From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Scriptorium Scriptorium (Help) Archives, Last archive
The Scriptorium is Wikisource's community discussion page. This subpage is especially designated for requests for help from more experienced Wikisourcers. Feel free to ask questions or leave comments. You may join any current discussion or a new one. Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel webclient.
Have you seen our help pages and FAQs?


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

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

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

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

Correspondence between Gandhi and Tolstoj[edit]

Dear Madam/Sir,

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

Thanks for your cooperation and reply.

Best regards from Germany,

Heidi Hacker

Paragraph break in footnote[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minor edits[edit]

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

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

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

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

History of Hungarian Literature Page 34[edit]

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

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

Works contained in other works[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Separating columns[edit]

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

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


Second question: On this page, why are the footnotes displaying above the table? The table needs to span two pages, so is there a way to correct this without using a klodgy work-around? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I was going to refer you to Help:Page_breaks#Tables_across_page_breaks, but upon review it does not explicitly cover this case; nor in fact do I think it is worded particularly clearly (or indeed even correctly—e.g. what are the leading {{nop}}s in the headers even achieving?) 04:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! The simple fix makes sense. And yes, there are a lot of these special situations not covered anywhere here in writing as far as I know. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Oops. Upon further checking those "peculiarly placed" {{nop}}s were so documented by our own dear @Hesperian: thus. Perhaps he might be so kind as to reconfirm their placement? (i.e. should they appear at the end of the header blocks instead of at the top? Or are they in fact correct as shown and my interpretation faulty instead [in which case a more detailed explanation might be appreciated]) 06:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC) (Yes: I know, I was above. Just blame PPPoA negatioation!)
Table syntax only works if "{|" etc. appear at the start of a line. Previously the templates and/or PHP code that were responsible for pulling a sequence of pages into a single page did not start each page on a new line, so table syntax would break whenever a page started with or within a table. The {{nop}}s were the solution to this. I have no idea whether or not they are still required. Hesperian 12:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
They are still required. However, following the instructions for spanning pages does not work as given; additional coding is needing, e.g. "|-". And the instructions don't handle the situation where there are both footnotes and a page-spanning table. Without an explanation of what the {{nop}} is doing, I had to ask for help in figuring this out. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
{{nop}} gives information on what it does, which is basically be a placeholder while mediawiki does its iteration of presentation, and it is akin to the magic done for {{=}} and {{!}}.

If the instructions don't carry every permutation, then it is probably a situation that wasn't thought about at the time (so add it), or maybe all the edge cases made the instructions confusing (maybe add it to the pages about references), or there are other MW changes that have been made that have made for a new situation (so add it). To also note that there are a couple of variations to how to span tables, so what is provided there is one person's examples of what worked, rather than the single definitive means of how to do table spanning pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

requesting upload help[edit]


Due to some unresolved technical issue at my end not been able to download and upload a bilingual book. A book called Marathi proverbs (1899) by Alfred Manwaring is mainly a translation book using english language available on archive .org. I am requesting help in getting the same uploaded at commons and en wikisource.

My further plan is to some how upadate and incorporate same at Marathi wikibooks Marathi language learning page in en wikibooks in course of time.

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mahitgar: From some research of sources the author was born 1855, and doesn't look to have died until 1950 which means that the work cannot go to Commons. Due to the multilingual nature of the work, to me it looks like it should be hosted at oldwikisource: due to the amount of mixture nature of the language through it, and with the work only being available at one site. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

England Birth[1]
Births Jun 1855
MANWARING Alfred Worthing 2b 261

England Death[2]
Deaths Mar 1950
Manwaring Alfred 94 Hastings 5h 339

My other sources are 1932 edition of Crockford's clerics that shows him as the author or the work, living in Sussex, and ordained in 1879 (which is usually when they are in early-mid 20s). 1911 England census has an Alfred Manwaring, a cleric, b.1855; and the 1861 census shows him the son of William (baker, grocer, postmaster) and Eliza in Broadwater, Sussex. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The work's explanation and prose is mainly in English and geared for speakers of English. I think the work would be fine here, and would be better served by putting it here. Oldwikisource may have some works, but I've yet to ever see one of them. Their Main Page makes it look as if they don't host anything and the site is impossible to navigate. It would be better to not put up a work at all than to waste time hosting it there. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Thanks for your support in copyright status research. I searched Marathi leanguage sources but could not get any info in Marathi language.

