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 (a web client is available).

This page is automatically archived by Wikisource-bot

Have you seen our help pages and FAQs?


Error in index page[edit]

Index:Ensuring Long-Term U.S. Leadership in Semiconductors.pdf shows "Error: Numeric value expected". How to solve it? I want to create the pages on enws and then make my own Chinese translation on zhws for this document.--維基小霸王 (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Your file is of zero dimension, please reupload. Hrishikes (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
It says they are the same. Can you help me to upload from [1]? Thanks.--維基小霸王 (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what the problem is, but I used the convert.io site to convert the PDF to a DJVU file, and re-uploaded it. It seems to work better, maybe this will work for you: Index:Ensuring Long-Term U.S. Leadership in Semiconductors.djvu -Pete (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much.--維基小霸王 (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Problems with the <ce></ce> display, and reference font-size appearance[edit]

  • On page 121 and page 124 the <ce></ce> enclosed formula displays the decimal point in the middle instead of the base line. Would someone in the know correct this so that I may learn something?
  • A named reference starting at the bottom of page 147 continues for the next two pages, but don't appear in the small character reference format. Can something be done about it?
PS: Please ignore the fact the reference ends incomplete. — Ineuw talk 06:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Not exactly sure of the issues you are describing, both work for me. The decimal point displaying baseline—using MathML with SVG or PNG fallback. The long reference number 3 displaying when transcribed. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Billinghurst:. I tried to keep the line height as the surrounding text by using <ce></ce> because <math></math> renders the text larger. As for the reference, your magic did the trick. When I validated it, the text size was normal. — Ineuw talk 00:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ineuw: Why do we need math or ce here? We are talking about the presentation of values in a paragraph, not trying to represent some magic formula, so 2.75 × 1019 should be suitable representation and in line with our style guide. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Let's just say that I got carried away. Actually, I am partial to having large symbols ✕ in a math formula and only now I found the code at Wikipedia. — Ineuw talk 03:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Text is out of copyright but the scans are claimed to be copyrighted[edit]

I'm trying to add early Arizona session laws to Wikisource. Archive.org has 8 of them and I started adding the first one here but found out that it's missing two and a half pages of text (pages 83, 84, 85). I found a much better copy here http://azmemory.azlibrary.gov/digital/collection/lawsession/id/0/rec/6 but it's claimed to be copyrighted. Can I still use it just to add the missing uncopyrighted text without uploading the scans? Could I do it for other session law books that there is no public domain scans? I'm new to Wikisource and been trying to go through the help pages for answers but they all talk about uploading scans first so it's not clear if I could add public domain text without uploading scans. Thanks, -Riley AJ (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

(Mandatory IANAL disclaimer) This is what's called "w:sweat of the brow" copyright - the idea is that because someone expended effort to make the scans, they get a new copyright on it, even though they didn't add anything creatively to make the scans a derivative work imbued with a new copyright. This doctrine has been rejected in the United States, so the claim of copyright cannot be enforced (anyone can claim copyright of a PD work: this is w:copyfraud, but is not always done knowingly - many people just slap on the "default" copyright notices). The story might be different in other jurisdictions (it's murky in the UK, for example, where it used to be asserted, but recently has been ruled against). If you're a US contributor contributing US PD works which were scanned in the US, there should be no issues. Given that Wikisource is hosted in the US, I am unsure what would happen if you, the work, or the scanning occurred in a jurisdiction where sweat of the brow is asserted, but as WS can host works that are not PD in other jurisdictions, there's possibly an argument to be made that it would be acceptable anyway. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
WRT to uploading works without scans available - it is acceptable (and accepted) at English Wikisource that works can be contributed without scans. Wherever scans are available, they should be used. Works without scans should also have a source for the text. Other language Wikisources vary on this point. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have clarified that I'm not looking for legal advice but rather Wikisource policy. Searching more I just noticed the PD-scan tag that was added to the file I uploaded which had the relevant information, Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag and Wikilegal/Sweat of the Brow -Riley AJ (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Riley AJ: No scans means no further validation/verification, just a nude text, and as a community we place limitations on texts that are that way, primarily for old works. It means that we cannot check differences in editions, know a transcription error from a publisher's error, etc. [Modern electronic documents obviously have a different assessment criteria.] — billinghurst sDrewth 01:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Help correcting Ancient Greek usage[edit]

