Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2011-10

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

Announcements

Looks like Wikisource Mobile is active

I was just over reading the Wikimedia blog, and the talk about the mobile service and examples. From my experimentation with their url scheme, our pages now seem active the mobile service, not that I have the ability to view it from a mobile device. It still is professed to being in beta.

From a normal PC, our main page is slightly problematic

Though from a quick look the other pages seem to work okay

It would be great for those who have relevant devices if they were able to undertake some review and provide feedback, especially to how well our page widths work, the relevant headers, etc. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

To note that those who utilise secure login will notice that the script that converts the urls, doesn't work for that, not that people will generally use the secure connection for a mobile view. :-( — billinghurst sDrewth 11:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Due to the virtual non-display of the main page, I have raised a bugzilla at bugzilla:31035, especially as I am not sure where else to raise such questions; and to note that I created http://en.m.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page/sandbox — billinghurst sDrewth 12:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We get to configure what and how our main page displays for the mobile service as per the instructions at m:Mobile Projects/Mobile Gateway#Mobile_homepage

I just added a few selectors to the main page and checked from my android, it looks OK here. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Image filter

meta:Requests for comment/Image filter on Wikisource, still under construction, is intended to gauge whether Wikisource should be subject to the image filter "feature" which the WMF Board of Trustees resolution said should apply to all projects. mail:wikisource-l, mail:foundation-l, oldwikisource and dewp have been notified. --John Vandenberg (chat) 08:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposals

Authorize Crats to promote for all sysop rights

Currently Crats can promote to sysop but cannot promote to some of the subordinate rights, e.g. Transwiki Importer. This doesn't make any sense. See this discussion: Wikisource:Administrators'_noticeboard#Allocate_transwiki_importer_rights. I propose we grant crats the power and authority to grant any unbundled right that is included in sysop rights.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 09:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC) To clearly state the proposal:

That bureaucrats shall be authorized to grant all unbundled rights that are normally part of the bundled sysop rights and that a bugzilla shall be submitted to enable this right
I believe that 'crats should be able to make and implement a local decision to implement the rights, not rely on repeated individual concensuses. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Where can I find a definitive listing of all the subordinate/unbundled rights that are being referred to in the proposal? -- 18:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Special:ListGroupRights, but to summarize it would be only Wikisource:Importers and Wikisource:Transwiki importers, only the latter of which is really ever used(the group Wikisource:Importers, which has no members, has an additional right importupload, which admins do not have; so it is not included here). All other local rights except CheckUser and Oversight can be granted by either admins or crats (crats can grant crat rights); though removal of sysop and crat requires a steward - as on most WMF projects. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know. Seems like 'crats should at least be members with those rights themselves before handing out a bit that currently appears they cannot supersede or undo if the need ever arises, no? I'm probably not getting the "larger" picture here -- especially in light of the request directly to a steward being answered within an hour or so. Undecided for the moment. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
If the crats are admins, then they do have them. These are unbundled admin rights, in other words, they come as part of the admin package. :) Undoing an import though is a bit of work; but the point is to be able to give trusted users; some of whom may be on and off visitors from other projects who have no need for full sysop rights, transwiki importer rights if they need them.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, the rights are enabled and can be given but currently require a steward for no good reason.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I see no issue with giving bureaucrats the ability to assign specialized rights; localized, quicker responses seem like benefits. And we will most likely be watching anyway; I don't see a large potential for any abuse. - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I only see the Steward-enabled user listed as a member of that (import-transwiki) rights group see here. So until I see an actual 'crat, step up, explain the need, demonstrate the function/process and signs off on what their role, rights and/or responsibilities will be moving forward, I reamin unconvinced for the time being. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
GO3, I think you are confusing the right with the group; we're talking about an unbundled right which means it's part of the whole package of rights that admins get. No admin has any need to be a member of the group because every one has that right. You have to look at Special:ListGroupRights and compare the rights. The right, called Import pages from other wikis (import), belongs to three groups: Transwiki importers (as their sole right), Importers (which has no members), and Admins. It's the same as if you were to look at the list of autopatrolled users you wouldn't see my name - because when BirgitteSB promoted me she removed that express right. You had the same but you added the right back in on your own. But I still have autopatrolled rights and your addition of the right to you did nothing. At the same time, I do note that admins do not have the "importupload" right, so I guess I have to modify my response above to LJB, this would only include "Transwiki importer".--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Alrighty! ..that makes a lot more sense when you break it down by the bit's name vs. the current group(s) membership (told you I was missing the "larger" picture). Thanks. While being an 'auto-patroler' with or without actually displaying membership isn't exactly the same as the ability to merge edit histories, usurp existing article names (if newer) and the possible importation a bunch of foreign templates to our existing lot, I realize this is not so absurd a premise as it first appeared to be now. As long as 'crats continue to exercise good judgement (i.e. a request made by a sysop, etc. elsewhere and not some interloper trying to save their "work" recently deemed un-hostable no matter the Wiki in question), I guess it makes sense. If they feel having the ability left up to their discretion is a benefit, not an additional undue burden of some sort, then I'll abide by that consensus if it's reached. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. Yes, I agree, it isn't the same as auto-patroller, which is why this isn't being proposed for admins to grant. It can make a real mess of things but admins use it successfully and I expect it would be normally granted only "visiting admins" from other projects (like User:Jarekt, the only one to currently hold the unbundled right) or users who could be admins locally but don't want to be.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 10:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Looking at Special:ListGroupRights shows the complete list of rights. I believe that the argument is along the lines that if our bureaucrats are able to assign the rights to be an admin, the argument is that they should be able to assign the components of sub-rights. It is an implicit argument that it would be via an agreed process of the community, similar to the agreement that we reach for auto-patrol rights which admins can assign. The argument is about the ability, and that should precede the argument about the process. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm also currently 'unconvinced', I'm aware of a bureaucrat (not at en.ws) that I don't think should be able to grant this. The discussion about the process should precede the ability, as with other implementation at this smaller sister, this seems to lead 'in principle objections' being twisted to 'personalisation' when the individual examples arise. User A acquiring a tool might be unobjectionable, they are trustworthy and nobody blinks, but without proper process User B can argue that they satisfy the same criteria and should automatically be granted this on request. The position of some Users is that what happens elsewhere ("another country, and besides...") has no bearing on their standing at the site—what are euphemistically called 'experimental accounts and actions'—but this tool is directly related to users' cross-wiki activities.

Clarification: Bureaucrats enable increased access, user to sysop, by acting on the community's consensus through a well understood and established process. They don't have the "power and authority" to grant sysop tools per se.

