Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Scriptorium Scriptorium (Help) Archives, Last archive
The Scriptorium is Wikisource's community discussion page. This subpage is especially designated for requests for help from more experienced Wikisourcers. Feel free to ask questions or leave comments. You may join any current discussion or a new one. Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel webclient.
Have you seen our help pages and FAQs?


After Action Report 770th FA[edit]

I have in my possession, what I believe to be an authenic after action report, dated 21 August - 30 Sept 1944. My father, Robert F Williams was a T/Sgt in said unit.

I am wondering what, if anything, this report is worth.

If anyone sees this...please email me at:

    umberadoATcomcast.net

David Williams 23 January 2015 (UTC)

US copyright for non US works, some questions[edit]

Hi to all!

Sorry for my not very well Engilsh, but maybe somebody can help me providing with information on US copyright laws:

There is one unclear for me point on applying US copyright and copyright terms to non-US literary works (more precisely — to Russian / Soviet works), concerning URAA's restoration of copyrights for foreign works. The point is:

Let's suppose that we examine copyrights of some literary work which falls under conditions:
1) the work was first published out of the US;
and 2) the work has never been published in the US (so it was not published in the US during 30-day period following the publication date, as well);
and 3) the work was still under copyright in its home country as of the URAA date (1/1/1996 in the case of Russia, and many other countries);
and finally 4) It was published in its source country without copyright notice, and the publication was in the period when such notice was required in the US to establish the copyright

The question is: did this work fall under US copyright because of copyright restoration according URAA? And if yes — what term is applied for US copyright protection? As I've understood, the missing copyright notice does not prevent the copyright restoration, and at any case, any restored work is granted copyright protection despite missing US copyright notice and/or US copyright renewal (even if such renewal was required in the case of any US work). Am I right? Or I am wrong, and missing copyright notice makes obtaining US copyright to fail, and so far — the work is PD in US now? (and we can freely use it in the Wikimedia projects?)

Also please help to figure out copyright issues for following two cases:

  1. Some Soviet author published his work at 1931 year, the work was published without copyright notice. Years passed, and the author died in the USSR in the autumn of 1941 year. According to the Russian Civil Code, this work is under Russian copyright until 2015 year (inclusive), and enters PD in the 2016 year. The work was under Russian copyright on the URAA date 1/1/1996. The work has never been published (and has never been registered copyright) in the US, and so it has never got any copyright renewal. The questions: a) is this work under copyright protection in the US? — and if yes — b) what is term of the protection, what length does it have?
  2. Some Soviet author died at 1931. Some work of this author was firstly published only in the 1944 year (PMA). According to the Russian Civil Code, this work was under Russian copyright until 2014 year (inclusive), and entered PD this (2015) year. The following details are the same as in the previous case: the work was under RF copyright on 1/1/1996; in has never been published and never been registered copyright in the US. The questions are the same: a) is this work under copyright protection in the US? — and if yes — b) what is term of the protection, what length does it have? --Nigmont (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Seems like both will be 95 years after publication from your description. Reading material Cornell copyrightbillinghurst sDrewth 12:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much! --Nigmont (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Just as a 'pedantic' note (that might be worth mentioning), the described works would have been in the public domain in the US 'pre-URAA' not due to a failure to comply with the formalities, but due to a 'lack of national eligibility' at the time of publication... the Soviet Union was not a party to any international copyright treaties until 1973 (when they joined the UCC), so purely 'Soviet' copyrights were not recognized under international law before that time. Revent (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for too late reply.
Revent, it would be good if you were right (I might put to Wikisource many works if so), but I am afraid that you are wrong. I think that 'eligibility' of the country is determined as of current status of copyright treates established between the US and the country, but not as of date where the work was firstly published. So it does not matter whether the Soviet Union was eligible on the date of publishing, but it does really matter that the Russia (the legal successor of the Soviet Union) is definitely an eligible party for US as of current status.
Moreover, the URAA act clearly states that the lack of the national eligibility is one of the conditions for 'copyright restoration' of foreign works - see Title V, SEC. 514. RESTORED WORKS, paragraph "(h) DEFINITIONS.", subparagraph "(6) The term restored work means an original work of authorship that", and following:
(C) is in the public domain in the United States due to ...
(iii) lack of national eligibility;...
So it seems that the US copyright term for such works is 95 years, the same as for US works having copyright notice and renewal. --Nigmont (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nigmont: I was not attempting to say that they are not possibly eligible for restoration under the URAA, what I was pointing out was that they actually would fall under the criteria you noted, "lack of national eligiblity", instead of the criteria "failure to comply with the formalities". For a work from a source nation that was not a 'treaty partner' at the time of publication, but later became an 'eligible country', the lack of compliance with the formalities is irrelevant.... a Soviet work from the 1930s or 1940s would not have have had it's copyright recognized in the United States, even if it was published with a copyright notice that met the requirements of various international treaties, because the Soviet Union was not a party to those treaties at the time. That the Soviet Union decades later joined the UCC would not have granted those works 'retroactive' recognition, only the much later passing of the URAA potentially did so. Revent (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Revent: sorry for my mistake: I misunderstood your first comment here and wrongly assumed that you meant that those works should not be restored copyright in the US under URAA definitions. Now I understand that you really told some other things, thanks for your clarification now.
But nonetheless IMO you are not quite right when you said in your second reply: only the much later passing of the URAA potentially did so. I think that those works should be considered as not potentially but definitely restored with URAA (except cases when a work is a pre-1923 publication). At least, IMO, this point should be believed regarding the possibility of exposing those works to Wikisource which (similarly to all other Wikimedia projects) is more prone to 'copyright-paranoia' than to 'copyright-boldness'. So IMO these works should be believed as not in PD and so they may not be published on Wikisource on PD terms. See also link Status of the "rule of the shorter term" in the US (I found this in the multilingual Wikisource). --Nigmont (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, my use of the word 'potentially' was quite deliberate, in order to avoid making a (possibly controversial) assertion that the URAA applied to a specific work without looking at the details of that work.. URAA arguments are unfortunately common and heated on Commons. I do agree that, particularly for a work to be on Wikisource, it should have a copyright clearance that 'positively' establishes that it is PD (and not restored), rather that assuming that things are PD unless proven otherwise. The URAA should be interpreted to apply to 'classes' of works based on their age and origin, unless demonstrated otherwise, instead of assumed to not apply unless someone can argue that it does. Revent (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nigmont:
In 1996, when URAA came into force, Russia had 50-year copyright term, or 54-year for authors who worked during the Great Patriotic War or participated in it, so works of authors who died before 1942 (worked during or participated in the war) or before 1946 (not worked and not participated) in it are in Public Domain in the US. The retroactive copyright term extension in Russia did not affect the copyright protection in the US. So in the both cases You listed the works are PD in the US, if in the second case the author was not posthumously rehabilitated after the work was published. In that case, the copyright term should be counted from the date of rehabilitation.
На 1996 год, когда URAA вступило в силу, в России срок защиты авторских прав составлял 50 лет (или 54 для авторов, работавших в период ВОВ или участвовавих в ней), следовательно, работы авторов, умерших до 1942 года (работавших/участвовавших в ВОВ) или до 1946 года (не работавших и не участвоваших) перешли в общественное достояние на территории США. То, что сроки в России были продлены на 20 лет ретроактивно, не затронуло статус произведений в США. Поэтому в обоих случаях произведения находятся в общественном достоянии в США, если во втором случае автор не был реабилитирован посмертно после публикации произведения — тогда срок защиты авторских прав следует считать с даты реабилитации автора.--Nonexyst (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@Nonexyst: yes, you are quite right, thank you for reminding. Carl Lindberg has already explained this, but thanks to you whatever.
For purpose of avoiding confusing future readers of this topic, I should make such remarks. In in the cases 1 and 2 described at the start of this topic, I wrongly declared that those works were under Russian copyright on the URAA date 1/1/1996. Really, as Nonexyst described above (and as Carl Lindberg had described previously on the other page) these works were in PD in Russia on that date. To keep the cases to be actual and informative, I could make such changes to formulating of them:
  • 1-st case description should be corrected: the author died not in the 1941, but in the 1942 year (or later) and fought (or worked) for Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War; or died in the 1946 year or later;
  • 2-nd case description should be corrected: the work was first published in the USSR not in the 1944 but in the 1946 year or later.
After these corrections, the cases would remain actual and the answers given by Billinghurst and Revent would remain correct and true (taking in account the clarifications which have been provided during discussion).
По-русски: Nonexyst, спасибо за напоминание! Хоть Карл Линдберг и объяснил уже это на другой странице, но всё равно спасибо, хотя бы потому, что данную тему нужно было уточнить, чтобы не вводить потом в заблуждение тех, кто будет её читать.
Остальное на русский переводить не буду — думаю что то, что я выше написал по английски, вы поймёте. :) И ещё раз спасибо! --Nigmont (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Update: @Nonexyst: the only thing where you are not right (sorry for I didn't noticed this while I did my first reply) is that the extension of copyright terms due the rehabilitation is not respected by US copyright laws — Carl explained this as well (see in his reply which I linked above). --Nigmont (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@Nigmont: It is true for rehabilitations occurred in 1996 and on, rehabilitations between 1946 and 1995 made the works protected by copyright at the time of the URAA date, so their copyrights were restored by URAA.--Nonexyst (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@Nonexyst: as far as I know, the article(s) about rehabilitation came first with the 4-th part of the Russian Civil Code, this part was enacted on 18.12.2006 and didn't exist on the URAA date 1/1/1996. See Russian Federal Law 18.12.2006 № 231-ФЗ (in the Russian Wikisource). Do you know about older laws and articles about rehabilitation, which were enacted in Russia on the URAA date? --Nigmont (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@Nigmont:No, I did not know exact date when the law on rehabilitations came into force. Thanks for clarifications.--Nonexyst (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

How would you create a table of contents for The Philosophical Review[edit]

