Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2009-01

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 January 2009, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Announcements[edit]

Upload file size limit increased[edit]

That which was long promised has come to pass: Brion has "experimentally" increased the upload limit from 20Mb to 100Mb.[1] Hesperian 11:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposals[edit]

Deletion policy: closure by uninvolved administrator[edit]

Eclecticology has recently been deleting pages that he has proposed for deletion at WS:PD.

Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Category:Mishnah_Berakhot_Translations - deleted after 10 days with no comments
Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Contributions by User:125.163.2.95 - deleted after 7 days with one comment
Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Benjamin Bowen Day
Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Remember Them - 9 days, 2 comments
Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2008-11#America's Best Comics/subpages - 12 days, 1 comment
Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2008-11#Lber AL vel Legis Persian Translation (Chap A) - 5 days, 2 comments, but fits within speedy deletion "author request" and "common sense"
Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2008-11#Excerpts from study report of third battle of panipat headed by Arthur Wellselley for English east India co. - 2 weeks, 1 comment
Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2008-11#Category:Academic journals and Category:Magazines - 2 weeks, 1 comment
Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2008-11#Auditory vs. Visual AD/HD: Deepening Our Understanding of AD/HD Complexities and Processing Disorders - two weeks, no comment.

Our Deletion policy indicates that deletion discussions will be open for at least a week, however it doesnt stipulate whether they should be done by an uninvolved administrator, or even that the nominator shouldnt also perform the deletion.

Except for one, Benjamin Bowen Day, all of the deletions are not only within policy; they are also very sound decisions.

However, deletions by the nominating admin has caused problems and bad feelings in the past, and it is not a pattern I think we should be returning to. We have a few admins (Giggy comes to mind, but there are others too) who routinely clean out backlogs and deletion discussions, and I think we have enough admins now that we can depend on another admin closing the discussions within a reasonable time frame. If we have backlogs, we need more admins, or we need to remind each other do the work.

I propose that we add a requirement to our deletion policy that the deleting admin should be uninvolved, or .. a weaker rule that they should not have proposed or substantially supported the deletion. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

While my initial reaction is full support, it leads to the issue that administrators may start "voting with the delete button" as sometimes happens on other WMF projects. If you find a 3D-1K vote ongoing, why lend your vote to the Delete side, when you can just close it and announce it deleted? Admins may prove less willingly to simply 'vote as one of the many editors of the project', if they know that voting also excludes them from making the final judgement call.
On that note, I wouldn't mind seeing it so there's an automatic extension of debate if there are any Keep votes on a nomination - so that it goes from one week, to two weeks - for example. It would also help solve the problem a little bit, since admins could still close something with four Delete votes even if they were one of them -- but they couldn't close it if there was also a Keep vote. Draw a line of sorts between "unanimous decisions" and "contentious decisions" and use that to determine what a nominator can or cannot close. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: e. e. cummings‎'. 09:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
My dream policy would be that any admin saying keep means a page cant be deleted. They must be convinced, or concede. If they stonewall often without acceptable reasoning, their annual reconfirmation will not be pretty. If they are obviously disregarding the law, reconfirmation can be called at any time. Non-admins need not worry - they can become admins soon enough - simply prove that you have a dream too. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad to see John acknowledge that he considers all to have been deleted within the bounds of policy, and it is only the Benjamin Bowen Day article that he considers unsound, though he does ignore that he put it into Category:Deletion requests/Unpublished himself in August. With the disputed article, the deletion nomination did remain there for a week. The only two comments during that time supported deletion. There were no Keep votes at all, or even Comments, so the automatic extension would not have applied. As a matter of practice, when there is a "keep" or "comment" I have consistently reset the clock to measure the week from the time of the last such comment. I treat nominations which receive no comments at all as having received implicit support. Also, I prefer to wait a further week after deletion before archiving the deletion proposal. The nomination for Template:Print version notice was not mine, but I did perform the related deletions. There were strong objections voiced by Nikola Smolenski, so I just left it there for someone else to archive or take other action.
Saying that any Keep by an admin means that the page can't be deleted unless he is bullied to change his mind takes things much too far. Having it sorted out with the next reconfirmation sounds too much like the kind of thing that you would hear from governing party politicians. Meanwhile ....
Sherurcij makes a good point about the effects of a too rigid policy. Admins will start looking for ways around it. They will avoid taking responsibility for the bold steps that are sometimes needed in the more divisive situations, where what is needed is to be both fair and decisive. Backlogs will grow because few new admins will be willing to accept responsibility when it means facing the whining wrath of senior admins. If we want them to be bold, they need to feel that occasional errors in judgement are no big deal. If a decision to delete is so awful, and the article so vital re-creating the article, or starting an undelete process is still available as a strategy. Eclecticology (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The only part that I disagree with is "I treat nominations which receive no comments at all as having received implicit support." - we dont have many people who are able or willing, for various reasons, to expend lots of time researching each case, so it can take a while for this to occur. I do understand where you're coming from; I'd be happy for us to adopt an implicit "delete" if we also allowed "* Comment, need more time. ~~~~"
While each deletion of a poor quality page may not mean much to us when we are adding hundreds of new pages per day, the idea of "acceptable levels of collateral damage" is scary. Each unjustified deletion is liable to turns away a contributor who would otherwise have learnt the ropes and contributed more. All deletion should be based on sound reasons to do so, or "too hard". John Vandenberg (chat) 02:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I have absolutely no problem with using something like "Comment, need more time" in the way that you describe. In the Benjamin Bowen Day case that would at the very least delayed the deletion. When I said "no comments at all" that was intended to be interpreted strictly.
I don't think that this is a matter of scaring away cotributors at all. Most, though not all, of the articles are from contributors who are long gone. Active editors who object to a proposed deletion of their work are usually pretty quick to object, and that alone would result in a different set of circumstances. Eclecticology (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is an extremely good idea brought up by Jayvdb (talkcontribs). The initial nominator of a deletion discussion should never be the one to close that discussion, if that can at all possibly be avoided. Especially on a project with enough active contributors where such a thing can be avoided. In this manner we avoid any appearance of impropriety, whether or not it is actually there in a case by case basis. Better to err on the side of not closing where one was the nom as well. Cirt (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, I support the change in policy as well. Having another person doing the deletion is for the best, as it puts another set of eyes on the request. If it is something outside of speedy delete criteria then the situation is too complicated to rely on one person handling the whole matter. We'll get better outcomes consistently if a second person makes the final call about the request. FloNight (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Not only is this change sound policy, it's common sense. Admins should not do things that question their motives or integrity. Eclecticology has also made shaky AFDs, such as Coker, which is now the FT of the month. RlevseTalk 19:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    • To say that the Coker nomination was shaky is plain bullshit. It was a series of private and personal documents about a person who was not particularly notable, and that were not previously published, and that alone qualifies at least to be nominated for deletion. It's value is on a par with writing about the family dog. People did in fact vote to keep it, and I did not delete it. Nominations for deletion are not deletions, and I resent your notion that anyone should be stigmatized just because he proposed something contrary to the Point of View that you have been championing. If you feel that I have been questioning anyone's motives and integrity, have the balls to express that directly, rather than through some vague inuendo. Eclecticology (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
      • He is not stating that you're questioning others' motives, but that your actions lead an uninvolved newbie to question your motives or integrity. Not that you lack integrity or have dishonest motives, but that by closing your own nominations, you needlessly make yourself stand upon a shakier pillar of public support. For normal users, it's up to them whether average passersby think they're grinding an axe or not -- but as administrators, people like you and regrettably I, we have a bit more of a responsibility to not be seen to be forcing our way on the project. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Nikola Tesla‎. 09:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Merchandise[edit]

While we're talking about money, I notice that the Cafepress Wikipedia page offers merchandise for Wikipedia, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wiktionary and Wikimedia itself, but not Wikisource. Does anyone know why not? Is it the responsibility of this community, or a foundation issue? If I could get that iceberg on a stein, I'm sure if would keep my beer damn cold. Hesperian 01:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I asked them about this years ago back when we had the photo version of the wikisource logo. They didn't provide it on a t-shirt because the foundation hadn't ordered any (due to copyright, technical & different look issues). I guess none of that applies now we have the wikistyle logo & its just a case that noone's gotten around to getting the foundation to print some up and make them available. AllanHainey (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
m:Talk:Store#Wikisource. Hesperian 10:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Other discussions[edit]

Questions[edit]

Copyright Status of Posthumous Publications[edit]

Since there is a wealth of community knowledge and experience dealing with copyright issues here at the English Wikisource, I would like to solicit some advice regarding texts we are dealing with in Hebrew. It is quite likely that the essential question is relevant to many texts (or potential texts) here too.