Queries: do 'crats at other sites, en.wp for example, have this ability? Is it a "bug" that 'crats at wikisources, or anywhere else, are unable to do this? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

  • No, it has apparently never been granted to crats on any project; exactly why is unclear but I suspect that early on the "importer" group held only the importupload right and transwiki import didn't exist; when transwiki import was created and the right confusingly named import, the right was given to the "importer" group; the admin group, and the new transwiki importer group; but that's conjecture; both rights have been around quite a while and relatively unused as admins are able to do transwiki importing. My concern with the current system is that stewards have much less understanding of what constitutes consensus on a wikisource. Consensus on here is a bit different from consensus on say, old.ws or la.ws. Local crats can best judge consensus here and local crats are much easier to deal with if they mess it up. There is little permanent damage that can be done (pretty much limited to an unintentional history merge - which is a pain to undo but not impossible).
  • It also results in a self-perpetuating lack of these rights, since they can't be awarded locally, almost nobody ever gets nominated for them. If they could be awarded locally, there would likely be more of them. These are backwater rights, on en.wp no user holds this right independent of admin rights (1 user has importupload rights) and few admins even know they have the rights; there is one active importer (Graham87), importing from the notalgia.wikipedia archive and every once in a while someone imports a foreign article the right way (of the past 1000 imports on en.wp, I count 3 not by Graham87); but since so few people have this right, users frequently import the wrong way (copy/paste or the old method of exporting to transwiki space - which simply creates work for others).
I disagree with the above assessment because the facts do not support the only known instance were this issue was put to a test. You, a sysop, went to a steward on behalf of another sysop from a sister Wiki with this request and was granted the right within an hour of first making the request. Your inference is that there is some 'hole' in the Wiki structure thats hurting us somehow. I just don't see it. Until there is a history of failed nominations or requests for this ability, in addition to examples of what's being proposed for importation to en.WS, I don't believe a current desire to enact a new policy over a single instance matches an actual need for a change overall in the current practice and/or policy. Again, I'm not totally convinced this proposal is even neccessary without some actual 'crat input on the matter first. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Unless one of our crats were to say that he or she really needs this ability you wouldn't consider giving it to them? The whole thing was inspired in large part by Z's comments about not understanding why he couldn't promote. Maybe one of the 2.5 crats will see this thread; but I don't really see their lack of comment to be relevant.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I won't make up my mind on half-conversation, inuendo or conjecture on the part of a few individuals based one single incident that wasn't really an incident but an untested trial-run that had the desired results within an hour. So in the end; yes, the best you'll get out of me is no comment even if after I see a 'crat lobby for, outline the reasoning, illustrate the process and accept the new responsibilies involved takes place. Without it, after a good amount of time wisely passes of course, I can only interpret 'deafening silence' on thier part as a negative. Sorry. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • However, the right is actually quite useful; the main purpose is importing templates, which are cc-by/gfdl significant and should not be copy/pasted. Recent imports here include the import of {{book}} from commons and the import of {{cat}} from en.wp. But the right is also useful for importing pages when a multilingual work is transcribed on one subdomain and the pages are being moved here, either deleting them on the sending wiki and replacing with {{iwpage}} or maintaining them independently at both subdomains due to different formatting standards.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 13:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Responses to Proposal

That bureaucrats shall be authorized to grant all unbundled rights that are normally part of the bundled sysop rights and that a bugzilla shall be submitted to enable this right

There isn't a lot that can be changed, and we have previously discussed and ruled out the rollback option, so can we just be specific if we are looking at wording, That bureaucrats shall be authorised to grant "Transwiki importers" rights, as per conditions that the community will set down from time to time; and that a bugzilla shall be submitted to allow such allocation of rights. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, when I first proposed it I was of the mistaken belief that it also included the importer group which has the additional importupload right. It does not. I also thought there might have been others, I hadn't really inventoried them yet. If any other rights are ever carved off, we can specifically allocate them to crats or sysops at that time.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 10:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Before we go about the technical hurtles to implement special admin rights, should we first have a community discussion to approve special admin rights? As I understand the proposal, the idea is to grant limited admin rights, presumably through the standard admin promotion process, but without the annual confirmation. Two questions below JeepdaySock (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
    1. If we trust the person with some rights, why would we not trust them with all rights?
    2. If the annual confirmation process is bypassed, how does the community 10 years from now track or withdraw specially granted admin powers?
    • I suppose, though this single unbundled right already exists on all wikis. To answer the questions:
      1. Again, I expect this right would normally be given to people who do cross-domain work but may be not active enough, not familiar enough with our deletion/protection polices, not fluent enough in English, or simply not interested enough, to be admins. User:Jarekt was a perfect example. A user like User:Candalua or User:VIGNERON might be good candidates too (emphasis on "might" because I'm only trying to come up with examples, I don't even know if they'd be interested and I'm certainly not trying to make nominations). To give an example elsewhere, I am active on four other subdomains, on one I'm an admin but on the others I really don't need that right and two of them (fr and de) I can't read the policies well enough nor communicate with other users sufficiently to be doing things like blocking and protecting; I could make an effective importer though. Obviously this is just an analogy, since I don't need the right here.
      2. Like all rights, a list of members of the group is available at Special:ListGroupRights. For this right the list is specifically here. I don't really imagine we'll have hundreds of such users, more like a couple dozen - if that - eventually.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 15:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Support, as described here: After a little IRC discussion with Doug, I think it's important to note that Doug is proposing two things:

  1. Bureaucrats should have the technical ability to add this unbundled right
  2. By policy, bureaucrats should only give it out under the right circumstances.

It appears the lack of clarity on #2 is the only thing holding anything up here. I suggest that we adopt #1, with the understanding that #2 is handled the same way as admin privileges. That will allow us to move forward now on something uncontroversial, and slightly reduce bureaucracy. If over time it seems cumbersome to go through all the bureaucracy of an RfA just for this one unbundled right, we can separately develop a streamlined process for this one unbundled right (much like en.wp did for rollbacker rights). -Pete (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

While, I think that the RfA process is more formal than this subordinate right requires, I did assume some consensus determining process, the point though is to get the ability turned over to local authorities. If Pete's suggestion will convince others, I'm fine by it for now, until the community can see how non-controversial this is through the benefit of hind-sight.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Doug, by way of explanation…I generally favor keeping decisions about technical matters separate from decisions about policy matter. I know it can seem needlessly complex from your perspective, when you understand all the issues. But I think it pays off by permitting participation by those of us on the periphery. I have a very hard time understanding all the ins and outs of what is discussed above; I believe by having two separate discussions, each about something focused and easy to understand, it will make it easier to present the issues in a way that helps more people understand and weigh in. -Pete (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


As currently phrased ("bureaucrats shall be authorized to grant all unbundled rights that are normally part of the bundled sysop rights"), the proposal implies that a bureaucrat could choose a random subset of rights from the sysop group, and grant that subset of rights to a user, irrespective of whether a user group exists for those rights. That is technically not possible, and I think not what is intended. What is intended is that bureaucrat shall be able to add users to any user group the rights of which are a subset of the sysop group's rights. Hesperian 23:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I can see the issue there. As the ".5" of the "2.5 crats" referenced above, do you have an opinion on the intent? ;-) --Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty thinking up a scenario where granting a subset of sysop rights is something that ought be excalated to a steward. Hesperian 06:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I take it then that you support the intent of the proposal to have this right awarded by crats?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 07:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I guess. I don't see it as a pressing matter, but I certainly see no reason to contest it. I'm not that big on boldfaced one-word summaries. Hesperian 09:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Hesperian, I think in this case an exception -- i.e., a boldfaced one word summary -- would be helpful. The perspective of bureaucrats has been explicitly sought out and there has been much speculation in the absence of input from 'crats. -Pete (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • If no one can locally revoke those rights, what is the point in allowing bureaucrats to assign specific sysop rights (rollback for example) without the ability to revoke them? That idea would only be followed by another community proposal to allow bureaucrats to revoke rights, something which could've been addressed in the first time. Btw, I still don't know if this proposal is regarding all unbundled rights, or only transwiki importer rights. —stay (sic)! 07:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • That's a valid point, I didn't include it because they don't have the right or the technical ability to revoke admin rights so we could easily grow this proposal into something it's not. I have no objection to, but no particular concern with, revocation. In an emergency a steward will be available and in a real emergency, transwiki importers, unlike admins, have no technical capability to unblock themselves; so there is little risk. But if others want it then it's fine.
  • The proposal was originally intended for all unbundled rights that could technically be individually assigned. However, it has come to my attention that the only such unbundled right (other than autoconfirmed - which can be assigned by admins) is transwiki importer. So, as a practical matter it only applies to transwiki importer and if other rights are later unbundled we can have this discussion about them then.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 08:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Probably, it has gotten too convoluted. Do we need two or just one with two parts (a: Under what terms we will authorize the rights, b: whether crats will be empowered to add (and probably remove) the flag)?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 10:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Regarding unbundled rights, it's only possible if we send a bugzilla request to the developers asking them to allow bureaucrats the technical ability to assign sysop bits individually or in smaller bundles. However that would require creating new user group rights. There was a similar case at the Russian-language Wikipedia, where several user groups unique to the project were created from unbundled sysop rights (such as autoreview, upload, movefile, suppressredirect, and delete).
  • However if we're only considering transwiki importer, we would still need to send a bugzilla request to the developers, so local bureaucrats would have the technical ability to grant (and maybe revoke) transwiki importer. The community can decide on the policy when to give out importer rights. —stay (sic)! 12:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I wasn't really ever thinking of us unbundling new rights based on this proposal, I was originally thinking (erroneously) that there were other rights that were currently unbundled, and that this would have future applicability too; but that's no longer relevant. I realize we'd need a bugzilla, that was mentioned at the top. I will start a new thread.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • On the "one proposal or two" question: I'm not as worried about this as my earlier comment probably indicated. As long as there is clarity in the initial writeup of what the proposed changes to tech and policy are, and how they relate to each other, I don't have any objection to them being in the same proposal. -Pete (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

