here on Wikisource is a reasonably distinctive feature of this repository. Another is that I'm aware of ORCID. A third is that author pages here are now connected with Wikidata, and we should be thoughtful about that.
Is there any chance you could think further about the decision to "dump" papers here without serious author information, for example by developing a view on ORCID? A couple of points on this are (a) my own view that WS should be looking to differentiate itself by "adding value" to its content, not simply hosting it; and (b) the announcement above of a WS panel at Wikimania, for which this project could provide a debating point: should WS folk be pro-active in promoting addition of metadata, rather than "relaxed"? Charles Matthews (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Questions and Comments—a) While hosting public domain scientific papers is certainly within our ambit, why do we need to host digital-native papers that are also hosted by their publishers? Is access to the papers in danger of being lost? b) I agree with Charles' concerns about not linking the authors. The main purpose of the "override_author" field is to allow for linking of multiple authors, and a secondary purpose is for authors that are unlinkable. It's not intended as a way to get away without linking authors. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
In response to Beeswaxcandle’s question A, "why should we host things that are hosted someplace else?". For the same reason we host works that are hosted by Project Gutenberg and/or Google Books. We are a library, not the library of things without another home. Jeepday (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if we're a good place for these things, but access is always in danger of being lost. Sites that were assumed to be permanent disappear fairly frequently, and publishers are hardly reliable sources; if it's not economically valuable, they'll toss it to the side in a second, or just let it decay and not notice or care. Massive mirroring is the best way to prevent stuff from disappearing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Other reasons to host these articles here are that citations from places like Wikipedia could actually link to a section or figure or other part of the source, rather than to the work as a whole, which makes it much easier to follow, understand and verify streams of argumentation (remember that we plan to import articles upon citation from Wikipedia). Plus, import of full articles here makes the images available for reuse across Wikimedia sites and beyond. Thousands of images from open access scholarly sources have been uploaded manually to Commons and reused from there, so why not support this process with a dose of automation? -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea and I think the author pages can be created via bot (in cases of authors with the same name they can be created manually, if bot creation is difficult, impossible, or problematic). Will the Wikidata item be classified as "work" or "edition"?--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The journal articles would probably be classified as article (Q191067). -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If we don't have author pages, how will we link together two or more works by the same person? Also, +1 for using ORCID (I'm Wikipedian-in-Residence at ORCID, and can help with that). Pigsonthewing (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

We would be interested in creating the relevant author pages automatically if there is sufficient information. @Pigsonthewing can you take a look at the sample uploads and see what you can find out about the authors through ORCID's channels and how that could be automated? -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
We don't want to circumvent policies but to improve reference management across Wikimedia sites and to facilitate the reuse of suitably licensed materials from scholarly sources. Volume 9 in the example above refers to the journal's content for an entire year, which has very little overlap with the content of that particular article, so there is no need to bring them over together. We are open to importing full issues or volumes of journals, but thought it better to filter in some way, preferably by usage on Wikipedia. Once the system would work as proposed, it could of course be extended to more comprehensive coverage of particular journals or publishers. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
How does what amounts to an unbacked, cherry-picked copy & paste improve reference management exactly? I understand you folks seek the ability to specifically target a line or lines in a work hosted here that supports the assertion or assertions being presented in a Wikipedia article, but then what? Devil's advocate says Wikisource is BS edited by BSers - without a hard copy backing up the article all you've done is introduce doubt rather than eliminate it completely. And when the entire body of a publication is available for inspection, its hard to argue the content has been tampered with at the same time. I'm not saying you need to proofread all 700 pages or whatever of a "Volume 9" into mainspace works for the sake of the 16 or so specifically needed either. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to "force" my opinion in a project (en.s) which I don't know well, but I would strongly suggest to weight pros and cons of this project. IMHO, this idea is fully into the scope and boundaries of Wikisource. Wikisource is a wiki digital library (hope we can agree on this) and it serves for access, referencing and linking of free texts. We are supposed to be a primary source, thus with reliable and accurate transcriptions of texts. The Proofread extension came 7/8 years ago and since it has change a lot the behavior of the WS communities, for better. But often it gives us the impression that everything needs to be backed up by scans and proofread and validated. We are talking about "born-digital" documents. I'm quite perplexed and confused by the idea that I need to treat a born-digital as it was made by paper. We have quite literally the "original copy" of the article (its XML source) and could see the PDF as a derivative work. If we put all these texts into the Proofread extension, we will lose the chance to have in a snap readable, reliable texts, and we will wait for ages for people patient enough to want to proofread a PDF.
I don't think it's worth it, for the sake of higher reliability, to sacrifice a ripe, sweet, low-hanging fruit. We already will have the PDFs on Commons, and are trying to set up a suitable workflow for all the data. We will earn readability, source for Wikipedia, increased readership, and maybe for the first time in the history of Wikisource we will be a real, up to date, and important source for Wikipedia. We will a real, important step in the integration and collaboration of Open Access and the Wikimedia world.
I'm sorry if I sound emotional, but this for me is a real breakthrough, and I would very much would like to see how it goes. And what we can accomplish with it. Aubrey (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Your points are all well taken here but I still beg to differ. Being born-digital, I expect we'll have less in the way of correcting and more in the way of simple formatting (wiki-markup) than usual. I don't see what we are losing by treating all types of hosted works as uniformly as possible while moving forward. History has taught us works backed by scans/docs hold up far better than any Project Guttenburg text-dump ever could and its the only real way to preserve the fidelity of the work over the passage of time as well. You can't weasel-word your way into an article when a side-by-side, page-to-page comparison of the original is just 1 click away. - George Orwell III (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
What scares me is the fact that if we put all in the Proofread workflow we will have hundreds of Index pages with red links and 25% and 50% pages, and moreover to waste volunteers' energy and time for proofreading something that is worth it. I think is more important not to waste volunteers time than being over-cautious on the reliability of texts, if we have a fair system to recall the source. I understand that the "original" copy is important, but that would be still one-click away, on Commons. That is enough, for me (of course, MVHO). I'm also in favor of any kind of automated tool/workflow/procedure to check the source, or have it one-click away. Aubrey (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
History has taught us that, huh? I assume you're talking about Project Gutenberg, which has tens of thousands of works and has been around since the start of the Internet, providing hundreds of thousands of copies of their most popular works, and comparing it to a project that doesn't have nearly that many completed books and has only been around for a decade. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1866)/Chapter 1 has less than one hit a day, whereas Project Gutenberg has recorded 23,826 downloads of their edition since they started keeping track; even if that were over the entire 24 years of the web, that would still be 1,000 downloads a year, not counting copies sent out on floppy, data CD, DVD or the Librivox transcription.
Looking at PG, I see the producers care much more about the fine details then the end users. Looking at Wikipedia, it seems pretty clear that people are not continually stressed about Wiki changes, even the much harder to track environment of Wikipedia. Looking at the world, I see that treating competitors who are much larger and more successful then you as if they were nothing because they don't use your latest and greatest ideas comes off as hubris, and in the open source world will annoy people who work on both projects.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
You assume too much. Project Guttenburg is an excellent repository - because no giblit can come in and edit the piece after the fact. This is contrary to current practice here, where once the immediate attention of producing the work disapates, the work is open for anyone at anytime. Tracking and reverting such stupidity is far easier when the work is backed by scans locally rather than having to go back to PG to verify the edit's fidelity. At that point, WS has become irrelevant - I might as well stick with PG altogether and not bother with WS at all.

And to be clear, I have no problem testing the waters by increasing traffic via this new program but it's implementatio is contrary to what we already know and practice. No 'devil's advocate' gives a fuck a work was copy and pasted from PG because they know its too much work to prove otherwise just the same as it will be with some XML backed copy & paste. One must plan for the lowest common denominator and hope that never happens. But if it does (like history tells us), we'll be proactively prepared to easily counter it. I just can't fully support the proposal without further discussion/consideration is all. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@User:George Orwell III Re "unbacked": We are talking about importing articles from PubMed Central (PMC), which is one of the world's largest repositories of digital copies of scholarly articles. These copies are supplied there directly by the publishers in a dedicated XML format (JATS) that they produce from the authors' accepted manuscript, alongside (and often as the source of) the HTML and PDF versions. Both the publisher and PMC check the quality of the XML in various ways. Plus, PMC has as solid a long-term archiving strategy as is currently possible, and most if not all of the relevant publishers are members of long-term archiving schemes like CLOCKSS. Hard copies are not normally part of these workflows (though most publishers produce some for long-term archival purposes), and I do not see the point in introducing them for importing these articles into Wikisource. Such XML-based workflows are markedly different from digitization-based ones as used at Project Gutenberg, where a digital copy of an article is obtained (usually much later and without access to the authors' manuscript) from scanning or photographing a paper copy, followed by optical character recognition, which remains an erroneous process and requires careful proofreading.
Re "cherry-picking": I fully agree with your statement "when the entire body of a publication is available for inspection, its hard to argue the content has been tampered with at the same time", and we had not even thought of not making the entire body of imported articles available for inspection here. As stated above, "we are open to importing full issues or volumes of journals, but thought it better to filter in some way, preferably by usage on Wikipedia" (and perhaps Commons), which happens on a per-article (or per-figure) base, rather than per journal issue or volume. On the other hand, being able to link to a specific section, figure, table or other part of a cited reference through Wikisource would reduce the potential for inappropriate references to be cherry-picked as references in, say, Wikipedia articles.
Re "copy & paste": that's kind of our point here - since we are essentially (save the format conversion between JATS and MediaWiki XML, which may introduce formatting errors) talking about a "copy & paste" workflow of the article content, the need for proofreading will be much less than for materials that come here through digitization-based workflows. To facilitate side-by-side comparisons, we are open to import the PDF too and to embed it into the Wikisource page.
Re "How does [the above] improve reference management exactly?": in the long run, we envisage our import tool to be triggered once a suitably licensed scholarly article is cited on any page in any Wikipedia. It would then
  1. import the images and associated media to Commons
  2. import the full text into the appropriate Wikisource
  3. create a Wikidata item for the scholarly article, with links to its materials on Commons and on Wikisource
  4. update the citation on Wikipedia with links to the materials on Commons and on Wikisource as well as the metadata on Wikidata.
This means that - once arbitrary access to Wikidata is implemented - the metadata for a scholarly article (along with pointers to Commons, Wikisource and Wikidata) would become instantly available for use in all Wikidata-integrated wikis, and could be curated on Wikidata. That would be a marked improvement over the current situation in which the metadata may be managed in multiple places on any given wiki, with little coordination across wikis.
We could even think of starting Wikidata items for all the references cited in that imported article, thus laying the ground for more comprehensive coverage of the literature on Wikidata. That would also provide a possibility for annotating the bibliographies of articles imported into Wikisource.
To get things started, we do not aim at all languages, all Wikimedia projects and all scholarly articles (nor their references or possible annotations) initially, but start with the English Wikipedia and with English-language articles that are openly licensed and available in a format that can be uploaded to the English Wikisource. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
@Daniel: "I do not see the point in introducing [hard copies] for importing these articles into Wikisource." Then you do not understand Wikisource's Best Practices. I would also say that you are much more optimistic about WikiData than I am. I was rather optimistic about WikiData, until it went active; the editors there either (a) do not understand what is going on at the individual projects and are not open to feedback from those projects, or (b) understand other projects but have been banned from those projects and now have control of the link data for the projects from which they were banned. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
user:EncycloPetey user:George Orwell III What are "Wikisource's Best Practices" for born-digital works? Please stop reading here if I misunderstand you, but I think you are saying that Wikisource requires "hardcopy" versions to authenticate all works. "Born digital" works will not have hardcopies backing them up, and if I understand you correctly, you wish for uploaders of born digital works to artificially derive a new and original hardcopy version from that born digital work, then upload the hardcopy to Wikisource, and authenticate the born digital work against that. Is this what you are saying? Is this the process which would be most aligned with Wikisource practices?
What follows is more commentary on the availability of hardcopy versions: While this project is starting with some very well-funded digital publications like PubMed Central, many underfunded and now defunct open access journals, such as Zoologische mededelingen, have contributed thousands of images to thousands of Wikipedia articles, each reused in many languages now and potentially all languages in the future. This journal is not even registered with the usual DOI system, and even less so is there a "hardcopy" or metadata in order for it. I want authenticated versions also, but for many works, the publishers themselves do not authenticate what they publish in the sense that their works are subject to change without notice or indication and there might otherwise be no version control. Does Wikisource have policies in place for what sometimes could be archiving a webpage at a certain point in time? From the perspective of this project, the information to be collected is the best that exists for an academic field, but in a lot of cases, the policies for Wikisource seem to be requesting meta data which is ideal but does not exist in born-digital native formats. I think it is reasonable to suggest that Wikisource capture all extant information, but if I understand correctly, you wish to enforce a requirement that certain information must be provided without exception, and to block the Wikisource hosting of publications when the required information does not exist. What is the route to hosting a work with no "hard copy"? Should we artificially derive one from plain text, then authenticate our original text against its derivative? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks @Bluerasberry: for your clear comment. I second your doubts. To me a partial solution would be to host the first version of the articles in Archive.org, or even more trivially take the first version of the History of the page as the "original copy". I suggest everyone also to read this essay, because born-digital documents are documents nonetheless and in IMHO they should belong to Wikisource. We have the technical and social infrastructure to create a beautiful, interconnected and open access digital library, it would be a pity not tap this potential. Aubrey (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


Comments and questions: Good to see! I support the project and could help with routine review and validation if that's useful. Please comment on these flavors of "added value," and which ones belong on wikisource:

  • The footnotes and diagrams are great, and impressive! And, it's clear what goes onto wikisource and what goes elsewhere.
  • Hyperlinks to definitions -- when a medical research paper uses non-common terms, can we wikilink to definitions? Is that appropriate for the wikisource version of a PubMed paper?
  • The table of contents, I think, gets in the way of reading the content, and I would always want to collapse it or push it to the right, e.g. with {{TOCright}}. Do you have a standard in mind?
  • categories: I gather we can be inventive on wikisource. A medical specialist told me that the MeSH categories we can inherit from PubMed are not usually useful to him so there is maybe some possibility of helping here. I am not expert.
  • Commentary (my main question): User:Bluerasberry and I are working out a semantic-wiki project to hold human-curated relationships between scientific/scholarly/academics works. In the references you've got a key set of relationships, with "paper A cites paper B". It would be possible also to record that
  • paper B disputes the findings of paper A (examples, see report at bottom which lists other papers disputing the one described])
  • works A and B use the same data set or clinical trial (as in this example from WikiPapers which has papers-about-wikis and marks some as users of DBpedia)
  • that work B is said to be a literary or artistic adaptation of work A (example from literary adaptations wiki, see "works alluded to" and "publications talking about this work"),
  • or that work C makes claims about the relation of works A and B (example from same site; the infobox lists literary works about which it makes assertions)

This sort of added value can help scientists & scholars but is maybe not sufficiently neutral for wikimedia, or for wikisource anyway. Do you think that such commentary could belong on wikisource? Alternatively it could instead be in layers/sites somewhere else and could link to and depend on the wikisource hypertext you are developing. It would help our project to know what "layers" of value belong where, in the context of your project. Thanks for doing it! -- econterms (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. We certainly see the import of articles from PMC into Wikisource as a potential starting point for annotations like those that you described, as well as for other kinds of enhancements (be this the simple addition of links to definitions, as you suggest, or some more complex features). As for MeSH-term based categories, we use them on Commons and would be fine using them here too. Likewise, we would be fine with collapsing or right-shifting the TOC, and we are open to similar formatting requests and will do our best to accommodate them if they can be automated at reasonable effort and quality. As the TOC illustrates, any added value can also be distractive (though usually for different groups of users), and the question of the right balance between the two is probably better addressed to the Wikisource community more widely than to us specifically. I guess that gadgets or external tools could be part of striking that balance, but in any case, these are not part of our project to import full-text scholarly articles. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
One more thought on annotations: I like the detailed approach by WikiProject Fieldnotes very much, but I am not sure how it fits with the requirements in Wikisource:Annotations, which stipulate, for instance, that the presence of annotations would have to be signaled in the page title. Extrapolating that to journal articles, I see potential for confusion if we end up having page names like Journal article on topic X as well as Annotation of Journal article on topic X. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah! Thank you. The annotations policy is clear. Links to definitions would not be appropriate, but annotated versions can have them. The custom of making an /Annotated subpage is used several places and seems clear. (example) And opinion/commentary on the work is too non-neutral to be called annotation. -- econterms (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Decisions[edit]

So, there is consensus or there's gonna be a vote (I'm not even sure I can vote here on en.source :-) Aubrey (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Disclosure policy[edit]

Overview: Disclosure policy

Background

On 16 June, WMF has changed the overarching "Terms of Use" with the change prohibiting paid editing without disclosure at each of the Wikimedia Foundation wikis.

Consultation was undertaken with the community prior to this change with banners utilised at wikis, including English Wikisource, to draw attention to the discussion.

Local impact

The inclusion policy of English Wikisource regulates additions to our repository of published works and historical documents, and would seem to be capable of welcoming and encouraging contributions of works irrespective of the payment status of the contributor. In fact, contributions from employees of numerous institutions could be deemed to be encouraged rather than discouraged. This being the case, the new terms of use requires all such contributors to publicly disclose any such relationship to the English Wikisource community and in our case this may discourage contributions. This issue was raised during the development of the new terms, and terms of use allows for a community to undertake community consultation and adopt a specific alternate disclosure policy.

Tentative proposal

  • That English Wikisource develops Wikisource:Disclosure policy that allows for paid contributions at our site within the scope of the inclusion policy without requiring that they declare that they are paid for their contributions, nor the institution that they represent. Further that the policy is listed on Wikisource:Policies and guidelines

Suggested wording:

The English Wikisource community encourages contributions from any contributor where in line with our
[[Wikisource:What Wikisource includes|inclusion policy]] and does not require users to identify any
affiliations with organisations when editing in line with Wikisource's goals.
  • That English Wikisource develops/expands guidance that encourages declarations of conflict of interest, or vested interest in decision-making processes; and that this ties in any existing guidance that the community has about disclosure.

I have started the above request for discussion, and would value contributions at Wikisource:Requests for comment/Disclosure policy. I would think if the community sees that this should take place that we should put in place a timeline for discussion, and a central notice to point contributors to this discussion. Initially I would like to suggest two weeks of discussion to be evaluated for closing 1 July 2014, though requests for limited extension of discussion should be considered favourably. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment at Wikisource:Requests for comment/Disclosure policy

04:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

WS:Annotations[edit]

I propose for WS:Annotations to be formally recognized as policy. It is based on the 2013 Request for Comment about derivative works.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (very strongly) --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Mukkakukaku (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I know this is late (though there doesn't seem to be much support, so it may need to be written), but I think we need to contact Wikibooks and work out what types of annotated books Wikimedia should cover (at least under our domains) and how to divy it up. b:Wikibooks:Annotated texts says we take some of them and I think we need policy, joint with them to an extent, as to whether we do take them or not and what exactly what do take.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal withdrawn. I opened a Request for comment where the draft is split into parts so that it can be easily commented upon.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

WS:Wikilinks[edit]

I propose for WS:Wikilinks to be formally recognized as policy. It is strongly tied with the annotation policy since it describes which kinds of wikilinks count as annotations and which do not.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (very strongly) --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral/Symbol support vote.svg Support (weakly) except for all the bits about 'annotations'. Which is to say, I think it's a good idea to solidify policies about what should be or should not be linked (I thought these policies already existed), but I don't agree with the tie-in to the annotations policy suggestion (which I don't support). --Mukkakukaku (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal withdrawn. See above.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

BOT approval requests[edit]

Reconfirm User:Cswikisource-bot[edit]

"Bot flag will be reconfirmed automatically unless; if at least three established users oppose with no users supporting, then the right will be removed; three or more oppose and one or more support this triggers a vote, with a decision by simple majority. Loss of flag does not prevent edits, only impacts recent change visibility."

Reconfirm:

Bot Username Tasks Last Confirmation Next Confirmation Status
User:Cswikisource-bot (in semi-manual mode) for interwiki changes. Feb 2012 granted bot flag 2014, July Inactive; last edit Jan 2013
  1. No, well not on the current circumstances of interwiki now residing in WD. Happy to hear from Milda if there are other circumstances to consider. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. No - Interwiki management should now be handled through Wikidata. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. No. Interwiki procedure is changing, and has changed a great deal since the approval. We'd need to see an appropriately modified bot process and approve that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Reconfirm User:LA2-bot[edit]

"Bot flag will be reconfirmed automatically unless; if at least three established users oppose with no users supporting, then the right will be removed; three or more oppose and one or more support this triggers a vote, with a decision by simple majority. Loss of flag does not prevent edits, only impacts recent change visibility."

Reconfirm:

Bot Username Tasks Last Confirmation Next Confirmation Status
User:LA2-bot Create raw OCR pages Feb 2012 granted bot flag 2014, July Inactive; Last edit March 2012
  1. I have no issue with the bot right for the purpose, if @LA2: is still receiving requests for the bot. So yes, if user confirms that request will be still be taken. If no response from the bot operator, then there is no point in the bot maintaining the right, and we can remove it, though allowing for a quick reinstatement if the operations are again activated. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. No - Unless User:LA2 proactively asks to keep the flag & demonstrates how the BOT will be used moving forward. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. No - As per GO3 & Billinghurst. Jeepday (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. No - I see no reason to keep an open flag for an inactive bot that was only used for one month. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    • LA2 has little activity here recently, still active at commons so I left a note on his talk page there. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Help[edit]


Table transclusion/formatting help[edit]

I need an extra set of eyes... Can someone please take a look at the table formatting on DJVU pp. 352-355 and see why it is not transcluding correctly in the Main? Thank you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be okay now... Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Formatting error[edit]

In the page The Burglar, where pg. 111 begins, the formatting is broken (appearing as it would on Wikipedia if the line began with a space). I have no idea how to fix this, as I'm not an editor on this project and the interface is different, so I figured I'd mention it here instead. Sven Manguard (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Hesperian 05:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Can I upload these scans to Wikisource?[edit]

Can I upload a copy of a scan that someone else made to Wikisource so that I can make a searchable version of it? Specifically, I'd like to upload scans of some orders-in-council amending the Constitution of Canada, such as this one and make pages for the documents under the Template:Legislation-CAGov licence. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The last time I tried uploading a Government of Canada document & image, it was rejected by Commons because, while the Canadian Parliament Archives emailed me the permission, it was not in the format demanded by Wikimedia Commons. It's best if you get the proper format from Wikimedia Commons and forward it to GoC archives for permission.— Ineuw talk 23:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Arctic.gnome, if the underlying material may legally be hosted (it's not clear to me from {{Legislation-CAGov}} that it may, but I'll leave that to you) then the fact that someone else made the scan is of no importance: no copyright arises from "a mere mechanical scan or photocopy". Hesperian 01:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Being able to use another's scan solves one hurdle. The other is where I can upload them. As I understand it, I can't upload them to Commons because they have two additional conditions attached to the licence beyond cc-by-sa--namely the requirement to be accurate and the requirement to state that they aren't official. If these requirements are acceptable to Wikisource but not to Commons, what are my options? Can I transcribe the texts to Wikisource without uploading an image to Commons? Can I upload the image to Wikisource instead of Commons? --Arctic.gnome (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@Arctic.gnome:We work on a priority order. 1) Host them at Commons if at all possible [this makes them available to all wikis, not just ours] 2) if Commons cannot take them, and they are public domain documents (or equivalent) in the US and fit within WS:WWI, then they can be hosted at English Wikisource. That said please ensure as part of the WS:WWI that you look at the licensing and also Help:Copyright tags.

