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



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

User global javascript and css configuration[edit]

I am excited to announce that on Tuesday, August 26, we will be deploying the GlobalCssJs extension, which enables per-user JavaScript and CSS across public Wikimedia wikis. Users will be able to create global.js and global.css subpages on Meta-Wiki and these pages will automatically be loaded across all public Wikimedia wikis.

There is documentation available if you want to load JavaScript on a subset of all wikis (e.g., all Wikisources, all French language projects, etc.).

Some users currently have manually set up global JavaScript/CSS by creating local user subpages (e.g., monobook.js/css subpages) to load their global scripts. For these users, the deployment of the extension will mean that modules will be loaded twice, and they will no longer be included in global scope. A script has been prepared to delete these page if they were created in the standard format. Users can signup at a Meta-Wiki page to have this done on their behalf once the extension is deployed.


—Legoktm, wikitech-ambassadors mailing list

For your information. As Wikisource users tend to be crosswiki contributors (both within interlanguage sites and across sister sites), and occasionally editors of js and css files, this information is possibly of interest to you. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Global preferences[edit]

As I was editing my Preferences (replicating from the English) in the French Wikipedia, a silly question occurred to me. Why not provide a replication gadget of the user Preferences of global users on other Wikis. Access to this gadget on another Wiki where I plan to post/edit occasionally would be helpful and at the same time limit spawning the info to sites where there is little likelihood that I will be posting to, like Esperanto, but then who knows? — Ineuw talk 02:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Having just looked at the installation instructions, I was disappointed to find that it's not just a gadget or preferences switch. Understanding how to create and modify these files makes them inaccessible to the average user (I am barely able to follow the instructions myself). I guess that's for the future. Laura1822 (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@Laura1822: where are these installation instructions? Helder 18:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC) I was referring to the page target of the first link above in the quoted announcement. Laura1822 (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@Ineuw: what gadget are you referring to? Helder 18:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
BTW: I started a gadget for this task a few days ago (but it is still undocumented, sorry). Helder 18:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you got my drift, the gadget doesn't exist yet, and there is no rush. It was an idea for a gadget which copies preferences from my Home account to the one where I activate the gadget. Since my home account is on English Wikipedia. I also understand that not every setting here corresponds, which is fine, setting those manually anyone can easily live with that. — Ineuw talk 19:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Phabricator to replace bugzilla end of September[edit]

According to our plans, we are just a few weeks away from Wikimedia Phabricator Day 1. On that day, Bugzilla will be accessible in read-only mode, and all the bug reports will have been migrated to Phabricator. From that point, all bug reporting will be done in Phabricator.

We are very excited about this move. Phabricator provides a friendlier environment to new/casual users while offering a powerful collaboration platform for software development and project management in general -- all at once! For instance, users can edit task descriptions, one task can be assigned to more than one project (or none), and tasks can be organized in project workboards (i.e. ).

Learn about the launch at You can subscribe to this task to receive any updates.

This Day 1 is also relevant for other migrations (RT, Trello, Mingle, even Gerrit at some point) but first of all we want to make sure that the Bugzilla migration is well communicated and understood across all Wikimedia projects. For that, we need your help.

We are planning the communication activities at -- feedback and volunteers are welcome.

Learn more about Wikimedia Phabricator, and how we got to the point we are now after nine months of discussion and work:

If you need help using Phabricator or you see other users with problems, check/improve Support is provided at the related Talk page.

We will continue sending major updates to this list between now and Day 1. As always, we welcome your questions and feedback.

—Quim Gil, Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation, Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list

As a quick note. At a later point of time, once the migrations have occurred, there will be scope for the project management tools to be used for the non-technical aspects. Having used Trello, that type of tool will be interesting to see how functional we can make it; definitely something that we can use for managing maintenance. So the suite of tools has possibilities. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Query: Is Phabricator intended to always "stand apart" from the rest of the wiki-cluster (ala existing Bugzilla); or are logins intended to be eventually merged and/or OAUTH/login-by-credential access enabled? In other words, ought interested parties be applying for logins now, or would that be jumping the gun? (Or have I just missed something obvious?) AuFCL (talk) 11:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't create any account, as once it comes out of labs space then it will use your existing wmf credentials, as per mw:Phabricator/Help. (Labs environment tools purposefully don't utilise wmf credentials for security reasons.)

Please be kind to the cleaning crew[edit]

I've been going through the list of Queued to be validated and in case anyone knows of a book/work/project that's been proofread and waiting to be validated Please add it to the bottom of the list with the link preceded by the year and month as in YYYY-MM, (2014-09). P.S: I don't do windows - just in case it comes up. — Ineuw talk 21:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I may (probably) have missed the point, but are you perhaps really looking for Category:Index Proofread? AuFCL (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Or try something along the lines of (for a semi-automated list):
category=Index Proofread
addfirstcategorydate=ISO 8601
Sample output (limited to random 10 entries):
? AuFCL (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I was referring only to the list of the 50 titles at the above link. Only BWC can answer why they were listed there. All I wanted to do is add the year & month to the list to prioritize them by date.
Of course your list is the correct one for all works waiting to be validated, if we were planning to do validations based on the oldest proofread date. — Ineuw talk 03:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Oops. More fool me. I should have read your request more carefully before deciding what you really wanted. Pardons, please? AuFCL (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not an issue. Unwittingly, I butted into User:Beeswaxcandle's territory. I acted on the wrong assumption and will clear it up with BWC. — Ineuw talk 19:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Scroll-wheel in ProofreadPage[edit]

I'm not too sure if this counts as a proper announcement; and in any case not being a complaint it might result in culture-shock around these parts resulting in summary censorship.

Considerably to the contrary: I have just noticed that (presumably since the last version upgrade) the scan image may once more be resized using the mouse/scroll-wheel in Firefox during edit sessions. This feature has only been broken for me continuously for the last twelve months (or maybe more) so a big thank-you from me to whomsoever wishes to claim credit for the fix. AuFCL (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

More like 2 or 3 versions ago. See

Prior to that (& if I recall correctly), it was intentionally crippled for some reason or another and refinements since have allowed for its "recent" return. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I must have just become used to not expecting it to work, so simply never retried. I did notice on my very rare and occasional forays into μSoft/I.E. land that it has been working for several months there. AuFCL (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I used it for the first time in ages just the other day, and it was useful. But I must admit, I never realised it’d been broken! I normally am on a big wide monitor, and with the left sidebar completely removed, and so the scans appear rather big anyway. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 03:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

mul: interwiki now exists[edit]

It quietly happened in the mediawiki release last week git #f0d86f92 - Add additional interwiki links as requested in various bugs (bug 16962, bug 21915) that the mul: interwiki has appeared for the wikisources to be able to point to So we can now do mul:Scriptorium and it appears in interwiki links as "More languages". We will have a number of places, especially in the project namespace where we need to do some additions.

I am in the process of spreading this marvellous news to the broader community. I would like to thank @This, that and the other, Tim Starling: for their coding and review to get this through and to @Rdicerb (WMF): for listening to thoughts about Wikisources' place in the WMF-sphere. Now to see how we can get mul: working for Wikidata. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

See The Lord's Prayer for an example of the language link in action. It would be easy to apply custom styling (e.g. bold, italic) to the "More languages" link in the sidebar on a global basis, if the community decided to do that. This, that and the other (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


A template that causes links to Wikipedia to appear in dark blue[edit]

There is a lovely template here at Wikisource that causes links to terms defined at Wiktionary to show up as a subtle dark grey color. Why don't we create a similar that causes links to Wikipedia to appear dark blue or some similarly subtle shade? It would make heavily linked technical work easier on the eyes and help prevent unintended emphasis of linked terms less significant to the text. Abyssal (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Asking for input on category name for images of technical and instructional support of WS[edit]

Based on the principle of 1 picture is worth . . . . I have been uploading various images of

and looking to group them under a single category. I came up with Category:Instructional images about Wikisource but would prefer community input. — Ineuw talk 13:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

BOT approval requests[edit]

Recitation-bot testing[edit]

Following on from the discussion Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2014-09#Automated import of openly licensed scholarly articles the WPOA team involved has utilised a bot to undertake some data imports into the WS: namespace to trial their processes. They have hunted me down at Wikimania2014 to seek feedback on the next steps that they need to undertake to meet our requirements. We have made some updates to their processes, and are ready for more testing over the next few days so we can deal with this in a sprint format. Letting the community know of the things taking place. They have some great technical people who can really build tools, and some of the tools that we are talking about have good prospects for helping with other data population to and from wikidata. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not against this bot but I am a bit disappointed that I got no feedback on an issue I noticed some months ago, see Wikisource:WikiProject_Open_Access/Programmatic_import_from_PubMed_Central#New_Family_of_Bluish_Pyranoanthocyanins. I would have expected at least an acknowledgment, if they want to run a bot here.--Mpaa (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
@Maximilianklein, Mattsenate:billinghurst sDrewth 02:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I think this bot has some issues. I sampled a few random pages. This is one of them Wikisource:WikiProject_Open_Access/Programmatic_import_from_PubMed_Central/Capturing_Natural-Colour_3D_Models_of_Insects_for_Species_Discovery_and_Diagnostics. Note also the empty template at the bottom. I hope we will get an answer.--Mpaa (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Sampled again: this is from Sep, 9: Wikisource:WikiProject_Open_Access/Programmatic_import_from_PubMed_Central/The_Invisible_Prevalence_of_Citizen_Science_in_Global_Research_Migratory_Birds_and_Climate_Change or Wikisource:WikiProject_Open_Access/Programmatic_import_from_PubMed_Central/Global_Diversity_of_Sponges_(Porifera).
Left a warning to @Maximilianklein:.--Mpaa (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
BTW, still disappointed by lack of attention from a bot eager to run ...--Mpaa (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Mpaa, and sorry for the lack of feedback on our part - I hadn't noticed your messages before. Since User:Maximilianklein, User:Mattsenate and User:Klortho mostly work on the code base, criticisms and suggestions more closely related to the Wikisource end are best directed to me - I am here on an almost daily basis now, triggering the bot, checking the imports and keeping things in sync with our software development.
Yes, the bot has some issues, and we are working on them at several levels:
  1. the conversion from the XML at PubMed Central into MediaWiki-importable XML,
  2. customizations for Wikisource (example),
  3. the upload procedure,
  4. integration with Commons, Wikidata and Wikipedia.
Many of the issues only became apparent once we actually started to import articles here - we have two years of experience with importing files into Commons, but doing full articles is more complex by nature. Furthermore, there are inconsistencies in the XML that publishers deliver to PubMed Central, and while we had mapped them out in some detail for multimedia imports (see talk), it turned out that these inconsistencies affect full text imports even more than expected, and thus much of our coding is actually focused on building workarounds for these issues, while we continue to fix actual bugs in our system and add new features. We also engage in a working group that tries to address these XML inconsistencies at their origin, i.e. with the publishers. This will hopefully make automated imports more straightforward in the future. Finally, continued integration of Wikimedia projects with Wikidata also affects our workflows, and many details (e.g. whether and how the metadata for the imported journal articles and their authors should all go onto Wikidata) are not clear at the moment.
For all this, it is vital that we can do test imports in order to fix, refine or otherwise improve our workflows. For the moment, these imports will always go to subpages of our WikiProject, and we will move things over to the main namespace only manually, for articles that have been fixed as far as we can see.
Thoughts on any of this shall always be welcome as we move forward. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@Mpaa:, I am still working on the bot, as @Daniel Mietchen: said, it is an iterative process that needs to be have periodic, still imperfect, test imports. I am also happy to address issues you find with the bot if they are constructive and specific. You can put them on my talk page or on directly on the github issue tracker. Thanks for giving the content a critical eye, we need it. Maximilianklein (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Welcome.--Mpaa (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


