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; please see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. 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 308 active users here.



Do you create PDFs on Wikimedia wikis?[edit]

Hi everyone, I’m looking for feedback from people who use the function to create PDFs on the Wikimedia wikis, which feels relevant for Wikisource. In short, the main technology we’re using to render them – OCG – is breaking down. The code is old, it’s difficult to maintain, and if we don’t replace it now we might suddenly find ourselves in a situation where we'd have to take it down without having planned to do so.

We have some plans for the future over at mw:Reading/Web/PDF Functionality. If you care about the PDF function, please head over there and tell us on the talk page if anything is missing, or if there’s something in there we shouldn’t spend our time and energy on. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


Testing out the Timeless skin[edit]

Hi, I'm Isarra, a volunteer MediaWiki developer, and I've been working on a new responsive skin, Timeless, and I was wondering if you would be interested in having it deployed on your project to try it out.

It looks like this:

Timeless MediaWiki Skin.png

Some links:

  • A labs project for general testing and editing
  • A Beta Cluster clone of the Simple English Wikipedia, where Timeless is already deployed - you can create an account and in your preferences set your skin to Timeless and explore what it would be like on a real project
  • A grant proposal regarding doing proper research into usage of and problems associated with the current skins, and from there doing further development of Timeless to make it properly address the needs of the various Wikimedia projects

Timeless is currently undergoing review and I have a grant proposal in the works to do further work on it (see just above; any feedback on that would also be appreciated), but the end goal here is to, if not develop Timeless itself into a viable skin for all Wikimedia projects, then determine what exactly would be required of such a skin so that one may eventually be created.

I'm reaching out to you in particular because Wikisource has use cases that are very likely to totally break Timeless (and most skins), and I would very much like to see how so that this may actually be properly addressed. If there are also problems you are currently having with the existing skins that we might be able to look into, that would also be something I'd be interested in, but either way the very nature of your project would make your feedback invaluable moving forward.

So the question is, do you want to take part in this? Would you be willing to help me test out Timeless? -— Isarra 03:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Isarra: (off the top of my head) I think that a little technical detail is required for the community to consider. Please correct or expand on the following 1) this is just the skin, there are no functionality changes; 2) Means of implementation, ie. an extra skin will be added to user preferences, that will be "off" by default, and users can turn "on" to trial; 3) What period of testing would you expect to take place? How would you seek feedback on the functionality and tests; 4) What specific things should be tested, eg. a) Extension:ProofreadPage is a major part of our config; b) what toolbar changes might we expect as these are adapted by users, c) sidebar changes expected would be ...? 5) If it is not working for a user, would it be as simple as changing back to the other skin. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Addendum. Some of us (dinosaurs) still use monobook as vector didn't suit, so you will see monobook customisations still existing in Mediawiki: ns; and some of still use the old toolbar as it is easier to code adaptations, whereas the new toolbar is an extra level of complexity. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean the old edit toolbar? Or the action links at the top of the page? -— Isarra 05:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
mediawiki.toolbar with additional mw-customeditbuttons, rather than the enhanced toolbar. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, yes, and I'm not entirely sure yet, but setting up a project page here for it would probably make the most sense, or whatever you're comfortable with - it'd be great if you could just file the bugs directly, but I get that that would probably be a bit much to ask. As for what specific things you should be testing, I don't know - that's why I want you to try it. I often find the best thing for testing a skin is just use it - see what happens, what's annoying, what needs to be changed.
ProofreadPage is actually why I wanted Wikisource involved - I fully expect it to not really work, and obviously we need it to. And I doubt it's the only thing unique to the project, either.
Sidebar... mostly it's the same - other languages and toolboxes get moved around depending on screen size, but the actual content is the same as other skins, whatever you put in MediaWiki:Sidebar. What all changes do wind up happening may also depend a lot on user feedback - if a toolbox location/split is bad, that will be addressed, things like that.
And yes, if you don't like it, you'll be able to just switch back to a different skin, same as you switched to it. And that's totally fine. -— Isarra 05:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
All those responses sound reassuring as users can dip in and out as going about their daily/weekly tasks.

Either setting up a subpage of Scriptorium, or a project page for feedback both sound fine (guided by others feedback, and it may be something that we should flag to the broader WS community about how we compile feedback @Zyephyrus, @Micru, @Ankry, @Yann, @Aubrey, @Tpt, @VIGNERON:). Many of us are basic phabricator: literate, so we could transfer confirmed issues if you have a phab project set up, and we can create a direct link on a page for reporting anyway (and encouraging more users to have that phab familiarity is beneficial). — billinghurst sDrewth 05:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

There is indeed a Timeless project on Phabricator: Dereckson (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, that's excellent to hear. See. You know. Also, just as a general note, a lot of the specific work I intend to do does hinge a bit [[[meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Timeless|on the grant]], so if you have specific issues you want to raise there (either with things currently that you'd like to see improved upon, or concerns with Timeless itself), that would be incredibly useful, both for showing general interest and helping to shape the direction of my work. Thanks! -— Isarra 13:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Proposing to close this as accepting the offer to participate in the evaluation. I am not seeing any dissension, though throwing a last ping to the community. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Sam Wilson 22:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest that the feedback be tracked in a separate section in general discussion, rather than up here in proposals. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
nice refresh of skins. good for readers. wikisource specific issues may be the Display options layout, and the Sidebar Flat-list gadget. Slowking4SvG's revenge 14:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Isarra: We have a task in phabricator. Is the community needing to do anything further for you at this point of time? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Nope, at this point we're mostly just waiting on some compatibility fixes (with other extensions, where the problem is in the extensions, not even the skin itself), I think. I should probably... make sure of that, though. But you guys are good, at least. -— Isarra 04:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Add portals to default search[edit]

Portals aren't displayed by default when making a simple search with the search box. This most likely makes it impossible for them to be found by users who are unaware of how to search for them. I propose that we add portals to the default search results if possible. Jpez (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support: I've forgotten the number of times I've had to do an advanced search to look in the Portal namespace. Ciridae (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support no brainer —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I didn't realize this wasn't already the case. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Community Collaboration[edit]

Poll with 2 questions:

(1) Is it time to switch to a new Community collaboration? We've had Thoreau since January, and have made great progress. Only two items are still missing: The Maine Woods, which will be PotM in July, and his Journal, which has not been attracting much attention from editors.
(2) What about Edward VII (of the UK) as our next collaboration? Edward VII (d. 1910) is the most recent monarch of the UK likely to have much material in public domain. George V, his successor, died in 1936. There are already offsite links to several books listed on his Author page, but we have almost nothing here on Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support yes; yes --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I support Ed7 as next collaboration. I thought we were going to keep Thoreau till the end of the year though, though maybe I misunderstood somewhere. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
    There is no set date for changeover on these. Sometimes they flip after a few weeks, sometimes they linger for months. I had thought initially, we'd keep Thoreau until July, but (as I noted above) most of the work likely to be done for Thoreau has now been accomplished or is scheduled, so we might as well rotate to a new collaboration. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
    Yeah, I think we can move on since we've got most of the important stuff already taken care of. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Happy for a change, though I would like to see us look to have us consider something like the Famous Women Series (see partial list). Women writing about women. Some of these I had been thinking that we could do as PotM, though think that the community collaboration would be a better means. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    I'd like to see future collaborations concerning minority groups, women, or non-English-speakers. The Famous Women Series would fit nicely, and I know I've raised the issue before of 19th-century African-American biographies, which I also think would make a good choice. I've also jotted down in my own notes the names of several women for whom we have shockingly little coverage and who deserve better. Once we get started on whatever we choose next, I hope to resurrect the nominations page for the community collab, which has lain dormant for a very long time. We didn't get any new nominations during our work on Thoreau, so part of the reason for suggesting Ed VII is that there are already external links to books, and there aren't likely to be too many more. I expect it will go quickly because of that. It's also very different from anything we've done recently, so I hope it will draw in new editors with different interests. If you can start a list for the Famous Women Series with external links to scans in the nominations page, I think it would make a very strong nom. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Bot approval requests[edit]

Task proposal for Wikisource-bot[edit]

I have prepared a script that can run on toollabs to replace the 'Google' page in djvu files (no pdf). The idea is as follows:

  1. tag an Index page with a template (to be defined), e.g. something like {{blank_djvu_cover}}.
  2. with the frequency we decide, the bot will modify and upload the corresponding djvu file, and blank the first Page:..../1 as 'Without text'
  3. the file will be updated locally, if not shared on Commons, or on Commons directly.

