Wikisource:Scriptorium
Announcements
[edit]Proposals
[edit]As per this discussion, it would be helpful if the Style Guide explicitly stated that numbered chapters should use Arabic numbering (as per our usual practice, and as documented at Help:Subpages#Chapters and sections).
To this end, I am proposing the following change:
OLD:
- Works that have chapters/sections should be numbered, not named (eg. use
[[/Chapter 1/]]
and not[[/The Dog Returns/]]
). The section name should reflect those in the original work (Chapter 2, Act 2, et cetera). Subpage titles such as[[/Preface/]]
and[[/Appendix/]]
are fine though.- When a work is a collection (e.g. poetry) or a compiled work (e.g. a journal or almanac), then the subpages are works in their own right, and the original title of the work should be used in the subpage title.
NEW:
- Works that have chapters/sections should be numbered, not named (eg. use
[[/Chapter 1/]]
and not[[/The Dog Returns/]]
).
- The section name should reflect those in the original work ("Chapter 2", "Act 2", etc.). Subpage titles such as
[[/Preface/]]
and[[/Appendix/]]
are fine though.- The section number should use Arabic numerals ("Chapter 2"), even if the original work uses Roman numerals ("Chapter II") or another numbering scheme ("Chapter Second", etc)
- When a work is a collection (e.g. poetry) or a compiled work (e.g. a journal or almanac), then the subpages are works in their own right, and the original title of the work should be used in the subpage title.
—Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support, though it may be useful to specify in the first bullet points that it does not apply to collections, else it and the last bullet point may seem contradictory. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 13:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, since this does not provide for the handful of exceptions where the approach runs into problems, and will therefore run us into rules-lawyering. For 98-99% of cases, the above approach is desirable. But there are problems. One such issue is that nearly every citation of Shakespeare uses capital Roman numerals for the Acts, his means that any linking will have to juggle back and forth in two systems, both in the work itself, and in the linking from works that cite. Links from off-site will have to do the same juggling. This is a nearl-universal citing format for his works. I brought up this issue the last time we discussed this topic. Further, the proposed change does not actually specify that the names of subpages themselves should follow any particular rule; this could be interpreted as rules describing display fields in the header or in tables of contents. This vote is premature, because we first need a discussion to decide what it is we want the change to say, instead of jumping directly to a vote. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- WS:MOS already explicitly states that "These are not hard rules, and can be ignored where necessary". This is just a clarification of our usual guidelines to prevent confusion for new users. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also: last time I submitted a proposal like this with a discussion instead of jumping to a vote, you yourself opposed it on the grounds that I had not explicitly stated what I was proposing to change the wording to. If you have a suggestion for a better wording, provide it yourself. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- The previous proposal I recall was opposed because the wording kept changing after people had voted, invalidating all previous votes with each change, because each vote was in support of a different wording. There needs to be a discussion first to work out problems in the wording, and then a vote to adopt the new wording. What you have presented here is a support / oppose situation, without room for discussion first. And in the previous instance there was continual revision concurrent with voting. The wording discussion should come first, then support / oppose afterwards. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm with EP on this one: let's discuss our way to a proposed text first, and then vote on the resulting text as a simple yes/no vote. Trying to vote on a text that is constantly changing in small and less small ways is impossible to do cleanly. Xover (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- The previous proposal I recall was opposed because the wording kept changing after people had voted, invalidating all previous votes with each change, because each vote was in support of a different wording. There needs to be a discussion first to work out problems in the wording, and then a vote to adopt the new wording. What you have presented here is a support / oppose situation, without room for discussion first. And in the previous instance there was continual revision concurrent with voting. The wording discussion should come first, then support / oppose afterwards. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Bot approval requests
[edit]- See Wikisource:Bots for information about applying for a bot status
- See Wikisource:Bot requests if you require an existing bot to undertake a task
Repairs (and moves)
[edit]Designated for requests related to the repair of works (and scans of works) presented on Wikisource
See also Wikisource:Scan lab
Other discussions
[edit]Serialized works in periodicals
[edit]I think we should come to some general recommendation how serialized works in periodicals should be dealt. At the moment each contributor deals with them differently, which is imo a problem with periodicals especially, as different attitudes within one periodical sometimes occur.
I have seen two attitudes which make sense in my opinion. The one which I slightly prefer is creating a version/translation page containing one version/translation of the work with links to all parts of the series. Although we usually create version pages only when we have at least two editions of the work, in similar cases it could be acceptable to create it for one edition only. Once more editions appear here, they can be easily added. An example of such a page is e. g. Fame (Čech).
Another attitude which also makes sense is creating a special subpage of the periodical containing just an auxilliary ToC with links to individual parts of the work. An example can be seen at The Czechoslovak Review/A Tale of Young Blood of '48. IMO there is some minor disadvantage: subpages of the main page are only volumes, while articles are subpages of these volumes or of individual issues. With this attitude the subpages with AuxToC would be on the same level as volumes, which is a bit confusing. Besides, not everybody (e.g. me) likes how the pages with pure AuXToC look, but that is very subjective, I admit. Despite these minor objections, I would not have any problem accepting this attitude if more people prefer it, because some unification is really needed.
There are also other related things which might be discussed, like whether and how individual parts should be interlinked from their headers etc., but I suggest leaving such discussions for later or at least making them separate from this one, not to lose the main goal. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Once upon a time, I was working on a magazine which had a Jules Verne short story serialized within. I thought to keep the magazine in tact, but to also make a separate instance where the story was complete (Magazine/Title of story) so that the work could be downloaded intact for my ereader device. That effort was deleted, citing something officious that I did not read. But it was easy to do (set up the separate instance) and perhaps a way to include it in the main toc but exclude it from being downloaded with the whole magazine volume could be found. And the officious document changed accordingly.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- If I understand it right, it was quite close to The Czechoslovak Review/A Tale of Young Blood of '48, only the AuxToC was not used in your case. If this solution prevails, I think the AuxToC should be used. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Jan Kameníček: I made a Volume/whole_work and transcluded all of the parts to there (as well as how they appeared in the journal), it was crufty, klutzy and overall not elegant, really. Since then, I have come to more understanding of the exporter. To my understanding, The Czechoslovak Review/A Tale of Young Blood of '48 would indeed work with the exporter for the purpose of making an epub, etc version of that one specific work. I thank you for putting this all here so I had the time to think about it. And also agree that it is the best, cleanest and most non-redundant of solutions to the need for a recommendation and more importantly (to me), a means to export 'just the work' into other formats.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- If I understand it right, it was quite close to The Czechoslovak Review/A Tale of Young Blood of '48, only the AuxToC was not used in your case. If this solution prevails, I think the AuxToC should be used. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I personally think that The Czechoslovak Review/A Tale of Young Blood of '48 is the closest to a "good" solution of all the various ideas I've seen. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've worked on a few of these recently, and agree that it would be good to develop a guideline. I had been following Wikisource:Serial works, and creating a separate single-page transclusion in addition to transcluding them as part of the periodical (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). I'd also used the versions page approach you described, with sub-bullet points for each part; I'm not against this, but haven't been very happy with it, as it means serial works take up so much more space on these pages than other works, and I also dislike readers having to click through many extra pages to view the work they want to read. Hadn't come across The Czechoslovak Review/A Tale of Young Blood of '48 method before; I understand what you mean that it might seem odd to have subpages that aren't just the volumes, but this does seem like a logical place to put these pages (I personally don't mind AuxTOC only pages, but you could also add the source text's title and date of first publication to the page's header notes if it was a translation, which would make the page a bit less empty). It looks like a good approach to me, as this could be the page you link to on any author/versions/translations page, and would avoid having to link to all the sub-parts on those pages. --YodinT 14:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- OK, so let's go with auxilliary subpages. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have added a section to Wikisource:Style guide#Serialized works in periodicals, comments are welcome. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Normally, comments come first, then the community votes on the changes, and only then is the core Wikisource document changed in accordance with the proposal. Changing the core policy document, then asking for comment is backwards. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'll note, Jan, that the one time I can recall you and I disagreeing vehemently on something it was because I had failed to make sure there was sufficient opportunity to discuss the proposal before it even came to a vote. This is a difficult issue and rushing into establishing a new status quo is not appropriate. Xover (talk) 07:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I did not consider the change controversial after the discussion above where only opinions in favour of one solution appeared and nobody seemed to add anything else relevant to it. Anyway, I have reverted the change for now. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know the feeling. :) It's hard sometimes to gauge what's controversial or not, and getting the community to even engage in the discussion can be an uphill battle. Thanks for reverting; and thanks for trying to figure out a solution to this issue. I agree that it's something that should be addressed somehow. Xover (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I did not consider the change controversial after the discussion above where only opinions in favour of one solution appeared and nobody seemed to add anything else relevant to it. Anyway, I have reverted the change for now. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'll note, Jan, that the one time I can recall you and I disagreeing vehemently on something it was because I had failed to make sure there was sufficient opportunity to discuss the proposal before it even came to a vote. This is a difficult issue and rushing into establishing a new status quo is not appropriate. Xover (talk) 07:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Normally, comments come first, then the community votes on the changes, and only then is the core Wikisource document changed in accordance with the proposal. Changing the core policy document, then asking for comment is backwards. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have added a section to Wikisource:Style guide#Serialized works in periodicals, comments are welcome. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- The established tool we have for this is a Portal. Why is that not sufficient? Xover (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- It is a possibility too, though it does not seem to be used by contributors for serialized works in periodicals at the moment. Portals are probably more understood as a tool to gather different works on a specific subject. But I am not against this solution either. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I thought it would be good to link to some example of such a portal containing a single edition of a work serialized in a periodical, but I failed to find any. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Portal:Sherlock Holmes (UK Strand).Portals are the tool we have for arbitrarily grouping texts by properties other than the specific forms they were originally published in, and can be on any arbitrary (but consistent and logical) grouping principle. The above example was created because a contributor who shall remain nameless was a bit more than averagely concerned with first editions. Personally I think versions pages like The Problem of Thor Bridge would have been sufficient for this case, but it should illustrate the general approach that's also adaptable to this use case.Not that portals are by any means perfect, but it's the established tool for this kind of need and I am extremely sceptical of any approach that creates pseudo-editions of one story within the structure of a periodical. Xover (talk) 09:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just noting that the linked portal does not contain one serialized work in a periodical but a series of works by one author in a periodical. (Also not sure why AuxToC is used in that portal.) This portal is imo not really necessary, though possible, while parts of a serialized work really need to be gathered somewhere so that they can be linked to as a whole when needed. Although I originally also slightly preferred the version pages, now I realized that once another edition is added to such a version page, it cannot be used for linking to a particular periodical edition only. For linking purposes we need a solution for gathering individual parts of specific editions in a periodical, which can be done by an auxilliary subpage of the periodical or by a portal. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Portal:Sherlock Holmes (UK Strand).Portals are the tool we have for arbitrarily grouping texts by properties other than the specific forms they were originally published in, and can be on any arbitrary (but consistent and logical) grouping principle. The above example was created because a contributor who shall remain nameless was a bit more than averagely concerned with first editions. Personally I think versions pages like The Problem of Thor Bridge would have been sufficient for this case, but it should illustrate the general approach that's also adaptable to this use case.Not that portals are by any means perfect, but it's the established tool for this kind of need and I am extremely sceptical of any approach that creates pseudo-editions of one story within the structure of a periodical. Xover (talk) 09:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- No more opinions seem to come so I think we can start voting soon. Before doing so, let's summarize the options we have:
- Version/translation page, such as Fame (Čech)
- Advantages: Easy to create, no special tool needed.
- Disadvantages: Not suitable to be linked to if a link to the whole work is needed, as other versions/translations may be added to the page later. Some people also may not like a version page containing just one version.
- Auxilliary subpage with an AuxToC, such as The Czechoslovak Review/A Tale of Young Blood of '48.
- Advantages: Solves the linking problem mentioned above.
- Disadvantages: Creates a subpage that was not included in the original periodical.
- Portal, such as Portal:Sherlock Holmes (UK Strand) (although probably without the AuxToC template)
- Advantages: Solves the linking problem mentioned above. It is an established tool.
- Disadvantages: Not a current practice to use it for serialized works. It contradicts the definitions of the portal at Wikisource:Portal guidelines (
Portals are pages intended to serve as "main pages" for specific topics or areas
) and at Help:Portals (Portals exist as a gateway to a subject area on Wikisource
), which would have to be extended (which can be done easily).
- Version/translation page, such as Fame (Čech)
- So let's wait for some more time if some other suggestion appears and then I will start the voting about them. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- If there's a problem having these hosted as subpages of the periodical, how about an AuxTOC in mainspace, so basically the same as 2, but moved to A Tale of Young Blood of '48 (The Czechoslovak Review) instead? --YodinT 15:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, will add it to the list. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- If there's a problem having these hosted as subpages of the periodical, how about an AuxTOC in mainspace, so basically the same as 2, but moved to A Tale of Young Blood of '48 (The Czechoslovak Review) instead? --YodinT 15:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Files missing machine-readable data
[edit]Hi all,
The categories…
- Category:Files with no machine-readable description (81)
- Category:Files with no machine-readable author (81)
…have a bit of a backlog that it would be nice if the community helped out with. The two overlap so it's not quite as bad as at first glance (889 + 675), but it's still enough that it's a "dip in, do a few" kind of task that's easy work if enough people help out. Xover (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- 105 of the Files with no machine-readable author are volumes of Blackwood's Magazine. What do we even put as an Author for such volumes? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- I would probably simply put "multiple". Or...?PS. if there are a hundred of them that should all get the same value it's probably better to have a bot add it. Xover (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- The same 105 files are also in the other category. Someone who knows what data to add, and can run a bot, could clear those 105 files from both ctageories quickly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, all the Blackwood's Magazine volumes have now been cleared out of those categories. Xover (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- The same 105 files are also in the other category. Someone who knows what data to add, and can run a bot, could clear those 105 files from both ctageories quickly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- I would probably simply put "multiple". Or...?PS. if there are a hundred of them that should all get the same value it's probably better to have a bot add it. Xover (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- @TE(æ)A,ea., do you still need the images in Category:Millions of Cats images? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 20:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- CalendulaAsteraceae: Why did you create the category? If none are in use, then no, I believe that they’ve all been extracted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- @TE(æ)A,ea., thanks for confirming! Unless you object, I'll go ahead and delete the images in Category:Millions of Cats images, since commons:Category:Millions of Cats has cleaner versions. (I created the category because the images all had it anyway, and creating the category makes it easier to process them.) —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 17:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- CalendulaAsteraceae: Why did you create the category? If none are in use, then no, I believe that they’ve all been extracted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Another sizeable set of images that could be handled by bot are the illustrations to "The House at Pooh Corner (1961)", and whose filenames start with that phrase. The illustrator (author) for these images is E. H. Shepard. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- The Pooh Corner ones are Done. Xover (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- One more bot-suitable task would be setting the author to "multiple" for the DJVUs in Special:PrefixIndex/File:The_Strand_Magazine_(Volume. (The illustrations often have signatures and so should be handled manually.) —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 21:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- The Strand djvus are Done. Xover (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've done few, and I thought we could make the Maintenance of the Month for July, since it's easy to step in and fix two or three. Cremastra (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Xover Could you give the files starting with "Whenwewereveryyo0000unse" in Category:Files with no machine-readable description the description
{{en|1=Illustration from ''When We Were Very Young''}}
? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 16:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Xover: The following temporary files can be deleted: File:Crowne of all Homers workes missing pages removed.pdf, File:Diamonds To Sit On.pdf chapter 9 P63.jpg, File:DiscoveryOfWitches-fp.tif, File:DiscoveryOfWitches-p48.tif, File:DiscoveryOfWitches-p49-2.tif, File:DiscoveryOfWitches-p49.tif, File:DiscoveryOfWitches-p5.tif, File:DiscoveryOfWitches-p62.tif, File:DiscoveryOfWitches-p64.tif, File:DiscoveryOfWitches-title.tif, File:EACJ2-note.tif, File:EAoCJ-v2-pf113.tif, File:EAoCJ-v2-pf31.tif, File:EAoCJ-v2-pf61.tif, File:EminentAuthors-v1-fp3.tif, File:EminentAuthors-v1-fp41.tif, File:EminentAuthors-v1-fp79.tif, File:FifteenPoets-missing pages.pdf, File:MMS-p162-163.pdf, File:ModernJapaneseNovels-note.tif, File:ModernJapaneseNovels-p11.tif, File:ModernJapaneseNovels-p19.tif, File:ModernJapaneseNovels-p26.tif, File:ModernJapaneseNovels-p33.tif, File:ModernJapaneseNovels-p7.tif, File:ModernJapaneseNovels-title.tif, File:RichestManBabylon-11.tif, File:RichestManBabylon-15.tif, File:RichestManBabylon-16.tif, File:RichestManBabylon-18.tif, File:RichestManBabylon-2.tif, File:RichestManBabylon-21.tif, File:RichestManBabylon-23.tif, File:RichestManBabylon-25.tif, File:RichestManBabylon-27.tif, File:RichestManBabylon-32.tif, File:RichestManBabylon-34.tif, File:RichestManBabylon-37.tif, File:RichestManBabylon-39.tif, File:RichestManBabylon-41.tif, File:RichestManBabylon-43.tif, File:RichestManBabylon-5.tif, File:RichestManBabylon-7.tif, File:RichestManBabylon-9.tif, File:RichestManBabylon-half.tif, File:RichestManBabylon-title.tif, File:San Kuo volume 1 missing pages.pdf, File:Saturday Evening Gazette page 1 header.tif, File:Saturday Evening Gazette page 4 header.tif, File:SatyagrahaTitle.tif, File:Scarface-title.tif, and File:TheMysteryOfTheBlueTrain-title.tif. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are 46 files with names of the form "FigNNdescription.png" (with or without a space after the NN fig. number) are from the 1910 A Practical Commentary on Holy Scripture by Author:Friedrich Justus Knecht. No illustrator is credited. These files can be exported to Commons, since the work was published more than 95 years ago and the author dies more than 100 years ago. However, the files should probably be renamed to include the source work title. Since there are 46 images requiring a similar rename, addition of the same author and description, and a similar export, this task might be best handled by bot. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, that took longer than planned, but… Done All images have been reextracted and now live in c:Category:A Practical Commentary on Holy Scripture (1910), and the old ones have been deleted here. Xover (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are 56 illustrations with names that begin "File:The Strand Magazine . . . " that might be given basic data by bot. Many of these apparear to be illustrations for Sherlock Holmes stories. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've whittled these Sherlock Holmes illustrations down to about a dozen, and for those the illustrator is not clearly stated. The illustrations that I've processed were all from two illustrators. However, I've noticed while doing these that all were tagged with the {{book}} template, but the files aren't books. The template should be swapped out for an appropriate template, preferrably by bot, in order to switch the information in each field to a suitable corresponding parameter in the new template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Using the book template at commons allows all of the information to fill in from wikidata, including the scan image which then can be "opened", via "|Image page" to the page in the scan that the image came from. Template names are not a "law" are they? If so, the {{book}} template could be renamed {{book and everything in that book}} for the pedantic among us. A more elegant solution is to get the book template here working and then maybe share it with commons, as that template makes great use of the Art module which then complains because the books there don't seem to be two dimensional objects and throws them into several maintenance categories. The {{information}} template is very very 2004!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- The {{book}} template is fine, as long as the object is a scan of a book. It should not be used for files that are extracted illustrations, which are not books. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Using the book template at commons allows all of the information to fill in from wikidata, including the scan image which then can be "opened", via "|Image page" to the page in the scan that the image came from. Template names are not a "law" are they? If so, the {{book}} template could be renamed {{book and everything in that book}} for the pedantic among us. A more elegant solution is to get the book template here working and then maybe share it with commons, as that template makes great use of the Art module which then complains because the books there don't seem to be two dimensional objects and throws them into several maintenance categories. The {{information}} template is very very 2004!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Among wikisource screenshots, the following files should be deleted as they were added as "temporary" multiple years ago:
- These others, although not marked as temporary, were manifestly made to be used in a discussion and are now used nowhere:
EDIT: Other temporary files that have been there for a while:- — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 15:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- File:Screenshot 2021-05-19 Eminent Chinese of the Qing Period.png states that it exists for the creation of Author pages. Do we know whether that task was completed? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- It was three years ago, and most names on the list are blue links, so I think so. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 15:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Alien333: The first of the last three is for SnowyCinema (for Kat and Copy-Cat). The other two are not temporary files. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't {{do not move to Commons|test=yes}} mean "temporary or test file"? They've been in that state for nearly three years. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 15:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Alien333: The “test=yes” was added by CalendulaAsteraceae (in both cases) sometime after the files were created. It should not have been added in either case, as both files are in use. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Striking them out, then. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- While that change was indeed made, the files previously had "why=temporary file" so the change was merely one of syntax, rather than content. However, both of those files have Index pages and transcription completed, so it is not clear why these files were ever tagged as such. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Alien333: The “test=yes” was added by CalendulaAsteraceae (in both cases) sometime after the files were created. It should not have been added in either case, as both files are in use. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't {{do not move to Commons|test=yes}} mean "temporary or test file"? They've been in that state for nearly three years. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 15:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- File:Screenshot 2021-05-19 Eminent Chinese of the Qing Period.png states that it exists for the creation of Author pages. Do we know whether that task was completed? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Template bug
[edit]{{Plainlist}} does not work for ordered ("#") lists; yet it does so on en.Wikipedia, for example.
Markup (ordered list):
{{Plainlist|
# one
# two
# three
}}
Rendering (ordered list):
- one
- two
- three
Markup (unordered list):
{{Plainlist|
* one
* two
* three
}}
Rendering (unordered list):
- one
- two
- three
The first rendering should look like the second. Can anyone fix it, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- What's your use case for an unbulleted (unsigilled) ordered list? Xover (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I am confused too. If the numbering is not displayed, then it's not really ordered, so why use an ordered list? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Page:Midland naturalist (IA midlandnaturalis01lond).pdf/258, for example. Note also that there is no requirement in the HTML spec for ordered lists to display numbering; that's merely the default. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you take an ordered list and you remove the numbers, you get (visually) exactly the same thing as an unordered list without bullets, it's just decoration. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Visually you do, yes. But the markup is semantic, not presentational ("decoration"). Removing the presentational component does not change the underlying meaning. The two types of list are not the same. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's not an unsigilled ordered list. That's an ordered list with sigils that cannot currently be reproduced in MediaWiki due to a combination of limitations in MediaWiki and web browsers. Making that an ordered list with hidden sigils and then manually reproducing the numbering would be unsemantic and cause a problem for, e.g., non-visual browsers (and other user agents that automatically number ordered list items, or that fall back on a default numbering style when they do not support the custom style specified). There may be use cases for unsigilled ordered lists, but absent evidence to the contrary I am sceptical that any of them occur in our content namespaces. Xover (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you take an ordered list and you remove the numbers, you get (visually) exactly the same thing as an unordered list without bullets, it's just decoration. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Page:Midland naturalist (IA midlandnaturalis01lond).pdf/258, for example. Note also that there is no requirement in the HTML spec for ordered lists to display numbering; that's merely the default. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I am confused too. If the numbering is not displayed, then it's not really ordered, so why use an ordered list? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Problems with rendering thumbs of PDFs
[edit]It takes several attempts to display a thumb of a PDF file page in page namespace. Sometimes I have to refresh the page 5 to 10 times. Also transcribing text with any of the OCR tools takes long (20+ seconds) and sometimes it fails completely. I noticed the problems yesterday morning, but I do not know when they actually started because I had not worked in the page namespace for a long time. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Jan Kameníček I had this problem today. I filled the "waiting time" by purging here and at commons, multiple times; which, unfortunately, was a step backwards as I initially lost the thumb on the index page. This is not the "other problem" where there seems to be a network time out while putting the page into the exact same location and magnification that was previously used. That problem is solved, often, by twirling the mouse wheel thus adjusting the magnification and causing the page to render. Moral: fill that render time wisely and if wisely is unavailable, then fill it while calmly purging everything that might be touching it, I think.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, the problem seems to have disappeared... --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Vote now to fill vacancies of the first U4C
[edit]- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language
Dear all,
I am writing to you to let you know the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open now through August 10, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
In cooperation with the U4C,
RamzyM (WMF) 02:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
OCR error
[edit]I just got an http error while using Tesseract to transcribe Page:Midland naturalist (IA midlandnaturalis01lond).pdf/350; twice.
The error message disappeared before I could read or copy it, but perhaps it is logged somewhere? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW, I've been getting more timeout errors using the OCR button. It takes longer to successfully retrieve an OCR output, and I'm getting timeout errors with greater frequency. I noticed the increase following this weekend's server maintenance downtime. I do not know whether this is the same issue, a related issue, or coincidentally similar, however. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've also noticed it's taken longer than usual these days. Jan.Kamenicek mentioned something similar a few days ago, it might be linked. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 19:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am grateful if the above posters provide links to the projects for my benefit. I am collecting information on the type of documents being scanned. i. e.: I follow this issue closely as well, but lack data on numerous conditions that may be considered as one of the causes of the problem. Thanks. — ineuw (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- — ineuw: I’ve had the problem recently with Index:Eminent Authors of Contemporary Japan.pdf, Index:Modern Japanese Stories.pdf (but not recently), and Index:Historyofhampton00tyle.pdf (which was so bad I haven’t been able to complete it). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I am grateful if the above posters provide links to the projects for my benefit. I am collecting information on the type of documents being scanned. i. e.: I follow this issue closely as well, but lack data on numerous conditions that may be considered as one of the causes of the problem. Thanks. — ineuw (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've also noticed it's taken longer than usual these days. Jan.Kamenicek mentioned something similar a few days ago, it might be linked. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 19:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm just guessing (but it's an educated guess), but I think the root cause is probably the performance and reliability problems on Commons that especially affect PDF files (but DjVu files aren't immune either). It's the same issue that's causing the various problems with Index: pages for newly uploaded files, showing page thumbnails in Page: namespace, etc. and that can sometimes be fixed by purging the file description page. All the OCR engines have to start by downloading the thumbnail of the relevant page from Commons, and usually they ask for a different-sized thumbnail than what's displayed by Proofread Page so that Commons has to generate a new one (instead of just serving the one it already has). Xover (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Xover: Thanks for adding to my understanding. My work is almost exclusively with .djvu files by preference, which are somewhat slow but consistent page after 100's of pages.