We are dealing with the writings of several nineteenth and early twentieth century authors, all of whom published important works during their lifetimes, but who also left substantial works in manuscript that were later published by their descendants or disciples. The works published during their lifetimes are all of course in the public domain, and we are publishing many of them at Hebrew Wikisource. All of them were already published during the early part of the twentieth century or before then, and more than 70 years has passed since the deaths of all of the authors being discussed.

However, when it comes to the works they left behind unpublished, the matter is less clear. Most of these works were eventually published in the decades following the deaths of their authors, in simple editions that are nothing more and nothing less than transcriptions of the handwritten manuscripts they left behind. A few, however, were subject to some editing, which usually involved the re-arrangement of chapters and their combination into essays or books based on shared topics. Some also were subject to serious editing, i.e. thorough annotation, and it is obvious that this latter group has copyright protection in the favor of the editors who did the annotations.

The real question is regarding the former groups: Does typing up a manuscript and sending it to press grant copyright protection to the editor or the publisher? I emphasize that the only work going on in this question is transcription. No notes are being added, no editorial elements are being added, the manuscript is simply being typed up exactly as its author wrote it. And the author died more than 70 years ago. Is such a work in the public domain or not?

It should be added the courts have already dealt with a seemingly related question, but one that at least to me seems not truly relevant. When scholars produce critical/scientific editions of pre-modern works based deciphering ancient or pre-modern manuscripts, comparing them, and reconstructing a reliable edition based upon the available evidence, it is clear that these works have copyright protection even if the text being edited is 3000 years old. There have been many court decisions confirming this, and the reason is obviously that such work (both reading extremely difficult and sometimes fragmentary manuscripts and weighing all the available evidence) involves a great deal of creativity and subjective judgment.

In the discussions of this matter in Hebrew these court decisions have been raised, but it seems to me that to bring them up is to compare apples and oranges: For the posthumous publication of manuscripts from the 19th or early 20th century that we are discussing, absolutely no originality is claimed, and the opposite is actually the case: The books purport to represent the manuscripts exactly as they were written, and are even published in the same format as the books which were published during the author's lifetime.

So the two major questions seem to be the following:

  • Does the physical possession of a manuscript by the author's descendants or students give them copyright over the content when those manuscripts are published?
  • Does the simple transcription of a manuscript (basically just typing it) grant copyright to the transcriber or to the publisher (as if he has "deciphered" the text)?

If the answer to the above questions is "no" then we will be able to host a large number of very important texts. But even with a "no" there is still the further question of the borderline case, namely when manuscripts have been published posthumously but their chapters have been re-arranged by topic. Does that sort of re-arrangement grant copyright status?

One last question: If transcribing and publishing a manuscript does grant copyright, then when does that copyright expire? Seventy years from the death of the editor/transcriber? Seventy years from publication? It can't be from the "death" of the publisher, because all of these companies are still around...

If anyone has any solid information to share on this matter I would be very grateful. Dovi (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

In short, it depends of the country: each law has some specific rules about unpublished works. For USA, see this table which describes that quite clearly. For what I know, Indian, Canadian and French law are each different on that point. Yann (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Yann, that is a very informative link. There are some things there that are pretty complicated, but the first line seems extremely clear: Any work not published during the lifetime of its author goes into the public domain 70 years after his death. (Which seems to mean that the inheritors of the author's rights or their publishers cannot retain their rights for any longer than that 70 year term. That is extremely important.)
Have I understood this point correctly? Could you give me any concrete examples of countries that differ on this point, and how they differ?
Also, is there basic agreement that Wikimedia projects follow U.S. law in this regard? Dovi (talk) 09:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it sould - the copyrights are usually according to internation convensions - in which case the copyright law of the domicile of the author should apply. Deror avi (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, US law takes into account all international conventions which the US has signed. This is reflected numerous times in the chart that Yann linked to. Dovi (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Subdomains of Wikisource follow different rules on copyright matters: see oldwikisource:Wikisource:Subdomain coordination. As examples, French law gives a 25 years new copyright to the publisher for any unpublished text ; Canadian law gives a 50 years new copyright for some unpublished texts, and Indian law gives a 60 years new copyright for unpublished texts. Yann (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The copyright law Wikimedia has to follow is the law of the US, which means that works published between 1923 and 1978 anywhere in the world are copyrighted for 95 years from publication, no matter what the law of the domicile of the author, with some exceptions. While Wikimedia projects can choose what they don't host, they can't choose to host works that are under copyright in the US, as that could get Wikimedia fined or shut down.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Obviously when talking about other countries, it is a further restriction in addition of USA law. Sorry if I was not clear. The rule you mentioned applies to published works, but we were talking about unpublished works. Yann (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's distinguish between two things: The issue of jurisdiction (which country's laws need to be followed), and the issue of the law itself. Regarding the law itself, the main issue is this:

The copyright law Wikimedia has to follow is the law of the US, which means that works published between 1923 and 1978 anywhere in the world are copyrighted for 95 years from publication, no matter what the law of the domicile of the author, with some exceptions.

Is this correct for books published between 1923 and 1978 whose authors died before 1923 (or even before 1938, seventy years ago)? From what Yann wrote and the link he provided, it seems that such works are not copyrighted in the US, but I'm not absolutely sure I've understood this correctly. Dovi (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Published works are mostly copyrighted, but unpublished works are PD if the author died before 1938. Yann (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm still not clear on what you mean (this stuff is really confusing, and I think there is an ambiguity about what "unpublished" means in the first line of the chart). Above you wrote:

As examples, French law gives a 25 years new copyright to the publisher for any unpublished text; Canadian law gives a 50 years new copyright for some unpublished texts, and Indian law gives a 60 years new copyright for unpublished texts.

Is the implication that US law, unlike these countries, does not give added copyright years to the publisher for any (previously) unpublished text? Such that for a text whose author died at least 70 years ago, and someone published his work in Canada or France, that publisher would have sole rights to the content for a certain number of years in those countries, but in the US he wouldn't have rights over the content? Dovi (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's essencially true. As an example, a unpublished work of Alexandre Dumas was published in 2003. It is in the public domain in USA, but not in France, where it got a copyright for 25 years after its publication, i.e. until 2028.
Another example, five unpublished works of Jules Verne were first published between 1989 and 1994. These books are still copyrighted in France, and are copyrighted in USA until 2048 (3rd row of the same table: Unpublished works created before 1978 that were published after 1977 but before 2003). Yann (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The relevant law here, to the extent anyone is interested, is Section 303 of the Copyright Act. Tarmstro99 (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Things are maybe easier outside of the US, since you have the basic life+X years as a copyright term, with the addition of a limited term for the first publication of an unpublished work. In the US, the issue hinges on two things. First, one has to ask whether the unpublished work was published with the authority of the copyright owner. If the copyright owner did not authorize it, publication may not have occurred and the work would still be unpublished. Second, one has to look at the time of publication, with 1978 and 2003 being the key dates. An unpublished letter from John Adams from 1800 published under the authority of his estate (which owned his copyright) in 1975 would technically receive an additional 95 years of copyright protection. That same letter published in 1980 would be protected through 2047. And if the letter had been published in 2005, it would be in the public domain now. (The reason for this is the transition from perpetual copyright for unpublished material prior to 1978 to our current system which protects almost all works, regardless of format.)
As to whether a transcriber can claim a copyright in her transcription, most of the cases I know suggest that this sort of "sweat of the brow" effort does not have sufficient originality to be eligible for copyright. Pure transcription is too clerical (even if paleography is a specialized skill). PHirtle (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Restarting the copyright clock v. transferring ownership[edit]

I would like to seek clarification on a point. It is my understanding that posthumous publication can 'restart the copyright clock' for a work, but I do not believe that it can result in the transfer of ownership of copyright to the publisher. I think that it works like this:

I obtain an unpublished work by a deceased author. The first question I have to ask is: has the deceased author's copyright been transferred to a living party, e.g. by inheritance?