If you agree with the approach, I can take care of the above and I can first run a few tests offline as soon as taggings are done, and later on make the tool tun on tool-labs.

An item that is up for deeper discussion could be if we want the bot also to delete (only) the first page instead blanking it, specifying it via template parameter. We could limit this option for Indexes w/o pages in Page: ns, or apply it to all Indexes. In the latter case, user who tags the Index must be aware that it is up to him to make sure that the action is consistent with Index status, effects on page numbering etc.

Comments welcome.— Mpaa (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I rather like this idea, but I have two questions:
  1. How often would this bot run this task? On demand, or would it be a scheduled daily/weekly/whatever thing?
  2. I don't entirely understand the reason for point #3, keeping the modified file local. Other than the difficulty/overhead of getting bot permissions against Commons as well as enWS, why would we want to start double-hosting Commons works at enWS?
--Mukkakukaku (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Oops apologies Mpaa, I missed this. I would like to see the test occur. I (still) do not favour deletion of the page to shorten the file, just replacement of image and text.

To Mukkakukaku. This is the proof of concept. Talking about scheduling can follow, gut feel is check daily. Whether to move a file to Commons is not solely the Google cover page, it still needs to fit within scope at Commons, have the templates completed, etc. Moving them is not overly complex with aCommonsHelper@toollabs, or a tool like ForTheCommonGood.

Operationally, I have one to test File:Love Insurance - Earl Biggers (1914).djvu which was deleted at Commons due to this issue. One think that we should consider is categorise as having been done. That will allow us to review more easily and a touchpoint on whether to move to Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Clarification on point #3. I meant that the tagging will be done on the Index page here on WS, while the file will be updated where it is actually located.— Mpaa (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
For now, you can tag using {{User:Mpaa/x}}. I created Category:Djvu files requiring clean up and Category:Djvu files processed by wikisource-bot to follow up.
For now only first page blanking is allowed.— Mpaa (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Is this for files that we already host? The IA Upload tool has been updated recently to allow uploaders to strip the Google page out.

For files that have not yet been started, then I favour deletion of the page, because it restores the correct right/left pagination. If proofreading is underway, then blanking is possibly the better option due to the tangle of page moves required in the Page: namespace. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

If it hasn't been started and it is via ia-upload, just upload the file again and strip the lead page. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
If someone could tag some images, I could test a bit more.— Mpaa (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Mpaa: pretty hard to find local copies of Google files with header sheets. I can find numbers at Commons, but limiting searches to local uploads ... meh! We can trial some standard files and just revert them if you need targets OR we can look to do some runs at Commons. I favour the second, and happy to run the gauntlet if necessary. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
It is OK to work at commons. If you can find some, I can run a few as Mpaa. If it is OK, the we can take the next step as ws-bot. Need to create {{Mpaa/something}} or Template:Ws-bot/something} there. What about categorisation? Still needed at Commons?--Mpaa (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Mpaa:I don't see the need for categorisation afterwards, though there may be some value for before, especially if the bot stops working. I think that we will need an explanation page (could be on category page), and a template, maybe {{google front page}}. Hmm, does it work for pdf and djvu, or did we just do djvu? If the latter, we may wish to be more specific with template name to avoid confusion.

... a selection needing doing and most, if not all, will be at Commons.

Djvu only.— Mpaa (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Building list at User:Wikisource-bot/Lead google pagebillinghurst sDrewth 08:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mpaa: Did you run further tests at Commons? Is there something that needs to be undertaken there? We now right here? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
FYI, I have put this on hold for now as I am not able to follow this up as I would like. I will notify if/when I will resume this proposal.

Proposing (really) inactive bot rights removals[edit]

The following bots are not operational and have not been so for over three years, and their users are not active at enWikisource. I propose that the bot rights be removed with the reason of no longer required/redundant/inactive. BrandeisBot (talkcontribs) Cswikisource-bot (talkcontribs) InductiveBot (talkcontribs) Mjbot (talkcontribs) Pathosbot (talkcontribs) SKbot (talkcontribs) Xenophon (bot) (talkcontribs) Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support proposal for all. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I've removed bot flags from all of these bots.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

Designated for requests related to the repair of works (and scans of works) presented on Wikisource

An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828) (Matthew Henry)[edit]

Work has been in progress for some time on this, initiated by User:Heyzeuss, though it has not got all that far. Having done some proofreading in Genesis, I decided to check and if possible validate some of the earliest pages done before I arrived so that there were not too many "yellow" pages awaiting "green" validation. I discovered that the end of the Memoir of Matthew Henry was missing from Wikisource and from the source scan at . However I find at Hathi Trust that only two pages are missing and would like to add these from Hathi. Could someone put them in for me so I can proofread them? I'm fairly new to Wikisource so have no idea what is involved.

I did message Princeton about scans if the pages were present in the copy from which the work was taken, before I discovered the California scan of an apparently identical printing at Hathi. If Princeton send theirs to me, they will still be relevant for getting inserted into the edition. PeterR2 (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course if it's going to cause lots of problems with references I could just type the missing material onto the bottom of Page:An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828) vol 1.djvu/35 with a hidden note as to what I've done and my source. It's hardly a major part of the book. PeterR2 (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Princeton emailed me a monochrome scan of the two missing pages. They are having the two pages scanned and inserted into the record on Internet Archive. PeterR2 (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
The two missing pages have now been inserted in the Internet Archive document. How do we get the corresponding pages into Wikisource?PeterR2 (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@PeterR2: I am trying to work out exactly what you are after. Let me see if I can tease it out c:File:An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828) vol 1.djvu has missing pages, and you have managed to get a new version upload to IA and it is exactly the same edition. Now you are asking how we repair the file at Commons, then update pages here. If that is correct, can you tell us which pages are missing, and where they are inserted Index:An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828) vol 1.djvu.

If it is exactly the same edition, then from the file at Commons you an overwrite the existing version; then we can ask @Mpaa: to get his bot to move the pages that need moving. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Yes, there are two pages missing after Page:An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828) vol 1.djvu/35. Currently proofreading has been done all the way to Page:An_Exposition_of_the_Old_and_New_Testament_(1828)_vol_1.djvu/106 (I started at Page:An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828) vol 1.djvu/85 ) so as a newbie I'm a bit concerned as to what will happen if two pages get added in the middle of work that has already been done and linked, for instance at An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828)/Genesis, but it really needs to be done somehow for completeness. Princeton Theological Seminary (the source library for this item) arranged for the two missing pages to be inserted in the Internet Archive file which is linked from An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828) - see [1] - as you can see they have used a different scanning method for these two pages.PeterR2 (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Done. I preferred to keep the djvu fmt, so the two pages have no text layer right now. It should be copied manually. I have not taken care of realigning Main ns.— Mpaa (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:@Mpaa: Thank you! That's great. I notice the Index:An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828) vol 1.djvu has lost its status colours. How do I get them back, please?PeterR2 (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I see 1-77 and other odds and sods reflecting various states. What are you expecting to be different? — billinghurst sDrewth 07:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually I Googled and found the answer in the Scriptorium archive in 2013 or 2003 or something and fixed it by refreshing the page by making a null edit.PeterR2 (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Mpaa (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


I've erroneously included the google first page boilerplate. Could someone please excise that page for me? Thank you. LeadSongDog (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog, @Mpaa: we are currently building a tool to do that. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@LeadSongDog, @Billinghurst: I've removed the cover page. And it looks rather likely that we could use the same system as the Indic language OCR (Google's Cloud Vision API) to determine whether a Google cover page exists or not. I've not yet done much testing, but it might be better than the currently manual selection of the cover page in IA Upload. Although, we wouldn't want it deleting the wrong thing! Sam Wilson 00:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both. Just a thought, but don't these cover pages have some common features that could be simply tested for, such as the google url in the OCR'd text? That obviously should not be in any book we'd want to upload. Another option would be to give the human user a preview the first page before uploading the rest. LeadSongDog (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@LeadSongDog: The ia-upload tool does give users a preview of the first page, and allows them to remove it. I thought you meant an easier system than that one. For an automated system, you're right it isn't too hard to at least attempt to determine if there's a Google logo, but we don't know how many false positives we'd get. Sam Wilson 00:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Mpaa (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


I discovered that the scan of page 49 in this project is incorrect, with a scan of page 57 on that page. The rest of the document seems OK outside of that.

