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 289 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)


Add portals to default search[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: consensus reached for addition of portal to defaultsearch — billinghurst sDrewth 14:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
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)

@Jpez: now deployed. Thanks to Framawikibillinghurst sDrewth 12:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Billinghurst: I had a go but I'm not getting any hits. For example if I do a search for "sheet music" I expect Portal:Sheet music to be at the top of the search. I tried other portals also with the same results. Maybe it needs time to take effect? Jpez (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jpez: which means that you are not on default search. You have been able to change and save your search preference, and you will need to do that and add yours via the advanced search clicking "Remember selection for future searches". — billinghurst sDrewth 12:13, 14 June 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)

Yes check.svg Done Based on support for the change and marginal favor of Edward VII, I've switched the Comm. Collab. over for June. We'll run this for a while and see what happens. In the meantime, I'll archive and clean up the Collaboration Proposals page, and then advertize its existence so that we can establish a set of proposals from which to draw. I see that billinghurst has already initiated his proposal, so we'll have at least one new option ready. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Management of new User right pagequality-admin[edit]

The latest software update added a new user right pagequality-admin. By default this enables Administrators to put a page into the "validated" status at any point from creation, including pages they have proofread themselves. This ability would be most useful when recreating previously validated pages. I can also see benefits when doing a Match and Split on an older work that is already at pagequality 100%. Additionally, I have occasionally accidentally demoted a page when working on it and "undoing" the demotion doesn't work. However, RC already shows that Wikisourcerors with the Admin tools are selecting Validated and then changing to Proofread, so leaving it as it is isn't a good thing.

Proposed solutions:

  1. The right is removed from the Administrator role and not enabled elsewhere;
  2. The right is added to the list that the 'Crats can assign on a time-limited basis, and anyone needing to use it for a particular project/task can request it from the 'Crats with an explanation of why they need it;
  3. The right is added to the list that Administrators can self assign on a time-limited basis (like the flood flag is currently);
  4. Something else I haven't thought of.

If option 3 is chosen, I recommend that we set up a page for Admins to record their use of the right with details of the project/task it was used on. This is for transparency of process. We need to be able to assure the general reader of our hosted works that Validated means that at least two different proofreaders have gone through the text on that page and it is in as near a perfect state as we can make it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I was initially inclined to option 1, but reflection overnight brings me to option 3. When we select someone to be an Admin we trust them with various other tools, we should be able to trust them to make the right calls on when to use this right as well. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Option 3 for me, w/o the burden of documenting. If it appears in the "User rights log" (like in Special:User rights) it will be enough for me.— Mpaa (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I also think option 3 makes the most sense, it's the way we handle other tools like the bot user flag. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Option #3 seems like the best approach to me too. --Spangineer (háblame) 22:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for option 3. This should be for moving/recreating already validated pages. Should not be used for match and split, those pages can still contain errors and will need separate validation. Anyway, parameters of option 3 should be more discussed, I think. A separate page for detailing the use of this right is not much practicable, IMO. The style of the flood flag should be sufficient, but there should be a reason column (drop-down menu) while assigning this right and that should be mandatory. Hrishikes (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think admins should be trusted to use this without permission for maintenance purposes. An edit summary would suffice and the history of the page can always be checked for abuse of this right. The only problem I can see is accidental use of it. Maybe a small popup can be implemented for this when admins validate a page that hasn't been proofread. (eg. This page hasn't been proofread, are you sure you'd like to validate it? etc) Jpez (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
    • @Jpez: This is not a matter of trust, this is a matter of capability. No user, however trusted, can have the capability of 100% true-to-scan and rule-complying proofreading. Some errors are likely to creep in or remain, which the validator will correct later. Two pairs of eyes are always better than one for detecting errors. So this privilege should not be used for general proofreading, it should be restricted to special and specific purposes only, IMHO. Hrishikes (talk) 05:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: I think it is a matter of trust, as admins are carefully selected and trustworthy users, so they should also be trusted to be able to validate pages for, I stress maintenance purposes, and of course not for validating any work they please. If not I do believe there is a trust issue, if admins aren't capable of following the simple rule of proofread first and validate second. Anyway I'm just saying, for conversations sake. Extra protection isn't a bad thing, and marking a page as validated is a significant thing. So much so that in my opinion I think pages should be proofread twice by different individuals and then validated by a third.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Adminship to this point of time has not been primarily about our personal proofreading (cap)ability, it has been our ability to other acts on site, and to fix things according to site rules. Hanging this decision on administrators as jumping a validation would be a change in our approach.
    1. noting that scenario 2) and 3) can both occur as assigning rights to 'crats and admins are separated matters. They are not mutually exclusive. That would be the content and scope of any site request phabricator ticket.
    2. To its implementation, that is a rules-based decision made and controlled locally, and separate from the right. If we are to implement this there are rules that clearly need to be in place. Time-based addition; not to be applied by bots, nor users in bot mode. Others have suggested others.
    3. If implemented there is a clear need for this to be mechanistic resolution to identified requirements, not a user's individual decision where they are self-assessing that this will be okay. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Hshrikes: - I would strongly suggest something else as well, namely when proofreading, it's not possible to mark something as validated (for normal users) if you've made changes to the text. I've sometimes not advanced pages to validated, even when the changes has been relatively minor 2-3 character, punctuation or formatting changes. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please turn off / remove this option from my account as I find it unnecessary and confusing. The concept of the same editor validating their own work defeats the purpose of extra eyes to notice something overlooked. Why not simplify the concept by eliminating validation altogether? The complexity of rules of this proposal defies logic and implies the additional burden of maintenance. For what purpose? Everyone here returns to their own edits and makes minor corrections. Naturally, I am the exception. — Ineuw talk 20:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Bot approval requests[edit]

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)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Mpaa (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

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

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)

Index:The life and times of King Edward VII by Whates, Harry Richard 2.pdf[edit]