BOT approval requests

Help

Other discussions

Table help please

Could someone create this table's (Page:Narrative of an Official Visit to Guatemala.djvu/474) format for me? I will add in the text.

Notify when done also, please. Thanks in advance. - Tannertsf (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Although I can't remember how to add continuous vertical lines. That's cosmetic, however, so it can be added later. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, thanks. It turned out pretty well with the numbers added - not too much of a deal to worry about. - Tannertsf (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Another nasty table to make - Page:Narrative of an Official Visit to Guatemala.djvu/496. I marked this proofread, so whoever does the table can validate it. Thanks. - Tannertsf (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

And another table - Page:Narrative of an Official Visit to Guatemala.djvu/533. But please just format - no adding in text please. - Tannertsf (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Also do the same for 532-539.djvu - Tannertsf (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've started the table for you on 532 and started the continuation on 533. Copy the table stuff in the header and footer on 533 on to the other pages. (It's going to be fun to validate this one, not.) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Another table for someone to please do: Page:Narrative of an Official Visit to Guatemala.djvu/546. Thanks.

Done Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone looking for a table challenge can have a go at Page:Philosophical_Transactions_-_Volume_002.djvu/44--T. Mazzei (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have come accross a similar problem with vertical text in a Table with vertically aligned text, but having searched around, it seems that vertically aligned text is not supported in HTML. The only way around this is to create an image in a spreadsheet and make an image of as suggested by w:Help:Table#Vertically oriented column headers.
In my view, the best solution is to create an image of these tables, and overlay it with the table in text form that is also transparent. The idea is that table format is dispalyed as it was intended to be seen, but a clear text can be copied from the overalay. I am not sure if this can be done - does anyone know of an example? ----Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
You can try to overlay text and image, however, my thoughts with these is that a table is a visual image, and generally not someone would search for, and you can spend a whole lot of time for a less than perfect representation. Being the lazy slob that I am, I would just take the image of the page from archive.org, trim it, clean it, upload it to Commons, and insert it. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I would not say laziness is the motivater, rather time management. Unless you get a lot of personal gratification overcoming the technical challenges, pasting in an image gives you the visual impact and leaves more time for improving other areas. Though there is something to be said for providing accessible content, which an image generally is not. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
That seems to be a reasonable solution, so I have followed your recomendation. ----Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

OCR

We had a discussion about the OCR button not working at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Just_Click there is also a brief discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Noob_Question:_Hidden_header.2Ffooters.3F. I have just started on Index:Latin for Beginners.djvu and find that most of the DjUv pages need to be OCRed. Any suggestions? JeepdaySock (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Use Index:Latin for beginners (1911).djvu instead. CYGNIS INSIGNIS
Thanks I will! Though we still have a problem with a dysfunctional OCR tool, in a web project that focuses on turning print to electronic. What do we need to do to get OCR working? If we can't get the button to work, should we remove it? Should fractured OCR projects like Index:Latin for Beginners.djvu but deleted and re-imported? JeepdaySock (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Phe says that Toolserver doesn't have a working version of tesseract. (I haven't got an answer of why or when) Re the file, if there is a specific replacement file available, then we just need to align the file page for page in the work, and then we can just upload that file over the type, and purge the file to present the text layer. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Phe says that Toolserver has changed its operating system, and there is no ready build for tesseract available for Solaris. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Then we should probably remove the OCR button, and references to it, unless we have some kind of plan for a fix. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
We can invert the gadget for OCR button to be off as the default, and put a note onto the gadget that is currently offline. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a great plan. Also remove "If no text layer is available, click the OCR button on the toolbar. " from edit page header (i.e. Editing Page:Xxxxx). JeepdaySock (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Inductiveload has changed the gadget to off by default, the text to Jeepday's suggestion, is yet to be done. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
MediaWiki:Newarticletext has been updated: the OCR instructions are commented out, and can be easily reinstated when the time comes. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 15:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This is good but it doesn't seem to affect users who have already set up their preferences. I can easily turn it off but users who aren't very active or who only recently set their preferences may yet have no idea, unless they see this thread. Why don't we simply turn it off? Since it's not functioning there is absolutely no reason for anyone to have it turned on.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 08:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Good choice. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Making one of the layouts the default, again

Hello,

For a long time i wanted to define one of the layouts (1/2/3) as the default layout for a particular page. In May User:Prosody made it possible to make this on a per-user basis. (See the discussion from May.)

I've been using it since then and i am happy about it. Is it possible to make this the default for all readers? I am mostly concerned about the anonymous readers of the books here. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Also this. I would like to see the option available too. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
The provided fix is hopefully well enough explained in the linked discussion; I'd be happy to make any requested changes. Regarding the question of whether this should be done (which doesn't seem to have been brought up much), so far as I can tell, no one has suggested breaking layout agnosticity (i.e. there should never be a case in which something displays in a broken manner on any of the official layouts), but rather that some works are best suited for particular layouts--IIRC the initial impetus of this was a work that had extensive sidenotes, which look a bit kludgy on layout 1 owing to the lack of hard margins. The way I configured the fix, if the user actually fiddles around with the layout setting, then it will take precedence, even over page-specific default overrides. Prosody (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, so... is anyone opposed to enabling it for anonymous users? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
That solution never fully panned out for me and (to be honest) forgot all about it. There is, however, another contribution in the current Proposals section above that appears to accomplish the same results for me that you've been enjoying all along. Take a look and maybe we can merge (or contrast?) the two efforts somehow. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

A missing PSM image problem

Due to multiple publications of the same volume of PSM, this image File:PSM V32 D469-154 The panama canal route.jpg, which exists on my downloaded Internet Archive copy FROM HERE is omitted from our .djvu copy. It would be between the pages 468 and 469. What can be done about this, so that the .djvu number order is not disturbed?— Ineuw talk 14:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Note.- The two .djvu numbers in the image name are only to indicate to me that there are two articles about the Panama Canal in volume 32.