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

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


Toolbar help needed[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A toolbar to dream about.jpg

A toolbar to dream about

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

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

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

Guidance on linking citations in a work[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Either way consists of a lot of guessing and assumption about how "Rationalism" will end up like if anyone ever gets around to adding it, and if it's different, hoping someone will find these mistakes and correct them. Thus, for non-existent pages, be careful how you do it. I've done similar multip-part-link edits with existing works, consisting of multiple blue-links. I may have even red-linked a chapter next to a blue-link for a work title. I'd be happy to see an established guideline on this, among many other things. :) djr13 (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
We've been wrestling with this issue of deep-linking into non-existent works for years. See Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2010-02#Naming_convention? and follow the links to a stalled discussion and an naming convention that never got beyond draft form. Hesperian 13:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

War of 1812 documents[edit]

I've made a transcription of a pension grante[e], signed by Henry Burbeck:

Can someone proofread the text and move it to the right place? --Ecruelvia (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ecruelvia: I have created an Index: page and then put the transcription onto a Page: ns page at Page:Battle of Chippawa-New York Pension Roll-1815.png which allows for side-by-side proofing. I had a quick text hack, but did not mark it as proofread. See how you go with proofing it, then one of us can validate, and show you how to transclude to the main namespace. As the work is for a specific person, we will need to fix the name that we use for the piece on the main namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Thanks, now marked as proofread. --Ecruelvia (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding appropriate hyperlinking in jargon-dense technical works.[edit]

I believe but cannot find to verify, that Wikisource's style manual says that if you're linking to a term in a work, you should only link to that term once. However, I'm not sure this is appropriate for the work I'm proofreading now, Synopsis of the Exinct Batrachia and Reptilia of North America. Part 1.. This work is quasi-encyclopedic in that much of its content consists of "self-contained" descriptions of various different kinds of prehistoric animal rather than being part of an over-arching narrative. As such, most readers are likely to be interested primarily in portions of the work rather than reading it overall from start to finish. The work is also very dense with obscure technical jargon (eg "diapophysis"). In light of all this I've been linking to terms that may confuse readers once per section about a given genus of animal rather than only once in the entire work. I would like to request comments on whether or not you guys agree that this is the right approach and about the hyperlinking as it exists so far (especially starting from page 34). Abyssal (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The right amount of linking has always been one of those tricky questions in a work. We don't want a sea of links. we want the level of linking appropriate to the work (technical work versus fictional work), of a higher order relevance, something that aligns the expected level of readership to the presented level of the work. Then we have internal linking versus external linking, the linking indicated in the work itself, ie. internal explicit cross references (q.v.) and maybe a link to a glossary of terms, and external links to other works.
So my first glance at the page showed quite a few links, and more than I would normally expect for one of our works. They look external, and not to any references, nor to any internal references within the work itself. So rather than me to judge, for someone reading the work, what would expect why are they reading it? how have they arrived at the work? what is their expected level of knowledge on the subject? why are they reading it, and what are you expecting for them to do with the component that they are reading? Can we expect them to have another reference available? I know that numbers of the words that I saw were unknown to me, so I could see myself clicking on some of the links to learn a little more. Some words were clearly used in common English and I felt not required for linking. Sometimes I think a link only where it gives pure value to link off through making the work clearly more understandable or ore in context, and I here I doubt that I would click every link. What value will I get, what will I learn from clicking a link? I would expect explicit value for any link clicked. So with those reflections, maybe you can look at your linking and see whether you think that you have it right. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I've removed a few links from page 34. Is it starting to look more reasonable? Does anything else stand out as being in need of removal? Abyssal (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
As a biologist, I still think this is over-linked. There is no reason to link "Kansas" or "limestone", for example. Most people likely to read the article will know what a "plesiosaur" is. Linking in a technical article should help the user: (1) find additional relevant info, such as works by a mentioned individual, or referenced works. In this instance, Fort Wallace and the Smoky Hill River are significant as locations, and someone would appreciate being able to follow a link to quickly get more information. (2) clarify terms or concepts that are likely to be obscure to the sort of person who would visit the article. In this instance, a person reading this article ought to know what a "neural arch" or "foramina" are, so those ought not to be linked. These are just general principles I use, and only a couple of examples where I think linking is done correctly or incorrectly. One other point: a link should be obvious, so linking the word "of" to an article on the paleontology of Kansas is not likely to be helpful. The user at this end will not spot that unless they know to first hover over the link. Hiding a link behind text that isn't immediately relevant, obviously connected, or purposefully leading to that link is not especially helpful in my view, and ought to be avoided. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

190th Fighter Squadron, Blues and Royals friendly fire incident - Transcript of the 'friendly fire' incident video (28 March 2003)[edit]

Wikisource, very usefully, provides access to audio and video from the 190th Fighter Squadron, Blues and Royals friendly fire incident. It also offers a transcript. I am part of a team of four sociologists, specialising in studies of interaction, who have been working on this incident since the video was first released to the public in 2007. As part of our work, we have produced a transcript that significantly improves on the one released to the public and that currently on Wikisource (which reproduces mistakes in the original). We'd like to make that work available through wikisource - how do we go about it? unsigned comment by Michaelmair (talk) .

Please do correct any errors in the transcript, and provide a text summary that makes that apparent, eg. correcting errors made in previous transcription from audio. The associated talk page is also useful to add a comment if you need to explain what and why you have done certain edits, or to link to pertinent, and relevant other sources. The purpose of this wiki and our proofreading processes is to present accurate texts from the original edition.

On a similar note, if you have other works in the public domain, we would be interested to hear from you about those, and we can provide assistance to bring them online. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Text rotation / vertical text[edit]

Hello. I'm sure I'm not the first who asks this question, but is there a way to display vertical text (e.g. in table headers)? Maybe using <math></math>, or any other way? Nonexyst (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Presumably you are referring to this page? If this is acceptable (and works universally—will need to check if some browsers infarct on that!) then adding to {{table style}} should be a comparatively easy step. AuFCL (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Works on FF 31.0 (and looks great) but not IE8—both under Windows 7 (Enterprise Service Pack 1). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC) P.S. Should say that the table still looks fine on IE8, it just doesn't have rotated text.
BTW Template:Table-rotate exists. (Not mine and I've never used it.) Template:Rotate exists too, explicitly "experimental." djr13 (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I was kind of afraid of that. For the record, {{rotate}} did not work in the current version of Firefox (didn't contain the CSS transform:rotate() or display:inline-block clauses.) I have added these, so if that template now (still?) works in I.E. then there might be a way forward. AuFCL (talk) 08:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Same pattern. Works in FF 31.0 but not IE8. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
O.K. That's me officially out of ideas. AuFCL (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Once more for luck: I quite forgot @George Orwell III:'s 90-degree rotation CSS classes ("rot90", "rot180" and "rot270": which ought to work in I.E. as well as Firefox at least.) Would somebody please be so kind as to verify if this version fails in their browser (and if so please make a note here)? 10:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone, especially AuFCL. Both methods work in Chromium 30.0.1599.114 and Firefox 25.0.1. I tried to do something like first method, but maybe made some syntax error. Nonexyst (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I applied the second method to this page and some columns did not shrink in width. (For example, the second one with vertical header). What I did wrong? Nonexyst (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
This is outright cheating and serves merely as a demonstration: (page 50). The columns previously took their "width" from the unrotated text: well-now-height (are you confused yet?) By enclosing each entry in {{zfloat left}}s (which as a side-effect declares its contents as zero-width) and then adding min-width styling to stop empty columns collapsing too much…

Well I admit this is really ugly, needs further tweaking at least and possibly substitution of an even better approach… AuFCL (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah the text is rotated under IE11 here but those class definitions mentioned earlier need to be "calculated" on the fly somehow (or re-worked altogether?). Without that I agree - it looks rather "ugly" though its better than anything else I've seen in this area. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I "simplified" a bit further (still pretty ugly.)

There is of course, in the last resort, the choice of making each rotated title into an image… advantages are: "official", compact, works broadly and can be made cut-and-paste friendly through use of alt text on said images. AuFCL (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

In IE8 this table has the rotated text albeit shifted to the right as if there is a linebreak before each header, but the headers on the other table doesn't rotate and, interestingly, the not-rotated headers over-write the page image, while the rest of the table is underneath the image. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

TOC formatting help[edit]

If anyone is willing, I need help formatting the first page of this TOC. I have already proofread the text. I do have some requests, however. Please:

  1. Use simple table formatting (as basic as possible... something I can understand and replicate myself for the remainder of the TOC)
  2. Use limited (and only if necessary) templates
  3. Do not replicate the dots
  4. Simplify, simplify, simplify

Thank you, thank you, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've done it as simply as I know—which is how I would do this table anyway. The {{ts}} templates are either "ar" (align right) or "ac" (align centre) and the colspans are to spread the text across more than one column. I haven't used anything else. I've assumed you'll look after the rest of the linking. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Beautiful, thank you, BWC :) I'll take it from here, but I might check back with you if I hit any bumps along the way. Thank you so much, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle: Bump #1: How do you format the indentation of sections I & II present at the top of this page? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Use {{ts|it42}} if that's not sufficient, I will add the code. — Ineuw talk
My apologies but the design is fundamentally incorrect. @Londonjackbooks: I will redo the table. 21:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Now? Simpler than reworking the whole table; and if I didn't point it out would you have noted the imprecision? AuFCL (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy with the results— Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I am happy too. Face-smile.svg A neat solution AuFCL! Although, reworking the table is not a big deal using the tools I have. Also, a single right align in the table header would have eliminated the numerous declarations of {{ts}ar}}. @AuFCL: This is not a dig, it's more like a bit of a scrape. :D. — Ineuw talk 08:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Fair point. I was trying to work with the cards as they happened to have been dealt with minimal consequent disruption. AuFCL (talk) 08:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Educate me. How would putting a single right align in the header have only right-aligned the left and right fields, but left the main "text" field left-aligned? Also, I don't understand AuFCL's solution. Could we not have simply used : indenting? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I shall have to let Ineuw address his own part, but as for "my solution" it was a simple rip-off of your own overall table formatting, applied as a sub-table within the (pair of) cells formerly occupied by "Body and Soul:—" and its (non-existent) page number. AuFCL (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle: Please store this with my other apologies. I overlooked the fact that it's a horizontal layout to which I am not used to. What I would have done is declare (ar) right align in the table definitions because they are the majority of the alignments, and apply (al) align left to the text. If I am not mistaken, if there is no left alignment declaration the text may end up justified, perhaps in the Page: namespace. As for the line wrap on the second page I would have used the "it42" padding-left:4.0em;text-indent:-2.0em; hanging indent shortcut or an indent that matches the text sample. — Ineuw talk 15:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
<Standing by quietly trying to learn from you all, and thanking you for whichever outcome you deem best :)> Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