- Internet Archive's claim, for ceasing to publish .djvu format, was that the demand didn't justify it. I regret their decision when I come across some interesting material (to me), and is not available in .djvu format. — ineuw (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Couldn't you convert from what IA offers to djvu? — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @TE(æ)A,ea.: I looked at the .pdf work in the link and it takes twice as long to render as .djvu. — ineuw (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- — ineuw: I made the mistake of saying that Modern Japanese Stories was working fine, because when I proofread the latest story that I’ve done it started to not load again. It’s bad enough that it happens, but it’s so annoying that it’s inconsistent. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Tech News: 2024-31
[edit]Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Feature news
- Editors using the Visual Editor in languages that use non-Latin characters for numbers, such as Hindi, Manipuri and Eastern Arabic, may notice some changes in the formatting of reference numbers. This is a side effect of preparing a new sub-referencing feature, and will also allow fixing some general numbering issues in Visual Editor. If you notice any related problems on your wiki, please share details at the project talkpage.
Bugs status
- Some logged-in editors were briefly unable to edit or load pages last week. These errors were mainly due to the addition of new linter rules which led to caching problems. Fixes have been applied and investigations are continuing.
- Editors can use the IP Information tool to get information about IP addresses. This tool is available as a Beta Feature in your preferences. The tool was not available for a few days last week, but is now working again. Thank you to Shizhao for filing the bug report. You can read about that, and 28 other community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.
Project updates
- There are new features and improvements to Phabricator from the Release Engineering and Collaboration Services teams, and some volunteers, including: the search systems, the new task creation system, the login systems, the translation setup which has resulted in support for more languages (thanks to Pppery), and fixes for many edge-case errors. You can read details about these and other improvements in this summary.
- There is an update on the Charts project. The team has decided which visualization library to use, which chart types to start focusing on, and where to store chart definitions.
- One new wiki has been created: a Wikivoyage in Czech (
voy:cs:
) [1]
Learn more
- There is a new Wikimedia Foundation data center in São Paulo, Brazil which helps to reduce load times.
- There is new user research on problems with the process of uploading images.
- Commons Impact Metrics are now available via data dumps and API.
- The latest quarterly Technical Community Newsletter is now available.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
MediaWiki message delivery 23:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Parallel corpus functionality via crosslinking different language Wikisource projects
[edit]I mean, would it be possible to combine "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" with its French original "Vingt mille lieues sous les mers" and display these texts side by side, linking the corresponding chunks of text to each other? Something like:
French | English |
---|---|
L’année 1866 fut marquée par un événement bizarre, un phénomène inexpliqué et inexplicable que personne n’a sans doute oublié. Sans parler des rumeurs qui agitaient les populations des ports et surexcitaient l’esprit public à l’intérieur des continents, les gens de mer furent particulièrement émus. Les négociants, armateurs, capitaines de navires, skippers et masters de l’Europe et de l’Amérique, officiers des marines militaires de tous pays, et, après eux, les gouvernements des divers États des deux continents, se préoccupèrent de ce fait au plus haut point. | THE year 1866 was signalized by a remarkable incident, a mysterious and inexplicable phenomenon, which doubtless no one has yet forgotten. Not to mention rumors which agitated the maritime population, and excited the public mind, even in the interior of continents, seafaring men were particularly excited. Merchants, common sailors, captains of vessels, skippers, both of Europe and America, naval officers of all countries, and the governments of several states on the two continents, were deeply interested in the matter. |
En effet, depuis quelque temps, plusieurs navires s’étaient rencontrés sur mer avec « une chose énorme, » un objet long, fusiforme, parfois phosphorescent, infiniment plus vaste et plus rapide qu’une baleine. | For some time past, vessels had been met by "an enormous thing," a long object, spindle-shaped, occasionally phosphorescent, and infinitely larger and more rapid in its movements than a whale. |
What kind of additional page markup syntax and visualization plugins could be used to get this implemented for a few books? Or is this totally out of scope of the Wikisource project? --Ssvb (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you have an edition of the text that is bilingual, that belongs at mul:. Do you have one like that or are you trying to compare two different texts of the book? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm trying to compare two different texts of the book. The "chapter" markup is already there and it's possible to open, let's say, the third chapter of the French book in one browser window and the same third chapter of the English book in another browser window. A more fine grained "paragraph" or "sentence" level markup would make it easier to see the matching parts of text. --Ssvb (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, now I see that Wikisource:Annotations is probably very much related. But the banned items list there includes: "Comparison pages: Pages from different versions of the same work, whether whole works or extracts, placed alongside each other (whether in series or in parallel) to provide a comparison between the different versions". --Ssvb (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ssvb: I mean, you could create (and export) a book in userspace without an issue; for the French-language text, you can use {{iwpage}} and similar templates for that purpose. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wow! Thanks! This is a very useful information and it seems to work. I didn't know that it's possible to transclude pages from another wiki. --Ssvb (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ssvb: I mean, you could create (and export) a book in userspace without an issue; for the French-language text, you can use {{iwpage}} and similar templates for that purpose. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, now I see that Wikisource:Annotations is probably very much related. But the banned items list there includes: "Comparison pages: Pages from different versions of the same work, whether whole works or extracts, placed alongside each other (whether in series or in parallel) to provide a comparison between the different versions". --Ssvb (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm trying to compare two different texts of the book. The "chapter" markup is already there and it's possible to open, let's say, the third chapter of the French book in one browser window and the same third chapter of the English book in another browser window. A more fine grained "paragraph" or "sentence" level markup would make it easier to see the matching parts of text. --Ssvb (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- If it's only for comparing text, have you considered opening two browser windows side by side, one in English, and one in French? I am experimenting with similar concept for the same reason, but my current needs are offline, although later it will progress to online. I am only limited by time. Setting the window properties, like aligning side by side, with a minimal border may be much quicker. — ineuw (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Ineuw: In reality I'm interested not in an English-French pair, but in a Belarusian-English pair (but this doesn't change anything in principle). What I wanted to have is to be able to easily match pages between the Belarusian translation and its English original.
- I think that I found some sort of a solution at least for now. For example, a page in the Belarusian translation of "The Prince and the Pauper" now got its page number at the top also working as a wikilink to its approximate location in the English book here. I'm using a Scribunto Lua script to calculate the mapping between chapters and some templates to establish this link. Now if somebody is reading a Belarusian book, then the approximate location of the corresponding text fragment in the English book is just a few clicks away. The correct chapter is identified precisely, but the actual page is estimated approximately. The accuracy can be improved via implementing a few additional tricks. It's not fully finished yet, but the results look very promising. --Ssvb (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't know about the policy of belarusian wikisource on links, but you might want to make sure that it's allowed to do that there. Also, though it may be intentional, you're putting these links in the headers in the page namespace, which will not be transcluded onto the finished version of the work. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Alien333: Yes, I'm in contact with the most active contributors of the Belarusian Wikisource right now. My personal opinion is that this kind of wikilink from the page number in the running head of a page is non-invasive, doesn't change the overall visual representation of the page and possibly can be categorized as a "basic wikilink" per Wikisource:Wikilinks#Basic_wikilinks rather than an "annotation". This feature is still in a "pilot mode" and is only enabled just for a few books, which are still being OCRed as we speak. It's possible that the feature may evolve into something else. Or it can be ditched if it proves to cause some problems or is deemed to add little value. As for being used only in the page namespace for now, this is intentional. But this can be changed later if necessary. --Ssvb (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't know about the policy of belarusian wikisource on links, but you might want to make sure that it's allowed to do that there. Also, though it may be intentional, you're putting these links in the headers in the page namespace, which will not be transcluded onto the finished version of the work. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- If it's only for comparing text, have you considered opening two browser windows side by side, one in English, and one in French? I am experimenting with similar concept for the same reason, but my current needs are offline, although later it will progress to online. I am only limited by time. Setting the window properties, like aligning side by side, with a minimal border may be much quicker. — ineuw (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I will validate a few pages of yours if you validate mine. 😬
[edit]I would like this page to be validated: Page:THE PROVIDENCE GAZETTE AND COUNTRY JOURNAL August 9 1777 p 1.jpg (If it needs the entire paper to be transcribed in order to go to the next steps, I can do that, too, but I was only interested in transcribing the first article.) — Omegatron (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Tech News: 2024-32
[edit]Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Feature news
- Two new parser functions will be available this week:
{{#dir}}
and{{#bcp47}}
. These will reduce the need forTemplate:Dir
andTemplate:BCP47
on Commons and allow us to drop 100 million rows from the "what links here" database. Editors at any wiki that use these templates, can help by replacing the templates with these new functions. The templates at Commons will be updated during the Hackathon at Wikimania. [2][3] - Communities can request the activation of the visual editor on entire namespaces where discussions sometimes happen (for instance Wikipedia: or Wikisource: namespaces) if they understand the known limitations. For discussions, users can already use DiscussionTools in these namespaces.