I've had a go at proofreading Volume 12 because I wanted to read an article in it... Any ideas for formatting the table of contents? Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The scans strongly resemble the layout used for the List of Illustrations in our current Proofread of the Month. Similar markup to what is used there should work well. Pathore (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
That looks neat. Can you tell me where the help page for the markup is? like- float right and dtpl, dotend, djvupageoffset, and djvupage- so I can have an idea what I am doing? Zoeannl (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
See {{dotted TOC page listing}} and {{float right}}. Hrishikes (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The preview display has list of "templates used in this preview" below the edit box. Each template link there points to the documentation for that template. Pathore (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I looked and the templates weren't listed? Zoeannl (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The template list only appears in preview mode, not in plain edit mode. If you don't have the "show preview on first edit" preference checked, you might need to use the "show preview" button. If it's still not there (and isn't somewhere else on the page), then I don't know what preference you have different from my settings. Also, sorry about overlooking this earlier. Pathore (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Do I rearrange things for the index page so that the pages are listed in order? Zoeannl (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
No, preserve the original order. The text should match the scan. Pathore (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant for the Volume Index page - as done for Popular Science Monthly? Zoeannl (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what you are asking. If it was transcribed, it should match the scan. If you're referring to making a list of volumes, then those should be in numerical order, I think. If you mean the Table of Contents on the Index: page, then I don't actually know. I've always built the Index: TOC by transcluding text from the relevant Page:s, which would make it match the original order. This seems like less work right now (get both those pages and a TOC for the index at once) and a sorted TOC can always be made later, if needed. Pathore (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The dotted TOC has been working very well, thanks, but I have a problem with articles that have 2 pages listed e.g. Laurie, S. S. 364, 590 Any suggestions? Zoeannl (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Try {{nowrap}}. Moondyne (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@Zoeannl Will have to fix those 2 links after transclusion, they'll need to be hard linked using the "pagetext (3)" parameter.--Rochefoucauld (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Should I leave a marker like {{Missing link}}? Which doesn't exist?? --Zoeannl (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@Zoeannl: For 2 pages listed in a TOC line, the dotted TOC template is quite sufficient. See the list of illustrations at Researches on Irritability of Plants. Hrishikes (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
This is just what I need, but I can't figure out how it works.
Ah no.. They aren't links. To be left til transclusion.--Zoeannl (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I've fixed it. The djvupage= and dvjupageoffset= parameters are for convenience in the common case. For multiple pages on one TOC entry, use the pagetext= parameter and the {{DJVU page link}} template. Pathore (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm getting Entry text because the article title includes 7+5=12 here. Quite beyond me. Help please. — Zoeannl (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. When need to put an '=' inside a template, you have to replace it with {{=}} for it to work. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the assistance. Everything is working well on the page namespace e.g. [Volume 12 Contents]. But when I transclude them for a table of contents, the page links don't work e.g. [Volume 12]. Any suggestions?--Zoeannl (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
That's an intentional feature of the templates used. I think that you are supposed to make the TOC items links to the pages where the text is transcluded. As an example, "The Philosophy of Emerson" should be a link to The Philosophical Review/Volume 12/Articles/The Philosophy of Emerson, which should transclude text from DjVu pages 541 through 552. If you aren't planning to transcribe that article, don't worry about it in particular; I just chose it as an example. If there is a particular article you have in mind that is ready for transclusion, name it here and I (or someone) will put all these pieces I'm describing together as a worked example.
In case I misunderstand, would anyone around here know more and be willing to enlighten us both? Pathore (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
OK. I can do that, it makes sense for articles/chapters. But what about the sections like [Summary of Articles]? These can have 3 'summaries' to a page. I can make each one its own separate page, but as a reader I would want to be able to browse the whole section. The page link should then be to a page on the transcluded section? Zoeannl (talk) 11:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
For those, use labeled section transclusion. So the TOC would contain a link to The Philosophical Review/Volume 12/Summaries of Articles/Die Schilderung der Unterwelt in Platons Phaidon, for the first item on the page you mention. That page would use the <pages> tag with the onlysection option to pull in just that summary from whichever pages actually contain it in the Page: namespace. Again, if you have one of these proofread and ready for transclusion, mention it here and I (or someone) will put it together. Also, you seem to be confused about link syntax in MediaWiki; the help page on Wikipedia may be helpful. (You've been using external links to refer to pages within the wiki.) Pathore (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes I am confused! and am very gradually learning by having a go myself as I find the help pages hopeless i.e. not helpful (I have looked...)-thanks for the offer to do it for me but I will mull over this while I proofread. If I have to go back and redo things, it's all part of the learning process. I've learnt an awful lot since starting to proofread Popular Science which was a fortunate place to start as Ineuw has things so well set up, I have high standards to aim for. I have tried to do section markers for Popular Science... I am working on a book for my first (easy) project-An Introduction to Ethics. Billinghurst has been adding links as he validates so I'm taking that in. I've transcluded the chapters; and have done as suggested for the Contents and am thinking about page links for the Index. I like the result in The Problems of Philosophy. --Zoeannl (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Another style may also be considered: compare the links at Page:Nil Durpan.djvu/232 and Nil Durpan/Appendix. Hrishikes (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, do you propose having a single page The Philosophical Review/Volume 12/Summaries of Articles with all of the summaries in volume 12 transcluded to that one page? If so, yes, this is another style, but I am uncertain whether the summaries are mixed in amongst the full articles or on pages of their own. If any pages contain both part of an article and part of an article summary, this style still requires labeled section transclusion to get the summaries out of the Page: namespace.
As such, putting section markers in the summaries in the Page: namespace is, at worst, not immediately useful, and cannot hurt, whether we transclude each summary to a page of its own or put all of them together on one page. Unless we know that no page contains both part of an article and part of a summary, I would suggest that all of the summaries should be marked for labeled section transclusion in the Page: namespace, even if we don't immediately use it. Pathore (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I haven't come across any Summaries sharing a page with articles so that's OK. But the Volumes are actually a compilation of the year's issues so the other possibility is having each issue transcluded separately... I haven't any plan at all as I'm only starting to get an idea of what's involved. Thinking about it, we should probably follow the publishers' intent and use the table of contents as a guide except I do find it weird-as a reader, it is difficult to follow the flow of articles, especially as there is a lot of discussion over successive issues. I think I shall procrastinate for a while, there is still plenty of proofreading to do. As above: I am still getting my head around sections, but I'm fine with going through later and adding them. I looked at your examples and like the results but templates and code make my guts twist (literally). When I am feeling brave I may have a play and try to copy it but I really need a tutorial to understand it-I just want to consolidate my proofreading know-how first. No hurry. Thanks for the input. Cheers --Zoeannl (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I have not proposed any single page. As I understand (may be wrong, of course), {{TOC link}}, used in pagespace, displays separate functional links on pagespace and mainspace. Hrishikes (talk) 07:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Centering of tables[edit]