TOC with Horizontal Ellipses[edit]

Is there any good way of doing TOC with horizontal ellipses? Of my current projects, two works (This and this) have this type of TOC. I have transcribed the pages as I could, but the pages look quite ugly and appear differently in diff. browsers. Any solution please? Hrishikes (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. You just beat me replying here; so I am guessing you already know the rest. AuFCL (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks once again. I'll keep this as a guideline for future projects if needed. Hrishikes (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Planning to autoarchive this page (30 day post last contribution per section)[edit]

Unless I hear comments to the negative, it is my plan to set this page to archive on a daily basis using @Wikisource-bot:, with the criteria to be set that if a section has not been edited within past 30 days, taht section is archiveable. It will be possible for any person to put on a hold on a section, and if it is auto-0archived, then I will point to instructions on how to do that. I plan on using the existing archiving structure. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not a negative; however being a page frequented by newer users who might want to refer back to earlier questions and answers is it worth considering (if the bot either is or may readily be made so capable) of at least leaving links to the archived entries for ease of reference? AuFCL (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
It would be much preferable if instead of leaving these topics hidden in various past conversations, archived or not, they were distilled into definitive guides and such. Of course, I realize me saying this isn't helping build those pages. djr13 (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
We already have about a 30-45 day archiving done manually due to the size of the page, so I was jut looking to replicate what we are doing. If you see that there is a better time elapsed on which to archive, then some feedback on what is most appropriate is welcomed, in a page that is long enough to give comfort, but not too long to scare. I have added {{engine}} to the top to allow for searching of the archives particularly, with those who come via WS:S already have the search box. I have also updated the content listing for 2014 on Archives.
If we/you think that a list of recent posts is pertinent, then we can look to either "LST" in the section for 2014 as either a list, or convert it to a hot list. What Djr13 says is actually the most pertinent, look at the list of questions, and make sure that our help pages/FAQs address the lists. Noting that I am a "page tail" denizen in that I only look at the past couple of days posts and only pay attention to sexy or unanswered questions, so I am the wrong person to know. Getting someone to actively curate would be fantastic, and even if we pick out the most important question for the past month or so, and had that better addressed would seem to a significant improvement. All that said, sometimes the human touch of answering questions is nice and adds connectiveness to and for newbies, and the human element of WS has always made usually makes this a more attractive feature. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Set the page to archive at 31 days, and we will see how it proceeds today. Feel free to revert if it doesn't work as expected. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Help pages[edit]

To note that we didn't have a link to our help pages here, which I have just added. How silly are we? For those who wish to see a list of pages in the Help: namespace, an up-to-date list is here. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions are sought on how to organize the subpage levels[edit]

In this book in the main namespace I would like to omit the "Section" as a subpage because each section contains only one chapter. Mexico in 1827 Vol 1/Book I/Boundaries, Geological Structure, Climate. But I am not sure. Can anyone suggest an acceptable alternative please? — Ineuw talk 04:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I would ditch the volume level in the Mainspace. The Book numbers are continuous between the two volumes. So, Mexico in 1827/Book 1/Section 1. There's no need to include the "boundaries, ..." wording in the page title. This makes inter-work links easier to manage. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I would go further and ditch the books, and volumes, and just do a straight chapter numbering (and later create redirects). I did something similar at My Life in Two Hemispheres, though replicated the book/chapters in the sections. My reasoning is not to be a slave to a form of the presentation, and in our WS world, the extra subpage levels are a nuisance as they basically became nude levels, the relative linking is a nuisance, especially when we can concatenate the respective ToC onto the lead page. Don't be a slave to a bookbinder! — billinghurst sDrewth 06:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both. Much enlightened. — Ineuw talk 14:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

copyright tag not on list - texas court documents[edit]

I'm trying to upload the court file from when Howard Hughes, Jr. had his disabilities of minority removed at age nineteen. There is no selector to say "This is a work of the State of Texas" like there is for federal government works. Anyway, the Court case is public record and I want to upload it.

I'm not a lawyer or anything, but just Googling around it it looks like things are fairly complicated copyright-wise for Texas government stuff. As far as I can tell there are laws that mandate citizens have to be granted access to see records for themselves, but that's not the same thing as waiving copyright or having the right to redistribute copies of records. This public information act guide from the state Attorney General mentions in a footnote
Open Records Decision No. 660 at 5 (1999) (Federal Copyright Act “may not be used to deny access to or copies of the information sought by the requestor under the Public Information Act,” but a governmental body may place reasonable restrictions on use of copyrighted information consistent with rights of copyright owner).
and also specifically requires that
provision of a copy of the information in the requested medium will not violate the terms of any copyright agreement between the governmental body and a third party.
so for example here's a lawyer complaining that he has to pay a publisher to access copies of court documents he himself wrote and filed.
If I understand it all correctly, I think this unfortunately means that you'll need to determine which government body owns the copyright to the documents you've got and find out whether that particular body allows them to be freely redistributed in a way that qualifies as copyrighted, but "free" as defined by Wikisource:Copyright_policy. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 22:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Or alternatively, if these are documents that would count as having been "published" under the legal definition between 1923 and 1977 without any copyright notice, you could mark them as {{PD-US-no-notice}}. Maybe someone else knows whether court documents count as having been "published"? ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 22:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyright is the "right to make a copy", which should not be confused with access to documents, information, etc. or should not be deemed to be giving anyone a right to reproduce. Publishers have been publishing court proceedings for years, and still there has been some discussion recently [1]. That said, something used in evidence in a court case would not lose its original copyright for appearing as evidence. Is it published? Interesting question., though I would say not. No ISBN, not sold, no copy given to the national library.

For the work that you are looking to upload, I would suggest that if it is uploaded that the decision of the court sounds like we would licence as {{PD-EdictGov}} as the court is making a decision on behalf of the State, and thus acting for government. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Page image not showing[edit]

The page image doesn't show up on Index:Alerielorvoyaget00lach.djvu. Oddly enough it worked for the first page I edited. Any ideas? (I've tried it using Firefox and Explorer). Misarxist (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't know why but "Scan resolution in edit mode" was set to zero on the Index: template. Removed that and all page images seem to display now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. My mistake, trying to work out what it did. Misarxist (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@Misarxist: that page allows some modification of the size of the scan. The text/image works on a 50/50 %width so for those with lower res monitors on high intensity scans, the resolution can be lowered. Generally there is not a large need to make a mod. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:Hillsborough Taylor Interim Report Cm765.pdf[edit]

A problem has arisen,

Whilst the text may be OGL, the images, currently marked as problematic might not be, and there's nothing in the doucmennt to indicate a possible source.

I've used a temporary placeholder, but would appreciate someone with some experience tidying up.

BTW The following may contain other material that could help trace the status : of the images concerned. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Commons file rename/deleted - How to handle here?[edit]

A file that I uploaded (commons:File:Memoirs of a Trait in the Character of George III.djvu) has been proposed for deletion because the first page is the Google Books notification (which I thought had to be retained, rather than removed). commons:User:Edaen created a copy of the file w/out the Google page at commons:File:Memoirs of a Trait in the Character of George III2.djvu (thank you!) and proposed deletion of the original.

My question: what needs to happen on this end with the Index page? If the original is deleted at commons and then the new copy is moved to the old name, will everything work out? Do I need to move the index to the new file name, and then back once it is renamed at commons? I don't imagine that a change at commons would delete anything here, but I'm not sure how the linkage (if any) works between the projects and I would hate to lose the work already done. Thanks! -Xpctr8 (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The page count and position has to be the same. Having said that, I will download the original and remove Google claim, and append a blank page at the beginning, which I keep for that reason.— Ineuw talk 15:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Please check the proofread pages if they match. — Ineuw talk 16:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Everything appears to match up, thank you. -Xpctr8 (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome, in case they delete it, I kept copies and upload them to here (there was another file, beside yours). — Ineuw talk 20:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Forth Bridge (1890) help with tables[edit]

Is anybody good enough with tables to be able to help at Index:Forth Bridge (1890).djvu? There's quite a few, and I can't get them to look nice. Jamesx12345 (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It would better if you insert some of the tables as images. — Ineuw talk 22:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Guidance about copyright[edit]

I am in the process of adding here a series of physical research papers by Jagadish Chandra Bose. I am identifying the components of the series from a secondary source, the author's Collected Physical Papers, published in 1927 by his institute, which is now owned by the Govt. of India. I am trying to add the items from primary sources. But when I can't find primaries, I am adding from the 1927 collection, reasoning that a reprint cannot have a separate copyright and the primary copyright should hold. Now I have reached a snag. This work was previously unpublished, published for the first time in this collection, but acknowledged there as a 1895 work. This is part of this series, so can it be added here? Hrishikes (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If published in India in 1927 and not published in the US at that time, for an author who died in 1937, then the work would be {{Pd/1996|1937}} with the works coming out of copyright on 1 Jan 1988. If published after death, then enter the public domain 50 years after the end of the year of publication (for India). — billinghurst sDrewth 06:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh wait, if 1927, then we may have 95 years, depending on the copyright detail in the work. If without proper details, it would have been 1937+50. If proper copyright then it is 95 years (all presuming that it was not published in US at same time). It is a tricky one. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Link for the 1927 work given in the author page. Details can be checked from there. It's a govt publication now that the institute is owned by govt. I have not started transcribing the article; if not allowed here, then pse delete the djvu file. Hrishikes (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: I have checked. Like this author's other works, this collection was also simultaneously published in the U.S. as per publisher details given in this page. As for PD-India, it's author's life + 60 yrs, not 50. For U.S. publication verification, see this page and this page, both at sl. no. 8 of references. Hrishikes (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
At this point of time I cannot get the DLI site to respond to me (time out issues). We need to know what copyright statements were put into the work, if any, as that impacts how the US law will regard it. If there was coincident US publishing (requirement is within 30 days) then we need to check the US system for copyright, and subsequent renewals (see WS:CV for some of those links). — billinghurst sDrewth 02:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Mirror site for DLI here. I have uploaded the initial pages here. I could not find any relevant info at ws:cv sites. Hrishikes (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
As I have already stated, I could not find any info about this work at ws:cv-linked sites. And as can be seen from info I have already provided, this work was published at least from Calcutta, London and New York, all in 1927. So, subject to no contrary evidence, I think this work can be safely assumed as a case of PD-US-no renewal. Any thoughts? Hrishikes (talk) 04:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