- The tracking category "Pages using Timeline" has been renamed to "Pages using the EasyTimeline extension" in TranslateWiki. Wikis that have created the category locally should rename their local creation to match.
Project updates
- Editors who help to organize WikiProjects and similar on-wiki collaborations, are invited to share ideas and examples of successful collaborations with the Campaigns and Programs teams. You can fill out a brief survey or share your thoughts on the talkpage. The teams are particularly looking for details about successful collaborations on non-English wikis.
- The new parser is being rolled out on Wikivoyage wikis over the next few months. The English Wikivoyage and Hebrew Wikivoyage were switched to Parsoid last week. For more information, see Parsoid/Parser Unification.
Learn more
- There will be more than 200 sessions at Wikimania this week. Here is a summary of some of the key sessions related to the product and technology area.
- The latest Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin is available.
- The latest quarterly Language and Internationalization newsletter is available. It includes: New design previews for Translatable pages; Updates about MinT for Wiki Readers; the release of Translation dumps; and more.
- The latest quarterly Growth newsletter is available.
- The latest monthly MediaWiki Product Insights newsletter is available.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
MediaWiki message delivery 20:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Can the long-s be supported natively?
[edit]I know the subject of the long-s has been brought up in the past, and it's a whole can of worms. Apologies to whoever has memories of heated long-s discussions. That being said, I have a solution nagging at me, and I would like to know if it's possible.
Currently the long-s is handled by using {{ls}}, and can be visible if the user enables the Visibility gadget in Preferences. This presents two issues: (1) the editing pane is practically unreadable in any pre-1800s text due to being littered with so many {{ls}} templates, and (2) I doubt very many Wikisource users even know about the Visibility gadget, much less use it. So it seems to be a significant detriment to editors, with practically no usage.
My idea is to allow the use of the long-s character instead of the template, and add a native button on the sidebar to switch between rendering the long-s character as a round-s (normal-s) and vice versa—just like what the Visibility gadget does, but without having to be enabled in Preferences.
I have heard that the long-s character is not used is because searching for the letter "s" with "Ctrl+F" will not highlight long-s characters. This is false! Firefox and Chrome both recognize the long-s character as an "s" and will highlight it, and I would assume the other Chromium-based browsers would follow suit. Because of this, it seems to me like it's within our power to enact this change, but I could be wrong! Am I missing something here?
—SpikeShroom (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Long S also shows up for S in the Wikisource search engine. (I confirmed this by adding "This is a teſt." to Wikisource:Sandbox and checking if it showed up in a search for "test", which it did.) —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- As far as page namespace is concerned, {{ls}} already uses the character (the HTML entity, but it's the same).
- I think the point of having {{ls}} is more about the namespace variations (replacing in main by s).
- Also, when you mean "supported natively", what do you suggest? Apart from making the visibility gadget default, I don't see what we can do. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 15:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- What @SpikeShroom is suggesting is for contributors to just use ſ directly, rather than through the template, and for the visibility gadget to directly target ſ instead of the class "typographic-long-s". —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 15:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Then what would it use? JS? — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 15:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- It already uses JS. MediaWiki:Gadget-Visibility.js —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 15:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 15:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- It already uses JS. MediaWiki:Gadget-Visibility.js —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 15:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Then what would it use? JS? — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 15:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- What @SpikeShroom is suggesting is for contributors to just use ſ directly, rather than through the template, and for the visibility gadget to directly target ſ instead of the class "typographic-long-s". —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 15:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have done some experimentation with the opentype feature "hist", which should display the long-s glyph for the "s" character except at the end of words. Unfortunately this feature isn't widely supported, but you can see a proof of concept at Page:1644 Anabaptist Confession of Faith.djvu/5 —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've thought about the possibility of having an "automatic long-s generator" function like that, so that editors could just type round-s. But unfortunately, history presents too many exceptions in long-s usage, and over time, the character developed slightly different syntax rules. It would be near impossible to cover all the slight variations in a single function. So {{ls}} is on the right track, in that being able to type the character itself lets editors match the scans more accurately.
- —SpikeShroom (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- The way I see it, either short-s and long-s are separate characters (like 's' and 'S'), OR they are separate glyphs for the same character (like 's' and 's'). If the former, then any approach to transcription short of directly using 'ſ' is invalid and needs to be treated as an annotation, and the use of "hist" or "ss02" to modify the glyph is insufficient. If the latter, then I don't think it's a problem if slight variations are ignored, just as we ignore other differences in glyphs caused by differences in typeface between the original and the transcription. After all, replacing 'ſ' with 's' or {{ls}} is also a form of ignoring variations with a standard approach, and one which is commonplace and well-accepted here. (This is just my opinion btw.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would argue that the long-s presents an exception: it's an unnecessary character, similar to the ligature "st," but unlike "st" it's an extremely visible difference. It seems to me like Wikisource has more of a subjective rule on what archaic characters are transcribed, and it usually comes down to how visible it is.
- Consider what we do for the characters "Æ" and "Œ." These are obsolete characters, yet we transcribe them because they're used historically and they look fairly distinct from the equivalent "AE" and "OE." No offence to "st," but it doesn't look very different to "st," and so we don't waste effort on it. I would treat the long-s in the exact same way as we treat "Æ," the only differences being that it isn't a ligature.
- —SpikeShroom (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think Æ did show up in search engines as AE, but st did not show up as st. Will double check that and confirm. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Seems to be true, "st" isn't searchable for me. Maybe I'm wrong about conventions and we transcribe any character as long as it's supported in major search functions, or maybe it's a mix of both reasons.
- —SpikeShroom (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Umm, in WS internal search, it's the opposite, the st ligature does match but not Æ. Will check external search. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 20:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW, the WS internal search can be potentially adjusted in the future if tickets are opened about its problems on Phabricator. See this and this for more information. But people are probably already aware of that and my comment was unnecessary. --Ssvb (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Umm, in WS internal search, it's the opposite, the st ligature does match but not Æ. Will check external search. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 20:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Æ is a good example of what I'm saying; we have decided that "Æ" and "AE" are two different (sets of) characters, and we consider it wrong to transcribe one as the other. But we consider the "st" ligature to be simply a different glyph for, well, "st" (and this is backed up by Unicode's position on the subject), so we transcribe it as "st" and leave the ligatures up to the font. Similarly, I'd say that we should either insist on transcribing ſ as ſ, or we should be fine with transcribing it as "s" and leave the presentation up to choice of font. (It's also worth noting that it may vary by context, and in many contexts "æ" is syntactically different from "ae". Is "ſ syntactically different from "s"? If so, I'd consider that evidence of treating it as a character that ought to be transcribed as-is.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I can probably come up with an argument to defend that long-s is syntactically different from round-s, but I'd like to direct this back to the fact that using {{ls}} is already a convention, as stated on WS:Orthography. I'd just like editors to be able to use "ſ" instead since it doesn't make the editing pane near-unreadable, while still following the Understandability guideline.
- —SpikeShroom (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think Æ did show up in search engines as AE, but st did not show up as st. Will double check that and confirm. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- We convert “ and ” to ", which I consider a bigger problem. There's a range of things here; "st" is a ligature that was added to Unicode purely for compatibility purposes. Ligatures should be added by the font or typesetter. There once was typeset facsimiles, but the availability of photocopies and later scans have made that expensive process pointless.
- ſ is complex to do programmatically. At the same time, it's just a positional variant of s, and I don't see any reason not to treat it as a typesetting artifact of an older time. There's no value to keeping it.
- æ and œ are more recently in use, and are available in 8-bit character sets, meaning they're in basically all English fonts. Their use is more discretionary, and replacing them feels much more like a spelling change. They're also letters in various languages, meaning replacing them in all cases is simply wrong, unlike "st" and ſ.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think there's a lot of value in discussing conventions on a broader scale, like the use of straight-quotes or the usage of long-s as a whole, but the fact remains that many editors already transcribe long-s with {{ls}}, and it is an accepted technique as stated in WS:Orthography. My goal is to make transcribing long-s easier by not requiring a template, while retaining the toggle function for modern reading tastes.
