From Wikisource
(Redirected from Scriptorium)
Jump to: navigation, search
The Scriptorium is Wikisource's community discussion page. Feel free to ask questions or leave comments. You may join any current discussion or start a new one. Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel webclient. For discussion related to the entire project (not just the English chapter), please discuss at the multilingual Wikisource. There are currently 291 active users here.



This section can be used by any person to communicate Wikisource-related and relevant information; it is not restricted. Generally announcements won't have discussion, or it will be minimal, so if a discussion is relevant, often add another section to Other with a link in the announcement to that section.

Wikilegal Copyright of Political Speeches[edit]

meta:Copyright of Political Speeches has just been published by the WMF Wikilegal team. In short, copyright very likely exists in speeches unless they are 100% adlib. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Emend: This posting concerns political campaign speeches, and not speeches made once in office. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Which I believe is the approach that we have been taking in recent years, and to which we removed speeches by non-presidents, and similarly in replies to the state of the union addresses. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Beta: Create a VisualEditor plugin to integrate with Wikisource[edit]

Coren has put a note into Phabricator about the next development stage of having VisualEditor integrate into Wikisource, initially in the standard namespaces, and following that into the Page: namespace. He says that there is usable mainspace editing with Visual Editor (including the transclusion tag, though we don't use it). This is currently working on a test server, and is scheduled for the deployment train Tueseday, Apr 5 (and deployed on group 1 that includes the Wikisources on Apr 6). Jdforrester is planning to turn the configuration switch on April 7 at which point, VisualEditor will become available as a beta feature on wikisource for all content namespaces except Page (that's the next part being worked upon).

Feedback is best straight into the Phabricator ticket. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, while that note was exactly correct, it's probably more useful to note that VisualEditor will be made available in the beta features of every Wikisource on April 7. You can turn it on there at that time. Coren (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
it’s working well for article space, not enabled for page namespace yet. test it out and leave feedback. i added a Wikisource:VisualEditor redirect, since it was a redlink in the edit summaries. Slowking4RAN's revenge 01:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

250,000 Validated Pages[edit]

We reached 250,000 validated pages on Monday 4 April, with this edit [1] by Akme. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hurrah! That's great. :) Now, on to the next ¼ million... — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 00:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


Neutralize the superfluous message of the {{nop}} Gadget[edit]

I propose that the message No trailing {{nop}} was found on the previous page. Add one? which appears when the sidebar gadget is used — to be neutralized, but retain the message which informs of the existence of a {{nop}}. The gadget is titled Add a toolbar button to check for and insert a paragraph-breaking {{nop}} at the end of the previous page. in the Development section. — Ineuw talk 04:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't change. From my perspective I want a response whenever I click the tool. I can't see that the tool is adding a nop unless I check the previous page or go to Recent Changes. If I have to check the previous page, I might as well have gone back and added the nop myself. Clicking something with no feedback makes me think that the link I clicked does nothing or is broken. The way the gadget is set up at the moment gives feedback, it also gives me a chance to change my mind about adding the nop. In other words, I don't believe the message to be superfluous. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I see what you mean Ineuw (although, I got momentarily confused about 'neutralizing' and was looking for some non-neutral bias in the messages hehe). But I think I agree with Beeswaxcandle, the current messages work well for making sure we know what's going on. The only change I would ask for (although I suspect it's not popular) is to move the button to the toolbar (I never understand why the sidebar is preferred for things that aren't navigation). But let's keep the message boxen as they are. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 23:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm with BWC that I am wanting to know, and I cannot say that I have no issue with the prompt. It can useful if one elucidates on a problem rather than state a solution, so your reasoning for the value of removing the text can help us to understand your issue. Maybe what you are wanting is something that adds the nop if it is not present and says, ADDED; and where it is present, it gives the warning message. The ADDED functionality would need to do the fading trick like "page saved" text, otherwise it is a change that makes no difference. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Neutralizing meant to disable the code segment. I disagree with my distinguished colleagues, because the message is no indication that the template was applied, unless it's clicked twice. Furthermore, the editor's contribution history displays the marked pages. The problem is that paginating through some hundreds of pages a volume is a slow process even with high speed connection, and the message further slows one down. Please reconsider. — Ineuw talk 06:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Ineuw, you can copy the gadget code to your personal Common.js page, and edit your own custom version of it. This might be beyond your expertise but there are people here who I'm sure would be happy to help. Hesperian 11:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hesperian, thank you, will do that!!! — Ineuw talk 00:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
yes, i just add them manually. now if it was on the edit toolbar… Slowking4RAN's revenge 23:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't change. This helps with multiple proofreaders by indicating if the previous page (done by someone else) has had a nop added—the message A trailing {{nop}} was found on the previous page. comes up. Zoeannl (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
It is superfluous and redundant to ask the user, "Do you want to add it?" It seems logical that if the option is already clicked, the the user wants it. I made a copy and modified it as Hesperian recommended, whereby if {{nop}} doesn't exist, it just adds it, if it exists then it lets me know as before. I would also like to know when it's added by flashing a color, but not stop with a question and wait for a reply. For this to happen in my personal version, I am turning to our erstwhile roving expert to advise me how I can add a flashing color when the template is added. — Ineuw talk 04:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Two comments (aside from your entirely inaccurate assignation of expert status):
  1. I believe Ineuw is referring to the confirmation-to-proceed message, and Zoeannl to the change-log message written after a successful {{nop}} addition, which Ineuw was not proposing changing from its current value of "Adding trailing {{nop}} to break paragraph at the page boundary." Unless I am mistaken there is no conflict here.
  2. You are going to sort of love at least this, but the logic to display a "flash" much as you describe is already within both MediaWiki:Gadget-NopInserter.js and Inew's copy thereof; yet appears to have been broken due to internal labels having at some point morphed in name. I am referring to this fragment of code:
    109 			if ( data && data.edit && data.edit.result == 'Success' ) {
    110 				$('#ca-prev').css({'outline':'2px solid green'});
    111 				setTimeout(function() {
    112 					$('#ca-prev').css({'outline':''});
    113 				}, 2000);
    (the line numbering refers to the "official" gadget.) Unfortunately symbol #ca-prev does not exist currently, so I shall presume the "last page" arrow was intended (#ca-proofreadPagePrevLink) instead. To "blink" the last-page arrow (if using the "Vector" skin; or tab if using "Monobook") with a green outline when a successful {{nop}} update has been made, substitute the above code fragment with:
    109 			if ( data && data.edit && data.edit.result == 'Success' ) {
    110 				$('#ca-proofreadPagePrevLink').css({'outline':'2px solid green'});
    111 				setTimeout(function() {
    112 					$('#ca-proofreadPagePrevLink').css({'outline':''});
    113 				}, 2000);
AuFCL (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks @AuFCL:. In the fog and mist of distant memory, I now recall that the color flash was functioning in an earlier version. Why this was changed, I have no clue unless someone searches Inductiveload's conversations. — Ineuw talk 18:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

One portal for various fictional works?[edit]

I was just reading this thread and was reminded that I came across a red link to The Bloody Thumb on this page, which I assume is an imaginary work, and was puzzled about how it should be handled. Reading through all the ideas in that thread, I got the idea that it might work out well to have a portal that would list up various fictional works, and then any fictional work mentioned in one of our texts could be linked to that portal via a redirect. Or if there were an actual work entitled The Bloody Thumb, that had no relation to the one in Father Brown's world, there would be a disambiguation page listing the actual work, as well linking to its listing in the fictional work portal, as well as the mention of the fictional work in the other text. Any thoughts? Mudbringer (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think fictional references to fictional works should not be linked. Hesperian 12:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it depends. References to w:The Necronomicon could be common enough to warrant a link to the Wikipedia article, so there are at least some fictitious works that readers may believe are real, or at least seek more information about. However, I am not convinved that a portal would be the best means of accommodating this issue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
My first impulse was to remove the link, but when I saw who linked it I decided to leave it. Later when I read EncycloPetey's comment in that thread about biblical authors: If the "casual proofreader" has created the link because they did not bother to do any research, and someone then does the research, it would be irresponsible and wasteful to then not make use of that research. I started thinking about what it could link to, and the idea of a portal was one idea that occurred to me. If the imaginary work were famous enough to have a wikipedia article that would be fine, but most wouldn't. I think an imaginary work portal could be a very interesting page if enough people were willing to contribute to it. Mudbringer (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Use sortable tables instead list items to list works[edit]

I was wondering, wouldn't it be better to use sortable tables instead of list items to list works in author pages and portals? This way works can be displayed either alphabetically or by year depending on what the user prefers. It's very difficult to find works when they are listed by year and sometimes it's nice to see in which order the works were written chronologically. So why not have both? Jpez (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

That works, but only if the list to be sorted does not have items listed under other items, and only as long as all copies of a work are published under the same title. It wouldn't work very well for the page Author:Aeschylus, because (1) The Oresteia has three sub-parts, (b) there are multiple translations of single works listed, (c) works such as his Χοηφόροι have been titled in English as both "Choephori" and "The Libation Bearers" and will not group together when sorting by title, (d) the different editions of translations by the same translator will have been published in different years, and certainly never in the same year as the original publication.
In any case, you can find a work on a page, if you know the title, by using your browser's "Find" function. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Personally the way I would set up Author:Aeschylus page would be completely different. I would get rid of all the sub lists and only link to the main page of each work. Concerning The Orestia, I would link to The Orestia page and not list each work of the trilogy. I don't see the point in listing each and every translation of every work on the authors page when they are all individually listed on each works page anyway. For example it would look something like this.