I suppose he worked for Church Mission Society either in Nasik or Bombay region. this mention shows he was at Nasik and probaly refernce in this document may also be related to him. I found another of his title on line at this location.

Your last Sussex guess (son of William) seems to be nearest (but not sure). If we consider average 100 yrs life we shall need to calculate atleast to 1955. Indian copyright act brings books 60 yrs after death so the booke may come in public domain in indian some where in 1956 unless any previous death year gets confirmed. I do not know about UK copyright laws. So I suppose unless we get any more info it is safer to wait for another year (i.e. Jan 2016 per Indian copyright laws) before we upload the book.

About project sutabilty I gave thought and prefer en wikisource since it will be better to advert, seek and divert support of mr-wiki people at limited projects like en wikisource and mr wikisource for me. As such the said book is mainly in english and limited text in devnagari script.

Thanks again and seasons greetings

Mahitgar (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Creating a Page[edit]

Hi all, I'm trying to explore and help out in different Wikimedia projects. I stumbled across Wikisource and found it contained a library full of texts from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. I've also found a website online here that contained all the texts from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. I wanted to copy some articles into Wikisource but I don't know if this is correct.

For example, the first article in the ever 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica was about the A107. Wikisource doesn't have a page on it. So is it possible for me to create 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/A107 and copy and paste the text in? Thanks, TheQ Editor (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

While it is possible to copy and paste in text for the EB1911, we prefer to have the information proofread in the Page namespace, and transcluded in the article. For example, the article on Critias is transcluded from this page of Volume 7. The EB 1911 is one of the few organized projects here, with many editors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

CoI and own book (published by reputable source)[edit]

Hi all,

I am the author of Open Access and the Humanities, an open-access book itself under a CC BY-SA license and published by Cambridge University Press. I would be interested in knowing if WikiSource would be interested in having a copy/version and, if so, what I need to do to militate against conflict of interest. The book has been peer reviewed and published by a reputable entity, but I appreciate that I have biased placement as the author. I did, however, deliberately choose a BY-SA license so that inclusion in WikiSource and other such projects might be possible.

MartinPaulEve (talk) 11:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It falls within our scope, and is therefore welcome here. As for conflict of interest, I should think that all we need is disclosure (achieved above) and continued mindfulness. Welcome aboard Martin. Hesperian 11:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for the speedy response and warm welcome! I will wait for my account to become confirmed and will then work on this, including a disclosure on the talk page or another appropriate space. MartinPaulEve (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

formatting suggestions sought for inscriptions[edit]

How should I handle formatting for these inscriptions? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

If you think the last line being centered and the rest justified is worth capturing, there's a bit of formatting to handle that which works on some browsers, but not all. Prosody (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I would like to keep it as true to the text as possible, but I would also like to keep it as simple as possible (and browser-friendly). I also would not know how to apply the coding/formatting based on the link you provided, being myself technically-challenged... Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, GO3. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Accessing (.edu - type) Open Courseware Materials[edit]

Hi, I am currently experiencing a ton of DNS-issue related problems in accessing opencourseware content related to Utah Valley State College (specifically with accessing Joylin Namie's Sociocultural Anthropology course materials - ie. Podcasts), and would like some help. Where/how I can get the best help for these issues would be great!

On this site I tried a few of the links regarding accessing the content and recieved pages that were not available.

Please help! unsigned comment by LliamShepherd (talk) .

The links that we have may be old, and no longer exist. If you are getting blocking errors, I would suggest that you talk to your ISP, there isn't much we can do for you. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Soft redirects to other Wikimedia sites[edit]

As I have exported most amended Law of the Republic of China as evolving works to Wikibooks, do we have soft redirects to other Wikimedia sites, please?--Jusjih (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I would think that we would just link normally and state that they are at enWB. It is not impossible for us to have a Translation: ns page of a piece of law, so the portal page is a relevant page to keep. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
A broken redirect was left behind: Additional_Articles_of_the_Constitution_of_the_Republic_of_China_(2000). @Jusjih:, could you look into it?. Thanks.--Mpaa (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I am adding soft redirects for long term.--Jusjih (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

When to use 'uc' template to transform text to uppercase[edit]

Under what circumstances would it be appropriate to use the {{uc}} template? This template transforms the given text to all capital letters -- for example: {{uc|example}} produces example.

