User talk:Chime Hours

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, Chime Hours, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Carl Spitzweg 021-detail.jpg

You may be interested in participating in

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{CotW}} to your page for current wikisource projects.

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

Have questions? Then please ask them at either

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome! Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Index pages...[edit]

Thanks for the NLS uploads, looks like you and your team will be busy for a while :)

Much appreciated if you could also add in some of the metadata ( like Years of publication, place of publication) etc.

See: Help:Index_pages#Creating_Index_pages

Also pinging, @Gweduni: and @Annalang13:.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: We have added all the metadata that we have to the Wiki Commons page, and then ticked the box in the gadgets section to enable automated insertion of metadata from the file's template at Commons. One problem we have been having is that the date is only carried through when it's a four digit year (e.g. "1854") but when the date is not know for sure and more than four digits are used (e.g. "1854-1856") then the info isn't carried through. We are now manually adding the earlier date if a range is given. So for this project we should always have title, year and language but can't commit to providing anything more. Gweduni (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks.. I'll take another look , and try and copy more of it across at some future date... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


When setting up the Index pages, can you add the WikiProject NLS‎‎ category please?


[[Category:WikiProject NLS‎‎]]

to do this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Sorry about that-I didn't know I was supposed to add this. I will pass this on to the rest of the team. Thank you! Chime Hours (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Sorry I just want to clarify- do you mean that we need to write 'WikiProject NLS' in the 'Category' field when creating the Index page? Meaning, the field 'Category' above the 'Publish' box? Chime Hours (talk) 08:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes you can do that as well.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Ok thank you! Chime Hours (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thomas Wilcocks[edit]

Hi! Re Choice drop of honey from the rock Christ, or, A short word of advice to all saints and sinners (1), it looks like the author's name is Author:Thomas Wilcocks, not Author:Thomas Wilcox as you have it. Do you have another source for the difference in spelling, or is it just a typo? —Sam Wilson 08:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Samwilson: Hi and thank you for your message. I took the name from the National Library of Scotland catalogue reference here: He is also listed as 'being known as' a variety of names on the National Library of Australia's page here: Should I keep the spelling as is and list 'also known as' on the author page? Or is there an alternative method for such situations? -Chime Hours

  • @Chime Hours: No, I think it's okay to leave it at what the libraries consider the more common spelling, but it's worth adding a note to the author page, or maybe just the work's page (because that's where the confusion will be). I've added some aliases to his Wikidata item. Sam Wilson 03:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Samwilson: Thank you for adding the aliases to his Wikidata pages. I have added the phrase 'Author also known as TW, WT, Thomas Wilcocks, Thomas Wilcock' in the 'notes' form within the 'header' in the work, so that it appears immediately under the author name. Please let me know if there is a more appropriate way to add this information to the item page. Chime Hours

Index: namespace templates[edit]

Hi. These two templates

are utilised by adding to an Index: pages (Help:Namespaces) rather than the main namespace pages. Their purpose is to tell us where we have checked that we have transcluded the pages that we wish to do so. We have occasions on large works where pages are missed, and this manual process was the only way we had to check and mark that we had done so.

I will be removing the template usage in the main namespace where it has been added, and will try to get the Index: ns pages done, though do feel welcome to (double-)check the relevant Index: pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Sorry this is still a bit new to me as I am no longer working on wikisource full time at the moment. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Do you mean that we no longer need to include the templates above in the validated and transcluded pages (only on the index page, not on the individual text pages)? Am I meant to be changing to 'transcluded: yes' in the 'table of contents' box on the index page once I transclude an item (See as an example)? Sorry for the questions, I think I'm just confused by the terminology! - Chime Hours 08:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Query re NLS Licensing Model[edit]


Could you clarify your query listed here []? I have pasted the text below for reference. I'm sorry if I'm posting my query/reply in the wrong place, I am still getting used to Wikisource formatting:

"It seems that the NLS may have changed the licensing model used on some of the scans and items in it's digital gallery. (see also s:Wikisource_talk:WikiProject_NLS#File:Archaeologia_Britannica.pdf)

If it has then there a few works already hosted on IA (, that the import script(s) you have IA mirroring could import to Commons (once the IA metadata gets updated.) 1500-2000 books on Gaelic language and related topics is not insubstantial!

Also pinging, @LilacRoses: as the NLS contact point on English Wikisource. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)" --Chime Hours (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Chime Hours: As stated at s:Wikisource_talk:WikiProject_NLS#File:Archaeologia_Britannica.pdf, the NLS had previously uploaded some works to Interent Archive under a CC-NC style license (which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons). Recently I had checked this in relation to some specific works others had uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and had found that the NLS had changed the licensing model indicated to CC-BY (in respect of the files on the NLS digital gallery) compared to what the Internet Archive uploads metadata suggested.

