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?


Unknown character[edit]

Does anyone know what the letter is in footnote 4 on the bottom of this page? It looks like a reverse eth, but I can't find it in any alphabet I've searched for.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

ó? -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
No. That character is really obvious in the text. This is some kind of archaic Welsh/Celtic/English character that I can't figure out.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks Welsh based on a quick search. Also see p. xvi of the same text; it shows an alphabet. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

w:Welsh orthography strongly suggests that it should simply be ó, the acute being used to indicate stress on a syllable other than the penultimate.

I suspect this is another example of the problem tabled at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2009-10/Concerns about fidelity of Internet Archive DjVu files. Briefly, the DjVu compression algorithm works by clustering glyphs into a set of glyph classes, and assigning a single glyph to be the representative of each class. When it works well, there is only one "roman-a" glyph stored, and it is used to represent every "roman-a" in the entire book. When it fails, glyphs that represent different symbols may end up in the same class, and represented by the same glyph, resulting in corruption of the text in the very images we are relying on to proof!

In this case, it looks like the same glyph is being used to represent both "italic-o-acute" and "italic six". This hypothesis could be proved or disproved by downloading the, and extracting and examining the uncompressed page scan. Hesperian 01:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

More novice searching: Doing a search of some of the text from the footnote ("ar y geuyn ehun") resulted in the same text with a "w" substituting for the 6 ("arwest" for "ar6est", etc.), just like in the alphabet on p. xvi of the link mentioned in my first comment above under "w". Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The character as rendered here as well for "ar6est" (see highlighted line) as referenced from here as "arwest"... Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Here is the original page as suggested by Hesperian and you don't have to download the whole file: [1] just maximize the image and you can see the text clearly.--Ineuw (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe that link displays an image post-compression. Hesperian 03:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I have viewed the raw jp2, and the character looks like a 6 there too. So much for my theory.... Hesperian 04:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help, guys! I learned a new letter today. ỽ seems like it's similar to w, but I'm not sure under what circumstances you use one and not the other. Too bad the letter doesn't seem to show up right now in the browser.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
For those (like me) who can't see it, here it is: [2]. Hesperian 13:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I've checked with a Welsh friend who pointed me to w:Ỽ, which I think is the capital. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Well if (Ỽ}} is the capital letter, then according to the unicode tables (ỽ}} ought to be the lower case equivalent. Both very similar and both visible here. AuFCL (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Am I the only person seeing little squares instead of whatever this mystery character is? Mukkakukaku (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
@Mukkakukaku: Don't be too surprised. You know this thing called "unicode"? Take it as an advertising term (i.e. a lie—it is anything but "universal".) Oh, and universal fonts? (Well you get the idea: none of this junk is generally portable betwixt browsers, operating systems, installed fonts, web-font support et al…) Here endeth the cynic's lesson.

By the way a genuine thank-you for the feedback. Which browser+version+operating system are you using because {{unicode}} was supposed to provide some degree of Internet Explorer support (and clearly doesn't quite cut it in this instance.) AuFCL (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Chrome 36.0.1985.125 m, Windows 7. Also tried on Firefox 30.0 and IE 11.0.9600.17207. -- Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
This wikipedia page seems to indicate that I need to install a special Windows update for Win7 to enable unicode support. That's probably the step I'm missing. Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
It is extremely likely you already have unicode support. This website tells your browser "display my body text in Helvetica Neue font if you have it installed, otherwise Helvetica if you have it installed, otherwise Arial if you have it installed, otherwise whatever your default sans-serif font is." Your browser follows those instructions and selects a font, and you can only hope that the selected font contains a glyph for every unicode character on the webpage. If your font doesn't contain a glyph for a unicode character, it displays that 'little squares' glyph instead. So depending on what fonts are installed, some of us will see the character, some the square. Me, I'm seeing the squares like you are. Hesperian 01:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I just took a peek at the font-family declaration in that template, and the intersection between the font-family and the ones installed on my computer are Microsoft Sans Serif and Lucida Sans Unicode. Probably the glyph in question is present in one of the other fonts that have higher precendence than those two (which don't contain the glyph.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

New unknown character[edit]

I have a new unknown character appearing here in the footnote. It looks like a 7, but its placement isn't right. It seems to show up in old Welsh poetry examples. Does anyone have any idea what it is? Someone figured out this strange writing system called an ogham that I had an issue with earlier in the text...maybe someone has an idea what this is.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen that in Welsh texts before but, off the top of my head, it looks like the Tironian ampersand. It's more common in Irish and Scottish but see if that fits the context. In any case, if you're just transcribing, you can certainly use its unicode symbol—;—it looks close enough. — LlywelynII 10:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! That's exactly what I'm looking for.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks like a square to me. But then again I think it's been established that my vanilla Windows 7 install doesn't come with the fancy fonts that contain most of these unicode characters. Can you try using the {{unicode}} template when you proofread it? Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I do all my proofreading on a Chromebook. Apparently it has a wider variety of glyphs in its fonts than Windows (I have the same problem on my Windows-based computer). I wish that font selector worked because maybe we could force it to load the glyph from a font in one of those for the benefit of everybody.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome! — LlywelynII 13:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:1930 QLD Royal Commission into Racing Report.djvu[edit]

This is a mess , with 2 different styles of sidenotes used.