New International Encylopedia[edit]

Found Volume 2 which is missing from the Volume set Commons/Wikisource has -

Small issue is that I can't seemingly use IA-upload as it's too big. Can someone that has a "sledgehammer" upload this so that the volume set is complete? .ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Index:The New International Encyclopædia Vol 2.djvu Hrishikes (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You might want to move/rename the file and the index for consistency with the rest: "The New International Encyclopædia Vol 2.djvu"→"Index:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 02.djvu" (PS, I did a couple tweaks to the description pages for Volumes 1 and 2. I'm feeling a bit too lazy to replicate that across the rest...) djr13 (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I have done the manual labor of adding it here. Now I leave the cosmetic surgery at your able hands. Hrishikes (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Renamed.--Mpaa (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night - Volume 10.djvu and others[edit]

1 volume absent (namely volume 9), Any suggestions? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Please go and look for it.— Ineuw talk 19:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC) , Want me to add this to the upload list, when i have the bandwidth?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
And done, Cover design is diffferent, but the issue here is the text :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate scan sets?[edit]

The latter is a better fit with the other volumes listed (going by the cover design). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I think the row with the page number added in the main ns spoils your rowspan scheme but I could not find out how to fix that.--Mpaa (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Local upload licensing sanity check[edit]

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

Any illustrations (if there is a listed illustrator) would have a separate copyright. Have you checked this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, but at least at this point the illustrator or illustrators remain unknown. No apparent signatures of any kind on images (From my reading elsewhere, reputedly this publisher, Harper Bros, was in the habit of getting its staff illustrators to sign "Copyright Harper Bros," but I cannot see even this, so that doesn't help either.) AuFCL (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Just need to make the template for" do not move to commons" to have an expiry of 2017, though I think that the artwork would have expired already with an 1898 US/UK publication with a US publisher and the artwork being unattributed, and not being Wells's work. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Done. Would you mind expanding upon your reasoning assuming this is beyond "playing it safe" with the author-death-year+70 years rule? Just asking the dumb questions now in hopes of saving a possible future re-education (by which time the rules will likely have changed anyway…?) AuFCL (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

Other discussions[edit]

What do you want from search?[edit]

I had the opportunity to discuss local search with WMF's search guru here at Wikimania. Some of my questions were about some of the improvements that I would like to see occur, and what, if anything, could we do to improve our data structure for search (of which I now have some homework, and thinking).

The challenge back to us, was what more did we want from search? What can't it do, that we want it to? So the question to the community ... What searches have you tried that have failed? What searches have you tried that only partially met your needs? What more would you like to be able to do with local search? — billinghurst sDrewth 15:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

When you search for jules verne, Author:Jules Verne is the 22nd result (you do not see it unless you click on "next 20" or choose to show more than 20 results at a time).--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussed at WM2014, and for us the Author: field can be given a higher weighting. Just needs to have bugzilla done, which I will do when I am at home and have access to my passwords and a little more free time. — billinghurst sDrewth 19:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
@C: not sure what has changed, however, when I do the search the author page is the top link for me. So unless you can replicate something else, this is a WORKSFORME (WONTFIX) — billinghurst sDrewth 11:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I totally agree with Erasmo in the context that I prefer more than 20 results at a time. In fact, I prefer all 500 search results shown. It is easier to look down a full list and a search from my browser will help spot the result I want but 20 at a time is far too short. Also, I would like to be able to search for a book's name that is under construction without having to try placing "Index" in the search. What is the url for WM2014? (looks like my initials and this year) —Maury (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC) --Erasmo Barresi (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@Erasmo Barresi, William Maury Morris II: There is a range of page display links from 20 to 500 on a search, so you can display them as you like ...
I know. I somewhat stated it above but not as well as "default 500" above. —Maury (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
...If you are wanting this to be a remembered default, then I would encourage you to put in a new bugzilla request against the Mediawiki product line. Where the request would be that there be a means to remember a personal search preference, that is residual either for a session or as a permanent preference. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
billinghurst, preference default 500 is what I was trying to explain in my archaic way. But it is not any sort of a necessity -- just a preference -- which perhaps may be good for everyone here to have under setting our "preferences" if it is not too difficult. If it is difficult then abort the idea.["ping" must be for mobile devices but I have none.] Thank you for your reply and better wording than mine. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
When I search for a word or phrase, I do not want a gajillion Catholic Encyclopedia returns swamping out the few items that were not in the CE. I'm not sure what approach would work best, but possibly some sort of subgroupings of search results whose "directory" is the same, or a means of filtering out selected directory groups once I've gotten search results. --EncycloPetey (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I have entered a bugzilla for WMII about his preference for the ability to set a results display preference. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Something has changed... Author:Jules Verne is now the 23rd result rather than the 22nd! Okay, seriously, I can no longer find the "search options" section in my preferences, so I can't tell you why we get different results.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, I just repeated the search while temporarily logged out, and the author page was still the 23rd.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

May I confirm precisely the same results: position 23 here: both logged -in and -out. AuFCL (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Weird, today I am back to getting a result on the second page. I will complete a bugzilla for this component. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
bugzilla:69771 that asks for author: ns to be given same weighting in search results as main ns. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
On a similar vein of thought, I have asked whether there is more that we can do to align our main and author ns header templates to better function/interact with CirrusSearch. As we utilise parameters with microformat data there may be good opportunity to align aspects, or get some advice about how we can configure for better alignment. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

News on Bugzilla:69771, author ns: rating[edit]

Nik reports in the bugzilla that he has made some code changes that should go live in a couple of weeks. We should watch the CirrusSearch sections in the roadmaps for rollout and @Erasmo Barres: do our testing. We should also ping wikisource-l on the completion of our request and the results of testing. It is pertinent to their efforts. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


What are the steps to create or submit a 100 year old document in wikisource, i'm new here? (Monkelese (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the source document? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@Monkelese: What stage is the work that you are considering? Is it just in book form and need scanning +++? Is it scanned and in either a DjVu or pdf file? Or maybe individual jpgs, and if the latter, how many pages? Typed or written? Depending on its stage is going to very the length of the advice. So a little extra information is going to be helpful. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Thought you could copy and paste an article that is more than a hundred years old, its a memoir located at pbs website and it was published in the 1800s. (Monkelese (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@Monkelese: You could just copy and paste an article, but the best practice here is to have the transcription and the scan side by side. What's the title of the document you have in mind? Who's the author? Maybe there's a scan available somewhere on the Internet.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Internet Archive releases 2.4 million images scanned from pre-1923 books[edit]

The Internet Archive has just released 2.4 million images to Flickr, extracted from scanned pre-1923 books (with perhaps five times that more to come, in the next few weeks)

I have started a project on Commons to explore and understand the set, and start uploading relevant batches, at

c:Commons:Internet Archive/Book Images collection

with the initial thought of proceeding along the lines of the existing

c:Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection

But it could use some advice at this, the blank page stage, from people who know about book resources as they exist already across the Wikis.

For example, how much is there already from the IA that's been uploaded to Commons or Wikisource or Wikidata ? And how is it being held / described ? Are there already quite good automated approaches for extracting metadata from the IA and/or Open Library ?

Initially, I've been thinking to use quite a simple link-back template on book-image category pages, along the lines of eg c:Template:BL1million bookcat as used at the top of this category; but I'd welcome advice on this.

The advantage of such a simple template is that it is easy for users to apply by hand, with very little input being required, until such a time as templates can be created that can automatically draw all relevant information from Wikidata (which probably requires Phase 3 on Commons). But if people think the project should be being more ambitious, and especially if there are already any easy ways to draw the relevant data automatically from IA to fill out more advanced templates with minimum effort, that would be very valuable to know.

Please do join in and sign up on the Commons page now if you would be interested in mapping and understanding this collection. Jheald (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Good news for Internet Archive, Flckr and the Commons, bad news for me. — Ineuw talk 18:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Ineuw: Why??? Is there something I'm not understanding? Jheald (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Jheald: Sorry, it's my humor. I've done almost all of the images for the commons:Category:Popular Science Monthly illustrations project and numerous other books, and am attracted to working on 19th century images. An additional 2.4 million images conflicts with my other - previously made commitments on WS. Can the Commons wait until I catch up? On a more serious note - I foresee numerous duplicates between this and earlier contributions. — Ineuw talk 20:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, if we can identify which books have previously been most heavily uploaded, that would help with not re-uploading them. Is there a category tree on Commons for material sourced from the Internet Archive? I couldn't find one; but often with commonscats, first you need to know where to look...
One thing I should note about these Flickr uploads is that there is often very little metadata, very little machine-readable description, very little machine-readable basis for categorisation, not even a meaningful file name -- so all the work you've done remains invaluable, and any suggestions as to how we can get even a little of this data more automatically would be brilliant. Jheald (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
the metadata is pretty bad, so lots to cleanup manually. it should be familiar to WS’ers since it’s all OCR’d unclear what the value of an engraving of a painting already uploaded is, or if anyone scanned a book page at higher resolution; but there will be lots of images to illustrate an article without an image. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 14:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-36[edit]

07:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Highlighting points worthy of further discussion[edit]

From the above post it is worth highlighting and starting discussions on some of these aspects as they have some bearing on our approach, or they could. There are a number of significant changes there.

Sister links in sidebar in beta

In the past few years we have utilised the adaptive template {{plain sister}} to display our xwiki sister links, and these have displayed within the respective namespace headers (top right, generally in the notes section equivalents). With Tpt's script in beta, there is now the ability to have sister links displayed, for an example turn on the beta and look at Author:William Shakespeare. So the community should be discussing whether we a) want just the existing header links, b) want just sidebar links, or c) allow both to exist as people will get used to sidebar links, however, more overt linking is useful, especially in the eyeline — billinghurst sDrewth 15:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, what a cleverly designed, useless feature.

For example, when enabled {{gap}} reveals that it is apparently equivalent to wikipedias {{spaces}} (because some clever-clogs has determined it to be so in wikidata…) Whether you check or just trust my call, they are not remotely the same template or coding, so:

Choice 1: How do we go about fixing this sort of linkage error?

Choice 2: How do we prevent some well-meaning (you know you want me to say one of the other words for this) nincompoop from trying to merge incompatible objects?