Title Year
The Persians 472 BCE
Prometheus Bound 480–410 BCE
Seven against Thebes 467 BCE
The Suppliants 463 BCE
The Oresteia 458 BCE
unsigned comment by Jpez (talk) .
@Jpez: That approach would eliminate all the benefits of being able to see (at a glance) whose translations of each play we have, how many we have, what state they are in, and when the translations were published. The sample table above hides all the information except the original date of performance, which is by far the least valuable piece of information concerning those plays. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Well all that information would only be a click away, and if there are many works and translations the list of them can be overwhelming. I think it's like something you've done here Portal:Greek_language_and_literature with the ancient Greek drama portal. Instead of listing every work there you've created the portal and linked to that. Anyway I don't think this is a serious issue, it's just the way I would set up the page and a way tables might be implemented. Jpez (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jpez: No, the information would not be a click away, and that's my point. Each bit of information would be a click away, but the user would have to click all of the links and remember what was on each page all at once to get the overall view currently available by putting it in a single place. The Portal:Ancient Greek drama is separate because the list is many screens long—in fact it is as long as all the other content on Greek language and literature put together—and insofar as it succeeds, it does so because it forms a coherent and separate whole within the corpus of Greek literature. The Portal itself is intended to be exhaustive, and is much longer than most Author pages.. But a Portal is likely not a good comparison, since each Portal has the freedom to include or exclude content, and to be structured in any way that is convenient. Our Authors pages need to follow a reasonably consistent format for the sake of our users. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Having tables adds an element of complexity and isn't for every user. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: It does, but it can be made easier by using a template. Jpez (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I am very against the idea, as I think the tables look ugly and provide more problems than they solve. In fact I have been trying to get rid of tables in places, as for example Talk:Bible#Page formatting.
While I agree that the above example of Author:Aeschylus is a poor one, as translations should really be listed on the separate {{translations}} page, I can think of other examples of sub-item lists that are relevant. I often use them for works derived, adapted, exerpted, or originally contained in other works; for examples see Author:John Mason Neale, Author:Bernard of Cluny, Author:Katherine Hankey.
What about when you have several sections on a page? Would you put all poetry, prose, dramas, encyclopedia entries, letters, anthologies, etc. into a single table? Would we still have a different column scheme per section table? per page? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: For arguments sake, (since I see no one is too keen on implementing my brilliant idea :) I agree that they can look ugly (as the table on the bible page does in my opinion), but I think they could be made to look nice as well for example just getting rid of the borders makes it look a bit more presentable.
Title Year
The Persians 472 BCE
Prometheus Bound 480–410 BCE
Seven against Thebes 467 BCE
The Suppliants 463 BCE
The Oresteia 458 BCE
A few gaps, a bit of aligning etc and you could even make it look somewhat the same way as we are using now (which I like btw), the only difference being that it would be sortable. If I have time I might come up with something, (just for arguments sake). As for different sections etc, I would prefer to use different tables for each section, the setup would be the same as it now just sortable. Also lists can be used within tables if needed etc. Jpez (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Bot approval requests[edit]


Preferably, we ask your HELP questions at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help.

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

Other discussions[edit]

Clarification on copyright of a book and its images.[edit]

I noticed the description of this image on Wikipedia and I am confused about the banner about the possible copyright of this image, and that the picture cannot be moved to the Commons. The original publication was 1893.

On searching, it seems that a publishing house "Weis" may have reprinted this book in 1996. The old publication exists on Hathi Trust and Google books.

I strongly believe that this image (and the book), is in the public domain. Could someone kindly advise? Thanks  — Ineuw talk 09:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

i agree however, need to also check engravers dates (anonymous). there are a lot of these held on english, due to anti-commons animus. (i see fastily bot changed do not transfer 4 days ago). and why illustrations not shown at google book [2] don’t see it at internet archive. Slowking4RAN's revenge 23:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. So far, this is what I know. Google "harvests" and removes images from public domain books in the hope of future reversal of copyright policy, in any case if they removed the images I wouldn't want the book. They also removed the images, except drawings from PSM Vol 75. I knew that the book in question is not on IA which was a surprise. What I don't understand, is that publishers or "engravers" would apply for copyright?  — Ineuw talk 00:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
i did not see a good scan at hathi, only bibliography. when you don’t have everyone safely dead 70 years, the cautious deletionists feel bold. good candidate to visit library and make scan, and upload to IA. i’ve been threatening to do some at library of congress, but keep getting distracted. Slowking4RAN's revenge 04:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again for looking into it. The LOC copy was published by Asian Educational Services, New Delhi in 1996, so that copy wouldn't be for us in any case, unless the publishers just scanned the original. Most if not all the copies for sale floating on the web (Amazon, etc.) are from India, since they figure prominently in republication of pubic domain material. I think we should just let sleeping dogs lie. It will eventually turn up at IA.  — Ineuw talk 04:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Slowking4, @Ineuw: The DLI version has images. Pdf version here. Hrishikes (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to all. Downloaded both files. The .tiff file is damaged and unusable. The .pdf file is a scanned copy and the reprint is the scan by Wise Publications in Srinagar, Kashmir in 1996, noting the original publication date as 1893. So, I don't think it's uploadable to the commons. This, I decided to look for another old copy here in Canada. There are possibilities. — Ineuw talk 18:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Just a note... a reprint of a public domain book can not have a copyright in the United States as it has no new material, or very little new material that isn't eligible for copyright (dedication page, etc.). This is unlike a book that has a new preface, in which case the preface is under copyright but the remainder of the book is in the public domain. "Collections" of public domain material tend to fall under copyright, while the individual works still do not. I haven't seen this 1996 reprint, but if this image was in the original and the original is in the public domain, the reprint of the image is as well. As for things "showing up" at IA, it's because many of us upload books there. Haz talk 15:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The tif version is not damaged, it needs a tif viewer. Anyway, copyright info for 1996 print available here. Hrishikes (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ineuw, @Slowking4, @Hazmat2: Reprint copyright discussion: c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:ভানুমতী (Bhanumoti).pdf Hrishikes (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-07[edit]

16:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

In case anybody noticed the brief two-and-a-half weeks in which it actually worked, <ce> is broken again (already.) On the upside (graveside humour?) it is equally broken on WikiPedia and so maybe might receive a little bit of appropriate developer-loving? AuFCL (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Partial answer to my own issue above (T128950 tangentially refers.) The <math> extension is currently unreliable when Preferences/Math/PNG images is chosen. Use "Preferences/Math/MathML with SVG or PNG fallback" instead. The situation is clearly in flux as yesterday's failure was CSS based; today fails in a visually similar fashion, yet the HTML is different—invalidating yesterdays stop-gap solution. AuFCL (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Letter case of book's title[edit]

