Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2005-09

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in September 2005, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Problem with viewing Unicode[edit]

I have a problem viewing certain Unicode characters, such as an h with a dot beneath it (as here, in the word "Hamishi"). Also I can't see cantillation characters in Hebrew. I use the latest & most up-todate OS, Browser & updates (Win XP SP2, IE 6.x etc.). My browser's encoding defaults to "Unicode - Utf-8" on Wiki pages, and I don't see any other options with "Unicode". Can anyone offer any suggestions, please? -- Nevuchadnezzar 10:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest asking on Wikipedia or Meta. You'll be more likely to get technical assistance there.Dovi 15:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. The only solution that worked for me wasd to move to Mozilla FireFox. -- Nevuchadnezzar 22:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Important first discussions[edit]

Well, we finally got our own sub-domain. After all the waiting and voting and debating, we're here. And now that we have our own, I think we need to have a few discussions before this site gets up and running at full speed. I promised that when we moved, we would discuss author pages.

We really need to figure out how to design them now. The way the are currently designed were fitting for the multilingual Wikisource but not for this one. Do we really need to have all language links to the various Wikipedias now? Or would just the English link be good? It is my opinion that we remove all non-English links from those pages (because it will make keeping them up-to-date not an issue; as it currently stands, it takes hours to add all the new Wikipedia links).

Also, the namespace. Do we want to continue to use the "Author:" prefix for those pages or go straight to the author's name and nothing else? Or do we keep the author prefix, or turn it into a redirect to the author's name?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello there... I think it is better to drop the prefix. many subdomains did it, and they are doing quite well. ThomasV 19:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree about the prefix. It is superfluous. As far as the language links, are you talking about the biography links? If so I agree. I like the way that ThomasV rewrote various pages to have one link to biography and one link to quotes. --CSN 23:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I am talking about the biography links. See the discussion I started called Author pages. I still like the prefix, but if people don't want it, we can dispense with it (although, using them as redirects will be useful).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

red links[edit]

if a page in the main namespace is apparently missing, check on the main site: it was probably a redirect (and redirect have not been imported). Pages from the robot's list are currently being blanked with redirects. their content is still accessible through the history. ThomasV 19:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been going around and fixing a lot of those redirects and adding documentation I overlooked when I assembled my list. This is quite a bit of work!—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

yes, I guess the English subdomain is the one that will take the longest time to recover. another thing that is missing is images. brion told me that it was not possible to import them. ThomasV 20:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

That's a shame. Should we go ahead and upload them to Commons, then?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be better. that way, images can be used by all subdomains. ThomasV 04:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I forgot to include a [[Category:English]] in the Talmud pages on the main when I did it. Will it be moved automatically now that I did, or do I need to copy each page and delete it from the old manually? -- Nevuchadnezzar 01:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
A couple things could happen: we could pester Brion to use his scripts to move it over if it's in a list; we could wait for the Special:Import feature to become active on the wikis, and an admin could transfer them over; or we could copy and paste them from the main 'Source. The first one probably will not happen, so it's just a matter of how long are you willing to wait to have it over here, since the Import feature might not be running for quite some time.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Nevu: I guess you better copy-paste them here. After that, please list them in the proposed deletions of the main site, so that we know we can remove them. ThomasV 11:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Ok, thanks a lot. Will do. -- Nevuchadnezzar 02:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Help needed![edit]

This is a request to all Wikisource users: please patrol the site and look for red links that ought to be blue (such as Wikisource:Authors is a red link, as are Wikisource:Authors-A, etc.) and copy them from the main Wikisource. If we can get as many people helping to get this wiki up and running, we won't have to spend as much time in this transitional stage.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

if you import pages manually from the main site: it would be great to delete the page from the main site, (or to blank it if you are not sysop), so that someone can delete it after you. and I guess pages such as oldwikisource:Wikisource:Logo do not need to be copied here. ThomasV 04:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Glitches[edit]