My 2¢. AuFCL (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sort of in agreement with AuFCL here but if some Users: enjoy being the dog chasing it's own tail by hunting down inconsistencies between sister-sites or being led down the wrong roads altogether, I don't see why this could not be a User enabled preference or gadget if need be.

But try add something like this WOT as a forced site-wide default extension or something and I'd be 1000% against it. Plus, I'd sort of like to see what possibilities in the personal-bar/side-bar areas present themselves from the expected pruning of "skins" from the core code first - positioning stuff like that might become obsolete in an instant. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Gap & Template:Spaces fixed; however, I'd like to see a more positive attitude to sister-project volunteers.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Linksto: search filter

This new search query allows us to undertake a new series of criteria for search based on the target, and also allows us to use -linksto: which may be a useful maintenance tool. Also useful for research searching, eg. -linksto:"Author:Banjo Paterson" "Banjo Paterson" which would return pages that mention Banjo Paterson but do not link to the author page. As a community, I think that there is definitely work for us to do to explore the options in mw:Help:CirrusSearch and put some local spin on how to exploit the new power, and also with some of the Extension:DynamicPageList uses. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This looks worthy of further exploration; count me in. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices, II (1984).pdf[edit]

One more chapter of the original and the Index.

Anyone want to help get this finished? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Grants to improve your project[edit]

Greetings! The Individual Engagement Grants program is accepting proposals for funding new experiments from September 1st to 30th. Your idea could improve Wikimedia projects with a new tool or gadget, a better process to support community-building on your wiki, research on an important issue, or something else we haven't thought of yet. Whether you need $200 or $30,000 USD, Individual Engagement Grants can cover your own project development time in addition to hiring others to help you.

Status check. Index:The Great Secret.djvu[edit]

Do they adverts count for validation ready? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No, adverts are outside the scope of the text that we use to indicate an index is validated. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:A History of Hindu Chemistry Vol 1.djvu[edit]

I have just added this work. It's an acclaimed masterpiece in 'history of science' genre, by India's foremost chemist of the modern era. I am now working on other items that I have started here, so all of you are welcome to try your hands at this work. I'll add the pictures to Commons which can be accessed from this work's category. If no one else gets interested, then of course I'll start work on it after finishing my current projects. Hrishikes (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Where is everyone?[edit]

I see no new messages, edits, &c being posted. The place looks abandoned. Is everyone watching football? That is over here in the US. —Maury (talk) 04:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm here, most days. Just don't have anything to say. Wikisource doesn't seem quieter than usual, to me. :) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 03:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I check my watchlist daily. Hi Maury. :) Abyssal (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-37[edit]

09:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Licensing of a re-edition of Flora of Northumberland and Durham[edit]

I was informed that Flora of Northumberland and Durham is about to be re-published in a re-edited version based on the Wikisource version, and the question arose what the licensing should be. The original book is obviously in the public domain, but publisher and editor plan to go for CC BY, since the re-editing is a significant effort. Yet because the book went through Wikisource, would CC BY-SA play any role here? -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't clause 7h. (Modifications or additions to material that you re-use) under the Terms of Use apply in this case? AuFCL (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but I have been under the impression that transcribing a work verbatim from the original is not enough to create a copyright claim. Hence, the edits can't be relicensed under Wikimedia's umbrella CC-BY-SA because converting the image to text isn't adding any new creativity to the work. All the edits are public domain in that regard. I don't think it matters what the editor uses (so long as it's a legitimate claim) because they're really just using a public domain endeavor already.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Wot Zhaladshar said! Sweat of brow doesn't invoke a change of licence, so the only components that are new are the header templates, and the data contained; so the existing licensing is what to use. That said, they can give credit for our efforts. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
oh, go put "all rights reserved" on it, everybody else does. if they’re going to use the images in the linked articles, they are CC-BY-SA. are they publishing in US or UK? sweat of brow is dead in US given Bridgeman, but there is no case law yet in UK. we also don’t have any case law about the CC-BY-SA transcription of PD works (that i know of, & ianal). i see someone needs to transcribe pages 147-435 quick to complete. ;-p Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 15:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the images were made by the Biodiversity Heritage Library and although I would have liked help on Wikisource, I did all the proofreading myself. Wikisource will be credited as the place where the proofreading was done. So I'm not trying to take anything from Wikisource. The project had to be copied out of Wikisource, because there doesn't seem to be a way to georeference locations effectively and there were many other annotations I wanted to add that would have been difficult or impossible in Wikisource. The only reason we want to make the licence more open is because additional licence restrictions hinder scientific use of the document. Please feel free to help me out with my next flora project (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
love your work; i’ll help you anytime. i note you have linked to the wikipedia articles and wikispecies, for only the first three pages of plants. (are you planning on using those in the publication?) i would suggest more use of the template:smallcaps and template:center. i’ll make some notes on the work talk page, about the usual WS transcription norms. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 00:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Slowking4 for helping with those pages. You are a lot faster than I am, so you may have to change your name. I'd like to finish adding links to wikipedia articles and wikispecies, I think this adds a lot to the document. Please do comment on transcription norms, I have a lot to learn!Qgroom (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
To sum up, it seems to me that Qgroom can go ahead with publishing the re-edition under CC BY. Of course, would be nice to see this new version here on Wikisource at some point, but this seems difficult technically at the moment. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The re-edition is now live at doi:10.3897/ab.e4002. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Echo and watchlist[edit]

Special:Notifications & Special:Watchlist substantially overlap in functionality, except the former also contains extra (some non-public) events and doesn't provide with passive usage options (means to turn off web-nagging or email-nagging and to just keep visiting the page whenever I'm free), while the latter doesn't provide with options of active web-nagging notifications (but already provides email interface). Partly, in my personal view, the Echo/Notifications project was driven by low usability of watchlist; [24] comes to mind. It's also perhaps worth noting that Echo users aren't exposed to Special:Notifications unless thy have JavaScript disabled — in which case it's their only means of reading the notifications.

I'd like to get this done:

  1. Merge these two pages into one.
  2. To remedy large inflow of information, introduce multiple levels of importance of the web-nagging notifications (red for mentions, orange for thanks, blue for new watchlist items, etc and configurable in your settings).

Thoughts on both, please? --Gryllida (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

i thought they were migrating features to notifications; from echo to flow. [25] i.e. it’s threaded conversations, not workflow. watchlists and recent changes are a failed work task model. maintenance categories are slightly better. it’s a replacement for talk pages. this is a project of the WMF, are you in touch with them? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 03:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Slowking4, "from echo to flow" makes no sense to me (not even after reading the link provided). Flow items are currently in both the watchlist and notifications.
well, my analysis, opinion is that notifications incorporated features of echo, but could be / will be migrated into flow. put a reply button there, or ping user other than thanks, and it looks like threaded conversations. (parallel; independent of talk pages) it sounds like you want to change the notifications interface; that sounds like a WMF project, and i’m sure they would love your feedback; interactive prototype. i’m not sure WS should have a custom one; i’m afraid WS’ers will have a big meh. maybe an essay about your wants, needs, philosophy, and then an action plan, would clarify how to move forward. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 00:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
This is a "would we like this done?" discussion; means to do it (through WMF Engineering or a Chapter) are a different beast... --Gryllida (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
For me there is absolutely no functional overlap between the two. Notifications tell me when someone has thanked me, left a message on my talk page, or reverted an edit I've made. The Watchlist tells me about edits that anyone has made to the pages that I'm interested in monitoring. I'm quite happy with it this way and cannot see the point of merging the two. I don't want to have the little red box appear immediately upon anyone editing one of the pages on my watchlist. When I'm logged in, I check RC relatively often and when I first log in I check my watchlist immediately. In respect of the "large inflow of information", we are a small wiki and there isn't a large enough volume to warrant a series of little coloured boxes spread across the top of each page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
This would be configurable. I can see a need in different terms for the two notification modes ('watchlist' mode is passive, 'notifications' mode is web nagging or email). To me, the lack of ability to set up watchlist to be active, or notifications items to be passive (I can't get them to appear on Special:Notifications without the web nagging in the corner), makes no sense. -Gryllida (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm with Beeswaxcandle on this for basically the same reasons & I just don't see the point or even possible a need for merging the two. Plus there are several combinations of User preference settings that can refine the interaction (or separation) of the two functions even further. Sorry Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I am even more simplistic. These are global functionalities, and are meant to be consistent across wikis (no surprises). Any discussion about functionality belongs at the respective pages, and in more global discussions, even if there was discussion about local customisation, it would and should belong in the bigger picture, and about how a user configures it, not something designated at a local level. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Change in renaming process[edit]

Part or all of this message may be in English. Please help translate if possible.

-- User:Keegan (WMF) (talk) 9 September 2014 16.22 (UTC)

If necessary, I can answer questions, and assist any lost souls. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Link templates that change default colours — seeking opinions[edit]

Philosophical question. I am wondering what the community thinks of templates like Template:WiktGray and Template:WikiDark that change the colour of links, and forces them to a determined colour. It is my understanding that the community has put forward a position that we prescribe less, rather than more, and that if there is particular looks that users want, they are free to define them in their personal common.css setting. The rationale for such templates is to remove the visual impact of the applications of the templates. Which might be a solution masking a problem of overlinking.

So do we have an issue that forcing link colours is an issue? Is masking of links an issue of overlinking? Is it time to review our guidance on linking? My personal opinion probably comes through a little in the means that I am addressing this matter, however, my opinion is just one among many, and probably good to start a thread where opinions are sought on these matters. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Philosophical answer: One should never attempt to remove useful functionality. (Begging of course the question of what is "useful." Topic for entirely another day.)

The capability of link colour changing after visitation is well-established and should not be lightly stomped upon. As pointed out, individual users are entirely at liberty to suppress this kind of behaviour without adverse effect upon those who like or rely upon it occurring.

This is one of those "Damned if you do; damned if you don't" situations, and the best anyone can do is to try and determine if the majority of users in any given situation can stumble along without disruption. The remainder will be "hurt" (for, one hopes only a minor buffetingly amount of "hurt") in any case; and it is merely human nature that the thus inconvenienced will howl the loudest. Kind of makes judging a non-trivial task.

Here endeth the lesson. AuFCL (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Which says somewhat, if it is a needed functionality … widespread, then we should gadgetise such a behaviour … some individuals, then we give instructions and code on how to make that change in Special:MyPage/common.css. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. And this brings us to the other side of the overarching issue: over-linking. This is also another DiydDiyd situation, however one in which I personally lean the other way. Too many links for one audience is not enough for another and vv. I vote we send a message of appreciation to those who put in the effort of researching and making linkages; and hold our tongues in criticism of those who don't even bother. Harsh words? Well you posed the question, so don't blame me if you don't like the response… AuFCL (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
And if the link-er is a complete boob? Then what? Play periodical policeman for each link on top of the existing proofreading scheme? And at what price? The body of work-integrity we are all suppose to be striving for? No thanks. I'll take my content with the least amount of 3rd party influences as possible - especially when it comes to those that take you completely off project. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
And the cycle is complete. See "Begging the question… above. Wash, rinse, repeat.