The PDF seems to be inaccessible on the DOT database where the document was sourced from, although a different instance of the report is available from the 1st reference on the wikipedia page links to a different copy of the report with that page in tact, being page 56 of that particular PDF. I've done a quick cross-reference of that scan and the separate text layer in the DOT database where the projects original scan came from and it all aligns, suggesting the page in that PDF is the correct one.

I'm fairly new here, hopefully this is the right place to post to get this looked at and fixed up :)

Thanks Nickw25 (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

PING COMMUNITY Anyone have the tools (and patience) to take 56th page (page 49) from here and plugging that into file:CAB Accident Report, Pennsylvania Central Airlines Flight 19.pdfbillinghurst sDrewth 09:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@Nickw25: Yes check.svg Done -- Hrishikes (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Mpaa (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Index:Emanuel Swedenborg, Scientist and Mystic.djvu[edit]

Hello. Is anyone able to do a mass find and replace to replace the following ligatures with the proper text that I have missed whilst proofreading this work. They are the ligatures fi fi and fl fl. Thanks for any help.Jpez (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Done.—? Mpaa (talk) 07:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Jpez (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Mpaa (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Dante (Oliphant).djvu[edit]

The File:Dante (Oliphant).djvu needs to have the Google notice REPLACED with a blank page. The person who scanned the volume did not include the front cover. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mpaa: where are we with getting the fix implemented at Commons? — billinghurst sDrewth 10:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Still far away unfortunately. At least pywikibot has a now a method that can handle it (see it is actually called "whiten_page(()", the commit message was not updated. It is not clear to me how to identify the files to work on (a template? A category?)— Mpaa (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
At least I have a proto-script that can do it just with one command.— Mpaa (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mpaa: Billinghurst started a list at User:Wikisource-bot/Lead google page, which I've been adding to as I find them. However, the ones that I've added require removal of the page rather than replacement. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
IMO, the preferred way would be to place files in a Maintenance category (e.g one for page blanking and one for page removal). In that way, it would be possible to use built-in pywikibot features. Another option would be to put a template on them.
A list in a page needs to be parsed and entries need to be deleted once processed successfully. It is not impossible but the other way is supported better by the library.--Mpaa (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Mpaa! --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Welcome.--Mpaa (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Other discussions[edit]

Tertiary source citation warning not relevant[edit]

Wikisource, like all wikis using CiteThisPage, displays a warning at the top of each citation page:

IMPORTANT NOTE: Most educators and professionals do not consider it appropriate to use tertiary sources such as encyclopedias as a sole source for any information—citing an encyclopedia as an important reference in footnotes or bibliographies may result in censure or a failing grade. Wikipedia articles should be used for background information, as a reference for correct terminology and search terms, and as a starting point for further research.


This warning is not relevant for Wikisource, which provides primary sources, not tertiary sources. The warning should be removed. This was previously filed at and then referred here.

Sondra.kinsey (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually Wikisource contains primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Where did you see this notice on our site? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
yeah where do i go to turn the notices off, also the "You are editing in the main namespace. This page should include a "header" template." warning. they are a useless speedbump. Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
task T162599 - you know i do present this issue at libraries, but "may result in censure or a failing grade" - really? it’s all rather patronizing. you also have: "Please remember to check your manual of style, standards guide or instructor's guidelines for the exact syntax to suit your needs. For more detailed advice, see Citing Wikipedia." that seems to me to be to be enough (if we had a citing wikisource page). can we get a consensus to edit the page? i nominate deleting the "important warning" and adding all the tl;dr to the citing wikisource page, which interested people can read.Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that most useful way to progress is to put specific text forward for the community to agree upon. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
ok suggested language here MediaWiki talk:Citethispage-content. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Charles Matthews: With your Wikidata:WikiProject Source MetaData-hat on. I would love to see whether cite this page could look to have a means to use Wikidata, or could use WD, AND if that is a yes, that we could also look to have a means to identify where data is missing at WD from the citation here. At the moment one has to go to WD and run manual checks to know whether information has been transferred. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Ideally I would love to see a template at somewhere like enWP that someone can just do an arbitrary call to a WD item, and a use like {{cite book|arbitrary=Qnnnnnn}} fully populates a template. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I've put the issue to some folk who will know more than I do. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

95 years ago was 1921[edit]

It's approaching 2019 and the release of new, 1923, works into the public domain. We should prepare a collection of 1923 works to be released on 1/1/2019; I plan to find an early copy of The Murder on the Links that we can work from, and I'm currently working on the Renewal Registrations for 1950 to be able to get a good list of some of the major stuff that's going to be freshly out of copyright in English. But I was thinking about leading into that, with an emphasis on 1921 works this year and 1922 works next year. Any interest in this idea?--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Let us watch out for any US Congress bill to extend copyright term. Only if none is passed or signed into Federal Law will allow us to convert PD-1923 into public domain after 95 years of publication.--Jusjih (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

{{nop}} , it's overloaded use and possible replacement.[edit]

This isn't (yet) an issue, but future versions of the parser could potentially "tidy" blank tag pairs out of generated output entirely, thus possibly including the "tidying" out of the implied paragraph break generated.

{{nop}} is also used in three different instances:-

  1. is the original intended use, at the end of a page to force a paragaph break
  2. in ref tags to force a paragraph break.
  3. is at the head of a continued table (to provide a place holder for the pagenumber script, as I understood it.) and to ensure the relevant table element is read correctly.

Whilst the first 2 uses are the same, the third isn't and is a workaround for certain (current) limitations in the parser/Proofread page, ( which have been discussed at least twice here before.)

I've started on my own initiative, given that I felt there should be specific magic tags for overriding the default paragraph handling (like there are tags to indicate NOINDEX or page specfic TOC), in the parser, rather than it relying on a local template.

Feedback would be appreciated, as "community" support helps decide what gets fixed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The use in ref tags is an incorrect use. This should be done with paragraph tags.

With respect to the other usages, has a future problem actually been flagged or are you trying to be preëmptive of something that may never happen? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

A lone <p> will generate "malformed" HTML, according to the Linter Extension's checks (having had to fix over 100 or so pages utilising this quirk, I'm not happy about using it elsewhere., and is courtesy in . and doing <p></p> per what's supposed to be done doesn't yet render nicely in references IIRC.

I wasn't aware of the other usages being flagged as a problem as such, but given that the parser is being re-developed anyway, resolving what is a LONG standing limitation (necessitating a local template for something that SHOULD be in the core parser) was felt to be entirely reasonable.

In relation to the usage at a head of a table, this caused some pages to be listed as "fostered content" by the LinterExtension (the first instance of this being one I raised a phab ticket about as I initially thought it was a false positive.) as the lead {{nop}} is seen by the relevant checker as NOT being inside a table row or table element, and thus will get moved to the parent element before the table, automatically. This was another quirk behaviour which I understood wasn't necessarily guaranteed to behave the same in the new parser. (I've also had several rows with the parser getting it to handle complex tables( with split header/content/footer) correctly and consistently using the {{nop}} route.) Having a magic tag with a CONSISTENT, COHRENT and "documented" behaviour in all contexts, would be far far better than regularly playing 'guess the random interaction relying on Mediwiki behaviour you are supposed to know by mind-reading..' that has been used till now. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately you do go off half-cocked. In all cases "nop" is used as a placeholder, for a variety of elements of wiki syntax. Your continued panicked run-arounds and ill-judged comments at phabricator are not helpful.