I don't know how often developers will come here, but if any do, there are some glitches with the database. Apparently, the database can't find the pages Gifts or Love and Friendship. What exactly does this mean and can we fix it?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

both pages are disambig pages on the main site. I do not know what the problem is. I will report it to developers. ThomasV 04:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Interlanguage Links?[edit]

Whenever I try to use an interlanguage link, it and the hypertext does not appear. Is anyone else having the same problem? - PoptartKing 03:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm doing a lot of language links too. I noticed that sometimes they don't appear properly when first added, but then do later on. Brion said he was going to "tweak" this...Dovi 07:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Red Links[edit]

This may just be my ignorance showing itself, as I gather that all pages have now been moved over to the new language subdomain, but I have been trying to fix the links on the speeches page to Wikisource:Speeches of United States Presidents and Wikisource:Speeches of British Prime Ministers but I just can't find a way to do it. Can someone please let me know how I can fix these & if there is a particular way to fix redlinks (ie change what to what (I know about changing en: to w: as it's worked on some links but it isn't relevant in this case)). Thanks AllanHainey 15:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Author pages[edit]

I'm not sure if anyone's noticed what the author pages look like, but they are a mess. They were designed to work on the multilingual Wikisource, but are not appropriate for the English subdomain. So, this means we need to revamp them: make layout changes, decide what content to add, etc.

I'm thinking that the author pages should like only to the English Wikipedia, and possibly the English Wikiquote, if applicable. Also, it should contain a list of the works the author has written, whether those works are on 'Source or not. And there should also be a picture of the author (if applicable), just to take up some of the white space.

Any thoughts?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree about including the complete list. I like the layout of Lord Dunsany which was taken from the wikipedia article on Lord Dunsany and which is slowly being filled in as more of his works are added. BTW, what the heck happened to Robert E. Howard (see history). Did some pages just randomly disappear when they were ported over? --CSN 23:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I think that the author pages should be modeled after Lord Dunsany's page. It has a nice break up of all the works, it has only one link to the Wikipedia page. Although, I think we should add a link to Wikiquote (if applicable) and a picture.
About Howard's page history...I think some of the histories were lost when Brion transfered them over to here. Thomas said that it was a rare occurence, but I've found a number of pages that seem to suffer from no history when there should be a very big one.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 00:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
It's not just the no history thing. Look at the first item in the history... It looks like what got copied over is a really really old draft of the page. Like possibly the first draft. It only has one article on it and it isn't a proper author page. I cut and pasted the real content from wikisource to en.wikisource myself. I hope this isn't a widespread problem. Also, I know I said the exact opposite about 5 minutes ago, but I think the Author prefix is a good idea. I had been giving this some thought and kind of forgot but when a prefix like Author: is used, I believe it actually creates a new namespace in the wiki software which, from a technical point of view, is a good thing. There should be a specific namespace for authors, which will allow extension writers to do fancy things. --CSN 00:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I am beginning to think that something very bad happened in the transfer of pages. Al Gore is another page where for some reason, en.wikisource got the very first revision from wikisource and not the most recent one. If this is widespread, we have serious issues. --CSN 02:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the history of those pages. And I really can't explain why that is. I think what happened is that when Brion used his php scripts to transfer it over, for some reason only the very first draft of the page came with it. I'm not sure if it's exactly widespread, but there are a fair number of occurences where this has happened. Needless to say, this wiki is very glitchy right now. You can ask Brion if he knows more on IRC. I would, but I'm not very familiar with it, and it took me a long time to get it set up once, that doing it again isn't very appealing.
I like the layout of Howard's author page. Should this be the standard we use to revamp all the other pages? The only drawback is that blank space right above the "Essay" category.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah I like that layout too. I almost feel like there should be a template box or something tho to hold the picture and the two main links. I'll give it some thought after work. Also, 9/11 Commission Report is another article where the first draft got transferred over.  : ( --CSN 12:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
adding a prefix does not create a namespace. if you want to add namespace for authors, you have to change the settings of the wiki. and I guess you have to give up one of the existing namespaces (eg Help or Wikisource) because the number of namespaces available is limited. ThomasV 08:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
There can be more namespaces. Just ask the developers. Yann 08:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
There can? I was under the impression that there could only be a certain number. If more can be added, that might be worth proposing if 'Source would like that.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think there is a limit on the number of namespaces. Maybe 255 depending on how the value is stored in teh database. I know you can make new ones because I am using namespace 108 and 109 in another project. Not sure how to go about creating them though. Maybe we have to submit a bug report. While we're at it, we should see about getting Scriptorium added to the default skin as a navigation link. --CSN 21:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
since 1.5 you can use as many namespaces as you want (up to 65k). but you have to ask some developper to create them. for the scriptorium link, it is not skin dependent; you have to modify the system messages. in fr and la we also added a link to the list of authors in the navbar. ThomasV 22:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like the process is described at meta:Navigation. If looks like you need to add [MediaWiki:Scriptorium-url], [MediaWiki:Scriptorium], [MediaWiki:Allauthors-url], and [MediaWiki:Allauthors]. It think it needs an admin. --CSN 23:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's propose, then, a new namespace for author pages. And should I add both Scriptorium links and links and the all authors links to the sidebar?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to have the all authors link. It depends on how many others want it too. --CSN 21:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
What would we use for the Allauthors link, Wikisource:Authors?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