This volume needs to have the Hathi Trust notice page stripped from the front. Ideally the second page of the existing file would be replaced with a photo of the series cover (available from volume 1). The first page notice needs to be stripped because the odd-numbered pages are appeared on even file pages, and vice versa. However, note that this is a PDF file, and the other four volumes are DJVU format. -- (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. @EncycloPetey, you would need to check the pages that have already been transcribed. Ciridae (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ciridae: Thanks! I have moved and corrected all previously existing pages, to set them in the correct locations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Index and pages move (Thoreau)[edit]

Could someone with a bot move the following Index, the associated DjVu File on Commons, and all its created Pages according the the name change:

Index:The writings of Henry David Thoreau volume 2.djvu --> Index:Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906) v2.djvu

There was more than one edition of The Writings of Henry David Thoreau published, and this is volume 2 of the 1906 edition. This change will therefore be needed for clear disambiguation. Also, Volumes 5, 6, and 7 exist already on both Commons and Wikisource, and they utilize the replacement naming convention. This change will therefore make the naming in the series consistent as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done leaving redirects in index: and file: nss, not in page: ns. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Other discussions[edit]

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)
On one hand, it seems quite unlikely that they will manage to push through a new bill before at least 1923 works move into the public domain, and on the other treating it as an unlikely impertinence instead of a nigh-certainty will make it easier to fight if it does happen.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Consensus achieved that we have additional local mapping of H: to Help: as namespacealias — billinghurst sDrewth 04:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
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)


The {{media}} template generates different text about available sound files depending on whether it is used in the Author namespace or the Main namespace. And this works well under most circumsatnces, except when the Main namespace page is a versions or translations page. Witness Vita Nuova (Dante), which ought to explain that:

The icon Speaker Icon.svg identifies that the work includes a spoken word version.

But because this is the main namespace, it states:

Speaker Icon.svg one or more chapters are available in a spoken word format.

Could someone familiar with this template suggest a means for making this work properly for versions and translations pages? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

It would be a bit of faffing around to make that modification for a one-off use. I would suggest using the "icon" parameter, and then add your preferred text next to it. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Not a one-off. I'll have the same problem for several plays by Aeschylus when I set that up in a few weeks, and this has the potential to be a regular issue. We just don't have many people yet adding audio files or setting up versions pages. Fixing the problem either requires adjusting the template, or following what the Italians have done in creating a "Work:" namespace for versions/translations to keep those pages clearly separate from the editions (which remain in their Main namespace). Neither solution would be simple, but adjusting the template would be simpler than creating another namespace. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Would it perhaps be best to integrate {{media}} into the header template, since that's where the distinction is made between editions and versions? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
If it is going to be needed then there is no issue making a change. Please describe the circumstances that will be different from now. Will it only be main ns, or will it be others? What text is required to be utilised in this situation. Probably best to have the amendment conversation on the template's talk pgae. Re part of header ... IMO I don't think that we would need to add it in the header configuration, it isn't used that much so no point in bulking up templates and modules for low use templates. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
We could add some 'custom text' parameters to the media template (e.g. 'before', 'icon', and 'after' or something). I don't think it should be part of {{header}} because it's not applicable to most works. Sam Wilson 07:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-22[edit]

12:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

How do you fix 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Hetaerism ?[edit]

On page 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Hetaerism, "HETAEHISM" should be "HETAERISM" and "¥racpa" should be "ἑταίρα", but when I click on the edit button, there's no content there, just a template which I don't understand... AnonMoos (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: Click on the page number to the left of the heading ([415]). That will lead you to the index where you can make necessary changes. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it's because I'm using an older browser version, but I don't see any "415" link -- just links to Hesychius of Miletus and Heterokaryota. AnonMoos (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: Go here: Page:EB1911 - Volume 13.djvu/431. Hrishikes (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
if you check "display options" on left hand menu, you may have "Page links hidden" enabled, if so, you would need to toggle to "Page links displayed" - they keep improving display. Slowking4SvG's revenge 16:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hrishikes -- thanks, got it... AnonMoos (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
And to close the loop, it is my understanding that it is the default for all new users and IP editors to have the page links displayed (dynamic layout). — billinghurst sDrewth 22:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links about texts[edit]

There doesn't seem to be a policy specifically about external links, so I'm curious to see the community's view on external links not to texts but to resources about texts. I realise it's not the point of Wikisource to be a guide to the web, and any external links have to be justified in terms of a benefit to the reader. Linking is probably best done by incorporating links from Wikidata or by putting parameters in a site-specific template. That said, there are links to external research or education resources which would be useful to some readers of a text.

Case in point: the Eighteenth Century Poetry Archive not only has the text of 1500 poems, but various tools for analysing each poem's structure and meaning, e.g. [4]. This is an open access resource and, being hosted by the Bodleian Libraries, a long-term project. If someone systematically made links from transcribed poems to this source, maybe via a custom template, would that be seen as a positive contribution?

As another idea, what about linking to the current Grove Music Online articles from articles in the Wikisource transcription of the 1900 Grove? The current edition is a subscription resource, so links benefit fewer readers than an open access resource. Then again, they benefit some readers with no disadvantage to others. I'm asking this as the Wikimedian In Residence at the University of Oxford and thinking about how to encourage academic projects to contribute to Wikisource. We're looking at sharing text, but sharing links might be a starting point for some projects, so long as these are welcome. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