I thought that book's title should be capitalized. But when discussing whether The madman, his parables and poems should be moved to The Madman: His Parables and Poems, I was told that "[i]f there is no indication of the style in the text, the default is sentence case; this was decided by someone ages ago". It's difficult for me to find this decision made by someone ages ago. Could this be clarified in Wikisource:Naming conventions to avoid future mistakes made by editors like me? --Neo-Jay (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It does say at WS:MOS that "Sentence form (most words lowercase) is preferred, unless an original capitalisation is consistently used. Normal exceptions, such as proper nouns, apply." I'm not sure why this is the preferred form; it seems counter-intuitive to me, but there it is. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Looks like Pathoschild is the one who made the decision: "The 'sentence form' guideline is particularly aimed at titles like 'Presidential radio address of November 2003 (George W. Bush)', which should not be 'Presidential Radio Address...'." See Wikisource talk:Style guide/Archives/2006-06#CapitalisationBeleg Tâl (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Many thanks for your information! But according to this guide, it seems to me that The madman, his parables and poems should still be capitalized, not in sentence form. --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, not really... the guide itself says "unless an original capitalisation is consistently used", and the original capitalization appears to only be given as "THE MADMAN <br> HIS PARABLES AND POEMS". Thus, the choice according to the wording of the style guide is to use sentence case or all-caps. Based on the talk archives, this doesn't appear to have been Pathoschild's intention, though I'll leave that to them to clarify if they choose to. Nevertheless, that's what the style guide says. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I think that the context that "an original capitalisation is consistently used" in is the running text of all sources that mention the title, not the original book cover, which often uses all-capitalized words. I mean, we need to consider all the sources in which the title is mentioned, such as articles, newspapers, other books, etc.. That is why titles like "Presidential radio address of November 2003" should be in sentence form. And therefore I think that in this case The Madman: His Parables and Poems is the right choice. If we only consider the book cover, then the only choice is the all-caps "THE MADMAN HIS PARABLES AND POEMS", which is apparently absurd. --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The Library of Congress and Hathi Trust have both "The madman, his parables and poems" and "The madman : his parables and poems" (granted, these are catalog entries, and not headings—I do not know if that makes/should make a difference). That is not to say we must follow the lead of other libraries, but that much may be left to interpretation, and some flexibility may be called for/allowed. WS guidelines/policy is fair game for discussion or proposal... from any contributor/s. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
More precisely speaking, the Library of Congress even removes "The" from the beginning of titles, i.e., "Madman, his parables and poems", and "Madman : his parables and poems" (please also notice that there is even a space before colon in "Madman :"). And it seems that the Library of Congress catalog uses sentence form (lowercasing all words except proper nouns) for all book titles. I don't think we should follow this style. But if the community like it, it's fine for me as long as it is clarified in Wikisource's manual of style. --Neo-Jay (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@Neo-Jay: What say we propose a change in policy/guidelines? It seems pretty clear to me that title case is more appropriate for this kind of work. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: I agree with you. --Neo-Jay (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The Library of Congress (and probably other libraries) put a space behind a colon that's added between title and subtitle, as to distinguish between it and any colons in the original title.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Found another discussion, including proposal: Wikisource talk:Style guide#Naming policyBeleg Tâl (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Can we take a step back? What is trying to be achieved, and why are you trying to achieve it? If the argument is about capitalisation, I think that you are going to end up with an argument about which titling style, from which period, with which authority, and an argument of lesser importance. Get the title right, and use the case that suits your work. If someone has chosen the title/url/capitalisation for the work, we would generally leave it as it is unless it is problematic, and create redirects as required. The general principles have been 1) accuracy to a work; 2) consistency within a work. 3) where someone has a variation then discuss — we have guidance on style that allows for thoughtful variation, not a strict adherence to a policy; 4) if someone has purposefully chosen a style, then think hard before changing it, unless there are clear problems, or the community has made a consensual change of practice.

Sometimes we do find ourselves changing some things to an updated style or changing what was an experimental style. That can be important to do where there have been suitable improvements in web technology, or a community decision, or the experiment was a problem. Conversely one can find when into a work that it may be an unwise decision (in reflection) to change the style; or we are told that it was purposeful that a style was chosen to reflect something that may have not been obvious. Hopefully neither party will take it as an issue to return styling, and hopefully the return of styling is done with helpful comment, not acerbic blame statements, or straight reversion (both unhelpful).

Colons in titles can be problematic for wikis, as it has a semblance of a reserved character. Em and en dashs, apostrophes, etc., can also be problematic due to unicode or encoding, or not present on keyboards. The community long ago went with an approach of simplification works well, if possible.

To the specifics of the subject at hand. The modern approach appears to remove capitalisation as a source of problem [11], though we have references/citations in old books that use an old and different style, so we need to cater to both. We have users who have preferences for either, or don't care. For the purposes of functionality we can cater for both, and in the end for us both can be correct for our work. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't speak for Neo-Jay, but when I create works I use title case unless specified otherwise in the scan (with some exceptions, like hymns that go by first line more commonly than any title). I only recently discovered that my practice was contrary to the WS style guide. It is my understanding that title case is the usual standard for titles in modern practice, which is why I do it that way. I am not familiar with modern style guides that suggest titling a work using sentence case. It seems to me that e.g. The Madman: His Parables and Poems is the correct capitalization for the title of this work, and The madman, his parables and poems is not correct. Therefore, the former is preferable.
I am more interested in guidelines for future additions; I don't really care about works that are already hosted on pages named in sentence case. For The Madman, I would leave it well enough alone..
My intention in this discussion is to either a) determine whether there is a really good reason to use sentence case instead of title case, even though title case appears to be more correct; or b) if title case is actually preferable (as I understand it), to modify the style guide to suggest title case instead of sentence case unless it is inappropriate; or c) if it really doesn't matter, to modify the style guide to say that it really doesn't matter and you can use title case if you prefer unless it is clearly inappropriate. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
This is not a case of right or wrong, it is just a case of difference. Trying to express it as a case of righteousness is unhelpful, and we need to consider it more in terms of acceptability. The link that I provided, (here overtly covers your examples for how PSU gives their instruction on their cataloguing. So here is my opinion on what is acceptable
  • The madman, his parables and poems YesY
  • The Madman: His Parables and Poems YesY
  • ThE MaDmAn HiS PaRaBlEs AnD pOeMs N
now and into the future. There is no need to not accept a broad reasonable approach, that has been the community's consensus through time. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I think that good goals from this discussion should be (1) assess the variety of titles and situations under which we create page names for those titles (especially now that we have more members and a broader range of sources), as well as (2) draft an updated set of guidelines. The current guideline is too short and, apparently, confusing in the way that it is worded. It also does not present guidelines for naming pages when disambiguation is necessary, or when a title starts with "The" (at the least a DEFAULTSORT would be needed). It would also be good to add information concerning the need (or lack of need) for redirects under certain conditions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Reviewing and updating our guidance is always a good thing. Examples are valuable. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
A useful example I've come across: The Loeb translation of Philippe-Ernest Legrand's book on the New Comedy of ancient Greece. Its title is rendered in sentence case on IA as The new Greek comedy, which is misleading. That capitalization implies that the book is about some general comedy that was new, or perhaps a particular new comedy play. In fact, New Comedy was an artistic movement, and as such usually is capitalized just like Renaissance or Impressionism. So this could serve as an example of a title for which sentence case perhaps isn't the best choice.
Likewise, when a title consists of just two words and the first is an article, sentence case doesn't look right: "The frogs", "The choephori". When the primary word in the title would be the only one not capitalized, title case is likely preferrable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Graphing page view data[edit]

Hi all. Following someone else playing with page view data elsewhere, I have pulled a copy of the template to enWS, and put together some page links, with links currently promoted on the main page. You can view the example at

I haven't played with this beyond what you see, and I definitely haven't thought about the pages that we wish to view/monitor, nor the scope of the monitoring. This note is as others may wish to play. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting! Do you think there's any way to make it aggregate page views of subpages of a work? — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 23:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Cool. Though it doesn't seem to display graphs for subpages of works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
From whence I copied the template, I have asked the author to explore where subpages are part of a graph view. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Subpages seem to graph now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The template is attempting to categorize all pages with the template in Category:Pages with graphs, which is a non-existent category. Should we create the category, and if so, where should it reside? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

{{interwiki-info}} non-functional[edit]

I was just looking at The Raven (Poe) and in the raw text it utilises {{interwiki-info}} and it currently does nothing. I cannot remember how it is even meant to work, and there is no imagery that I can find, and not well-explained in the doc page. Where someone is more aware of this matter, it would be great if they could explain to the community what is meant to be happening and then we can look to a solution. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It labelled multiple links to each sister, such as the two translations by Baudelaire and Mallarmé at fr.wikisource. There is now four translations listed at fr:Le Corbeau (Edgar Allen Poe). CYGNIS INSIGNIS 04:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Well it definitely isn't doing that. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it is Wikidata that overuns interwikis. phab:T57090 is related to this issue. -04:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikimania 2016: call for posters, discussions and trainings[edit]

Hi people,
the calls for posters, discussions and trainings for Wikimania 2016 are officially opened, you can find all the relevant links on the conference wiki:

The calls will be closed on March 20.