  • If yes, then copyright in the unpublished work belongs to them, and only they have the right to publish it. If they do choose to publish it, copyright will continue to subsist in the work for a certain period of time.
  • If no, then I am free to publish the work. Discussion of the duration of copyright is meaningless, since there is no-one to claim the rights of ownership of that copyright.

Any suggestion that I obtain copyright in a work simply by publishing it, implies not only that the copyright clock was restarted, but that I have effected a transfer of copyright to myself. I don't believe any copyright law supports the latter reading. Indeed, I think the latter reading violates that basic principles underpinning copyright law.

Hesperian 00:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

  • <IP lawyer> You can not obtain the copyright to a previously unpublished work by publishing it. Period. If you have inherited ownership in the copyright in an unpublished work (say, written by your great-grandfather, of whom you are the only living descendant), that copyright may still be enforced for 70 years from the year of the author's death. Obviously, this means that any unpublished work written by a person who died before 1937 is in the public domain. However, note that for works written before 1977, but published between 1978 and 2002, the work expires in 2047, or 70 years after the author's death, whichever comes later.</IP lawyer> BD2412 T 04:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a contradiction here. You write: "If you have inherited ownership in the copyright in an unpublished work (say, written by your great-grandfather, of whom you are the only living descendant), that copyright may still be enforced for 70 years from the year of the author's death. Obviously, this means that any unpublished work written by a person who died before 1937 is in the public domain."

But above, Peter Hirtle wrote: "An unpublished letter from John Adams from 1800 published under the authority of his estate (which owned his copyright) in 1975 would technically receive an additional 95 years of copyright protection. That same letter published in 1980 would be protected through 2047." Does publication in the mid-20th century revive what would already be an expired copyright today? And if so why? Dovi (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

John Adams's estate still existed in 1975? The rules about unpublished material going into the public domain 70 years after the person's death only applies to US works. The term of copyright is primarily set by the originating country, which may very well be the country of first publication. If the purported rejection by the US of the rule of the shorter term is to have any meaning, that rejection must also apply to previously unpublished foreign works. Eclecticology (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This statement is correct: You can not obtain the copyright to a previously unpublished work by publishing it. Period. It follows from the rule that copyright vests in the creator, not the publisher, of a work. (Of course, the publisher may obtain the copyright by assignment or under the work for hire rule, but unless they do so, the copyright remains where it always was: with the original creator and his/her heirs at law.
This statement is incorrect: Obviously, this means that any unpublished work written by a person who died before 1937 is in the public domain. To the contrary, Section 303 expressly provides for copyright in some previously unpublished works by authors who died more than 70 years ago. An example is Louisa May Alcott’s A Long Fatal Love Chase. Work created in 1866, but not published; author died 1888. The life-plus-70 rule would have led to the conclusion that copyright expired in 1958, but because the work was subsequently published (in 1995), Section 303 provides that it remains under copyright in the United States until December 31, 2047. Tarmstro99 (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
No contradiction there - you say yourself the work was subsequently published in 1995. If the work had never yet been published (as of today, 2008), then the work is now in the public domain. I will repeat exactly what I said above, "for works written before 1977, but published between 1978 and 2002, the work expires in 2047, or 70 years after the author's death, whichever comes later". Which is, I think, what you were trying to say, except that apparently you stopped reading what I had written halfway through the paragraph, and ended up repeating me. And making me repeat myself. BD2412 T 06:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The generally stated rule is that prior to 1978, copyright in unpublished works in the US was eternal. The clock didn't start until the work was legitimately published. In practical terms, I've seen quite a few older previously unpublished works published in that pre-1978 period, and can't recall one that gave copyright to anyone but the publisher, but crossing the wrong estate--like Louisa May Alcott's--would be legally treacherous at best.
I don't know why you say "the term of copyright is primarily set by the originating country, which may very well be the country of first publication"; except for the rule of the shorter term, and the return of foreign non-renewed works to copyright only if they were still in copyright in the originating country, it's just not true, under US law or anywhere that I know of.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Louisa May Alcott was a US person, so there is no problem with applying US law in her case. If another country grants some reasonable rights to the first publisher or editor of a previously unpublished work what outlaw country would fail to respect that? Eclecticology (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
What country would? If you taken a public domain book and retypeset it and publish it, you get a 25 year copyright (or effectively the same--I don't remember the details) in the UK, but the US isn't going to honor that copyright. Why would the US give a copyright to the typesetting of an manuscript?--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I have found certain countries copyrighting posthumous works for several years since publication. w:List of countries' copyright length based on publication and creation dates has some examples that may be found by searching "posthumous", but the list is not yet complete. The specific provisions may make certain posthumous works copyrighted for life plus much more than 100 years, then our {{PD-old}} statement "This work is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago" is somewhat incorrect. When I found cs:Šablona:Licence PD-old-140, I first wondered why life + 140 years, but when considering posthumous works, copyrighting for life + 140 years is possible in certain countries. Some countries also have perpetual copyright for unpublished works, so never published posthumous works are indefinitely copyrighted.--Jusjih (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Due to concerns here, I have decided to reword {{PD-old}} to limit its use to works published before 1923 and create {{PD-old-100-1996}} as deaths for more than 100 years alone are not fool-proof PD even in the USA.--Jusjih (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

UK 'Hansard'[edit]

Hi, In trying to compile material (see above re Armistice Day), I have noted the absence from Wikisource of an important historical source, being the UK 'Hansard' records of Parlimentary debates.

Does anyone have access to a suitable copy of this for transcription purposes? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't dispute the importance and great value of hosting Hansard, but I have been working with the Dictionary of National Biography and the mere 63 volumes of the original have been a daunting task. More people have worked with the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, and its paltry 29 volumes are far from complete. Hansard makes these two look small. Unless you have an army of volunteers available to do this iconic work, I wouldn't express great hope for getting very far. Eclecticology (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, But I felt it was defintly worth asking, as Hansard's almost certainly a publication University Libraries keep. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Very much, but do the UK libraries allow these volumes to be taken home so you can scan them at your leisure? Eclecticology (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Probably not :( 62.56.124.53 10:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
There does appear to be a project to digitise it here, but the copyrights notes appear to preculde use of that site for use here on Wikisource. 62.56.124.53 11:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Where the Crown Copyright has expired the digitisers would have no copyright in the material. Eclecticology (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I will note, as with the Statutes at Large, that a large number of 19th Centry Hansard's appear to be on Google Books, you just have to know the right search terms. 62.56.67.207 14:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think some of my friends are already working on digitizing and making publicly-available all of the Hansard. See http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/Kaihsu (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you be willing to liase with them to see if it possible to host this on Wikisource? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You can get in touch with them yourself, but I am not sure whether putting it onto Wikisource would be what they would like to do, or are paid to do. Cheers. – Kaihsu (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Royal Society Digital Archive only for 3 Months FREE[edit]

"The Royal Society Digital Archive is easily the most comprehensive journal archive in science and contains some of the most significant scientific papers ever published. Covering almost 350 years of scientific research across the disciplines it is a priceless academic resource. The Royal Society Digital Journal Archive, dating back to 1665 and containing approximately 52,000 articles, is available online and is FREE for a three month period."

http://journals.royalsociety.org/home/main.mpx

PD articles should be copied to Commons (please no database protection paranoia) --Historiograf (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This looks like an interesting resource, will check it out. Cirt (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Can we just raid the archives en masse? I guess that would make it the Wikisource equivalent to World of Warcraft... EVula // talk // // 16:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
A three month binge on the royal society sounds like a good thing! Suicidalhamster (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
This needs somebody to take the time to create a formal "Wikiproject" (with three-month period, after which we'll archive/scrap it) so that we can coordinate efforts to raid this as efficiently as possible and back each other up. Definitely' worth doing...somebody get started! Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: e. e. cummings‎. 18:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
And when one proceeds to the url and finds that work already has a subscription. Sweet. -- billinghurst (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting, and there are several issues:

  1. Certainly many files are more than 20 MB. What do we do with them?
  2. The URLs use computer generared codes (session specific?). Can we get this around with a bot?