- I don't agree that "there's no value to keeping it." It's a notable-enough character to be supported by major browsers and search functions—potentially having even more consistent search-support than "Æ," as suggested by @Alien333. It doesn't just exist in English, either. It was used in Spanish as well, and I would extrapolate that it probably existed in other Romance languages (though this shouldn't matter much, as this is English Wikisource). Plus, long-s does have syntax rules depending on the decade it was used, which are generally stated in its Wikipedia article, and which I advocate for following, though @Beleg Tâl's prototype poses a very tempting trade-off.
- It's true that long-s isn't covered in every font, but it's covered at least in the default Wikisource font, and any user who changed their font to one that doesn't contain long-s and reads pre-19th century works would have no issues, since the long-s render toggle would be "off" by default, as it already is, whether or not the user enables the Visibility gadget.
- You mentioned that long-s is "complex to do programmatically." Can you elaborate on that? I'm no JS programmer, which is why I can't develop this tool myself, but I'm having trouble understanding what makes my idea more complex than what the Visibility gadget already does.
- —SpikeShroom (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- The character adds nothing to the text; when it dropped out of use, the Encyclopedia Britannica was reissued with no changes but removal of the long s.
- It was in use of all languages written with the Latin script at the time. But æ and œ are used as letters in languages, particularly æ in Danish and other languages; the long s isn't used to mean something distinctive.
- The long s is difficult programmatically in that in some traditions, it can take morphological information to properly replace s with the long-s. I don't know the details about Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- As long as we're using JS, I must admit I have trouble understanding the problem. The plan would not be, as far as I'm aware, for the proofreaders to use always s and for the script to in some cases replase by ls, but for the proofreaders to use the same characters as in the text and for the script to show either the text as it is, which requires nothing, or to replace all ls by s, wchich would just be something like a .replaceAll("ſ", "s"), wouldn't it? — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 08:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- The way I see it, either short-s and long-s are separate characters (like 's' and 'S'), OR they are separate glyphs for the same character (like 's' and 's'). If the former, then any approach to transcription short of directly using 'ſ' is invalid and needs to be treated as an annotation, and the use of "hist" or "ss02" to modify the glyph is insufficient. If the latter, then I don't think it's a problem if slight variations are ignored, just as we ignore other differences in glyphs caused by differences in typeface between the original and the transcription. After all, replacing 'ſ' with 's' or {{ls}} is also a form of ignoring variations with a standard approach, and one which is commonplace and well-accepted here. (This is just my opinion btw.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Can anyone explain how the mobile view UI layout works for book index pages?
[edit]For example, let's take a look at Index:Paradise_Lost_(1667).djvu. On a desktop computer, clicking the Mobile-view link at the bottom of the page results in having the Title/Author/Editor/Year information displayed to the right from the book cover image. But on an Android tablet, I see that the same Title/Author/Editor/Year information is placed below the book cover. Where is this configured? Is this determined by some CSS, JavaScript, Wiki templates or Lua code? I also see that there are various appearance skins, such as Vector legacy (2010), Vector (2022) and the others. Do they affect anything? Even though I tried to check the default settings. I mean, the way how Wikisource is visible to the anonymous logged off users.
Is it possible to disable the ToC part of some books at their index pages altogether in order to preserve the screen space, but only in the mobile view? Such as the ToC of Index:1882._The_Prince_and_The_Pauper._A_Tale_for_Young_People_of_All_Ages.djvu and maybe some of the others. --Ssvb (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- To hide the toc,
#ws-index-remarks { display: none; }
- Should do it, but regarding the placement of the informations, I suspect it's just a question of screen width. If, on a desktop computer, you go to mobile mode, and then narrow the window, you'll eventually see the same happening. Skins may help, as some (particularly thinking of Vector 2022) add a margin on the sides, and changing to desktop mode may too, as mobile mode also adds a margin. These margin facilitate the informations just wrapping around.
- It may also be a browser issue; what browser are you using on your tablet? — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Alien333: Thanks! You are right. I'm using a Chrome/Chromium browser. Resizing the window in the mobile view mode indeed flips the placement of the Title/Author/Editor/Year information even on a desktop computer. And it doesn't look particularly neat in either case. Belarusian Wikisource policy currently discourages adding ToCs to index pages because of the mobile view ugliness. I thought that this policy could be updated if the site is re-configured not to show the ToC in the mobile view mode. I guess, the admins just need to add that tweak to some global CSS, which is responsible for the mobile view. Maybe even something smarter can be done, like stripping everything except for the chapter numbers and page numbers, thus making the ToC much more narrow. But I wouldn't hold my breath. --Ssvb (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Reminder! Vote closing soon to fill vacancies of the first U4C
[edit]- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language
Dear all,
The voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is closing soon. It is open through 10 August 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility. If you are eligible to vote and have not voted in this special election, it is important that you vote now.
Why should you vote? The U4C is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community input into the committee membership is critical to the success of the UCoC.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
In cooperation with the U4C,
-- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Is anyone else having an issue with AWB?
[edit]It is suddenly telling me "This user doesn't have enough privileges to make automatic edits on this wiki". Note that I am trying to make assisted edits, not bot edits, but I am unable to get far enough into the login process for that distinction to matter. BD2412 T 21:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've just checked, and yep, same here. --YodinT 21:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll file a big report on the Wikipedia project page. BD2412 T 21:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Filed at Wikimedia, actually. Yodin, I named you as an additional editor to be notified of the fix. BD2412 T 21:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks 👍 --YodinT 21:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- This actually appears to be the case on other Wikimedia projects as well, other than Wikipedia. I have had no luck with other-language Wikisource projects, or Wiktionary projects. BD2412 T 01:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Se my comment on T372017. It would be useful to know whether the problem has disappeared now or whether it is still present. CC @Yodin. Xover (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Xover Just checked, and I'm still getting the same error here on enws and all other sites I've checked, except Wikipedia. With Wikipedias:
- If I try to log in to en Wikipedia where I'm added to Project:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageJSON, it works fine
- If I try to log in to one which doesn't have Project:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageJSON (the first one I found was be-tarask Wikipedia), it logs in fine
- If I try to log in to one which has Project:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageJSON, but I'm not added to it, I get a different error message "Yodin is not enabled to use this", and when I click OK, I'm taken to the relevant Project:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageJSON page
- Is it possible that the rollback is delayed for some reason on non Wikipedia sites (caching, etc.?) Will add this to the Phab ticket. --YodinT 11:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's happening on Wikipedia now as well. The Phab report is being looked at. BD2412 T 20:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, it seems clear that this is a result of the removal of the
writeapi
right. Going by the logs it looked like the change had been rolled back, but it seems that's not the case. My guess is that they'll roll back the change relatively soon (it has limited benefit but is causing a lot of things to break). Failing that it'll take an update to AWB to make it work with the new output, which should be straightforward but may take some time since AWB is entirely volunteer-driven. Xover (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)- @Xover, @Yodin: Per the discussion at the Wikipedia project page, the issue can now be fixed by updating to AWB version 6.3.1.0. To do so, open an instance of AWB, and on the [Help] tab on the top toolbar, click [Check for updates], and it will offer you that version as an option to which to update. I have just done so, and it is now working. BD2412 T 03:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, it seems clear that this is a result of the removal of the
- It's happening on Wikipedia now as well. The Phab report is being looked at. BD2412 T 20:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Xover Just checked, and I'm still getting the same error here on enws and all other sites I've checked, except Wikipedia. With Wikipedias:
- Se my comment on T372017. It would be useful to know whether the problem has disappeared now or whether it is still present. CC @Yodin. Xover (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Shouldn't this (transcluded on 178 pages) be replaced to a redirect to Template:missing image? Asking because I don't think we should treat signatures as any other image. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Dynamic Layouts and Template:SIC / Template:Errata possible interaction
[edit]This is effectively a continuation of the older discussion Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2024-03#Proposal_to_change_{{SIC}}_display, which specifically focuses on the @Ostrea's Plan B: "I'll add that in case of a lack of consensus, a solution satisfying both those for the change and those against the change would be to implement some kind of switch which would allow to show globally either the corrected text or the original typos, as is done for some other templates."