Re the scan type, it is what works well in our side by side system. If we have PDF or DJVU they have text layers that can be scraped and imported. If it is a jpg or something else the system recognises then you have typing or copy and pasting to do. If it is something not recognised, then we a problem, though that doesn't mean that we cannot host the text, it just means that it is unsupported by the image (which is not our preference). — billinghurst sDrewth 11:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

File upload help request[edit]

Hi

Seasons greetings from Marathi language wikisource(mr). We tried to upload a India public domain book in PDF format. It showed upload completed but PDF document commons:File:Chhandorachanaa.pdf was not readable at all . We want and request some one upload document for us either on mr.wikisource.org or on commons. We need it for a collaborative wikisource writing project.

  • Reffered and requested upload book is Chandorachana (Marathi:छन्दोरचना)
  • Is writtern by : W:en:Madhav Julian (Marathi: माधव जुलियन) (January 21, 1894 – November 29, 1939)
  • It is Public Domain copyright free due to expiry of copyright period in India Please refer licence commons:Template:PD-India {{PD-India}}
  • The Book is available online at https://archive.org/details/Chandorachana

Earliest help will be apreciated.

Thanks and Regards Mahitgar (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Does this work for you: Commons:File:छन्दोरचना.djvu? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This has worked. Lot of thanks Thanks and warm greeting. For some technical reasons i have not been able to use djvu on PC. This has been very valuable support from your side. Regards

Mahitgar (talk) 08:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for help with TOC page listing[edit]

Can anyone pls help me with this little nasty problem on Page:The_Economic_Journal_Volume_1.djvu/7. The problem is at the lower part of the page, just above “NOTES AND MEMORANDA”. There is a link to four pages there. I can't get them in one row. This is how far I got. Thnx. - Dick Bos (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The secret is parameter col3-width of {{dotted TOC page listing}}. The default width is only 2em, which is just about full with 3 digits, let alone four references + ancillary spaces and commas (which is why they formatted vertically.) I gave it 12em for the sake of this trial, but feel free (of course) to tweak that as you want. AuFCL (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I'll soon try it in another spot. Dick Bos (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I forgot to mention: to make the page-numbers column completely "set-and-forget", try setting parameter |col3-width=auto. The price you pay is ragged ends to the dot leaders, but you might find it the simplest option. AuFCL (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Last suggestion retracted, as it does not appear to work well in some browsers. AuFCL (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Non english charecters...[edit]

Can someone that's familiar with the relevant languages look over this and insert the appropriate characters?

Index:Adapting and Writing Language Lessons.pdf

I've tried to make intelligent guesses in places, but would appreciate someone else taking over.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I've looked a few random pages and can't see any non-Latin characters. Could you give some pointers as to what the problems are (page numbers, particular language, &c.)? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Adapting_and_Writing_Language_Lessons.pdf/185 - Thai. For starters.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
First, that's not Thai, or else I would suggest you don't touch it. Hehe. However, as far as I can tell, it is IPA for Thai words, so you can just use that alphabet for it. For example, using text from the page:
nîi ʔaray
nîi mîitkoon
pàakkhîip
sǎmlii
ʔɛɛlkɔɔhɔɔ


OK It looks like IPA, but in places it's accented, and the accented versions are not in the Charcters box, I stil think it requires a specialist. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Weird typesetting issue[edit]

I just worked on this page, and it has an unusual versification in it. Does anyone have any idea how to transcribe it? Would it be best just to use an image in its place?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes.. Given its an inscription marking? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I took a shot at transcribing it in Unicode. Given that it's not like an etching or something I think it might be more appropriate to render it that way rather than with an image, even though I think most/all Ogham fonts are going to have that center line which isn't present in the text's typeface. Prosody (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Erm, what font did you use? All I see are little boxes... Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, damn, that hadn't occurred to me. It's Segoi UI Symbol on Firefox on Windows 7. Default Windows 7 font, but it's not going to be available everywhere. Chrome on the same machine doesn't even use it. I don't think there's any support in Universal Language Selector even if that gets turned back on. I guess we'll have to fall back to using images. Prosody (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Wait, the DejaVu family has Ogham. Anyone know what the list of fonts on the Universal Language Selector is? Prosody (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Integrating plate images into mainspace[edit]

I just finished proofreading The Indian Dispossessed (index), but before announcing its completion (however that's done), the book has a few plate images which don't have any obvious location within the chapters and text. How might these be best included in mainspace? djr13 (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

They should be included in the text as I did one formatted sample Page:The Indian Dispossessed.pdf/112, Main mnamespace = The Indian Dispossessed/The Nez Perces. Please look at the changes in the "File" image wrapper and caption centering. For some reason, when wrapped as before, the caption becomes noticeably offset. I also reduced the image size to 430px. My reasons for this are complicated, but primarily it's because the text width of the Main namespace Option #2 is about ~450-460px. An oversized image may lack esthetics.— Ineuw talk 03:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I had thus far avoided doing it that way, as breaking paragraphs (usually unrelated to the image) for full-page plate images seems sub-optimal. And what to do with the frontispiece image? Sure there isn't another way? (Hmm, it looks like I was possibly supposed to name each mainspace subpage a generic "Chapter 1" etc....) djr13 (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Just picking up on a couple of your questions:

For the chapter numbering, the generic version is only when the chapters are numbered either in the TOC or in the chapter headers. If the chapters don't have this, then the way you've named them is fine. It's really about linking to them from other works.

In re your other concern, have a look at Picturesque Nepal where we put the images in wherever they came in the book. The alternative is more complex, but can be seen in the earlier chapters of The Conquest of Mount Cook. The proofreader here chose to move the images to the end of paragraphs in the mainspace but left them where they are in the Page: namespace. This was done by using includeonly and noinclude tags. Both of these books have frontispieces that have been done slightly differently. Nepal has the frontispiece as the opening page before the title. Mount Cook transcludes them the other way around, so that the title page is up-front. If the cover image is a good one, then that can go in first. A recent example of this is On to Pekin. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Beeswaxcandle is correct and I should have been more specific in regard to images. In the main namespace, one has the latitude to place images, especially full page images, at the beginning of a chapter. It's your choice. Already moved the image in The Indian Dispossessed/The Nez Perces to the beginning since it's the only image in that chapter. — Ineuw talk 17:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I've gone with including the images at the beginning of each chapter, and including the frontispiece where it otherwise would be plus including the half-title before it where otherwise I excluded this as redundant. It's still a bit cludgy but seems workable. It seems like there's no good way to include such large, text-breaking images in mainspace due to format limitations. The most obvious alternative to me would be either folding them into thumbnails or offsetting them into the side-area in a similar way to what annotations are heading. I'll look into announcing the completion now. Thanks both. djr13 (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I think it looks great. — Ineuw talk 21:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Oversized mathematical operators in print[edit]

I've been looking for oversized mathematical operators used in 19th century printed matter: like double length = signs, double size + signs etc., but have not found in any UTF-8 reference tables. Do they exist? — Ineuw talk 02:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they exist as unique symbols per se, but perhaps try wrapping them in {{larger}} or {{x-larger}}? Eg. to get an affect like so: 7 ÷ 2  π .
Alternatively -- does the wikisource software support LaTeX? If it does, there are some commands to support resizing of portions of equations that may be possible to use. Mukkakukaku (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I believe WS does support LaTeX.— Ineuw talk 05:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Would you please be so kind as to supply context/examples? I expect these are not quite what you are looking for, but there do exist UNICODE for (say) double- and triple-equals (&#10869;:⩵ and &#10870;:⩶ respectively), and so-called "heavy" plus (&#10133;:➕), minus (&#10134;:➖) and division signs (&#10135;:➗); and the dual-purposed "cross mark" (&#10060;:❌) paired with "heavy large circle" (&#11093;:⭕).
Thanks for your help. The start of this page is a perfect example of the hundreds of times it's used. Unfortunately, the above symbols are not the ones I was looking for, but the LaTeX symbols are.
 

 
WS does not support all of Latex, only the texvc subset (see mw:Extension:Math, but that gives you =+-\times\div at least. AuFCL (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
These are the very symbols I was looking for since 1872 - when PSM started publication. Face-smile.svg. As for the LaTeX support I was only aware of {some] math, but didn't know that they can be used for just the symbols. My thanks to you both.— Ineuw talk 17:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The first line of that page might be produced by something like:

<math>\scriptstyle{+,~-,~\sqrt{}}</math>. In the same century Vieta…
—with result:
\scriptstyle{+,~-,~\sqrt{}}. In the same century Vieta…

Notes and hints:
  1. Make sure that is a "normal" minus sign; dashes or mdashes send <math> into (lexing error) sulks!
  2. Tildes (~) may be used to add spaces inside the <math> string. Normally spaces are stripped out as if they were never there.
  3. Although <math> doesn't seem to analyse the command string too closely, thinks like \sqrt are considered to be functions and won't work (syntax error)) without at least empty {}s following.
  4. I routinely enclose <math> strings in \scriptstyle{}, mainly because I find the text is too large to match surrounding text. Of course your aesthetics and the situation may differ.
  5. Be aware that <math> produces its output as an image, with the side-effect it will not "split" when line-wrapping occurs. It is often wise to make several short <math> blocks (say between commas) rather than one long one and risk later disappointment.
Hope this is useful, and I am not merely repeating stuff you already know. AuFCL (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Could {{FI}} be of any use here?
{{FI
 | type  = math
 | width = 25%
 | file  = <math>sin x = {e^{ix} - e^{-ix} \over 2i} </math>
}}

sin x = {e^{ix} - e^{-ix} \over 2i}

Just wondering...... -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
AuFCL, thanks for those very important points, of which I was only aware of \scriptstyle. If you haven't done so, please consider including your instructions on the Math help page. Otherwise these will be buried in the Archive.
Wonder no longer GO3. I will be using {{FI}}. There are hundreds of formulas need to proofread/updated in PSM.
Many thanks to all for the above info.— Ineuw talk 04:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Point of Order - please use math instead of user for FI's type= parameter. Both should produce the same output but one day User might be needed for a 4rth application or something. Thanks. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Note that the {{FI}} above produces quite blurry results, and evidently doesn't even work outside PNG mode. (I don't think it will show up at all in PDF output, for example.) —SamB (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Quick access icon link to the Commons is gone from WS images[edit]

Can someone please restore the quick link icon to the Commons image source. In one of the recent mw software updates, it disappeared. Thanks in advance. — Ineuw talk 03:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Odd. I still see the icon linked to Commons on my File: pages (inline with header text to the top-right). Can anyone else replicate? -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I can confirm the Commons icon is visible on for example, say, here. AuFCL (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
OK then - back to basics....

Ineuw, can you see the icon on

at all? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I can see both.— Ineuw talk 17:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
To further clarify, I can see the two icons GO3 has included, but there is no icon on the smiley image, nor on any other image from the commons.— Ineuw talk 17:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I inverted the order in MediaWiki:Sharedupload-desc-here; see if that made any difference on any File: namespace page for you & report back. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort but no go. Here is a screen image File:No icon link to the Commons.jpg I've taken earlier. This issue is an old one. Haven't had a commons link for many weeks. Would this be controlled in Preferences? — Ineuw talk 01:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


@Ineuw: GOT IT - Apparently (& Sadly) you are always going to be "less than whole" when it comes to certain defaults because you are in Canada but use [American?] English in your settings. Without your own Canadian MediaWiki message base, your "setup" surps from the US set when it can but fails unless a proper subset(?) is created in certain instances (or at least that is how I've come to observe this behavior to date).

Added MediaWiki:Sharedupload-desc-here/en-ca and that should "rectify" your missing icon issue. I guess it comes at the expense of what amounts to a "redundant" MediaWiki message.

Anyone have the same problem but is a "closer" subject of the Crown than Canada? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Now you point that out, en-gb (which would normally be my preferred choice; my earlier "working" observation was made as Preferences/Language/en—now [temporarily?] retracted) exhibits the same issue (i.e. missing Commons icon). Regards, AuFCL (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
@AuFCL - can you verify both of your prior observations still hold now? I just discovered [:MediaWiki:Sharedupload] (created 2005 & made a redirect in 2012) might be involved in this & just deleted our local copy of it to see what happens (if anything). It would be great if that restored everything but I'll add the gb if it didn't. TIA --- George Orwell III (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
No, only MediaWiki:Sharedupload-desc-here shows Commons icon (which should not be a shock, because that is what it really does) here. The others, all nada, since changing Preferences from 'en'→'en-GB'. AuFCL (talk)
Thanks. IMO - It's a bit crazy to add something like the Commons top icon to a MW message that isn't working across the board in the first place. I'm going to try finding a better MW message to host the icon so the crippled message [in theory] really is separate from the icon. Back in a bit. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
OK @AuFCL: - {{Commons top icon}} is now hosted via [:MediaWiki:Filehist-help]. Please check any File: page to see if the icon appears (& works!) like it should no matter the language setting in use. Only difference, now, should be one has a FMbox (for the blind?) for a default message while the other(s) use the system standard default, plain-text message w/ link to shared file description info back on Commons found just below the file-size/mime type, etc. info (The icon should appear in the top right corner regardless!) -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Scratch all that attempted 'moving around', en-ca & en-gb created but all 3 call Template:Sharedupload-desc-here instead of hosting the same stuff 3x in the MW namespace. Please report in now that this seems like the "final" solution moving forward. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Many pardons for delayed response (Real Life™ interfered.) All O.K. re: Commons icon again this side now. Thank you. AuFCL (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
My hero. Just another heartfelt thank you GO3. It works! — Ineuw talk 05:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

PROOFREADPAGE - Both the default and auto edit-summary texts based on status no longer being populated[edit]

originally titled: On Page creation, "Not proofread" is not showing up in the Summary

Since I've been on a roll of success today, would it possible to display the default "Not proofread" in the Summary field when the page is created? This used to be so several software updates ago. I request this because most pages need proofreading.— Ineuw talk 09:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Verified (XpPro, IE8).

    In addition, when opening edit mode on existing pages already given a PR status, the corresponding edit-summary text matching that current status once was pre-populated in the summary field upon entering edit-mode by default & remained that way until/unless the Editor manually 'ticked' a change in status prior to adding additional comments and saving. That "function" has also stopped working (under edit or preview; no difference) and a blank field is now the default instead (of course, until/unless a ststus is manually ticked &/or edited before the final save). -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Unpublished works of unknown authorship[edit]

I found in some family documents a carbon copy of a poem or song from c. 1918. Based on the POV of the narrator, it pretty clearly wasn't written by the family member who kept it, but rather by an enlisted man stationed at the same air field. I googled some of the lines in case it was published, including more generic lines in case it was just a local take on a more widespread song, but if so it's certainly not on the Internet yet. (And honestly, I don't think it was terribly well constructed.) I'm really not sure whether to use {{PD-anon-1923}}, which says it's for published works, or {{PD-US-unpublished}}, which requires knowing when the creator died, or whether it's just not kosher at all. It seems like something that would be of some interest historically, so it'd be nice to make it available. Laurascudder (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither of those will work, you don’t know it was published and you don’t know when the author died. Jeepday (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
And that's why I'm here. Any solutions? Laurascudder (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
It's a copyright issue. Unpublished works aren't subject to the 1923 thing as you might otherwise expect. See here: Help:Public domain#Unpublished works See if you can find if the author died in 1943 or earlier. djr13 (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
According to this table, unpublished works with no known year of death are under copyright for 120 years from the date of creation. Assuming 1918 is correct, it won't be in the public domain until January 2039. There seems to be some clause involving certification by the Copyright Office but, otherwise, legally it cannot be hosted here. Sorry. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

How to prepare this text from archive.org for proofreading[edit]

I'm thinking about trying to prepare https://archive.org/details/federalregister53lunit/ for upload (it should be obvious why), which was scanned from microfilm and has two pages on each "page", and looks not to be very thoroughly OCR'd. What approach would be simplest? Tell @Inductiveload I might be willing to let him tackle it? (It's quite huge! On the other hand, the scans are neatly bundled in a PDF, from which they can presumably be losslessly extracted quite trivially.)

See also w:Federal Register for bibliographic information, including the usual citation convention. —SamB (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me, but the 'obvious-ness' escapes me. What exactly is it that a partial FR volume "gets us"? -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Showing thumbnails of pages[edit]

Hi wikisorcerers,

Can you check this template: {{PageFile}}. It is used to show thumbnails from the pages in the Index Talk page (example here), so we can locate more easily and quickly a page. Is everything correct? I have imported and translated it from French Wikisource (history here). Please don't hesitate to improve it! --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Very neat, ty.— Ineuw talk 22:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, though I'd much rather have Book2Scroll (2nd Icon at the top-right of every Index: Page) "refined" a bit further so it loads/renders properly under our current code environment. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Category for materials under CC0[edit]

I am wondering why CC0 is not mentioned in Wikisource:Copyright policy, nor in some category similar to. Any pointers? -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons has a template and category. I suppose we should follow their lead if there's any works we have which it's applicable to. Prosody (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks - I created Template:CC-Zero and Category:CC-Zero. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

text formatting help[edit]

Forgot to ask for formatting help here, if anyone has a good idea how to best format the text in caps. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

A possible hint in the first paragraph.--Mpaa (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I tried to understand the markup, but with little success. I think the text should be recreated exactly as in the original (breaks where there are breaks, etc.), for I think it was transcribed as found "scratched upon the walls" (if I read correctly). Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I've had a go. See what you think. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Permit my 2 Canadian cents' worth of input but tables are superior - and never fail. I won't revert the most recent edit by Beeswaxcandle, but pasted my enhancements of Mpaa below
1. NON TI FIDAR AD ALCUNO PENSA e TACI SE FUGIR VUOI DE SPIONI INSIDIE e LACCI IL PENTIRTI PENTIRTI NULLA GIOVA MA BEN DI VALOR TUO LA VERA PROVA
1607. ADI 2. GENARO. FUI RE-TENTO P' LA BESTIEMMA P' AVER DATO DA MANZAR A UN MORTO IACOMO . GRITTI . SCRISSE.

IneuwPublic (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the stability of tables, but I think BWC's rendering is most faithful to the original, and what I was looking for. My first thought was tables too; I didn't at first consider gaps, but unless one can recreate BWC's rendering with a table, I think I'll keep things as is. Thanks all for your input! Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure, it can be done as a table. But you still need gaps to match the alignment of the inscriptions.
1. NON TI FIDAR AD ALCUNO PENSA e TACI
SE FUGIR VUOI DE SPIONI INSIDIE e LACCI
IL PENTIRTI PENTIRTI NULLA GIOVA
MA BEN DI VALOR TUO LA VERA PROVA
 1607. ADI 2. GENARO. FUI RE-
TENTO P' LA BESTIEMMA P' AVER DATO
 DA MANZAR A UN MORTO
 IACOMO . GRITTI . SCRISSE.
Alternative methods would be to nest a table with the indented lines within the larger table or to set each line of the inscriptions as a line in the table with 8 or 9 columns and lots of colspans. But why complicate things? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks good as well. I would not be able to complete the page with my 'skill set', however. I'll leave that to those familiar with the markup, or I am happy to keep things as is. Thank you all for taking the time to help; and BWC, thanks again for checking/amending my Greek. There are two more pages that I forgot to add the Greek missing tag (now added), and then the text can be marked as proofread! Thanks again for your help! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Couple minor works pending help[edit]

I have a couple works I have proofread which are pending some assistance. One of these I had posted about last month, a songbook, thus needing relatively heavy transclusion work (I've done this with another edition, but could use review on if I'm doing it right such as choice of page names). The other is Evolution of American Agriculture (index), for which I have three things I am hindered by: tables (full pages 62, 63, 64, and 65; smaller tables pages 47 and 48), what to do with the heavy illustrations which mix with text, and whether I should interpret the last listed chapter (see index) as "Chapter 11" despite it not being listed as such in the TOC. Thanks, djr13 (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I got the smaller tables on pp 47-48 working by (ab)using {{dotted TOC page listing}}. The images that are the chapter headers should be done by carefully splitting the images into parts and then using floats. (See, this as an example of what I mean by that.) As for the full-page tables, or the mysterious "Chapter 11", I have no idea. Mukkakukaku (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible to use either the split or "flow under" method without breaking the drop caps, eg, alt text? djr13 (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I've had a go at the table on p62 for you. If it's OK, then copy that formatting onto the other 3 pages and drop the text into the appropriate spots. AuFCL is currently working on the flow under technique, so he'll be the best to answer that. In re "Chapter 11", there are no particular guidelines on how to deal with this situation. We just need to be able to link to it should another work refer to it. The way I personally would do it would be to name it (i.e. Evolution of American Agriculture/Development of the Agricultural Workers Union No. 400). This maintains the authorial intent (or the publisher's intent) as I'm guessing it's really an appendix to the main work. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Regarding use of {{flow under}}, I would be inclined to set the image alternate text (i.e. File:...alt=) to reflect the drop capital which the chapter image effectively represents. Apologies for not doing this on the first edit (hope this is a bit more to your liking?) Actually clicking on the image still works and takes you to the background image as before (and may be controlled at need by resort to the native File:...link= parameter.)

All of these remarks should apply equally to the "split" image method if you choose to go that way.

Specifically regarding "breaking the drop caps," what exactly would you like to happen? Certainly wrapping {{drop initial}} around the chapter header image will fail using either image approach, but would you really need or want to do so?

Oh, and please don't give me credit for the technique: the more I look into the idea, the more previously existing instances keep turning up. I am, however guilty of trying to shoehorn it into a template (set) [hat tips to GOIII Beeswaxcandle & Eliyak for valuable advice], which of course I hope you may find usable/useful. AuFCL (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

After you made the first edit (which I'm still pretty damn impressed by as is) I did dig into it to try learning how it was done...it's obviously still rather experimental, for better or worse. I'm still at the point of being intimidated by the simplest wiki tables. :-) By "breaking drop caps," I mean, to put it in the most easily testable terms, ensuring that given degradation of images (whether by technical limitations or nonvisual reading devices), the text will still render clearly. For example, you can check this by seeing if the text otherwise represented in images displays as would be expected when you copy/paste into a plain text editor. I appreciate all the help, I am trying to learn from all of it. djr13 (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
A perfectly valid point, and that last edit of mine fails; as the alt-text on the image "cuts" before the "Development of A.W.I.U. 400" title, even though ideally it should come afterwards. Some (more) things to check for! AuFCL (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Poems and page breaks[edit]

I'm trying to transcribe a poem that has stanzas (or whatever the "paragraph" equivalent is called in poetry), and I'm having a problem with their transclusion into the main namespace. Namely, there's a stanza break at the end of one page, and the next page starts with a new stanza, but when transcluded into the main namespace it's all clumped together into one long double-stanza.