CSN - a template might be a good idea for housing the non-works section of author pages. The only problem I can see is that the more we rely on templates, the more complex it might be for new users to create author pages. It would require a veteran to go in and touch up the pages. If you don't mind the work (I know I don't), then that might be a good choice. Also, we might want to consider removing the TOC unless we can structure the author pages so that the image does not get in the way of the TOC, as it does on Dunsany's page.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

No I don't mind dedicating time to it. Even if we don't do a template, it would be nice to have a standard format that we use for all pages. I think if we do it right and document it though, we can make a template pretty intuitive. For example, the template that ThomasV made looks like this: {{author|name|lastname|letter}} or {{author|Robert W. Howard|Howard|H}}. We could simplify that by removing the lastname (which doesn't seem to be used) and then adding an image as the last attribute. Something like {{author|Robert W. Howard|H|Robert E. Howard.jpg}}. As far as the TOC goes. The TOC is really helpful for some of the longer entries where you have to scroll through a mile of poems. Maybe we can include it in a more visually appealing way. --CSN 21:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Let's go with the template, then. Let's modify ThomasV's to get rid of the last name and add the picture. I still think we need to come up with a more appealing TOC. What if for the pages where it's automatically generated (or for any page, I guess), we don't use the automatic one, but create the TOC ourselves? That way we have more liberties about where to place it and don't have to rely on the imperfect MediaWiki software for it.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

System messages[edit]

Does anyone know why all the system messages are red links? In the other wikimedia projects, they are all blue. Very odd. I might have to see if a developer knows what that means.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 03:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it is because they are set to their default value. ThomasV 05:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah we have to add any custom ones back in manually. They are in the MediaWiki namespace so like <blarg> would need to be added at [MediaWiki:blarg]. --CSN 12:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Help needed on a new login[edit]

I made a mess of logging on to the new En page, and need a new password. I gave my email address and sent it off but so far (about 12 hours later) have had no reply. I have stuff on my old talk page which I need to cut and paste into a new talk page here so I can continue my work on EB1911. Can somebody sort this out, please. Thanks Tony Woolrich (AKA Apwoolrich).