Posters will be reviewed just to make sure that there aren't things which are too much out of scope. Since we have a whole village we will surely find places to attach them, even if we they will be a lot!

Discussions will be managed by a guiding committee who will work on the wiki to meld all the proposals and suggestions.

Trainings will be reviewed by the programme committee. Please note that we request that each training has at least 3-5 interested attendees in order to be put in the programme.

By the beginning of April we will have a first list of all the accepted proposals.

If you have questions we suggest you to ask them on the discussion pages on wiki, so that everyone will be able to see them (and their answers, of course).

We are looking forward to read your ideas! --Yiyi (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Training presentation[edit]

I would hope that we would be able to at least have a basic training session about Wikisource for those with an interest, though I am uncertain whether it should be in English or Italian. @Aubrey, @Nemo bis, @Micru: others? do you have an opinion? Not having been to enough WMs, I would only be guessing. I would think that the basics would cover:—
  • Style guide, transcription, templates, Wikisource for Wikipedians
  • Namespaces (Index:, Page:, Main, Author:, Portal:, Help: and Wikisource:)
  • Upload to Commons, use of {{book}}, image clean up
  • Create an Index, <pagelist>
  • What you see is what you transcribe, managing errors (Page: ns)
  • Transclusion, <Pages>
  • Basic tools, including book tools (epub, mobi, pdf), music notation
  • How we relate to Wikidata
Other thoughts? — billinghurst sDrewth 05:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Once there is general agreement we can add something to [[wm2016:Training sessions/Proposals/Wikisource]] — billinghurst sDrewth 05:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Good idea. We (Wikimedia France) will may be bring the book scanner. Pyb (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-09[edit]

20:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Everything is probably going to "break" for 10 or 15 minutes later this month[edit]

This is early notice for everyone, and a request to share the news:

The Ops team is planning a major change to the servers, (very) tenatively scheduled for Tuesday, 22 March 2016. One probable result is that when this happens, all wikis will be in read-only mode for a short time, likely less than 15 minutes for all editors. You will be able to read pages, but not edit them. "All wikis" means all of the WMF wikis, including Meta, Commons, the Wikipedias, and all the sister projects, including all of the Wikisources. It may affect some related sites, such as mw:Wikimedia Labs (including the Tool Labs). There will also be no non-emergency updates to MediaWiki software around that time.

Many details are still being sorted out. I am asking you to please share the word with your friends and fellow contributors now. This will be mentioned in m:Tech/News (subscribe now! ;-) and through all the other usual channels for Ops, but 99% of contributors don't follow those pages. If you are active in other projects or speak other languages, then please share the news with your fellow contributors at other projects, so that whenever it happens, most people will know that everything should be back online in 10 or 15 minutes.

Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


The Wikimedia Technical Operations department is planning an important test of the new "full" data center in Texas. The test will result in about 30 minutes of downtime for all the wikis, including Meta, Commons, all Wikipedias, all Wikisources, etc., on two days that week. This work was originally scheduled for this coming week, but has been postponed until the week of 18 April 2016. The official schedule is kept on Wikitech; more information is at m:Tech/Server switch 2016. More announcements and notifications for editors are planned.

If you experienced problems with the five-minute read-only test on Tuesday, 15 March around 07:05 UTC, or if you have suggestions for places to announce this, then please contact me directly at w:en:User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF). Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Inspire Campaign: Making our content more meaningful[edit]


The second Inspire Campaign has launched to encourage and support new ideas focusing on content review and curation in Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia volunteers collaboratively manage vast repositories of knowledge in our projects. What ideas do you have to manage that knowledge to make it more meaningful and accessible? We invite all Wikimedians to participate and submit ideas, so please get involved today! The campaign runs until March 28th.

All proposals are welcome - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive, positive feedback on ideas is appreciated, and collaboration is encouraged - your skills and experience may help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign and help your project better represent the world’s knowledge! I JethroBT (WMF) 19:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Lucifer Myth and other pages[edit]

I think that User:Calebjbaker needs some help and advice, as the pages they are creating and then linking from enwiki (at least) don't seem appropriate. Thanks Doug Weller (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I explain my rationale for including 2 analytical works here. Calebjbaker (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Matter being handled at WS:PD no need for further discussion here. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-10[edit]

06:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Immediate notice[edit]

We will need to address the issue about <pages> and get a bot fix in place. I will see what I can do when I have time, nothing immediate. Also to note that I am pretty certain that if we use a tag in the mode of
that it will work fine. We should review our instructions pretty quickly too. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Although not explicitly discussed in T108134 it is almost certain that <pagelist> inside Index: pages will similarly be affected. Also Phe's suggested python script omits "include" and "exclude" attributes of <page>. AuFCL (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
@Phe: is it right that you have a script to run for main ns pages? — billinghurst sDrewth 10:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
No script, but I gave the way to handle <pages in the bug opened about that trouble. — Phe 21:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Adding the bug number overtly above. RL-interruptus here, so cannot tell when I can get to anything. I do note that I saw an example of <pages index="pagename.djvu" from=nn to=nnn /> and it displayed fine. To note that Subhu has confirmed that if we use {{#tag:pages||...}} that we will have no issue, and while it has a component of difference, it is worth our consideration whether that is a better means to progress rather than advocating <pages ...="nn" ="nnn" ... />. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment From my quick observations it appears that the issue is only related to the non-quoting of the fromsection= and tosection= and less so with the page numbers, though happy to be shown an example that contradicts this, eg. Farren, Elizabeth (DNB00) is
<pages index="Dictionary of National Biography volume 18.djvu" from=236 to=237 fromsection="Farren, Elizabeth" tosection="Farren, Elizabeth"/>
and displays fine. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Popular Science Monthly/Volume 36/April 1890/Obituary Notes is an example of non-quoted fromsection which seems to work O.K. (<pages index="Popular Science Monthly Volume 36.djvu" from=884 fromsection=B884 to=884 /> Perhaps this change is more liberal than my initial reading of it suggested. Is the real issue in fact only tags containing attribute values with unquoted omitted values, not unquoted given values at all? AuFCL (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Totally correct, I have reread Subhu's email to me more carefully, and it says … those without any value after the = sign will change how they are parsed. …billinghurst sDrewth 12:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

More about xwiki enhanced notifications[edit]

As you may have noticed on the last Tech News issue, Collaboration team is please to announce that Cross-wiki notifications will be available as a Beta feature on all wikis by March 20th10th.

Cross-wiki notifications will help you know about some activity on another wiki. How does it work? Imagine someone thanks you on Commons - the next time you open a page on your local wiki, you'll see that notification from Commons! We hope this will help everyone who is active on multiple wikis. You will find more information in the documentation (translations still welcome).

Of course, it is a Beta Feature. We have tested many possible cases on test wikis, and then release that feature one month ago on, Commons, Wikidata, French and Hebrew wikis. That first release allowed us to solve encountered problems, but if you experience some bugs (and we are sorry about that), please report them on the dedicated page (in any language). That page is also dedicated to feedback and suggestions.

To activate the feature, you will have to go on the 20th10th of March to your preferences, Beta tab, and select the "Enhanced notifications" checkbox (or the equivalent in your language). You will then receive Notifications when they happen on any other wiki. You will receive these notifications only on the wiki where you have activated the feature. If you do not activate it, nothing will change on your Notifications panel.

If you have any questions, please leave me a message on any wiki, I'll be notified with cross-wiki notifications.