The pages in question are pages 5 and 6 of Index:Morning-Glories and Other Stories.djvu. Their transclusion is here.

I tried using {{nop}} like I would use if it were a paragraph that ended at the page break, but that didn't work. Nor did using a second {{nop}} at the top of the second page. I also tried inserting an extra few lines of whitespace within the <poem> tag, since those tags are whitespace-sensitive, but that didn't work either.

What is the appropriate template, tag, or structure to use to get this stanza-break to show up in the main namespace transclusion? Mukkakukaku (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I tried using an {{nop}} inside the <poem> tags at the bottom of the first page and the top of the second page; for some reason, it seems to have worked. Could you please check whether it works now? —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 16:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Yep, works now! Thanks, Clockery. I'd like to say that I would have figured it out eventually, but I'd never have thought to put the {{nop}} inside of the <poem> tags themselves. It seems like a very convoluted solution to what appears to be a rather imple problem. Thanks! Mukkakukaku (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I seem to have inadvertently avoided this in my poems-across-breaks endeavors. I've been adding little passive-aggressive hidden comments onto poem tags that should ideally wrap gracefully, the presence of these extra tags being that which may or may not be related to the joining behavior. For example, see the page breaks between 22, 23 and 24. Might be another option in your arsenal, especially if you want to blow off steam while at it. :-) djr13 (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I rather like Djr13's approach. Almost psychotherapy: "How does young madam Poem feel about behaving today?"

Please pardon my mucking about thrown into the mix. Apart from the centring I don't think I've added anything much useful.

I am aware of editors who avoid the use of <poem> entirely. Enclosing the whole passage inside (say) {{block center/s}}/{{block center/e}} pairs (which cross pages O.K.) and then using <br/>s at every line-break is much more robust, but of course the raw source is then quite ugly. AuFCL (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph break not visible[edit]

On this page A break between two paragraphs is not visible in read mode and they appear as one continuous paragraph. The text is enclosed by {{fs90/s}} — with {{fs90/e}} embedded in the footer. Since I am using the Modern skin, I also checked if the problem was skin related by switching back to Vectra, but the result is the same. Can someone please point out what's wrong? Thanks. — Ineuw talk 18:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence of the {{fs90/s}} template page says "This template renders the text of a single paragraph at 90% of normal size." (emphasis mine) Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg The text was copied from {{fs90}} which I created. {{fs90/s}} was created for multiple paragraphs. (I should correct that). Also, the paragraph break has nothing to do with the font. There is something wrong with that page. If you look at subsequent pages, the paragraph breaks work fine.— Ineuw talk 19:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
@Mukkakukaku: Thanks for pointing this out. Two different templates share the same documentation which technically shouldn't happen. I posted a request on GO3's talk page, to help me sort it out.— Ineuw talk 19:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I kicked it, and it seems to work now. djr13 (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, a good kick. — by Ineuw earlier this afternoon.
I cannot necessarily give a lucid explanation, but {{fs90/s}} only works for a single paragraph unless:
  1. You separate the last "}" of the template from the text you want it to affect by a new line; or
  2. You enclose the following paragraphs in <p>/</p>s (or some template (like {{p}} which generates them.)
Mediawiki appear to "shoehorn" <div>s (upon which the operation of e.g. {{fs90}} relies) correctly in only at certain points. This is not the problem; the real problem is that if it cannot find a suitable "spot" (<p>s being one, there may be others..?) it silently refuses to process "double-new-lines" into proper paragraphs up to the end of the enclosing </div>. I can only assume this is a still-extant parser limitation of some antiquity. AuFCL (talk)
To be clear, in the above example I used {{fs90/s}} and not {{fs90}}, which was my own rudimentary & elementary contribution - functioning on single paragraphs and I no longer use, having switched to GO3's version of {{fs90/s}} & {{fs90/e}} hundreds of times, but never came across this problem beforehand.— Ineuw talk 00:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
<generic expletive>I mistyped. The earlier discussion was meant to refer to {{fs90/s}}, not to {{fs90}} as originally stated. The rest of the discussion, however clumsy, still stands. AuFCL (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Understood both the correction and your explanation. I just wanted to clarify the history for those who still use {{fs90}} to span multiple paragraphs. In any case, I replace them when I come across them, whether they are used on single or multiple paragraphs.— Ineuw talk 02:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Google page removal[edit]

Could someone remove the initial "Google" page for Index:A Hundred and Seventy Chinese Poems (1919).djvu? This transcription project seems to have gone fallow, and I'd like to take it on, but not until the pagination is corrected from removal of the Google notice. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneIneuw talk 20:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to do that? I usually just mark the page 'without text' when I find them. Mukkakukaku (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes we should, because it appears on the Commons. Others can give you other and better reasons as well. It's not a big deal and several people here can do it for you, or tell you how it's done before uploading.
The fundamental issue is that we should look on IA for other copies NOT donated by Google because they tend to damage the works deliberately to their advantage, a topic sometimes discussed in the past.
Another downside of using Google copies with the disclaimer page, is that we can't use the direct IA to Commons transfer tool because it must be downloaded to remove their disclaimer. — Ineuw talk 21:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Another issue with leaving the Google page in is that it often displaces pagination by one so that left hand pages become odd-numbered and right hand pages even-numbered. This messes up automatic heading creation. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Beeswaxcandle, in such a case just remove a page at the end of the book which is often a back cover or library card - some useless page for our purpose. I believe that brings the book back to the correct pagination. Cheers friends, —Maury (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Quick poll on Unicode use[edit]

Greetings all. I have come across a number of pages (e.g. here and here) where the authors make use of an upside-down Greek iota. Whilst I have found Unicode &#8489; (℩), I am not confident it will work in all cases (i.e. does the dreaded blank box appear here →℩← for anyone? Microsoft browsers?) and would appreciate any feedback.

Alternatively has anybody got any ideas as to how to express this more universally? (I've temporarily given up on finding a <math> solution, but one would be really nice bearing in mind the nature of this particular work…) I note that even a related Wikipedia article seems to have given up on this, and simply uses the normal (unturned) Greek iota. AuFCL (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, all I see is the dreaded null-box (though i'm still @ IE8 fwiw). -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I was afraid of that. Please consider every single other syllable I am thinking or uttering currently to be swearing. AuFCL (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Right. This makes me feel quite nauseous, but does this\scriptstyle{\iota}← work everywhere, please? AuFCL (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Both work for me (FF 27.0.1, Vista). —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 04:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Both also work with (FF 27.0.1, Mac OS X Mavericks)--kathleen wright5 (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
P.S also works with Mac Safari --kathleen wright5 (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I see both of them (FF 24.3.0, Debian GNU/Linux sid). I think it probably better to use the right character and assume that it will be supported in the future then to stress about every system today, especially for a work that will take forever to process and has a limited but continuing appeal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I "see" the second example (IE8, XP-Pro) but its not being rotated 180 degrees in the rendering, leaving me with the expected greek small letter iota (U+03B9) instead of the faux desired turned greek small letter iota (U+2129). -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)



Update...
<i>{{Unicode|&#x2129;}}</i>

Any help? The {{Unicode}} template was in the Symbols set of CharInsert all this time btw. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely it helps!
O.K. Once more for the dummies (me.):
  • Does this mean →← works for everybody?
  • It should but only another survey would verify that. I'll start - works for (IE8, XP Pro) -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Works here as well (FF 27.0.1, Vista Basic). —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 08:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • (Responding to my own poll feels weird, but) I had an unexpected opportunity in my "other life" to have a quick look at these pages using bog-standard Internet Explorer 11. No problems with anything (symbols or rotations.) In fact it rendered more cleanly than it did under Firefox. Almost embarrassing! 10:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • If I go back and enclose any "raw" character entity inside a {{Unicode}} invocation Internet Explorer will finally get into line with the other browsers and actually make use of the correct fonts?
  • Just for my own curiosity, I wonder if Internet Explorer correctly rotates this: →\scriptstyle{\iota}←—if so: time to consider updating {{rotate}}…
  • Not here (IE8, XP Pro). The version on WP explains why IE8 needs a LUA version for that to work. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


(Aside/Rant—please feel free to generally ignore.) So the fonts were there all along? And not pulled in when needed? Why do we bother? Who writes sensible software any more? Pardon the sarcasm; but this seems to have been unnecessarily painful for such an apparently trivial issue. AuFCL (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Not quite. A "patch" for Unicode & IPA was added some time ago to common.js in order to get the {{Unicode}} template to at least do that under XP. And, again compare our outdated version to what WP uses - still not the latest & greatest if we go by them. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
UPDATE: I decided instead to change my IE8's 'webpage font' selection in IE's settings to "Lucida Sans Unicode" and, lo-&-behold, even &#8489; (℩) renders properly now - no {{Unicode}} template or class definition needed, PLUS "sans-serif" (the wiki-code, load.php defined, default font) resumes being the "fall-back" core font being rendered just like it always has for me. This is OK by me until somebody comes up with a way to reproduce the same behavior I just did without altering IE's settings since this station is almost dedicated just to accessing wiki-whatever domains anyway. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Das ist gut, ja! AuFCL (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Proofreading alignment issue[edit]

Is anyone else having problems proofreading texts? When I click on a red link, the page loads but the image and text box are not aligned as normal. The text box stretches the entire length of the page and the image is underneath it. I'm using the vector skin.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. I figured it out. The column editing size in Preferences somehow got blown up to 80 columns for the text editor.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
It only worked for one image. Now the problem is back. Is anyone else having this issue on Chrome?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Does hard-refreshing work? —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 14:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I am going to really, really regret pointing this out, but you seem to have accurately described the behaviour resulting from checking Preferences/Editing option "Use horizontal layout when editing in the Page namespace." AuFCL (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
It's unchecked for me. I tried checking it, and I got a different layout, but one which was still possible to do proofreading. The behavior I'm having issues with is that the text box extends the entire width of the page, which pushes the image to be all the way below the text box, meaning I have to scroll down below the text box in order to see the picture, but then I can read the text unless I scroll all the way up. I wonder if there's a CSS issue on one of my pages that's messing with it...—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I looks like it's a Chrome issue. FireFox doesn't have the problem.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh well. Unfortunately I'm using F/F so my (lack of) observations can't help any further. Good luck and please let us know if you find the answer! AuFCL (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
@Zhaladshar: Could you please add here the work / page that you were having problems with? I am exploring various browsers (with the exception of IE), and have Chrome as well. Thanks.— Ineuw talk 17:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
This page exemplifies my problem. However, I've noticed if I'm signed out, the proofreading extension displays just fine. I'm led to think there's either a preference or a CSS/JS issue with my account.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Pardon this thought: I can get a similar effect to that which you describe by fooling around with the "width" style within class "prp-page-content" (e.g. by setting it to pretty much anything larger than the default of 50%.) Now as you point out the issue goes away when you are logged out, have you considered (carefully) disabling, say, your Special:Mypage/vector.css or (less likely) Special:Mypage/vector.js and seeing if something in either of these affects the problem? (Obviously please restore configurations after the trial.) AuFCL (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
If the above didn't correct the problem, then the settings may be stored in the cookies . . . as I have learned some time ago. Delete the cookies and create a fresh login.— Ineuw talk 19:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────┘
@Zhaladshar:Is this still happening in Chrome? For about an hour or so around midnight (my local time) precisely the same behaviour as you originally described was happening to me in Firefox... and then the problem went away all by itself. Was there another software upgrade? Right now it is [1.23wmf19 (bbbc0b8)] however I have no idea how to check how long this has been activated. AuFCL (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

See the deployment Roadmap for that info. Although "we" weren't directly scheduled for "enhancements", changes elsewhere still can creep in and mess with us - especially cookie/caching wise. This has been going on for as long as I can remember but has become worse in the past couple of months. I managed to rectify some of this "weirdness" by localizing & tweaking the rest of the .js scripts previously loading from old.wikisource. That cut down on the amount of unneccessary cookie "refreshing" going on with anything related to the navigation sidebar (primarily under vector; stuff like Dynamic layouts' Display options, EPUB, BookMaker and similar gadgets that "build" additional menu choices in the sidebar).

It (MediaWiki:Base.js is still not perfect when it comes to "loading" & cookies -- and it might not have anything to do with the alignment issue at all -- but its the most obvious issue at the moment. The obvious test is to try loging in using some other 'puter but your own. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was aware of the Roadmap (and in fact checked it and the "mediawiki/core" list.) However I still don't know how to determine when (say) version bbbc0b8—which I assume is a git submission id?—was made active upon enWS. This may not even be a pertinent issue, and should be considered a most casual enquiry.

At the time the system malfunctioned for me I checked at least a subset of modifications (incidentally including Base.js; since you had mentioned it recently) and found no relevant changes whatsoever. This only confirms whatever did in fact change was outside of my normal "view" and in no way should be considered comprehensive. AuFCL (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

AuFCL - Not too long ago, the "roll-out" of a new version was clearly marked in the log/tree with a small graphic banner like "Head" & "Master" currently are. For some reason that stopped working so the only thing I can point to is the switch in the naming of static bits normally changed during an upgrade & stored in your browser's cache. You'd look for the first instance of something like....
bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.23'wmf20/extensions/blah blah bah
...for the "next" release. If we go by that (not proven), the bump up happened around 6 pm Eastern standard time (-4 hours behind UTC ?) on the 27th.

Here's an oddity- anyone have a cached cookie from the wikidata domain last-modified two months in the future from now? -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice technique. Obviously I hadn't thought of that before. My browser here first "sighted" 1.23wmf19 about 3½ days ago; and has not "seen" 1.23wmf20 at all yet; so on the strength of this those upgrades seem unrelated to this matter. (No apparent future dating; I won't install the "prescient" extension here until it pre-emptively passes the Turing test.) AuFCL (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
@AuFCL:, I restored my vector.js and vector.css and it seems the issue is now working. I am not sure why but I no longer have any problems. Thanks for the help.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Tables broken in MULTIPLE works[edit]

I went to continue proofreading on a work and discovered that lines from a table were not transcluding.

The discovery was made at A History of Japanese Literature. The header for "BOOK THE FOURTH" is not transcluding in the table of contents, and neither is chapter VI. of BOOK THE SIXTH. These items used to appear in the transcluded table, but no longer do so.

I found the same problem at Chapter 3 of An Introduction to the Study of Fishes, where line item "67,68" does not transclude either.

In both instances, the problem is that the first table row from a page is not transcluding when a table spans multiple pages. Neither instance of this problem existed when I first set up the pages.

Has a change been made in the way tables must be formetted for transclusion when they span multiple pages? And does this mean we'll have to search our entire library for other instances in order to fix them? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I've just had a look at the first of these. The {{nop}} was missing from the beginning of the page body on the second page. I've fixed that one. See Help:Page breaks#Tables across page breaks. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, so it has changed. The {{nop}} wasn't required before when I was setting up those pages. We may have to go back and correct a large number of works proofread before March 2013.
The {{nop}} creates an additional transclusion problem, however, as now the page number is not displayed to the left of the text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: There is nothing new about needing a starting {{nop}}, it has been that way for many years to get MediaWiki to see the table component as a new line and table formatting. I am not sure how you have avoided that previously. I know that some used to avoid it by putting the new column starter on the end of the preceding page. If there are multiple works, you may find it more relates to your works, those that I have/seen edited should be okay, and I would think that for numbers of others it will be the same. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
If you are having issues with nop which I haven't seen before, you can always try
<noinclude>{|
</noinclude>
|-
|text text text ...

at the top of the body part, which is a workable solution and what I used to use before nop. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, if it's been that way for "many years", then why wasn't that information mentioned in Help:Page breaks#Tables across page breaks before last March? That's when an edit was made to insert the information. Either way, it doesn't solve the current problem of the missing page number links. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The information to use nop has been there since InductiveLoad wrote the page in 2011. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
It cannot be "fixed" as long as wiki-markup for tables is in use. Even with straight HTML, the proofreading page extension with transclusion won't allow an embedded page number to be inserted at the correct point (the begining of a new Page: rather than the end of the previous Page:). This behavior has been that way since I can remember. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Two pages per image[edit]

I uploaded from the Internet Archive a DjVu file which has two pages per image: Index:Casement Report.djvu. Does anybody know of an easy way to split each image into two so that there would be only one page per image? Thanks. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 21:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

TOC formatting help[edit]

Can I bug someone to format the first page of this TOC for me using a "simple" table as opposed to templates? and then I can copy the formatting for the remaining pages myself. I'm just not sure how to format the titles with Roman Numerals (indentation). The text has already been proofread. Sorry if the pre-wikilinking makes things messier and more complicated. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Formatted the TOC but couldn't finish it because I ran out of steam. I can continue tomorrow if it's OK with you.
For anchors, I ALWAYS use the DjVu page number because they are unique! This is the most logical way (to me) and I don't need to think of what I did, and where. My anchors are always use this format: anchor=D32-1 The "D" is necessary because anchors must start with an alphabetic character, the number following indicates that it's on DjVu page number 32, and -1 indicates that it's the first anchor on the page. If there is more than one anchor on a page, as there are in this case, I number them sequentially as . . . D32-2, D32-3, . . . etc. The Roman numbers mentioned above are only for display, but the only true reference in the Page namespace are the DjVu numbers, in the main namespace the webpage names. — Ineuw talk 06:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for helping! I will be away from the computer for a bit as well. When I return, I have a couple comments/questions about your adjustments to formatting of the poetry. Till then, thanks much again, Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Wow! You have done the whole TOC... Thank you! With regard to adding {{Dhr}}, however, between stanzas... I use a double carriage instead. I don't plan on using Dhr with the rest of the work, for that is not how I have formatted the remaining 200+ pages so far, and I don't plan on changing every page/instance. For formatting uniformity's sake, I am considering removing the ones you have added, but I am hesitant thinking you might take it wrong... Also, I have been noincluding the rules, but I noticed you have re-included some of them. Again, for uniformity, I don't plan on including them for the remainder of the text (formatting decision since the separation between poems is not necessary for our page layouts like it perhaps was in the original), so I believe I will undo what you have done there as well. Hoping you won't mind, and thanks again for your help with the TOC; you have done more than I expected/asked, and it is much appreciated! I hadn't considered linking the page numbers to anchors; it seems more work than is necessary, since the poems are already linked to by their titles. So I'll have to add anchors from now on when proofreading then, right? Thanks again, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Can I actually undo the anchoring system? I just don't feel it is necessary since sectioning is already used in the titles, and it is more (complicated) work (for me) than I would like to take on. Would you be offended since you already put in the work you had done? I won't ask you to make the changes... I can do it myself. Would you be too disappointed? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. First, you're most welcome and I apologize for the implemented, but unasked for changes. Please feel free to make any and all changes. Even I wasn't sure about all the anchors, with the possible exception of a few. The {{Dhr}} was used because I wasn't sure that you were aware of the template. It would be proper if I reverted the changes to save you from doing the extra work. — Ineuw talk 20:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I just feel bad with all the work you have done (which I do appreciate). I would carry on with anchors, etc. where you left off if I was feeling more ambitious, but alas!... I was aware of {{Dhr}} and have used it on certain occasions, just not between stanzas. I feel a double-carriage is sufficient (and easier!). But thank you! Don't worry about reverting anything for me; I don't mind going through the pages, as I have already taken note of which pages you have adjusted. No problems there! Again, thanks for the TOC formatting, and thanks for being gracious about any reversions/adjustments I might make with your work. I am always open to suggestions, however, even though I may be stubborn and set in my ways on occasion! Sincerely, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


I removed all the Dhr and reverted the noincludes. I feel about my work in the same way, and appreciate your sense of consistency. When making the changes, I was also ready to revert them for that very reason.Face-smile.svg. Just as a qualification, I designed the {{Dhr}} because over a year ago, my work was edited and double rows were reverted to single rows. Having some knowledge of database storage, I assumed that they were removed because empty lines may contribute to data corruption. (To be certain, someone in the know would have to clarify this.) The anchors need only to be removed in the TOC, but they can stay in the text. This really depends on how you visualize the transcluded material - in case you want to place more than one poem on a page. Again, sorry for the unnecessary extra work.— Ineuw talk 21:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
You need not apologize. You made things easier for me, and I have learned some things to boot! All is appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
@Ineuw: made it easy for me by establishing the basic indent structure, however I have just added a simple span to each of the (relevant, i.e. not all) Roman numerals to pull them into alignment more closely mirroring the book. I was a little surprised that an explicit width styling does not appear to be required when applied inside a table cell, but it most certainly is for standalone use. In case it is needed here is the (fuller) version:
<span style="display:inline-block;text-align:right;width:2em;>XVI</span>
N.B. Adjust "2em" above to be just wider than the longest number in the whole sequence; vary XVI as appropriate. Eggs. AuFCL (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that, AuFCL. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Noticed this too late but I am ready to add a third column with right aligned text if you so desire. That's the only way I know how to resolve this issue.— Ineuw talk 02:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The Public General Statutes (1896)/Table VI[edit]

I have an unusal problem with this.

It previews Ok, but then doesn't render OK once saved.

Can someone please sanity check the transcluded pages and templates, to make sure I haven't overlooked something obvious? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've done some work on the 1st table on top of the page, but I am not familiar with your coding style for the rest and it's best that I don't touch it.— Ineuw talk 17:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

What titles to use?[edit]

I'm probably going to transcribe (eventually) Medical Inquiries and Observations, by Benjamin Rush. The problem is, the work is in 5 volumes, with each one having a different title. Should I create a separate page for each volume, or should I create one "master" page?--Frglz (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Because they are volumes of the same work, the preference would be have them under one main page with a sub-page for each volume. (See History of England (Froude) for an example of how this works.) By the way, I note that the links on the author page are to different editions. Best practice is to have all the volumes from the same edition. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

A couple of questions from a new person.[edit]

A) When a document has stamps on it, how are those to be transcribed?

B) When a page is missing an image, is it okay to crop a copy of the scan and remove the background?A480641 (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I checked through your contributions and the following reply is based on the pages you worked on:
By stamps, if you mean the library stamps, etc. - The answer is no. We don't copy them.
By missing image, if you are referring to the main page of the 1931 "The Highway code", (or any other image) - we try our best to use high resolution images because the .djvu image is very low resolution. If you can find a higher resolution image on the web and need help, send me the link and I will explain what can be done. FYI - most, but not all, of our documents & projects come from Internet Archive and they also have high resolution .JP2 versions of the same .djvu files. That's where we get our images from. In your case, the document comes from elsewhere, and that's why I recommend that you look for a higher resolution image. I hope this helps.— Ineuw talk 23:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

"Transclusion limits", etc.[edit]

Looking for advice on what to do about the TOC's (there are two sets) for the PotM. In the second set, to quote ShakespeareFan00, "The original format is in the early revision, but I went back to a simpler template formatting because the transclusion broke, due to the use of a lot of templates. Feel free to put the formatting back, but the transclusion limits will need to be looked into."