Otherwise I can run a bot and upload files to Commons. Yann (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I could have sworn we (and be "we," I think it was GMaxwell or some other Wikimedian) raided this site when it first got up and running and uploaded all the PD Philosophical Transactions articles. Am I just making this up, or does someone else remember this? If I am just making this up, that's a good place to start.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
That was the journal I was eyeing, but I don't remember any previous raids. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: e. e. cummings‎'. 01:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I was right. It didn't turn out to be a raid, but there are some of the Phil. Trans. on Commons. Definitely could be added to. Unfortunately I don't know how to get a bot to do all the downloading.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Now that the upload limit is 100MB, the first point is no longer a problem.
I have set up a project page at Wikisource:WikiProject Royal Society Journals. And is it possible to have a bot upload all the files? Psychless 19:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've done a rebuild on Wikisource:WikiProject Royal Society Journals in a way that I think is more easy to track downloaded contents/texts avaiable on anothers places. Fell free to comment (or revert ;) ) Lugusto 22:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly an improvement, but I don't think we should use the 18 volumes on archive.org. It says "abridged" on the title page, and that's not what we're looking for. I don't mean to be impatient, but has anyone figured out how to get a bot to do this? If not, then we have to organize a manual way to do it. Psychless 00:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't noticed the "abridged" term :/
Since apparently no one is working in a bot to download the files, I've started some days ago to manually download all .pdf files from The Royal Society website. I've finished the first 9 volumes from Philosophical Transactions and now I'm uploading those files to Wikimedia Commons as-is (including the JSTOR notice about page numbering errors on some files; IMHO the notice is PD-ineligible and the JSTOR watermark is PD-textlogo). See commons:Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Wikisource_WikiProject_Royal_Society_Journals (I will be updating the project page with those files and removing the 18 IA files shortly).
I think that I'm unable to download all PD content before the trial period ends, so I will be grateful if anyone is interested to help on it ;) Lugusto 17:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Did the abridgement in IA shorten individual articles, or was it just selective about what articles is chose to include? Eclecticology (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I've begun manually downloading the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, but am not making very much headway into it.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I have a limit on how much I can upload/download (satellite internet), so I can only help so much. But I can certainly help some, so I'll work on the "Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Math. or Phys. Character" (1896-1922). In case any of you don't already know about it, I suggest using Commonist for mass uploading. Psychless 00:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
After some problems I've finally found a way to semi-automatically download all journals issues using an w:offline browser. Until now I've downloaded Philosophical Transactions from v.27 to v.106 (my most recent upload on Commons is the v.26). Since I'm on holidays until the end of this month, I think that I will be able to download all pre-1923 issues. I will resume uploads on Commons when I finish downloading all PD volumes. Lugusto 16:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Fully downloaded[edit]

Thanks to the Teleport Ultra and some patience on creating one project file for each volume, I've successfully downloaded all pre-1923 content (8,9GB of Abstracts/Proceedings and 23,5GB of Philosophical Transactions). I will try to upload on Commons at least four volumes per week and to poke the tech guys on the bugzilla:11215 on wikitech-l. Lugusto 20:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth converting these to DJVU (due to some of the pros of that file format over PDF). I'm sure there's a way to write a script that can either query Any2DJVU and convert the entire bunch or can at least do it all with DjvuLibre.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
It is possible, but:
  1. I've downloaded more than 25k of pdf files and I don't keep my PC running 24 hours a day; it can delay months to finish;
  2. djvu is a lossy format and some 1800's volumes have high quality pictures;
  3. Teleport Ultra has downloaded all files with the random names from the Royal Society website. I need to browse the offline copy of htmls and pdfs files to save /random-characters/fulltext.pdf as p[first page number-last page number] (and after it I need to run the Rename Master to add the <publication> - Volume <number> - prefix). Converting the .pdf files to the djvu format before it may broke my offline saved set of files.
Anyway, according to bugzilla:11215#c13 and [2], the PdfHandler will be enabled soon on test.wikipedia [and after it, on all Wikimedia wikis; I will poke Brion about it monthly ;-)], making the .pdf files proofreadable. Lugusto 03:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If you particularly want any of these djvu'd immediately (i.e. so you can get started with transcription), I would be happy to do it for you. I've become fairly adept at processing these, and routinely produce documents containing both photographic quality plates and bitonal text. Hesperian 05:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Transcluding Paradise Lost[edit]

I'm having some problems transcluding Paradise Lost. There's an unnecessary line break between each page. Can someone take a look here and advise me how to fix it? Psychless 12:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's doing it; my only guess is your formatting is causing a new paragraph break somewhere (either at the end of page 25 or the beginning of page 26--or both).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
It looks like some interaction between the parser and the poem tag that's inserting a paragraph break at each poem. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I think I found the problem, and fixed it in rev:43773; hopefully that will do the trick. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, it did not fix it. Psychless 21:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
It usually takes a few days before code changes become active. To test it, you'd have to wait until special:version shows a version number >= 43773, then see it's fixed when you preview/purge the page. At this moment, it's at r43634; I hear they may start regular Tuesday updates, so you may want to check back then. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, it does look more complicated than I thought, so it may take awhile. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the transcluded pages result in

<poem>
page 1 content
</poem>
<poem>
page 2 content
</poem>

whereas what you want is

<poem>
page 1 content
page 2 content
</poem>

You can achieve the latter by putting all of of the <poem> and </poem> tags in the headers and footers (which are no-included), except for the first page's <poem> tag and the last page's </poem> tag. Hesperian 04:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That didn't work when I tried it. Perhaps you could try to make it work. Psychless 17:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
It would seem that the poem tag breaks the noinclude tag. :-( I have tried a few things, and ultimately failed. I've left my changes there for you to have a look at—you might pick a few ideas out of what I did—but I shall not object if you decide to discard it. Hesperian 04:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I ran into pretty much this issue with the Dickinson poems. See The Grass so little has to do — and the pages it pulls in on the left. Funny thing, though; it's now broken. A few weeks ago, the left side looked good, now it's not working right. The idea was to use <onlyinclude> inside the poem tags in both the pagespace and in the transcluding page. I wonder if the fix mentioned above broke this... Lot of discussion of this at User talk:Sanbeg#interaction between poem extension and transclusion and Index talk:Emily Dickinson Poems (1890).djvu#Consistency. Jack Merridew 15:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

[long s spinoff thread][edit]

Split into separate section by Hesperian 04:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm also amused to see the long s's which were respected on the separated pages have not transcluded into the book. :-) Eclecticology (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
This is intentional. Ideally, there would be a setting in "Preferences" that determined if the long s's showed up in the main space. The current compromise is: it's important that the long s's are preserved, but they make it difficult to read, so the long s's only show up in the page namespace. Psychless 21:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I've only noticed this, and I must say that it is a very good compromise to the issue. Even if turning long s's on/off is put in the preferences I would still choose this current practice! I am also pleased to see this being fixed as it seems to be issue in various places (e.g. Anticipation). Suicidalhamster (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Derivative Works and Orthography[edit]

I've recently bought a book, published in 2006, that contains the text of various Pierre Corneille plays, in French, and I would like to upload these texts to the French Section of the Wikisource. However, I'm not sure if the text is copyrighted or not. It is noted in the book that the texts are from 1683, and that the punctuation and capitalization are intact, however, the orthography has been standardized.

Is this a sufficient change for this to be deemed a derivative work and to be under the copyright? Or does this not add any new creative content, or sufficient change to what was there to merit a new copyright?

I understand that the notes, bibliography, introduction, etc, are all copyrighted, it is only my intention to upload the texts themselves.