Can someone set ONE style consistently across this, and leave a note on the talk page? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Page Alignment[edit]

This is about the chapter Durgesa Nandini/Book 1/Chapter 3. Pages in the original book are mis-arranged. Two copies are available on the net: West Bengal Public Library Network and Digital Library of India. Both copies have the same defect. In order to be truthful to the original, I uploaded it in original arrangement. Now I need to add section 1 of page 13 after pages 71-74 in Book I/Chapter III. But page 13 portion is not getting transcluded in the same line as the ending of page 74. Please help. Hrishikes (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The best I can think of for now is to sacrifice use of <pages/> altogether. Maybe someone else has a better solution, because this one is really pretty awful? AuFCL (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks. It looks nice to me. There was an extra blank line in between the first two pages, which I have corrected. Hrishikes (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I did not mean to leave that blank line in there. AuFCL (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Why are we transcluding this work at all if the pages are out of order and unproofread? Seems like the correct answer should be to fix the underlying file, reorder the pages, [proofread, ] and then transclude? Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
THANK YOU for the correct & only answer. Sheesh :(
Yes check.svg Done -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Norm on Apostrophes and Quotation Marks[edit]

What is the current practice on apostrophes and quotation marks regarding dumb quotes and smart quotes? —Wylve (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Use dumb quotes and typewriter apostrophes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. —Wylve (talk) 06:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Biblica[edit] has djvu files on Encyclopaedia Biblica. If anyone wants to import them, and make the index pages, things I don't do well, and tell me what to do with the existing pages, I can work on improving it. John Carter (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Some options for automatic importing here. Pick what you need, and if you post the imported files, someone might take it from there.--Mpaa (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Table alignment issue[edit]

I have an issue where I can't center-align a table. The page in question is here (and the one after that). I've used all the methods I can think of, but to no avail: the table stays left-aligned. I've center-aligned tables before so I don't get why it's not happening any more. The way it transcludes can be see on my [[3]].—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It's center aligning for me. It may be the result of using html code in combination with a particular browser, instead of using wiki-markup and CSS. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not center aligned for me. But for a block element to be centered it needs a width. The table is, by default, 100% of the width of the page. I shoved a width onto it and now it center aligns, but it's a bit too narrow in the transclusion. Mukkakukaku (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@Zhaladshar: I could make it look exactly like the original, but I must use wiki table parameters, I am less than good with HTML table parameters.Ineuw (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah! It was the table width issue. I can't believe that didn't strike me sooner. Thanks!—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit window malfunctioning[edit]

I've lost the ability to see the DvJu image beside the edit window when proofreading pages. It worked fine through yesterday, but today problems started. At first, I could get the text to appear with a few refreshes or coming back to the page, but now, I can't get the DjVu image to show up at all. Three or four refreshes do nothing. I've tried two different browsers with the same results. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have the same issue. I was able to proofread just fine for a few pages, then they all started to break and I couldn't get them to ever load.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
No such issues here. Do you observe the same when not logged in? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

+1: no DjVu image appeared for me when I made my most recent (13:44, 7 August 2014) proofing edit, despite multiple image reloads; however the image loaded on preview. Hesperian 00:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thats a bit confusing - do you mean you were able to pull an image only thru clicking the 'Image' tab (i.e. full-size jpg) but not a.) when landing on an existing page (view mode), or; b.) when creating a new page for the first time (edit mode), and/or; c.) when previewing a new page after making some edits (also edit mode)?

And again, the first thing we should look for in narrowing down causes is to see if the same thing happens when you're not logged in. So . . . .? -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha, no unhelpful drive-by plus-one comments on George's watch! The image did not load on the edit page. I have my own personal reload script in the sidebar, which triggers an image reload at reduced resolution. I clicked that and the image did not appear. I clicked it again and the image did not appear. I did not, at that time, check to confirm that my reload script was actually working. I can now confirm that it has been broken by recent site changes. Therefore I didn't actually reload the image at all. I did not, at that time, check to see if the image would load for me if logged out. When I finished editing the page, I clicked "Show preview", and the image loaded on the preview page, allowing me to proof what I had edited and save my work. At present, things appear to be working nicely for me; I am unable to duplicate my problem, so cannot participate in diagnosis. In short, I have nothing to contribute, I am wasting your time with useless information, and I wish I hadn't made a goose of myself by posting here in the first place. Still confusing? Hesperian 01:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. So we're back to square one I guess. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know about EncycloPetey, but whatever issues I had are now resolved.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 05:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
This is something that happens from time to time to me as well. Purging the file on Commons sometimes helps. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem has now cleared up for me as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Purging the file on Commons sometimes helps[edit]

To continue BWC's point on what appears to be a lag in the overall accounting of what amounts to the list generated by clicking on 'What links here' in the sidebar menu (e.g. instances of related linked & transcluded files), I've found 2 additional API calls to be helpful here.