Please spread the word! :)

Thanks, Benoît

User:Trizek (WMF), Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list

Please note per phab:T129764 this feature is currently known to be broken on all wikisources. AuFCL (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
There are notes now against the ticket that some browser add-ons may cause issues for crosswiki notifications. Working for me in Firefox. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes I noticed because I made some of them! It appears various javascript blocking extensions might be a little over-enthusiastic and affecting cross-domain notifications. Two suspects have arisen so far (both firefox extensions) NoScript and Privacy Badger but there may be others as well. AuFCL (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Author pages linked to Wikidata items with several images[edit]

I seem to recall this issue happening before, and it's happening again: Author:Francis Xavier (as an example) is pulling a list of images from Wikidata and is not able to display them correctly. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

At Wikidata, you make one of the images the preferred image. There are grey ranking objects (three vertical squares), click on the edit for the one that you wish to be preferred, and it will present two boxes, and it is the one on the left. d:Wikidata:Glossary#Rankbillinghurst sDrewth 22:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah! so that's what those mysterious little boxes are for! --EncycloPetey (talk)
@EncycloPetey: and those on the right are where you can have a "no value" which I use regularly where an author is not in VIAF (just use qualifer of "Retrieved" adding the day's date). — billinghurst sDrewth 09:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Opinions sought about potential index do-over[edit]

A little early, but I would eventually like to nominate Pro Patria (1917) by Florence Earle Coates for April 2017 FT (it would mark a hundred year anniversary of publication, 'satisfy' Poetry Month as well as highlight Pres. Wilson's Address to Congress on 2 April 1917). The current Index is made up of individual jpg images, but I was thinking about a complete re-do using a different source (djvu). I would also combine the seven poems & Wilson excerpt into one MS page instead of using individual pages per item. I would like opinions on the prospect of doing this. It would involve page deletions and redirect updates, etc. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm all for it. It's a short work so it shouldn't be too hard. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

In the absence of objections, I'll go ahead with the new index and substitution. I can always apologize later! Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

A History of Costume (Kohler)[edit]

Found this on -

Howevever being the sort of person I am I tried to find what the status was as it's a 1928 Publication. I can't seem to find a renewal for it 1955 through 1957. This is despite the front page indicating it's a US edition!, A physical edition I have is a later UK reprint which also gives a 1928 date, but with London as the publication location, and a different publisher.

I've also not been able to find any information as to the subsequent authors ( Kohler himself died in the mid 1870's it seems.), but the issue is if the translation/annotations are still in copyright.

Can we assume the US edition was simeltanous and thus OK for local upload?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

hmm, LOC copy says London pub. 1928, versus scan new york 1930. [34] Slowking4RAN's revenge 03:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Curioser and curioser, Does the LOC give any indication of whether the 1930 New York edition was renewed? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
well, LOC has a london copy and no new york copy; the new york scan is from Wellesley College Library. translator alexander k. dallas born 1867 [35] if you could find an obit pre-1945 you would be good to go. Slowking4RAN's revenge 17:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
So far , I've not found a pre-WWII obit., but a rough reckoning would be that he'd have to be 100 in 1967 which seems unlikely. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Rechecked the CCE renewal lists Project Gutenburg holds, and I still can't see it, so this may be a case of a UK work later published in the US, for which I can't currently find a record. Do we have any details for the Translator? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Two questions about a book upload[edit]

Our copy The Art of Living in Australia of this book is from Gutenberg, but I also found and a nice clean copy on Internet Archive.

  1. Should I transfer the IA version to the commons and create an Index page here, as recommended by the Gutenberg template on the book's talk page?
  2. Can the current Gutenberg text be as the proofread text on the corresponding pages? — Ineuw talk 23:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done uploaded

See notes at Help:Match and split for your second question. I used the current text once and then found that the two texts had different quotation marks throughout. It wasn't much fun fixing it. For the first, yes, the more we can get scan-backed, the more robust our collection will be. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks BWC. That was my concern, and will look it over carefully when proofreading. 17:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-11[edit]

18:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Open call for Individual Engagement Grants[edit]

IEG barnstar 2.png

Hey folks! The Individual Engagement Grants (IEG) program is accepting proposals from March 14th to April 12th to fund new tools, research, outreach efforts, and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds (up to $30,000 USD), IEGs can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

Also accepting candidates to join the IEG Committee through March 25th.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 23:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

For maintenance Category:Works with non-existent author pages[edit]

I was looking at Category:Works with non-existent author pages today, and it has 2.5k of pages in need of author pages. It is something to which we should be monitoring as that seems quite a high number. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

On a quick glance, we could knock 200-300 off that by doing Gems of Chinese Literature and Historical Tales and Anecdotes of the Time of the Early Khalifahs. Multiple items are chapters or sections from a single work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Special cases like those above (compilation of multiple author style publications) aside, I wonder to what extent this is due to users uploading scans to Commons, and then just "forgetting" that author details which may be present there or in WikiData do not spontaneously propagate to the wikisource referencing that upload? Perhaps the ballooning of this category is not so surprising as a consequence of that expectation? AuFCL (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-12[edit]

16:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, a minor correction: The MediaWiki deployment dates are March 22–24, not 21–23. My apologies. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Importance of Author pages[edit]

Take a look at the following graph:

This is a record of page views for Author:Aeschylus. You'll notice an increase in the low-level views through February and into March, as well as three large spikes. At least some of the increase in low-level views is merely the result of my work expanding that page and adding new links recently. However, the three big spikes coincide with dates that translations of his plays were listed as {{New texts}}. On those dates, we had a sizeable surge in views.

It is clear, then, that Main page listings are in fact drawing views to our Author pages. So it behooves us to present the best Author pages possible when works by those authors will appear in the main page, in order to make a strong and lasting positive impression. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

i note there is a creator tool [44], maybe an author tool using wikidata would speed the work on the backlog? Slowking4RAN's revenge 11:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Rather than an author tool, I would prefer to progress use of exploitation of wikidata into the author template, similar to what we do with wikilinks, and images. If the value is empty, then use WD, if populated, use that data. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Internet Archive no longer creates DjVu-files![edit]

Recently I discovered that a file I uploaded (Van der Goes for Dutch Wikisource) was not converted into djvu-format. Some checks of forums on IA show me that there are more people having trouble with that, and that an IA-official answers like: "nobody uses it." See this forumpost. Looks like a serious problem, to me. Does anyone know more about this? --Dick Bos (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

When IA lists available file types on their site, it doesn't list DjVu. You have to follow a special link to get the full list, including DjVu. If they're not getting much use from DjVu, it's may result because the average visitor isn't being told that such files are available. Hiding the listings will certainly bias their data. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, IA has stopped making djvu. Now, for new files, the IA upload tool can be used to add the pdf file to Commons, with in-built ocr layer. IA is correct from their angle. Djvu is not in general use among readers, except here in Wikisource; and here too, it is for background scan copy, readers see the transcribed document in mainspace. There is not much reader demand for djvu, like for pdf or epub. Therefore, if Wikisource requires djvu from IA, this should be specifically taken up with them. Editors here may like to see this post and this in IA. Hrishikes (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
ah well, there went that process. having lost the format wars so soundly, even the archivists can’t be bothered. i was wondering when they would get around to an NIE volume. guess it’s time to upload it. Slowking4RAN's revenge 14:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-13[edit]

19:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Microdata[edit]

We have tried to implement the microdata previously in our own ugly/manual ways in author and main ns. I propose that we request to have the configuration change by addition of $wgAllowMicrodataAttributes = true; as addressed at mw:Manual:Semantic_Web. This should give us the ability to supply WD microdata through our header and author templates. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a great idea. Although, I guess most people wanting that data can just go straight to Wikidata? Still, for the time being (next ten years?) while we've got metadata split between here and Wikidata, it'll make things easier to re-use I think. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 01:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

U.S. Supreme Court Style Manual![edit]

The U.S. Supreme Court Style Manual, viewed by the justices as an internal document for helping law clerks and justices draft opinions in proper form, is going public for the first time, without the court's approval. What's a good way to ensure we get an OCR'd copy of this soon? Buy it and give it to the Internet Archive? They have the infrastructure to OCR it. {{PD-USGov}} applies, of course. --Elvey (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

We don't have a purchasing acquisition policy. If you think that there is value in getting it, and reproducing it (where compliant with scope) then it would be through a private purchase, or through a grant application to WMF. IA would indeed be the means to convert to OCR if necessary. Will it not be an electronic document anyway? — billinghurst sDrewth 01:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
WMDC has aa book grant program, apply if interested -- deadline tomorrow. Slowking4RAN's revenge 01:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
@Elvey: note deadline of 4 April — billinghurst sDrewth 03:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Cool. Done. --Elvey (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Problem identified — long tables not wrapping over printed pages (pdf/epub/...)[edit]

When pages are exported/printed to EPUB/PDF long tables are no longer wrapping over numbers of pages, they seem to get stuck on one long page that expands off the bottom. This previously was not the case and I am unsure when it broke. Anyone got any ideas on what may be the issue, and or who we can harass to look at a fix? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Pages with <math> markup[edit]