Don't let Linter drive behavioural editing. The use of a single "p" marker is as old as the hills, and while the modern syntax likes closure, simply don't fuss it. So you don't have to fix anything like that, and you can be happy or not that is solely your choice. If you are not happy doing it, then don't. When you don't know what you are talking about, sometimes you should learn to say nothing. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but based on personal experience of trying to get things working on more than one work, I'm increasingly fed up as I said, of playing "hunt the quirk" (which probably shows in the Phabricator tickets).

Time to take another time out. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

in all the parser fun, maybe we should take council from user:Tim Starling - "We'll soon be getting rid of Tidy on WMF websites in favour of a pure PHP solution called RemexHtml that I recently wrote. It should eventually become the default for new MediaWiki installations as well. It accepts either form and will initially output "<br />" for compatibility with parser tests." [2] - Slowking4SvG's revenge 14:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Save/Publish page[edit]

The boilerplate at the foot of the edit window begins

By clicking the “Save page” button,...

But there is no “Save page” button. The button being referred to is labeled “Publish page”. Either the boilerplate or the button text should be changed.

The equivalency is obvious to me and probably to most editors, but most ≠ all. I am a (1) highly educated (2) native speaker of American English (3) with 12 years of Wikipedia experience, (4) a career largely spent in the software industry, and (5) a doctorate in linguistics. It may not be so obvious to, e.g., a non-native speaker, or an educated native speaker new to Wikimedia who wonders what the difference is between saving a page and publishing it.

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Thnidu: Thanks for the note. The change from "save page" to "publish page" is a change that has taken place in the last month. It is contained in the message MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning and we are using the default for all wikis. @Whatamidoing (WMF): the global message needs to be updated, and maybe it needs to be done in many languages. Can we poke that at you for resolution? — billinghurst sDrewth 06:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Whatamidoing (WMF): Noting that this footer used to be Philippe's text, so it may be something to wave past Mdennis (WMF). — billinghurst sDrewth 07:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Whee! Thanks for the quick and helpful answer. :-) --Thnidu (talk) 06:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Noting to community the only overt place that needed change is Mediawiki:Newarticletext which I have just updated. We should be looking through our pages in the Help: namespace for where we may have the "save page" text. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't making a new page. I was editing Bright's Anglo-Saxon Reader/Anglo-Saxon Versification, a couple of typo fixes. (Don't worry, I compared with the scan of the original. Typos like "teh".) What I noted would exist on all edit pages. --Thnidu (talk) 07:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-16[edit]

19:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


  • @Ineuw, @ShakespeareFan00: please note the above comment about safemode as you both seem to have the most issues due to custom javascript. Now we just need to find a good place to poke that information for when we forget that syntax. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration products newsletter: 2017-04[edit]

13:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Author pages, wikidata and family name[edit]

Hi to all who do work in Wikidata, especially in the creation and editing of author pages over there. I have been looking at the population of "family name" (Property:P734) data as that would be a really useful field for us to utilise here (it equates to our use of lastname in the Author template.)

By my searches, the data looks to be

and I think that I added about 1000 yesterday with the use of tools.

I would like to ask that anyone adding author data over there to please consider the addition of P734 data, and even creating items for surnames if they are not within the system there. I will look to create the simple WS guide to author addition at WD to assist this process.

My reason for wanting this populated is that when done, we can look to the bot creation of compilation lists, so we can autogenerate lists like Wikisource:Authors-A rather than the porous manual lists we have now. "Given name" and "family name" data populated to WD is required for this to be successful.

Thoughts? Questions? — billinghurst sDrewth 04:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

is there a way to mix and match against worldcat or viaf ? Slowking4SvG's revenge 20:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
How would this work for people like John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton, surname "Dalberg-Acton" but listed in most indices at "Ac"? Or people whose last names are not generally used for indexing, like the house names of royal families, or the former names of monks and popes? The edge-cases are the places where an automatic solution is likeliest to fail. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: In principle, it's not hard to have a default value and then add in a field for alphabetical_sort_override=. In 99% of cases, it would be fairly straight-forward to sort someone by surname and in a relatively small number of cases, it would be necessary to manually check and redefine it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
In that case we would need the "alphabetical_sort_override" key to be in Wikidata too, I imagine, so that the indexer-bot can access it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Noting that Wikidata has hyphenated family names, and I am sure that we can involved in that conversation there about how we wish to utilise data pulls. Noting also that there is still prefered and normal scope. It shouldn't be a blocker to us populating data, it is a fine-tuning matter. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
And noting we already have defaultsort in {{author}} and then it would how we could utilise. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Author template firstname/lastname and the "Such and such of Placename"[edit]

Separate though related note. By my review of data for one name people eg. "John of Wendover", we still have varied use, all in firstname, all in lastname, split to both fields.

It is my belief that we should have an accepted practice and be giving specific guidance for such names. I believe that it all belongs in the firstname parameter, with the lastname parameter left empty. My reason being that when presented it should present as a string, it should default sort as that string, and based on firstname.

I know that is a provocative and bold statement, and I would like to hear other opinions about how we can organise the data, strengths and weaknesses of the approaches, so ultimately we can start to tidy up the existing data, and look to monitor the input. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it ought to be all in firstname with lastname blank, especially if that still sorts correctly. However, I don't see any reason for it to matter, so long as it sorts correctly. The primary difficulty in standardizing is the significant number of people for whom it isn't clear whether it should be counted as a surname or not, since the line is blurry in many cases. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes it sorts properly, where lastname is missing it sorts on firstname. It displays properly. Richard of Wendover should appear at R lists, not O or W. We are clarifying to uses which way to push them, to firstname, not lastname. We are not removing the choice of what is a surname or not; and we will never get 100% purity, though I would like something better than our current 50% (based on users changing one or the other). — billinghurst sDrewth 15:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Can the publisher be the Library of Congress?[edit]

This book Index:Notes of the Mexican war 1846-47-48.djvu doesn't list the publisher but the inside page linings are from the Library of Congress. Could they be the publishers? — Ineuw talk 07:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think they are; it's the same lining as books I know to be published by the Library of Congress, but the scan is from the LoC, and I think it more likely they just using their paper where they were rebinding it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
no - the metadata is frequently wrong at Internet Archive. the LOC catalog link is here or (OCLC) 2652213 this is a book by J. Jacob. Oswandel, published Philadelphia : [s.n.], 1885. i would blank publisher and add the correct metadata. worldcat works also. LOC does publish materials for their use, such as the Catalog of Copyright Entries, but it is very unlikely, more likely self-published or unknown, especially for war memoir. Slowking4SvG's revenge 19:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice: training event on afternoon of Monday 24th April 2017[edit]

Sorry for the short notice, but I will be running a training workshop from 2pm-5pm British Summer Time (GMT +1) at the University of Cardiff, which will involve up to twenty new accounts dropping in and proofreading one page of a text that I've prepared. I will review their edits afterwards and clean up any mess. Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@MartinPoulter: thanks for the heads-up. I see that you have enWP account creator rights, so that is good. Good luck with what you are doing, and we would appreciate any feedback that the newbies have that could assist others; and thanks! — billinghurst sDrewth 23:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-17[edit]

16:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Local notes[edit]

With regards to the ability to do temporary rights any administrator who is assigning themselves the bot user rights should look to make these temporary rights, and I think that the community should have that as a base position.