For example, when I see to many Index: pages that have "lost" their ProofReading color-coded Page: status, I force not only a "purge" but also a [recursive] link update by either targeting the main "template" used by all Index: pages...

... or by targeting the Index: itself:

Using a combination of the above, I managed to clean out the obviously incorrect readings produced when generating the Special: List of Index pages.

What would be helpful is if some snarky 'crat or equivalent could somehow manage to have these 2 API calls quietly run 'along side' the current Purge action tab when selected. This way, all 3 tasks could be run at once with just one simple click. :) -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Can an editor who's good with images help validate this work?[edit]

I've been busy proofreading a scientific paper that includes a lot of illustrations, many placed in configurations that seem challenging to replicate here. I'm not especially familiar with Wikisource's preferences and capabilities regarding image placement and I've found Wikisource's help file distinctly unhelpful, so I thought I would ask the community if someone who's good at working with integrating pictures into works could help me with this one. Any takers? Abyssal (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Look at this page and if you are satisfied, there will be a small charge per image. Let me know. --Ineuw (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

What do I do...[edit]

when I find that The Cambridge History of American Literature/Book I/Chapter I, which I'm looking to assemble from an index, already exists as a standalone page? John Carter (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's the same edition, then overwrite with the scan-backed version. If it's a different edition then move the page to a disambiguated title. By the way, we've mostly standardised our Book and Chapter page titles to use Arabic numerals even if the original text used Roman. This was done to ease the process of intertext wikilinking. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Minimum items for portal creation?[edit]

How many items should we have to create a portal, amd would multiple/plural encyclopedia articles be sufficient? John Carter (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no minimum to create a portal, there just has to be potential for a corpus of PD literature (and a relevant LoC code). Yes, encyclopaedia articles are fine to start it off with. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Use your best judgment and common sense. Is the Portal one that has much content to list currently? Is it likely to grow much over the next year? Might the presence of the portal stimulate additional contributions? Does it have a clear parent portal to link from? Are visitors likely to look for such a portal? If you think there is real value in having a particular portal, and it is likely to be useful in some way, then it's probably worth starting that portal, even if there's not much right now. Example: When I started the portal for Greek drama about a year ago, it was pretty sad compared to the portal today. Starting a portal can be a great focal point for determining what we have, what we lack, and what we need. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
A long time ago we had a discussion about having "Topic" or "Subject" pages for bringing together works on or about the same topic. It was agreed that we would do that but that we would use the portal namespace rather than opening up a new namespace. So to my mind "portal" is a bit of a misnomer. "Portal", to me, implies an alternative main page for reader communities of a specific interest, whereas we simply mean a page about a certain topic. As such, the threshold for creation is very low. Hesperian 00:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The specific portals I am considering creating are for the purposes of providing something to link to in the text of the book I am developing. So, for instance, if we have two or more significant sources on Increase Mather, either extant or potential, I will try to see all the shorter sources (not including book-length) we might have in existing indexes get created, link to them in the portal, and then put in links to that portal in other places where reasonable. And, yes, I do expect this to take awhile. John Carter (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
If you are linking from a published book that you are transcribing, then that's not really how portals are meant to be used. Could you provide an example or two of where you mean to link, so that we might suggest alternatives?
However, if you are creating an original book on Wikibooks, that sounds reasonable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
"If you are linking from a published book that you are transcribing, then that's not really how portals are meant to be used." I beg to differ. I think that portals are indeed meant to be used as John Carter proposes to use them. Hesperian 01:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Can you supply a single instance where that has been done? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see that John Carter's intentions are any different from what mine were when I created Portal:Banksia sessilis, Portal:Yagan, etc. Hesperian 07:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
So, was that a "yes" or a "no", because I don't see an instance yet. --EncycloPetey (talk) 11:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
What is it you think that John Carter intends to do that differs from what I have done in the above cases? Hesperian 12:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
He plans to link to a portal from text inside a transcribed work that is not part of the Portal. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean like this and this and this and this? Hesperian 00:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Only like the first and last on that list; the middle two items are included in the Portal. The first item might be added to the portal, but the last item seems to make an odd link that could be better served with a simple tooltip note. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Then your objection is not to the portal itself, but to what we might call 'incidental' links to the portal — linking to the portal from within works that should not themselves be listed? That is, if a work is not really about Increase Mather and would not deserve to be listed on an Increase Mather portal, then a passing mention of Increase Mather in that work should not be linked to the Increase Mather portal even if portal exists? If this is your position then we still disagree. Hesperian 01:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The work being developed is the Cambridge History of American Literature. The first visible potential portal would be Humphrey Gilbert, mentioned on Page:The Cambridge History of American Literature, v1.djvu/27. We already have the DNB bio and a Longfellow poem about him. So I would first create the yet-to-be-created EB article on him, and anything else I can find yet-to-be-created on him here, then the portal including them all, and then add links to that portal in any works on naval history or whatever which already discuss him.John Carter (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
As I said, that's not really appropriate for linking to a portal. You could link to an author page, if the emphasis is on him as an author. Alternatively, you could link to the Wikipedia article about him, then add a link at WP to a Portal here, but linking to a portal within the text of a transcribed work isn't really appropriate. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Gilbert should have an Author: page created. We know that he wrote A discourse of a discouerie for a new passage to Cataia and there are likely to be other works given his Irish and Newfoundland exploits. Author pages have two sections. The first is for Works by the author; the second is for Works about the author. See Author:Robert Bridges for an example. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