Thank you for your help

The text would remain in the public domain, but it could very well be that the publisher retains certain rights in relation to formats, layout and typography. This would imply that page scans are protected, but OCR text could be freely used.
More important in response to this question is that you have asked it in the wrong place. French Wikisource is separately managed, and the people here have no authority to decide such things for them. You would do better to ask the question on their Scriptorium. Eclecticology (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
In US copyright law, there is no copyright on typography or typesetting. Besides illustrations, I don't think there's any point where you'd be safe to use OCR but not page scans. I wish there was more orthography-updating done by Project Gutenberg and Wikisource, in addition to posting the original text, as that would be legally beyond question and provide a useful resource.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Initials[edit]

This template was created and is now being used across a large number of author pages. I object to its usage. For many articles at en.wikipedia, the bio article on the individual uses an abbreviation for the middle initial, and does not spell out the entire name. In cases where the full name/middle name cannot be verified in secondary sources, this obtrusive template will simply sit at the author page indefinitely, and that is not good. Cirt (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what your definition of "large number" is, but it's sitting on approximately 2% of authorpages at most. Libraries do not work the same as encyclopaedias, libraries need to catalogue works, and thus need to use the full names of authors; otherwise when I type "John Jacob Schmidt" in the |author heading of a text I add, for example, it will appear as a red link because we currently host his page at "John Schmidt" or "John J. Schmidt". Using the full name of authors is the internationally-recognised standard for libraries, and means that WS will not only conform to those standards, but will be on the forefront of helping to "find" the names of authors where WP may not care. In a year, if we've been successful in fixing 98% of author pages, and a few outstanding issues remain, we can always simply edit the Template to be invisible -- but for now, it makes sense to be visible, alert people to the problem and push them to help solve it. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Nikola Tesla‎. 22:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Initials - It is being used on quite a number of pages already, all added by the creator of the template with zero discussion on something that will affect a large number of author pages. If the middle name is known, the author page could be moved to that full name, but there is no reason for such an obtrusive template to obstruct the author pages simply because there is an abbreviated middle initial. This is not the norm on en.wikipedia, and it is not the norm on many secondary source documents and government documents. I do not think it should be used. Cirt (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
A) It is not without discussion, just because you were not involved in the discussion. I broached the idea last night on IRC, and it met no resistance as a collaborative project to work towards.
B) It is used on 23 author pages currently, if that is your definition of "large number" then perhaps you need to re-evaluate your use of superlatives.
C) It may not be the norm on WP. Or on Government documents. Notice that neither WP nor the governerment are a library. WS is a library, thus we catalogue works, thus we work in the framework of international libraries - where protocol says that full names are used. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Nikola Tesla‎. 22:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
IRC is not an acceptable place to gauge community consensus for new proposals that will affect multiple numbers of pages, and yes, you have added the template to 23 pages so far, that is a large number. On-wiki discussion in community forums is the way to gauge community consensus. Cirt (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Now only 9 pages left with the template so hopefully less of an issue. Personally I don't mind whether this stays as template or changes to a category. As an aside it would be nice if wikisource had a page equivalent to w:Wikipedia:Maintenance to list templates/categories like this. Suicidalhamster (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a number of mixed opinions on this one. I agree with the underlying principle that we should strive to expand missing initials, but I don't think that yet another big obtrusive box is the best way to go about this. Some of these initials may be found by a little research, but I'm sure that a good portion will remain indeterminable. In the latter case the box could remain forever. A simple category without the big box could be a compromise. I also agree that an impromptu IRC discussion should not be the basis for what happens here, nor do I feel that Wikipedia's view of a situation should necessarily apply here. The maintenance page idea is good, but it warrants a separate discussion about how it coukld be best implemented. Eclecticology (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Talk on the template discussion page seems to suggest that if research has no hope of finding the name, then the template be moved to the author's talkpage - which is a nice compromise. We have a couple of maintenance pages, unfortunately I think attempts to merge them were messy and met with resistance -- though this is the sort of thing that belongs on the third page of {{welcome}} perhaps. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Nikola Tesla‎. 02:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything said in this comment by Eclecticology (talkcontribs), and in the comment above here as well. Cirt (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • My view: delete the template; create a category. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • This comment by Anonymous Dissident (talkcontribs) is the best idea I have heard so far. Fully agree. Cirt (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • The problem is, categories almost never get worked on by the community as a whole, whereas templates (as proven by the 23 fixed in the past 24 hours) strongly encourage people watching those userpages to take the twenty seconds to fix the problem -- and show newbies and unregistered users how to contribute in a meaningful way, taking a couple minutes with Google. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Nikola Tesla‎. 06:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
      • What evidence do you have to support that claim? How many of those 23 were fixed by newbies? You like to complain about people who don't take 20 seconds to research sourcing articles that were long ago tagged for deletion; maybe this is somewhere that you should take your own advice instead of generating make-work projects for everybody else. The average user, who does not edit articles, does not need to be assaulted by obtrusive process boxes about things that he may not be equipped to fix. Eclecticology (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Secondly I believe templates are useful in showing the new or inexperienced editor of what our best practices are. Even if they do not fix the problem they will find out what you are meant to do, so hopefully they will not make the same mistake themselves. Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the comments by Eclecticology (talkcontribs) and Anonymous Dissident (talkcontribs), above. Please see Template talk:Initials#Update. Cirt (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Two alphabetical sorts happening in Author categories[edit]

Having a look at Category:Authors-Co one can see two alphabetical sorts occurring in situ. I would not have thought that is desirable behaviour. What is differentiating the names escapes me. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly the same problem that I raised above at #DEFAULTSORT. Eclecticology (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Using anchors in the texts[edit]

Hello.

I have this page, which is divided into "chapters" (I, II, III, ...) and verses (1, 2, 3, ...) Each chapter corresponds to a section (second level), and thus is linkable (for example this is a link to chapter IV); I would like to link also the verses, so that I can point to II.11, how to? I thought to add an html anchor (<a name="II.11">), but I discovered it does not work. Any suggestion? --Panairjdde (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You may want to look at template:verse, which is intended for biblical verses, but seems to use the same format as your page. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hum... it looks like that template inserts links in the form "C:V", where C is the chapter and V the verse; I need something in the form "C.V". --Panairjdde (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You can use <span id="anchor">text</span>, or <div id="anchor">text</span>, or indeed {{anchor}}. Hesperian 00:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Bios on author pages[edit]

I have been adding biographical info to author pages from Bioguide (Biographical Directory of the United States Congress). This text info is public domain as a product of the United States Federal Government, and is directly pertinent to the authors in question, so it is most appropriate info for the description field in {{author}}, for individuals that have existing biographical entries in Bioguide. Cirt (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Public domain issues are not a factor here. It is more a question of where biographies belong. Except where the text qualifies as an article in its own right, biographies belong in Wikipedia, and our author header provides a link to Wikipedia where a person can usually find the desired biographical information. Our biographical notes should be limited to what is necessary to place the author in a literary and historical context. Allowing any more than that leads to much longer headings that detract from our primary purpose of hosting an author's works. Strictly limiting what goes into the header also avoids most of POV debate that we are happy donate to other projects. Eclecticology (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hrm, well in this case where the public domain nature of the text is not disputed, and the usage of the text is already commonly done in Biographical Directory of the United States Congress for a concise good summary of pertinent info, I feel it is appropriate. But is there a policy or guideline page on Wikisource that describes the usage of the {{author}} template, specifically the description field? Cirt (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not taking sides in the debate (yet?), but just because I was curious and I'm sure others are as well, the biographies in question are - for example - MARKEY, Edward John, a Representative from Massachusetts; born in Malden, Middlesex County, Mass., July 11, 1946; attended Immaculate Conception Grammar School, Malden, Mass.; graduated from Malden Catholic High School, Malden, Mass., 1964; B.A., Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Mass., 1968; J.D., Boston College Law School, Chestnut Hill, Mass., 1972; lawyer, private practice; United States Army Reserve, 1968-1973; member of the Massachusetts state house of representatives, 1973-1976; elected as a Democrat to the Ninety-fourth Congress by special election to fill the vacancy caused by the death of United States Representative Torbert H. Macdonald, reelected to the sixteen succeeding Congresses (November 2, 1976-present). - which does seem a tad wordy for our |description= section, but it's better than nothing, surely? What if a bot did it only where the |description= field is currently blank? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Nikola Tesla‎. 23:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Balance and focus. Author pages are about the author and their texts and {{Author}} says description to be brief ... So, if they have WP then link and a small paste should suffice; if no WP page, then we should add value. For what Sherurcij has pasted, I would agree it is too wordy. Include what is in context to the publication and author page that demonstrates their skill/knowledge/competence/expertise for the publication. If more is required, then it can be a separate article that becomes works about the author link on the page, and if necessary subpages to a collection-- billinghurst (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Eclecticology (talkcontribs) and Billinghurst (talkcontribs) for explaining this, but surely we can have some compromise with something less than the bioguide text, but more than simply: "A Representative from Massachusetts." ? Cirt (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
That is your example, not mine. I said ... skill/knowledge/competence/expertise for the publication, which I would think is broader and states add relevant details that add specific context. When I asked a similar question I was pointed at Author:William Shakespeare. One of my pages is Author:Mountstuart Elphinstone Grant Duff -- billinghurst (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I've always thought the description field has been underutilized. I think it would be nice to have a brief (and I do mean brief) biography of a given author. I, unfortunately, have few thoughts on the matter right now, but I think whatever (if any) material is added as biographical needs to be relevant to understanding the nature of the works that we are listing (like what Ec said). Something like what is given for Edward John Markey is a bit too much and, in my opinion, too irrelevant.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 03:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
In response to Cirt's point about policies and guidelines, I don't think that this has ever been formalized in any way. I did find Wikisource talk:Style guide/Archives/2006-06 where the matter was raised toward the end of 2004. Both Zhaladshar and I commented in favour of brevity at the time in the context of a wider discussion about author pages. The topic didn't get a lot of response then, but brevity has tended to be practised by most editors since, as it was before. Eclecticology (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay well no objections to having something shorter than Bioguide, but I think it could be longer than just "A Representative from Massachusetts." For example, their prior education and degrees and also prior noted work experience is also highly relevant to the authors' writings and their expertise. Cirt (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