Recently I've been proofreading/validation documents produced on a typewriter that use all uppercase headings, and have been concerned that maybe I've been doing it wrong by just writing the headings in all capitals instead of using the aforementioned template.

Any guidance would be appreciated. (There are similar templates {{lc}} (lowercase) and {{capitalize}} (first letter capitalized) that I similarly do not know the proper circumstances of, but which I've not had the opportunity to use to date.)

Best. -- Mukkakukaku (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

When should you use it? Never. Highlight example, copy it, paste it into a text editor: you get "example". Turns out it wasn't upper-case text at all, it was lower-case text masquerading as upper-case text. The template is evil. It should be deleted. Hesperian 06:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Disclaimer: some browsers are smart enough to push upper-case to the clipboard, so your mileage on my copy-paste demo may vary. I think my point stands. Hesperian 06:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
How does the 'evil' argument not equally condemn {{sc}}? {{sc|Example}} (Example) cuts/pastes as "Example", but it looks like E{{x-smaller|XAMPLE}} (EXAMPLE) which cut/pastes as "EXAMPLE". Not too sure where you are going with this argument? 06:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
"Example" is obviously styled, and I am comfortable with it decomposing to "Example" when that styling is removed. "EXAMPLE" has the appearance of unstyled text, it can easily be rendered using unstyled text, and I am not comfortable with it actually being completely different text with a surreptitious styling applied to it. Hesperian 00:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Not precisely a defence of this template, but there is a good case to be made for using the parser-function equivalent {{uc:example}} — which produces EXAMPLE — which does screen-scrape correctly and reliably as [EXAMPLE] — and that usage is within templates which may need to compare two strings in a case-insensitive fashion. Simply consistently uppercase/lowercase/capitalise both quantities to be compared (say) in a {{#ifeq:}} test.

For reference these parser function/magic keywords exist and produce results as shown:

  1. {{uc:eXaMpLe}}: produces EXAMPLE;
  2. {{lc:eXaMpLe}}: produces example;
  3. {{lcfirst:eXaMpLe}}: produces eXaMpLe; and
  4. {{ucfirst:eXaMpLe}}: produces EXaMpLe.
N.B. Functions 3 & 4 affect only the initial letter of the string, so to produce sentence capitalisation something akin to {{ucfirst:{{lc:eXaMpLe}}}} would be required (produces: Example as expected.) (Buried in "official" documentation about two-three screenfulls down from here: MW:Help:Magic_words#Formatting) AuFCL (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't prescribe to the "never" scenario, I would say "hardly ever". My commentary is that I use it with some newspaper articles where the capitalisation has been made by the sub-editor, not the author. I use it as newspaper articles when they come back from search engines can look butt ugly. So I get the presentation form for the article, though the text as for a search engine. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Between Two Loves Title page and TOC[edit]

I just got finished proofreading the novel Between Two Loves. Now who wants to add the image at its title page and modify its table of contents? Fix the pages that mark a new chapter, particularly the quotes before the chapter starts? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

How about the quoted paragraph on the start of a chapter? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Bracketed limits in TeX formulae[edit]

Work: Index:The_evolution_of_worlds_-_Lowell.djvu Pages: Page:The_evolution_of_worlds_-_Lowell.djvu/289, Page:The_evolution_of_worlds_-_Lowell.djvu/292, Page:The_evolution_of_worlds_-_Lowell.djvu/293

Issue: Square brackets have limits on them, which was not seemingly possible to render on the relevant lefthand side bracket, currently rendered on righthand bracket. Assistance from someoenw that knows TeX would be appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: drop usage of \left and \right and substitute \Bigl and \Bigr respectively. You may then either:
  1. superscript and subscript the symbol using normal _ and ^ methods, or
  2. \overset and \underset the limits per (for example) Page:The_evolution_of_worlds_-_Lowell.djvu/289.
The choice essentially boils down to offset or vertical (my choice) alignment of the limit values. AuFCL (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Done, care to do a validation pass? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
With respect with that many unaddressed problematic pages nobody is going to get interested in this work. Come back when you have a real request, rather than a whine. AuFCL (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
With respect to your respect I respectfully incline that I'm sure addressing this matter will fix many of the "unaddressed problematic pages" or at the very least give the ability to move forward in addressing many "unaddressed problematic pages." Much respect, --Rochefoucauld (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Custom layout[edit]