In Wikisource, under each user Preferences -> Appearance - Math section (at the bottom of the Apprearance page), please check that your Math setting is MathML with SVG or PNG fallback (recommended for modern browsers and accessibility tools). If you are viewing or editing Wikisource, the older PNG and LaTeX settings are currently generating some gibberish. Billinghurst has requested a fix through Phabricator. Until this is fixed, please check your user Preference settings for Math before editing pages with math. Outlier59 (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

English Translations of Puranas[edit]

I have got some English Translations of Hindu Puranas published by Motilal Banarsidass from West Bengal Public Library Network and they are under Public Domain. But the name of the authors are not mentioned. How can I add them to Wikisource? -Trinanjon (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of Puranas from this publisher available in the WB site. Not all are PD. It may be possible to identify the translator; e.g. J. L. Shastri was the translator of Siva Purana volumes. So can you provide the specific links of the books you are considering? Because there are 74 books in this series (1, 2), will be app. 100 volumes on completion. Hrishikes (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Is the Siva Purana by J.L. Shastri under PD? I will also be giving the links of the books such as Skanda Purana, Padma Purana, Garuda Purana, Varaha Purana, etc. -Trinanjon (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Published in 1950 (see here, 1st ed of vol 1 avl here, which shows date as 1970 on the book), so author was alive then; therefore not PD-India on URAA date. J. L. Shastri was one of the general editors for the whole series, so none of the lot is likely to be PD. Hrishikes (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

April PotM needed[edit]

We need a PotM for April up on the Main page. Input at Wikisource talk:Proofread of the Month#April 2016... Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a selection based on previous input. See Talk. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-14[edit]

22:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Most viewed books with chapters[edit]

During my recent exploration, I felt the need for books with most views on my Telugu Wikisource. I noticed similar requests for English wikisource ( #1) . Starting from the top 1000 pageviews data, I have written an 'R' script to aggregate the page views for all books with chapters(as indicated by use of '/' in main name space page title. I am happy to share the first results of the same at User:Arjunaraoc/201603TopViewsOfBookChapters. I found the top rank going to Constitution_of_India a bit surprising. Do share your feedback. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013 - duplicate legislation needs review and possibly merging[edit]

We have two copies of the same legislation, one supported by a scan, and the other a copy ... Special:PrefixIndex/Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013 Not certain if one is fro the HoR and the other the Senate or what. It would be useful for someone conversant with US legislation to have a look-see and work out which is better, whether they should be merged or what. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Importing partial completed predominantly English text from Telugu wikisource[edit]

We have a predominantly English text about Telugu grammar partially proof read in Telugu Wikisource. Will English Wikisourcers be interested in importing it here and completing it? --Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Arjunaraoc: I presume you meant this link? If so it appears none of Charles Phillip Brown's works are currently on enWS. And in passing, why does it appear to be tagged PD-2013 when the flyleaf reads 1857? Is this either an accident or (as I don't at all read Telugu) some other concern? AuFCL (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
AuFCL, Yes. I updated the link now. Copyright tag was incorrect. As we have several books for which copyright was freed via Digital Library of India, many Telugu wikisourcers used PD-2013 for such books. I updated it now as PD-Old. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@Arjunaraoc: Hi! Can you please explain how copyright was "freed" by DLI? DLI has plenty of copyrighted books, including those published in the 1990s, but how can copyright be deemed as freed by inclusion in DLI? Hrishikes (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Hrishikes, DLI had done an exercise of contacting authors and publishers to free the copyrights. In the earlier versions of DLI page, there used to be a section like search in copyright freed books. As they claim to be compliant to Indian copyright act, DLI being a government body, we are treating all DLI books as copyright freed. Hope that helps. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Arjunaraoc: I don't think this is quite in order. If such were the case, DLI would have included a CC license or equivalent for every book, because the works are copyrighted as per Indian Copyright Act, but DLI can, of course, procure the copyrights and release them to PD under CC license. Have they done so? Can you point to any such documentation? Because, other Indic wikisources (I am active in Bengali), and even English Wikisource can also benefit if such is the case. DLI being a Govt body does not automatically make the books copyright-free. Best, Hrishikes (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Arjunaraoc:, Can you please provide a link or any documentation as a proof to the statement where it has been declared that DLI have been given consent by the copyright-holders and the publishers of the books to release them under CC. DLI has so many books which are not under PD-India and unless there is a proof about their release of license, it will be considered as copyright violation, if I am not wrong. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Hrishikes,@Bodhisattwa Check this presentation at page 21 where in the copyrights were freed were mentioned. COmmons has not accepted our claim recently and deleted several books making us to uploaded them to the Telugu wikisource. There were some other presentations on the web about dealing with copyrights, which I am not able to locate now. Hope that helps. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The presentation link cited in the previous remark may be dead. You may check the latest copyright policy of the DLI Copyright Policy of DLI as archived on wayback machine on April 8, 2016 and contact DLI for any more clarifications. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Arjunaraoc: Could not check the 1st link (DLI site is down), but checked the second link, which is basically useless. In it, DLI claims that the works are copyright-free, and states that if copyright holders complained otherwise, then concerned books will be removed. No explanation as to how a book not covered by PD-India (like a book published in 1970) could be copyright-free. Only a vague claim, without specifics, never suffices; I can well understand why Commons did not accede to your claims. While adding books to Wikisource (whether directly or through Commons), one should check whether the book can be really deemed as PD as per 1st publucation year and author's death year. One should not go by any "claim" by a website, even if Govt-owned. DLI just claims that they are copyright law compliant, and then continues piling up copyrighted works by the hundreds. Without specific documentation of release under CC or the like, all books seemingly to be under copyright should be deemed as copyrighted. Hrishikes (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Arjunaraoc:, Thanks for the links, (the first link dont open though). The second link only shows a claim from DLI that all of their books are copyright-free. But there is no such proof that authors and publishers have given their consent to DLI to release their works under CC license. Furthermore, the link also says that, the copyright policy is as per the Indian CopyRight Act 1957, according to which books can be copyright-free after 60 years of the death of author or first publication whichever is later. So, it is self-contradictory itself to the claim. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Visual Editor now in article space[edit]

visual editor is now a beta feature for article space editing. check it out and leave feedback. here is the fabricator task -- Slowking4RAN's revenge 16:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

OCR not working?[edit]

Is the OCR button working for anyone?

This file Index:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 02.djvu doesn't seem to have a text layer, but when I tried using OCR, my only result was the edit window turned grey. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It worked for me but the result was awful, you'd be much better off typing it yourself than using the OCR produced. Maybe it would be better to upload it to and see if you get a better OCR. Jpez (talk) 08:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
The source of that file has a text layer, perhaps there was a problem with the upload wizard. Or maybe the uploader intended to use proofread text from elsewhere. I'm guessing that overwriting the file would fix things. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 08:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
OCR layer added. Hrishikes (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --Thanks, everyone! --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Need an example linking to sections in main name space, transcluded from the page name space.[edit]

I am trying to link to sections in wikisource main namespace which were originally in page name space, but do not seem to get it work. Example on te.wikisource: te wikisource page with section tag #జలగం and the page containing the section is page which has section named ##జలగం##. Can some one give an example? --Arjunaraoc (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Arjunaraoc: I think I see what you are trying to do. Linkage requires the existence of either id= or name= on the element to which you wish the anchor to target. Unfortunately the <section> does not provide this service (as far as I know) so may I suggest augmenting:
<section begin="జలగం"/>{{p|fs150}}జలగం వెంగళరావు ముఖ్యమంత్రిత్వం</p>
—by substituting something like this instead:
<section begin="జలగం"/>{{p|fs150}}<span id="జలగం"/>జలగం</span> వెంగళరావు ముఖ్యమంత్రిత్వం</p>
—which then ought to expose the anchor point "జలగం" for linkage purposes as usual. AuFCL (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @AuFCLI tried
    <section begin="జలగం"/>{{p|fs150}}<span id="jalagam">జలగం వెంగళరావు ముఖ్యమంత్రిత్వం</span></p>
    after correcting a minor typo and using english name for id, as otherwise the link is not working. One more doubt, is it possible to see the sections after transclusion directly in wikipage?. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Arjunaraoc: I think I might have misunderstood your requirements. Did you want to (A) construct a destination/landing point for a link (which is what I tried to describe above), (B) transclude a portion of a page into another page?