DJVU help[edit]

Is there free software I can download to edit DJVU files? I've been using DjVu Solo 3.1, but lately most files are saying that version is too old and they can't be read, so I should update. But I can't find a more up-to-date version of DjVu Solo. So does anyone know where I can either get a recent version of DjVu Solo or a recent version of some other DJVU editing program? Angr 16:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I use DjvuLibre to edit the DJVU files I have. It's a command-line utility and can take some time to learn (it at least took me some time) but it's not a bad set of programs to use for DJVU manipulation. Unfortunately I know of no DJVU editing software that has a nice GUI provided with it.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I use DjVuLibre too. Its encoders are not the best, but overall it is very useful. It encodes from PBM/PGM/PPM format, so for most purposes you would need to use it in conjunction with ImageMagick. Hesperian 22:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Have you seen the corresponding help page? → Help:DjVu files
Hesperian, I'm afraid I don't even understand your answer. I don't know what "It encodes from PBM/PGM/PPM format" means, nor what ImageMagick is. I've seen the help page, but it doesn't tell me what I want to know. Basically, what I (used to) use DjVu Solo for is removing individual images from a package. For example, I often download DjVu files from archive.org, but they often have a front page written by Google pretending Google has the right to limit use of the file to non-commercial purposes only or whatever. Since these front pages are not part of the original book (not to mention being blatant copyfraud), I want to remove them from the package before uploading it to Commons. If I download DjVuLibre, will I be able to figure out how to do that without first getting a degree in computer programming? Angr 07:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
DjVuLibre does simple things simply. For Windoze, if you are just looking to trim the front or back pages, then it does that well; SAVE AS operation. If you want to do more complex bits, then it is a linux-centric application. If you are wanting to convert pages to .djvu form, then you may wish to consider the website Any2DjVu. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about a SAVE AS operation. I use DjVuLibre in Windows, from the command line. The first page of a djvu file can be removed with the command
djvm -d file.djvu 1
Hesperian 13:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

how do I upload this file?[edit]

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1255985/the_reality_of_communications_diluted.html?cat=4

You don't.... as long as it's copyright protected. You would need to get its author to release it under a free licence. Eclecticology (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary of National Biography Poor Quality Scans[edit]

We currently have problems with poor quality scans for the Dictionary of National Biography Project. We have scans that were the text is barely or totally unreadable, some of the volumes are missing pages, and quality of the Google scans are in just poor quality. Some of the volumes have all ready been botted. I am proposing that we delete all of the existing volumes and get higher quality scans off of the Internet Archive. I propose we start with the University of Toronto scans even though they don't have the complete collection and we find alternatives when necessary. I also suggest we create a list of the files that will need used before we actually do any uploading. I would appreciate everyone's input on this. There has all ready been some discussion here. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and work on it. Nobody is likely to argue against improved scans. Still deleting all the existing volumes before adding any new ones seems a little hasty. Delete the old one only when you are ready to replace that particular volume. Perhaps you might start with those volumes where the old scans are of the worst quality. Personally, I mostly avoid using the scans, and I proofread all the articles that I add by a comparison with the hard copy of the reprint edition. This allows me to also note the changes that took place between the original and reprint editions.
I will set up a most wanted page, and link to it from the head page of the DNB. As someone who is working on the DNB project the order in which I add articles is immaterial, but I would certainly attach greater priority to a wanted article. Eclecticology (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

newspaper clipping of unknown origin[edit]

Ref: Wikipedia: User talk:Stephen2nd/Mr. Wimberley Lecture: Doncaster: 1841:

Hi. I've typed this clipping (verbatim) into my user talk page. May I creat a Wikisource article, so that I may refer to this (complete text) in an accosiated Wikipedia article: Regards: Stephen2nd (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't find where you have typed this in. My first impression is that this is likely the kind of thing that would be acceptable in Wikisource as long as you clearly show where it comes from. How you use the material in a Wikipedia article is a question for Wikipedia's rules, and cannot be answered here. Eclecticology (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The actual article is here: w:User talk:Stephen2nd/Mr. Wimberley Lecture: Doncaster: 1841:
Thanks. This is probably something where a scan would help. Adding a scan of the back may even be useful in helping to identify the newspaper. Eclecticology (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

On the footer[edit]

It currently states that "Content is available under the GNU Free Documentation License", yet we carry alot of non-GFDL content here that is still free as such. Anyway, I think it should be amended to say something to the effect of "All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License unless otherwise noted", which gets the word across well about the variety of different text licenses we use here. Anyone agree? ViperSnake151 (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most of our text is public domain (we can't even go so far as claim that it is GFDL). I would support emending the footer to reflect a more accurate picture of our works.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
While we're at it, can we also take out "DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!"? After all, we don't actually allow copyrighted work here even with permission, unless that permission is in form of the GFDL or a similar free license. Angr 06:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't it just say, then, "DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK!"? BD2412 T 11:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that would be a much more appropriate message.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
But we DO allow some copyrighted work when we allow copyrighted work under a free licence, so that shorter statement would be inaccurate. The existing statement is just fine as a reminder to inexperienced editors, who have not looked much into the issue. Having the person promise that he wrote it himself is even more contrary to our usual approaches. Eclecticology (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

We have a lot of copyrighted material, under various license; e.g. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PermissionOTRS. The cliffnote version of our copyright is "public domain in the US unless otherwise noted", but we cant relicense the project pages without permission, .. which introduces complexity into what should be a nice simple copyright statement. --John Vandenberg (chat) 05:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Kipling copyright query[edit]

There are three stories by Kipling that I'm having trouble pinning down the rights situation for. "An Unqualified Pilot", "The Way That He Took", and "The Parable of Boy Jones" were published in the US in Land and Sea Tales in 1923 (copyright on that collection has been renewed). They had previously appeared in British periodicals in 1895, 1900, and 1910 respectively. I haven't been able to find any mention of them having a US copyright prior to their appearance in the collection (but they may well have, almost everything of Kipling's did). Can anyone help clear this up? (And am I right in thinking that if a story's first US copyright is in 1923, it's still covered here, even if previously published elsewhere?) --Levana Taylor (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're absolutely certain they were all published pre-1923 even outside the United States, then the United States recognises them as Public Domain and they can be added with {{PD-1923}}! Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nostradamus‎. 01:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
"An Unqualified Pilot" in Windsor Magazine for February 1895; "The Way That He Took" in Daily Express of 12 and 13 June, 1900. Thanks! --Levana Taylor (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
You're good to go, just add {{Pd/1923|1936}} to the bottom of each work Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nostradamus‎. 05:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Google Frustration[edit]