  • Does it belong between those two pages? Or was it merely an insert and that's where it ended up and where it was scanned but it could go anywhere? If the former, it would probably be best to upload the version you have over the version that is currently on commons and renumber the pages; it's not very hard and there is a script if there are really a lot of pages.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, renumbering the .djvu pages is not an option. There are numerous images from Volume 32 in which the original .djvu numbers are part of the image name. those images have already been transcluded into Wikisource. Also the Table of Contents and the Index at the back of the volume have been completed.
I was considering, if permitted, replacing an existing blank page at the beginning or at the end of the volume.— Ineuw talk 20:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
If you don't want to renumber/reupload anything, I would simply insert the image into the Page List, like so:
<pagelist  from=1 to=468  1="Cvr" 2To7="Blk" 8="Img" 9="Cvr" 10="Blk" 11=1 271="Blk" 272="Img" 273=261 413="Img" 414="Blk" 415=401 />
[[Page:PSM_V32_D469-154_The_panama_canal_route.jpg|Img]]
<pagelist from=469 to=918  469=455 565="Img" 566="Blk" 567=551 711="Img" 712="Blk" 713=695 851="Img" 852="Blk" 853=833 885To894="Idx" 895To912="Adv" 913To917="Blk" 918="Cvr" />

--T. Mazzei (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

T. Mazzei, I did as you recommended and I am very impressed :-). However it's not actually inserted between the two pages when one paginates through. Nevertheless, it's a great solution. Now, I must remember to insert it in the Main namespace pages as well. Thanks. — Ineuw talk 02:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

National Exam forms

Hello.

A group of Wikipedians from Kenya are interested in collecting and making available national exam forms in a variety of disciplines, from multiple years, to help students prepare and study for those exams. They are looking to partner with the relevant government bodies and to get those exams released under a free license. Assuming they can do it, is Wikisource a good place to host such documents? Ijon (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I would think that it sits at a grey edge of what Wikisource includes. They are not historic documents. Are they considered published (in an official sense)? I would think that if they are in the public domain, one of the WMF sites should be hosting them, and it would be a jiggle to see which site they would sit closest, and it may be here, or it may be at Wikiversity: as an extension of that scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Thinking a little further, if it is static document/work, then it probably more aligns here than Wikiversity, so that would come down to getting it to be public domain, and a consideration that it is a published work. Personally, I can see the value, and having the wider discussion in the community for aligning these works to Wikisource. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Assuming PD it would/could fall under Documentary sources as such would be appropriate for Wikisource. Given the nature of the documents DjVu scan should be used to verifying the source content. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I suspect the content is not PD by law, and, at best, could be released as CC-by-sa, not PD. Does that preclude it from being inclusion in Wikisource? Also, could you elucidate what you mean by your comment about DjVu? Ijon (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
We'd need a scan of the documents. DjVu is a particular file format that is popular here and works well for side-by-side viewing of the pages during transcription of the scans, though other formats work too. Don't worry about it. What is the current format of the images? PDF? They can be converted and if they were generated as PDFs originally rather than scanned, the PDFs may have the precise text in a 'text layer' that can be used without having to actually transcribe anything.
Yes, I know the DjVu file format, but I didn't understand what you meant by "verifying the source content". It is yet unclear what format the forms would be made available in. We hope for text documents in some format (DOC etc.), but may have to settle for PDF, or at worst paper originals we'd have to scan ourselves. It is TBD. Ijon (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe JeepdaySock simply means that we need scans so that we can see what the documents actually say, thereby "verifying" the content is what the actual documents contain. That's all. There's no particular reason that it would need to be DjVu.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
What is the theory under which these are CC-BY-SA or PD? We can accept CC-BY-SA, but nothing less.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Many countries (but not the US), assume state copyright (sometimes known as "Crown Copyright") on materials produced "by the state", e.g. national exam forms. Thus they are copyrighted (i.e. non-PD) by default. Through fiat, however, they could be released under CC-by-sa; it is usually more complicated, legally, to make them PD by fiat (some jurisdictions don't even allow dedicating a work to the public domain under any circumstances). Ijon (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
If the Kenyan government will release them under PD or CC-BY-SA then we can host them here; assuming there's consensus that this is the right place, I take no position on that yet.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with this. If a suitable license can be arranged and confirmed, I think these files are within our remit (though I'd prefer to make a final judgement once they are uploaded to Commons). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 23:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

TOC navigation

Is there a way that a more easily-navigable TOC could be constructed that would start off looking like this:

CONTENTS

I. ENGLAND

II. SCOTLAND

III. IRELAND

IV. CANADA


...but once a section is clicked on, it would be expanded to:

III. IRELAND

Norreys Jephson O'Conor Moira's Keening 58
Winifred M. Letts The Connaught Rangers 59
Lieutenant T. M. Kettle A Song of the Irish Armies 60


...Because the Table of Contents for this text is realllly long. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You could have a look at {{Collapsible list}}. It's not really designed for this purpose but might work. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I started to sandbox the idea, but when going through the process, realized how clunky it would be... Maybe some sort of columned navigation box (like a Page toc box) that I can place before the transcluded toc pages...? I'll think it out some more. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I've been using {{AuxTOC}} to create "artificial" tables of contents. Artificial in the sense that they aren't in the original publication but are necessary or just really useful for navigation on Wikisource. You could put the template at the top of transcluded contents to just provide the necessary page links and leave the long list to cover individual poems. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
OK. I created one in my sandbox; questions being, should I condense it somehow (columns)? where to place it in the main...? etc. without making it an eyesore... Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

See {{CTOC-title}} and associated templates, for a collapsible table of contents. Example: Template:CTOC-title-nl 

 Template:CTOC-content-nl
 Template:CTOC-content-nl
 Template:CTOC-content-nl
 Template:End

Template:CTOC-title-nl 

 Template:CTOC-content-nl
 Template:End

Template:CTOC-title-nl 

 Template:CTOC-content-nl
 Template:End

Template:CTOC-title-nl 

 Template:CTOC-content-nl
 Template:End

--T. Mazzei (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That does look more like what I had in mind... I'll take a closer look at the template page/formatting too, not being familiar with it. Thanks all for your suggestions. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Yikes! I usually don't mind tedious work, but if I have to retype in each line of author/poem/page no., I might rethink my thinking... Is there no way to work with the {{CTOC-title}} template by merely copying/pasting the already-existing section tables into the formatting (I tried tweaking with it already, and I couldn't make it work... The template doesn't seem to like tables residing within it... but I'm technically challenged)?? <crossing fingers> Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
You are not
^ technically challenged, you can't (at least not easily) pass a table into a template. That's why I had to reformat with inline blocks.--T. Mazzei (talk) 05:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
You should have emphasized the "are" as in "You are technically challenged!" No secret there! I consider myself smart that I even know the difference between a template and a table! wink A copyist of the worst kind, but I muddle through with lots of help! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Oops, there was supposed to be a "not" in that sentence...--T. Mazzei (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Parapraxis :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Isn't an option to directly make your table class="collapsible collapsed"? So you do not have to re-write the whole table. I am also currently using {{AuxTOC}} approach to create "artificial" TOCs mentioned above but as soon as I have time I'll try this and let you know. --Mpaa (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
It's all Greek to me! I anxiously await :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Take a look here if this is what your are looking for (Illustrations). Note also that the table is broken across pages in the original. I created this page to avoid to have this long list in the main page of the book. If this method works, I will bring the table where it belongs and delete this "artificial" page. --Mpaa (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I think I created what you did in my sandbox. Is there a way to make the font size normal, however? Plus, there's probably some formatting in the collapsible collapsed "instructions" such as colspan maybe that isn't necessary for my purposes? I don't know what I'd need there...Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I took the freedom to modify your Sandbox. Colspan=3 is to center the title with the rest of the table, which has 3 cols. --Mpaa (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! That looks great! I'll work on applying it soon. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Mpaa, do you see how sections are split between pages here? How can I reconcile that when formatting the TOC Index:Pages compared with how you formatted for your Illustrations Page(s) (which was only one 'section'—with no issue with multiple sections being split among some Pages)? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure I understood what is the problem. If you refer to the fact that tables are broken when transcluded in the Mainspace, follow these rules How to split a table across many Page: pages so they transclude neatly into one from User:Inductiveload.--Mpaa (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I might not be explaining myself right, but I'll take a look at your link in a bit—it might answer my question... Thank you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiSource and Commons Hosted in India