Question. Should the template formatting for all the TOC pages be simplified (that would mean changing 5 pages of TOC formatting), or can something be done about the "transclusion limits" for the two 'problematic' pages instead? This is beyond my ability. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Reply.
The only way to come in under the limit is to reduce the overall amount of templates and/or per-template parameters being applied. I know the root of the problem there is most likely the "resource expensive" {{Dotted TOC page listing}} template but Shakes has embedded it in some custom cascading template scheme that I just cannot follow.

I did try to make a less "intensive" dot-leader template based on some previous testing done with the help & input of fellow contributors - its in Template:Td/dot/sandbox if that helps him any. Other than that, and if reducing the amount of overall template-mass at play does not solve the problem, it looks like you'll need to split Pt 1 and Pt 2 into separate sub-pages. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@GO3: Would it not just be 'simpler' to simplify the formatting? It might take me a while, but I could manage (tackle) it. It doesn't seem desirable at this point to split the Parts up (if I understand what you mean). @ShakespeareFan00: Do you have any objections to my simplifying the TOC pages, or do you want to follow some other course suggested by GO3? My opinion is to keep it simple, but that is because I am simple minded. Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
No objections here & of course "simplifying it" is the easiest way to go. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
{{td/dot}} is where the problem arises... Simplify that template and thigns become easier. No objections to simplifications. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


1936 posthumous British text might still be copyright in the United States - please check[edit]

I am confused about the US copyright status of the English translation of the poem L'après-midi d'un faune by Bloomsbury Group artist Roger Fry. Would someone with clearer understanding of US law please review the tags I posted there, and come up with a suitable US tag? Although it became public domain in 1984, I think the URAA might have put it back in copyright in the US, and it may have to be taken down from Wikisource. --Hroðulf (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This is complicated but British law might be the main problem rather than American. In 1995 UK statutory instrument SI 1995/3297 harmonised British copyright with Europe, which both extended the copyright period to 70 years pma and retroactively revived copyrights that had entered the public domain. So Fry's work The Poems of Mallarmé would have been in the public domain in 1985 but back under copyright from 1995 to 2005 in the UK and the rest of Europe. That's when the URAA becomes an issue. The URAA would only have brought the translation back into copyright if it was in copyright in its home country in 1996 (the URAA was the US response to the international community pressuring them to get into line on international copyright law, similar to the British SI). If it had been in the public domain in the UK in 1996, it would not have been affected by the URAA. However, as it had been brought back into copyright in the UK one year earlier, the URAA also brought it back into copyright in the US. Then a completely separate US law extended the copyright term to 95 years from publication, so it is probably still under copyright in the United States. The posthumous publication would have probably only affected the copyright if it had been published after 2004 (70 years pma). I'm not sure if I've got all of that right, so Im going to attach a {{copyvio}} and copy this thread to Wikisource:Possible copyright violations. Please note that the original French version is in the public domain so, if your French is up to it, a Wikisource translation is still possible. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Things have changed... need some help[edit]

Hi all! Things seem to have changed a lot since I was here last, and I'm having a bit of trouble. Perhaps I'm being a bit dense, but I am attempting to follow the instructions on Help:Adding_texts and other pages linked, and am having major issues. The Help pages lead me to believe that after having created Index:Address as the ABA president.pdf, I should be able to start entering text by going to, for example, Page:Address as the ABA president.pdf/3. All I'm getting is errors. I can't enter any text (only the edit summary box is coming up), and if I click on "Image", some background process seems to die. There's also no Button ocr.png button. Any help would be appreciated, thanks. Storkk (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Everything you've done looks right. I'm afraid I can't tell what the problem is at the moment. There is a known problem with PDFs that affects Commons' thumbnail generator but the file appears to be working on Commons itself, so I don't think that's it (besides, that bug still generated the page image only without the words, which was weird). I also get an "Error generating thumbnail" message from the "Image" link:
Error creating thumbnail: /bin/bash: line 1: 24798 Done 'gs' '-sDEVICE=jpeg' '-sOutputFile=-' '-dFirstPage=3' '-dLastPage=3' '-r150' '-dBATCH' '-dNOPAUSE' '-q' '/tmp/localcopy_222d13c1788b-1.pdf'
24799 Killed | 'convert' '-depth' '8' '-resize' '3743' '-' '/tmp/transform_ee2e1b9e46a5-1.jpg'
The problem may lie with the Proofread Page extension. Someone with more knowledge of the software might be able to give you a better answer. It might even be worth a bug report.
I'm not sure about the OCR button; I never used it and it might have been removed. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed the problem with the thumbnails—for some reason the scan resolution had been set to 0. WRT the OCR button, the default is disabled. You can enable this through the gadgets in your Preferences. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much, AdamBMorgan and Beeswaxcandle... it is working now. Wrapping my head around the "new" (ha!) way of doing this here is proving a little challenge, but the changes over the last seven years seem on the whole to be extremely positive. Thanks again, Storkk (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

On the use of long s[edit]

When a page uses a long s (ſ) (e.g. Page:Selected Orations Swedish Academy 1792.djvu/82 should I use the long s symbol or a normal s? A480641 (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The {{long s}} (shortcut: {{ls}}) template will switch between them (displaying the long s in the page namespace and a normal s in the main namespace). The original idea was to provide a switch, so that the reader could choose between long or normal, but the code didn't work properly and it hasn't been implemented yet. In theory, in the future, someone will make that work and the template will be used as part of that. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Historical scientific papers and monographs?[edit]

I'm a contributor to Wikiproject Paleontology on Wikipedia and I thought it would be cool if Wikisource could archive historical scientific papers and monographs about prehistoric life. However, while the introduction for new users refers to popular science articles, mention of the peer-reviewed literature is conspicuously absent. Does this reflect policy? Are technical works outside the scope of Wikisource or under a special copyright situtation that prevents their inclusion? Abyssal (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitely in scope. We have examples, though not very many. For one example see Character and description of Kingia, wherein is articulated for the first time the fundamental division between angiosperms and gymnosperms. Hesperian 03:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Glad to hear it! Nice to see a familiar face around here, too. Abyssal (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

An Index move/renaming help is asked for[edit]

This file Index:Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and Republican.djvu needs to be moved and renamed as Index:Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and Republican, Vol 1.djvu because it's made up of two volumes. For this, the commons source file Commons:File:Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and Republican.djvu also needs to be moved/renamed. How this affects the WS Index is unknown to me, especially the order of renaming is my concern. I am also no clue as to how the move on WS affect the pages. The book is validated.

I would like to do it but need knowledgeable direction. Thanks in advance.— Ineuw talk 03:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You can move the Commons file and everything here will continue to work via the redirect. When you move the Index file, all the pages will break until they are moved too. You can post a Wikisource:Bot requests for someone to move all the pages. Hesperian 09:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the information.— Ineuw talk 15:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Transcluded page is not linking to moved Index pages.[edit]

Cleared all caches that are user accessible, but this page still doesn't recognize the source index. Could someone please help? Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and Republican, Vol 1/Book I/Chapter 1 For my own knowledge, is this a cache issue, and if so, do users can manage this? Thanks.— Ineuw talk 23:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Typo in the Pages command line - its volume 1 (the number one) not volume I (capital letter i). -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks GO3.— Ineuw talk 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Revalidate Page:A Plea for the Middle Classes.djvu/22[edit]

Anyone? Nice quick task. Can't self validate for obvious reasons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. —Clockery Fairfeld [t] 13:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

{{bar|1}}[edit]

Way back before i got to know about m-dashes I used {{bar|1}} a lot. Ideally these should be replaced. with m-dasheses, i.e "—" Any ideas on how to do this?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

A replace bot can run; it should be about 600 pages (test edit).--Mpaa (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Done.--Mpaa (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

{{td}},{{tr}},{{te}}[edit]

I'm in the process of slowly depreceating these over concerns about parser load.

The assistance of the regulars in re-engineering the tables using them would be appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Re validation request[edit]

Page:A Basic Guide to Open Educational Resources.pdf/109 Had a stubborn URL that was making trouble. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Costly templatws[edit]

Found this one - Template:Table row 1dot-1 which needs to be replaced. 19:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

And now deprecated and tagged for speedy deletion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Page:Bradshaw's Monthly (XVI).djvu/32 ‎[edit]

Table rowspans won't format as intended. Can someone beat mediawiki into submission please?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Title[edit]

Edna W. Underwood has a collection of translations entitled Moons of Nippon, translations from poets of old Japan. Should the Wikisource page be Moons of Nippon, or Moons of Nippon, translations from poets of old Japan?--Frglz (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I usually just use the main title and only add the subtitle if needed for disambiguation. So, I suggest Moons of Nippon would be fine. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, thank you.--Frglz (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Robert Fortune page[edit]

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Robert_Fortune

It would appear that a couple of the dates on this page could be suffering from a typo. The list appears to be in chronological order but from date of 1820 or so there is a jump to the 1850s or so. Can this be correct?

Anne

Good catch, Anne. Indeed the dates were incorrect. Fixed by @Clockery: -- DutchTreat (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
@Anne Mac: Next time, you can try fixing typos like that yourself wink Best regards,—Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 04:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Need help with a TOC design problem.[edit]

In the process of adding wiki links to the TOC design OF THIS PAGE I found that the text often runs into the page number. Changing the font size and/or the column width fixes one paragraph but another gets messed up. I copied the first entry to THIS SANDBOX and ask if someone can suggest how to prevent this from happening.— Ineuw talk 03:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

One possible solution in two halves:
  1. Note you have used {{float right}} for page numbers. This is O.K. but may I suggest adding suitable margin-offset (parameters 2,3,4 are respectively: offest, top+bottom(combined) and left.) Recommend setting left margins to (say) 1em?
  2. Above half solution can itself cause vertical line collision effects. To counter this may I suggest separating each "paragraph"/sub-block with some variant of {{-}} to ensure proper clearing completes before next block begins?
I have added one possible layout method to your sandbox. If you find the paragraph marker usage too confusing then try substituting with {{clear}}s per above? AuFCL (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I've added a different solution to your sandbox without an explicit table. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Interesting use of negative-right-offsets. Good idea! AuFCL (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
A belated thanks to all for the examples.— Ineuw talk 03:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status of scientific paper[edit]

This archive.org work seems to be a public domain government document. Is it?--Frglz (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, this PDF contains Google watermarks. Do the watermarks make the work non-PD, and so have to be removed, or can the PDF be used for transcribing even with the watermarks?--Frglz (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
For the first one, it is hard to tell. I expect the Montana State Library would have checked before uploading it but I can't see anything to explain why or in what way it has been released. If you want to do so, you could contact the Montana State Library or the Montana Natural Heritage Program (the publisher) directly and ask if, and how, it has been released; there is a process over on Commons for getting that documented by e-mail. (The author's e-mail address is actually on the title page but it's from 1997 so it may no longer be valid.) That might be the only way to now for sure.
For the second one, the watermarks do not affect the PD status (and they are not transcribed into our version). Google adds watermarks to everything regardless of whether the text is in the public domain or not. I think they can be removed but I have never tried to do so myself. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • AdamBMorgan, User:Frglz is going to have problems with that "second one" shown as a PDF file because the page images did not come into the right side and some have scattered text on the left side to edit. He should have used a .djvu file, as you know. There are both Google watermarks and a University marks on the pages when one looks at "image" at the top and as I have encountered in the past there will be many times he will never see any image that should have come in either as a thumbnail image or the full image we sometimes view. George Orwell III once corrected an identical situation for me. I think he used a purge tool. —Maury (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

mistake in validated page[edit]

I am a newbie, have just done 2 pages, and I noticed an obvious spelling mistake in a page that is already validated. Is it possible to correct this mistake? I can't see how to get the page into edit mode. Thanks

@Pixelwarrior: I think you can get back to correct the pages now. If not - post here and please sign your post with ~~~~ — Ineuw talk 02:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Pixelwarrior (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC) — Ineuw talk I did not see the "edit" tab at the top ... Fixed now! Thank you!

Does this project have a highlight / hilite function?[edit]

Hello! My text document has highlighted text. How is highlighting done in this project? English Wikipedia has wikipedia:template:hilite. This project does not have that in place at Template:Hilite. How is highlighting managed here? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Use html tags (your sig is a clue). <mark> produces this or this. Moondyne (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Getting texts validated[edit]

Noob question: once you have proofread a submitted text is there any way to speed up the validation process? I've had a few proofread texts waiting around for a couple of weeks without being validated and I want to make sure I wasn't supposed to do something else afterwards to keep the submission process going. Abyssal (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really. There's nothing institutionalised but some people engage in social contracts i.e. make deals with other users to validate each others' works. You'll find that most of the long-term contributors here have a long list of years-old proofread works awaiting validation. Most of us have learned to accept that — to see 'proofread and awaiting validation' as the goal, rather than aim for 'validated', which is out of our control. Hesperian 23:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Abyssal, I with many others here help each other in both proofreading as well as validating. I have done this for many years now and with no one specific person until recently where three of us work together on books about Mexico. Hesperian (above) posted a list of pages he needed validation here on his talk page. I helped him by validating those pages and he thanked me. Good manners help a lot. We all try to help each other and especially after we get to know others for awhile. For now, if you know someone that is working on the same project, or different projects, ask him or her if you two can swap helping each other with proofreading or validating. Expand this as time passes into years. Make yourself well-known to others and that can be done also by posting information about yourself on your personal page and your talk page. That way you become less of a stranger to others. Oh, also when asking a question like you have, please post the location of your project so people can see it. Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
On a note related to Hesperian's comment has the Wikisource community ever actually considered formally creating a place for active editors to validate each others' work in a quid pro quo fashion? We could start a page or community portal subpage where active members can list their current projects in need of validation and then we could go about validating each others' work. The current system of lumping all unvalidated works together in one category isn't too helpful because even if you start validating random works you have no idea of the user who submitted it is even around any more much less going to validate some of your pages in return. But if we had some kind of centralized exchange I think it would accelerate the process of getting works validated and transcluded into the main space, and I believe that acceleration would do a lot for community morale, because let's face it, substantial waits between submission and transclusions are rather discouraging and drain contributor motivation. Abyssal (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea but some editors just exchange favors as suggested above and move forward while the book remains unvalidated (4-ever) and just transclude the projects. What should be "validated" thus becomes? - Ignored and it continues. Therefore probably some of the older non-validated works are like orphans. We do have a list of older works that need proofreading / validating - and that grows. I think for the most part they get no present activity. I and others worked on some one when the list idea was new. In the not so distant past, I myself would ask openly "is validation important?" Basically the answer was absolutely but as you point out and most of us know, it does not always happen. Some just skip validations or validate a few pages and then go straight to transclusions leaving behind unvalidated books as they go straight to another book. For me, unvalidated means incomplete due to my asking about it and getting a confirmation on how necessary validations are. But what can be done with everyone as volunteer workers? Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Few clarifications and doubts on Wikisource[edit]

Hi I am from Telugu community. I am writing here, so as that I can have some more clarity on how Wikisource works. We have been facing some internal friction among members on few issues pertaining to copyright status of the books that are being uploaded to Wikisource.

  1. The first concern is regarding books that are on DLI (http://dli.gov.in). The website claims that the books are out of copyright and that the authors have been consulted about it. There are many books that are public domain by definition of Indian copyright law, which assumes a book is in public domain 60 years after the death of its author, if the author doesn't specifically release it into public domain. Also, there are some state owned works which the author has "sold" to the Government ,(though their count is too less) where the Government is supposed to release them in a publicly open free license (which the Government doesn't actively look at). So, the assumption is that every book on DLI is copyright free. Thats what one of the member from the community strongly feels. Upon closer examination, DLI has never sent individual requests for releasing books into public domain. It made a public announcement in print media and inviting objections on any works that may be under copyright but could have mistakenly made into the listings on the website. Now, that the internet penetration is too low in India, most of the authors are not aware that their works, which may be selling in market under copyright, might be put up into public domain without their concern. This came to light when one book was being put up, and I, who knew the author and the book being published first in 1994, got a smell of something fishy happening. The author expired on February this year. So, I wanted to know how DLI works, and I found that out of thousands of books available there which are published in current times, only 6 thousand something are having a fool proof declaration on Copyright status. There is no such data avialble for rest of the books. Reference : http://www.dli.gov.in/UDL-Talks-May2004/Venkamma%20%20CCL.pdf slide number 21.
    Now if the community works on such doubtful books, which do not have a clear copyright information and tomorrow if the author claims the copyright and asks the community remove the book, the efforts put up by the community are wasted. Also, there are hundreds of other books that are essential to be put up on wikisource. Could any of the knowledged people here guide our community in the right path?
  2. The second concern is about using public domain books which are hosted on sources like Google. Can we upload such books? Because they contain a google watermark and some of them are being sold by google, does it have any problem?
  3. The third concern is about how to work on multilanguage books? For instance there are trilingual dictionaries, of which one language is Telugu. should we reproduce the book as it is? Or can we have translation of the other language?

Thank you for reading and engaging with above questions. --Rahmanuddin (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  1. Hmm. I can't think of anything which can be done except to remove the books which are clear copyvios, and discuss the doubtful ones. Following the rule of life+60 years might be the best course to follow for now. If it's possible, you could also contact the DLI to obtain evidence of PD. Any other ideas, anyone?
  2. There is absolutely no problem if books digitized by Google are uploaded (that watermark is misleading), provided the books themselves are in the public domain.
  3. I believe the book can be transcribed as it is, with all languages as they originally were. At the same time, transcribing the book on each language Wikisource (or mulws if there isn't a specific language subdomain for any language) the book has definitions in might be a good idea (see Index:A Malayalam and English dictionary 1871.djvu and ml:സൂചിക:A Malayalam and English dictionary 1871.djvu for an example).
I'd appreciate it if anyone else could expand on my reply. Best regards,—Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 14:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Asking for help in correcting a template[edit]

This PSM project template was intended to be used inline but I am unable to make it so. Can anyone please help in resolving the issue (if possible)? Thanks in advance.— Ineuw talk 17:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

And now? -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Perfect, just like everything touched by your hands and mind. Thanks.— Ineuw talk 20:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Multiple documents in one source file[edit]

I have a procedural question regarding what to do when a file is actually two separate documents collated. In this case, where I am transcribing the first part, the second part is an extract of an unidentified volume of the Northwestern Reporter discussing the same case. Obviously, the ideal solution would be to split the PDF, and upload the second part separately - however I can't find enough information on the second part to upload it to Commons (a few volumes have been digitized by Google and the Internet Archive, but this doesn't seem to be one of them). Should I just ignore the second part here on Wikisource, assuming the original uploader doesn't respond? Storkk (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Missing Colours[edit]

In Index:Popular_Science_Monthly_Volume_30.djvu I can't see the validate/proofread colours anymore. When you open a page of the book, everything is fine, but on the Index page the colours are missing. Can someone help? WeeJeeVee (talk) 10:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Purging the page generally fixes that. Easiest way is to add the clock gadget (preferences, gadgets, interface, clock and purge) and click on the time. Moondyne (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Ditto, the clock/page purge gadget is the best way to go.— Ineuw talk 17:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks SO much for that advice; the repeatedly disappearing colours was driving me batty. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

References to Wikisource from Wikisource[edit]

When one work on Wikisource cites another that is also available here, is there a way to mark that connection between the two? I found Wikisource:References to Wikisource but this and all the citation templates I saw seem to be solely about external references to Wikisource. Is there an equivalent for "internal" references? -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

See WS:LINKSTYLE. Is that what you mean? Moondyne (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
That's not what I had in mind, but largely equivalent. Just haven't seen many wikilinks in texts around here yet. Thanks! -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
This work has multiple internal links to Wikisource. The volume is higher than other works, as the original work lists multiple authors and works that are in, or are appropriate for Wikisource. It is probably the most extreme use of Wikisource internal referencing that would be in scope here. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Table formatting[edit]

Hello! I need some help with formatting this beast. My two main problems: 1) right floating price and 2) vertical alignment when template:hi is used. Thanks a lot in advance! Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC).

Hi. The table is done and if you have any questions, please contact. - aka "Table man". — Ineuw talk 03:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, the table man:)! Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC).

Extra headings[edit]

I want to add some extra headings to a text for better organization and for finding my place in general. Adding section tags does not seem to help because it does not automatically add any ID attributes for anchoring, and I have no text to exclude anyway. I could just put in ID's manually, for bookmarking, but I also need some way of distinguishing extra headings from the text in the printed edition. Do I add headers right in the Page namespace? Is there a common way of doing it? Heyzeuss (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Is {{anchor}} what you're looking for? I use them when multiple small sections will be transcluded to the same page, but there still be reference to those smaller sections. An example of their use is at Ante-Nicene Christian Library/Volume I/Epistle to Diognetus where each chapter has an anchor (inserted in the Page: namespace). By the way, the page numbers in the Mainspace also act as anchors. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. ː) Heyzeuss (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

A linking and transclusion problem to server caching?[edit]

I had to move the subpages of Nye's History of the USA to correct the main ns page structure, and aside from the first Contents entry to Chapter I, none of the subsequent links work. I checked the spelling, cleared local caches, but still no luck. I suspect it's a server cache, but still would be nice if someone could check if and what I did wrong. Thanks in advance.— Ineuw talk 01:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed - the entries used "smart" (or "rich text") apostrophe in Nye's instead of plain (keyboard) ones. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
It's fixed. You're my Tlatoani of Wikisource. Feel free to sacrifice anyone you want.— Ineuw talk 02:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
(You gave permission...to...are you insane? We shall all be murthered in one another's beds! AuFCL (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC))
tsk... sacrifices don't work - you're all back the next day no matter how many I perform.

Still looking for answers...

... <sigh> George Orwell III (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I think Ineuw's discussion just got mugged; however:
(Re: tsk: then you are not following through adequately. Not my place to teach you your business.)
  • {{center block}} and {{block center}} are not quite the same beasts; but more could be done to amalgamate them.
  • dotted TOC... spaces is not and never will be fillsp. Don't break your brain trying to fit \bigcirc\rightarrow\square: Why not implement two nested calls to #invoke:String|rep|, the innermost adds spaces number of &nbsp;s to symbol; then feed the result of that into another #invoke:String|rep|((that))|244?
  • {{aligned table}} interesting... still looking for an actual consumer of its services though...
Mugging completed. Back to your usual scheduled program? AuFCL (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Sn-paragraph[edit]

Can someone do a syntax check on the sandbox version of this?