To note that if you wish to give yourself rights for a couple of hours with that finishing on the same day, that you can just add the UTC time hh:mm (and it does take YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm as other time if you ever want to be specific). Such temporary rights log as being temporary, and the rights do expire, that the expiry does not show afterwards; and the rights addition in still displays Special:UserRights with a tick at least for a while (purging no difference), though with the expired time. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Works/editions and authority control parameters[edit]

I am seeing in Category:Pages using authority control with parameters the use of items that are book-related, rather than edition specific, eg. OCLC, and VIAF. I am not certain that this is particularly kosher, and seeking opinion on whether they should be removed or not. Do people see that they actually add value? — billinghurst sDrewth 14:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm divided on the issue. On the one hand, we want edition-specific information. But all too often, I can't find any edition specific links at VIAF or even LoC for the editions I'm seeking. And the LoC will sometimes have copy specific links rather than edition-specific ones, which is of no value to us at all since their copies seldom have scans available. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
It means that we are needing to manage that data locally, as we should not be pushing that book-level data into Wikidata for our editions. It also means that we are tracking its addition locally, which seems pointless if it is just indicative data, rather than something of value. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
We can't keep misguided bot operators from transferring data inappropriately. Even when all the data is correct, I've seen bot operators or well-meaning editors mis-add the data to items, then argue and get all huffy when I try to explain how it's supposed to be done. If Wikidata were able to do their end consistently, and if we had a way to pull information and links from work-level items on Wikidata, whenever appropriate, then I think it would cease to be an issue. Unfortunately, Wikidata is a mess when it comes to distinguishing works and editions, or in tracking languages of works, and bots and new editors keep muddying the water.
Also, VIAF is in flux, with many works having multiple ID values, and I can almost never find edition information in VIAF. So, you have to know how to navigate "up" Wikidata in Wikidata in order to find book information. Further, we have no tools for "crawling" up the links in Wikidata from an edition to a work, and even if we had that, there is still no distinction at Wikidata between edition (in the same language) and translation. Until Wikidata can handle these and related issues, I don't see the problem that you've raised going away. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
we are going to have to lead the way about structuring bibliographic metadata. could you write up a problem statement; and proposed paths forward, and missing process bits. how would we curate the worldcat or OCLC to incorporate edition information? if we wait for wikidata and VIAF, we will get a "solution" we will not like. if we raise the issues at wikidata, maybe we can get some buy-in. Slowking4SvG's revenge 03:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Interestingly just today I found an OCLC link that stated an edition, so maybe there is a lack of consistency and the mess is just universal. Rather than hit my head against the wall, maybe we just brute force the data, and take our whipping later. We just manage with less than perfect data and fix it all into the future. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
What is the 'blue-sky' desire for {{authority control}}? Is it that it displays a 'work' ID if there isn't an 'edition' one? Because that isn't too hard to do. I mean, not too hard to set up the linkage to use Wikidata data… the adding of the IDs to the right item on WD is another matter, but at least on our side things would stay clean. I don't really see the point in adding work-IDs to editions here (where there's no edition ID to be had); it'd be just as much work to add them at Wikidata, and doing so would have wider-ranging benefit. (Although, I agree that there's a world of bibliographic mess out there and that we're probably not going to end up with perfection!) Sam Wilson 06:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Sam, I do like the thought of cascading the the authorities. If data not on the edition, then choose the work. The neat thing about that is that here it is a coded response to the data selection, not encoded data here. The only thing that we need to do is to confirm that we want each authority that we display to cascade from work to edition; then fix the data. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Yeah, it shouldn't been too hard to add to Module:Authority control. I'll start writing some tests for the existing functionality. Would we want it to display any differently when it shows a work-level ID? Alternatively, we could show two sections in the authority control area, with the 2nd being for the work (might make it clearer?). Sam Wilson 01:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't particularly wouldn't want to overly change/fork the module itself as ours does (did?) match enWPs. If we could wrap it that if the edition link fails to produce data that we then call the work (but I am not the coder so you tell us). Bit of push and pull whether we identify it separately, or pull the same field. If my first answer effects the approach, then maybe it is just simpler to align in showing separately. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, good point. Let's add it to the nascent Module:Edition, and it doesn't even need to do the complicated thing of knowing about all the different IDs; we can just ask Wikidata what an edition (and then its work) has. I'll get a sandbox and tests set up and we can experiment. Sound like a plan? We've got a ticket phab:T159104 for this sort of thing at the Hackathon in Vienna too; I'll work on this there as well. Sam Wilson 07:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
the problem is - most book metadata does not differentiate between editions. they glom all the editions together in one item. this means that there is the prospect of cleaning up all the metadata on the internet. we are going to have to make it easier to "check the edition before upload", but will have no help from anywhere else. it is not the first time that wikimedia is leading by example on metadata. Slowking4SvG's revenge 14:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. I think that summarizes the situation well. And while we can lead the way, each individual can tackle only a small portion of the problem. I have been trying to get the situation in hand for Greek drama, and have started expanding to some other Greek poets and Roman drama, but it is a mountain to deal with, especially since the task involves knowing the structure and quirks of several databases (GND, BnF), in addition to the issues on Wikidata and the various Wikisources. Never mind that doing this right universally also means working in several languages.
But even doing all that, I will have only cleaned up the situation for about 43 plays and a single set of 50 poems by a single author when I have finally done the group of works that I have selected to clean up. We really need an easier way to manage the creation, correlation, and correction of the data involved, and that's the gist of my proposal for Wikimedia strategy. If anyone here would like to add comments to that thread at Meta, expounding on some aspect of this issue, it would help clarify the situation and promote the discussion for all concerned. This is a big issue with many facets. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Requesting the deletion of a file on Wikisource[edit]

Please could someone delete File:Taking of Upton Bridge.jpg? I accidentally uploaded it on to Wikisource years ago. There is a version of the same file on Commons. -- PBS (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done . For future reference, feel welcome to use {{sdelete}} and say it is transwikied. As it is unused we can speedy it. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Watchlist issues anyone?[edit]

For me for the past twelve hours, I am having display issues for my Watchlist. I get a blank screen (enWS only) and no error messages in my console. Can someone please confirm that their watchlist is working here at enWS, and especially confirm if they are using firefox. [my attempts to solve the issue will have to wait a while] Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I do get the note
The character encoding of the HTML document was not declared. The document will render with garbled text in some browser configurations if the document contains characters from outside the US-ASCII range. The character encoding of the page must be declared in the document or in the transfer protocol.
and I don't believe that I have made any changes to anything in that time. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Not to fuss, I have got it working by cleaning out the list through Special:EditWatchlist/raw. I will add it back later to find out what has changed. It was a category, not sure which, that will definitely have to wait. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I have identified that having Category:Speedy deletion requests in my watchlist breaks the display of Special:Watchlist. Can anyone please confirm whether it is a more universal problem, or just for me. To note that you have to set OFF in your watchlist preferences
Hide categorization of pages
billinghurst sDrewth 13:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I tried just now; added the cat to my watchlist and turned off "hide cats", but I still do not have this issue in Firefox or Vivaldi/Chromium. However, I noticed a few people having watchlist trouble at w:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) so I suspect there's something bigger at play. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Noting three temporary means to resolve
  • Stop watching categories, ie. turn on Hide categorization of pages in watchlist preferences
  • Turn off Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent in watchlist preferences
  • temporarily remove Category:Speedy deletion requests (or other offending categories) via Special:EditWatchlist/raw

billinghurst sDrewth 06:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The strategy discussion. The Cycle 2 will start on May 5[edit]

The first cycle of the Wikimedia movement strategy process recently concluded. During that period, we were discussing the main directions for the Wikimedia movement over the next 15 years. There are more than 1500 summary statements collected from the various communities, but unfortunately, just several from your local discussion. The strategy facilitators and many volunteers have summarized the discussions of the previous month. A quantitative analysis of the statements will be posted on Meta for translation this week, alongside the report from the Berlin conference.

The second cycle will begin soon. It's set to begin on May 5 and run until May 31. During that period, you will be invited to dive into the main topics that emerged in the first cycle, discuss what they mean, which ones are the most important and why, and what their practical implications are. This work will be informed and complemented by research involving new voices that haven’t traditionally been included in strategy discussions, like readers, partners, and experts. Together, we will begin to make sense of all this information and organize it into a meaningful guiding document, which we will all collectively refine during the third and last cycle in June−July.