I've noticed while viewing some texts I've added on an android tablet in mobile mode that the tables I've added aren't centered. The contents here is an example. In the main namespace it is shown on the left on the mobile device. Is there a way to fix this? unsigned comment by Jpez (talk) .

The table on that page isn't centered, and only some of the rows are. To centre a table, the align="center" command needs to be on the first line. See the tables on Page:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians vol 2.djvu/613 for examples. That said, mobile mode does behave differently to desktop mode in some things, and this might be one of those. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I tried align="center" and nothing changed. I also had a look at other books and the problem exists there too so I guess it's an issue with mobile mode. I also notice images are also aligned to the left. Jpez (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It looks like it's the mobile page that's having difficulties, as even on my labtop it isn't centered. --Rochefoucauld (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
You still have some options: style="margin:0 auto 0 auto;" and the less elegant <center></center> enclosure. — Ineuw talk 21:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
PS. Sorry, forgot this one margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto;— Ineuw talk 21:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Nope, neither work, you can try messing around with it using the mobile link --Rochefoucauld (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
This is unquestionably a kludge and simply points to an issue with the global CSS @George Orwell III: but margin-right:auto !important; margin-left:auto !important; works here. I leave it to others to apply the appropriate Final Solution. 58.166.69.222 23:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘
Unfortunately, the mobile mode css does not automatically inherit the desktop view css files or settings -- be they site-wide or personal (for the most part that is). The Mobile front-end development people need to be consulted as to how to rectify this without stepping all over what they have planned. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I use (on the desktop) margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; OR margin:0 auto 0 auto; to successfully center tables. — Ineuw talk 13:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Anthypophora (and Relatives)[edit]

Can I create this page? (source) I have created it as a txt file but have not yet submitted it to Wikisource. (It is also a dead link referenced here) —User 000 name 08:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it a Public Domain source? I've tried the links you give, but they're dead. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Author:Horatio Gordon Hutchinson and Author:Horace Hutchinson[edit]

might well be the same person, but the information given is disjoint. Can anybody confirm that the expert in Golf and the author of "A friend of Nelson" are identical? -- Gymel (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they're the same. I've merged their author pages and data items. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Help me, please[edit]