More edit window problems[edit]

When I click on the edit tab I arrive at a screen with no preview or text entry field. I didn't have any problem a couple of hours ago. Has a sysop changed something? Abyssal (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Same problems on fr.wikisource --Zyephyrus (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Are you still having these problems? I don't seem to have them, but have not been editing for the past 12 hours either. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

My editing toolbar has changed[edit]

Since this morning, my editing toolbar has changed and does not include any added buttons from my User:Londonjackbooks/common.js or zoom in/zoom out buttons, etc. I have made no changes to preferences or elsewhere. Any insight would be appreciated, as I use the toolbar regularly. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

What my toolbar should look like (to include the zoom in/zoom out buttons): LJB Toolbar correct.jpg Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not having this issue. All seems normal to me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Just a minor inconvenience, but the toolbar with customized buttons makes life much easier for me. Not sure what the issue is, but someone will come along with insight... Glad it's not affecting you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
It's happening to me as well, but only in the Page: namespace. What's actually happening is that the "old" toolbar appears briefly and then is overwritten with what looks like the enhanced toolbar. The loss of the zoom buttons is critical for me when working with pages like Page:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians vol 2.djvu/353. The diacritics on the Greek text at the top of column b are difficult to make out, and some nuances in score snippets are potentially lost. The button to dismiss and bring back the header/footer fields is also missing, as is the button to automatically insert {{hwe}} based on an {{hws}} on the previous page (a gadget). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
My editing toolbar has vanished in Page: namespace too. It is showing in this mainspace edit window though. Moondyne (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The old toolbar that used to be at the bottom of the window is now at the top for me in the edit window. So, where I used to have to scroll down to the bottom to insert em-dashes, I now have to scroll to the top. Otherwise, I'm seeing no change, really. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: @Beeswaxcandle: @Moondyne: @EncycloPetey: I apologize for not bringing this earlier to the attention of the community. The custom toolbar buttons require some extra code to possibly avert issues. If it is not changed it will affect certain features in different ways. In my case it knocked out HotCats. Please see this post [4] and check out the changes in my common.jsIneuw talk 17:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I am then at the mercy of those who know how to apply the code fixes to my User:Londonjackbooks/common.js—if that is what is needed. Thank you ahead of time, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The joke is on me. I have no buttons at all in the Page:namespace, but it does show up here as I type this. This includes my custom button. — Ineuw talk 18:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I am using the Modern Skin and removed all toolbar code, caches cleared, but nothing changed, so I don't think it's the code in the .js, — Ineuw talk 20:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Whose door should be knocked on about this? Copying and pasting breaks is getting tedious :P Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@George Orwell III: GO3 help please. — Ineuw talk 21:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I switched to the enhanced editor just to get some functions back. This includes the magnifier and the header/footer collapse.— Ineuw talk 22:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I still don't have any legacy style toolbar buttons in the Page namespace. Can someone help please? I logged in with my public user and the regular user account and it's the same problem. So, it's not user related. IneuwPublic (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
While I have no solution, I can point to the most likely avenue for investigation. 1.24wmf16 was rolled out on the day that these problems manifested. There were two changes to the ProofreadPage extension in that roll-out. There was also a change to Toolbar in the Core. Something in that lot has caused this problem. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been busy this week (in addition to moving to Win 8.1/IE10 at the same time) so I'm behind on what is going on. Oddly enough, I have only one toolbar issue and I suspect that is due to the addition of .svg icons to WikiEditor.

Again, all the legacy toolbar stuff is no longer supported - for some time now actually. I'll "look around" and see if I can't come up with some answers though. In the meantime, I suggest moving to WikiEditor if not using it already. We can customize it - it just needs a "group effort" at this point. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

NOTE#1: [5] -- This change looks suspect since the Page: namespace is not wikitext content but proofread page content. This could explain the lack of buttons for some in the Page: namespace (again, I load my own WikiEditor toolbar and see no difference from last to this week). -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Ineuw's reply to NOTE #1: Yes This seems to be an additional issue wikitext vs. Proofreading page.