I found these great Popular Science scans here. These great scans are before 1923, but are not available for download. Even the 1800s editions, which are available on Internet Archive, are not available for download. Hopefully, this won't be a growing problem. I would appreciate everyone's opinion on this and what if anything we can do. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I might have found my own answer here. I just hope Google adds the download button in the near future.
Time will probably help; sooner or later, most of the PD scans on Google Books should be downloadable. It would be nice to have a link to the page on the Internet Archive, since almost everything there is downloadable. With lots and lots of elbow grease, screen capture will get you the scans on Google Books.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately the Google Book Search inserts on the page footers the watermark copyrighted material in this Sep 1872 issue... I think that those will never be downloadable. Lugusto 16:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
See this related discussion. Very briefly, the disclaimer is false and that material is public domain. Prosody (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I known it, I've already uploaded some works from Google Book Search on Commons to proofread on pt.wikisource (and one here too... I need to remind to work more on that book) and I've simply removed the Usage guidelines before converting from .pdf and uploading ;) The problem is: if Google believes that it is a copyrighted work the download option will never be avaiable until he change his mind. Lugusto 00:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Disregard the above, for some reason I thought Google Books added the "Copyright material" watermark arbitrarily. I'd swear I've seen it before on downloadable material. Guess not. Prosody (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the Popular Science stuff came from the company, so they put the copyrighted material labels on there. An unusual case for them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of obscure works[edit]

(Copied from Proposed deletions Prosfilaes (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC))

[...]What I find unacceptable is the tendency of some to attach personal blame to a mere proposal; there's a big difference between proposals and actual deletions. If nobody considered this obscure text worth the effort of fixing it himself, then deletion would be a perfectly valid outcome for this discussion. Eclecticology (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a big believer in deleting things with questionable copyright, but not things that are clearly public domain. I think telling our editors that if they work on obscure articles, and step out for a while, they may find their work has been summarily deleted, is not acceptable. It's not a perfectly valid outcome; trashing the work of an editor that may have taken hours because someone couldn't do a 15 second search is appalling and demoralizing, and if editors feel this is going to happen to their work, they're going to stop contributing.
And, no, "it's just a proposal" doesn't fly. Before proposing something for deletion, at least do the 15 second search. Proposing something takes up the time of other editors, and makes people who work on these things feel like they're not appreciated.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I strongly echo Prosfilaes in every sense (except I would say I believe in deleting things that can be shown to be violations, not "questionable"). We do not remove access to materials simply to "punish" editors for going inactive. If something is a violation, we will delete it. If it is not, we will not. The activity level of the contributor is immaterial. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nostradamus‎. 01:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I stand completely behind what was quoted of me. In all likelihood the discussion in this case would have resulted in the subject text being kept, and that's fine. Copyright is not a factor in this case, but copyright violation is not the only reason for deleting material. The ones who argue that this could have been fixed with a 15-second search have spent more than that time in abject whining when they could have done the search they want themselves. If the supporters can't do that work it only shows just how much the article is worth. And when we are talking about contributors who haven't been here for some considerable time, they just aren't here to be demoralised.
"Punishment" does not enter into the picture. A nomination is about content, and not about the person who posted it. Arguing that a nomination should not be made in the first place is nothing but a bully tactic. Eclecticology (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
"If the supporters can't do that work it only shows just how much the article is worth." - not true in the slightest. A work's value to the project is in absolutely no way determined by the amount of effort specific editors are willing to afford it. A text should not be nominated for deletion unless the nominator has valid reason to believe it meets a criteria for nomination, and has spent ten seconds checking Google to make sure Tom Sawyer isn't indeed quite clearly public domain. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nostradamus‎. 07:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
If it's only a nomination, good faith is a sufficient criterion. Eclecticology (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
We did do the search. And just because a contributor steps out for a few months, doesn't mean they won't be back; nor is it only contributors that will notice if works seem to be disappearing on them. It's perfectly valid to say that a nomination should not have been made, that there is a minimal standard of checking that should be done before a nomination is made and the whole community is asked to stand in on something.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource:Proposed deletions#Message to Scientology[edit]

This debate is very heated, but it needs closure. To make a consensus more clear, I'd encourage as many community members as possible to voice their opinion. However, I would encourage a review of policy before doing so; we don't want pile-on for the sake of it. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The policy review is indeed warranted. I take particular note of Birgitte's comments in this debate. I also grant that the debate about Message to Scientology is not about copyright; if it were only that the article would likely have passed without a lot of argument. This is about what criteria other than copyright that should be applied in addition to copyright.
Although we do derive the year 1923 out of copyright considerations, I am satisfied that it provides us with a practical criterion for using older works. While I could imagine possible areas for improving this point, I see no immediacy to doing so.
The other three criteria can only make sense when evaluating works created after 1922. Two points need to be addressed at this point: We should tighten up exactly what we mean by documentary sources, and we need to make it clear that free licensing alone doesn't imply that the work is worth including. Eclecticology (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Or we need to accept that things that get published in mass media should have a home here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Bad time to mention that I still support JonBenet ransom letter being allowed here? I agree though, it's definitely a policy case, not really copyright -- how to "avoid being a mouthpiece for people wanting to effectively self-publish through the viral nature of the internet", while still hosting historically notable works. I believe that 4chan works put on Youtube do not meet the same standards as something such as Charles Whitman suicide letter, but obviously there is disagreement. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nostradamus‎. 14:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not going to comment either way on this debate, but I'd like to note that this issue brings to attention a hole in policy - that of pure notability. Perhaps such a policy was not required here in the past, but maybe we should look at and have a review of whether it is applicable to this wiki. Should texts have to meet a certain notability criteria to be included, and how will we define this? Is our bare "documentary source" inclusion policy not complete in that the relative importance and notability of these documentary sources is not prescribed or regulated? Because, from where I'm standing, this could be a policy we should look at implementing in some shape or form; I think some of the arguments and evidence presented in this debate are prime testimony to this, and I think the text itself holds a light up to the fact that WS:NOT does not actually indicate limitations on the overall significance or noteworthiness of the texts we're uploading here. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that policy does seem a bit too open. Documentary sources may be better as Notable Documentary sources, even if that does mean that we need a working definition for notable. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I think there are two questions here;
    1. Should WS have a notability policy?
    2. If so what should it look like?

Jeepday (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In a certain, rather ill-defined, sense we do have a notability policy, though not a good, explicit or thorough one. We say in What Wikisource includes that we don't want original contributions, advertisments, anonymous works & evolving texts & this, to some extent, serves to exclude a lot of non-notable works (particularly self-publications). Obviously though it doesn't exclude everything which is non-notable, though thats a subjective term in any event, and it may be worthwhile tightening it up & making it more explicit. I do think I remember that in the past we worded the exclusions differently & may've made explicit reference to notability. Not sure where we may've said this though. AllanHainey (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Can't find it in the usual places, though back in 2006 [[3]] we were a bit more clear about our requirement for previous publication than we are now & explicitly listed certain circumstances in which a text would be accepted (prrer reviewed, delivered to an audience, published on paper). AllanHainey (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I certainly have an intuitive sense of what is notable, but it is likely to differ significantly from the intuitive sense of others. We cannot help but see the endless debates that have occurred at Wikipedia over what is "notable". We would do well to avoid falling into that pit of subjectivity.
There are two changes that I would propose:
  1. The section on documentary sources should provide a stricter definition of such sources. There are two criteria that can define a document. It must be official, or it must be informational or evidentiary in nature. Opinionated rants are not documentary. Such non-documentary writings or transcriptions of other media into writing could conceivably be allowed under one or more other clearly defined headings, but they are not documents.
  2. I would completely delete the "Free content" section. It is misplaced. We really want to say "Anything we allow must be free content;" having this here suggests that we are saying "Anything that is free content must be allowed." Attention to copyright law has always been a serious concern of our regular participants, even when we differ wildly about what that means. All that needs to be done on this page is to provide a link to copyright policy, and a statement that contributions must satisfy the requirements both on this page, and on the copyright policy page. Redundant policy declarations do not serve to clarify or emphasize; they merely provide breeding ground for ambiguity.
Eclecticology (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Templates for Grammar[edit]

I am experienced in Wikipedia, but don't have much experience at Wikisource.

I started transferring Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar here. As i see - and correct me if i'm wrong -, Wikisource currently has very few grammar books.