Dear project members, I ask You to help properly execute translations of articles from scientific journals into English (On Individual protective means for workers' respiratory organs (review of literature)), and other. Perhaps the best way to help me is to give me (very inexperienced project member) a reference to a similar and well-documented translation of a document so I can use it as an example. Thank You. AlexChirkin (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks reasonably good to me, albeit with a few errors here and there, but your English is certainly better than my Russian. Unfortunately, I suspect that we don't have very many translators in our community and I don't know of any examples to point out for you. I'll watch the page that you linked; feel free to ask questions either on its talk page or here. Pathore (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
After looking around a bit more, I found a proposed guideline for translations. It seems that we have a Translations: namespace, for works translated on Wikisource. Are these translations published elsewhere or are the translations original to Wikisource? Pathore (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
1) I apologize for my bad English, and will try to fix inaccurately translated and poorly translated sections in the documents. 2) Translations of these articles have never been published - it is (Wikisource translations) 3) Yes, when meeting with the English Wikisource, I immediately noticed (Translations: namespace), but I didn't find anything similar to these articles (for use it as a sample), and don't know what I should do. There is a standard "header" //Translation_header// in translated documents. The Russian texts are accompanied by scanned images of the relevant pages (example: О средствах индивидуальной защиты органов дыхания работающих -- On Individual protective means for workers' respiratory organs (review of literature)). If the translated document is in the English Wikisource, the link to the original text must link the translation and the text that accompanied scanned pages, or I can link the translation with the original text, which (itself) is not accompanied by scanned pages (but which has a reference to the text, accompanied by a scan)? Sorry, but I work in Wikisource little, and don't have good mental abilities. So the project participants in the Russian Wikisource is not very clearly explained to me, how am I supposed to act correctly. Thank You very much AlexChirkin (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, these pages should be in the Translation: namespace, so I have moved them. In the process of checking links, I found that there are apparently four such articles so far. Can you tell me what order these should go in so I only have to change the next/previous links once? The four articles I have found are:
  1. Translation:On individual means for respiratory organs protection against dust
  2. Translation:On Individual protective means for workers' respiratory organs (review of literature)
  3. Translation:Overview of Industrial Testing Outcome of Respiratory Organs Personal Protection Equipment
  4. Translation:Reducing the harmful effects of polluted air at workplaces using respiratory PPE
I will fix the next/previous links to put them in the right order if you tell me what that order is. Pathore (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Considering scans, does the Russian Wikisource use the Proofreadpage Page: and Index: namespaces? A quick glance seems to imply that those are not used there. Pathore (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there from the Russian Wikisource. Let me help with the technical points. ;-) Yes, ru wikisource uses proofread extension, but these articles are not accompanied with the scans. Is it absolutely necessary by local rules to add the scans and use the indexes and proofread pages for this kind of articles (articles written by a living author, translations from other languages)? Regards, Hinote (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that it is absolutely needed (someone else can correct me if I'm wrong), but AlexChirkin said that the "Russian texts are accompanied by scanned images of the relevant pages" which I initially thought was an error, because the actual text that he used as an example isn't transcluded. (Even if the <pages> tag is localized, the difference between a short bit of transclusion markup and a long run of full text is obvious.) Since I can't read Cyrillic, I didn't know that he had given an Index: link until I just now checked it. If the scans really are there, just not linked, it would be helpful if we could have links from English Wikisource translations to Russian Wikisource texts to the original Russian scans. Does the Russian Wikisource have a similar emphasis on verifiability to what we have here on the English Wikisource or is this a more minor issue on ru wikisource? Pathore (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear participants, forgive me for the stupidity and incompetence - perhaps I've confused You both. When I first met with Wikisource (Russian), I knew nothing about the requirements to accompany posted text with scanned images of the published text, and just did those articles without the scanned pages. Then I was told about scans. As a result, there are two copies of each document in the Russian Wikisource - the original (without scanned pages), and late (with scans). And in the template for texts in Russian Wikisource there is a point (|ИСТОЧНИК=), where the text without scans can be associated with the text with the scans. Now all articles (without scans) in their header have link to their duplicate (with the scans). Specifically:
  1. the first article (2011): О средствах индивидуальной защиты органов дыхания от пыли ru without scans ru with scans en translation - Translation:On individual means for respiratory organs protection against dust;
  2. second article О средствах индивидуальной защиты органов дыхания работающих (обзор литературы) (April 2013) ru without scans ru with scans en translation - Translation:On Individual protective means for workers' respiratory organs (review of literature);
  3. third article (кeport on the conference) (October 2013) Снижение вредного воздействия загрязнённого воздуха на рабочих с помощью СИЗ органов дыхания ru without scans ru with scans en translation - Translation:Reducing the harmful effects of polluted air at workplaces using respiratory PPE;
  4. fourth article Обзор результатов производственных испытаний средств индивидуальной защиты органов дыхания (СИЗОД) (2014) ru without scans ru with scans en translation - Translation:Overview of Industrial Testing Outcome of Respiratory Organs Personal Protection Equipment.
Unfortunately, the third article can create problems. It was published, but not completely - only abstracts. There are two versions of the report in Russian Wikisource - theses (with scans), and the full report, including all illustrations (illustrations not published on paper, only on the website of the research Institute of occupational Medicine). Maybe I should change the translation of the report, because now I posted on the English Wikipedia for the full text of the report with illustrations. 195.74.82.209 11:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The next/previous links match the order you've given; good, nothing to fix there. I don't think the third article will create problems—it was published, although not on paper. The English Wikisource inclusion policy specifically allows peer reviewed research. Provided that the Russian version passed some kind of scholarly peer review, the full text with illustrations should be perfectly acceptable here.
One last detail: it isn't "stupidity and incompetence"—the proper term in English is "ignorance", and all of us started out that way. Ignorance is temporary unless you give up; you will learn if are persistent. Pathore (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank You very much! AlexChirkin (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Replacement of a wrong djvu page image?[edit]

This page has the right text but the wrong djvu image, which is the duplicate of This page. I just uploaded a .jpg copy of the correct page.. How does one go about removing the wrong page and inserting this? — Ineuw talk 01:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

This has happened before; the system is still caching all the "common" widths of the previous image for some reason. If you tick the image tab from the Page: namespace, the current & correct page image shows up (at its full width). Change that image to 1024px in the address field and the old image comes back.