It was an attempt to generalise the cl-* series of templates into something that was usable for any sidenoted work. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Re-indexing of djvu-file necessary?[edit]

Hi,

I am a newbie and currently working on a small project of my own, Index:Savagetribesofformosa1926.djvu. Everything seemed fine up to now and I already finished a larger amount of work until I found out, that I missed to scan one of the 23 pages, page 7 ... *blush* - I fixed the djvu ([2]) and hoped everything else would work automagically, but of course it didn't. As you can see in the Index the missing file is not shown. Will I have to create a new index? And how do I? And will I lose any of the already done work? Please help, any hint is much appreciated ..... Thank you, Denis Barthel (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Denis Barthel: Please place a request for page moves (start and finish pages, and by the required increment and direction) to Wikisource:Bot requests and sks will take pity on you (as they have done with us previously). :-) On the index page, you will also see a link to the top right that will purge the File at Commons, and that should clean up the file images, and we may have to change any page numbering, though please start with the request. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
It was a short doc with only a few pages to realign. Please, check my corrections - but I don't think there are any remaining issues. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both for your help, everything is working fine now. Your help was very encouraging. Denis Barthel (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Formatting trouble on Page:The English hymnal (1906).djvu/5 and Page:The English hymnal (1906).djvu/6[edit]

On the above pages small squares show up in various places which are not visible in edit mode and only appear in Firefox 29.0.1 AFAIK. They don't appear in Safari 7.0.4, but I can't test with Internet Explorer because I'm using Mac OS X 10.9 Mavericks. Could someone please test the above with Internet Explorer and if possible get rid of this formatting problem. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Also there are two duplicate pages scanned, (I noted on the Index talk page). Kathleen, you probably do not want to proofread this until the source file is repaired. I think the work may be lost when all the numbers move.--BirgitteSB 01:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Oops. I hope I haven't just made somebody's life harder. I validated Kathleen's problem pages before realising Birgitte's warning. FWIW I am using FF 29.0.1 on Linux, and can see the "boxes" both in edit and normal mode so can remove them. Looks like OCR-gone-mad and nothing more, as there does not seem to be rhyme or reason as to their occurrence. AuFCL (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Braces spanning two rows in a table?[edit]

Hello, I am having only four more pages to transcribe in my project, but I can't go on, as all of them cause the same problem: these pages contain tables wherein there are braces ("{") spanning over two rows

Savagetribesofformosa1926.djvu

. And as I can place the symbol only in one row, I don't know how to solve this. I'd be so glad for your help, as I would love to finish the project. Greets, Denis Barthel (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Which table? What page?— Ineuw talk 23:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I found the table and can help you later in a few hours if you wish. — Ineuw talk 23:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi folks. I proofread Page:Savagetribesofformosa1926.djvu/19 as a sample. Feel free to tweak/improve as you see fit. AuFCL (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@AuFCL: Another Canadian job gone to Australia. Well, at least it's still in the Commonwealth. BTW, good job. We of the north, salute you.— Ineuw talk 03:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't so much think of you guys as being in the "north", so much as being on the wrong side of the date-line! AuFCL (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
However, it is nice to have a night crew to look after things while we take our well-deserved rests. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
A minor correction of your perceptions. First, we happen to be the "day crew," and not the "night crew." . . . and from where we sit (upright) you guys are upside down, and on the wrong side of the dateline. — Ineuw talk 05:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Yawn. That remark was so yesterday. (Poor Denis is going to be wondering what on earth is going on. Please ignore us.) AuFCL (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@AuFCL: and @Ineuw:: Thank you very much for your help, and I appreciate a nice derailing of a thread :) - I have tried my very best to solve the problems and could help myself twice, but my attempts shipwrecked twice too. I allow myself to ask for your help in these two cases and marked them as Problematic such, especially as I am finished else with the proofreading of the project: Index:Savagetribesofformosa1926.djvu. I hope this is not to unreasonable? Greets, Denis Barthel (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@Denis Barthel: The only thing I can do for the missing three pages is to insert high quality images. Again, this will take some 24 hours. — Ineuw talk 21:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@Ineuw:, sorry, this is unclear to me, it's only two pages we are talking about and it only relates to the tables in the text, which are much to complex for me to cope with. If inserting high-quality images of these tables would be good enough, I'd make it by myself; but I admit, I'd be surprised ... :) Denis Barthel (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Denis Barthel: It's not at all unusual. I've done hundreds of tables but when pressed by time, I do turn to images. The choice is yours. In any case, I uploaded the booklet to IA for generating JP2 images, and this takes some time, depending on the queue in which there are 225 documents ahead of us.Ineuw talk 21:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ineuw: - ah, now I understand. As I uploaded the brochures pages as single jpgs to the commons in higher quality (File:SavageTribesOfFormosa1926 12.jpg, File:SavageTribesOfFormosa1926 14.jpg), would it be sufficient to integrate these images or the excerpts, respectively? Denis Barthel (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely. I also recommend (if possible) that you convert it to .png format which seems to be somewhat clearer for line graphics and drwaings. Also, in case you don't like the results, we'll have the IA version latest by tomorrow.— Ineuw talk 23:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
After the last faux pas I should not dare to take bread out of the mouths of hard-drinkingworking Canucks. Just let me know if there is anything I can do to help once the dust settles again. AuFCL (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

lead words[edit]

It's ages since I edited WS and I've forgotten the recommended treatment of lead (link?) words at the end of pages; example. Are they simply left out or is there a template that records their presence? Can't find it in the help pages. Chris55 (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Chris55.

I believe the inclusion of these words is strictly a personal choice; however if you chose to do so I consider including them in the footer exactly as you have done is definitely the nicest way to go about this. To the best of my knowledge there are neither tracking templates or indeed "official" guidelines.

Regards, AuFCL (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Floating page link page breaks incorrect[edit]

I created a main page from these pages to preview what it will look like, but I noticed that the floating page links on the left-hand side of the text are incorrect for the Autobiography and Contents. If you hover over the links on the main page, notice that the page break between the two pages is incorrect (i.e. the Contents is starting mid-way down the Autobiography page). Is this something I did wrong or is this a bug? Looking at the generated HTML, I'm noticing that the second paragraph from Autobiography is not inside of <p>...</p> tags. Perhaps this is causing it? Still not sure what the root cause is though. Ryanbrainard (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This is by no means a complete answer; more what I suspect might be going wrong.

If you look on the left-hand side of your screen whilst viewing the misbehaving page, you ought to see a menu heading (beneath "Help", "Donate") reading "Display options". Immediately beneath this again ought to be a clickable link which in your case I expect reads "test layout".

Please click this item, which should cause it to change to "Layout 1" and the main text will redraw. I now think you will find your "floating page links" will be working correctly?

For what it is worth, "test layout" behaves like this for me as well, but "Layout 1"/"Layout 2"/"Layout 3" and "Proposed Layout" are all fine. AuFCL (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I tried toggling the layout, but no luck -- they are all broken for me. I did some experimenting, and it only happens on the last paragraph of that page (i.e. adding a third paragraph makes the second one ok), so I was able to workaround the issue by adding a trailing &nbsp; in a new paragraph. Its not ideal, but it fixes the issue for me. Ryanbrainard (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
O.K. It looks like I was barking up the wrong tree. Apologies for misleading you. I hope somebody else has an answer because I'm out of ideas at present. AuFCL (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
What about now? I added a line-return at content start and nop at content end for the first few pages. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Index:Historical Works of Venerable Bede vol. 2.djvu[edit]

Can someone look over this, and convert the old-style {{sidenotes begin}}{{sidenotes end}} over to the new style {{sn-paragraph}} as I've done later in the work? The latter gives a much cleaner layout (albiet at the expense of slightly higher complexity.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Table help - how do I do it?[edit]

I am an experienced Wikisource user, but I cannot seem to format this table in a way that works. Page:Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 2002.djvu/82

Can someone look at this and correct the format for me? I would very much appreciate it!

- Tannertsf (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I formatted the headers and the 1st two rows. When you complete the data we'll know if space is needed between columns. If so, send me a message and I will insert spacing columns instead of padding each cell.— Ineuw talk 03:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Extra sub-headings[edit]

Do we have a special way of adding extra sub-headings in long chapters, or otherwise breaking them up into smaller sections? Heyzeuss (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Which particular work are you thinking about? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828). Heyzeuss (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Responded on your Talk page where I've suggested a different way of subpaging. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

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

What is the div class being used for the introduction?

Tagged some pages as problematic per the proofreading instructions, but prepared to mark them as proofread if someone can explain the use of a div over a template here. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

That's the old style of doing things from before the ProofreadPage Extension and Dynamic Layouts. You can get rid of those divs now. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Index:John Wycliff, last of the schoolmen and first of the English reformers.djvu[edit]

Simple issue , found some duplicate page scans. Anyone want to fix this up? (Found it when doing the inital pagelist setup on the index page! Precisly the reason you set that sort of thing up!)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Having found the problem, please set the Status to "Source file requires fixing" and put the details of exactly what needs fixing on the Talk page. Then one of the wonderful volunteers who work with DjVu files will sort it out in the course of the next couple of months. In the meantime, move on to something else. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Issue with char insert[edit]

I've been having a long-standing issue with inserting special characters on the edit screens. Every time I click on the character I want to insert, it inserts in the header section (where {{rh}} goes) rather than where I want it. I've had this issue for many months and it makes proofreading really difficult--to the point I just have to take a break for a few weeks because it's so irksome.

I've tried everything to fix it. I've cleared my cache, tried FireFox and Waterfox (I use Chrome as my main browser), deleted my vector.js/vector.css files (I am currently using the vector skin, although I prefer the monobook), etc. All that I can find, is if I do all these things, I get one page edited like I desire; then it's back to the problem as usual. Has anyone else had this issue and know how to fix it?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I added some CharInsert lines at the end of your vector.js file - is it still losing focus? -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Quick access icon link to the Commons is gone from WS images - redux[edit]

Unfortunately, this issue has raised its head again Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help#Quick access icon link to the Commons is gone from WS images. Truth be told, I lost the link some mw updates ago, but only now this issue has re-gained its importance to access the commons. I tried to reactivate it by changing the language in preferences but it's to no avail. — Ineuw talk 19:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

That aside, do you have tab along the top (amongst Read, Edit, More) that links back to commons just like the icon does (did)? -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
My apologies, this is something new, or didn't notice this before. Please consider this resolved and accept my apologies.— Ineuw talk 22:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Just for laughs, try disabling Media Viewer [if currently enabled] in your user Preferences, Appearance tab, Files section and see if the icon comes back. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Disabling the viewer did not bring back the old icon.— Ineuw talk 23:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

PDF->Djvu conversion request[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:To_the_Victor_Belongs_the_Spoils%28v.1%29.pdf

This appears to be a Creative Commons released Thesis.

In line with the apparent plan to import scholarly papers and articles, I was wondering if someone would consider converting it over to djvu with a view to it being OCR'ed for Wikisource. (It was transfered over to Commons, but seemingly generated blank thumbnails.) Hence it should really be (down) converted to DJVU if within scope. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Index:To the Victor Belongs the Spoils.djvu.— Ineuw talk 19:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
And having made that request someone from Commons has raised concerns about some of the images. A number would seem to be pre-1955, but it might be worth having someone like jayvdb take a careful look? The text can still be worked on though, and the images can be blacked if a problem is found? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I've done the conversion & upload based on the CC license, assuming that its content, met the license requirements. I am not qualified to comment on Australian copyright laws. It's you who has to clear up the issue. Also, please request the deletion of the .pdf copy on the commons as it's a duplicate. — Ineuw talk 20:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Index talk:To the Victor Belongs the Spoils.djvu - OK Folks, I need someone familar with Australian copyright, to check the images. I've set up a table on the talk page. Any that can be definitively proved as pre 1955, will need to be redacted. ( found 2 already :( )ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Index:The music of Bohemia.djvu[edit]

Can I politely ask that someone takes another look at this, in the interests of formatting consistency? and the fact it's missing the scores.? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Image extraction[edit]

Index:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu, Anyone want extract images? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Under copyright or not?[edit]

The first edition of Gilbert Murray's Euripides and his Age was published in 1913, simultaneously in both London and New York. Murray died in 1957. By normal US rules, this does not appear to be under copyright, but the rule in the UK is 70 years after death of the author. So, is this work still under copyright or not? Recommendations? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The work is PD in the U.S. (1st published in U.S. prior to 1923) - period.

The UK rule is also valid, but only in the U.K. We can host the work as long as the "source" file is locally uploaded to en.WS and tagged 'Do not move to Commons' (which automatically explains the nuances) -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but the question may be moot. I started work on Index:Euripides and his age.djvu only to find that the first edition I found is missing pages 67 & 68. I found only one other scan of this book at the Internet Archive, but it is a different edition (possibly a later American reprint), in which the content of the pages differs significantly from the first edition, and even the typography and orthography of the text differs from the original.
If there is someone who can find another copy of the same edition that I have uploaded, and has the technical expertise to interpolate the two missing pages, do please let me know. Otherwise, I'll have to abandon hope of working on this volume. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I found three copies of the works on IA, but it's up to you to determine which is a good copy. Replace the old with the new upload and then we'll delete/replace the pages.Euripides and his ageIneuw talk 05:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Of the three copies, the only possibility is the one that's different. this copy but you still need to check the pages.— Ineuw talk 05:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there are 3 copies on IA. That's what I said. One is the copy that I uploaded, one has no scan, and the other is the bastardized copy. We can't use that last one; it's the only good scan, but whoever published it made changes to the pagination, major changes to orthography, etc. It's no longer a first edition; it's a highly modified edited version. It's not useable. That's why I posted this request for help finding another copy, or at least getting a scan of the missing two pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- Missing pages inserted (even tan-i-fied). -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much! --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: It's incumbent upon me to apologize for not being to insert the missing pages, as well as to thank our caped crusader GOIII, for coming to our rescue. :-) — Ineuw talk 23:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Text files[edit]

Wikisource offers a user the chance to download a book in PDF or EPUB format, but not as a plain text file. Why is this so? Text files are more convenient for some readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.1.19 (talk) at 00:20, 1 July 2014‎ (UTC)


Mediawiki bug?[edit]

There seems to be a bug when trying to load a page (any page). Getting messages of endless running of load scripts. I am using Firefox v30.0. Copied the following messages but there are more and will add them later. Also, the latest message contained "fr.wikisource".

Script: https://bits.wikimedia.org/en.wikisource.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=mediawiki.inspect&skin=modern&version=20140701T181553Z&*:2
Script: https://bits.wikimedia.org/en.wikisource.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki%2CSpinner%7Cjquery.triggerQueueCallback%2CloadingSpinner%2CmwEmbedUtil%7Cmw.MwEmbedSupport&only=scripts&skin=modern&version=20140701T181553Z:4
Script: https://bits.wikimedia.org/en.wikisource.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=mediawiki.inspect&skin=modern&version=20140701T181553Z&*:2

Ineuw talk 21:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I am also using Firefox, but I am not having any difficulties. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I noticed in the above messages the reference to the modern skin, which I am using. If this persists, I will change back to Vector and see if this helps. :-( — Ineuw talk 22:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I doubt its the skin. I've been seeing script errors ever since the jQuery upgrade that later turned out to be OOJS version related (That's all Greek to me). In short, the errors I've been seeing are enough to be reported but not enough to crash or hang anything - once in awhile the Page: view reverts to side by side when I have it set to horizontal though. Otherwise, the script errors are just annoying while neverending. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. That's exactly what's happening. No crashes just long delays. I am reporting it.— Ineuw talk 01:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Bug id: 67404Ineuw talk
@George Orwell III: I feel vindicated. This bug is being reported by others as well.— Ineuw talk 07:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh believe me you are not alone. I've been swearing over random F/F freezes (Linux/Vector) over much the same period as well. AuFCL (talk) 09:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I get "script errors" here asking me if I want to continue with the script or not. I have Firefox 30.0 - but then again, not long ago before the automatic Firefox upgrade, I lost 1/2 of my editing bar - the part I never used anyhow except enlarge, reduce image &c. which I can do another way. —Maury (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@William Maury Morris II:I received notice that this has been fixed. If you still having a problem, please post here and I will notify Bugzilla.IneuwPublic (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

US Senator reposts his own article from Wired Magazine[edit]

  1. Wired Magazine, op-ed article by U.S. Senator Ron Wyden and U.S. Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren = http://www.wired.com/2013/06/aarons-law-is-finally-here/
  2. Reposted by Senator Wyden at wyden.senate.gov = http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/blog/post/wyden-and-logren-introduce-aarons-law-to-reform-the-cfaa
  • Is this text document now public domain?
  • It was written by two United States federal government employees.
  • Can I add it here to Wikisource ?

Thank you for your time,

-- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I don't believe that politicians are exactly considered "federal government employees" for the purposes of copyright laws. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, they are for speeches in Congress itself, obviously, but this is sort of a confusing one for me, but he did repost it on a U.S. Federal Government website. -- Cirt (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
An author usually has rights to distribute or post copies of their own work. I've known academics whose papers were published in journals, who then also provided a free copy to fellow academics electronically through their website. This is not an act of releasing the work into the public domain, it is merely the modern method of distributing free reprints, which have long been part of academia. I would hazard to guess that, unless the article was written as part of their government duties, the magazine and/or authors retain copyright. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good, no worries. -- Cirt (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The relevant concept is en:wp:open access, as user:EncycloPetey suggests. Almost certainly the original article is written in capacity of official government duties, which by default would make this a public domain work. However, we do not have the original work, we only have the version edited by Sonal Chokshi @smc90 of Wired which Wired then published. This is a derivative of a public domain work. The appropriate thing to do would be to ask Choshi if they or Wired are asserting copyright. By default, they would. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Copyright is automatic unless a valid release is provided. Jeepday (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The correct venue for discussing copyright issues is Wikisource:Possible copyright violations, is this a question of copyright? Jeepday (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    The Copyright Violations forum is for discussing works already hosted here that we suspect violate copyright, and may therefore need to be removed. In this case, the work is not hosted here, and the question is preemptive. Is is thus not a violation and should be discussed here rather than in the other forum. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    If we are discussing copyright in anticipation of hosting the work, the Copyright Violations forum is a valid venue. Several works have been discussed prior to being hosted (or not). Jeepday (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    Then that forum is not "the correct venue" (as you stated earlier), but rather "a possible venue", provided that a {{copyvio}} tag is placed on the work being discussed, as stated on the copyright violations page header. However, the Copyright Violations forum is a subset of the Deletions forum; we can't delete what we aren't hosting. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    A recent discussion as an example of copyright discussion prior to hosting. You are correct that the header does not display this an option, I have started a discussion Wikisource_talk:Possible_copyright_violations#Pre-hosting_copyright_review. Jeepday (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking about the Wired version, but about posting this version: http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/blog/post/wyden-and-logren-introduce-aarons-law-to-reform-the-cfaa -- a blog post at www.wyden.senate.gov as posted by U.S. Senator Wyden. Author = Communications Office for the U.S. Senator, as given in the credit for that blog post. -- Cirt (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Cirt This conversation is getting rather confused, would you care to post a fresh question at Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations? Jeepday (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done , now at Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#US_Senator_reposts_his_own_article_from_Wired_Magazine. -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

History of Ancient Greek Literature[edit]

The Internet Archive has the 3rd edition of Murray's A History of Ancient Greek Literature, but I'm not sure whether it's actually in the public domain. The 1st ed. was published in 1887, the 3rd in 1911. So far so good. Murray died in 1957, so the work is still under copyright in the UK. The complication is that the work appears to have been published only in the UK (London: William Heinemann). I'm not sure what happens in the case of a work that was published prior to 1923, but was not published in the US.

It's an important and wonderful work. Could someone help me determine whether this work can be hosted here? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what gave you the impression Murray's take wasn't published in the U.S. - WorldCat shows otherwise.

And the 1911 impression doesn't seem to be the true 3rd edition, the 1917 release is (according to WorldCat that is). -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The edition I've linked clearly has MCMXI (1911) on the title page, and it also includes a preface to the third edition. It would be very weird for a publisher to backdate on the title page, so the 3rd edition must have been printed by 1911. WorldCat concurs with a 1911 edition labeled as "3rd", although there seem to be 3rd editions printed in 1907 and 1902 as well. Based on what I've found, the "3rd impression" mentioned in the volume may refer to the text being the 3rd impression of the 3rd edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Whatever - the issue was 'locations published' so you're free to start it after you pick one or the other. Fwiw...I find a 1917 dated version that also has all 3 Prefaces. After that I can't find any more free full-view copies so that's probably the 'last one' free of copyright available online. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll probably go with the 1911 copy I linked to, as it's about the cleanest I've found (although I haven't looked through the entire volume yet). With a work like this, a later revised edition is preferable to the 1st. Also, with as many impressions as this work went through, finding a particular one also isn't of consequence. The deciding point then becomes the quality of the scan. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Problematic three page poem layout fail[edit]

Can anyone please check what I am doing wrong with this poem's layout? Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_23/June_1883/Evolution 20:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've used the poem tag, so I'll keep watch for someone's solution... but I think the poem tags need to be in the body of the poem (start as well as end) and not in the header/footer; otherwise, you can always use breaks along with block center and skip the poem tag... Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I tried my hand at it (using poem tag), but reverted myself... It came closer, but still no cigar. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: My hat's off to you. It is as you said. Much thanks. — Ineuw talk 21:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Glad it worked out after all! Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
@Ineuw:: Hoping you don't mind; I adjusted the spacing between stanzas a bit. The last stanza had too much space between the Roman numerals and the text, and the rest of the Roman numerals were spaced too close (in my opinion) to the prev. stanza's text. It looked funny. Ideally, there "should" be less space between the Roman numerals and their corresponding text, but the poem tag is not flexible that way, unfortunately... Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't mind at all and much obliged for any improvement. I knew that the spacing was wrong, but had no instant solution. My purpose in PSM is to keep consistency of the looks throughout the project and I am grateful to any and all help.— Ineuw talk 22:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Indent/text-indent and page breaks[edit]

So I'm working on some US Supreme Court cases, and I've run into an issue with the {{indent}} and {{text-indent}} templates. Right now I'm working on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Inc., just the syllabus part. (Syllabus = summary, basically.) Anyway, if you look at one of the pages of the source document, eg. Page:Burwell v Hobby Lobby.pdf/3, you can see that sub-sections are indented in increasing amounts in a hierarchical fashion. Eg:

Initial section

(A) Point A

(1) Sub-point 1

(i) Sub-sub-point i

(B) Point B

And so on.

I've been using the {{indent}} template for the most part to deal with these sections, but I've run into the issue that this particular document has a tendency to wrap words and paragraphs across page breaks. When I try to wrap an indented paragraph across the page break, the transclusion in main namespace has a hard-line return that I just can't get to go away. You can see the behavior on the transcluded page (look between pages 2/3 or 3/4 or 4/5 or 5/6).

I've tried:

  • Putting the }} for the first page in the footer and a new {{indent| or {{text-indent| in the header of the next page.
  • Combinations of both templates -- {{indent}} and {{text-indent}}
  • Bypassing the templates entirely and attempting to do the styling manually via HTML. Eg. on the first page preceeding the paragraph with <div style="text-align: 2em;">, putting a </div> in the footer of the first page, and putting a </div> after the end of the paragraph on the second page.

Unfortunately none of those things have worked. The end result is that the first part of the paragraph is indented properly, but the software appears to be forcing a </div> after the end of the first transcluded page, which causes the continuation of the paragraph on the next page to be treated like a new paragraph almost. I'm not sure if this is due to the {{hws}}/{{hwe}} templates or the actual page break itself.