You could add something along the lines of "complete idiocy aside" but why bother? See difficulty of judging above.

Well that went off the rails even faster than this little cynic expected. AuFCL (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

George's "off-project" comment captures my main concern. We editors all grok the Wikimedia sister project structure, and we're accustomed to it, so we aren't impacted by suddenly finding ourselves at Wikipedia or Wiktionary. But for a visitor unfamiliar with Wikimedia, they click on a link and suddenly find themselves at a different site that kinda sorta looks the same but kinda sorta doesn't. They may not be aware that they have changed sites, yet their searches pull up completely different content. Bewildering. For this reason, I don't like to see cross-wiki links embedded in work texts at all — link to key sister project information in the header notes, and redlink conservatively to local portals within the text. Hesperian 02:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with what Hesperian says here. We go to such lengths to replicate the originally-published look of books, but then throw in completely non-fidelitous hyperlinks. Confusing. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 03:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
"Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made." I quite agree rubbish links should be removed. I just don't necessarily agree that we possess enough facts to categorically rule out certain cases.

We should be wary of conflating contexts. We (editors, sysops and bureaucrats) all happen to be effectively curators of the works on WikiSource, and are thus subject to the "familiarity breeds contempt" syndrome. As such none of us may be taken as a trustworthy/impartial audience in this kind of matter. Because we happen to see too many links does not imply the end-consumer will, in a properly constructed system flow. After all why use mediawiki (whose raison d'être happens to be easy creation of linkages) if the aim of the exercise is not to use that very feature? Are we (or more accurately the system designers) insane? If the EPUB generation process were indeed sane (nobody will quite agree that in its current form it is) then virtually all links will be stripped out on the basis that they do not actually make a lot of sense for that class of consumer.

As for lacking "periodical policemen," how can anybody exist in the wiki-world without agreeing there are a surfeit of self-appointed volunteers for the rôle? The problem has always rather been to usefully occupy all that enthusiasm more productively. And links to other wiki-family members are a similar conversational non-starter: most outsiders do not even know there is a difference between the various WMF sister projects. They think we are just WikiPedia, so we all might as well swallow our pride and just get used to it.

However, EPUB is not the only end-consumer. A web-based reader might expect links to be present for terms we consider quite unimportant. WikiData cross-references stuff you would not believe; and perhaps one day links may be automatically/mechanically inserted in places we cannot currently imagine. (Ever heard of something I believe is called a "dictionary?")

Who are we to stipulate works we have been involved in may never be used in such a fashion? I am not saying stripping links is necessarily bad policy; I am merely emphasising this is not a simple arm-chair critic issue, and that absolutely no matter what choice is eventually settled upon somebody will be disappointed so just get yourselves prepared to be wrong no matter how this matter is resolved. AuFCL (talk) 08:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

And in a related note to AuFCL's query "why use mediawiki (whose raison d'être happens to be easy creation of linkages) if the aim of the exercise is not to use that very feature?", I have to ask what good does it do to archive some kinds of texts here if we're not integrating them with other Wikimedia content through links? My own archiving here is focused on public domain scientific papers. Since they're public domain they're freely available, but their technical nature implies the inclusion of contents like tables, leader boxes, footnotes, diagrams, etc requiring complex and tedious formatting during the proofreading stage of archival. If the final Wikisource archive offers no more functionality than the original and already freely available PDF, then what benefit to the world will my efforts produced?
Archiving a scientific paper dense with the aforementioned complexities can take enough time for me to write multiple articles for Wikipedia's DYK program, each getting 2,000-5,000 views while on the main page, and more traffic afterward than a Wikisource archive would get. I see integration with other Wikimedia content to be the extra layer of functionality and value that justifies the effort involved in archiving the text and distinguishes it from the original source PDF. Abyssal (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I think links should be standard colours. It's easy enough to override things in one's own stylesheet. The other factor that comes up with these for me is that lots of ereaders (eink ones anyway) don't support changing font colours or even text-decoration. This means that links appear as underlined and so appear to have greater emphasis than the writer intended. @AuFCL, I am very grateful that people go to the effort of researching and adding links, but I do sometimes find them distracting, that's all. (Hmm... maybe all I need to do is add an option to the epub export tool to strip all links! That'd solve the problem for me. I never use the links.) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 02:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
There is a mediawiki PRINT option (of which I need to read more, and will find the link later) that removes certain components of a work. It sounds like that could be of use for any non-screen version at a bare minimum. Otherwise, it may be something that we ask of Tpt that the epub versions strip non-WS links. Epub forms output is something that we also need to readdress as numbers of us are now more familiar. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
These pages may address some of the print issues ... w:Help:Printable, mw:Manual:Skinning, and mw:Manual:FAQ#How do I disable external links from showing in the printable version of a page?billinghurst sDrewth 13:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the epub export uses much that's common with the built-in print view stuff. It basically concatenates the HTML output of the Page NS pages of a work and wraps it up with some metadata. But you're right, epub output should become much more of a priority now that many more people are using it. I reckon the option to remove links would be great. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 04:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@Tpt: are you able to offer some authoritative guidance on this? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:The London Gazette 28314.pdf[edit]

The scan quality on these leaves a lot to be desired, so I am considering leaving this for someone else who can get access to better scans. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No real point putting it here. Mark the index file in some way that indicates that the File is going to need an update. It is such a specialised work of which you want the scan, it is unlikely anyone is going to see it here in passing and just go hunting for it for you. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:Q Horati Flacci Carminum librum quintum.djvu[edit]

Should really by at also, but doesn't currently seem to be present there. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It may be, however, the English pages have been set to be here, which is correct for a twin language work. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Anyone want to take on the tables at the end of this work? Other than the tables and the images this ones ready for validation. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Tables complete.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Statutes of Wales.[edit]

[26] OK For wikisource? 1908 Work, seemingly published in the UK. Author died in the mid 1930's. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems OK here with {{Pd/1923}}.--Jusjih (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

EbyDict project[edit]

user:Ijon talked about his hebrew dictionary project at wikimania [27] beginning at 40:00. he has some interesting pdf partioning for non-wikicode editors. is it possible to incorporate this in a wikisource wizard more generally? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 14:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:The statutes of Wales (1908).djvu[edit]

Uploaded this and in the course of constructing the page list found 2 missing pages.

Not too much of a problem, given that IA has 2 different versions, namely:

Both of which have the 'missing' pages.

I know that the file can be patched (and I could "patch" these myself, but wanted someone else to do this to confirm that they are in fact all the same edition, and so that the relevant underlying text layer was also patched, which I wasn't sure how to do yet.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

File here(and Commons) patched with 'placeholders'. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-38[edit]

08:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

To note that next week (Thursday is the plan at the moment) that there will be a new beta feature. This feature will allow you to use the new php servers (HHVM) to call up your pages, and this new setup is meant to be quicker than the current call (Varnish). So if you plan to turn it on, find a big page and call it up, and time its appearance, then turn on the beta and rerun the test. Record your data somewhere if you can be bothered, and we can provide back back to WMF about how we see it work with out multi-transclusion pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
THe HHVM beta preference actually rolled out within the last 24 hours, and is now available. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been noted elsewhere but in case anyone else is interested the following link selects all Page: namespace edits performed recently using HHVM (I note the curiosity just at this instant only Billinghurst seems to show up even though at least five local users appear to have enabled the feature. I appear to have embarrassed the system daemons; or perhaps they are out to embarrass me. This very item was tagged as processed by the VM, and just about every single edit I have made since as well. AuFCL (talk) 05:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC) Does anybody know if only certain types of user—or perhaps only a certain proportion of edits—are eligible for processing by the new method?):

Recently changed Pages on enWS processed via HHVM AuFCL (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

All edits using the HHVM are being tagged by WMF as a means to identify issues. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I think I have just stumbled across a rather large "oops" with regards HHVM usage: I just had occasion to preview a <math> expression and was presented with (in large red as I have attempted to reproduce it no less; obviously I had to take slight liberties with the wikicode to recreate the effect here; the second line, being merely the laTeX input expression may be dismissed as a distraction):

Failed to parse (Missing <code>texvc</code> executable. Please see math/README to configure.):
\scriptstyle{i=\frac{702\cdot25}{2\times10}=35\cdot11,\quad\mu=1\cdot738} .

Error reliably goes away when HHVM deselected from Beta choices; reliably returns when HHVM reenabled (and formula tweaked to force re-evaluation.) Now who should this best be reported to (or is it sufficient just to be aware of this?) AuFCL (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
A further thought: I wonder if any additional significance may be reasonably read into the fact the error processor apparently did not know how to handle/represent the <code> tag itself? AuFCL (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
@Ori.livneh: hoping that they have ping on here. Please read up ^^^. Either way as per the attached linked announcement in #Tech News: 2014-39 it should be entered in bugzilla. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a login to bugzilla, but from my amateur fumbling it looks like Bugzilla: 67148 (line: "Also the Math extension seems to be running the updater in the test.") touches on this issue before getting diverted into database setup issues. AuFCL (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I have attempted to follow an alternate reporting path to bugzilla and have created this: basically only really a summary of the above. That record points back here as well. AuFCL (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Post-Reformation Digital Library[edit]

I've just added support for d:Property:P1463 on Module:Authority control. This property is particularly very interesting because their website lists book digitizations for a given writer in many languages. See for example Author:Hugo Grotius (, or even pt:Autor:Jerónimo Osório ( Lugusto 14:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Change to the enhanced toolbar, again?[edit]

Who is changing the layout of the enhanced toolbar . . . again? and why? and why is it called "enhanced"? GO3 and BWC won't be happy when they return from their camping trip.— Ineuw talk 20:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for noting this. I thought I'd gone loopy…again. AuFCL (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
It got changed as part of 1.24wmf21. I've given up and reverted to the "normal" toolbar and will reinstate my buttons shortly. When that gets deliberately broken again, I'll probably find something else to do in my spare time. There is patently no interest in enabling editors to actually work. All "they" seem to be doing is experimenting with code and creating new toys that aren't wanted, don't work as advertised and replace things that did work. Why? Because they can. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both for confirming that I am not crazy either. — Ineuw talk 02:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Can't speak for BWC, but surely you meant "as well"? AuFCL (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The only thing that I can see relating to WikiEditor in the last update is this and it only seem to relate to on/off in the Page: ns. If there is a specific problem, then we need to lodge a bugzilla. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC) who doesn't use it, so doesn't know the issue
Speaking strictly selfishly I have no ongoing problem with this change short of it adding momentarily to my background level of confusion. I have a couple of private scripts which depend upon certain DOM constructs which it turns out have not fundamentally changed this time anyway. AuFCL (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Here I go again - a day late and a dollar short... What exactly is the problem? Maybe my cache needs to catch up but afaict, all that has changed is the move to WikiEditor-like icons for button images in the page namespace and the quirk about one or both User prefs being selected now produces the same WikiEditor toolbar above the noinclude header field regardless of the selection(s). What specifically did I miss here? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

When I first wrote the post the mdash was missing, but it showed up mysteriously and miraculously. Now my only comment is that the magnifier set of icons is so pale that I need a magnifier to see them, and the icon to switch between side by side and over/under editing looks like a gallows. Otherwise, everything is OK. — Ineuw talk 00:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The icon change took place in

While I don't think he/they got the end rendering size quite right for the toggle-header/footer & layout buttons either, I'm not seeing any issue with the three magnification buttons like you seem to have.