External links are generally frowned upon within the text, but if you want to link to external resources from the notes section of the header, or from the Talk page, that should be fine. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Is the poetry archive linked with schemes like VAIF for the authors? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
We have allowed links from a work talk page where there is componentry about the edition; and we would use the parameter edition = yes in the header. We do allow links from an author page to externally hosted works, where they are no on-site, so that is an option. I don't see benefit in having a link to the top of a general poetry site. If we are talking about analysis of a work, that would usually be in the "Works about ..." section of the author page, if many in a specific sub-heading. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
It sounds to me like an opportunity to set up a "course" on the subject at Wikiversity. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Thanks. To be clear, I'm proposing links from the foot of a transcription, not from within the text. @ShakespeareFan00: The poetry archive has its own identifiers, but uses English Short Title Catalogue citation numbers for the editions of books from which the poems are taken. @Billinghurst: I'm not proposing to link author pages to "the top of a general poetry site", but to put a link at the foot of specific works to a page that gives further scholarly information about that specific poem. The linked information is about the poem, not the author, so it wouldn't go on the author profile. In the case of Grove, it seems like putting a link to the current Grove article about an author in the "Works about..." section of the Author profile is okay. However, most of the topics of Grove aren't authors: I'm more interested in linking from the foot of a 1900 Grove article to the current Grove article about the same topic. @EncycloPetey: Interesting idea, but I fear it could lead there being a link from a Wikisource poem or biography to "Educational resources about this text on Wikiversity" and then that link leading to just another external link. So the user gets the same information; it just takes them longer. Wikiversity is awesome in theory but I find it has more navigational infrastructure than content. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
It is a little tricky as our reproductions are editions, not necessarily the works, and we see enough variation in editions. So if you truly think that it belongs, I would could see it existing within the authority control template and putting the standard link data into WD, not so much managing it here as a data field. Alternatively we can add information to the talk page, and link within the header to additional data on the talk page, and that could include formalised templates with external links. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Transcribing a biographical dictionary of printers[edit]

My colleagues at the Bodleian tell me that there are three or four volumes which are used heavily in book research — these books play as central a role in their field as Grove does for musicology — but there is no official electronic version, just scraps of transcriptions on different researchers' hard drives. I've been turning them into Wikisourcerors and together we're gradually transcribing one of the books at Index:Plomer Dictionary of the Booksellers and Printers 1907.djvu. If anyone wants to help this collaboration and support research into historical books, please jump in and transcribe a page. Any help gratefully received! MartinPoulter (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

i see you are not doing hanging indent, might want to make a note on index talk. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes putting hanging indent can be a PITA so often without any benefit as in such works as it is not needed when transcluding. If that is the case here, we can just stick class = "leftoutdent" into the header section. We can also stick the class in the main ns so not having to fuss with opening and closing indents. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
@MartinPoulter: there is also Index:A dictionary of printers and printing.djvu from the 1830s. Please do list this work on Wikisource:WikiProject Biographical dictionaries. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
@MartinPoulter: Can I also suggest that we put the section names into appropriate case for proper nouns, as that will help your transclusion. It means that you can match the subpage name with the section name so you can transclude more easily with something like {{#tag:pages||index={{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}.djvu|from=|to=|fromsection={{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|tosection={{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}}}{{DEFAULTSORT:{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}}}}
I have set up {{PDBP lkpl}} (internal links where q.v. is used) and {{PDBP link}}. Prior to transcluding you are going to need to work out what title you want for the work as I have guessed at "Plomer's Dictionary of the Booksellers and Printers" though you may have a better idea. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with billinghurst's description of hanging indent as "a PITA so often without any benefit" so I'd prefer to avoid it, but if there's a low-effort way to apply it to all the transcluded pages, or any way to make the formatting of transcluded pages less repetitive, then great. Huge thanks for creating the templates and for your other work on the transcription. I hadn't realised SUBPAGENAME could be used that way: that's brilliant, and I'll change my section names in the transcription. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-23[edit]

19:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Old toolbar retirement[edit]

Noting the commentary about the old toolbar's proposed retirement (above ... 2006 wikitext editor). I know that it is going to be problematic to me as I prefer the simpler old style where it is easy customise — either to cull or to add buttons. We should look at what customisations we have individually undertaken, and which we need to migrate to the new schema, especially as I was pretty useless at converting and gave up through repeated failure. Pain that they have only provided three weeks notice of the retirement, for something that has presumably been in the pipes for a while. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I've done a bit with the betatoolbar (I wonder if they'll change its name now?!) and could probably help if you have any particular scripts that need migration (e.g. I did a User:Samwilson/PageCleanUp.js button, and things in various extensions). Sam Wilson 06:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I loathe the newer toolbars with passion—they take up too much space on my limited screen and are ugly. They have also never behaved well with the eminiently sensible MonoBook skin. If there is a toolbar that behaves well and is limited in height to the size of the old toolbar, then I'll be interested. Otherwise I'm really not sure that continuing to contribute will be practical for me. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Is it possible to keep choices, and use either one or the other when we need them? --Zyephyrus (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle: That feedback needs to be added to the phabricator ticket above into detail about how the extended toolbar (new one) is less useful. It would seem we are needing to have someone gadgetise the toolbar, and best we can maybe hope for is a delay in the removal. And that needs lots of dissent, and good argument. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Sheet music and pdf export[edit]

I've noticed sheet music we transcribe with lilypond isn't rendered at all when you try to export it as pdf. For an example try to export The Child's Own Music Book/Baa, Baa, Black Sheep as pdf. Jpez (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jpez: PDF generation is widely considered problematic via the current internal tool, and to which you can express that commentary at the talk page of mw:Reading/Web/PDF Functionality. Did you also try the WSexport tool for PDF creation to see if that was any better? — billinghurst sDrewth 05:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I also tried the export tool and the same thing happened, it came up blank. I'll raise the issue at wikimedia and see what happens. For now you can click on the musical score and download it as an image but the resolution is low. From what I know lilypond has built in pdf functionality, maybe it can be intergrated. Jpez (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jpez: 1) It sounds like a phabricator: ticket to address; 2) it sounds like mentioning in the PDF replacement project that Extension:Score and PDF generation seem to be at odds. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @Billinghurst: I've posted a comment here and I will also will create a phabricator ticket when I have the time. I've never used phabricator before so I will need to look into it. Jpez (talk) 05:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
There is an old phab ticket for this: phab:T65589. Feel free to comment there. You can log in with your WMF credentials. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Validation before proofreading[edit]

The validation option is coming up during page creation. Experimentally I have validated this page. New bug? Hrishikes (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Not just for new pages. I was proofreading earlier and found that the system was offering me the option to validate pages that previously had only been edited by me. [17] --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Put it into phabricator, and we should obviously @Tpt:billinghurst sDrewth 04:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Answer by Tpt:

we have added a new user right called "pagequality-admin" that is, by default, enabled only to admins and allow them to tag as validated all pages. It is useful when you want to re-create already validated pages. See task T51482. I'm going to send an email to the mailing list about that.