Hello,

There is currently a discussion about creating a local Wikisource for documents which may not be published on Wikisource. This includes supporting Wikilivres which is currently hosted in Canada. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the topic could be bigger then just India, what about local chapters in other countries? JeepdaySock (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, if it's going to include Wikilivres in Canada as well as a Commons-equivalent in India, they could try to team up with other Commonwealth chapters (Wikimedia Canada for a start, not to mention Wikimedia UK, Wikimedia Australia etc). I'm not familiar with the process for proposals like this, can we post this suggestion on their discussion page or is their some other procedure? Do they even want suggestions? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Factual error in the proposal. It states that Wikisource can only host works that are in the public domain in both US and home country. As we only required public domain in the US, to my understanding there has been little restrictions on public domain Indian works being hosted on Wikisource. We are restricted from having those files at Commons but that does not restrict us having the files at WS, and especially not the text. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I left a note on both things with Wikimedia India. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand or agree; only works PD in India in 1996 (life + 50 at the time? thus died before 1946?) or works published before 1923 would be eligible.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
As far as I understand the situation Wikilivres will remain Wikilivres, only owned by Wikimedia India. Its eligibility and utility will stay as they are. The Commons-equivalent will be Indian. There is a chance they will want a completely Indian India-based Indian-law-using Source-equivalent (rather than Wikilivres) just in case there is something PD in India but not in Canada (it's possible but I don't know when that would occur). However, none of these options will have anything to do with US law, being based in India and/or Canada rather than the USA. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Is de.wikisource cheating?

When looking on last month figures (here), we saw that de.wikisource is the only domain where the number of "empty pages" does not rise. Even more, it diminishes... Normally, with new books added, new "empty pages" should appeared. On every domain (big ones [en, fr] and a bit smaller, recently using the proofreading tool [it, pl, es, etc]), "empty pages" represent an important amount of pages: generally about 1 page for 10 proofread+validated pages. The number of "empty pages" on de.wikisource should then be 15.000-20.000, and not 2.000 as it is now. I am not surprised that nobody can reach them... This book, for example, has numerous "empty pages" that have been marked as "fertig" (validated). Isn't de.wikisource using the same page-proofreading-tool than us, or is it cheating? 208.77.19.7 22:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

At a glance I did not find any empty pages, but did find that empty pages in the example where not created example http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Seite:De_Zerstreute_Bl%C3%A4tter_IV_%28Herder%29_003.jpg JeepdaySock (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
They are not difficult to find: here, or here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. Of course, they are "fertig". 208.77.19.7 13:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
These pages were created and marked as ready (="fertig") when there was no category "Sofort fertig" (=ready without any further correctors). Usually new created, empty pages are now marked as "Sofort fertig". But this category is not the same like "empty pages", it also includes pictures and sometimes very short texts. --Dorades (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC) P. S.: The german wikisource has no strict rules about that.
All right. But, if so, why not transform the model "Leereseite" into "Sofort fertig" ? 208.77.19.7 17:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Cheating? ProofreadPage (prP) is just one tool to get texts online. The stats are the stats, just a measure of progress. As each wiki designs its own rules around the use of PrP and the page status, they are not that directly related, just indicative. Any competition between wikis is purely a jestful rivalry, and we truly do work together. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
How is it possible that the number of "empty pages" diminishes? Honestly, I do not understand... I guess you're right; de.wikisource must not be using the same rules than other domains. I heard some people saying that de.wikisource was the most efficient and trustful... I am not so sure of that now. But this is a matter of rivalry, as you said. I imagine a bot could easily transform every page with "WS: Diese Seite ist ohne Eintragungen" into "empty page"; maybe is de.wikisource afraid of doing this? Meanwhile, de.wikisource should not have 2.000 "empty pages", this is ridiculous. It must be the reason why the number is diminishing: "empty pages" are systematically transformed into "validated". 208.77.19.7 13:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the page status system in the German department requires second and third users to verify that the page is 'without text', or decide whether the marbling on the end papers ought to be transcluded [1]. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where they have a selection comparable to our "/* Without text */", When I translate from here {{LeereSeite}} I get "blank Page" [2], Not exactly sure what other help the English Wikisource project can be to your question. JeepdaySock (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there is this category. That's it, 2.060 pages. Not big, uh? and not very fair play. Meanwhile, de.wikisource just hit 100.000 validated pages. I guess we should say "Congratulations"... 208.77.19.7 10:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I sampled ten pages in this cat and got ten empty pages marked as empty. Beside that I see than de:Seite:Braunschweig Lüneburg (Merian) 347.jpg is marked as empty, does en.ws mark empty page containing image ? — Phe 00:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, this 2.000 pages category is the "empty pages" category. En.wikisource or fr.wikisource have 25.000-45.000 "empty pages"... The logical number on de.wikisource should be about 20.000. I do not know about the pictures; I guess that every wikisource marks some as "empty", others as "corrected", because there is no clear instruction. But "empty pages" is a clear instruction! Besides, de.wikisource does not mark every picture as "empty", too: example. It would be very easy, I think, for a bot to transform every page containing "WS: Diese Seite ist ohne Eintragungen" or "Leereseite", into "empty page"; why don't they do that? 208.77.19.7 15:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Simply question: WHY? We don't care about such international statistics :-) --Jmb1982 (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Simple question: WHY NOT? Why not using a bot to transform every page containing "WS: Diese Seite ist ohne Eintragungen" or "Leereseite" into "Sofort Fertig"? That would be easy and fair play. 208.77.19.7 01:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
If your question is why the German Wikisource don't do something that you think they should be doing, then you're on the wrong site. This is the English Wikisource. Hesperian 01:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't speak german. If someone could ask them... 208.77.19.7 17:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Die Gartenlaube (1874) Seite 415 f. e. is a picture marked with "sofort fertig": Die Gartenlaube (1867) Seite 221 is the second page of 1 double-page-pic, which is shown at once on page 220. The content is shown at the page before. That all means, those pages, marked with "sofort fertig" (Kategorie:Sofort fertig) are normally not always empty. "Sofort fertig" means: nobody is needed to correct twice. And the answer to your question is: "No. de.wikisource is'nt cheating!" Zabia (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to agree with you; but how do you explain that on every (large) wikisource about 1/10 page (25.000-45.000 on en and fr!!) is an "empty page", but there are only 2.000 on de.wikisource? 208.77.19.7 19:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Please take the discussion to de:Wikisource:Skriptorium. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
But that wouldn’t change anything, because the category is named sofort fertig (immediately ready)—not leere Seite (empty page). This very important fact is overseen in this discussion since the very first post. In my opinion, 208.77.x.y should suggest that every page from a multipage file (pdf, djvu) needs to be marked as fertig by a bot as soon as one page is fertig—because one page on Wikisource equals one file on commons equals all all pages on Wikisource that use this file … ;) --René Mettke (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how this refutes 208's point. 208's question makes just as much sense if it is phrased "Why is the number of 'immediately ready' pages so low and continually falling?" Hesperian 00:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see either. The number of these 'immediately ready' pages is not falling anymore, but nobody can explain why it is so bizarrely low... 208.77.19.7 19:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The number was falling because some pages got deleted (empty backsides of image pages). A reason for a slow rising might be, that some of the empty pages aren’t even created (f.e. this page is the backside of the book title and is not even included in the pages counted in Roman numerals), while other pages never received a status change (this page from the same book was immediately set 'ready' by the first editor before there was the 'immediately ready' state).
If you want to change that, you should discuss it at the German Wikisource, as billinghurst and Hesperian already suggested it. (If you don’t speak German just drop your question in standard Oxford English.) --René Mettke (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The stats aren't relevant to us. We shouldn't and don't really care. But to explain what is happening, de.ws does many, many things differently. Relevant to your question, they don't normally create blank pages at all. Normally, the pages at the beginning and end of a work are not created and not even displayed in the index. Also, because of rules they have about the size of works, frequently an index will only show selections of a work, for example, this is a 600+ page work, and there are blank pages before and after the sections shown here: de:Index:Nietzsche's_Werke,_VIII.djvu. Additionally, many works on de.ws have no index at all. They are supported by a scan directly, such as this work: de:Am_leuchtenden_Sommermorgen. I don't have stats, but I believe it's extremely rare on de.ws to set up an entire index based on a djvu file and even then editors would likely ignore the blank pages. It's just a different way of doing things. If you don't understand how they do things there, you should ask over there on a help page rather than assuming they are cheating on a meaningless statistic here. This 1) is not a problem for en.ws, 2) is not a problem for anyone, and 3) isn't something en.ws can do anything about. Even if all those things were not so, who cares about how many blank pages another project has? Or even how many we have here? Of magnitudes of greater importance is how many mainspace pages en.ws has supported by scans and how many pages we have transcribed - and the latter is only meaningful if those pages actually have something on them. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 08:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
The problem is not about "how many blank pages another project has", but about the fact that many blank pages, like this one given by René Mettke, were directly marked as "Fertig". I think it's not fair, and that it would at least be very easy to automatically marked them as "empty". It seems that they don't want to do that simple thing... 208.77.19.7 19:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Fair to whom? You are free to change them (though you'd need an account and to be autoconfirmed, and some might see such trivial edits as disruptive). You could also post in English on the Skriptorium, they've started a thread on this thread at de:Wikisource:Skriptorium#Leere_Seiten. That's really where your questions belong. I fail to see the value though. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Advice on text and images