@George Orwell III:
  • The only reason I went back to the legacy toolbar is to gain more editing space height.
NOTE #2: PAY ATTENTION. I can add as many of the old buttons as you like using the old icons (bad practice but not earth-shattering) right along side the other buttons without the need to expand any additional Wikieditor menus. I added the M-button for example.

Tb2.png Ineuw's reply to NOTE #2: Is this code accessible from the Common.js so that we can learn to modify the toolbar on our own?

I was hoping to get to the point where we can agree on a core set of buttons to load site-wide and then have folks customize their own from there but that's still a ways off if this latest hiccup is any indication of changes to come. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I also understood that the old toolbar is alive and well because many users on other wikis are demanding it.
NOTE#3: THIS IS FALSE. Repeat it again and you'll get my back up like never before.

Ineuw's reply to NOTE #3: I am not going to get your back up., but do recommend that you read some of the comments bandied about in Bugzilla.

Whatever. I follow VisualEditor's progress and THAT interface is suppose to become the "standard" while WikiEditor will serve as the fall back for projects "like us". Sure you can muddle your way through monobook & the old toolbars but one day its going to be turned off regardless. You can follow whomever you wish. -- George Orwell III (talk)
  • I also figured the problem is an mw. update, but couldn't understand why only for some users and not others.
NOTE#4: Don't know this yet for sure. It could be all the "outdated" gadgets you're loading as well.

Ineuw's reply to NOTE #4: I have No gadgets, my common.js was set up by you.

HERE is where it said you have gadgets loading. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I copied the Firefox element inspector results HERE. It seems to me that load.php missed loading three scripts.
NOTE#5 Do have anything more along the lines of a script debugger? That just shows something is not quite right - a more specific error message would be much better.

Ineuw's reply to NOTE #5: Forget this please

OK -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, I have all your customized implementation of the Wiki Editor backed up and saved. So I will reinstall it because I haven't done any on line work in days.
  • Also, I will check Bugzilla whether anyone else reported this problem. and can file a bug report. — Ineuw talk 00:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
NOTE#6 Please do. I've fixed up my Bugzilla access since our last fwiw. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Ineuw's reply to NOTE #6:User:Tpt reported to this problem to Bugzilla. is who we need to come around and "clean" our .js/gadgets up. The bugzilla seems premature imho -- 06:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Just hoping I can get my customized buttons back. Not sure what all the above means, but please keep this layman posted in layman's terms on how things can be rectified if I need to do anything on my end. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: I left you a comprehensive message on the subject on your talk page. — Ineuw talk 06:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

RE: Please accept my apologies. I confused the gadgets with .js code. I also didn't realize that the gadgets themselves can be outdated. — Ineuw talk 06:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Title page borders[edit]

The 1907 edition of King Solomon's Mines has some lovely and elaborate borders on the title page and around the editor's note. Is there a way to preserve these borders? Should we preserve these borders? I tried searching the Scriptorium archives but 'border' is a terrible search term it turns out. Thanks. Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

{{overfloat image}} has been used for this before. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Leader box with two right columns?[edit]

Is it possible to make a leader box with two right columns? I need one for a page I'm proofreading. Abyssal (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The easiest(?) way to do this is with a table. I've had a go. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll reverse engineer your code for use whenever that style of data presentation recurs. Abyssal (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

How do I handle this image arrangement?[edit]

How can I arrange the images in this page to resemble the ones in the source file? I've been playing around with a table but can't get it "just right", especially regarding the alignment of the captions. Abyssal (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be better as a single image.— Ineuw talk 00:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, that's probably less of a struggle. :) But just for future reference, is it at least possible to do that using Wikimedia code or templates? Abyssal (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I assume you are referring to display. To display the image use {{FIS}}. Tables are only good when you must display images with split descriptions, or two separate images. but in this case a single image is the easiest.
I meant displaying separate images in complex arrangements like I had tried to do originally. Abyssal (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes. But in this case it's difficult because of the original arrangement. A single image is easier here. One problem is the varying image sizes. — Ineuw talk 02:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Have I formatted it the way you intended? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's just what I had in mind. Abyssal (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Setting the width to 80% (or to any fixed measure) is a bad idea. On wider screens the entire group will spread W A A A A Y apart. That's why I removed it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance. Abyssal (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:British Flowering Plants.djvu[edit]