The user whose talk page I posted on had developed an upload script to mirror scanned works from Internet Archive to Wikimedia Commons, en-masse (see c:User talk:Fæ/IA books ). In addition, as noted in respect of the specfic work mentioned on the WikiProject here, some third party contributors may have uploaded a given scanned work from the relevant IA collection to Commons directly, on the basis that the scans were of works in the public domain, (as outlined in the discussion I've linked).

If the change in license (from CC-NC to CC-BY) applies to the materials previously uploaded to the relevant IA collection ( as well (given that the NLS digital gallery essentially holds the original, with duplicates of the items relevant scans uploaded to Internet Archive), then it means that the upload script concerned can use that script to upload a number of the scans from the relevant IA collection to Wikimedia Commons en-masse (subject to certain date limitations), as opposed to the NLS having to do this directly. However, the NLS may have it's own reasons for maintaining the CC-NC licensing on the previous batch of uploads to Internet Archive, or for uploading the scans directly for technical reasons, hence the query. The upload script relies on the IA metadata, and thus makes decisions about license compatibility based on that data.

If the uploads from IA are still CC-NC, then that upload script can't be used, and items from the relevant IA collection would have to be removed from commons due to incompatible licensing. Another issue raised in a DR, was that although the scans may be under a given license, the content of the work in those scans might not be, and hence a valid reason why an NC license had been applied to those works. Commons can't host works still subject to copyright, and is perhaps far more paranoid about wanting to remove or disallow such items.

Generally as the NLS is the source archive it would be in the best position to formally indicate the license for the scans (at IA or in it's own Digital Gallery) had changed from CC-NC to CC-BY and to confirm this via the process detailed at c:Commons:OTRS. That process ensures there is a record in the system, should any given licensing situation later be queried on or off wiki. In many instances the NLS is also in the strongest position to state that certain scanned works are 'free from known copyright restrictions' based on bibliographic information it holds.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: It is true that the materials, when they were originally digitised by the Internet Archive, were done so under the CC-NC license. Since then, the NLS has changed the license for these items on its own website, but has no active contract with the Internet Archive and therefore does not actively administrate the materials displayed there. We feel that it is the Internet Archive’s responsibility to upgrade licenses where applicable.
To clarify, we never uploaded materials onto the Internet Archive site, but had the Internet Archive digitise materials for us as a contractor, which – as a side effect – resulted in the images being uploaded to their website. This was not a contractual NLS requirement when the items were digitised by the Internet Archive.
The Library is currently reviewing its reuse permissions / licenses and will aim to make materials more openly available than they currently are as per our own website (i.e. currently CC-BY). We will move away from applying licenses in the digital images, towards the use of copyright statements.
The Library always aims to keep its re-use permissions in digital images (where the Library owns the rights) as open as possible, and therefore the Library anticipates that existing licenses may change over time as the Library upgrades its policies and procedures. Once a re-use license is applied to a digital file, the Library will never tighten these licenses, only loosen them where possible and in line with is policies and procedures.
I hope this helps.--Chime Hours (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
It does immensely. The ideal outcome for items with what I term a 'conflicted' licensing situation (between differing online sources), would be for the items at Commons uploaded in good faith by a third party, to be replaced with scans directly from the NLS digital gallery, subject to compatibility with the direction of whatever licensing policy is decided on, and assuming no other copyright conflicts exist (elsewhere you raised a valid concern about "adverts" in material whose status was otherwise known.).
I would of course strongly urge "representations" be made towards to the Internet Archive, whose metadata for example apprently states: "National Library of Scotland holds full rights in this digital resource and agrees to license the resource under the Creative Commons License: Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK: Scotland ". on [1].". to give an example. This means unfortunately that based on the metadata, items from the NLS collection at IA uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by third parties, are not (apparently) compatible with Commons, and (unless replaced) any scans from that source would have to be removed given the NC license which isn't permitted on Commons. (see c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:/nationallibraryofscotland/ intitle:pdf).

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The DR linked was closed at CommonsShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Two files lacking metadata[edit]

Hi Chime Hours,

Back in March last year, Gweduni uploaded File:Remarkable account of a shipwreck on an uninhabited island.pdf and File:True and correct narrative of the dreadful burning of the steam-ship Amazon.pdf but failed to include any metadata. I assume these were from the NLS collections. Any chance we could get the missing metadata on these tracked down and added to the files? No rush, but they show up in our maintenance backlogs so it would be good to get them fixed eventually. Thanks, --Xover (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)