    In other words which is the relevant tag between "జలగం"/"jalagam" (case A), or "ఆత్మకథచివరిపేరా" (case B)? I think you may need to re-state the question. Please pardon me for confusing the issue. AuFCL (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

  • @AuFCL, Not at all. My requirement is (A). I thought doing (B),even if it is not ultimately used for transclusion, will also help accomplish (A), but looks like (A) needs special HTML code called <span>..</span>. In this specific case, I did not need a section transclusion requirement, so I dropped (B) and used your solution for (A) with slight change. Hope revised link the revised link makes it clear.The page is linked from Wikipedia --Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • My additional question about the need for seeing the anchors, is so that I do not need to visit page namespace, before making the link, if the transcluded pages already have anchors.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
O.K. A couple of points: there is nothing special about using <span> to carry the id= attribute; I only chose that as a fairly harmless HTML tag which would not disrupt the rest of the text. Unfortunately the {{p}} template does not make provision for specifying a name/id value; otherwise using its expansion:
<p class="pclass" style="font-size:150%;" id="jalagam">జలగం వెంగళరావు ముఖ్యమంత్రిత్వం</p>
—ought to work equally well. As far as I can tell the te-wikipedia page you specified appears correctly linked to the te-wikisource destination.
With regard to making the anchor-points visible, use of {{anchor}} or {{anchor+}} (both of which are present on teWS) might be what you were looking for, as they create a <span> automatically with the required attributes to establish the anchor point as well as those to provide minimal marking? For example, hovering your mouse cursor over the word "anchor" in this sentence should yield a pop-up identifying message. Maybe this is not obvious enough for your intended purpose? AuFCL (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • AuFCL, Thanks very much for clarifying very well. Your suggestion about {{Anchor+}} is also useful. English Wikisourcers are always friendly and helpful in my interactions. Thanks a lot. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


Outlier59 (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Outlier59, Thanks for your helpful suggestions. I am able to resolve the issue. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit check request[edit]

Could someone check this edit[52] of mine? It was supposed to be a 1 char ocr fix but it shows up in the page history as deleting 117 characters. I compared the before and after versions of the page and see only the 1 char fix. So I don't know what's going on. Thanks. 20:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

It is ok, just don't care about the byte counter ... BTW, I have no idea why it is not accurate, probably something has changed internally.— Mpaa (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Bradshaw anyone?[edit]

Found these when trying to find something:-

A 1906 and a 1944 edition:-

If someone is able to figure out the copyrights I' more than willing to attempt transcriptions. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The REshapign of British Railways[edit]

There are now scans on [[53]], one small problem though, the digitising source has marked them as NC , which means that despite the document being an expired Crown copyright (3 years AGO!) , the scans can't be put on Commons, unless some wnats top have a very loud row with the University of Southampton. (sigh) 21:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I also found amongst the same collection, the Worboys and Anderson Reports ( which given my recent efforts on UK Traffic signs... I felt might be in scope here). Shame some archives apply NC :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-15[edit]

20:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Top 100 downloads using WSexport tool[edit]

I thought it useful to share the Top 100 downloads using wsexport tool for the month of March 2016. Note that this includes even download of ordinary pages apart from books. Let me know your feedback if any. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That's really interesting. What's up with The_Problems_of_Philosophy having so many more hits than anything else? — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 10:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I think it was Featured Text.. but the FT tag on its discussion page has it March 2015, not 2016. Outlier59 (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
There was no featured text for March, 2016. Due to a somewhat daffy implementation of the templates (they operate on months only without regards year) under these circumstances {{Featured text/March}} gets recycled—and as that has not been changed since 2015, The_Problems_of_Philosophy gets a re-airing. AuFCL (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, makes sense now. Thanks. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 23:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Penguin Classics (or any publisher)[edit]

I've been playing with Sparql and Wikidata, and have come up with a little script to make publisher lists like (for example) Portal:Penguin Classics. Is not very useful while there's hardly any data in Wikidata, but maybe one day... :-) I just wanted to see what sort of coverage we've got over that collection. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 10:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC) not creating djvu?[edit]

I uploaded a pdf to a couple of days ago and it seems to have created various files but not the djvu, which was what I was wanting. Did I do something wrong or has something changed over there? Moondyne (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

yes, see also Wikisource:Scriptorium#Internet_Archive_no_longer_creates_DjVu-files.21. maybe we need to send them some t-shirts / beer. or build a tool to convert on upload. Slowking4 03:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Aha, that's a bit sad. Moondyne (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Per Wikisource:DjVu vs. PDF, I take it there's now no point in creating a djvu solely for WS. Yes? Moondyne (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
That's an interesting question. It sounds like you're right, PDFs should be the preferred format now. Certainly, there are more tools for working with them. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 04:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
What a good essay! PDFs are expensive in many ways,—time, cost, transparency and accessibility—I am not moved from my position that they suck. My prejudice was recently reinforced when, up until a couple of weeks ago, some bug caused them to render as garbage for this end-user. I get why are preferring EPUB and that format for readers, but for this site's purposes they are inferior; other online converters to djvu are reasonably successful. PDF should be welcome, but not preferred. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Fill pages with OCR from PDF[edit]

Hello everybody, is there a bot that can create Wiki pages with the contained OCR of the PDF page, e. g. de:Seite:Ludwig Bechstein - Thüringer Sagenbuch - Erster Band.pdf/19. Is that possible with a simple command using Pywikibot? Thank you in advance, --Aschroet (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

If you write your own script, you can use ProofreadPage()/IndexPage() as Page classes, they have several convenience methods.
Or you can use Page.preloadText() if you use the standard Page() class.
def preloadText(self):
        The text returned by EditFormPreloadText.
        See API module "info".
        Application: on Wikisource wikis, text can be preloaded even if
        a page does not exist, if an Index page is present.
If you want, I can write few lines of code for you. Or if you tell me the index, I can do it for you.— Mpaa (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@Mpaa: with djvu going out of vogue with IA, it seems pertinent for pywikibot to look to having "pdftxt" script that replicates "djvutxt". Then we have the general purpose bot available through the WSes. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the fast reply. Of course i would prefer the suggested pdftxt script, so that others could use it as well. --Aschroet (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
That is feasible, but I cannot say when. If you need something faster for a specific index, just let me know.— Mpaa (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:, @Aschroet: I made this script:, who knows if it will be ever added to the library. But you can fetch it if you like it.— Mpaa (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Mpaa, for de:Index:Ludwig Bechstein - Thüringer Sagenbuch - Erster Band.pdf it would be nice. --Aschroet (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done , hope no one got angry on de.wikisource, I forgot I have no bot rights there ...— Mpaa (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Footnote on page without marker in the text[edit]

Here's an oddball question: When proofreading Page:Craik_History_of_British_Commerce_Vol_2.djvu/183, I found a footnote which does not have a corresponding mark in the body of the text. (It is the first note on the page, to "British Merchant, i. 302.") I determined where (I think) the note should have been inserted (here is the source for that reference on Google Books), but I'm not sure if I should have done that. The location isn't in the source text, after all, even though the note is, and what the author references is data in a seems pretty clear what he meant.

Thoughts? Should I mark the note with the SIC template and a transcriber's note? Leave it out entirely? Do something else?

I've used style="display:none;" for this in the past. I updated the page in question, I think it looks okay. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment: In my experience, sometimes small marks in the text (such as periods, tops of semi-colons, asterisks, and the like) fail to appear because of the quirks of ink printing. It isn't always possible to indicate how such a correction ought to be made. In this instance, I favor inserting the item as a normal footnote, and including a transcriber's note of explanation within the footnote. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I always put them in the most logical place, leave them displayed and put a comment for the validator to explain what I've done. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I too add things like this in when its reasonably obvious where they should go. Depends on the work, though; books are more predictable than some other types of thing. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 00:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Requesting a GeoNotice for a local event in San Francisco[edit]

Hi all, we're launching a monthly series of WikiSalons in San Francisco. The event announcement is here: w:en:Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, April 2016

Is there a Wikisource admin who would be willing to set up a Geonotice, so it would show up at the top of the watchlist for Wikisourcers in the San Francisco bay area? Here's an example of what would need to be done: w:en:Special:Diff/715314854 Just making an identical edit to the counterpart page here on Wikisource would do the trick. Thanks for any help -- and hoping to see some Wikisource folks at the WikiSalon! -Pete (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: I have learned this might be a more complex request than I realized. Some helpful discussion here, on Commons: commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_a_GeoNotice_for_a_local_event_in_San_Francisco -Pete (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Most Projects are not as large as Commons or Wikipedia. For Wikisource (and most other non-pedia projects) posting to the central community discussion page will reach everyone. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi @EncycloPetey:, thanks. I'm not sure I believe this -- I think I did several years of Wikisource work before ever looking at the Scriptorium, and I have never checked it anywhere near as often as I look at my Watchlist. I don't know any way to test it, but I'd be rather surprised if the vast majority of users check the Scriptorium on a regular basis. But, if there is no established way of doing something like a Geonotice, I don't see any reason to insist on I said above, I initially thought I was requesting something simple and routine, and am happy to retract the request if that's not the case. -Pete (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I believe that all geonotices are coordinated through meta. I am not aware of any local controls, see m:Special:CentralNoticebillinghurst sDrewth 12:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks @Billinghurst:, but I just checked...CentralNotice can't get more geographically granular than an entire country. So I guess Geonotice is the only tool that will do that, and if it's not currently set up here at Wikisource, it's not worth doing for this. Thanks for all the info though, this has been an informative discussion. -Pete (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Server switch 2016[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation will be testing its newest data center in Dallas. This will make sure Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to conduct a planned test. This test will show whether they can reliably switch from one data center to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.