As far as I know - there is little we can do about except wait, keep checking back every so often & hope the caching catches up with the latest image sooner rather than later.

Maybe @Mpaa: knows another way thru py or the api itself? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have found something interesting here. At that page in the File: namespace, there is a list of "other resolutions", corresponding to 145, 290, 363, 464, and 619 pixels wide. All are correct. The offending image on Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 32.djvu/661 is 1024 pixels wide. Could it be that the software has somehow "forgotten" that the 1024 pixel version is supposed to exist? Pathore (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you all. In fact I forgot about Mpaa telling me the same thing with another page which corrected itself. Sorry to have jumped. — Ineuw talk 05:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Seems ok now. How about you? -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems to be fixed here. Pathore (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Cannot access wmflabs from the link on the index page[edit]

Cannot access wmflabs from the link Popular Science Monthly Volume 32 on the index page. — Ineuw talk 22:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Its probably something on their end (the Book2Scroll tool works for verification's sake). I wouldn't know where to begin to report something like this... anyone? -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Need help changing the title[edit]

I created an article for a poem by the Peruvian poet Cesar Vallejo but the title of the page doesn't have the right capitalization for English poem titles. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_black_heralds Can someone explain to me how to do this?

Yes check.svg Done . Wikipedia has a guide on how to do this. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be in the Translation namespace?— Mpaa (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Moved.— Mpaa (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Request to (Re-)OCR a page[edit]

This page [1] has very poor OCR. Can someone kindly provide a better OCR? The page is bilingual: English and French. --Siddhant (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Manly Hall book.[edit]

Is it ok for me to add the remainder of Manly Hall's The Secret Teachings of all Ages to wikisource? Wikisource already has some of the chapters, but not most of them. PaulBustion88 (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Table of content with dotted listing[edit]

For fun, I was trying to recreate this Table of Contents. Here is my attempt: my sandbox. Clearly, I'm getting the number of dots wrong. How can I get that correct? I was looking at documentation for Template:Dotted TOC page listing, and I think I need a parameter which can tell how much gap I want to be after the entryname. Any ideas? And btw, how do I use the entry-width parameter? Do I write a percentage, like "75%" or something else? Feel free to edit my sandbox. --Siddhant (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

What effect would you like to achieve? For example: if you specify entry-width=100px then "Preliminary remarks" won't fit and would be forced to split over two lines. Alternately entry-width=100% (yes, the arithmetic does not really work) would force entries to take up as much width as possible, with the (potential) result that on narrow displays the entry might touch the page number as there will be nowhere to draw even one "•."

If you really want an uncloseable gap (i.e. within which "•"s are not permitted to appear) after a given entry just add {{gap}} but note the following couple of points as well:

The template allocates "dots" to fit in the available space so is the wrong approach to use if you want an exact number of dots to appear (changing screen width or font-size can result in the number appearing changing.)

Or are you hoping to get all the dot-leaders to start at the same point irrespective of the relative entry lengths? If either of the last two then perhaps making the whole page a table might be the correct way to proceed. AuFCL (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@AuFCL: Ah, I see. Too much effort for too little gain. Anyway, thanks! And if the entry-width=100% parameter is really broken, then I hope someone can add a note to the template documentation. --Siddhant (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Handwritten footnote[edit]

Need guidance about what to do with the handwritten footnote on this page. Firstly, the work is an Indian act and the footnote seems essential, as it specifies the date from which the act came into force. Secondly, the file was taken from the central digital repository for Indian acts: the site of the law ministry. So this version of the file can be deemed as the version authorised by the Indian government. Thirdly, keeping a handwritten note on a printed work seems to be against the convention here. So what to do in this case? Does the third point override the first two? Hrishikes (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense; Authorized by who? The Official Indian Internet Fairy Bunny? Where's the official stamp of said online mystical beast? And it was initialed by ? witnessed by ....? Sarcasm aside -- typically such defacement or alteration would technically invalidate that particular copy of that particular document/work in most "legal settings" (i.e. no longer considered an official print & would no longer qualify as prima facie evidence if submitted).

I would put "improper yet useful" information such as that in the notes field of main space header if anywhere at all. Regardless, a formalized footnote should not appear in the final mainspace presentation of the work IMHO. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Why so heated up? Is the air conditioner not working at your place? I am not obsessed about the footnote and it is easily removable. Hrishikes (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry @Hrishikes:. Sometimes I think I am funny or something but it doesn't always "translate" as intended in such forums - that was just my latest example.