I'd like to define my own layout for books. To test, I copied the code at Help:Layout#How_to_write_dynamic_layouts to User:Chowbok/common.js, but I don't see any difference, and "My Layout" isn't coming up under the Display Options. Do I have the wrong idea on how this works, or did I miss something, or...? --Chowbok (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Dynamic layouts are not a personal/custom layout they are all system layouts. To affect personal changes you would need to utilise CSS code in your Special:MyPage/common.css. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
But that would affect how everything is displayed, right? I just want to have an alternative layout as an option under Display Options. Is that possible?Chowbok (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Books without Indexes?[edit]

How does it work if I want to edit a book that's already here, but there's no index or source for it? I assume those weren't used in the earlier days of this site. Should I add them as if it's a new project, or start a new project, or something else?--Chowbok (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the name of the book? —Maury (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Chowbok, you have started a new book, Index:The Confessions of a Well-Meaning Woman.djvu, and have done little on it. Why not complete what you have just started? That is already a "new project". We get too many partial books here the way you are doing. We are backed up with incomplete books started and abandoned for others here to finish. Try completing what you yourself start before looking for another one to start. —Maury (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Sheesh. "Done little"? I think I've done pretty well on that considering I just started it a couple days ago, and it's my first project. I can't even ask about other stuff? Guess you guys don't have a "don't bite the newbies" rule like at Wikipedia.Chowbok (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
If are looking to replicate an existing work with a scan-supported text, unless you are 100% certain that there is an exact version/edition match, then it would be a case of a separate version, and we would disambiguate the two versions, or maybe delete the version unsupported by a scan (an independent decision). — billinghurst sDrewth 09:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Chowbok, I did not know you are new here. You have done so much on Wikipedia and seem to know how to bring in a book and start working on it. But it is still "little done" when you start asking for other books and asking what should you do. I just answered your question and then asked you, Why not complete what you have just started? but I am not going to argue with you over my reply. The book you *started* awaits and is simple. No, you should not "start a new project". You should finish that short and simple book you started that I validated pages on. That book isn't difficult. Oh, it isn't "guys" (plural) you are replying to - it is one person being only myself. Do you want me to do that little book for you so that you can start on a more complicated one? —Maury (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I'll finish it, thank you. As I said, and you can verify this, I'm making pretty good progress on it, little as it may be. Sorry for even thinking about the future. I promise I won't even talk about other projects until I've finished this miniscule book you so sneeringly refer to.--Chowbok (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Since you are "new" here, and I didn't know as stated above, you are going far better than "pretty good". I didn't intend to mean the book is on a nanoscale. Peace be with you, —Maury (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

my first proofread page[edit]

My first proofread page at:

seems to have a problem that I don't understand. Please help if you can.

The first footnote seems to have a space before the "big dot" which is supposed to be an "asterisk" (*). What did I do wrong? or is it because I use Mozilla Firefox? All help appreciated as I try to be helpful making improvements to Wikisource.


  • KenJ
Look at how the asterisk works above. That volume states this at the top: "Source file must be fixed before proofreading". The guys that started that volume found out that pages are missing. That is shown. It should not be worked on until those pages can be found and inserted from another source.

You did not do anything wrong with the asterisk. They are like that when they touch the left margin. We just know to remove it when it is time to use the text that follows that "big dot".

Several of us here use Mozilla Firefox. I am using the newest version now 30.0.5

I have done that page you are writing about. Look at it now and compare the before and after to see the way the asterisk and cross footnotes are now used and how they appear both under "edit" the page and when page wasn't edited. Once a page is edited you click the yellow circle under the page to indicate the page has been proofread.

Register your name or alias as shown at the beginning of wikisource. Then instead of signing you type 4 tildes in a row and save. That automatically saves your name and user page and talk page. The reason for registering is so those internet service providers that you use will not show in the message above. Some people don't worry about it and don't do this which is fine but it is safer to register - especially if you get into an argument (rare here) and someone wants to track you like you encounter using Google search engine and other search engines and websites.

I am now going to type those four (4) tildes in a row but what will show is my name and talk page. Please find a different book because of the problem with the one you worked on and asked about. I hope that this reply helps you. Happy Holidays !, —Maury (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

After Action Report 770th FA[edit]

I have in my possession, what I believe to be an authenic after action report, dated 21 August - 30 Sept 1944. My father, Robert F Williams was a T/Sgt in said unit.

I am wondering what, if anything, this report is worth.

If anyone sees this...please email me at:

David Williams