Process deletion of this and pages, file is damaged (i.e missing pages). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Why delete it instead of fix it up? It's a shame to lose such good work.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
If you can find the missing pages;) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Flipping through the pages of the work at, pagination is fine (inclusive) up until [actual] page 160, then it jumps to page 177 (so it is missing [actual] pp. 161-176); from there, it includes pp. 177-192, but then jumps back to p. 177 and is inclusive till the end of the book. Couldn't find another copy on IA or Google books, but that's not to say that another one won't come along in the future. I'd just make a specific note on the Talk page or the Index page and let it be for now. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I support leaving it be for now, too. Abyssal (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
This is actually how the physical book is. smiley Signature 12 has been bound into the book twice (16 pages per sig, so 16 pages missing and 167 pages duped). To confirm this is not a scanning issue compare in two tabs Index and Index, the first page of the index has a ripple in both cases, but in a slightly different place (top left). Rich Farmbrough, 14:03 23 August 2014 (GMT)
Copy for sale here at a rather steep £36. Rich Farmbrough, 14:14 23 August 2014 (GMT)
Library copies in Oxford (Radcliffe Science Library), University Library Cambridge, NLS, Edinburgh and University of Chicago. Also of course, the British Libary. Rich Farmbrough, 14:42 23 August 2014 (GMT)

Image formatting help[edit]

Any recommendations for this page would be appreciated. I also have the other two decorative images (surrounding "Millet") available at Commons as well. At your leisure, and feel free to tinker... Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. There's probably a lot of unnecessary formatting that I have included because I copied/pasted/tweaked from an image from another work. Don't feel you need to keep my formatting... Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Non Unicode character[edit]

On pretty much every page of Index:A dictionary of the Book of Mormon.pdf there is character made up of a c and a t with an arch joining the tops of the two characters. There is no equivalent Unicode character. What to do? John Carter (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't render very well on my own browser, but perhaps have a look at {{ct}}: produces ct. AuFCL (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
There's no ligature on my browser in that example, so clearly your mileage may vary. Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
This is an orthographical thing. It's a holdover from certain handwritten scripts where these two letters were joined, just like fl, oe, and a few other oddities. It isn't necessary to reproduce this particular ligature, as this has never been a separate letter in English, and is generally not noticed by any modern reader. You may choose to preserve it in texts of some particular historical interest using {{ct}}, but you can also safely choose to ignore it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Bearing in mind the above comments, there is also always use of the so-called Unicode "combining ligature left-half" which just might work (but probably not universally): c︠t? AuFCL (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I would also be careful about the possibility of breaking searches. I think the ct template behaves, but a ligature character would not. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Colons in titles?[edit]

I've uploaded a PDF to Commons but wasn't able to include the colon from the work's title in the file name. How do I create an index here if the file name won't match the index page's name exactly? Abyssal (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Simply proceed with whatever file you have got; and upon editing the corresponding Index: page the "Title" content (second box down; below "Type" (of the book)) may be changed into a wiki-link to any name you deem appropriate. AuFCL (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Abyssal (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
What is the title. Is it a secret? — Ineuw talk 22:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The file is File:North American Plesiosaurs- Elasmosaurus, Cimoliasaurus, and Polycotylus.pdf. The title should be "North American Plesiosaurs: Elasmosaurus, Cimoliasaurus, and Polycotylus". Abyssal (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The title of the file and the title of the work do not need to match. You could theoretically name the source file "File:Billy.pdf" and still call the work "North American Plesiosaurs: Elasmosaurus, Cimoliasaurus, and Polycotylus" in the Main namespace. (. . . although calling it "Billy" would not be best practice) --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Adjunct to that, is that the Index: namespace page cannot have colons as it needs to align to the file: ns page at Commons. So the quirk can come in the transclusion in the mismatch. To note that there are numbers of works where the title in the naming line differs from that in the header template, and we have not overly fussed about it, and we cannot as we have to disambiguate works anyway and that changes page titles. So do feel that there is not a requirement to get the page title exact and have to use a colon, but do get it right in the header template. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Further adjunct is that there is a title and a subtitle involved here. The text up to the colon is the title and the text after is the sub-title. You should enter these two parts into the Book template on Commons. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
It's a journal article, not a book. Abyssal (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:عقبة بن نافع.pdf[edit]

Not English. Is there a page for transwiki requests?. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneIneuw talk 18:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:UU 14 2008.djvu[edit]

Not English language work in scans, page content in places appears to be a translation, but there no indication if it's an official one. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneIneuw talk 18:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


This should probably be renamed, Also I note it's volume2, where is Volume1? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Uploaded
Index:Characteristicks of men, manners, opinions, times Vol 1.djvu
Index:Characteristicks of men, manners, opinions, times Vol 2.djvu
Index:Characteristicks of men, manners, opinions, times Vol 3.djvu

And now pagelisted (If someone's able to check the index as being contiguous in Vol3 it would be appreciated, if not I'll add it to my own todo list).ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:Manners and customs of ye Englyshe.djvu[edit]

Where there aren't page numbers what's the numbering convention?. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Use the DjVu numbers.— Ineuw talk 16:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