I'm hoping to retain this formatting since it's not just decorative or typographical, but serves a purpose, namely hierarchical organization. Does anyone have any ideas? — Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a particularly clever or friendly solution, but is the effect on page 2/3 now what you want? If so cooking up a new template might be the way to go (You are right about the template inserting a </div> right where you don't want it to appear. I simply replaced the cross-page {{indent}}s with <span style="display:inline-block;text-indent:…"> equivalents.) AuFCL (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I have thrown together a quick version of an alternate template which should suffice: {{indent/s}}. Please feel free to fix any bugs or clarify the documentation as you see fit (i.e. if it breaks I shall donate you the pieces. Not really: if you find anything too horrible let me know and I'll do my best to fix it.) AuFCL (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Excellent! That works like a charm. Thank you very much -- Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
@Mukkakukaku: I see you picked up my oversight regarding the header of continuation pages requiring use of {{indent/s|0}}. I have introduced a new {{indent/c}} (which is only {{indent/s}} with default indent set to 0) and changed the documentation to indicate this. No need (I hope!) for you to change anything already working for you; this is just for future uses. AuFCL (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

A problematic result when using {{Hanging_indent#Spanning_multiple_pages}}[edit]

I discovered that when placing {{hanging indent}} in a header, to span multiple pages of indented paragraphs for the main namespace, it doesn't work on the first paragraph of the main body in the Page namespace unless it is succeeded by <p> in the header. (<br> or <br /> doesn't seem to do it).

Because of this, I also assume that the <p> should be present only if the first line needs to be hanging, otherwise it's only indented (without hanging). I was testing THIS PAGE 254 and looking at the result in Preview before Save and in the main namespace after Save.

Also wonder how {{nop}} affects this template when used within a multiple page enclosure.— Ineuw talk 02:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I've not had problems with this. Are you using the /m version in the header rather than the /s version? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Might also be worth referring to Billinghurst's comments to Londonjackbooks in another thread on apparently similar issue in the same work? AuFCL (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
@AuFCL: I was aware of Billinghurst's suggestion, but someone already placed the hanging indent/s and /e template, and I was testing it when I found the issue of no hanging, just indent. If correct, then the template documentation should be amended to mention it when the template is used in the header and the first line needs to be a hanging.
As for the page in question, the indentation can easily be resolved for proper display. The real problem is that the Index entry "Crewe House" should have appeared grouped under "C", but was missed by the original type setter, and was amended alongside the page number at the bottom which for us is the footer. If there is a tag which hides text in the Page namespace BUT reveals it in the Main namespace, then the problem would be solved. Unfortunately, my knowledge on tags is too limited to know if there is such a tag.— Ineuw talk 03:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  1. If the top of a new page needs to be "hanging" then perhaps carrying the indenting logic across from the prior page was a mistake? Terminate it at the end of the prior page (in the content section) and restart it on the new page (also as content.)
  2. <includeonly>? AuFCL (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
@Ineuw: Just checked your edit history. Perhaps that is where I ought to have started? Guess what? We are talking about the exact same pages which I happen to have edited more recently than you. Your turn: if there is anything wrong now I probably need the lessons. AuFCL (talk) 04:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Poem in a table across a page break[edit]

I'm at a loss for understanding why the second section of a poem will not transcluse. Everything looks fine in the Page namespace, but the second section of the poem does not transclude. The poem is part of a translated Greek tragedy found at Page:Euripides and his age.djvu/165 and Page:Euripides and his age.djvu/166; the transclusion should appear near the bottom of Euripides and His Age/Chapter 6.

It's a page-break-spanning-table, and I've checked it several times against the recommendations at Help:Page breaks#Tables across page breaks—nothing seems to be amiss there—and I've tried some experimental changes, all to no avail. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look now.Ineuw (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much! It does seem now to be displaying correctly in both namespaces. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Offences Against the Person Act 1861[edit]

Murder/manslaughter Can anyone help me with a proviso to this act which makes provocation a mitigation. I am researching a case heard in 1881.unsigned comment by Barbaraphipps (talk) .

I doubt whether anyone here particularly would know. Only thing that I see as a defence against murder is the section discussing excusable/justifiable homicide, which may give a little leeway, though that would only be through a precedent, as the Act does not mention provocation as a reason, just ... or in his own Defence, or in any other Manner without Felony. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That is very helpful. In this particular case the charge was reduced to manslaughter, and the accused was immediately released on the grounds of provocation.unsigned comment by 79.64.48.38 (talk) .

@Barbaraphipps: It is my understanding is that manslaughter (is/was) Common Law, ie. court precedence from waaaaay back, not legislated in the UK, and some other Commonwealth nations like Australia. Such that a defences against that charge will also be by precedent, unless there is specific legislation that separately defines provocation/excusable/... — billinghurst sDrewth 23:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Missing pages from IA scan[edit]

Here and here. Alt. scan is at [3] which has the pages. To be inserted into File:Life of John Boyle O'Reilly.djvu. Assistance appreciated. Moondyne (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Best way to draw attention to this kind of problem is to amend the Index: status and put a note about what needs to happen on the Index Talk: page. I've done this for you. George is the main one who deals with these and he regularly checks the relevant category for Indexes that need fixing. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Advice noted and thanks. Moondyne (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Index:The New Latin Primer (Postgate).djvu[edit]

Been slowly working away at this but would appreciate some other eyes. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Index:Ségur Old French Fairy Tales.djvu[edit]

Proofread- Now if someone would like to get the images from the original :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: If no one is working on this, I would like to do it. Please let me know.--Ineuw (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Feel free, I've not seen a response from others yet. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Guidance transcribing my first book[edit]

Links I'm transcribing The Autobiography of a Catholic Anarchist by Author:Ammon Hennacy now and I've inserted links into the text essentially to serve as explanatory notes without interfering with the flow of text itself. I realize that proper annotations belong on Wikibooks but is it generally considered a good idea to make internal links in documents here? E.g. when someone who is an author here is mentioned, I'll add an Author: link; the same goes for a work that is hosted here. But if there is an event, I'll link to a Wikipedia article or a possibly confusing term, I'll link to Wiktionary. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Author links and work links (red or blue) are (nearly) always acceptable here. However, we try to link only once in a chapter rather than multiple times. Links to WP and Wiktionary are considered to be annotations and while some are acceptable, we tend to err on the conservative side. Pages full of links tend to be looked on with severity. The rough guideline is to enable understanding by the modern reader without spoonfeeding them. If the meaning or event is evident by the context, then don't link. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle: If you think I have too many, I'll just make a parallel text at Wikibooks. Are there good templates for interlinking texts here with annotations there? —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Empty category for Author pages not connected to Wikidata?[edit]

Hi all,

I'm new here but working to improve and update documentation for Wikisource and other sister projects on Wikidata. I've just come across the very useful Maintenance of the Month page for Wikidata but the Category:Author_pages_not_connected_to_Wikidata does not seem to be generating any authors (and as much I would like to think this is because all authors have now been added to Wikidata, I know this is not the case). Is there a reason this category is empty and/or was removed from author pages? I'd love to link to the resource if possible.

Thanks in advance. -Thepwnco (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Other discussions[edit]

LGBT collaboration as part of Wiki Loves Pride 2014?[edit]

Greetings! I was wondering about the possibility of having a Wikisource collaboration related to LGBT culture and history, as part of w:Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2014. This would be for the month (or part of the month) of June, when pride celebrations often take place. Thoughts? Or, is there another avenue in which this discussion should take place? I'd be more than happy to update the Wiki Loves Pride page with details about the Wikisource project, if one comes to fruition. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for your consideration. --Another Believer (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you asking for volunteers from Wikisource or asking permission to form a Wikisource:WikiProject yourself? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I suppose the former. I was curious if there were any contributors interested in collaborating on an LGBT-related project. Wikimedia Commons will be hosting an LGBT photo challenge during the month of June, and my hope was that other Wikimedia project might be interested in interwiki collaborations as part of Wiki Loves Pride. I must admit, though, that I am not very experienced with Wikisource. --Another Believer (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
@Another Believer:, I'd be interested in helping out with such an initiative. -- Cirt (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Glad to hear, Cirt. One of my goals is to shine the spotlight on Wikimedia projects other than Wikipedia, so any LGBT-related content created here would be displayed on the English Wikipedia Wiki Loves Pride page, which may be enough to convince some new or established Wikipedians to check out Wikisource and other projects. :) --Another Believer (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Just sharing a link to the Results page, now that we are half way through the Wiki Loves Pride campaign. If any LGBT -related projects come to fruition at Wikisource, feel free to ping me so I can showcase the work! --Another Believer (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hosting authenticated statements[edit]

Forgive me but I don't know much about Wikisource. At Jimmy Wales's en.Wikipedia talk page we're wondering about the simplest, most reliable way for our biography subjects to alert us to changes in biographical details that haven't yet appeared in reliable sources. I've asked there if Wiksource could host authenticated statements (authenticated through a third party process - like Wikimedia's OTRS system) from our biography subjects. Would that align with Wikisource's mission? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Our scope is defined at Wikisource:What Wikisource includes what you describe is not in our scope. Scope can be modified, so it not completely ruled out. There are of course several issues, but the first one is human resources. Assuming all the other issues of Copyright, validation, etc, as well as the Wikipedia issues with w:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and w:Wikipedia:PRIMARY and probably a few others were addressed. Where would the volunteers come from to manage all the associated work to make this happen? Jeepday (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
This is just one of several options so far proposed - several of which seem to me to be simpler and easier than involving Wikisource. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
It sounds like the sort of thing that would be suitable at Wikiversity. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 08:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Seems that it is WPs problem for their rules, I think that they should solve the issue for themselves, be it use of talk pages, subpages or a new namespace. Thinking of poking it off to the sisters or OTRS is making a rod for someone else's back. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

ORCID[edit]

Fellow Wikimedians may be interested in ORCID. ORCID is an open system of identifiers for people - particularly researchers and the authors of academic papers; but also contributors to other works, not least Wikisource editors. ORCIDs are a bit like ISBNs for books or DOIs for papers. You can register for one, free, at http://orcid.org As well as including your ORCID in any works to which you contribute, you can include it in your user page using {{Authority control}} thus: {{Authority control|ORCID=0000-0001-5882-6823}} (that template can also include other identifies, such as VIAF and LCCN - there's an example on my user page). {{Authority control}}, including ORCID identifiers, can also be added to 'Author' pages. Pigsonthewing (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Andy, I would hazard a guest that we would just pick up any updates that are being made to the Authority control template, and collect whatever is within WD, such that it happens in our Author: ns. It will be useful for helping to identify modern academic authors, as they tend to be a little more difficult to identify and differentiate. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: That's great for subjects (authors whose work we include here); but ORCID is also for contributors (you, me, other editors). Pigsonthewing (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-23[edit]

08:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Index:Poems and extracts - Wordsworth.djvu[edit]

Almost completed (another 15-20 pages or so to do), Can someone do a typsetting pass? (namely vertical spacing and lines.)? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at a couple of pages randomly and it's very nice. Placing {{Dhr}} in the footer has not effect in the main namespace. Placing {{Dhr|25em-30em}} in the text body below the poems to emulate a full page is problematic in transclusion and printing. Just leave it as is. — Ineuw talk 13:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Parading my erudition[edit]

Pardon me, but do you suppose that the Mad Hatter character in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1866) was based on Author:William Rowan Hamilton? ResScholar (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Alice par John Tenniel 25.png WilliamRowanHamilton.jpeg

Funny but no. He wasn't a hatter. Hatters slowly went mad due to mercury poisoning. Mercury was used to soften the hides for hats. —Maury (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

These Scripts[edit]

Scripts

    Custom regex
    header [z]
    clean up [x]
    uc
    hwe
    Custom regex
    title [t]
    author [a]
    author (surname first) [,]
    small-caps [c]
    upper [^]
    hws
    makeref
    makeoverflow1
    makeoverflow2
    footer [f]
    pagename

What are the above scripts - what are each used for and - how did they get on my sidebar as shown when I am editing text? —Maury (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


'Custom regex' was written by Pathoschild, and provides both a tool for regular expression-based find-and-replace, and the underlying framework that the other scripts use. I wrote the remaining scripts, which perform various convenience functions e.g. if you highlight "THE MAN FROM SNOWY RIVER" and click "Title", the text will be changed to "[[The Man from Snowy River|THE MAN FROM SNOWY RIVER]]". You added these scripts to your sidebar yourself on 11 March 2012.[17] Hesperian 00:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow! I added them!? I do not remember it and am baffled. Scripts are wonderful when one understands what they do and yet I added these and didn't know what they were or how to use them? I don't know where they came from. I must have added one thing that I saw somewhere thinking I needed it but until recently I do not recall ever seeing them. My spell checker in this updated version of Firefox disappeared. I saw on my watch-list where Ineuw did something with my common.js and therefore started looking for my spell checker when I first spotted this Script. I asked him to remove whatever he had done without telling or asking me what he had done and he did. I strongly felt he had messed something up due to this and due to a note he wrote about scripts, how some of mine were out-dated &c in my common.js file, including one you wrote (I think) 1+1=2 the sudden missing of spell checker, note on my common.js, emailed me a backup of my former common.js.txt and sighting of this Script that I knew nothing about. I understand what some of these showing do but I had no recall of ever seeing them before yesterday. I hereby do sincerely apologize to Ineuw and thank you for the explanation. I must be getting very, very old and with memory loss! Shrug, oh Lord, this world and one more.... —Maury (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Questions relating to Mediawiki extensions[edit]

IN GENERAL: I am exploring Mediawiki extensions which have the appearance of HTML tags like <poem> etc. Aside from increasing general knowledge, I am particularly interested in what constitutes "classes," and which CSS definitions are usable with these extensions.

IN PARTICULAR: Is there a compact list of Mediawiki extensions (particularly relating to text formatting)? — Ineuw talk 20:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

All installed extensions are listed at Special:Version, and installed extensions should have a link to their homepage, eg. mw:Extension:Poem, and if not then we can bugzilla to get links added. Re adding classes or css, it is hit and miss. I find them not overly documented, so I just try where it is a formatting type extension and see whether it works or not (soooo very scientific).

Extensions that have been coded are listed at Mediawiki. I am unaware of any compact list there, though there may be some categorisation there that will assist. You can always look view their Extension: ns. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been going over the Special pages\Version and it has most of what I wanted to know except classes and css as stated above Face-smile.svg. So, trial and error it is. Thanks again.— Ineuw talk 05:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
@Ineuw: for information about the classes that are hidden away in some deep crevice of wikimedia, eg. plainlinks, I remember at some time seeing some explanatory pages at mw: about classes and ids. It would be worthwhile you doing some searches over there to see what is about, and adding to any local help pages here with any good findings. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Might I suggest if you are looking for class definitions, starting at MediaWiki:Common.css and its cascaded inclusions, MediaWiki:Common.css/Tweaks.css, MediaWiki:Common.css/Boxes.css, MediaWiki:Common.css/Lists.css and (believe it or not) User:George_Orwell_III/common.css/dynimg.css. You won't necessarily find everything there, but almost certainly most classes. AuFCL (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh and with regard Billinghurst's teaser of where class="plainlinks" is defined this (truly horrendous) URL might help, as it delivers that class (and others) to my browser. As it includes references to both gadgets and skins I expect it may be usefully pruned (quite a lot! And don't expect the output to be pretty either.) AuFCL (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Are we looking for this --> https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/admin/projects/  ? Scroll down a bit and you'll find all the additional extensions not standardized in the core but still commonly found from one wiki to another (like our ProofreadPage extension for example). -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you all for taking the time to search and find possible answers.— Ineuw talk 17:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Index:Iran Air Flight 655 investigation.djvu[edit]

And another item proofread. Validate anyone? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to add this document to the validation queue. The fact that it's a small doc of ~60 pages makes it an attractive do. I hope this helps.— Ineuw talk 17:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
There are a number of hand corrections from (C) to (U) on my page; should these not be noted in some way?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Sorry, but I don't understand your question. That is if it's directed at me.— Ineuw talk 21:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
It was directed at the people working on this book; we have pages like Page:Iran_Air_Flight_655_investigation.djvu/84 where hand-written corrections were silently added to the proofed copy, and I thought they should probably be noted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
fwiw... those handwritten "changes" deal with the classification authority &/or status (U=unclassified, C=confidential, S=secret). Sometimes the sub-section ((b)(1)) of the governing Executive Order in force at the time justifying changes are also cited.

The point here is all handwritten changes are technically post-July 1988 so what you really have there is 2 versions in one work. How to handle that is open for debate - especially in this case where the "stamp" at the header & footer of most pages did not come thru in scanning (deals with governing EO #, gives dates, authorities, etc.)

See Page:Pentagon-Papers-Index.djvu/1 for another example of "duality" in one work; original content was created in the 1960s/70s but the version released to the public was done in ~2011. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I also wasn't sure about the redaction size in places.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-24[edit]

07:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Collection extension not working again?[edit]

It was reported that the book tool was no longer incompatible with the ProofreadPage extension, with the exception of Labeled Section Transclusion. But... is that true? Try downloading the book I've just saved and you'll see that nothing is rendered for <pages> tags.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Erasmo Barresi: time to bugzilla it, as it similarly appears that way for me. The Epub wsexport still works fine (thankfully). We may wish to neuter the link as an interim measure. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
bugzilla:66597--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikisource At Wikimania 2014[edit]

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Quick question for a US collaborator[edit]

Can someone in the US please tell me the half-title and full-title of this work?: http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/012445644

The English and American editions of this work are half-titled A London Life and Other Tales, but full-titled A London Life, The Patagonia, The Liar, Mrs. Temperly. I understand this Continental edition omits "The Patagonia", so I speculate that it is still half-titled A London Life and Other Tales, but full-titled A London Life, The Liar, Mrs. Temperly.

Hesperian 01:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hesperian, I have sent the title to your e-mail. Respects, —Maury (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.49015000534751;view=1up;seq=376

A London life. The Patagonia. The liar. Mrs. Temperly.
By: James, Henry, 1843-1916.
Published: (1976)

A London life, The Patagonia, The liar, Mrs. Temperly, by Henry James.
James, Henry, 1843-1916.
English
London, Macmillan, 1889.

Note: The last of the above tales originally appeared under a different name.

4 p. l., 366, [2] p. 20 cm.

—Maury (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


Leipzig, Heinemann and Balestier; 1891.
Note:"Mrs. Temperly" originally appeared under the title "Cousin Maria" in Harper's weekly, August 1887.

Is this what you wanted? I am willing to get the entire book for you if you want it. — —Maury (talk)

Thanks heaps Maury. I already have a copy to work on at Index:A London Life, The Patagonia, The Liar, Mrs Temperly.djvu. I'm just trying to untangle the various editions for when I have to make the versions page. A two-volume first edition printed on Globe octavo was issued in England in early April1889 — only England, despite being listed on the title page as "London and New York: Macmillan and Co." In late April a one-volume edition was printed on Crown octavo and issued in both England and America. The American issue was allowed to appear to be a first edition, but the English issue had a "New edition" note added to the full-title verso, making it a second edition. So far so good figuring all that out. I just needed to know where the 1991 Continental edition fitted in. Thanks again! Hesperian 02:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
You are always welcome for whatever I can do for you, Hesperian. Over the years here you have always been good to me as well as well-mannered. Respects, —Maury (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


Index talk remarks template[edit]

The {{Index talk remarks}} template currently looks like this:

I'm just wondering if anyone else is bothered by that extra space before the exclaimation mark in "established!"? I know it's a very minor thing, and it's only visible to editors so doesn't matter that much, but every time I look at an index page it bothers me! Should I just get over it?

I have brought this up on the talk page, and User:George Orwell III has replied that it doesn't matter. I guess I'm just flogging this dead horse because typographical errors bother me! Sorry. Please just tell me to get over it, if I'm being too silly. Thanks! (And I'm not going to say anything about the word-spacing.)

Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 02:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't for the life of me think why the kerning was overridden for that one character gap! I've removed it for now. I suppose George will revert and explain if it turns out there be method in this madness. Hesperian 02:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! Looks better. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 03:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Reverted. The purpose was no such thing as 'it doesn't matter' - the "annoyance" is to insure User: attention is paid before the typical series of editorial "mistakes" are made when new contribtors enter a project already in progress where editing pointers have been put into place. I've explained this more than once now and Sam seems to be taking advantage of the previous Scriptorium discussion concerning this being archived to subvert the intended - and previously rationally explained - purpose. We've even cut down the gimmicks to just this one at an attempt to appease his concerns - which he seemed to accept at the time as well. So what gives now? -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. I never pay any attention to that one space. I see the bright, orange circular images and think of how pretty they look. —Maury (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh I'm really not trying to stir trouble! Sorry. I really do understand the idea of drawing attention to the talk page and the formatting guidelines there. Doing so is a good thing. The only reason that I'm mentioning the typography is that it looks like a mistake! And this site doesn't need mistakes in typography. :-) The whole point of having the {{mbox}} templates (in this case {{ombox}}) is so that messages/warnings/etc. have the same appearance throughout the site. Wikisource isn't exclusively about typography, but surely we all agree that the spaces between letters and punctuation and words do matter? :) Consistency throughout Wikisource is a good thing in my opinion; it helps with communication.
Could I respectfully suggest the following? (It's just an idea.)
Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 05:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
In some cases the proofreader will be experienced enough to know which kinds of debatable questions there are on how to format, once he or she has taken a brief look at the way it's already been formatted. He or she can look at those guides when a such a question crops up.
In other cases, however, it will be appropriate to read the formatting guides beforehand, so I agree with both tags.
This distinction is about to have practical consequences. Index:Dictionary of National Biography volume 01.djvu is at the top of the validation queue, and will be a case of the second kind, from what I've gathered from listening to Charles Matthews. On the project discussion page, he's outlined some of his ideas for the best way to proceed (which may even call for re-validation). These ideas, however, have not made their way into a formatting guide on the Index discussion page. And this is a special case where instructions would be appropriate on the Proofread of the Month page and maybe even the Scriptorium. ResScholar (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Good point. Would it be suitable to put the DNB formatting guidelines in a template and stick that on each Index page? Or at least a pointer to the project page?
Also, it seems that the exclamation mark that I was being so pedantic about above has now been removed. :-) Thanks Billinghurst!
Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 07:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what Charles Matthews wants to work on yet. I haven't asked him. I don't want to bother him open-ended questions about where the guide should go or what else should go in the guide, especially if he's busy getting ready for Wikimania, so it might take a while for me to come up with appropriate questions to get together the info our editors will need to know. ResScholar (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
No worries! Of course. :) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 07:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I put some DNB specific text together and have my bot appending it to the respective Index talk: pages of the 70 DNB volumes. That should show the box on the Index pages. No need to have the template be specific. If there is more needed, then we should template the summary help text, and we can paste that in its place. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikisource usage statistics; enWS hits visually classified according to type of page accessed through a pie chart[edit]

I've never seen statistics on the various Wikimedia statistics websites that show the breakdown into groups of the actual usage of the server. So here it is! The data is based on two 24-hour periods in 2011 and 2012, and note that this doesn't show the popularity of various projects on Wikisource in a particularly readable way, but it does include major ones as fairly small parts of the whole server use. If in the future I were to show our projects in a more readable way by excluding hits not having to do with content, I would want to use more recent data, but as for the full picture, I would expect it to remain pretty much the same, so I probably won't bother to redo this chart with newer data if I do make a new chart presenting those project classes. DNB00 stands for the main section of the [British] Dictionary of National Biography. ResScholar (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Very cool! I don't know where you got your data, but if it is anything like the "typically available", its not very accurate. See how large the Special: namespace is? Its probably due to over-inflated counts to stuff like Special:HideBanners (more here-> over 830k page views in last 90 days). -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The whole pie represents 541,996 hits and the largest two Special: pages were autologin (93,546; 17.3% of total pie) and hidebanners (953; 0.2% of total pie). There were 271,250 different pages accessed. ResScholar (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for not being more clear, Special:HideBanners is only the most recent (~2014) "null" page recieving a gigantic number of [false] hits. I'm quite sure something similar would come up highly ranked in error over a course of days if not months in 2011/12. The other point I wanted to get across is these kind of non-existant pages should default to their proper error messages - Special:HideBannersX "defaults" properly while Special:HideBanners does not; appearing to be a legit part of the code at somepoint that hasn't been entirely removed & thus 'exploited'. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I mentioned something similar at the top of the Administrators' Noticeboard. Do you think it's the same thing? ResScholar (talk) 08:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
It fits alright. From what I've observed to date, the pattern causing hundreds of thousands of [faux] hits seems to "rotate" every so often amongst such page oddities as HideBanners as part of whatever it is "they" are up to at the moment. And as far as I can tell, Special:HideBanners should only come up if a cookie for donating has been executed (via CommonSettings.php?) on donate.wikimedia.org (I doubt that is case given the insane number of hits) -- I can't even tell if that donation component is still needed & not long deprecated or something. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so now. ....[edit]

Okay, that was easy as pi ain't square so now list every book by popularity - the # of hits it gets. —Maury (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Index:Historical Works of Venerable Bede vol. 2.djvu[edit]

And another work trannscribed. Would really appreciate someone taking a second look at the dates in the Appendix with a view to standarding them for anchors. Thanks. I also note 2 pages in the index I don't feel confident about transcribing due to page quality. Anyone here got a better eye for eading poor scans.?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

If that's an example of your proofreading standard, we're in big trouble, with all the work you've done. ResScholar (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Is this one of those situations where irony is being lost in translation, as it were? :) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 04:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I think he's saying, I've missed some typos.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
And he's right, I found plenty on a second pass. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah! Cool. Always the way. :) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 23:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-25[edit]

07:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikilink policy: how do we handle external links?[edit]

Last year a request for comment was conducted to establish the details of how the community wished to host derivative works on Wikisource. Now this has to written up as policy. I think the annotation policy and the wikilink policy should come into effect simultaneously, since the annotation policy needs the wikilink policy to determine what kinds of basic wikilinks do not count as annotations, and all the works containing non-basic wikilinks must also comply with the annotation policy.