Wednesday Sept 14th, evening, Still no new password in my email box, despite requesting one twice today. Who do I contact to get this sorted, please. In desperation as I need to get some work done :) Thanks Tony Woolrich (AKA Apwoolrich).
All fixed thanks to developer Brion. :):) Apwoolrich 13:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Important notice![edit]

It is crucial that users try to find out (if possible) which pages have been transfered over badly so we can correct those problems now. Doing this at a later date will be a hassle; right now, the pages still exist on the main WS, so copying over the latest revision will be a breeze. Doing it later will require the page to be undeleted, copied, and then re-deleted. Both Saforrest and CSN and myself have found bad pages, and I'm sure there are many still out there.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

in one occurence (the Venus page on the spanish wikisource) I noticed that the page had been protected. but it does not seem to be the case of other badly transferred pages. I have not been able to find a pattern in the way this occurs. ThomasV 21:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is a list: Wikisource:Bad transfers --CSN 21:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Template for Authors[edit]

I modified Template:Author. I removed the lastname field which wasn't being used and added a picture as the fourth parameter. This will probably break a number of author pages. I'm still not sure what to do about the TOC. Anyone have any ideas? --CSN 23:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I got rid of the image. It is no good for pages that don't have pics. I guess we will have to do them manually. --CSN 23:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The template looks great. I still think we should do away with the TOC, even though it's nice for authors who have many different works. It just doesn't look aesthetic.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 00:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I think something's going to have to go. I think we either remove the template, or we remove the TOC. I've tried tinkering around with all this stuff, and I can't come to any good solution. I say we nix the picture, unless the author's page doesn't need the TOC, which in that case, we can add a picture.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
You mean nix the picture as part of the template? I agree with that. Most author pages have an equivalent wikipedia page with a picture anyway. I guess alot of pages could also do without the TOC. As with everything else a general policy enforced on a case by case basis is probably a good idea. --CSN 21:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's just leave out the picture, and include the TOC. That way the page at least looks decent. And with the layout of all the author pages being template-based, if an idea for how to include a picture comes up, we can easily change it the layout.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 00:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to start updating all the author pages, unless you have any objections to it.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
No objections here. --CSN 22:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

How many pages?[edit]

from the en main page: "Wikisource currently has -1 pages."
I know this is wrong, but I don't know what will need to be changed to correct it (and chances are I would need to be an administrator to do it anyway!). Thryduulf 10:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Need a deevloper for that. Yann 11:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
You have to wait one or two weeks, and the number of articles will work. The first subdomains had the same thing. --LadyInGrey 20:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
sorry but this is not the whole story. it works for the first subdomains because someone nagged developers. :-) ThomasV 20:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
ok, I just nagged brion about this. ThomasV 22:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Links to other subdomains[edit]

Can an admin add the links to other subdomains RC on the RC head, please ? Yann 11:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, that would be great. ThomasV 22:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

cy.wikisource[edit]

Is the Welsh content from the old site going to be transferred over to its own domain, or should I ask someone to do that? Marnanel 15:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The Welsh content will not be transfered over unless a sub-domain has been requested. Check Wikisource:Language domain requests to see if it has been requested. I'd also put this question on the Scriptorium on the main WS, too, as it pertains more to that wiki than to this.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Can we ask for a new transfer?[edit]