Here and one would imagine in many volumes, one wishes to have text in a margin. How is this done? Rich Farmbrough, 12:49 23 August 2014 (GMT)

The most common approach is to use {{sidenote}} and related templates ({{sidenotes begin}}, {{left sidenote}}, etc)). But there's also {{MarginNote}} (examples) and {{marginal summary}} (examples). Mukkakukaku (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
TYVM! Rich Farmbrough, 16:17 23 August 2014 (GMT)


What is the SOP for a.) notified errata, b.) other typographical errors? Rich Farmbrough, 13:16 23 August 2014 (GMT)

We haven't yet fully compiled guidelines on how to deal with errata, and what are the best practices, but some work is underway. You'd need to be a bit more specific about what it is you are asking, because there are lots of different sorts of errata and errors. For a misspelled word, you can use {{SIC}}, but bigger issues may not be solvable through the use of that template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking specifically of this errata page. Rich Farmbrough, 16:29 23 August 2014 (GMT)
I haven't seen a standard method proposed for dealing with that sort of situation, and so would be very interested myself to hear what people have done (or think could be done) to handle errata like those. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I remember that User:AuFCL did some work on A History of Mathematics, which included an errata page. Have a look? —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 16:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
He used {{SIC}}, but without knowing that there is an Errata page while reading, there is nothing to indicate that use of the template is based upon published errata versus suspected error on the part of the WS editor. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
If {{SIC}} might be misleading, one can always use {{tooltip}}, adding a remark like {{tooltip|text_1|text_2, see errata}} or something like that.--Mpaa (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Neither of those templates "work" on mobile devices because they require a hover action. Just throwing that out there. Mukkakukaku (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Hm, I am inclined to correct where the errata are bound-in with the text, as this represents the intended form of the book at the time of publishing. Of course bibliographic needs differ from the general reader's needs, but those readers will presumably resort to the image. Rich Farmbrough, 02:52 24 August 2014 (GMT)
The guidance I was given a few years back was to indicate errata in the notes field of the header template for the relevant mainspace page. However, for DMM as the Addenda and Corriegenda are in a 300-page Appendix, I've been adding a note in brackets at the relevant point in the article. See A Dictionary of Music and Musicians/Missa Papæ Marcelli for an example of this. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
That's some useful alternatives. Thanks for that. Rich Farmbrough, 20:02 24 August 2014 (GMT)

This one is another example. Someone may have a look and offer guidance. Hrishikes (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: If we are talking published errata, then two other works that I did ages ago are

Of course, there is also the errata that we have done for the DNB entries where we have transcluded the errata in later volumes to the original (corresponding) article. There will be no standard due to the nature of the errata, either published in the same work, later works, and the form and amount of the errata. We would look to keep the original page as is, then somehow hook-in the errata in the least defacing means. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


I would like to be able to use asterisk and obelisk for footnotes, I can't see how to do this in the help page for footnotes, nor work out my own method. Probably it would require some change in the underlying software, but maybe there is CSS solution. Comments? Rich Farmbrough, 02:52 24 August 2014 (GMT)

Use {{ref}} and {{note}} per Help:Footnotes and endnotes#Alternatives. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, it appears that the choice is between having this flexibility, and having the dual footnotes/endnotes capability automatically. Hm. Rich Farmbrough, 20:01 24 August 2014 (GMT)
@Rich Farmbrough: We usually don't replicate *, †, ‡ reference labels and just have the default. 1) it is easier, 2) we are reproducing the work with endnotes, rather than footnotes, so hanging onto a typographic archaism seemed fruitless, and probably pointless. What it requires is a requested change to mw:Extension:Cite to have this done tidily, and even then not too nice in endnotes (and I think hell freezing over will come first). — billinghurst sDrewth 04:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes indeed, I was puzzling over the endnotes solution to multiple asterisks and obelisks. It does seem a shame to loose those lovely typographical creatures altogether though. Thanks for your response, and also the one on Errats, which is just as helpful, and more satisfying. Rich Farmbrough, 07:17 28 August 2014 (GMT)

Toolbar help needed[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A toolbar to dream about.jpg

A toolbar to dream about

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

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

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

< pages > and Templates[edit]

I was trying to speed things up with {{EB9 Transclusion}} by using template parameters in the < pages > term to reduce all the typing and redundancy, but nothing I try seems to work. I thought the problem might be the initial call and did {{EB9.7 Transclusion}} in the hopes I could at least get one template per volume to work, but no luck there either. Am I missing something in the formatting? would I have to do it page by page using the old {{page}} template? or is this just impossible? — LlywelynII 06:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: I am going to guess on what you are talking about as you haven't provided a sample. Try using a {{#tag:}} or if you want to push a substitution then {{subst:#tag:}} . (See mw:Help:magic words). This will look something like