The Dynamic Layouts system, documented at Help:Layout, already interacts with some templates. Such as Template:Right sidenote. SIC and Errata are just two small templates and they can be amended to generate the output, which would differ on the screen, depending on the currently selected Dynamic Layout. I prepared a quick and dirty demo at User:Ssvb/Sandbox/TestSIC, which works with the following common.js and common.css from the collapsed section (the code itself isn't nice, but this doesn't matter at this stage):
common.js:
mw.hook( 'ws.layouts.register' ).add( function ( cfg ) {
cfg.layouts.push( {
name: 'Faithful to the original', // what you see in the menu
id: 'authentic' // the name of the layout's class
} );
} );
mw.hook( 'ws.layouts.register' ).add( function ( cfg ) {
cfg.layouts.push( {
name: 'Annotated for scholars', // what you see in the menu
id: 'annotated' // the name of the layout's class
} );
} );
mw.hook( 'ws.layouts.register' ).add( function ( cfg ) {
cfg.layouts.push( {
name: 'For casual consumers', // what you see in the menu
id: 'modernized' // the name of the layout's class
} );
} );
common.css:
.dynlayout-authentic .ws-column-container { max-width: 36em; }
.dynlayout-annotated .ws-column-container { max-width: 36em; }
.dynlayout-modernized .ws-column-container { max-width: 36em; }
.dynlayout-annotated .wst-authentic { display: none; }
.dynlayout-annotated .wst-annotated { display: inline !important; }
.dynlayout-annotated .wst-annotated-sic { background-color: yellow !important; }
.dynlayout-annotated .wst-annotated-errata { background-color: palegreen !important; }
.dynlayout-modernized .wst-authentic { display: none; }
.dynlayout-modernized .wst-modernized { display: inline !important; }
Now let me explain the screenshot:
- The leftmost browser window, with the 'Faithful to the original' layout selected, is a genuine/authentic/faithful book representation with all its typos intact. The errata fixes are applied, because they are a part of the original book too, albeit presented there in a roundabout way. But a person, who is reading the book, can use a pencil to do corrections on paper pages as well, just like it can be seen on Page:Dombey_and_Son.djvu/143.
- The middle browser window ('Annotated for scholars' layout) is the same, but additionally has detailed and clearly visible annotations.
- The rightmost browser window ('For casual consumers' layout) fixes all typos and has no annotations of any kind. As a bonus, it would be also nice to be able to convert long-s into normal 's' here if this is technically feasible.
I think that this would satisfy all categories of the end users. First of all, the 'Faithful to the original' layout showcases the Wikisource's main selling feature and focuses on the maximum accuracy in every detail. The annotated version is convenient for those, who are specifically interested in analysing typos and non-standard spelling. And the fully modernized variant on the right side directly competes with Project Gutenberg and modern book publishing houses, providing something to the users who just want to read the story and don't want to be distracted by typos.
While the current way of presenting books on Wikisource is the classic "one size fits them all" approach, combining the worst features together and making sure that every user has something to dislike about it.
The "mobile view" and export to EPUB/PDF has to be addressed somehow. For the former, it would be nice to be able to switch between Dynamic Layouts in it too. As for the latter, it already does have some configuration knobs on the Print/export->Other formats page. And it's a free open source software project on GitHub, so it's fixable in principle.
Has anything happened on this front since the last discussion round? Are there any real technical blockers? Or is it stalled because of having no consensus?
Would you support or oppose having a proper implementation of such three switchable layouts on Wikisource? --Ssvb (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'll clarify a few more things. This proposal won't affect the Wikisource editors and won't change the existing policies. It only affects the visual presentation of the already existing Wikisource content. Similar to how clicking on the "Use serif fonts" link on the sidebar toggles the use of the serif font, the implementation of this proposal would add a new sidebar link, which would cycle through different SIC/Errata visualization options. The current behaviour (a barely visible underline with a tooltip) actually can be one of the possible visualization options. Ideally, this should be fully user-customizable via Dynamic Layouts.
- The 'Annotated for scholars' layout doesn't necessarily need to add footnotes for errata (like it is shown on the screenshot). It can be side notes, tooltips or something else. The exact visual presentation doesn't matter. But the main idea is that any usages of SIC and Errata have to be clearly visible in this particular layout, so that the users can easily review all of them if they want to. And looking from this perspective, the "nodash" option to suppress the dashed underline is harmful and doesn't need to be honoured. It's similar to how the text changes are normally highlighted in a typical diff.
- And from the implementation perspective, I would just implement a Lua module and use it to add new Template:SIC2, Template:Errata2 and Template:Hyphenation inconsistency2. These templates would be drop-in replacements for Template:SIC, Template:Errata and Template:Hyphenation inconsistency. Then replace the existing templates after the initial testing is successful. What do you think, @Alien333? Anyone else? --Ssvb (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Ostrea, @Ssvb: The technical implementation was never the issue. Most readers do not use gadgets, or layouts. This means that most users will only see the default, and therefore we're back to the same question: Which should be the default? We can only try to guess what readers will want, which is rather complicated. Not going to do that whole discussion again, but on one side some said that our role is really to have the exact text and be faithful to accommodate scholars, and some others said our role is to accommodate casual readers by making the text simpler to read.
- Also, I think it would be much better to use tooltips rather than footnotes. {{errata}} borders on annotation, and is only used in about 800 pages (compared to SIC's more thousands than I could count). I didn't know of its existence, but I think it should be deprecated.
- (It looks like your implementation is broken, from the screenshot, because both the leftmost and rightmost have "cooing"). — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 08:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- As I understand it, that is functioning as designed: "crying" was corrected to "cooing" on an in-work errata page so the idea is to update based on that, while fended was not and identified as a misspelling by the WS editor. MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, it was in-work, ok. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 11:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the essence of the differences between the current templates {{errata}} and {{SIC}}. That's how they are implemented by Wiktionary right now. But I wouldn't want to sidetrack this topic to discuss whether the {{errata}} template has the right to exist or how it should be visualised (footnotes, sidenotes, tooltips, text highlight, text strikethrough, ...). If there's a real proposal to deprecate the {{errata}} template or change how it looks, then it probably would make sense to start a new topic about that. --Ssvb (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Re template:errata: if the original work used a footnote, we use a footnote, if it uses something else, we use that. We have no need of specifying that a footnote was in the original because we do not add footnotes (except in annotated works). That is why errata seems unnecessary to me. But anyway, indeed, will discuss this further later as it is not here the subject. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 15:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Are you aware how the errata template works? Books are published with errata pages or errata slips. The template allows these published corrections to be noted at the location where the mistake occurred, with pop-up text showing the correction and with a link to the place where the errata are listed in the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- In short, no, I was not aware. Sorry. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Are you aware how the errata template works? Books are published with errata pages or errata slips. The template allows these published corrections to be noted at the location where the mistake occurred, with pop-up text showing the correction and with a link to the place where the errata are listed in the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Re template:errata: if the original work used a footnote, we use a footnote, if it uses something else, we use that. We have no need of specifying that a footnote was in the original because we do not add footnotes (except in annotated works). That is why errata seems unnecessary to me. But anyway, indeed, will discuss this further later as it is not here the subject. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 15:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the essence of the differences between the current templates {{errata}} and {{SIC}}. That's how they are implemented by Wiktionary right now. But I wouldn't want to sidetrack this topic to discuss whether the {{errata}} template has the right to exist or how it should be visualised (footnotes, sidenotes, tooltips, text highlight, text strikethrough, ...). If there's a real proposal to deprecate the {{errata}} template or change how it looks, then it probably would make sense to start a new topic about that. --Ssvb (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, it was in-work, ok. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 11:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- As I understand it, that is functioning as designed: "crying" was corrected to "cooing" on an in-work errata page so the idea is to update based on that, while fended was not and identified as a misspelling by the WS editor. MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support This really does seem the best possible solution, especially since everything in it is optional and customizable. Ebook conversion would indeed be important, but this is already a huge step in the right direction. As for other works on the matter, I think @CalendulaAsteraceae had started something but I don't know how far she went with it... Ostrea (talk) 07:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Tech News: 2024-33
[edit]Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Feature news
- AbuseFilter editors and maintainers can now make a CAPTCHA show if a filter matches an edit. This allows communities to quickly respond to spamming by automated bots. [4]
- Stewards can now specify if global blocks should prevent account creation. Before this change by the Trust and Safety Product Team, all global blocks would prevent account creation. This will allow stewards to reduce the unintended side-effects of global blocks on IP addresses.
Project updates
- Nominations are open on Wikitech for new members to refresh the Toolforge standards committee. The committee oversees the Toolforge Right to fork policy and Abandoned tool policy among other duties. Nominations will remain open until at least 2024-08-26.