We want to help your community to be more engaged with the discussions in the next cycle. Now, we are looking for volunteers who could

  • tell us where to announce the start of the Cycle 2, and how to do that, so we could be sure the majority of your community is informed and has a chance to feel committed, and
  • facilitate the Cycle 2 discussions here, on Wikisource.

We are looking forward to your feedback!

Base (WMF) and SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Index:Bibliografia Pratese, compilata per un da Prato.djvu[edit]

Non-english work?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and just delete it, because the creator of the Index page within minutes created the page at it:Index:Bibliografia Pratese, compilata per un da Prato.djvu and has started proofing it there, so apparently they created it here by accident.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI: PDF thumbnail rendering problems[edit]

There is a problem regarding PDF file images and thumbnails failing to render, which is being discussed at WS:Scriptorium/Help#Problems with File:Special 301 Report 2014.pdf. I have also notified the devs at Phabricator task T164045. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Now recorded as being resolved. Please purge the file using the link from the Index: page to push out the rubbishy thumbnails. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Problems with page loading in the Page: namespace[edit]

Is anyone else having problems with incomplete loading of pages in the Page: namespace? Most of the time I'm not getting a toolbar above the edit window, the action tabs along the top are in the raw order, the template scripts aren't loading, and selecting a new status doesn't generate an automatic edit summary. I've tried changing the skin and using a different browser, but to no avail. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Happening for me too, especially the action tabs. Some JS scripts are failing to run somewhere. The toolbar thing happens a lot for me though. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, also just discovered that I'm not getting the symbol insertion lists at the bottom of the screen either. This was happening Thursday evening my time, but I just put it down to the live streaming going on elsewhere in the house. However, Thursday evening = new version of software. Looking at the list of changes for 1.29/wmf.21, I see there was a change to the ProofreadPage extension—something about dropping OIA-PMH support (whatever that is). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
If it is a rendering issue, sometimes forcing with ctrl-f5 can resolve the issue. w:OAI-PMH does not seem relevant. We get/got our software updates on Tuesday. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
ctrl-f5 didn't do anything. Nor has closing and restarting. It's also happening on my other computer logged in and logged out, so it's not just my scripts. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Got the following error in the Firefox developer tools' JS console when the issue occurs:
TypeError: mw.util is undefined TypeError: mw.util is undefined
Stack trace:
[object Object]  load.php:176:53
Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
If you use ...?safemode=1 do you get the same error message? — billinghurst sDrewth 04:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Gut feel is that we are going to need to poke it into phabricator and get someone like Krinkle to have a look, it will most likely have ResourceLoader implications and something here is out of date. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle: Phabricator request to fix load.php. I am seeing various requests around the wikis about putting dependencies into gadgets for mw.util. As this is not gadget stuff the fix will need to be upstream. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC) See below maybe it is locally fixable and we just need the right console/bug reports.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have made an edit to how the gadget nopinserter is loaded, and that should remove some noise, though I don't see in your above output which component was spitting chips. It will likely be one of the gadgets that you use. From the console, click on the link (load.php or index.php) and in the debugger you should get an indication of the script that is hosed. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Whatever it was that you did, seems to have done the trick for me. I've opened several pages in a row (yesterday and today) and they've all loaded happily. Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Question about the {{FI}} and {{FIS}} templates[edit]

Does any know where the font size is specified in these templates? I've looked but found nothing, even though the captions are reduced to about 85% font-size. — Ineuw talk 00:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

94%? It comes from the class and is stored in MediaWiki:Dynimg.cssbillinghurst sDrewth 03:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, much appreciated. At least I now understand "class" as it applies to this object. — Ineuw talk 14:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Recommended default change in search preferences[edit]

I have put text into MediaWiki:Search-summary that recommends to users to change their default setting for search to the most advanced preference (the subpage setting was discussed at an earlier time.) This mediawiki: ns page is a component of Special:Search and by default is empty in WMF cofiguration. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Also the search box isn't very user friendly for new people here when it comes to searching for a particular subject, namely it won't display portals by default because it only searches content pages. Not very helpful for someone who comes here and probably doesn't even know that portals exist. Jpez (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jpez: I think that it was our choice to not have portal: ns as "content", and we initially settled on main, author, index and page, then added Translation when we had that created. It was ages ago, and I don't remember the detail. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah ok, but I can't imagine why though. Do you remember the reason?Jpez (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Not exactly, probably with the Portal: ns being under utilised at the time. Hmm, it even looks like in 2013 that I proposed Add portal ns: to be a default search to include Portal: and we did nothing about it. You can see that we have various bitsy conversation though maybe not an holistic. "default search" archives of WS:S

We probably should just resurrect the 2013 conversation and confirm it, and then submit a phabricator ticket. (Hint hint submit a proposal!) — billinghurst sDrewth 00:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-18[edit]

19:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Table assistance[edit]

If there is anyone who would like to fiddle with this page to make it resemble the original, I would be grateful. Text has been proofread; just needs formatting. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC) @Londonjackbooks: Done. — Ineuw talk 02:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ineuw: Thank you, that looks great. I have adopted blackletter throughout as well, although I was initially hesitant to, since headings were not quite blackletter... And I am undecided as to whether I want to set width for images... Thanks for all! Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: It is not possible to be 100% faithful to the originals. I often tried, but never succeeded. I did blackletter because it is similar to the original, and breaks the constant monotony of Arial. About the image width, I always consider the main namespace Display Option's narrow layouts, #2 and #4 (which is 540px), Please see this random page That is what I used as my guide for image width. — Ineuw talk 18:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ineuw: Thank you for the explanation. I will keep it in mind. Again, thanks much for the formatting—and apparently while you were experiencing page loading issues? Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Page loading for editing is painstakingly slow[edit]

For the past week, opening and displaying a page for edit has been very slow - to the point that I must wait minutes for a page to render, if they render at all. I open and edit consecutively, several pages at a time but that shouldn't be a problem because I have sufficient RAM memory and other websites load normally.

  • Cleared the Index caches, with all cache controls available to users.
  • Yesterday, monitored both my internet down and upload speeds every hour, and it's always normal and the same.
  • Requested my ISP to do the same, and clear any cache that would affect performance, and he confirmed that all is normal.
  • Checked the Wikimedia servers and they were all operating normally.
  • Scanned for viruses and adware and everything is clean. (Also I am going through OpenDNS for added protection.
  • Tested both Chrome and Firefox and the problems are the same.

Wikisource page loading from the Commons is painstakingly slow. Any ideas? — Ineuw talk 04:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Possibly the same issue as #Problems with page loading in the Page: namespace above? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
test with safemode (instructions above) — billinghurst sDrewth 13:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Check your console for errors. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
As usual, completely missed that post. I knew that there are loading errors with load.php from looking at the console at other times, but I wasn't sure if it's because of my gadgets or scripts. I will repeat the actions with the console. — Ineuw talk 18:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I tested "safemode" and it works, and generated the following error:
Gadget "CollapsibleNav" styles loaded twice. Migrate to type=general. See <>.
Also, this is not a productive solution. So, I created a phabricator ticket T164443Ineuw talk 00:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ineuw: If the page loaded in Page: nswithout delay using safemode, then the problem that relates to your use of gadgets and/or js scripts, so poking it to phabricator isn't easily going to resolve your issue. You need to identify where your issue is situated. That will be either turning off gadgets and/or blanking scripts while the source is identified; OR via the use of the console and developer tools.

I have resolved issues that I see with the gadgets that I have selected. Each persons choice of gadgets will be different, so each person can check to see if they are getting errors, or resolving issues. You alone can test your chosen environment. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment collapsiblenav should be resolved, I amended how the gadget loads. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Got your point about finding the error, so I must disable all, and re-enable them one by one. — Ineuw talk 01:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Disabled all gadgets and tested page opening, and nothing changed. I am sure it's not the gadgets.
  • Removed all scripts, (but left the common.css untouched) and emptied and disabled browser cache. The load was still slow but faster than with the scripts. I also got the following console messages.
This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "jquery.ui.widget".  load.php:31:289
This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "jquery.ui.core".
Please use "mediawiki.ui.button" or "oojs-ui" instead.
Ineuw talk 02:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I will add this info to the ticket. — Ineuw talk 02:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, and that confirms that it is in your gadgets or user scripts. Safemode also turns off our enWS forced scripts. All of those are warnings, not faults/errors, so they can be ignored.