{{subst:#tag:pages||index=index namespace title.djvu|from=nn|to=nn|fromsection={{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|tosection={{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}}}

This is one that I utilise all the time, and if you are having issues getting something to work, then feel free to {{ping}} me. You can also look at {{d}} which is a cheat's way of using {{DNB00}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The sample was at the links, but thanks for the code. I'll try using that instead. — LlywelynII 04:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
As a side note, the issue failure of templates inside <pages ...> will also occur similarly in <ref>, and #tag used in the same way resolves most issues in refs; well except the w:Help:pipe trick that fails miserably in refs whichever way you try.
I obviously need to keep learning since formatting that should work the same (same-line form of the template versus the multiline one) is behaving differently but at least one format of {{EB9 Transclusion}} now works, so thanks! — LlywelynII 05:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I added name parameters, and I don't think that I broke it. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

For Sale: A slightly used OAuth token, used to file transfer from IA to the Commons.[edit]

Some time ago, I purchased (was assigned) a working OAuth token to transfer files from Internet Archive to the Commons. Drove it once or twice, but for some unknown reason it died. The red indicator on the dashboard said #403, which means it no longer recognizes the token's validity. I contacted the salesman Tpt for help, since it was his product, but he no longer seems to deal in tokens. I tried to disable/delete it in my preferences and ask for another working token, but it's as if it was tattooed on my account, (or another choice body part), and I can't get rid of it. I don't remember how I got the original either. Tpt must have been selling them in some dark alley in my neighborhood. I then turned to Mediawiki which has lots of pages marked "out of date" and 0 info, (Just like the toolbars I bought in another dark alley transaction. - a dig which I could not forgo). Can anyone tell me what my options are? — Ineuw talk 00:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Test-drive the link at the bottom of User:Beeswaxcandle/Works. If it operates fine, I'll let you have one of the spare keys (copy it somewhere useful to you). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks. It works!!! I will borrow it.— Ineuw talk 01:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I should say that you must use it only as a link and only while logged in at enWS. It cannot be used as a favourite and it will attribute the upload to your username on Commons. Attempts to use it in other ways will result in a return to the dark alley where arcane rude words will be yelled at you by cyborgs. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I was concerned but tried, and it recognizes me as the uploader. It should be no problem Thanks again.— Ineuw talk 02:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Laura1822[edit]

Isn't there anyone here smart enough to help this near blind girl see by changing the colors in common.js for her? She needs a black background. I have a medium grey background with black text.

—Maury (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

George is already working on it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I saw that he was but did not know if he still is. I don't use the new editor and my set-up works fine. Using my common.js it seems just changing the color codes would work. I also know I use both the gadget color, whatever that color default may be, plus what Inductive Load placed in my common.js which is medium grey/gray and black text. Sometimes old things work better than new things. Mine works fine. Thanks Beez, —Maury (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you all for the help! Mr. Orwell fixed it. Laura1822 (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Guidance on linking citations in a work[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

War of 1812 documents[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Text rotation / vertical text[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOC formatting help[edit]

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

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

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

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

TOC with Horizontal Ellipses[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Help pages[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not a lawyer or anything, but just Googling around it it looks like things are fairly complicated copyright-wise for Texas government stuff. As far as I can tell there are laws that mandate citizens have to be granted access to see records for themselves, but that's not the same thing as waiving copyright or having the right to redistribute copies of records. This public information act guide from the state Attorney General mentions in a footnote
Open Records Decision No. 660 at 5 (1999) (Federal Copyright Act “may not be used to deny access to or copies of the information sought by the requestor under the Public Information Act,” but a governmental body may place reasonable restrictions on use of copyrighted information consistent with rights of copyright owner).
and also specifically requires that
provision of a copy of the information in the requested medium will not violate the terms of any copyright agreement between the governmental body and a third party.
so for example here's a lawyer complaining that he has to pay a publisher to access copies of court documents he himself wrote and filed.
If I understand it all correctly, I think this unfortunately means that you'll need to determine which government body owns the copyright to the documents you've got and find out whether that particular body allows them to be freely redistributed in a way that qualifies as copyrighted, but "free" as defined by Wikisource:Copyright_policy. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 22:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Or alternatively, if these are documents that would count as having been "published" under the legal definition between 1923 and 1977 without any copyright notice, you could mark them as {{PD-US-no-notice}}. Maybe someone else knows whether court documents count as having been "published"? ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 22:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyright is the "right to make a copy", which should not be confused with access to documents, information, etc. or should not be deemed to be giving anyone a right to reproduce. Publishers have been publishing court proceedings for years, and still there has been some discussion recently [6]. That said, something used in evidence in a court case would not lose its original copyright for appearing as evidence. Is it published? Interesting question., though I would say not. No ISBN, not sold, no copy given to the national library.

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

Page image not showing[edit]

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

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

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

A problem has arisen,

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

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

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