Hrishikes (talk) 07:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully @Tpt: will also explain how to turn this off for a particular Wikisource—or at least change it to a flagged right that can temporarily be granted by a 'crat for a particular purpose. Given that we give our readers the guarantee that pages marked as validated have been checked by at least two people, this change is not a good thing for the larger Wikisources. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
If you want to restrict this right to 'crat, just fill a bug on phabricator tagged with "site config" and "proofreadpage" to get the change done in en.wikisource configuration. If you want something that could be temporarily granted, you need to create a new user group (doable also in en.wikisource configuration). Tpt (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
To provide some clarification, if you look at Special:ListGroupRights and search for the term "pagequality" you will see two (new) hits. 1) in user which presumably is the first indicator of the migration from code-control to system permissions as the means that the system progresses through proofreading (only logged in users can progress the page status); 2) the admin pair that is the advanced right to jump straight to validated. If this community does not wish this to be available here, we would need to go through the general consultation phase and consensus process for site requests. Here that would be to have the right pagequality-admin removed from the administrator role, and presumably not available elsewhere. If the community wish for this to be a separate assignable right through Special:UserRights by crats or admins, then a consensus discussion can be used. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Noting that there has been some positive commentary on the pha ticket and changes are being proposed. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

RC filtering is broken too. Can't change namespace from "all", can't change number of changes from "50", can't change number of days from "7". Hesperian 05:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not having problems with those issues right now. Just checked. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

What do you care for most? What are you concerned with? Take part in the strategy discussion[edit]

Strategy Graphic.pdf
The World in 2030 - Presentation for movement strategy discussions.pdf


The more involved we are, the more ideas or wishes concerning the future of Wikipedia we have. We want to change some things, but other things we prefer not to be changed at all, and we can explain why for each of those things. At some point, we don’t think only about the recent changes or personal lists of to-dos, but also about, for example, groups of users, the software, institutional partners, money!, etc. When we discuss with other Wikimedians, we want them to have at least similar priorities that we have. Otherwise, we feel we wasted our time and efforts.

We need to find something that could be predictable, clear and certain to everybody. A uniting idea that would be more nearby and close to the every day’s reality than the Vision (every human can freely share in the sum of all knowledge).

But people contribute to Wikimedia in so many ways. The thing that should unite us should also fit various needs of editors and affiliates from many countries. What’s more, we can’t ignore other groups of people who care about or depend on us, like regular donors or “power readers” (people who read our content a lot and often).

That’s why we’re running the movement strategy discussions. Between 2019 and 2034, the main idea that results from these discussions, considered by Wikimedians as the most important one, will influence big and small decisions, e.g. in grant programs, or software development. For example: are we more educational, or more IT-like?

We want to take into account everybody’s voice. Really: each community is important. We don’t want you to be or even feel excluded.

Please, if you are interested in the Wikimedia strategy, follow these steps:

  • Have a look at this page. There are drafts of 5 potential candidates for the strategic priority. You can comment on the talk pages.
  • The last day for the discussion is June, 12. Later, we’ll read all your comments, and shortly after that, there’ll be another round of discussions (see the timeline). I will give you more details before that happens.
  • If you have any questions, ask me. If you ask me here, mention me please.

Friendly disclaimer: this message wasn't written by a bot, a bureaucrat or a person who doesn't care about your project. I’m a Polish Wikipedian, and I hope my words are straightforward enough. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hymns for the coronation of Edward VII[edit]

Who here has a strong interest and experience in hymns? There is a short collection of Hymns for the Coronation of His Majesty King Edward VII (1902) (transcription project) that would be easier for someone experienced with setting sheet music. It's a short collection, at only 8 pages, buth the composers and hymn writers will need to be checked individually first, and the DjVu file might have to be transferred here if the works are not yet in PD in the UK. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd be down for researching the attributions. I don't have the patience for LilyPond though. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Lilypond for hymns is no problem for me. If someone looks after the rest of the text on the pages, I'm happy to do the scores. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
ok, i’ll set them up for you. how did you do this? [18] outstanding. i have an interest in spirituals, and sheet music [19] but gave up. Slowking4SvG's revenge 23:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: Practice and plenty of it. I've been setting scores here and for a choir for about 4 years now. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Everything's done but the scores (and validation). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
if we have a willing volunteer for scores, we should set up a job queue, so we can proof all but score, and put "missing score" on it. could be a wikisource selling factor with some library GLAMs. Slowking4SvG's revenge 19:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: what do you mean by that? We already do things that way, see Category:Texts with missing musical scores. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
yes, i was hoping elevate the list, to get in the monthly proofread queue, or with a contest, or a portal. it is a specialized capability that other transcription sites cannot do. we should celebrate, maybe push some to featured status. Slowking4SvG's revenge 19:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
It's pretty much me, although Jpez is doing some score work as well. I have limited time to devote to scores amidst everything else I'm involved in here and in RL. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Comey Statement for the Record Senate Select Committee on Intelligence as public domain or should we delete it here ?[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: moved to Wikisource:Copyright discussionsBeleg Tâl (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thumb|8 June 2017 Comey Statement for the Record Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Comey Statement for the Record Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was added here to Wikisource.

I had originally added the file to Wikimedia Commons.

They nominated it for deletion there and they don't think it is public domain, commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:8 June 2017 Comey Statement for the Record Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.pdf.