- One new wiki has been created: a Wikipedia in West Coast Bajau (
w:bdr:
) [5]
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
MediaWiki message delivery 23:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Policy on translation pages
[edit]What is the policy for translation pages if there’s only one translation (of which we have a copy, anyway)? Is the translation page created as usual, with only one item, or is it just a redirection? In either case I’ll need an administrator’s opinion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are two opinions in the community. One opinion is that, is there is only one copy, then it should be placed at the primary page name, and the whole thing will be moved and re-edited later, if a second edition is started or if a second work with the same name necessitates disambiguation. My own opinion is that if a work is likely to need disambiguation or multiple editions, than a redirect at the main location is preferable, with the existing edition placed at a suitably disambiguated title from the start. The former emphasizes that there is no need to distinguish works now; the second emphasizes advance planning. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- EncycloPetey: There’s only one translation in the public domain at the moment, but the next one will enter the public domain in 1929. Is that too soon? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would consider a 1929-PD translation sufficient reason to create a versions (or disambiguation) page now, listing both. But as I say, other people would disagree. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- EncycloPetey: Sorry, that was an error on my part. I meant to say that the copyright will expire in 2029, not that it was published in 1929. (It was published in 1933.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would still consider 5 years from now close enough for forward planning, per my previous comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I support this solution, too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- EncycloPetey: Sorry, that was an error on my part. I meant to say that the copyright will expire in 2029, not that it was published in 1929. (It was published in 1933.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would consider a 1929-PD translation sufficient reason to create a versions (or disambiguation) page now, listing both. But as I say, other people would disagree. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- EncycloPetey: There’s only one translation in the public domain at the moment, but the next one will enter the public domain in 1929. Is that too soon? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Seems there is something wrong with the |link=
parameter of the {{EB9 link}} template, see the section Template:EB9 link#Using link where "Alphonso#Alphonso X. of Leon" is displayed instead of "Alphonso X". Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed by adding link display. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 16:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- @CalendulaAsteraceae: Well, the example in the documentation page is fixed, but what about other numerous pages using this template? I am sure that in the past it was displayed correctly without this special parameter. So if something got changed, some bot should go through all the occurences and fix them. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry, now I can see it was fixed in the template code, so now it is OK. Thanks! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- @CalendulaAsteraceae: Well, the example in the documentation page is fixed, but what about other numerous pages using this template? I am sure that in the past it was displayed correctly without this special parameter. So if something got changed, some bot should go through all the occurences and fix them. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Two different pages
[edit]Before I logged in, it appeared as if I had not edited any pages of the text.
After I logged in, there it was!
Any clue as to the difference in the two views and what can be done to make them the same view regardless of login status?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I suspect it is related to caching rather than login status. If you log out, do you still see the correct updated information? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- yes, typically I see this when I have an old page in a tab not refreshed to current, and login refreshes the page. you can edit conflict with yourself with too many tabs. --Slowking4 ‽ digitaleffie's ghost 22:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. It didn't happen today. I like to see the yellow or pink fill the page numbers on the index page so I always refresh the view before I close the browser or move on to a different text. I also don't like sharing problems for 2 reasons. One being who wants a boo hoo around, the other being that it can probably be fixed by importing the correct style sheet without fixing the real problem.
- It might be my limited imagination, but I cannot imagine a reason for my inkscape to have migrated to a different computer that is more "good" than just leaving it alone and blocking whatever means it was taken in the first place. This wasn't about my inkscape problem, but it is also difficult to not think that every problem I have with software doesn't relate to this. (I lost the focus, zoom, thumbnails, &c. for the camera on the Fire(TM) also.) So, some of the boo hoo--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Validation for 2024 Greenfield Tornado Finalized Report
[edit]Could someone come through and validate the 4 pages related to 2024 Greenfield Tornado Finalized Report? The page is already linked up to an EN-Wiki article, which has had nearly 30,000 views in the last month. A validation would help ensure I didn't miss something in the proofread, for this valuable text. WeatherWriter (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @WeatherWriter,
- Pages validated, mainly just some missing line breaks, besides some minor adjustments to the table settings. I also removed "Event details:" on the first two pages, as I could not see said text in the source document. Were they cut off, or not there? I also added a link to the NOAA portal Portal:National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the header of the transcluded text, as I was concerned that all of the "author" links were linking to Wikipedia, not Wikisource. Please edit/amend Portal:National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration if there are other texts you have transcluded that should be added there, while including a link to the portal in the header of each transcluded work.
- Regards,
- TeysaKarlov (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Much appreciated! WeatherWriter (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Documentation for Template:brace3
[edit]See title. On the one hand, I'd like to migrate from {{brace2}} if possible due to the issues of using MathJax to format a single brace; on the other hand, I've had a multitude of problems getting it working, and documentation is non-existent. Can someone help? Arcorann (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- (Pinging @ShakespeareFan00 as they were the last to work on it). — Alien333 ( what I did &
why I did it wrong ) 11:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Coming soon: A new sub-referencing feature – try it!
[edit]Hello. For many years, community members have requested an easy way to re-use references with different details. Now, a MediaWiki solution is coming: The new sub-referencing feature will work for wikitext and Visual Editor and will enhance the existing reference system. You can continue to use different ways of referencing, but you will probably encounter sub-references in articles written by other users. More information on the project page.
We want your feedback to make sure this feature works well for you:
- Please try the current state of development on beta wiki and let us know what you think.
- Sign up here to get updates and/or invites to participate in user research activities.
Wikimedia Deutschland’s Technical Wishes team is planning to bring this feature to Wikimedia wikis later this year. We will reach out to creators/maintainers of tools and templates related to references beforehand.
Please help us spread the message. --Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
DEFAULTSORT
[edit]I've noticed that some pages that are missing {{DEFAULTSORT}}, are still being sorted properly on Category pages. Does this mean that {{DEFAULTSORT}} is no longer needed? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I remember having read somewhere that {{header}} & co now do this auto. — Alien333 ( what I did &
why I did it wrong ) 18:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)- Yep, {{header}} and {{translation header}} automatically handle articles now! See Template:Header/doc#defaultsort for details. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Does {{dab}} do that too? — Alien333 ( what I did &
why I did it wrong ) 11:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)- It does in mainspace, where it uses Module:Header; {{author}} has its own sorting rules and {{portal header}} does not currently do any autosorting. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 17:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Does {{dab}} do that too? — Alien333 ( what I did &
- Yep, {{header}} and {{translation header}} automatically handle articles now! See Template:Header/doc#defaultsort for details. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Tech News: 2024-34
[edit]Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Feature news
- Editors who want to re-use references but with different details such as page numbers, will be able to do so by the end of 2024, using a new sub-referencing feature. You can read more about the project and how to test the prototype.
- Editors using tracking categories to identify which pages use specific extensions may notice that six of the categories have been renamed to make them more easily understood and consistent. These categories are automatically added to pages that use specialized MediaWiki extensions. The affected names are for: DynamicPageList, Kartographer, Phonos, RSS, Score, WikiHiero. Wikis that have created the category locally should rename their local creation to match. Thanks to Pppery for these improvements. [6]
- Technical volunteers who edit modules and want to get a list of the categories used on a page, can now do so using the
categories
property ofmw.title objects
. This enables wikis to configure workflows such as category-specific edit notices. Thanks to SD001 for these improvements. [7][8]
Bugs status
- Your help is needed to check if any pages need to be moved or deleted. A maintenance script was run to clean up unreachable pages (due to Unicode issues or introduction of new namespaces/namespace aliases). The script tried to find appropriate names for the pages (e.g. by following the Unicode changes or by moving pages whose titles on Wikipedia start with
Talk:WP:
so that their titles start withWikipedia talk:
), but it may have failed for some pages, and moved them to Special:PrefixIndex/T195546/ instead. Your community should check if any pages are listed there, and move them to the correct titles, or delete them if they are no longer needed. A full log (including pages for which appropriate names could be found) is available in phab:P67388. - Editors who volunteer as mentors to newcomers on their wiki are once again able to access lists of potential mentees who they can connect with to offer help and guidance. This functionality was restored thanks to a bug fix. Thank you to Mbch331 for filing the bug report. You can read about that, and 18 other community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.
Project updates
- The application deadline for the Product & Technology Advisory Council (PTAC) has been extended to September 16. Members will help by providing advice to Foundation Product and Technology leadership on short and long term plans, on complex strategic problems, and help to get feedback from more contributors and technical communities. Selected members should expect to spend roughly 5 hours per month for the Council, during the one year pilot. Please consider applying, and spread the word to volunteers you think would make a positive contribution to the committee.
Learn more
- The 2024 Coolest Tool Awards were awarded at Wikimania, in seven categories. For example, one award went to the ISA Tool, used for adding structured data to files on Commons, which was recently improved during the Wiki Mentor Africa Hackathon. You can see video demonstrations of each tool at the awards page. Congratulations to this year's recipients, and thank you to all tool creators and maintainers.
- The latest Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin is available, and includes some highlights from Wikimania, an upcoming Language community meeting, and other news from the movement.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
MediaWiki message delivery 00:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Sign up for the language community meeting on August 30th, 15:00 UTC
[edit]Hi all,
The next language community meeting is scheduled in a few weeks—on August 30th at 15:00 UTC. If you're interested in joining, you can sign up on this wiki page.
This participant-driven meeting will focus on sharing language-specific updates related to various projects, discussing technical issues related to language wikis, and working together to find possible solutions. For example, in the last meeting, topics included the Language Converter, the state of language research, updates on the Incubator conversations, and technical challenges around external links not working with special characters on Bengali sites.
Do you have any ideas for topics to share technical updates or discuss challenges? Please add agenda items to the document here and reach out to ssethi(__AT__)wikimedia.org. We look forward to your participation!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)