They will switch all traffic to the new data center on Tuesday, 19 April.
On Thursday, 21 April, they will switch back to the primary data center.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop during those two switches. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

  • You will not be able to edit for approximately 15 to 30 minutes on Tuesday, 19 April and Thursday, 21 April, starting at 14:00 UTC (15:00 BST, 16:00 CEST, 10:00 EDT, 07:00 PDT).

If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

  • Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped.

Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.

  • There will be a code freeze for the week of 18 April.

No non-essential code deployments will take place.

This test was originally planned to take place on March 22. April 19th and 21st are the new dates. You can read the schedule at They will post any changes on that schedule. There will be more notifications about this. Please share this information with your community. /User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Big Birthdays[edit]

Well, we missed the chance to celebrate Charlotte Brontë's 200th birthday by featuring one of her works this month, and I don't see anyone else of that stature in literature with a birthday this year.

But 2017 will mark the 200th birthday of Aleksey Konstantinovich Tolstoy (no, not that Tolstoy) as well as Henry David Thoreau. We still have time to prepare for those. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to globally ban WayneRay from Wikimedia[edit]

Per Wikimedia's Global bans policy, I'm alerting all communities in which WayneRay participated in that there's a proposal to globally ban his account from all of Wikimedia. Members of the Wikisource community are welcome in participate in the discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-16[edit]

20:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Announce: Unique Devices data available on API[edit]

The analytics team is happy to announce that the Unique Devices data is now available to be queried programmatically via an API.

This means that getting the daily number of unique devices for English Wikipedia for the month of February 2016, for all sites (desktop and mobile) is as easy as launching this query

You can get started by taking a look at our docs at wikitech:Analytics/Unique Devices#Quick Start

If you are not familiar with the Unique Devices data the main thing you need to know is that is a good proxy metric to measure Unique Users, more info below.

Since 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation used comScore to report data about unique web visitors. In January 2016, however, we decided to stop reporting comScore numbers because of certain limitations in the methodology, these limitations translated into misreported mobile usage. We are now ready to replace comscore numbers with the Unique Devices Dataset. While unique devices does not equal unique visitors, it is a good proxy for that metric, meaning that a major increase in the number of unique devices is likely to come from an increase in distinct users. We understand that counting uniques raises fairly big privacy concerns and we use a very private conscious way to count unique devices, it does not include any cookie by which your browsing history can be tracked.

—NRuiz (WMF), wikitech-l

Not sure if anyone is wishing to play with that data, or the value of it, either way, it is there. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Without knowing the likelihood of someone using multiple devices, or the mean number of devices from which users access, the data is of little value. For example, I regularly use four devices to access Wikisource on any given day. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Interesting, especially the split mobile/desktop.— Mpaa (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Catalog of Copyright Entries[edit]

i’ve started this long term project by uploading Index:1977 Books and Pamphlets July-Dec.djvu. as historical background, the US copyright office stopped digitizing its records from 1923 to 1977. The Hathi trust has a project to research each orphan work in that period to determine copyright status. they find about half the time works were not renewed making them public domain.[68] there around 100 volumes of 1600 pages, of book copyright records.

IAuploader does not work, it appears the files are too big (larger than 50MB less than 100MB). i use chunked uploads but it fails half the time. i will approach Hathi trust for comments if this helps their search. user:Mpaa would a bot filling pages be useful for these records? any thoughts would be appreciated. Slowking4₮₳₤₭ 00:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Slowking4:, do you need help?— Mpaa (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Mpaa:, i am untutored in the ways of bot page creation, "not proofread". these volumes would seem to be a good fit for that. Slowking4₮₳₤₭ 23:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I am surprised that chunked upload is failing in your case. I have uploaded lots of books in recent times (upto yesterday) by this method, to both Commons and Bengali Wikisource, without any failure, even files more than 300 mb in size (e.g. this file of 392 mb). It works even when internet connection goes off (by power-cut) and I have to shift to another connection (by wi-fi). Irrespective of net connection problem, the upload continues, with in-between halts. IA upload also works for me, even for files more than 99 mb in size (e.g. this file). Hrishikes (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
i find it times out trying to knit chunks together. maybe you will have better luck, have a go at c:File:Catalog_of_Copyright_Entries_1977_Books_and_Pamphlets_Jan-June.djvu & [69]. Slowking4₮₳₤₭ 03:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@Slowking4: The djvu file is corrupt. I'll look into it tonight. Hrishikes (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@Slowking4: Yes check.svg Done Index:Catalog of Copyright Entries 1977 Books and Pamphlets Jan-June.pdf. Hrishikes (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
great job, i fear the this IA corrupt file problem may be widespread, and a major hurdle along with file size. getting one year readable will make a good first step. thanks. Slowking4₮₳₤₭ 09:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Slowking4: Finally succeeded with djvu: Index:Catalog o‌f Copyright Entries 1977 Books and Pamphlets Jan-June.djvu. The djvu corruption was due to overcompression. Hrishikes (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-17[edit]

21:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikisource sessions at Open Educational Resources conference[edit]

Hi all, the OER conference took place last week at the University of Edinburgh, with an audience of academics, librarians, learning technologists, and related staff, from many different countries. I gave two sessions relating to Wikisource: a short presentation to an audience of around 50, then a longer tour through the site in a computer room, to an audience of about 9 or 10. Twitter reaction was positive- the audience seem very appreciative of Wikisource and some voiced an interest in working with it further. I've collected the reactions here. I will stay in touch with those who have expressed an interest and see if we can get them to share some texts. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Index:O Douglas - Olivia in India.djvu[edit]

No file present. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

File needs to be undeleted at Commons and then moved to en WS. Billinghurst can do this, having admin rights at both ends. Hrishikes (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 07:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks :)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

\mathop not functioning, asking for the replacement of Math extension by SimpleMathJax[edit]

I was trying to use the TeX/LaTeX \mathop operand and discovered that it didn't work. It seems to be because of the Math extension which will disappear soon or later and to be replaced. And in fact, I tested on our wikis (1.24.0) and it works with this new and simple SimpleMathJax extension ( I tried to read the discussion at and I can understand that some browsers couldn't display the new maths yet (how many can't?) but it looks very nice and I am willing to push the adoption of this new extension which is not adopted yet ( The following code

<math>\mathop{\int\!\!\!\int\!\!\!\int}_{\Pi-\varpi} u(y){\partial a(y) \over \partial y_i}\,\mathrm{d} y_i</math>

should render as

\iiint\limits_{\Pi-\varpi} u(y){\partial a(y) \over \partial y_i}\,\mathrm{d} y_i

but is rendering as:

\mathop{\int\!\!\!\int\!\!\!\int}_{\Pi-\varpi} u(y){\partial a(y) \over \partial y_i}\,\mathrm{d} y_i

--Nbrouard (talk) 08:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Further evidence regarding Author pages[edit]

Two days ago, I posted "A Lament for Adonis" in the New texts. This is our first work by the classical author Bion, and the first new text (translation) by Elizabeth Barrett Browning that we've had in a long, long time. Below, you can see the view statistics for these three pages, in the same order I've linked to this in the preceeding text.

As I noted before. People are watching our New Texts list, and are visiting the Author pages in addition to the page for the new text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)