Is public testimony in an open public hearing read out loud as such before the United States Congress public domain?

If so, should we keep the document in written format here at Wikisource , and if not, should we delete it from Wikisource?

Thanks for your helpful advice ! Sagecandor (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm moving this discussion to Wikisource:Copyright discussionsBeleg Tâl (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-24[edit]

15:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Books with no chapters[edit]

There are some old books, especially poems in my language (Persian), in which the texts of sonnets start as soon as the last one finishes. There are no chapters and you can just distinguish the start of a sonnet by a title or a graphical mark (like this one). Is there any way to tell the wiki's software how to distinguish the end of a sonnet so during the transclusion process it could find out where to end and where to start? --Yousef (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

This is done using labelled section transclusion, Help:Transclusion#How to transclude single-section. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! --Yousef (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
yes, if there are no chapters / sections or a printed index, you may have to create one from scholarship for ease of use. i.e. A Woman of the Century where i had to find an index on an advert not in book. Slowking4SvG's revenge 18:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
And as you are manufacturing subpages, we would often utilise {{auxiliary Table of Contents}} on the front page of the work to display what we have created. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-25[edit]

15:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Ship track upload as documentary source?[edit]

I'm about to receive a track of the ACX Crystal, recently involved in a collision in Japanese waters. Would this be proper to upload here as a "documentary source"? I expect it to be in a tabular format that can then be converted to a graphic, but not yet plotted as a graphic. - Bri (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

what is the license? if it is a document of tabular data, you could argue for PD in the US, but the pdf of the document would go to commons first. or do you want to upload here as "fair use"? Slowking4SvG's revenge 11:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Further to this, we don't allow "fair use" on Wikisource, and we also don't allow reference material such as tables of data unless it is published as part of a complete source text. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
but we very well could, would, and should. given the propensity of commons to delete books in use, it is a matter of time. Slowking4SvG's revenge 19:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
If it's added to Commons as '.map' data, it'd be plotted automatically. Like for example. I'm not sure Wikisource is the place for pure data. Sam Wilson 12:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Commons:Structured data is acceptable to be uploaded to Commons, usual copyright applies. I would not think that a track would be copyright as fact is not copyrightable. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Problem with a pdf file[edit]

A pdf file has a problem! When I download it and I go to page 172 using Acrobat reader, I see the page but in the wikisource, no page is shown. This is the page address in Please help me to solve it. --Yousef (talk) 11:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The page is visible to me. You need to purge your cache. Hrishikes (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Search projects from this project now active in English Wikipedia[edit]

Just to let you know, as announced via mailing list service, English Wikipedia is now receiving search results of this project, Wikisource, intended to direct Wikipedia users to this project. Currently, an option to suppress the search results of this project from the English Wikipedia search system is proposed at Village pump's "proposal" subpage, where I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

How do you contribute to Wikisource?[edit]

Hi everyone,

I have been proofreading a few pages here, but I feel like I don't understand really how this place works. There are many many projects started, some of them lingering for years. I don't even know how to find out how many books are finished, how many books are ongoing. It seems like a lot of people work for some pages on a book, alone, then very often give up, because this is a very long and sometimes boring task. Apart from a few discussions on the Current Collaborations, I don't see where people talk, so I don't feel like there is an active community. Am I missing a magical place where people discuss, exchange, organize?

A few years ago, I participated in PGDP, where there is a very active forum, with a thread for each project where the different proofreaders can exchange on the formatting or the difficulties to reach a consistent result, or even just share the most interesting/funny quotes of the books they are working on. There was also some specialized teams, like one named the gravediggers if I remember correctly, which focused on the oldest projects, or teams for texts on a specific topic, which could gang up on a given book at the same time. This was made possible by the existence of statistics at the book level, not only at the page level.


  • Is there a lot of discussion and organisation going on somewhere I don't know (other talk pages? IRC? mailing-lists?)
  • Would you be interested in statistics at the project level? (e.g. list of projects with the progress percentage, so that we can quickly finish works almost done, or focus on the oldest ones). I think I could code something giving regular updates. Actually, does it exist in other wikisources?

Koxinga (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This very page (the Scriptorium) is our central discussion forum. You've come to the right place! Discussions regarding a specific project are done on the Index talk page. Bigger projects are organized as WikiProjects. Other discussion forums and lists of places to contribute are listed at Wikisource:Community portal. I'll let someone else speak to statistics as I don't know much about that. The best place to contribute if you don't know where to contribute is probably the proofread of the month. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
dashboard for wikisource progress? yes please! the example that comes to mind is Wikisource:WikiProject DNB/Statistics and Wikisource:WikiProject DNB/Progress. but in general we are too disorganized to do actually reporting, except ad hoc. some tools to make project management & progress communication would be fine. we should really do a wish list, or you could write an idealab - quick grant, if you could write up your own scope. Slowking4SvG's revenge 22:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Of course I know about the talk pages and the Scriptorium, but it is just so empty. There is no feeling of community here.Koxinga (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The Special Pages link on the left-hand side gives you access to a lot of interesting information, and particularly List of index pages is the page to see if you want find projects at various stages of completion. — I think one of the strengths of English Wikisource is it (usually) allows you to start and work on all sorts of project autonomously, but that does result in a lot of unfinished projects and makes the community spirit a little hard to see at times. I've put up a lot of index pages that I'd like to work on "some day" and a couple of times I've come across one that someone has taken on and finished, which was extremely gratifying. — One thing I do to contribute is search for common scan errors and correct them. One of my favorites has been "thou earnest" for "thou camest". That's a good way to get a glimpse of a lot of interesting material. Anyway, I hope you'll be sticking around, and I agree that more community interaction would be a good thing! Mudbringer (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
To add to this, a lot of editors will add a list of the projects they're working on to their user page, so you can get an idea of what people are up to by looking there. Special:RecentChanges will also show what people are currently working on. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. It is very gratifying to see someone else working on the same project. On the opposite, I have been back after a hiatus of a year, to find that not a single page had been proofread in the meantime. I do work on some rather specific topics, with Chinese characters that might frighten some contributors, but still, this is rather disheartening.Koxinga (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I enjoy contributing to wikisource, it's one of my favorite passtimes. I like the idea of adding works here and making them available for future generations. Maybe someone 100 years down the line will be reading some of the works we've been adding. I also like the idea of me being able to read works I've never read before and also at the same time making them available for other readers to read. But it has to be enjoyable for me, so I mainly work on subjects I'm interested in and as you mentioned I often might start a book and get disinterested, and then just forget about it. I don't care. This isn't a job, I don't have to contribute if I don't want to, I can wake up tommorow and never contribute to wikisource again and probably no one will ever notice. I don't want deadlines here, I have them at work. I like contributing here to get away from work and relax. So basically wikisource for me is something enjoyable to do in my free time and having to be forced to finish a work, or work on books we're not interested in just to get it done is the wrong way to go for me. Don't get me wrong, we should strive to get the works we're working on finished, but if we don't or can't who cares, someone else will probably get it done down the line. Jpez (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I am not talking about setting deadlines or anything like that. It is fine if your motivation is entirely internal and you can work alone at your own pace. However, I do think we would get more contribution with more reporting on what is going on, what are the projects moving forward, what are the projects close to completion, etc.Koxinga (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
welcome to smaller wikis. there is less chatter and drama, and more work done. a little coaching (management) would be welcome. people tend to ask for help here, ad hoc, rather than systematic reporting; people team to get a project done. we could use a wikisource newsletter, or progress dashboard. if you could make some tools to report project progress semi-automatically, rather than by hand, that would be a big help. Slowking4SvG's revenge 15:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration products newsletter: 2017-06[edit]

08:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

License tags in Translation space[edit]

What is the best way to put license tags in Translation space? The original work needs an explicit license tag, but I'm not sure about the translation itself. I assume it will always be CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL, but I've seen some editors explicitly release it into PD. Is this allowed? Should the CC-BY-SA-3.0/GFDL licenses be explicitly tagged? I've been tagging them explicitly, as below, but I just want to see if others have a better way.

{{translation license
| original = {{PD-old}}
| translation = {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}}{{GFDL}}

Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Our rider on saving is By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. So that is what is applying for contributor work in Translation: ns. So until we update that, that is what it is. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The Time Machine (Heinemann text)[edit]

Hrishikes has brought an issue to my attention, which I have looked into as well. This is a bit complicated, so I will summarize, then say more at length.

Summary: Our copy of The Time Machine (Heinemann text) is not the 1895 Heinemann text of the novel by H. G. Wells, but seems rather to be the 1924 revised "Atlantic" text included in an omnibus edition The Time Machine, The Wonderful Visit and Other Stories published by T. Fisher Unwin. [42] As H. G. Wells died in 1946, his works are in PD in the UK. The omnibus was printed in the UK in 1924, and does not seem to have had copyright renewal in the US. So it may be in PD in the US. Hrishikes has located a scan of the Heinemann text and started transcription. So, if our copy of the "not-Heinemann" (Atlantic) text is in PD in the US, then we need to move it to a new location and make room for the actual Heinemann text. But if it is not in PD, then it should be deleted. As an added wrinkle, the "not-Heinemann text" is a Wikisource Featured text.

Identity of the text located at The Time Machine (Heinemann text): It is easily seen that our current copy is not the Heinemann text. Compare the table of contents for the actual Heinemann text with the one on our current copy. The number of chapters and their presentation are completely different. The Heinemann text has 16 chapters with chapter titles, but our copy has 12 chapters without titles. Neither did the 1895 Holt text have 12 chapters. The earliest edition with 12 chapters seems to be the "Atlantic" text that was the result of a revision. The "Atlantic" text may be seen here in an electronic version that preserves the original pagination and page headers.

The Atlantic text and copyright: The "Atlantic" text was published as part of an omnibus edition of Wells' works in the UK in 1924. Details of that publication may be found here. I do not know whether the text was simultaneously published in the US, possibly under a different title, or whether copyright applied for at that time. However, a search has turned up no evidence of a renewal for that volume. If so, then it seems the copyright in the US for the Atlantic text has expired. The original text was published in 1895, so it would be PD in the US as well, and all of Wells' works entered PD in the UK at the beginning of this year, as it has now been more than 70 years since his death.

Proposed actions:

(1) Feedback and confirmation of findings thus far. Is our text the Atlantic text?
(2a) If our text is the Atlantic text, and in PD, then propose moving it to The Time Machine (Atlantic text), and then proofreading and transcluding the actual 1895 Heinemann text to The Time Machine (Heinemann text) from the scan Index:The Time Machine (H. G. Wells, William Heinemann, 1895).djvu begun by Hrishikes.
(2b) If our text is not the Atlantic text, or is but not in PD, then delete it and proceed with adding the actual Heinemann text from scan etc.
(3) Decide about Featured status for the text. (Let's wait on that discussion until we know whether we're following 2a or 2b).