The point I had hoped to stress originally was when it comes to government works and similiar, if something is not part the official publication or printing, then it is encyclopedic at best (& would be a tidbit for Wikipedia - not here); suspect at worst (altered; forgery, etc.) but either way, it should not appear in the final mainspace presentation of the transcluded content itself. I know its a harmless effective date in this case but it could still be used as some precedent by someone else with other than "best intentions" so best not to take the chance at all. Plus there are a good number of ways other than providing the same info without making it appear as a proper footnote. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@George Orwell III: I did recognize your humour and replied in the same vein. Anyway, I have removed the footnote and shall insert info at mainspace notes if I can separately verify the standing order mentioned in the footnote. I hope this will take care of your AC!!! Hrishikes (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Several DjVu source files affected by Page namespace crash[edit]

Index:Popular Science Monthly Volume 20.djvu

Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 20.djvu/648

There is something wrong with this volume. I also crashed the page below twice but then managed to saved it.

MYSQL server crash? Please see pasted message

I was editing this page when I got this error.

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:Popular_Science_Monthly_Volume_20.djvu/119&action=edit


 Database error

 A database query error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software.

 Function: ForeignDBFile::loadExtraFromDB
 Error: 2013 Lost connection to MySQL server during query (10.64.48.25)

Ineuw talk 05:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems the djvu images are missing from the page: ns of every volume. What have I done?— Ineuw talk 05:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it is just PSM @Ineuw: going thru Random transcription in the nav. menu shows every 2nd or 3rd djvu Index: with an invalid cover image thumbnail. The Page:s under them don't have thumbnails either. Will start to look around but its late; maybe check if it is just en then file Phab. bug cause its happening on French & German WS too. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
This is occurring in Sanskrit Wikisource but not in Bengali and multilingual. Is the matter connected with the software version used at proofread pages? Hrishikes (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems to be corrected. My thanks to the concierge, whoever it was.— Ineuw talk 16:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I doubt its "over" - see the bug report. It appears they're going to disable the XML generation in the DjVu.php file as a response. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

If I read the comments correctly, this will only affect generating thumbnails, where the XML was apparently useless (or at least unused) but was retrieved from the database anyway. Apparently, search engine crawls were overloading the database servers. Based on previous digging I've done related to past DjVu issues, I expect minor bugs to crop up relating to DjVu files where the pages have different sizes. I would not be surprised if the bugs in question are longstanding rather than new. In other words, I don't expect regressions from this. Pathore (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The XML is used by DjVuImage.php if I'm not mistaken. The point is; any chance for a robust text-layer that can be extracted, corrected and then [re]inserted in the future feels further away than ever with this removal. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The XML may be used in DjVuImage, but the particular bit of code removed in this patch fetches the XML metadata into a local variable, throws an exception if fetching the metadata fails, then proceeds to completely ignore the XML metadata that it had just retrieved from the database. Unless either getMetadata or normaliseParams has completely insane side effects, the removed code did nothing at all except waste database resources. Pathore (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Still, history has made me jaded and -- even though I have no reason not to believe your assessment here -- I can't expect any real good will come of this in the long run. I do understand, however, that the patch will stop the immediate problem from occurring again. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Small letter a with diaresis and accent[edit]

See bottom of Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 68.djvu/508. Is there such a character I can map? I've scanned BabelMap but no joy. Moondyne (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

́̈᷁a (found it in an Arial font on Word). However, it doesn't always display well. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
ä́ Is this what you want? Available here. ä´ will also do. Hrishikes (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks ä́ lot guys. Moondyne (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I just found this w:List of Latin-script letters#Letters with diacritics which is useful. Moondyne (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I find it interesting how some of them have their own wikipage.--Rochefoucauld (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@Moondyne: To create the character with BabelMap, select from the list ä with the diaeresis and then position the cursor on the right of the character and select U+0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT. Any character and combination can be made with BabelMap.— Ineuw talk 15:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

DjVu doesnt upload to Commons[edit]

Hi, all!

I don't understand why but the following two files (from IA) refuse to be uploaded to Commons; all I get is "bad token" message.

Any help is greatly appreciated. I have already prepared nice and cozy place for them here under Once a Week umbrella:

Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC).

I've just tried Volume 7 via the IA Upload Bot, but I got the message that the file is too big. As the Volume 8 file is another 5 Mb larger, I won't try it. My bandwidth isn't strong enough to cope with downloading and then uploading. Hopefully, someone with better bandwidth will be able to assist. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for trying! There is na IA upload bot? I was always wasting my band on download/uploading:( Captain Nemo (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC).
There's a link to it at the bottom of User:Beeswaxcandle/Works. Copy it to somewhere in your user-space, so that it knows who you are. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I think I had the same problem. It seems to be a problem with the upload wizard and djvu files. If you were using the upload wizard try this link instead to upload. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload Jpez (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The files appear to be too large for the ia-upload tool to handle, giving various errors, so I used the metadata the upload tool suggested and uploaded them as Jpez suggested. I have also made the Index: pages. The scan for volume 7 is missing pages 629 and 630. A better scan is needed. The scan for volume 8 appears OK, though. Pathore (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Let me know if you need anything else to be uploaded - or anyone else who is having problems with uploading. I have the bandwidth and I always download from IA and upload to the commons, having the same problems constantly, so I just gave up after messaging the programmers and never got a response. — Ineuw talk 21:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, folks, for the help! I will be proofreading serialized w:The Notting Hill Mystery (which is, a lot critics claim, the first English language detective novel). Vheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC).