I'd bring it to Tpt's attention first and see if a bugzilla is necessary from there. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not complaining - my comments were to entertain you. Let's see if others share my observations. — Ineuw talk 01:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
the only thing that stays the same is the constant change. it’s unclear if it’s improvement. it’s small beer. are we not trying to model best practices of communicating with the community? where is the outreach and inquiry? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 03:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) For me it has nothing to do with the look of buttons, but where they live on the screen. Up until the change was released, the beta toolbar sat comfortably between the header and the body fields and the CharInsert was where it should be "under the edit window" (to quote the gadget text in Preferences). Afterwards, the first thing on the page was the CharInsert, followed by the toolbar, then the usual fields. However, press TAB twice to move into the Body and *poof*, CharInsert and toolbar both off the top of the screen and into pointless existence. In addition, the leading in the body field seemed have increased further, which in turn extended that field further down the screen. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle: Isn't the Charinsert in your setup is on the bottom? In my implementation - The code added by window.charinsertMoveHigh = true; is only effective, (if at all,) if I have BOTH editors selected in Preferences. Otherwise it stays in the bottom. Although, I haven't neutalized this code to test - but will now do so and report to you. Just in case, pls check your Preferences. — Ineuw talk 13:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Here are the results: window.charinsertMoveHigh does nothing! Left it at true, then neutralized it, and then set it to false, it had no effect on Charinsert's placement with the all the toolbar selections. Mind you, I am using the Modern skin to gain some additional space. These were the final results:
  • Charinsert below the edit window exists only with the legacy toolbar. Just switching toolbars in Preferences, changes nothing.
  • To force Charinsert to be below the edit window, disable both toolbars and save Preferences. Enable legacy toolbar, save, and Charinsert stays at the bottom.
  • If the enhanced toolbar is enabled, Charinsert moves above the edit window, regardless if the Legacy toolbar is also selected or not.
  • Note, I cleared the caches between each test. But then, who knows? Now I have the enhanced toolbar selected, the code line window.charinsertMoveHigh is set to False, and Charinsert is above the edit window. — Ineuw talk 14:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I see the same now that I've focused just in the Page: namespace. Everywhere else, my attempt to legitimatize "load high" in the CharaInsert core .js seems to behave as desired (when set) just as it works when not setting it (loads above edit summary instead of completely after the edit section [or Old EditTools]).

I said it when I announced it - somebody needs to double check my work. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Woe is me, I never bothered checking any other namespace, like here. I changed the common.js code reference to true it still shows on the bottom here, (Not that I care). 18:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
@George Orwell III: About the icon change, I agree with you. The new icon are not very nice (but I think better than the old toolbar icons that looked wired in the WikEditor). Feel free to open bugs on bugzilla about it. Tpt (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Nah. What we need is somebody really into graphics/images to take a stab creating/improving the WikiEditor style buttons (rarely is an author also the illustrator to put it another way). -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we can advertise on the Commons Village Pump - sort of a contest? — Ineuw talk 18:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I think getting some options, and a swell of opinion/support for one (something approaching a consensus) would be a good way to progress, then lodge the bugzilla. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
+1. Could you organize a such thing? Tpt (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Hold up a sec. While I agree discussion and consensus is worth doing on this point, I don't think the point actually focuses on where "we" would like to arrive someday in the future. Deciding which images to use for toolbar buttons is rather minor in the larger scheme of things the way I see it.


The main sticking point is, of course, the "old" toolbar (Classic) versus the "enhanced" toolbar (WikiEditor). Recent events have made it rather clear that the primary hang up between the two camps is the amount of screen area each one takes up and how that screen space is utilized and/or rendered. The "Classic" toolbar, with its smaller buttons and tighter layout (only 8? buttons by default), obviously lets you load up on buttons, cuts down on the amount of back & forth scrolling needed when editing and, being in place for so long now, is well understood by many tweakers. WikiEditor, in its current out-of-the-box form, is generally thought of as having the opposite characteristics of those traits.

It seems to me that if experienced Users could do away with the drop-down sub-menus and extra dialogs of WikiEditor altogether into a single "row" of buttons then filter which buttons are generated in which namespaces instead, it would go a long way in resolving the current 'back & forth' between the two camps while also staying mindful of the implementations yet to come. Let's get some "manually added" buttons to execute some of the more common functions first and then worry about what that button "looks like" afterwards. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Javascript changes coming soon ("All your scripts are going to break" edition)[edit]

This information has been sent out for weeks, if not months, but I'm not sure if it's reached this project in a way that makes sense to the people who need to know about it. This message is for you if you could be described (even a little bit) by one of these categories:

  • Volunteers developing gadgets (such as Twinkle, HotCat, etc.).
  • Users that maintain their wiki's MediaWiki:Common.js scripts.
  • Users that have their own personal scripts.
  • Users who get questions when other people's scripts break (like you).

Several deprecated methods in MediaWiki's JavaScript modules will be removed soon (early October). Please check your code to ensure it won't break with these changes, and update it if needed. Please also check and fix any gadgets or scripts you or your wikis rely upon, to prevent breakage.

What's going to break[edit]

Deprecated methods to be removed in MediaWiki 1.25:

  • Remove method. 1 Use mw.user.getName() instead.
  • Remove mw.user.anon() method. 1 Use mw.user.isAnon() instead.
  • Remove mediawiki.api methods' "ok" and "err" callback parameters. 2 Use the returned Promise interface instead.
  • Remove mediawiki.api.category "async" parameter. 2 The ability to override $.ajax() to not be asynchronous has been removed. The default (asynchronous) behaviour remains. Use the Promise interface to retreive the fetched data from the API.
  • Remove jquery.json module. 3 Use standardised JSON.stringify and JSON.parse methods. And depend on the "json" module to ensure a polyfill is lazy-loaded for cross-browser support.

If your script contains these functions, then they're going to break. If you use a script, and the author isn't active any more, and you don't know whether it's going to break, then I believe that all you need to do for the first couple is read (or search) the script and see whether the bold-faced words appear in them. If not, then it should be okay. I saw some of the cleanup over at the English Wikipedia a few weeks ago, and it didn't look too difficult.

When it's going to break[edit]

These removals will land in MediaWiki 1.25alpha in early October 2014, being deployed to Wikimedia wikis in October 2014 (probably 1.25wmf2 or 1.25wmf3).

How to stop things from breaking[edit]

If nobody here can figure out what needs to be done, then you can ask for assistance on the the wikitech-ambassadors mailing list.

If you know more, if you've already updated certain scripts, or if you're able to help people, then please feel free to post that information here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

With such news, we usually shoot the messenger.— Ineuw talk 12:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
We have nothing to do with the UK-Scotch referendum - why are we being treated this way? -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Over the weekend, I will see if I can search through all local mediawiki: and user: ns .js files for the identified components. I will also see if I can generate a list of all called external files within the same files, and see if I have the skills to identify how big an issue that we have. I will probably have to beg for help in the pywikibot irc channel, however, that is within my skill set. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Ineuw, I had a very similar feeling when I saw the e-mail message about this. The only difference is, if I shot that dev, they might have to delay this set of changes by a couple of weeks. Shooting me wouldn't be very productive. (The people I feel particularly sorry for are people running private wikis. For some of them, it's going to be like upgrading your computer's operating system and discovering that your favorite software application no longer works.)
User:Billinghurst, were you able to find out what you needed to know? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: I haven't get to it, sleeping at the keyboard last night was ineffective for my nascent pywiki-coding (and gave my forehead an interesting pattern). — billinghurst sDrewth 08:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Malaya papers[edit]

In respect of some of the above files now deleted at Commons I'd like a FORMAL apology in respect of my time having been wasted, given that my efforts have seemingly been wasted because of the whims of certain individuals.

The undeletion request at Commons was closed as being stale. Nobody seemingly reads Undeletion requests at Commons it seems. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Settle petal … patience. You know that this is political, contentious, and where I have been causing a ruckus, and I have more political capital than you. Sometimes people will need to quietly change their minds when the focus is removed. If you want an apology, go to the user talk page of the person involved and make your case. Excuse us if we don't wish to join in, and wish to explore other avenues. The blunderbuss is a one-shot piece of equipment. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
well, i’m sorry, but commons will never be, since it’s a morally broken place. "stale" gamesmanship is nothing compared to socking in order to vote stack. or templating peoples talk pages. get in line, (see also wikimania talk about wikimedia israel & URAA). i have my own fights; i bet i’ll get blocked before you. i have been known to upload under a new name using commonist, so it’s not blocked by wizard, teehee. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 00:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
That aside, the deletion of those files (plus several others in this case) causes orphans for us in the Page: namespace. This happens every so often with a file here and a file there; no problem. But when its like this - multiple files deleted around the same time - the list becomes unmanageable with orphans running into the hundreds. Add to that the unwillingness of our ever mysterious Page: namespace caching to properly recognize all the newly orphaned files in the latest list refresh, sometimes files can appear weeks after the fact causing unnecessary investigation, etc. more often than not.

If commons is going to delete one of the source files that has Page:s created under an Index: here on en.WS, they should delete any existing pages created in the Page: namespace first, followed by deleting the Index and finally the File: itself in that order not just the File:, while quietly absolving themselves of the problem(s) that creates. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I completely disagree GOIII. These files should not have been deleted. There has been sloppy process, and poor decision-making at Commons. Simple fact is that the files should not have been deleted. And, it is my contention where Commons feels the need to delete djvu/pdf file that are in use at enWS, they should be contacting us about this, though this is an obligation that they deny having. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Its exactly that denial that leads me to hold the above position - otherwise I'd probably be in the same camp as you on this (especially after following your efforts to date on this point). Plus I don't have any conflicting interests to tip-toe through either; I'm only concerned with fulfilling my duties here (I'm always trying to operate with a mindset of Wikisource rules while other projects drool in short).