Original discussion: User talk:EncycloPetey#The Time Machine (Heinemann text). --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

1- inclined to agree based on chapters, but could not find an internet archive version, or at hathi trust, and not near me at worldcat [43]
2- i would be inclined to keep both, and change the header data for the reprint. (is it Heinemann text, published by Atlantic?)
2- do not see a reason for deletion (although there is a Scribner 1924 edition)
3- we can have delisted featured, we should think about all the old versions not transcluded from page scans
4-- i imagine we will have more of this, as we research editions. (and as our scholarship improves) the metadata at internet archive is so bad, people could be easily confused. Slowking4SvG's revenge 17:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
It's not the Heinemann text. The two texts are completely different editions, even having a different numbers of chapters (16 versus 12). The concern over deletion is that, if this is a 1924 publication, and if copyright was renewed, this edition might not be in PD yet. My research didn't turn up anything, but someone else's search might do so. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
if you did not find anything, that is good enough for me. under the current US copyright search, that is the best result you can get. there is no positive proof of non-renewal. we have to set the standard of "good faith search" even if there is a very small chance of facts emerging. this is the standard of hathi trust. Slowking4SvG's revenge 17:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd prefer The Time Machine (1924) as the page name, but aside from that I agree with your assessment and support your proposed actions. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Unless we can verify for certain that the text is specifically from a 1924 edition, I'd hesitate on adding a date to the filename. Doing so might require further changes to the name later, if research turns up additional information. But if we can verify that it is the "Atlantic text", from any edition of that text, then the proposed name will work regardless of the actual date. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is now an edition of a work with an uncertain source, we could just delete it if it doesn't bring true value. With regard to its copyright status, that does not change whether it is a 1924 version, or not, the copyright will always be the original version. Any copyright in the remainder of the suspected publication will depend on each of the components, and the renewal aspects. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    As far as I am aware, the 1924 edition was a complete revision of the text by Wells himself, and not merely an editorial version. Does that affect the possibility of copyright? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    If it wasn't published before 1923, and wasn't previously published in an authorized version in the US, the URAA would have restored it. It's hard to say where the line is legally between a non-copyrightable new version and copyrightable changes, but decent revision should do it. It will be out of copyright in the US in 2020.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
    Expert opinion from H. G. Wells's The Time Machine: A Reference Guide (2004) by John R. Hammond, page 19:

In the original edition of The Time Machine, published by Heinemann in 1895, the text was divided into sixteen chapters, and each chapter was given a title. When Wells revised his novels for a collected edition in 1924, the Atlantic Edition, he retained the text of The Time Machine virtually unaltered but reduced the number of chapters from 16 to 12, eliminating the chapter titles.

Most modern editions follow Wells's revision in dividing the text into twelve chapters. In the discussion that follows chapter references follow this practice.

A comparison of the chapter divisions is as follows:

Heinemann   Atlantic
1 Introduction 1
2 The Machine 1
3 The Time Traveller Returns 2
4 Time Travelling 3
5 In the Golden Age 4
6 The Sunset of Mankind 4
7 A Sudden Shock 5
8 Explanation 5
9 The Morlocks 6
10 When the Night Came 7
11 The Palace of Green Porcelain 8
12 In the Darkness 9
13 The Trap of the White Sphinx 10
14 The Further Vision 11
15 The Time Traveller's Return 12
16 After the Story 12
  Epilogue Epilogue

As per above, Heinemann chapter divisions were original, but Atlantic chapter divisions are currently in vogue. "Virtually" no difference in text. So I propose that the text may be migrated to scan, with title unchanged, alongwith additional chapters. Two pages are missing in the scan, which I am going to fix by blank placeholders. The blanks may be proofread from the Atlantic text. Hrishikes (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The disadvantage of that approach is that we will have no copy of The Time Machine with the chapter divisions that are now in vogue. If we can legally retain a copy of the Atlantic text, then we should do so for this reason. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Wells's books are PD-UK. But the policy here is PD-US. Non-US texts need not have copyright registration/renewal in the U.S., the copyright is restored by the URAA for 95 years after publication. So we have to assess whether modification of chapter divisions, without alteration of text, amounts to significant change, attracting copyright. If the change is deemed as significant, then we cannot retain this text. Anyway, reduction in chapter number and elimination of chapter titles in currently-in-vogue version of the work may be mentioned in the header note, that should suffice.
P. S. It seems that the Atlantic edition was published in U. S. in the same year (1924) by Charles Scribner's Sons (details at without copyright notice/renewal. Hrishikes (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Adding chapter names might have been copyrightable, but removing them wouldn't be, and splitting a few chapters in two pieces wouldn't be either. I don't know whether that copyright renewal would have been needed, since it's 30 days of first publication, but the changes don't seem copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
This site gives a date of October 15, 1924 for the first two volumes in the Atlantic Edition of The Works of H. G. Wells, which includes the text in question. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed action:

Given that: (a) the original work is PD in both UK and US, (b) the "Atlantic" text seems not to differ substantially except by removal of chapter titles and positioning of breaks, I propose we take the following actions:

(1) Move The Time Machine (Heinemann text) to The Time Machine (Atlantic text) to preserve this version.
(2) Add to the empty The Time Machine (Heinemann text) the front matter from the 1895 scan.
(3) Paste into each chapter subpage the relevant Atlantic text, then split-and-match to the Page namespace of the scan.
(4) Proofread the result against the Heinemann text scan, keeping alert for differences.
(4a) If proofreading demonstrates that the Atlantic text is indeed identical or inconsequentially different from the Heinemann text, then we keep both.
(4b) If proofreading reveals significant editorial changes, we can then delete the Atlantic text at its new location, perhaps moving a copy to Wikilivres, and restoring it 2020 when the US copyright would expire.