Grammar books have a lot of peculiarities: they incorporate passages in several languages, intricate formatting, strict paragraph structure, etc. This probably should be done with templates, which will make formatting easier for the editors, and hopefully will make the meaning of the book more semantic (so it can be queried for Bible verses, examples, etc.)

The few grammar books which i found here, i grouped in Category:Grammar. I didn't find a lot of clever formatting in them; does it mean that i can simply be bold and start creating my own templates or is there somewhere else i should before i reinvent the wheel?

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't answer you about formatting, but I listed those books as well now at Wikisource:Languages, and urge you to do the same in the future. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nostradamus‎. 19:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
So far I've just been formatting linguistics books the way the original book was done. Any ideas for making life easier are welcome! Angr 21:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Grammar books clearly are a desirable class of contents, but this kind of project is prone to youthful mortality. RTL languages such as Hebrew carry their own difficulties, and the templates may very well be specific to an individual book editor's practices. If they work, so much the better. Feel free to experiment in this difficult area. Eclecticology (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the realistic attitude :) I am aware of the fact that it's not easy.
Per se, right-to-left is not a big problem for me personally - i write Hebrew every day. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion question[edit]

Hi, On the Wikisource:Deletion policy it says just tag a page for speedy deletion with squiggly brackets sdelete. I've done this and it puts up the template: "This page may meet Wikisource's criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: {{{1}}} If you disagree with its speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page. If this page obviously does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself.

Administrators, remember to check if anything links here, the page history (last edit) and any revisions of CSD before deletion."

How do I note the reason for nominating it in {{{1}}} as there isn't anywhere in the edit screen to note this? Thanks AllanHainey (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just do {{sdelete|reason for deletion}} and the template will do the rest. :) —Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If[edit]

I am totally lost when it comes to MediaWiki parser functions such as if:.

Can anyone please help me with this in {{Lang}}?

I want it to work like this:

  • if the "dir" arg is not present, then nothing should be written
  • if the "dir" arg is present, then this should be written: 'dir="VALUE_OF_dir" '. (Note the space in the end.)

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done You were just missing a "|". -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew vowels and cantillation[edit]

Is it possible to add Hebrew vowels and cantillation to MediaWiki:Edittools?

See MediaWiki talk:Edittools.

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

WP Search misses Author: namespace[edit]

When one undertakes a WP search it does identify pages in our wiki, however, it seems to not find then in the Author: namespace, eg. Search for David Hume or Search for Charles Darwin. I am presuming it is a namespace issue, however, it would be good if we could get have that changed. Who talks to the developers at that level, or is it something that we can amend on our side? -- billinghurst (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Author disambiguation in header[edit]

Not sure whether people have seen the result of a disambiguation as it looks in a mainspace header, example John Brown's Speech to the Court at his Trial. I was unable to pipe the author field to have John Brown (abolitionist)|John Brown the pipe name is ignored. -- billinghurst (talk) 07:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

In order to pipe a line, you have to use the full [[Author:AUTHOR NAME (DISAMBIG)|AUTHOR NAME]] style of linking to do it. Just doing "author=John Brown (abolitionist)|John Brown" will not allow the header to recognize what you did.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Sweet. Thanks. billinghurst (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oregon Constitution[edit]

Athelwulf and I have been working on the Oregon Constitution recently. This important document is not displayed in a very accessible format by the state web site, and we're working to build one with web-friendly annotations, etc. See Oregon Constitution/Article I for an idea of how we're approaching this.

Since we're both fairly new to Wikisource, I thought it might be good to ask for some guidance here about how this sort of project is typically approached. Any feedback would be appreciated. -Pete (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, I've written a blog post about the Constitution project, and about the importance of Wikisource more generally. Again, your thoughts or feedback are welcome! -Pete (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks pretty good so far, but a quick note that we use {{sic}} instead of just saying [sic], so that the reader can still easily read the original text - but if they go to the "Edit" page, they see the notation telling them not to "fix" the "error". Cheers. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nostradamus‎. 13:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the input! I'll keep that in mind about the "sic" template. -Pete (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The way you used "[sic]" is perfectly correct. (I usually put it as "[sic!]", but that does not make your variant wrong.) I would strongly avoid using the template despite Sherurcij's royal "we". When you use the template the notice appears only on the edit page, and not at all on the page that the public normally sees. What's the point of having it appear only on the edit page? We want to inform the reader as well as the editor. I did notice that you applied it to "offence" and "defence" when these words are used correctly, though contrary to current American usage. Eclecticology (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
The point of having it only on the edit page is that it doesn't litter up the original text of the document with modern inline notes that are hard to distinguish from the original text but hopefully prevents editors from changing the text. Inserting [sic] inline is confusing as to who wrote that; if information about errors in the original are to be given to those who aren't going to edit the text, it can be given at the end in a clearly labeled section or on the talk page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
As Prosfilaes correctly points out, it questions whether the translator, the original author or the wikisource editor added the [sic], hence the use of {{sic}} instead which makes it clear enough so the mistake is not "fixed", yet doesn't confuse the reader or clutter up the text. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nostradamus‎. 23:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't consider the occasional [sic] to be clutter or to cause confusion at all, and I would prefer having this information in line when I'm reading the text. In the case of "religeous" in the Oregon Constitution, I'm sure that the average reader would be happy to know that this archaic spelling was actually used in the document. Most "[sic]'s" will be added by our own editors. The few instances when this notice is already there in the text that we work with can receive an additional. We'll have to agree to disagree on this, since I have no intention to change my practice, nor to systematically go about changing your usages. The one of your usages that I did look at was changed because the misspellings were not misspellings. Eclecticology (talk) 07:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
What if an author included a quotation in their work and one of the words was misspelled? If the author noted the misspelling, they would use [sic]. But what if the misspelling was not noted? Would we also use [sic], giving the reader the impression that the author noted the misspelling? This isn't a huge deal, but we (I hope not just the royal "we") want to maintain text integrity.
And if you want to also let the reader know that the word is misspelled, perhaps you could use a template that displays in alt text the correct spelling of the word when you hover over the misspelled word. You could also have the word be dot-underlined.
Psychless 03:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Of those two options the dot-underline seems preferable. Otherwise, readers with poor spelling skills especially will never know where to hover. The hover note, as well as showing the correction (not limited to spelling errors), could also show who originated the [sic]. Eclecticology (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate what all of you are saying, it's a healthy debate. I just checked back on our source document, it turns out the [sic] marks were there before we started to work on it. There are, as I see it, two layers of "authority" with this document: there is the official text, as passed by the people of Oregon, and then there is the supporting stuff added by the w:Oregon Legislative Counsel. This includes the notes at the ends of sections as to what ballot measure passed what section; some section numbers and lead lines; and the [sic] remarks.

I think we're comfortable adjusting the LC's work to make things more wiki-friendly, much moreso than the underlying text of the Constitution. So I'm not opposed in principle to using something like the {{sic}} template. However, I think I'll focus on other improvements (we only have about 5 articles even remotely wikified thus far) until it becomes really clear what the best way to approach this is.

Thanks again! -Pete (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Good. Each contributor is master of his own contributions, and is in the best position to judge what is most important to emphasize in the course of those efforts. The material that we work on often has a lot more rough edges than we would like to believe, and does not always fit into neatly pre-defined pigeon-holes. Eclecticology (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Usurpation of User:Jackie[edit]

Old inactive account without edits for my SUL. --ru:Jackie 9:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If I can get confirmation that the person really requesting this is I'll usurp the account (but I want to make sure that this isn't a hoax by some anonymous user).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Did you see the confirmation notice at w:ru:Обсуждение участника:Jackie#SUL confirmations (diff)? Angr 10:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch. Didn't see that. I've now moved "Jackie" to "Jackie (usurped)".—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

New Texts?[edit]

Could someone varify with me on how to find and correctly format new texts like poems, novels, etc? Thank you. --CartalksYXZ (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You can find works by browsing through the sub-sections of Wikisource:Works, or else through the categorisation system. If you're looking to help format new works that still need work, these are books that need to be split into chapters, these are texts we've only had a machine "read" and need human eyes to correct obvious errors, and these are authors whose full names we can't find. Best of luck! Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Nostradamus‎. 09:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)