Hi. I need some advice on how to render pages like this. As there are dynamic layouts, I guess the result will change depending on the layout the reader will choose. Otherwise, the option is to fix the width of the page (e.g. 400px) and size and place floating images accordingly.
Is it worthwhile spending time trying to place imagese where they belong in the book? Or is it better to take shortcuts and interleave text and images, arbitrarily breaking the text with common sense but losing the original 'loook and feel'? --Mpaa (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

After experimenting with various methods, I am using a predefined table "template" for floating images and their captions, if any. Below is the generic layout which includes the left or right float, over or under caption, and I delete the unwanted declaration and rows.

If you are new to the {{Table style}} (ts) template abbreviations, you can find their definitions here:Template:Table style. 

{|width="200" {{ts|sm85|ml5|line-height:95%;|flr}}
{|width="200" {{ts|sm85|mr5|line-height:95%;|fll}}
|{{ts|ac|sc}}|
|-
|[[File:|frameless|200px|]]
|-
|{{ts|ac|sc}}|
|}
I used this template innumerable times where it is required, and as an example I am applying it to the page you mentioned above. I hope this helps. — Ineuw talk 07:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
That looks good! Thanks. --Mpaa (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up from bug triage

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2011-August/054882.html

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/21653 -- Creating a PDF with collection
    extension does not render the <pages> tag hook from proofread page
    extension

    At first, I didn't understand why this was needed.  Luckily
    helderwiki from ptwikibooks was in the triage and was able help me
    understand its real need.

    Ralf Schmitt (a PP developer) said he would work on this if time
    permits.

Which sounds like a big thanks to Helder.wiki (talk • contribs) for being present and offering experience. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Unsanctioned gadgetisation of edittools

Can someone please point me to the discussion where it was agreed that the edittools would be turned off and only restored via Preferences:Gadgets—and the beta Gadgets at that? If there was no discussion can those responsible please urgently restore things to the status quo until it has been discussed? Urgent = NOW. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW... I think I've found at least part of the "discussion" on this here. Not sure if that's all that took place though. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Grr, mumble, mutter. It's not much of a discussion. It could at least have been announced on here. Also, the fact that IPs and those of us who don't have "custom preferences" end up with it turned off until a bug can be sorted is not acceptable. I now see that there is an announcement at the top of my Watchlist in the section called "Watchlist options"—not at all obvious and pointless for IPs and those who are relatively new to enWS. I'll go and request that it is temporarily de-gadgetised until bug fix. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to work for me at Preferences:Gadgets. However, I'll keep trying when I should be editing.Daytrivia (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I've checked and unchecked "Collapse the list of special characters in the edit tools area to a menu." but nothing. Daytrivia (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Ditto. No collapsing on first open nor any ability to manually collapse showing here either. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Have you guys tried to clear out your cache by doing a hard refresh in the edit screen? In Firefox, it is Control F5. I heard that works for some people. I just thought I would try and help. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
To make it work, I had to turn both gadgets on (last two check boxes on Gadgets page). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that... seems they are not all that independent of each other. Finally figured out I had to remove a previous override of sorts on I what guess amounts to "load order" in my User .js file and the menu now collapses by default with both options in Preferences enabled too. I wish it was restored to the previous 'cause now almost every other customization in place loads slower for me. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Beeswaxcandle. Daytrivia (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys, it's been restored to the default edittools (but the collapser is still a gadget). Could you describe exactly what the problems you had were? Was it not turning on the right gadget (i.e. lack of clear labelling in the gadget window), not refreshing the cache or something else entirely? You can't collapse the edittools without first loading them, so the second option naturally depends on the first.
Really? I'd believe you if the opposite didn't seem to be true everywhere else. Its pretty clear a handful at best prefered it be a full table on first-open and that is what brought all this about. The poor documentation just tripped you up is all. ;-Þ
I meant what was it that fixed it for you? Was it not clear enough that you needed to enable the Edittools before you could collapse them? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 15:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
After trying to enable one gadget, then the other followed by both - I was stumped and moved on (of course I had that remnant coming to life whereas it didn't seem to do anything before; tools were present and always collapsed). After Bees had some luck doing the same, I took another look at my 'personals' and found that remnant. I still didn't understand why I needed to collapse something that always came collapsed before and is collapsed for the most part everywhere else so I still enabled just the one and not both at first - no luck. Only after going back and enabling both did I get back what I had been seeing prior to your changes. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
G03, that JS you had was specifically designed to try to prevent the Edittools collapsing in the first place.
Beats me. Not a caching issue though - that much is sure here. I just follow you folks around, peek at what youse got in your happy little worlds and copy it. If it works - fine. If it doesn't - fine. I'm tired of trying to make sense of what goes on around here any more to be honest. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
That's what it was for (or at least that what I was trying to do when I wrote that line, but it didn't work). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 15:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
As for speed, could you be more specific? The Edittools are loaded by the gadget on page load. Every other customisation that fires "on load" should happen just as before. Exactly when do you notice the lag? Are your other things loading after Edittools? If so, which browser?
<shrug> Like I know? Speed is nearly back where it was before best as I can tell but at first even the skin (monobook)loading was hit or miss, the button .pngs where not always dropping in and edits took awhile to preview/save. The only thing that's out of whack now is the Recent changes Special page only loads the background and the link filed box at the top. That's happened before though. I've walked away and when I come back; its normal again.
Which browser are you using? It could be an artefact of how the JS is handled. It was working in Firefox and Chrome according to four people, but if you or others had issues, we can look for the defect. The latter part is nothing to do with Edittools, because this code only happens on an "edit" or "submit" (preview) action, which isn't happening at Special:RecentChanges.Inductiveload—talk/contribs 15:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry about it - gives me a reason not to patroll for a bit. What you say about being edit- or submit-specific makes sense so its not related As before, it'll come back sooner or later. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Fixed -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I apologise for the confusion. I had expected the Gadgets API to work as documented and become default. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 14:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to adjust the Edittools for now, you can do it at MediaWiki:Edittools, which is where the table is loaded from. MediaWiki:Gadget-Edittools-data will not now be loaded unless you do it manually though your own JS. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 15:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

See, that makes no sense to me. The "standard suite" & Wikisource-specific should always be provided automatically (if not by default-"on" via preferences) as previously designed to, what I believed to be, the accepted common practice Wiki-wide... but should be independent (data-wise?) from anything that may or may not follow it; collapsed or not; default "on" or not, tool-wise if possible.