Hitting random page about 30 times got me 17 bad transfers. Another 7-8 pages had only one edit on the old wikisource so they might have messed up too, and I just can't tell implying that the number 17 might be artificially low. Can we get Brion to retransfer the entire english job again? It is going to take forever to determine all of the bad transfers. --CSN 00:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm really reluctant to ask for a new transfer. Although, it seems that the number of pages that are messed up is getting bigger and bigger. I have no clue how many are actually screwed up. A fair number over at Wikisource:Disambiguation pages had been botched up. Although, it would give us an opportunity to bring over pages with their histories, which would be very nice. And now that Thomas' bot has rewritten all the English pages, that'll be more work for us.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 00:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Also, there are a good fair number of pages that were correctly transferred over. If we retransfer the entire thing again, wouldn't we run the risk of having some of those then botched up? What if we have Brion only retransfer those that we find problems with?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 00:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah that would be great. The only problem with that is we will have to essentially go through every single page to make sure they transferred correctly and the only real way to check a page is to see if the history has only one entry and then check the history of the page on the old wikisource and see if it is longer there. Very tedious. I don't think there is a real solution but if we don't check every page we are basically rolling the wiki back to a year ago. --CSN 00:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
It is a fairly large problem, you're right. But if we can find the bulk of the bad pages (which I hope don't number more than 100) now, we can have them transfered over. Other pages we find later on, we can put on a list, and when the Special:Import feature is up and running, a sysop here can import the pages over (of course, this rests on the fact that the import feature will be put to use in the near future).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm starting to think 100 pages is a huge underestimate. I just checked every page linked to from Author:H. P. Lovecraft. Of the pages that had more that one entry in their history, there were maybe 8 that transferred correctly. Another 26 pages went on Wikisource:Bad transfers. Unless this is an anomoly more than half the pages that had more than one edit were transferred incorrectly. Another option for fixing this is to have ThomasBot go back through the old wikisource and undo his redirects, then copy that entire database to en.wikisource and start deleting stuff from other languages like we originally planned. --CSN 01:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I've left a message on the main Wikisource to see if other sub-domains have had this problem. If it's happened to us, it's probably happened to them, too. Copying the entire database over would be a pain, unfortunately. I do wish we had just done that right off the bat, though, because that means a lot of the pages I forgot to add to my list would actually have their histories. But let's see what others say. Copying that database over to here will be a ton of work (all the links that have been changes will need to be rechanged, for example).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Backups[edit]

I really hope we won't need a new transfer. But if we are tallking about 10,000-20,000 bad pages, we may need to do one. We should check very carefully to make sure we really need to do it.

If a new transfer or a new dump of the entire wikisource.org database is to be done, then people should start making personal backups of new pages they have added, or pages which they edited and know are up-to-date.

The easiest way to do this is to go to your user contributions to see which pages you have edited. Pages you want to "put back here" after a transfer (often labeled "top" since you are the last editor) can be saved. Here's how:

  • Go to the page.
  • Click "edit" to go to the source code, which is what you want to save.
  • Save the "edit" page on your computer with filename <{pagename}.php>.

The source code is now saved on your computer and you can paste in back in after the transfer (if there is one).

A decision on this - final yes or no - should be made ASAP in my opinion.Dovi 03:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Two more things:

  • Wouldn't a new transfer require all the English pages at wikisource.org to be "undeleted"? I.e. a reversal of Thomas's bot?
  • If there is a transfer, please give some warning for people to do backups. Got to go now,Dovi 04:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC).


this looks worse than I previously thought. in fact the best solution would be if developers could find out what went wrong. if they do not, I see no reason why another transfer would work differently ThomasV 05:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
brion is examining the code. he said it seems to be caused by a bug in the importer, but he has not found it. as long as this is not fixed, doing another transfer is not a solution. sorry but I will be away from my computer most of the day. please feel free to contact him on irc. ThomasV 06:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I have of course kept all the intermediate files used in the transfer. The problem seems to be a bug in the importer, possibly related to replication lag or some other problem, such that some revisions got imported without being attached to the articles -- thus they aren't visible in histories, but they are in the database. I'm running a script to reattach them now (es.wikisource.org done, about to start the others.)
"Another transfer" doesn't really make sense as it would just repeat whatever bugs or else corrupt the database further. ;) Don't forget to let us know about these sorts of problems as soon as possible, and with as much specificity as possible -- pointing to exact pages which differ and describing how they differ from what's expected are huge, huge helps in diagnosing and fixing problems. --Brion VIBBER 07:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Should be all done (check cache where necessary). --Brion VIBBER 09:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, the pages on Wikisource:Bad transfers do seem to have their histories back but now I am getting an error message when I try to see the articles:
The database did not find the text of a page that it should have found, named "In the Walls of Eryx".

This is usually caused by following an outdated diff or history link to a page that has been deleted.