But the community's suggestions are needed to decide how to handle links to non-Wikimedia sites. Should we allow them all or, conversely, ban them all? Should we only allow links to Wikilivres, or to sites that have been given a prefix, or to non-commercial sites? Or draw the line somewhere else? Take into account than any work containing such links would be clearly marked as annotated in the title and categorized as such. Please write your suggestions below.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I am happy for the content name spaces linkages to be limited to wikilinks + (maybe, controlled) WMF sites. However, there is a case for:
  • No such restriction to apply to talk-spaces (as an aid to evolving research and general transient helpers.)
  • Also consider making (say) Template: a special case on the basis sensitive templates can be protected individually, and (e.g. {{authority control}}?) there will be instances where specialised external linkage via a template will be entirely justifiable.
My 2¢. AuFCL (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
If we are talking
  • the annotation perspective, then we are firmly wedged in the main ns, (so this answer is going to be a subset of external links) and we are talking in the body of the work, which I suspect would be very few cases
  • where/how to externally link holistically through the site is a bigger topic than I would wish to tackle here, though the general answer is where it brings specific value to the work, or the page, generally an authoritative site/page, for a main talk page, to the source of a non-transcribed work, eg. gutenberg.
I suspect any policy/guidance that we prepare is going to take a while to wade through, and the edge cases will be interesting. A RFC is probably the way to progress. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Before everyone descends into acronym-Hell… wasn't the Requests for comment that Erasmo Barresi referred to at the top of this item the RFC you are calling for? Or is this all intended to be a do-over because the community couldn't get its act together the first time 'round? AuFCL (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Objection withdrawn in light of discussion below. I now see this is a new variant discussion. AuFCL (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I ought to clarify. We are only talking about annotated works in the main and Translation namespaces. The 2013 RfC was about derivative works in general, and it didn't specifically address the issue of what kinds of links would be allowed in an annotated work. That's what I'm asking for here. Here's the draft of the wikilink policy. [You can see my note: <Rules about external sites to be made>.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)]--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but your clarification has made me less certain what it is you want to discuss. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The question is, "To what extent should external links be allowed in annotated works?". I'll make some examples:
  • You're annotating a work that mentions another work which is hosted on Wikilivres rather than Wikisource due to copyright restrictions. Should you be allowed to link to it?
  • You're annotating a contemporary work that mentions a blog post. Should you be allowed to link to it?
  • You're annotating a contemporary work that mentions a YouTube video. Should you be allowed to link to it?
--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Technical Assistance[edit]

I would like to request a script that when viewing Page: namespace items in Special:Contributions , 2 "blobs" are shown by the relevant items, indicating the current (and when saved page status). I was starting to reviews some old efforts and wanted a fast way of seeing what I could reasonably avoid needing to check in depth again.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Twitter: WeAreWikipedia[edit]

The @WeAreWikipedia account on Twitter is run by a different Wikipedian each week. This week it's me, and I'm trying to include something about each sister project. Do drop by, and follow it if that's your thing. Pigsonthewing (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

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

OK. Anyone want to play hunt the typo? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

LMAO ! smiley —Maury (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Pages I've validated[edit]

Hi Any chance of getting a list of pages this account of User:Sfan00_IMG validated?

I'd like to recheck some pages. 21:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This shows all your Page-namespace edits with that account. I don't know if there is a way to only show validations.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Are you meaning those pages that you moved to stage of validated (4)? Are you meaning pages those pages that you moved to stage of proofread (3) or validated (4)? Some specificity of examples of exactly what you are desiring to see would help. It would be possible to generate a list of pages where you were the last to increase the page status, ie, if still at 3, and you did it, or took to 4. That data is stored in the pages' data, and can have a bot run through it. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Pages where User:ShakespeareFan00 or User:Sfan00_IMG changed the status from proofread (3) to Validated (4) (This includes pages subsequently reviewed by a third party.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
It also occured to me that a nice to have would be the ability to see the current status of a page in Special:Contributions. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Can someone verify this single page document?[edit]

It's been needing it for a while and I want to list it in a portal. Two Undescribed Specimens of Castoroides ohioensis Foster from Michigan. Abyssal (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

What precisely is the problem here? Is it the appearance of the yellow band beneath the title which is concerning you? If so, then simply validating Page:Two Undescribed Specimens of Castoroides ohioensis Foster from Michigan.pdf/1 ought to be sufficient to turn it green. As I was the initial proofreader of that page, logically mine should be the only logged-in user unable to perform this step (and that includes you.)

If the system is preventing you from doing so also then something is broken and ought to be reported as such. AuFCL (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Using only UploadWizard for uploads[edit]

Wikimedia Commons logo

Hello! It was noted that on this wiki upload is not fully functional for users, who will experience a very difficult and/or illegal uploading. In fact, the licenses/copyright tags dropdown is empty, making it hard or impossible to comply with copyright requirements during upload itself.

Presumably, you don't have interest nor energies to have hundreds templates with the now required HTML, even less a local EDP. I propose to have

so that you can avoid local maintenance and all users can have a functioning, easy upload interface in their own language. All registered users can upload on Commons and existing files will not be affected.

All this will get done around 2014-07-03.

  1. If you disagree with the proposal, just remove your wiki from the list. Remember also to create MediaWiki:Licenses locally with any content (see a simple example), or uploads will be soon disabled anyway by MediaWiki itself (starting in version 1.24wmf11).
  2. To make the UploadWizard even better, please tell your experience and ideas on commons:Commons:Upload Wizard feedback.

Nemo 13:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a bad solution to a problem enWS doesn't really have, isn't it? There is always going to be a need for some kind of local upload facility for non-privileged users, even if it is to share a screen-dump for debugging purposes which may be flushed the very next day. Whose job is this making easier at the expense of expending real thought? AuFCL (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't quite understand. It's better to upload to Commons than here, isn't it? Unless there's some specific reason (such as fair use, although I think that's just a WP thing). Why would we want files here that are accepted on Commons? Even the temp-file sharing scenario that AuFCL mentions could as easily happen on Commons, I think (I've certainly done that in the past). Unless I'm missing something, I think I Symbol support vote.svg Support this change. :-)
Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 03:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
We use uploads on Wikisource to make duplicate index pages for things like annotations and de-annotations. ResScholar (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
..and for public domain in the U.S. but not in its originating country. For example, start with this list (I am sure there will be others.) AuFCL (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: Two points may need to be driven home in case they are not already clear:
  1. All File: entries on the prior list are stored locally (on enWS) not on Commons, and contain a warning note not to transfer them.
  2. I am not against taking every effort to discourage local storage, or making people jump through reasonable hoops to justify doing so where appropriate. However I am concerned about the "slippery slope/thin end of the wedge" aspect of this proposal; thus my opposition to it. AuFCL (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you mean AuFCL. Thanks for the clarification. I don't really see the need to prohibit local uploads, but yeah discouraging them seems sensible. Most people who are aware of the issues will know how to get to Special:Upload anyway, so just changing the main upload link (in the sidebar) seems like a good way to go. As for needing to create all the licence templates… surely there aren't that many, given the few reasons that exist for local uploads?
Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 05:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Not keen—However, I'm not sure what is meant by the threat of MediaWiki 1.24 disallowing uploads anyway. Particularly as it was MediaWiki that deleted the page MediaWiki:Licenses as not required here. We already have all the license templates that we would need because every work's Mainspace page is supposed to have a license template on it showing why we can legitimately host the work. Additionally, while I usually use the UploadWizard on Commons because I want to upload more than one file at a time, it is flakey and falls over too easily. In terms of numbers of files we host directly, these are not large (155 DjVu, 77 Gif, 1.0k Jpg, 13 Ogg, 2 Ogv, 154 Pdf, 10k Png, 6 Svg, 2 Tif, 1 Xls, as at 30 April), which suggests to me that we don't have a real problem here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose On occasion, I upload screenshots of problems (for temporary display) that are particular to this wiki and community. I don't see the point of uploading them to the Commons, and then go through their process of deletion after the issue is resolved. Also, there is plenty of garbage on the Commons already. (At least our collection of the same is much smaller) Face-smile.svg.— Ineuw talk 09:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Yes, I see the issues now. :-) Quite unnecessary. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 09:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bloody rubbish. Changes are meant to be by community consensus, not this rude imposition. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ugh!, balderdash! —Maury (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per all above. If no-one opposes, I think we can remove enwikisource from the list mentioned above... —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 11:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done en.source Removed JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Cryptanlysis works[edit]

Is something like this in scope?

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/military_cryptanalysis/mil_crypt_I.pdf (it's about 120 pages - and is Part 1 of set of pre war notes about intermediate cryptanlyss which has seemingly been declassified.)

Anyone want to make some checks annd upload it to be transcribed? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why it wouldn't be scope. It's got two physical pages for each PDF page, so someone should process it before uploading it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer is now live on this wiki[edit]


Media Viewer lets you see images in larger size

Greetings,

The Wikimedia Foundation's Multimedia team is happy to announce that Media Viewer was just released on this site today.

Media Viewer displays images in larger size when you click on their thumbnails, to provide a better viewing experience. Users can now view images faster and more clearly, without having to jump to separate pages — and its user interface is more intuitive, offering easy access to full-resolution images and information, with links to the file repository for editing. The tool has been tested extensively across all Wikimedia wikis over the past six months as a Beta Feature and has been released to the largest Wikipedias, all language Wikisources, and the English Wikivoyage already.

If you do not like this feature, you can easily turn it off by clicking on "Disable Media Viewer" at the bottom of the screen, pulling up the information panel (or in your your preferences) whether you have an account or not. Learn more in this Media Viewer Help page.

Please let us know if you have any questions or comments about Media Viewer. You are invited to share your feedback in this discussion on MediaWiki.org in any language, to help improve this feature. You are also welcome to take this quick survey in English, en français, o español.

We hope you enjoy Media Viewer. Many thanks to all the community members who helped make it possible. - Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

Not seeing a sidebar in monobook for Special:UnconnectedPages[edit]

Just wondering if anyone else does not see the normal sidebar stuff when they are in the monobook skin [58]. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The sidebar is loading at the very bottom of the list under monobook for me too. Vector OK however. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- Found it! Needed a closing DIV tag in MediaWiki:Wikibase-unconnectedpages-summary. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

<facepalm> thanks — billinghurst sDrewth 01:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Cirrus Search updates (with 1.24wmf10)[edit]

(Unchanged paste from the Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list — billinghurst sDrewth 14:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC))

  • Categories will now be considered in result ranking which should improve results
    • We took a shortcut to get this deployed (much) more quickly and the consequences are that the incategory operator won't work for up to 24 hours after the deployment. We'll make this time as short as possible. If this is going to be a horrible pain then file a bug against Cirrus with the wiki you work on. We can either prioritize your wiki so the outage is very small or, if its a big enough deal, come up with a workaround.
  • Text from the lead paragraph in the article will be given a boost when ranking results which should also improve results
    • This will take some time to roll onto the wikis after wmf10 because the index will have to be rebuilt. Days, likely.
    • I don't imagine this'll have any impact on wiktionary and commons but file a bug against Cirrus if it seems like it has a negative impact on results
  • We're on track to add support for searching in article source including regular expressions. See mw:Help:CirrusSearch#insource: for more.
    • Like the lead paragraph the article source will take some time to roll into the index after the deployment.
    • Right now we haven't implemented snippet extraction from article source searches. You'll only get snippets back from the regular search terms. If you don't have any regular search terms you'll get back a snippet from the beginning of the article. I know this isn't ideal at all, and its on the list of things to fix.
  • We'll cut all wikis over to a new snippet extractor
    • You should only notice improvements in the snippets generated but if you see any trouble file a bug against Cirrus
As a follow up, there is some sort of descriptive detail at gitWMF though it takes a little wading. While I can see that there is capacity for us to build more intelligent searches, the how and where still somewhat escapes me. I can see that we could do more at disambiguation pages. We can probably do something better for author pages. Categorisation has never been our strongest point, so some of that is going to be less effective. Maybe there is some customisation that we can do at the general search pages that presents some options.

On a similar note, if there is functionality that we think could be useful, then we should be looking to put forward our ideas though bugzilla requests. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Constant script errors[edit]

Ever since the jQuery update and its console tracking, I've been getting script errors. They don't typically cause a crash but they do seem to screw up loading/caching.

The most common error message is: Expected identifier
and it points to: targetFn.super=originFn
in something starting with var targetConstructor=targetFn.prototype.constructor;

The announcement message (up top) said to list issues in the "Help" section - so here it is. I'm not sure anybody involved with this part of the code will see this however. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Found the cause with a fix in Bugzilla: 67565. I sure wish they would patch it asap rather than next week -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
How odd that Bug id: 67404 seems to have been addressed (the latter doesn't appear to be happening to me at least for a couple of days now) and yet this one is apparently resolved but still left for deferred implementation? Squeakier wheels perhaps? AuFCL (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Index talk:To the Victor Belongs the Spoils.djvu[edit]

I've given a very quick pass through the images used on this- see talk page linked. Can someone with access to the relevant source libraries comment, so that appropriate redactions can be made in the source file?

The text itself is fine. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-26[edit]

07:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Should {{w}} be deprecated?[edit]

I noticed in passing that {{wikipedia}} is already deprecated, and that set me wondering why {{w}} (being only a simpler form of the other) is not subject to the same treatment? I have no problem keeping it if this issue has already been explored. AuFCL (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

"Wikipedia" is the box, and it was the sister boxes and their irregular sizes that were problematic (initially). "w" is used for inline linking, and that still happens, eg. Royal Navy ships, etc. So that hasn't been deprecated, though would fall under our annotation policy and related aspects. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Aha! I understand now. Query withdrawn. Thanks. AuFCL (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Index:Wind in the Willows.djvu[edit]

Per some comments on my talk page, I've paused on updating this because I'd seriously misunderstood the style guide. Thusly I'd been updating the quotation style, against what the style guide ACTUALLY said.

Suitably trouted, I'd appreciate the assistance of some other people here in getting it to : i) a consistent state. ii) a 'validated' state.

Whilst a simple roll back could do this, because of some other minor fixes noted in the course of doing the (wrong) update, a roll back would remove some minor fixes I noted at the same time. :(

The start of the trouble - https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:Wind_in_the_Willows.djvu/16&oldid=4939489 The most recent revision-id is - https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ShakespeareFan00&oldid=4940434 Which is a convenient block for rollback if anyone wants to do that. (I can easily put the minor fixes back in.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Now you get it straight.--Mpaa (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, It's largely proofread, and for obvious reasons I can't self validate.ShakespeareFan00 (talk)

Scripts for flagging tedious minor corrections whilst proofreading.[edit]

In a private discussion on IRC, I raised the possibility of using tool assisted scripts to highlight potential issues with text on pages to be proofread such as "smart quotes", and mismatched brackets.

Are there other common issues that could be automatically flagged up? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Interwiki links[edit]

It seems interwiki links have not been working, e.g. wːPhilosophy. Heyzeuss (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

They work fine. You are using ː (IPA triangular colon) instead of a : (normal colon) is all. Ex. - w:Philosophy -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-27[edit]

06:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Attention template developers: Changes to entity reference handling in #ifeq and #switch[edit]

Just to let you all know there is a small change to how the #ifexist: and #switch parser functions work.

Previously entity references (& > " etc.) were considered different from the characters they represented. For example:

{{#ifeq:&|&|the same|different}} outputted "different"

This has changed so that they are now considered the same. In particular, this means that pages with certain special characters (ie. * ' " = ;), will now have {{PAGENAME}} "equal" to the actual page. For example, on a page named "*foo"

{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|*foo|the same|different}} used to output "different", will now output "the same".

Change goes live on testwiki/mw.org on the July 3, non-wikipedia projects July 8, Wikipedia on July 10. You can test right now http://deployment.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/

—bawolff, Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list

Thanks to @Bawolff: for his general notification to communities that I am sharing above. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

...and the last point in the newsletter above..
  • You will soon be able to use {{!}} as a magic word to produce the pipe character, for instance for use in tables. [94]
... is kind of related when it comes to template development. I don't believe there will be any issues with the switch to a formal magicword but I figure best to highlight the change just in case I'm wrong. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
We will need to delete the template, and we should put a pertinent note in place. Though maybe some of the developers will do a global removal as that could be considered a universal template. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Might I strongly recommend deferring any considerations of deleting {{!}} until after such time as the change is "officially" implemented (at which point all being well the template will no longer be eligible for transclusion—i.e. hopefully the parser will be smart enough to preferentially expand the magic word before the template)?

Then only should the template be cautiously modified to "prove" it is no longer effective/necessary; and finally only then delete it (or not? will anybody really care at that stage?)

Absolutely no sense in exposing WS to failure conditions on the mere promise of a change? AuFCL (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Right; the more I think about it the less I'm inclined to think the transition will be a smooth one in all cases. And with the July 4 U.S. Holiday typically causing a "week off" for developers, we won't see any of this for at least 1 week from this past Tuesday at best.

I'm left wondering why they just didn't make the pipe symbol itself {{|}} a magicword and leave poor old exclamation point completely out of the mix once and for all. Sure, serious bot work would probably be needed after the change but its a small price to pay to recover from what started out as an ugly hack to begin with. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Cheap shot warning…
…because Heaven fore-fend somebody interfere with clever usage of parameterless nameless templates?
AuFCL (talk) 09:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
If you are going to use logic GOIII, you will surely be run out of town. To AuFCL, sure to deletion with testing. It was more a note for us to do and see, rather than having it done by SKS as a blind global deletion. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I am told that {{|}} would not work as the pipe isn't a valid page title character, so it's not a valid magic word thing either. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Cripes, I was teasing guys. I did not at all intend the last comment to be taken seriously, and I get (and pretty much agree with) Billinghurst's point regarding the first. AuFCL (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah - now that makes some sense. At any rate, the switch is on for somepoint on this coming Tuesday (no week off for developers) in 1.24wmf12. That build is already up on the testbed (see HERE for a template using it). I can't find any instance of "trouble" between original & current usage - though the testbed is kind of lame when it comes to actual "works" to verify that 100%. I guess we'll find out next week & go from there. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The idiotic protection over on test2 won't let me test this, but I would be happier if the template were deliberately damaged (say: by adding prefix {{deprecated}}) so that we don't have to take on faith the "Templates used on this page:" section is really telling the whole truth. Yes, I am a suspicious … too. AuFCL (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────┘
You brought up a good point there; the change took place but thanks to caching(?), usage still showed (for the most part) the ! template still in use. Only a null edit (a save without editing anything) refreshed the page to reflect the correct status/usage. This led me to think to use the API to purge the ! template instead and viola - the transcluded usage of the template went from in the hundreds down to less than 50.

So when the change takes place here, "somebody" needs to execute...