That said, the logical path to pursue now in light of their lack of acceptance of some sort of modified notification or timetable to date is to attempt to force these additional deletion tasks upon "them" here when a source file is deleted there.

They already do something like this when an image file (.jpg, .png, etc.) is renamed/deleted on Commons; a bot comes through and diligently amends or removes the File: statement as the new file-status dictates. How can they argue any different when it comes to .Pdf or .DjVu files? Any argument that the current routine merely edits existing pages for File: usage while the additional tasks require full-on deletion are mere mechanics - the ultimate point/cause behind both scenarios is exactly the same....

'Something you shmucks on Commons did there stopped the display of an image here. Its up to the same offender to either formalize that stoppage with the needed housekeeping (i.e. delete all existing Page: and/or Index: pages created under that source file just like when your Bot removes any "calls" to render image files when those are deleted) or implement some new set of guidelines between Commons and WS on how to handle this issue once and for all; enforce said guidelines across the board.'
To reiterate - the obligation cannot be disputed since it is already in practice. Its up to them to completely follow through on that obligation. We propose they handle/automate the additional deletions needed for proper housekeeping; the fact page deletion rather article editing would then be involved is par for the course. At the same time, we are open to discussing alternatives IF (in the end) they will be enforced/practiced without the need to go 12 rounds every other week over every single file in question (like it seems to be now).

Heck, even if they agree to automatically move the file to local Wikisources instead of simply deleting it there - leaving it up to us to follow up on copyright, etc. - would be an improvement over what we have now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I have undeleted these files at Commons, and relicensed them. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

good work, perhaps we need a clearing house for like minded admins at commons, and then only as a backup, a migration to a local copy. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 00:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Future Alternative Work-flow?[edit]

I do not want to distract unduly from the above discussion, but may I float the idea of reordering the sequence and location of workflow for future projects?

Maybe instead of initially uploading the composite image/scan file, be it .PDF or .DJVU directly to Commons, might it make more sense to upload it instead to the relevant primary language WikiSource and perhaps transfer it only later in the transcription process when more "eyes" have reviewed it and its consequences, be they copyright or whatever?

I am not pushing this approach so much as pointing out there are perhaps other ways of approaching the issue. If Commons regards the WikiSources as "too hard" to support, perhaps some other form of push back along the lines of their diminished relevance might find a better balance point? (This last line can surely be less confrontationally worded—suggestions welcome; anyone?)

Even (worst case) if this is an already known bad-idea™ perhaps the very fact the community is entertaining such thoughts may be of itself useful leverage? "Too hard" can cut both ways. AuFCL (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

i doubt that commons would care. keep in mind there are people who upload images to english, with a no transfer tag, image gets transferred anyway, and file gets deleted. but the local wikisource version should be in preparation. the WMF is well aware of the common "problem", but it will take a lot more to motivate change. some culture change is desperately needed; it will be a long time. in the meantime, we will need to route around problem. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 03:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Depressing but true. And there is the entire problem in a nutshell: how to go about idiot-proofing the process, bearing in mind just how perversely clever the average idiot can be. AuFCL (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Localisation needed File:Survival of the Fittest, JC Squire, 1916.djvu[edit]

This file is hosted on Commons, but the author seems to be by an author who died in 1958, meaning the file is not necessarily compatible with the licensing zealots at Commons.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I will do it later today. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Sitting locally with {{From Commons}} awaiting conversion to local version wtih {{do not move to Commons}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

m:File metadata cleanup drive[edit]

The File metadata cleanup drive is an effort started in September 2014 by the Wikimedia Foundation. Its goal is to fix file description pages and tweak templates to ensure that multimedia files consistently contain machine-readable metadata across Wikimedia wikis.

m:File metadata cleanup drive

This is relevant to us as we still own numbers of files in this space, and need to tidy to get them to commons, or properly retained here, or discarded. So it would be worthwhile those who have maintenance wishes to review the page. 01:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-39[edit]

09:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Illustrated London News[edit]

Hello, a german user has collected some links to digital copies of The Illustrated London News. Would it be possible to transfer them to english wikisource? I don't know if it is common to collect such links here, it looks like you are only collecting source texts, because you have no templates for linking to Google Books or Internet Archive.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sinuhe20:. A page of links, and information like that, for us would belong at Portal:The Illustrated London News which is curatorial, rather than in our main namespace, which we reserve for reproduced material. We have such information like that for other newspapers, and it is one of those tricky items where there is a grey area between curated, and links, and one that we have yet to perfect. You can see Portal:Notes and Queries as an example of a similar work. With regards to the deWS page and transfer here, we can host an English language version at the suggested portal link.

For links to external source material we use {{ext scan link}}, though we do have {{IA}}, and have no real need for Google Books outside of the former template to this point of time. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. So there seems to exist some differences between english and german wikisource. As a service to the reader we try in addition for newspapers to collect all electronic files which can be found in the internet (and which can spread out in many different sources). For that we have what we call theme pages, which are maybe equivalent to your portal pages and which will then be linked in our corresponding wikipedia articles.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:The Monkey's Paw.djvu[edit]

Drama copyright? 1910 work so PD-US. If published in UK dramtist died in 1944 and it won't be out of copyright until January. (Which isn't that long to wait).ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

For Commons purposes, it's derivative of a British work by an author who died in 1943, and co-published US/UK by a dramatist who died in 1944. It's free for WS purposes, and I would suggest just not bothering it for Commons purposes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:The Pilgrim's Progress.djvu[edit]

The underlying work is PD, (text clearly is), the illustrator around in 1943. Only remaining issue is when the edition was published, so it's correctly indicated in the metadata, IA source doesn't give an edition date :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The text is not self-evidently PD; I know that Shakespeare editions tend to be glued together from several originals, and I don't know the textual history of the Pilgrim's Progress, but sufficient editorial changes can be copyrightable. When did the illustrator publish the illustrations is a necessary question for copyright, too. I'm guessing the library got their copy in 1967--page 2 has 67-73312 typed into it, which is not in fact a LCCN, but follows the format, so I think it's a local library number of the same format. Thus I would assume this edition was published after 1950, which would leave the biography, for one piece, under copyright for sometime, even given only the anonymous 70 years and not the US 95. I think a well-dated edition should be found and this one deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Identfying authors[edit]

Was considering a transcribe on the work listed here to be done by October 31st. User:ShakespeareFan00/Halloween but having run into concerns about anthologies before, I felt it best to compile a list of stated authors (based on titles in the work.)

The assistance of other contirbutors used to doing authorship confirmation would be appreciated.

The reason I am checking before uploading is because although the work is a US Pre 1923, I couldn't be certain some extracts and poems had a subsisting non-us copyright.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Globally speaking, might be the case: "non US-copyright" covers many jurisdictions. Is this a Wikisource concern, however? PD in the USA is certainly the criterion used for the DNB and other big collective works here. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Well it is a concern because it determines if the djvu has to be uploaded locally (instead of at Commons), and if there are parts of the work I can't (being UK based) transcribe owing to authors works still being copyright here, even though the book is around 1910. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm all for being scrupulous on IP matters where necessary. On the former point, the Commons page on licensing reads "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media [...] that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." That is therefore a necessary condition. Here the US is the country of publication. So that necessary condition about public domain is fulfilled. My understanding, which of course may be deficient (this being a treacherous area) is that US public domain would be taken as sufficient by Commons. I'm citing the page that is not for lawyers, knowingly.
On the other point, I would take that to be a personal choice, rather than a policy matter. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Just upload the thing at Commons. If it becomes problematic we will transfer it over here as we know that it is hostable. As attributions are made to author pages, you will work out whether you want it pushed here. Dropping all that I am currently doing to assist with lower priority author pages isn't going to happen. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
OK. I really doubt that a pre 1923 US work is going to have major issues. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:The young Moslem looks at life (1937).djvu[edit]

Query, is this license on this correct? The author according to Wikisource died in 1964, so I don't see how it can be PD-70 which is what Commons claims.? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

No, if you look at the work here you will see how we have tagged it. I have retagged the File: with c:Template:PD-US-not renewed. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks , should really have done that check myself :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the inquiry.

Internet Archive does not itself make an ownership claim to the work you've identified below. We generally do not advise as to the copyright status of items in the collection at and do not guarantee the accuracy of information posted on items’ details or collection pages, including information regarding copyright or intellectual property rights of any kind. Our terms of use ( require that users make use of Internet Archive's Collections at their own risk and ensure that such use is non-infringing and in accordance with all applicable laws.

You should, of course, feel free to contact any donor institutions, authors, or publishers using information posted on details or collections pages at if you seek to obtain more information from them. Internet Archive cannot provide contact information other than that which is provided on these pages.

Finally, some aspects of the the Internet Archive Terms of Use do not apply to the collection at (aka the Prelinger Archives), a special case. For this collection, please see the box entitled "Rights" near the bottom left of the page at

Ineuw talk 21:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

A reply that says nothing, and is somewhere between "three wise monkeys" and an ostrich or Sergeant Schultz in Hogan's Heroes. — billinghurst sDrewth
Exactly, and when looking at the "Rights statement" only the films are PD. and I quote:

Descriptions, synopses, shotlists and other metadata provided by Prelinger Archives to this site are copyrighted jointly by Prelinger Archives and Getty Images. They may be quoted, excerpted or reproduced for educational, scholarly, nonprofit or archival purposes, but may not be reproduced for commercial purposes of any kind without permission.

Tech News: 2014-40[edit]

09:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Talmud seems a need to be tidied[edit]

When I have a look at "Talmud"'s subpages (Special:PrefixIndex/Talmud/) we seem to have a bit of a hotchpotch. Some looks like it belongs in Talmud (Wikisource) but wasn't moved (and which should be moved to Translation:Talmud) and some maybe deleted, or moved to heWS. Anyone have any knowledge of the work to be able to advise the community? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems OK to me, but it's missing tractates. I believe there are 64 of them. What do you see wrong? Can you elaborate?— Ineuw talk 02:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Ineuw, if you look at the base page Talmud, you'll see that it's a VERSIONS page, so it shouldn't have these subpages. I think that's what billinghurst is getting at. The pages listed in the link all have Talmud as their base page, so they do not seem to be associated with any main page or any particular source. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the explain. However, I also know that the Talmud's organization is idiosyncratic (not my words) and I also have to track down the source. In other words, I'll look into what's missing. unsigned comment by Ineuw (talk) .
Apologies for being implicit, not explicit. It seems that we have disambiguated the root page of the work, and not the subsidiary pages. We probably need to move the disambig page of the way, move in the ..(WS) page, then move that branch to the Translation: ns, then put the disambig page back in place, and update. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I just finished looking at the very pages you mentioned, (the head is clearer this morning, so the typos are less). Besides the disambiguation page, I also know that the whole layout needs updating. I want to study and think about it a bit longer. — Ineuw talk 14:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)