If its not possible to "split" the universal edit-tools & data from the semi-customized edit-tools & data (a bit confusing btw; all I see are character sets) due to MW limitations or whatever, then imo the whole thing should be left as it was and the expanded table display feature should be the per user preference-option needed to override the default (a collapsed state), not the other way around. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Well, the previous JS was a custom add-on by Pathoschild to collapse the edittools which used to be a big uncollapsed table. However, by adding it to the common.js, it became impossible to prevent it collapsing (you even added code to explicitly designed to prevent it to your JS, unsuccessfully). This gadget was supposed to allow the user to be able to turn it off at will so that you can reach, say, æ and é without clicking though a menu, which is a pain if you have a work which uses more than one character set (like Pinyin Chinese, which can have macros, accents, circumflexes, carons, umlauts and even over-dots sometimes). It was intended to not require changing your preferences by a default-on setting, but as I said, that won't be available until the 1.18 upgrade this month, which I and others were unaware of being an issue (though one MW guy said he might backport that feature to 1.17 because so many wikis want it). To get round it, you'd could load the JS by default and then use more JS to override it on a gadget preference (plus having a select-to-disable feature means eveyone's settings will be flipped when it becomes a default-on positive-enable feature). The guys in #mediawiki said they'd rather I didn't do that because while it sort of works, it makes a mess of things for the future. We can even disable the gadget and revert to having code in the common.js if you really object to turning it on in your Preferences. As it is the code is identical to what it used to be, just needs opting into for the next few days, and once opted-into would then be set for good, even after the 1.18 upgrade.
OK. Got it. Thanks for explaining. Let's move on.
  • The gadget to make the whole edittools pane optional wasn't my original idea, it was suggested, and then seemed like a good idea to do it together, because the code is somewhat inter-related (the collapser doesn't work for either if there are two edittools). Additionally by making the edittools optional, it become easier to turn them off and use your own JS to load a custom edittools panel with exactly what you want in it, so if you don't want, say, Hebrew, but you do want, say, a list of preloaded templates, you can have them. Again that was not supposed to change for the normal user, but did, and that has been reverted since the page loads appears to be adversely affected for you, and others were finding it hard to enable (though that was due to having code designed to do exactly that in the personal prefs). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 23:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, previous .js remnant aside (only an issue here locally), the changes did seem to be spot on for what you wanted to achieve but without some sort of "general" notice (i.e. Proposal) prior to making the change plus a less-than-clear heads-up for laymen like myself afterwards made for more drama than was really warranted today. I apologize for playing any part in that with the bringing up of additional (& unrelated) issues. Still, Bee's original gripe rules the day imo regardless - even the smallest changes made without 3rd party community input can make for more headaches rather than enhancements. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, it was poorly executed by me. Sorry about that, and thanks for your understanding. I'll be more careful next time I fiddle with gadgets. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 00:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

smallrefs help

I need help on getting smallrefs to work on The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Bury)/Volume 1. Normally, I only have to put smallrefs below the transclusion - and it has always worked. So if anyone can fix this problem, that would be great. - Tannertsf (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the software was hitting the <references /> tag first and ignoring the following smallrefs. I've just deleted the former and it seems to work now. (It should also work if smallrefs is in front of the references tag.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Problem With Cached Pages

Has anyone else noticed a problem outdated pages? I have had to purge the page at Wikisource:Administrators a number of times now. I was just wondering if anyone else has had the same issue. If so, this needs to be fixed in short order. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Table Formatting = Ugly

I am out of ideas on how to render this table on WS, Page:Latin for beginners (1911).djvu/407 Things keep wanting to wrap and get the alignment all messed up for the following lines. I am leaning towards putting an image of the table in the text. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I tried 2 solutions, the first one is what I prefer. Maybe you could start from there and continue with the rest of the table, if you like it (did not bother too much about formatting issues). The basic idea is one container table with 1 row and 2 cols for left and right side. Inside each cell another table structured according to needs.--Mpaa (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
While we can look to format, it is the image that is important, not the words. I personally would have done an image. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I have been looking at this for a while, I think I am going to go with the image. There are a few of these in the work and and trying to make it work with tables is painful. JeepdaySock (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: User:Skylark92

This user left me a message to proofread (Mirror). Is this a new user? Or , is this a spam? In any case, I don't think that Sylvia Plath's work is in the public domain.— Ineuw talk 04:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: According to Wikipedia The Plath archive material at Open Directory Project is not in the public domain.— Ineuw talk 04:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree not in PD and have speedied it per G6. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

would this be old enough to have on here?

http://books.google.com/books?id=vDcbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR5&dq=1901&output=text#c_top

PREFACE In the preparation of this work it has not been the purpose to afford a treatise on the statute law of South Dakota, If the many months of arduous labor devoted by the editor to its compilation and annotation result in a satisfactory work of general utility, all expectations will be fully met. It has been the purpose to give the law of our state: From the compiled laws, 1887; special laws passed prior thereto which have been made general by subsequent acts; the succeeding session laws of 1889, 1890, 1891, 1893, 1895 and 1897, and the constitution of the State of South Dakota, together with a complete digest of the decisions of the state and territorial courts either construing or explaining a law or declaring its opinion upon a subject therein contained. That there are inconsistencies in the laws, and conflicts with the constitution, is apparent. As a compiler, without authority to revise, there was but one rule'to be followed with safety — to carry such conflicting and inconsistent laws unless clearly and unquestionably repealed or abrogated. Owing to the familiarity of the bar already acquired with the compiled laws of 1887, the same arrangement as to titles, chapters, articles and sections has been preserved. Where amended, it carries its section number consecutively, with note of amendment and date thereof. Amendments of subsequent laws have been noted in the same manner. New acts have been inserted under subjects to which they refer, with section, chapter and year of the law, and a note giving date at which it became operative. Laws on new subjects have been inserted under titles to which they are allied, with like reference and note, so that each section carries with it its history from the authenticated published laws of the state. Notes have been made from the decisions of the courts, and follow the sections or subjects to which they refer. Much credit is due the publishers for the style and grade of the work. They have spared no pains or expense to make it a first-class law publication. It is now far superior to that originally contemplated by the compiler when undertaking its publication. Doubtless, errors have crept in during the progress of this work, although every possible precaution has been taken to prevent it. In view of the present condition of our published laws, it is believed that such errors will receive a friendly criticism looking toward their ultimate correction, and that this work will be appreciated for its usefulness and convenience to those whose interest or duty impels its examination. EDWIN L. GKANTHAM.