... to properly reflect usage under the new condition. Doing this purge prematurely, however, may or may not suck in the long run if some template or string of templates goes bad as result of the switch (e.g. there won't be any "What links here" listing to fall back on for troubleshooting, etc. at that point). -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Honesty compels me to admit that wasn't quite what I was railing against (I was annoyed by the staged-release mechanism making short, relatively painless change-test-revert cycles impractical) but nevertheless glad if I could trigger a useful result. AuFCL (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
A bit of a late thought: whilst Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:! works now, it won't after the change goes through. Anybody thought about capturing the current list as a starting point for the bot run later? AuFCL (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Special:MostTranscludedPages says the template is used on 126,399 pages! - I wouldn't know how to save all that or even if its worth saving. I did save "what links here" only for Template namespace thinking those are where trouble is likely to originate (if at all). I also edited all the other linkage for the template except of course the usage on this page to reflect plain-text instead. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Eek! I knew it would be a lot (I was thinking something just over 50,000) but that is rather frightening. Put it down as just a silly idea. AuFCL (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Template:! is no longer transcluded anywhere, and is no longer linked from anywhere except here. Special:MostTranscludedPages is cached and hasn't updated yet; Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:! is the authoritative source. The template is ready for deletion. If anyone is worried about breakage, let me know what's necessary to relieve those worries. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Old work needs some modernising[edit]

I am doing some disambiguating, and find the work Index:Oxford Book of English Verse 1250-1918.djvu using some methodologies that are out of date and disrupt the display of the work to our current standards. Example Page:Oxford Book of English Verse 1250-1918.djvu/45 and its transclusion to Piers Plowman (Langland, Oxford Book of English Verse 1250-1918) where the references are old style, and do not display clearly as notes when transcluded. The sections don't include the name of the work being transcluded. So to me, a reasonable way to approach an update would be to include the headings, convert the notes to refs (possibly after the name of the work, which is different from the original display), and to add the relevant references to the required transcluded works in main namespace. So if there is anyone who would like to work on fixing it, it is there for the offing, otherwise, I will get to it some time in the next few weeks, once I have finished other tasks. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Video and audio transcripts?[edit]

There is discussion of making somewhere transcripts of WMF audio and video available. All input is more than welcome at wikipedia:Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost#Transcripts of audio interviews. John Carter (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I have made comment that I thought that it fits within the overall content that Wikisource includes, though one of our colleagues was less certain. To me it fits within the overall principle of published works, and if pre-1923, we would include, like we have done for some early movie files that we have transcribed. That said, our colleague is correct that WS:WWI is somewhat vague on post-1922 works, and if we look a little harder, it is truly vague on contemporary works (multimedia +) released on a free licence that don't fit within the print-world model. My overarching question to myself was that a transcription of the video should occur, and if it is to be hosted within WMF, then where, and to me it is clear that it is our responsibility to have such works clearly within scope where they are published and meet our licensing requirements. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
[As Devil's Advocate]: Part of the discussion also considers the idea of having translated captioning in several languages. My experience is that, if it's a multilingual work, then the community doesn't want it here, preferring it to reside in the no-man's-land of the multilingual wikisource. I do not agree with this approach, but that is my experience. The question of how to handle such captioning is a very real question, since we have to address the desire of multiple language speakers to see such a video and read its transcripts. Wikisource (not just this one) is very ill-equipped to handle multilingual media; Commons does it already, and also handles video and audio files well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
We are the English version, and for works that are broadly multilingual, mulWS has always be the home. I haven't seen an impetus for change, here or on the mailing list <shrug>. Video captioning of a work, is a separate issue to us hosting a transcription, as a transcription is a derivative of the original work, and both should exist at Commons. People can take a hosted transcription and do as they please with it if the licence allows it. I would agree that the derivative work aspects are for Commons, that doesn't separate us from the original transcription of a published work. To be clear, I don't see that we are doing more than hosting the English language transcription. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
In this case, however, the only place the work was "published" was at Commons. Are we willing to extend what we host to transcripts of files that were only published on Commons? --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
[cont'd]And were such a file here, then the question becomes how to interface, catalog, and curate such an animal. Part of the impetus behind the Signpost discussion was the dissatisfaction with the problems of finding such files on Commons. We have no mechanism for cataloging such files, and frankly our categorization of what we already have is so poor that I can't imagine it being easier to find a particular interview here as opposed to finding it on Commons. Couple with that the idea of hosting original content not published elsewhere, and of having translated captions in multiple languages, and you've got an idea that's dead before it ever gets started. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Portals, wikiprojects, authors … numbers of ways. They are issues, not insurmountable, and like anything else, drive us to improve. The original content is the audio, or the audio-visual and that is what is published, we are transcribing a published work in its original language. We would also be using something like {{listen}} as I did with Sumana'a recent works, and we have done for works that Theornamentalist did in Category:Film and other works like Category:Works with videos‎. It is hardly different to some of the transcripts of US presidential speeches that we host which have been done from recordings. There are clearly new things to consider, and some changes that we may need to make, with all that in mind, the transcription of a published work falls within our remit. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't particularly see it as in scope. Would we keep these if they were from TED or Apple? If not, then I would say they belong on meta.wikimedia.org, not here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I don’t have an issue with the idea of expanding our scope. We are a library, and it least in my experience library's house all types of consumable media. There remain several hurdles to this proposal that would need to be addressed prior to expanding the scope to include these works. WS:WWI needs to accurately describe what is in scope, we are not a vanity press, and I don't expect anything to change that. Also the whole catigorization thing, which presumably would follow the WWI discussion, or at least occur in tandem. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I think Wikimedia projects do better when they separate out Wikimedia stuff and non-Wikimedia stuff. If we take this type of stuff, we should make it under non-Wikimedia specific rules.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo has indicated that he doesn't think the WMF would care which WMF entity hosts transcripts, so long as one of them does. As an individual, I think that the fact that there are probably a few radio broadcasts that could reasonably be transcribed, including both fiction and news or other nonfiction, at least some of which will be as or more significant as some of the works of the same basic type of several already included here, this site would be the logical place to host them all. John Carter (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

British Library books[edit]

Hi all,

A year or two ago I posted about the British Library's nineteenth-century book collections - these were sort-of-available for distribution at the time, but in a very convoluted way involving my having to get them and upload them without a clear index available. Time has moved on, and now:

a) the electronic versions are available online (hurrah!) without having to be inside the BL network;
b) there is, sort of, an accessible search engine restricted to the digitised books;
c) the books have been used to generate the (remarkable) million-image Mechanical Curator collection

Not all plain sailing, though. First, the method originally used to generate the PDFs does not work well with MediaWiki - page images don't display properly - and so they need to be converted to djvu before uploading. (An example, with image-description tags, is here)

Secondly, searching for them is still a little clunky. They can be found using the main catalogue search, then refining the access options to "online" and the format to "book". (This rules out any on-site resources) The result is a strange combination of publicly-accessible government/EU documents and pre-1900 public-domain books available for download as PDFs...

Anyway, have a dig around! Some good material in there even if it's not amazingly well catalogued. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

. . . Phew, (wiping the sweat off my eyebrows), I was worried that there are no illustrations left for me to clean and upload to the commons.— Ineuw talk 09:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray:Great news, thanks for bringing it to us. I will add the link to Wikisource:Sources, probably with a little pointer to this text. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible topical WikiProjects?[edit]

So far as I can tell what WikiProjects which have been created here have tended to be on specific works, not broader topics, like those at wikipedia. Has there ever been an attempt to create such projects here? I imagine one thing they might be able to do is develop content on "classic" or widely useful PD works, which could also be used in developing content at wikipedia and the other WMF entities. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@John Carter: WikiProjects have followed people's interests. There are plenty of projects that cover broader topics … Special:PrefixIndex/Wikisource:WikiProject though without critical mass they simple wax and wane. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I was somewhat more thinking along the lines of having maybe 2 to 3 dozen WikiProjects on broad topics, like history, military history, philosophy, religion, visual arts, music, and similar, with maybe an equivalent number of "geographial" projects. They might even have similar naming to similar WikiProjects at wikipedia to maybe help encourage and bring more editors from there to here, and maybe be between them broad enough in scope to cover most everything we see here. The majority of the project page might just be a list of relevant extant works or indexes here, with maybe a list of relevant articles/pages from Britannica and the like. But I very much think making it easier for the numerous wikipedia editors to find something useful and of interest to them here would probably help both entities. John Carter (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Have you had a look at the way we use Portals here? It's different to enWP and is probably more akin to what you're thinking. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:, though we haven't coordinated works in such a place, which would be due to the lower numbers of participants. It you add works to those pages, even if just names of the works, then we would ask that you add them to author pages too. If a work is uploaded to Commons, and the index page is started then we have {{small scan link}} which indicates that the work is available to participants. If you have identified a scan of a work off-site then we have {{external scan link}} that can be used. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking of adding any, just listing those that already exist in one central location for easier access. John Carter (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council Resolution category names[edit]

I noticed that all United Nations Security Council Resolution documents have "United Nations" spelled out in the title, but Category:UN Security Council Resolutions and its sub-categories (like Category:UN Security Council Resolutions in 2000) do not. They are all spelled out in the corresponding Wikipedia categories, and I would think our practice here would be to have them spelled out also. Can we do a mass move? I'd be glad to make the fixes on the affected pages if the categories are renamed, or this could all be done by bot. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that it is really necessary. Wikidata them, and that should align them. Xwiki there is variation after variation in naming of articles and categories. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Aren't things like that usually spelled out on this wiki? It is not just an interwiki inconsistency, but an internal inconsistency here, since all of the actual document page titles spell out "United Nations", and several Wikisource categories also spell it out. BD2412 T 16:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-28[edit]

07:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not attack the admins[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: No idea what is going on here, but it is not constructive and this does not seem to be the place for discussing what ever it is. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 19:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Index transition between pages[edit]

Anyone have any good ideas how to best transition between pages 253 and 254 so that it translates better in the Mainspace? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe wrap the continuance in a <noinclude>, or put it in the Page: header so it doesn't transclude? Eg the very first item in the index on page 254 that says "Department of Propaganda in Enemy Countries—cont." which is just a continuation of the item/header introduced in the previous section? Unless there was something else you were concerned about and I'm just being willfully blind at the moment... Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Not sure how to explain it, but the formatting of the text also seems to shift between pages (paragraph style, etc.). I'm not sure how to tie the two sections together. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I found a solution to one issue using hanging indent. Seems to have done the trick. I also used your recommendation of noinclude for the other issue. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: I would actually use {{hanging indent inherit}}, and holistically. It is an open formatting template, which can be closed as required. You may also consider using {{anchor+}} on each alpha anchor, and we can add a ToC template in the header when it transcludes to allow easier navigation. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I might just make a mess of things, but I will try it when I have time. If anyone wants to have a go with it before I do, please feel free! Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for online Edit-a-thon event for Complete Works of Lenin[edit]

Is it possible to arrange an 2-3 days online Edit-a-thon event to create complete works of Lenin at English Wikisource? The source of all the works of Lenin is in this link. There are 45 volumes of work, too difficult and time consuming for a single editor. If some online Edit-a-thon event can be arranged, it will be great, as more and more will participate. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't see any scans in that link. Am I missing something? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The 45-volume Collected Works was completed in 1977 and translated by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism. Since it was a consistent translation body, it's logical to assume that the translations were made around, and as late as, 1977—too short a time ago for any of the copyright to have elapsed even under a publication date plus fifty years copyright span. ResScholar (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The works of Lenin are under public domain. It can be seen here. It clearly says, Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive (2003). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
No need to shout. We have already discussed marxists.org's unique copyright perspective at Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations/Archives/2010-08#A_Curve_Ball_from_Marxists.org. It turns out we didn't agree with it. ResScholar (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey man, I was not shouting. I was just telling. Was it due to the bold font, you said, I was shouting? My fault. Ok, I have changed it to Italics. I think its Ok now. Really very sorry, if I unintentionally hurt you. No hard feelings. :-) -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
@Bodhisattwa: Don't sweat it. There are individuals around here so delicate and sensitive that a misplaced "^" cuts them. You are doing fine. AuFCL (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, so there are no scans, and (assuming the English translations are indeed PD) as a result this would just be a big text dump without the ability to verify the text against publication. While I commend the idea behind this proposal, without scans to back up the works I can't support it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, ResidentScholar, I did not mean to delete your message. I did not realize I had.
[re-posted] @ Bodhisattwa, as Beeswaxcandle stated, "I don't see any scans" (either). But if there are scans then perhaps you can do the earliest volumes and let the others wait? Especially since it will take a long time to do the first ones. Wikisource or something like it may still be around. Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC) —Maury (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Our purpose for edit-a-thons IMO should be new works, not already transcribed and supported with scans, rather than copy and pastes of existing transcribed works. Anyone is welcome to set up a wikiproject to coordinate, but I don't see the purpose for the community to put the effort into Lenin's works where they already exist. — billinghurst sDrewth
I agree with what billinghurst has stated because when I first read about the idea about Lenin as all text as far as I could see from the posted link, I thought that it would too much like Gutenberg's all text files. Just copy their all text files. Too, after doing so many books, especially illustrated books, all text of the length of 45 volumes on Lenin seemed to me terribly boring which is why I (and perhaps others) here don't go to and remain with Gutenberg. —Maury (talk) 05:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Marxists Internet Archive: "The Former U.S.S.R. did not abide by copyright laws until 1973, so works published in the U.S.S.R. before that date are public domain." In the link I inserted above, WS:CV determined that statement was dubious at best and refused to acknowledge it. There's no need for everyone to flout the precedent simply because a humble admin like me was involved in setting it. ResScholar (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
As a pointer to @Bodhisattwa: we are not averse to the works being linked externally on Author: ns where they are freely accessible. So we could add the works to Author:Vladimir Lenin, though with so many, we may wish to create a template that clearly indicates that they are external links and to where. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-29[edit]

07:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Dotted TOC series of templates can be problematic[edit]

We have number of situations where the "dotted ToC" series of templates are blowing out over the limited for transcluded pages and turning up in Category:Pages_where_template_include_size_is_exceeded, usually the case of long ToC. I have resolved some, however, we need to look at that series of templates to see if we can lighten the load that they are putting in place. I am presuming that we have complicated nesting or conditions in these, though as they are not mine, and I haven't looked inside, I will leave it to who favour their use. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Dotted TOC page listing/1-9 full of bloat[edit]

I have been trying to resolve issues with certain pages blowing out the post-expand include size, which basically means that not all pages of a work transcluded. I notice some particular issues with the Dotted TOC page... templates, and I narrowed it down to Special:PrefixIndex/Dotted TOC page listing/ template 1 through 9. These templates are about 2kb each, and when used multiple times on a ToC over multiple pages they are an issue. (we can have 2048 * 1024 = 2048000 bytes, and these pages have blown that limit). In short when we fill these templates with either &nbsp; or &#160; we get severe bloat. To put that into context, we have can fail on 5 or six transcluded ToC pages, yet, we can often transclude 100 normal pages in a chapter without issue. This is an issue of heavier coding in ToC due to tables, but also the really heavy burden of the current form of dotted leaders.

Examples of what was happening (and the figures are taken from the show source of a page) and here I have taken one page from The Army and Navy Hymnal/First Lines of Hymns

Page:The Army and Navy Hymnal.djvu/12 (with Template:Dotted TOC page listing/5 and all &nbsp; and dots)
Post‐expand include size: 410233/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 10246/2048000 bytes
so at about five transcluded pages of ToC it fails

Page:The Army and Navy Hymnal.djvu/12 ((with Template:Dotted TOC page listing/5 without the spaces and dots)
Post‐expand include size: 109273/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 6880/2048000 bytes
basically a little over a quarter of the size due to use of the dot leader effect

Page:The Army and Navy Hymnal.djvu/12 ((with Template:Dotted TOC page listing/5 instead with 2 &emsp; and dots)
Post‐expand include size: 235597/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 10246/2048000 bytes
still less than perfect with just over half the size, so we may get 8-9 pages of ToC

So in short, I have resolved the current problem with a less ugly hack for Template:Dotted TOC page listing/5 of exchanging five &nbsp; (multiples of 30 characters) for two &emsp; (multiples of 12 characters), and for Template:Dotted TOC page listing/1 exchanged the &amp.#160; (6 characters) for a simple space (1 character). I am not certain that the spacing is correct, and would invite someone who cares about the look of the template series to have a look, and to address parts /2 /3 /4 /6 /7 /8 /9 and look to get the spacing consistent across the range. If we need half spacing, we are better of to use the combination of a normal space, and &ensp; and &emsp; and to try and minimise the number of characters used. Ultimately we need a programmed approach, and someone more skilled with lua, may have an idea that is less clunky. @Eliyak:billinghurst sDrewth 03:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The one LUA solution I knew of was already tried and failed...
Ex call = {{#invoke:String|rep|{{{1}}}&#160;|244}}
...for basically the same reason - instead of achieving css letter-spacing (or even magicword-ish padding left/right somehow) we rely on one type of "space" character or characters or another to fill in between the "dots", which of course, causes x number of character bloat. The solution seems pretty simple either way if the LUA know how to feign css letter-spacing &/or white-space settings were somehow worked into all this. Getting LUA to accept simple "space-bar" spaces would even help. Long story short, I've tried to recruit folks from WB & WP to spend some time here for just this type of support with little interest shown (Maybe its me?). -- George Orwell III

Google Search and wikisource.org[edit]

Hello! We in the Russian Wikisource have found that Google had stoped to index new pages starting from May 2014. For example, I had created page about Lithuanian Statut in 9 July 2014, but this page is absent in Google search results now, 14 July 2014. It seems that the problem also applies to other sections of the Wikisource. It requires something to do with it, because without text indexing by search engines all the work is not available for outside users and we can forget about attracting new members.--Вантус (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that. I find that, for a search it is showing me a page created on 30 June

The English Peasant/John Clare - Wikisource, the free ...
en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_English_Peasant/John_Clare
Jun 30, 2014 - 1668129The English Peasant — Types of English Agricultural Life — John Clareby Richard Heath. II. A Peasant Poet. (Golden Hours, 1873.).


billinghurst sDrewth 16:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Very intretsing. You can see in Russian Wikisource my page Статут Великого княжества Литовского 1566 года and Google result. Moreover you can see search for last week and find only 4 pages when actualy more then 100 was created.--Вантус (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Index:WALL STREET IN HISTORY.djvu upload[edit]

Index:WALL STREET IN HISTORY.djvu Why is it that this will not upload here to WS as it usually does? I used the same process to upload. File:WALL STREET IN HISTORY.djvu is located on WikiCommons. Thank you to whomever answers this mystery. —Maury (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Just click here and create it!--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that the implicit question was why wasn't the template self-filling with the meta data. I converted File:WALL STREET IN HISTORY.djvu to use the {{book}} template, and it imported the meta data fine, and Index: ns page is created. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you guys! May we all continue creating a wonderful Wikisource Library together as all people here should. I suppose a tl|book is a tough luck book? I have never had to use that when uploading books here. smiley —Maury (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Template:Book has been recommended for books for a while now. It is also the default when you use Tpt's toollabs:ia-upload tool that takes Internet Archive works and adds them to Commons. Takes a moment longer to complete, though I think that it is or more value, especially as it inhales more data into the Index: pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Since you like this method it is obvious to me it is the best way to handle uploading a new book. However, *I* do not understand it but I easily understand the previous method as well as removing a Google page (all Google watermarks) from a .PDF file, uploading it to IA to derive to a .djvu (if need be) without "Google" (as you asked another here to do with the 1st pg of a djvu) even mentioned and upload to commons then place the book here which I would guess is a long process but it is do-able. I have done several books the older way and very recently and I do hope the older option will be at least an option. I have more very good books by this same lady authoress to upload including the book on Early America Houses and architecture, and more. Now I find a blockade before me. The older method was best for me. I dislike learning "How to" over-and-over as another upgrade process. I back off from that and do not engage in more upgrading processes. I don't mean to sound like an asp, it is just a matter of a poor learning curve of an old guy. Please, if possible, leave the older way as an option.

I understand, this new method is better -- yes, for those who work with all sorts of scripts perhaps, but not for everyone. I recall what a fellow on WikiPedia told AdamMorgan about WikiSource -- it is convulated. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why Template:Information didn't work, I simply converted the data to Template:Book and it did work. <shrug>

With regard to asking for no change, while that is your desire it isn't reasonable, and I don't think that there was any direct change to Tpt's metadata import. Developers are fixing lots of things at lots of times, and sometimes a change has a greater impact than expected. You can always populate the Index: template manually. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

That's okay, perhaps next time I can get it to work. It is an enlightening book and much more than I expected. Thank you kindly for the help and for the reply. —Maury (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Annotation policy[edit]

I recently opened a Request for comment about the annotation policy. I would appreciate everyone's input.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Chronicling America[edit]

hi, i have been asked if there is interest in uploading some Chronicling America newspapers from Library of Congress. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/ it has a microfiche view, and an ocr text layer, that allows text search; but wikisource would be better to read for phone or tablet. is there interest in some selective ones as a pilot? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 23:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Huh that's kind of cool. I didn't know such a thing existed. (Though the site and its search functionality does have a strange concept of geography. It seems to think Salt Lake City is in Colorado.) Maybe a historically relevant edition as a trial run? Like something related to the Spanish-American War or World War I?
I'm going to go through this one and see how difficult and/or time consuming it would be to extract to a single djvu file. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • One thing I'd be concerned about would be the fact that stories that came across the news wire (eg via the Associated Press or the like) will likely have large sections of duplicated content. This is something I noticed while I was canvassing old newspaper articles for primary sources while writing regular wikipedia articles. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • So the PDFs I downloaded for my test newspaper were all corrupted so I couldn't convert them to DJVU and my pdf fixing mojo is apparently not good enough for this scenario. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
thanks very much i will mention this example at the w:Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Chronicling America and with User:Taylordw. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 22:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Fwiw.... in my expierences, using common PDF/TIFF/JPG/etc. methods for OCR &/or .DjVu conversion of a typical single newspaper "page" has always produced less than optimal results for me. The issue has to with the typical height and width dimensions of such scans - not to mention those instances where 3 or more columns appear on a single page to boot. Most of the current [free] services or software seem to be able to handle such nuances just fine but only if adjustments are made to the default settings of such entities (never easy). Rumor has it that this is possible even on IA - if you know how to properly manipulate/customize the derivative settings when you begin the derive process that is (and of course that linked table doesn't even list all the currently available options).

I've given up experimenting with this but someone like Nemo bis might know how to achieve this specifically for newspaper scans. It might be worth bringing him into the discussion before coming to any solid conclusions on our own. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Another comment: even the original OCR from the Chronicling America site was pretty pathetic for my test case and woefully incomplete, so it wasn't even a viable copy-paste job from the text layer available on the site itself. Maybe I just picked a bad test case and there are other newspaper editions that have better text layers. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Index:Great Speeches of the War.djvu[edit]

I've done some proofreading on this, of the three remaining unproofread searches, I can't do these for copyright reasons. Perhaps someone US based can?. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Which speeches, exactly, are you concerned about? Mukkakukaku (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Speech by Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill starting on p282 ( he died in the mid 50's so it's not out of UK copyright.)
Speech by M. Paul Hymans starting on p 258, ( They died in 1941) so nominally expired in 2011 , but wasn't sure origin country here (Belgium) applied an extension for those involved in the war.
Speech by M. Sazonoff starting on 263, I can't find a death date online, so can't be sure of the UK status.

All are pre 1923 publication as far as the US is concerned though.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Sasnoff would appear to be w:Sergey Sazonov, (d. 1927) so this one is OK. :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-30[edit]

07:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Mainspace styling?[edit]

Did something change in the space of the past 5 days in terms of the styling of transcluded works? (That is, works transcluded using the <page> tag?) Or is this once again one of those weird side effects of using the MonoBook styling where things happen spontaneously because the rest of the world uses Vector?

This is what I observed:

  • Five days ago, when I was on WS last, the styling of those pages was specific: font was serif, text was a narrow stripe about 500px down the center of the screen, paragraph indicators were on the far left separated from the text by a big gap.
  • Today I show up again and the transcluded text is in sans-serif font, stretches almost the full width of the screen, and the paragraph indicators are in danger of being overlapped by the regular text.

Is anyone else seeing this or am I having a moment? -- Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Check if you have selected Layout 1, 2 or 3 on the left Tool panel. The Wikisource cookie seems to store an initial selection. Delete the cookie, Log out and in and try again.--Ineuw (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
PS. Post the page you were looking at.--Ineuw (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I am using monobook and not having issues of difference. Tried flushing your cache? (ctrl-F5) As Ineuw said, a page as an example would be helpful. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)