We need for you to determine which script or scripts cause the problem. Either start with all on, or all off, and singularly increment until the erroneous script is identified. Or start half way with one of gadgets or user scripts running and work up or down from there. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Still not 100% sure what causes the problem but the first thing I noticed that after removing all code, the CharInsert bar remained on top of the edit window, thus making the following snippet of code unnecessary, and possibly the cause of the problem. window.charinsertMoveTop = true;. Restored my user defined Charinsert and a page is loading faster but still not as it was in the "old days".
I also suspect that the Common.js page is corrupt because when in edit mode, it didn't bring up the normal .js editor features and remained an ordinary text page. I managed to bring it back by clearing the page cache, but it took some three minutes do display correctly. Can I delete this page and recreate a new common.js? Or, should I move my code into the vector.js? Vector is what I use always. — Ineuw talk 07:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
You are running nopinserter as a pushed script rather than the gadget, and it has dependencies, so that will clearly have been one issue. I have wrapped it in a means to utilise the dependent script. I would have thought that you could have just used the gadget, but that is your choice. Your other two loaded scripts may or may not cause issues, if they use mw.util, then they will cause issues and we will need to amend their actions too.

re .js files. Common.js is "common" to all skins, and is the place that you should run scripts. You would only put vector skin only scripts in vector.js. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: With all due respect, I challenge your assessment of the problem, and you ignore my concerns. I say this because User:Beeswaxcandle has the same problem and I doubt we use the same setup and editing tools.

I don't expect you to know the answers and solutions to the issues, but I was hoping that you give more consideration to my concerns. I tested the loading problem for the past week before I posted in the Scriptorium.

I am now logged in as User:IneuwPublic, where the setup mirrors that of User:Ineuw, including the gadget selections. In fact, this account is linked to the Ineuw account's scripts because they are don't exist in this account. With this account everything works amazingly fast.

The problem must originate with the User:Ineuw account overall. An hour ago, I deleted ALL cookies of the Wikimedia family from the browser and logged in anew, but it still hangs when attempting to load a page.

My modified copy of the nopinserter has worked for over a year without any problems. It was modified to omit the constant popup message, since I insert nop en masse after proofreading at least 100 pages and this was the original intent of the script designer.

I also use a modified copy of pathoschild's proofreading script as User:Ineuw/common.js/proofreading.js because the standard script surrounds mdashes with spaces, (the French Wikisource requirement), whereas we don't.

Did the wmf software updates remove the need for window.charinsertMoveTop = true;.? I asked because now the Charinsert is on top of the text area box by default.

It occurred to me that the problem may be a disk error on the server where my settings are stored and that is why I moved and recreated common.js and common.cs and then I deleted the originals. Suggestion the use of vector.js and vector.css was an alternative to recreating the two modules, because I only use the vector skin. — IneuwPublic talk 18:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ineuw: May I double your "with all due respect." I have fixed four gadget issues,[29] and mimicked one of those fixes in your common.js file each of these could have contributed to the issue that you describe, and I have spent numbers of hours identifying issues of the community concern, and looking at the broader WMF environment (rather than doing the things that I would have liked to have done).

Your commentary is facile, and it ignores facts that it is only happening in limited situations (some people and at this wiki) which indicates local settings issues, not systemic problems.

You have not looked at the broader wikimedia discussions that have been occurring about mw.util and where people are using it that they need to fix local settings. You simply are busy reacting and talking, not listening and providing useful information that allows some to diagnose your issue. Deleting files, moving things out of common.js to your skin, rather than simply commenting out lines of code reinforce this. The simple fact is that you need to identify where the problem is occurring (which script, which gadget, which setting) and not yammer about what has or hasn't worked over periods of time, it is all irrelevant in wikis where the underlying code develops on a weekly cycle

Actually stuff it all. I am giving up explaining where people aren't listening. Read the following, the information is there and you get to join the dots.

If you come off the default settings, you own your problems and solutions. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Read it and got it. The yammerer. — Ineuw talk 18:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Getting missing pages from another file[edit]

Colleagues and I have started a transcription project at Index:Plomer Dictionary of the Booksellers and Printers 1907.djvu. We've just noticed that pages 88 and 89 are missing from the IA scan we've used. Those pages are available in a scan of a different copy of the book. What is the recommended way to combine those pages with the existing transcription in progress? Thanks in advance for any help, MartinPoulter (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

If memory serves, @Mpaa: has helped me out with similar issues in the past. But please don't do any more proofreading of the index until it is taken care of, due to potential page moves that will need to be made. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Fixed.— Mpaa (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
That's brilliant. Thanks very much for your prompt and helpful action, Mpaa. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Voting has begun in 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections[edit]

19:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Gesta Romanorum sanity check[edit]

I've finally got back to work on this somewhat complex project and think I've done enough that it's apparent where it's headed. I also want to provide more complete Wikisource translations of at least some of the tales, as the original explications of the tales are mostly abbreviated or omitted in the translation. Plus there's this 1600 edition at Internet Archive that would be very challenging to transcribe. So ... could someone please check this out so that lots of pages won't need renaming or fixing in the future? Mudbringer (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Our guidance for different translations of the same work is to utilise the name of the translator(s) as part of the disambiguation. (Wikisource:naming conventions) I am presume that is question you are asking. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the feedback. I don't see any mention of translations on the page you linked, or any mention of disambiguation on Wikisource:Translations, but the guidance you mentioned seems reasonable. In this case, however, the two editions I have index pages for are of the same translation, by Charles Swan, which I believe is the only PD translation in nearly modern English. The 2-volume edition I'm working on right now is almost identical to the original edition of the Swan translation, merely provided with an extra introduction. The other edition, by Hooper, has been lightly revised, but is mostly important for Hooper's introduction, which has one of the best explanations of the history of the work.
Duh! See Wikisource talk:naming conventions. We are atrocious at good help and policy pages. Transcription rulez! <wry smile> — billinghurst sDrewth 22:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
My original intention in posting to the Scriptorium was to ask in general if anyone could look over the linked indexes pages, and the the pages in the main namespace that I've begun, to alert me to any problems that I have been overlooking. I apologise for the vagueness. As for specific concerns, I would like to hear anyone's recommendations on these issues:
  • I have the two volumes for the 1871 edition linked from the translation/disambiguation page (to which I've added more detailed information on these and other editions) and I would prefer to keep it this way rather than require the reader to click through a page listing just those two volumes. On the other hand, it could be useful to have a single page listing the tables of contents of both volumes.
  • On Latin Wikisource I have only placed one edition. Ideally I'd have a page listing various Latin editions, but I'm hesitant to try that with my poor Latin skills. Given these constraints, I'm trying to provide interlanguage links that will be helpful and logical, but I'm sure there's room for improvement.
  • There are two books that contain well-known discussions of Gesta Romanorum. I've just read on Help:Disambiguation that to include these books it is recommended to make a portal page. To do that, could I just rename the Gesta Romanorum page to Portal:Gesta Romanorum, modify the contents as needed, and leave the resulting redirect as is?
  • As I said, the volume I'm working on now is rather complex. For example Of the Life of Alexius, son of the Senator Eufemian includes an endnote longer than the translation itself, and both the translation and endnote have footnotes. I now have the footnotes appear immediately following their sections, but would it be better to have them all at the bottom of the page?
I'm afraid my queries are still too vague, but it's the best I can do right now. Mudbringer (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
My thoughts:
  • Linking directly to both volumes of the Wright translation from Gesta Romanorum is fine, but it would also be desirable to additionally create Gesta Romanorum (Swan 1824) (or whatever) as a main page for the two-volume translation work.
  • I'd leave LAwikisource as it is unless you plan to add more Latin versions to LAwikisource yourself.
  • What you'd need to do is leave Gesta Romanorum as a list of translations of the text, and create a separate Portal:Gesta Romanorum for works related to the text.
  • Help:Footnotes and endnotes can be your guide for footnotes and endnotes.
And finally, your efforts look to be quite good, keep up the good work! —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful and encouraging comments! Mudbringer (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Beta Feature Two Column Edit Conflict View[edit]

Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Birgit Müller (WMDE): Is this expected to work in the Page namespace here? Because it doesn't appear to - I get the default edit conflict interface with the Beta enabled. Sam Walton (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Sam Walton, it doesn't work in the page namespace, because Wikisource uses a different content model for the page namespace that is not wikitext (same goes for Wikidata). But good point: If the old edit conflict resolution page does work in the page namespace, the new one should ideally work there, too. We'll look into it & check what would be needed to achieve this & I'll let you know. Thanks for the heads up! --Birgit Müller (WMDE) (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-19[edit]

02:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Templates {{FI}} and {{FIS}} are broken[edit]

is template:FIS now broken? and flat sidebar menu? Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be. Haz talk 03:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hopeful this can be remedied. I appreciate how the templates behave/render on various devices. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
appears to work now. Slowking4SvG's revenge 11:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

index page problem[edit]

Hi. I just uploaded a book to the Commons but when I made the index page in the Persian Wikisource, it didn't show the page numbers. Can anyone help me with this? --Yousef (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Try now. It looked like the pagelist command was missing for some reason. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --Yousef (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Yoosef Pooranvary: Can you please help with the Persian writing in djvu pages 6, 7, 9 of Index:Wanderings of a Pilgrim Vol 1.djvu? The author's name is always in Persian in this work. Hrishikes (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done . Although it is written in Arabic alphabet and it seems to be Persian, the name is not Persian. It’s transliteration to English is "Funny Parx". --Yousef (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@Yoosef Pooranvary: Many thanks. If you can please transcribe the Persian at the lower right of the image on page 6, I have plan to crop the image (and de-color the background) and transcribe the writing. Hrishikes (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Building a "small language" corpora[edit]

Is Wikisource the right place to compile a small language corpus, perhaps on a test Wikisource? The source of the works is a university that has published literature compositions of an indigenous language as well as student's literary works including poems and short novels. Unfortunately there is a pressing need to archive these documents by means of digitization. -Masssly (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Multilingual Wikisource (a.k.a. Old Wikisource) is the place for works in languages that aren't big enough to have their own wikisources. They already have a small corpus of Cherokee texts and Inuktitut textsBeleg Tâl (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Good to know Beleg Tâl, thanks. By small I actually meant between 3K and 4k (and growing) pages of texts. I suppose that is sufficient to have their own Wikisource. I could use some help setting it up in the incubator -Masssly (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@Masssly: multi language Wikisource is our incubator for Wikisource, it can be set up now and easily and you should ask for help at their mul:Wikisource:Scriptorium. From there they can spool it into its own independent source at the appropriate time, they will also be able to push it through the language committee more easily. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Make sure to check the licenses; projects like these don't tend to worry about copyrights of the students or the works they've translated as well as Wikimedia would prefer.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: I didn't envision this could be a problem. But thinking of it now it seems to me that the only option available to not get into trouble is to convince the school to release their material under BY-SA. My question is: and if they did, could I upload on their behalf? -Masssly (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
If the work has scans to be uploaded to Commons, then I would think that it should have supporting documentation through the OTRS process would be beneficial (see c:Commons:OTRS). Following this should cut out a lot of potential grief, and set a steady base to work upon. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@Masssly: I could help you starting on the Multilingual/Old/Incubator Wikisource. Could you tell us what language you are talking about? (and if possible, the corresponding ISO code). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: Language is Dagbani and the ISO is dag.Masssly (talk) 07:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Layout 3 skewy for me[edit]

Looking at The Strand Magazine/Volume 1/Issue 1/The Metropolitan Fire Brigade the header for layout 3 appears off to the right of the page and I need to scroll the page. Prior to my editing I though that I would confirm that it is a problem wider than me. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I see the same thing, and likewise on other, simpler pages. Mudbringer (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-20[edit]

21:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

A note about a future change[edit]

Hi everyone. Some of you have already noticed this in m:Tech News above and as it's been already mentioned twice, but I wanted to flag again that because of an upcoming change, there's some code that may need to be fixed on this wiki:

You can find the list of the pages you'll want to check in a table on In most cases those are false positives (I have looked at some of those pages and looks like there are just several cases of bad OCR), and you only really need to fix as explained on when the "defective" syntax is inside a template or a wikilink, basically. When you have completed the checks, please edit the Notes field of the table accordingly! If you have questions, please reach the team on the talk page. Hope this helps, and thanks for your attention and your help, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

As most of these problem are bad OCR typo in 'not proofread' pages (especially in the United States Statutes at Large), I've launched WS:AWB to replace them by a simple hyphen.
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration products newsletter: 2017-05[edit]

15:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Join the next cycle of Wikimedia movement strategy discussions (underway until June 12)[edit]

21:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikimania 2017 "Wikisource Year in Review"[edit]

hey all, i have been accepted for a talk about wikisource at wikimania. please get your suggestions, gripes, talking points in. i would be happy to present your brief.- cheers. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Having H: properly mapped to Help: namespace[edit]

At the moment we use a shortcut like H:NS to be a shortcut to Help:Namespaces; this is actually a kludge that shows up in the main namespace. We should be having H: registered as a namespacealias to Help: as we have done for WS: to Wikisource:. As a practical example of this when looking at the prefixindex, note the namespace dropdown as an indicator of where you are in these examples Special:PrefixIndex/H: and Special:PrefixIndex/WS:, and also note the abbreviated listing

Technical speaking: We should be having H: set as a namespace alias for ns:12/Help: and HT: set as a namespace alias for ns:13/Help talk: (see current definitions in API call. This is a little fix, and does not adversely affect the wiki. It corrects an oversight that we made when we started better using the help namespace, though incorrectly implemented the shortcuts. [I am mostly asking the non-tech members of the community to trust me that this is needed.]

I request that the community approves this proposal and we will get a site request phabricator to resolve, and the sysadmins to run some scripts that will fix the incorrect namespace components. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg SupportBeleg Tâl (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Ciridae (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg SupportSpangineer (háblame) 22:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Sam Wilson 07:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Proofread namespace xwiki alignment for WS sisters[edit]

As a note, the Vienna hackathon (currently running) will be pushing ahead with the long-discussed plan to harmonise the namespaces for Index: and Page:. There is no specific timetable for the implementation / migration, though the process to migrate is now in play. Whenever it happens it will mean a small disruption, and this will be announced to us well ahead of the change. There is no requirement for the community to do anything except note the forthcoming change, (and if you do hardcode namespaces into templates, etc. then you will need to update such). Technical detail is in the phabricator ticket and further background at Mediawikibillinghurst sDrewth 16:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-21[edit]

22:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee elections[edit]

21:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Plain sisters links for multi-level WD items[edit]

Hi all,

I'd like to have another crack at adding support to {{plain sister}} for including links to sister projects where they're not from the directly linked item, but rather are from the parent 'work' level. I had a look at this a while ago, but it turned out that there are some editions that are editions of multiple works. Now I've fixed up for this scenario, and all available site links will be listed. (Actually, I'm having trouble finding an active example of this, but you get the idea.)

This is the change I am suggesting. The output will do things like this:

Where our The Nether World currently has to have a manual override to display a sitelink to Wikipedia; with the above change, it will follow the Wikidata connections.

What do you think? :-)

Sam Wilson 20:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, also: have a look at Module:Plain sister/sandbox testcases and see if you can suggest any other tests I might add (i.e. page names, Wikidata IDs, etc.). Thanks! (Tomorrow is hack day at WikiCite, where I am now, and I'll be working on this with some other Wikisourcerers.) Sam Wilson 20:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)