--Skylark92 (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes it would Skylark92. Its a 1901 copyright, and all works up to 1923 are public domain, which means we can host it here. - Tannertsf (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

How do i post it? --Skylark92 (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If you find it on www.archive.org for me, I will upload it and set it up for you. - Tannertsf (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find it sorry i guess it won't work. --Skylark92 (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
It's by South Dakota but this man had something to do with it, EDWIN L. GKANTHAM. --Skylark92 (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
How does the header template work? Thank you. --Skylark92 (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Bulk delete request

I have a bulk delete request if anyone is willing. I left an explanation on the corresponding author's Talk:Page, and have tried to explain what I need/have done. Thanks ahead of time! Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

  • See, you do need admin rights.  ;-) Anyway, some of these have incoming links from redirects, etc. can you fix these first? I have time to do the deletions but not all the ancillary stuff. Thanks.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Hmm, looking further, I am confused. Do you want the redirect deleted or the page where all of the poems are listed? If the former, why don't you just move the target of the redirect; if the latter, why have you, just yesterday, created version pages that list the old version? Please clarify exactly which pages need deleting and eliminate all incoming links to them. Again, if you could do this yourself it wouldn't need explaining. ;-)--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
If you could actually point me to the "version pages that list the old version" you mentioned, I would appreciate it. It is possible that I may have overlooked something... Thanks Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I figured I'd create an issue or two while applying my thought process. What I am requesting be deleted are merely the pages listed in the LEFT column of the table I created. Any redirects that may happen to appear on those pages have been dealt with, and any poems that may appear on the pages have been superseded... so it matters not if the redirects/poems disappear along with the pages. As for the admin thing, while I appreciate your vote of confidence, I would respectfully decline... I hope I haven't made too many burdensome requests over the course of my time here for things I couldn't do myself (i.e., requests to clean up my messes!)... But if you want to see me even more of a bumbling fool, then make me an admin ;) I'm too self-conscious as it is to be given added 'responsibility' (even if in title only), and too selfish with my time and activity here! That said, I'll look over your concerns above more thoroughly to see if I have overlooked anything. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I went as far as I dared before becoming just as lost as Doug is (I started from the last entry though). Not sure what the story is with the ones starting with a Roman numeral - not only are there still some double redirects in place but some of those works are also listed on Version pages. Plus those appear to be transcluded so I figure best to stop and let folks look it over now that the easy stuff (previous stand alone sub-pages of single works now properly consolidated & anchored on a single Appendix [sub] page) is out of the way. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! A little is better than nothing! We'll get it worked out... As far as the works with Roman Numerals, that issue is addressed on Cygnis' Talk page (see Versions section). I actually made my delete request here before I realized Cygnis had responded to my initial request there. Cygnis is probably more familiar with the situation—having helped with much already... Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm still confused, I looked at Cygnis's page and that didn't help at all. The numbered sonnets are just redirects to sections of the same page. That's why I couldn't figure out what you wanted deleted, because you list them all separately but they all go the same place. Further, the versions page lists that very page as one of the two versions.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay... I 'blanked' the pages w/ Roman numerals in the titles... Hopefully that will help to avoid confusion of the situation. There is always the possibility of there being broken redirects or double redirects somewhere—but I have tried to be systematic about it all, and hopefully such issues will be minimal. I won't be online for a time... Maybe a few hours, maybe not till tomorrow. Thanks for any help/insight that might be forthcoming in the meantime! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Just an additional note: I see some new double redirects related to some of Brooke's pages. Do they really belong in the Delete bucket as well or should they be fixed? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Just took a peek. Looks like they were fixed though, right?—to point directly to the anchored poems? Probably can't hurt to keep them; they just omit the The 's and A 's in the titles is all, and were created before I 'adopted' Brooke's collection. Thanks for pointing them out; I figured I wouldn't get away unscathed! Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that damn BOT got to them first again. I guess no harm done this time if they are still useful to have around. I just wasn't sure if they were pointed to the proper pages/works was all. Don't sweat any of it though; I look at minor oversights like that as part of the overall postive progress around here. Everybody makes them at one point or another - including myself! :-) George Orwell III (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Attention anyone near San Francisco ... archive.org

Volunteer – Help us get 200,000 books on Sunday! September 25, 2011 — billinghurst sDrewth 13:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You might want to post at w:Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco and related. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sri Lankan government copyright?

For the work Sri Lanka Army conduct during war 2006-2009 it has been added without licence. Does anyone know anything or wish to research copyright of Sri Lankan government and provide some advice to the community? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

First impression is likely copyvio, original work published here http://www.lanka-advocacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/MoD-Overview-of-the-report.pdf sub page of http://www.lanka-advocacy.org which does not have a GFDL compatible release posted. JeepdaySock (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Distributor108 initially added this article on Wikipedia but it was challenged because of a number of issues - copyright, NPOV etc. Distributor108 repeatedly claimed they could obtain copyright waiver from the author (the Sri Lankan Ministry of Defence). This was just a delaying tactic and the waiver never arrived and as such the article was deleted from Wikipedia on 21 Septemner. Please see discussion on Wikipedia. The following day Distributor108 added the same content to Wikisource without any licence.--Obi2canibe (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I presume that you are indicating that the Sri Lankan government has no waiver on copyright and retains its rights. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Sri Lanka's Intellectual Property Act makes no mention of government works, so I would assume that they are copyrighted like any other work. - Htonl (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio — billinghurst sDrewth 16:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

hws/hwe/sc

Can someone please take a look at the following two pages (133 & 134)? The hws/hwe on the Index:pages look 'wrong', but it translates ok in the Main... But if it could be formatted better—all the better! Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if it is the "best" solution out there, but I applied it and it seems to have done the trick. Take another look at it now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
That's great, thank you. I'll make a note of it. Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Alternatively you can just wrap the {{sc}} coding around the {{hws}} … {{sc|French {{hyphenated word start|Re|Republic}}}}. It means that there are adjecent spans coded, however, that is a fairly minor issue in this circumstance. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Billinghurst: How would you split that between two pages (hw-start/end)? Could you be specific: This goes in the body; this goes in the footer/header, etc. for the technically challenged (Me)? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see the knowledge gap. When we transclude these two templates, only {{hwe}} is imported, the {{hws}} component is ignored, thus it shows in Page: as …{blah-}<page break>{gloop}… and transcludes to Main: as …{} {blahgloop}… in main. Hence we have {{hws}} only for display/cosmetic reasons in the Page: namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Thankfully, my 'knowledge gap' permits me to take pause every now and then to see the error of my ways!... So you are saying(?)
  • page1 body: {{sc|French {{hyphenated word start|Re|Republic}}}}
  • page2 body: {{sc|{{hyphenated word end|public|Republic}}}}
or is my brain-gap even greater than I thought? ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikibooks/Wikisource triage

As Wikimedia Foundation's Bugmeister, I'm going to be holding a bug triage on IRC this coming Wednesday, September 28. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss and prioritize issues on the Wikibooks/Wikisource projects within Bugzilla, raise awareness in the WMF so we can try to be more supportive, and coordinate volunteer developer's efforts so they will be more effective.

The meeting will be held in IRC, so you're participation is requested.

Where When
#wikimedia-dev or freenode's webchat 1300UTC, 2011-09-28

If there are issues in bugzilla or on the wishlist that you think it is important that we cover, please add it to the etherpad. -- MarkAHershberger (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Slap bang in the middle of my work day, so I am unavailable, so I will have to do inputs and watch for outcomes. Thanks for the invitation. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks like they had a successful session. Results of discussions viewable at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2011-September/055426.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2011-10&oldid=3500217"