--EncycloPetey (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think copyright will matter, anyway, it is PD-US-no notice. Additionally, I propose that the header note should mention metadata of this edition, including UK publication by Unwin and US publication by Scribner. And the Featured Text status should move to this new location of the Atlantic text. Hrishikes (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
It's only PD-US-no notice if it was published in the US within 30 days of first publication in the UK. Otherwise the copyright (if any) was restored.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
i do not believe we have deleted a work based on URAA, so you may not want to open that can of worms, given the WMF legal advice. Slowking4SvG's revenge 14:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: URAA-based deletion is a regular feature here. Premchand's Idgah was deleted under URAA provision, and later restored when it was proved that it was PD-India on URAA date. The works of Jibanananda Das were shifted to Wikilivres under URAA provision. Same with Sokoli Tomari Iccha and Naya Kashmir. There are many more examples. Non-US works are regularly deleted here when it is found that they were not PD-source country on URAA date. The WMF legal advice you referred to is for allowing foreign works that are PD-source country on current date, not merely URAA date. On that advice, Commons has stopped deletion of works that were not PD-source country on URAA date. This practice has not yet started here. If it starts, then the works of Jibanananda Das will need to be restored. Adopting this policy here is risky. You will do well to remember the direct deletion of Anne Frank's Diary by WMF in Dutch Wikisource, overriding the local community, based on URAA. Hrishikes (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
this case is very clearly PD not renewed. what evidence do you need? do you want a transcribed catalog of copyright entries?
sorry to hear you are propagating the URAA hysteria. let the restorations begin. i remember that about Anne Frank, why don’t you let me upload it here as fair use, since it is PD in Australia, and i will take the risk. i do not think that the plantiff will risk a DMCA takedown given w:Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. the federal judges are very consistent, and i have the $10k ante for federal court, don’t need any EFF help. Slowking4SvG's revenge 22:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
In order to state clearly this is "PD not renewed", we would need evidence that the edition was registered for copyright in the US within 30 days of the UK publication. Lacking evidence for that, we cannot say for certain this work falls under PD not renewed. If the original copyright was not filed in the US, or was not filed in 30 days, then the edition may retain copyright under URAA. That's rather the whole point. We need evidence of the original copyright filed and meeting the conditions, and we still need to verify that the text was not substantially altered. If no copyright was filed at the correct time, and if the text is substantially altered, this edition may still be under copyright. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
If it was published with permission of the copyright holder within 30 days in the US, it's treated as a US work and is out of copyright for lack of notice as well as lack of renewal. If it wasn't an authorized edition, or it was more than 30 days after the UK edition, then any new copyrightable aspects will be under copyright.
Honestly, this seems like a bit much. There's no real evidence that's anything copyrightable here, and if there is, there's three years left on its copyright. Someone should split and match it against the old scans, but marginal copyright questions like this shouldn't be that much of a concern, IMO.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with this, especially if we aren't able to determine whether the two publications were 30 days apart. By the time we have all the information we need to know whether it is subject to URAA or not, the copyright may well have already expired. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
registration date is here - Oct. 17, 1924 [44] Slowking4SvG's revenge 14:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Anne Frank's Diary doesn't belong here, since the English translation will be in copyright until 2045 (in the US), and the translator was alive as of 2013. Feel free to bring it up with Commons or nl.Wikisource.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation quandary[edit]

The work Once a Week is a literary magazine, but it shares the title with a book by Author:A. A. Milne.

Ordinarily, we would move Once a Week to something like Once a Week (magazine), and use the base name for disambiguation. But the current title is a literary magazine that already has multiple subpages for its series, volumes, and articles. A move would permanently extend the filename of all of the subpages, and require editing all of the links within and between these pages, both in headers and in the Page: namespace.

In this instance, where there is a multi-volume literary magazine involved, would it make more sense to set the disambiguation page at Once a Week (disambiguation), and leave the magazine where it is? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm willing to use AWB to disambiguate properly on the magazine. However, is the Milne work being added imminently? If not, there is no need to disambig yet. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Although the Milne book is not being done yet (there is a good scan at IA [45]), the literary magazine is actively and rapidly growing on Wikisource each day. The longer we delay, the more moves and changes will have to be made. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
That's a good rationale. I'll move it over when I'm on my other PC. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Just to note that the articles are being created as mainspace base pages rather than subpages of the issue. e.g. The philosophy of advertising. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Good to know. I'll move them to the proper path while I'm at it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The Mainspace articles probably ought to be subpages within series, volume, etc., but with redirects left from the Main namespace. I was looking into making those moves when I discovered the disambiguation issue, and decided it ought to be taken care of first. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Facsimiles of older United States Reports post Google Books' typical full view cut off[edit]

Anybody know where these might be found? Prosody (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

These volumes are already present at {{List of United States Reports scanned volumes}}. Are you wanting something additional? Hrishikes (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I was unclear, sorry. There are 564 volumes now, and Google Books only has facsimiles publicly available for US users for ones published before ~1920s (not sure what their copyright restriction policies are for users in other countries). Since asking I've found that Internet Archive seems to have some more. Prosody (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
the National Archives has it on microfilm through 1997 let’s see if i can find a digital copy at citizen archivist. Slowking4SvG's revenge 23:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
can’t find a systemic digitization. we have US govt documents, but they are haphazard. maybe a project with a sweep of the scans available would be a start. we have a few of these large projects that are stalled because the scans are crummy and it is so humongous. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-26[edit]

15:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

A word about clearing the cache and page refresh[edit]

We are not aloneIneuw talk 19:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

How to see edit history on a whole text[edit]

Is it possible to see the edit history of a whole text? I can see the changes made in the last 30 days through selecting "On Watchlist" in the general Wikisource "Recent Changes" page. I would like to look back and see if anyone or any bot has been working on the project I have been working on, namely An_Exposition_of_the_Old_and_New_Testament_(1828). PeterR2 (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@PeterR2: I don't sure that I understand what do you mean on saying to see the edit history of a whole text, but if you open the page An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828), and then click on the link "Related changes" which is in the left panel (in the section "Tools") — is this that one what do you need? The page opened by this way would show edits made on both either of the viewed page or its subpages (or also on other pages related to the main page), so you could see the edits on the whole text of the work (since the whole text of the work consists of the main page combined with all of its subpages). P.S. Sorry if I wrongly understood your help request. --Nigmont (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I would love to see an option on the watchlist to automatically watch all the subpages of a given page. There are some mediawiki extensions doing that, was the possibility already discussed here? Koxinga (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
There is a gadget (although, I can't find it right now because I can't remember what it was called) for watching all pages in a category. There was an idea earlier this year to extend it to cope with following all pages linked on an Index page, but I don't think that bit was finished. As for seeing all history of a work, I think Special:RelatedChanges is the only way, and that has some limitations (mainly that it only goes back 30 days, because it's using data from RecentChanges). Sam Wilson 22:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)