@Captain Nemo: I suggest proofreading the parts from Volume 8 first because the Volume 7 scan is missing two pages. This will cause unnecessary work if you start proofreading Volume 7 now, since part of The Notting Hill Mystery appears after the missing pages and any pages you proofread after the gap will have to be moved when the DjVu file is fixed.
To others: is it okay if I simply insert two blank pages and upload a new version of the file? Pathore (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that. In volume 7 I just marked the first installment that comes befor missing pages. Volume 8, unfortunately, seems to be missing text layer. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC).
The missing-text MediaWiki bug strikes again—that DjVu file has a text layer that MediaWiki isn't recognizing. It is possible to copy-and-paste the text from djview, if you have the DjVuLibre tools installed. Pathore (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you want the text layer uploaded for the whole Volume 8? I can take a look at that.— Mpaa (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, if possible, the text layer for the whole Volume would be great. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC).
Done.— Mpaa (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and uploaded the new DjVu file with two blank pages inserted. Unless I'm badly mistaken, this means that proofreading of volume 7 can now begin, except, of course, for the missing pages themselves. Pathore (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Add all subpages to your watchlist[edit]

Is there a way to automatically add all the subpages of a page to your watchlist whether they be created or uncreated? For example if I add an Index I would like to be notified if any changes are made to the Index's pages. Is this possible without having to manually add each page to your watchlist? Jpez (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You might try to add pages with Special:EditWatchlist/raw. It would require that you manually generate the list (in linux: for i in {1..5}; do echo "Page:xxx/$i"; done > out.txt).— Mpaa (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Or you might want to try directly Special:ApiSandbox#action=watch, using as generator the list of pages that leave the Index, only in the Page ns (I'm not sure it is possible, should play with it a little).— Mpaa (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Mpaa. I used your the first suggestion and made a list for one of the indexes I'm working on. I understood nothing of the second suggestion. I'm not too good with compooters, I'm amazed I even made the first suggestion to work. :) Jpez (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Image or template for the "printer's fist" ?[edit]

Has anyone access to an image or template for the "printer's fist" ? This short book was published in 1847 and has about 10 places that use the printer's fist - pointing right or reversed and pointing left. In proofreading I typed [fist] until I find a better way. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/History_of_the_Press_in_Western_New_York Robin2014 (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you looking for w:Index (typography)? There are unicode symbols for them:
  • U+261A ☚ black left pointing index
  • U+261B ☛ black right pointing index
  • U+261C ☜ white left pointing index
  • U+261D ☝ white up pointing index
  • U+261E ☞ white right pointing index
  • U+261F ☟ white down pointing index
Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for this help. I see you updated 2 pages. I'll try to do the other pages tomorrow. The only missing one seems to be when it was flipped into a reverse topside down and pointing left. I'm happy to live with what you found. :))
Robin2014 (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
@Robin2014: Tried a search at http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/search.htm ? test pagebillinghurst sDrewth 08:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

hyphenated word start when the word contains a template[edit]

At Page:Thoughts_on_the_Education_of_Daughters.djvu/29 I'm using the hws template on a word containing a long s. When I insert the {{ls}} template inside the hws template, the html breaks. Thanks in advance for any help getting this to work. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Well spotted. Some templates are just too "clever" for their own good.

Note for future: if anyone tries to address this issue in the template itself [maybe a genuine separate title or popup parameter; or maybe even parameter content filtering (yuck)?], remember all of {{hyphenated word end}}, {{linkable phrase start}} and {{linkable phrase end}} will have the exactly the same issues as well. AuFCL (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Or just not bother with the template and just stick the hyphenated text in the footer. The 'start' template is an artefact of an early time when footers were not well-functioning and really serves little purpose these days, cf. the close template which has functionality. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Technically @Billinghurst is correct but culturally insensitive. Nobody likes to see the magic trampled upon, and this suggestion is completely at odds with the Help recommendations. However nominally you're the boss… AuFCL (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks all. I didn't realise there was this asymmetry between the templates. So I can ignore the hws template, but I still have the problem that the next page, Page:Thoughts_on_the_Education_of_Daughters.djvu/30, starts with "destly", the second part of the hyphenated word "modestly". The hwe template has the same problem, so what do you recommend? Avoid templates and just move the whole word to the top of the second page? MartinPoulter (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Now both pages are fixed. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
That was a reflection AuFCL, not a direction; we have no boss, just contributors and opinions. I am aware of the culture which is why I haven't amended the help page. It is a kludge, though one that may have nice balance, though something of its time, and adds some prettiness to the Page: ns though at this point of time no demonstrated value to the main namespace. @MartinPoulter: it is a display thing, in circumstances where we have problems like that don't be afraid to have judicious use of <includeonly> tags as ultimately that is what it does, eg. on the second page have
<includeonly>{{ls}}illi</includonly>ne{{ls}}s
just wrapping the hyphenation component from the previous page in the tag so it doesn't display in the transcription, though will show when we transclude. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)