If this is not the case, you may have found a bug in the software. Please report this to an administrator, making note of the URL.
Going into the history and looking at revisions works fine. Is anyone else seeing this? --CSN 11:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I've reported this on bugzilla. We should get a reply shortly.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
This is even worse than I thought! There are thousands of pages that have the weird database error when you try to access them. LadyInGrey just pointed them out--this is really out of hand. It needs to be fixed soon. I've just updated the bug report on Bugzilla because of this.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Missing Author Pages[edit]

This was mentioned briefly further up the page but as most of the sub-section was dealing with the layout/naming of author pages I've added this here. There is a serious problem with some of the author pages (Al Gore, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Charles Kennedy, George W. Bush among them). When you access the link to the author page the message displayed is "The database did not find the text of a page that it should have found, named "Author:Al Gore". This is usually caused by following an outdated diff or history link to a page that has been deleted. If this is not the case, you may have found a bug in the software. Please report this to an administrator, making note of the URL."

I tried to revert (& on the Al Gore page CSN had already tried this) & to add a link to a new speech but it just comes up with the edit conflict message. The text in the stored version box is that above & If I change it & try to save it comes up with edit conflict again so it seems impossible to change the text to show the proper author pages. This was obviously caused by the change of language sub-domains but does anyone know how to correct this as it seems to be affecting a number of important pages? AllanHainey 11:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, all of the pages that used to have no history are now doing this. --CSN 11:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
This is really frustrating. I'm going to see if I can get a hold of Brion. He might know why this is.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I just noticed that even a new page (not moved), which I was working on, is no longer visible. The history is fine, and history pages can be viewed, just not plain "article." So it seems to be the system, not the individual pages.Dovi 17:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
What page is it, Dovi? I'd like to know because so far we've only discovered problems with moved pages. We've found a whole slew of them over at Special:Shortpages, too.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. It does have a longer history than I briefly remembered. I checked other truly new pages and they worked.Dovi 18:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I think I have seen the same bug at swedish wikisource. The main page there was fine at first (or at least I did not see anything strange) and I even edited it after the move, but now it is only viewable through the history. /EnDumEn 18:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The bug report for this is Bug 3472. You are all welcome to add your comments and vote for this bug. Hopefully we can get this all sorted out in the next couple of days.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I do not think that posting a bug will get this fixed very fast. the most efficient way for a problem of that importance is to go on irc and to find brion. sorry but I am not able to do this now. ThomasV 19:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
It did get the other bug finished over night. I am checking IRC periodically to see if Brion is on. However, everytime I log on, he is not there. So I'm just doing everything I can think of, because this is really bad.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
ALWAYS file a bug! If I'm not online at the moment IRC won't get you anything. --Brion VIBBER 21:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
It looks like the latest-revision update part didn't quite work; the revisions are all in there but now the page doesn't list which revision is the current one. I'm working on another script to go through and fix these, should be pretty straightforward. --Brion VIBBER 22:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Fixed. --Brion VIBBER 00:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch, Brion!—Zhaladshar (Talk) 00:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Yay! --CSN 01:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, well done Brion. As a seperate issue I've noticed that all the foreign wikipedia links just don't show up on the author pages (except in the edit page) & the english version links are in red. Is there a quick technical way to fix this all at once or will we just need to go through & add W: before the language prefixes by hand? AllanHainey 07:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikiversity Vote[edit]

Voting has started for a new Wikimedia sister project proposal called Wikiversity. This is a request for anybody that is interested to cast a vote either in support or opposition to this new project proposal. The results of this vote will determine if this project will be started on its own seperate group of wikis as a Wikimedia sister project, together with approval from the Wikimedia Foundation Board. Discussion about this proposal should take place on the Wikiversity discussion page.

Main Page[edit]

Discussion moved to Talk:Main Page.Dovi 05:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Sidebar[edit]

One of the biggest drawbacks people have said is the fact that it's hard to navigate WS sometimes. I propose we add a few links to the sidebar to help make it easier for people to navigate. I say we remove the "Current events" section (we've never used it in the history of Wikisource) and add a link to the Scriptorium.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with that as it'd certainly save having to type out the URL everytime I have a problem. AllanHainey 15:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Link to the Scriptorium has been added.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)