There is one word of Ancient Greek here. I can't work out what this says. Any help appreciated. Celuici (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The word is κενοσπουδοι. Maybe the the ου ligature ȣ made it difficult for you to figure it out? Jpez (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
To note that we also have {{Greek missing}} if you wish to mark it for another. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much all. I will update the text later. Celuici (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

"This site can't be reached"[edit]

I just edited a page, and clicked proofread-publish. I get the above message (Chrome). Do I refresh? or go back to get the info? Or is it a gonner? I realize that by the time I get an answer I could have re-edited the page, but this is for future reference. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you link to the page? If so, an independent set of eyes can see what it looks like from our end. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
It's currently at
https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:The_Sikh_Religion,_its_gurus,_sacred_writings_and_authors_Vol_1.djvu/362&action=submit
, where the message appears. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: When I face this kind of situation, I go back by pressing the back button on the address bar of the browser. This happens when there is a loss of connectivity. So open a new tab and open Google or some other site in that tab. If that opens, then press back on the Wikisource tab. Usually you will get back your edited page. The link you provided currently shows the OCR layer, as it should. Hrishikes (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Back worked. Funny I have never met with this before now :) Just trying to figure out how these things work! Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Cladograms (evolutionary trees)[edit]

I'm wondering how best to handle diagrams of Cladograms (aka evolutionary trees or phylogenetic trees) on Wikisource. Cladograms can range from very simple (see here) to complex (see here), but fundamentally are branching, hierarchical diagrams. Is there a template, table or other Wikimagic that can simulate these diagrams? perhaps {{Familytree}} or {{Chart}} could be tweaked? Template:Cladogram is the conventional standard on Wikipedia articles with evolutionary trees, but its horizontal format doesn’t as faithfully reproduce vertical cladograms. Any suggestions appreciated. --Animalparty (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

In which work do you need a cladogram? We do not host dynamic documents, so usually we save images as image files, rather than dynamically generating them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I am unaware of any mediawiki tool that exists to generate these. Maybe there is an external tool that can generate such as an SVG to be uploaded to Commons. (best that I can generate as a solution). — billinghurst sDrewth 02:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
w:List of phylogenetic tree visualization softwarebillinghurst sDrewth 02:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
If you want to translate, or search, or read in Braille, having transcribed text can be a great help.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: See Page:Evolution of Life (Henry Cadwalader Chapman, 1873).djvu/21 and Page:Evolution of Life (Henry Cadwalader Chapman, 1873).djvu/69, consisting simply of lines and text, not that dissimilar from words arranged in a table with complex alignment and formatting. Other similar diagrams might include organizational charts and workflow diagrams. Simple lines and words differ from images, in my opinion. I had asked a similar question back in 2015 ("Should we recreate line diagrams or use original scans?"), and it seemed at the time that there was disagreement on best practices. --Animalparty (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Typos in original[edit]

Hello. I created this entry, and I have a question about it: what do we do when there is a typo or a clear error in the original text? For example, in my entry the original text says " pocketed $500 million the South" but what the author meant to say is " pocketed $500 million [from] the South". What are the rules when putting a text into Wikisource? Do we transcribe the original text verbatim and leave it at that, or do we also add in brackets the occasional word or letter that was erroneously excluded? I looked for guidance in the Wikisource rules, but I could not find anything addressing this point. Thank you. (talk) user:Al83tito 04:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Al83tito: Use {{SIC}}, and it would be over the empty span. {{SIC|$500 million the}} which renders as $500 million the. If you think it necessary to predict the word then you can do $500 million the though that is predictive on the proofreader's behalf so not considered needed. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Dear @Koavf:(Justin) and @Billinghurst:, thank you for your responses! It seems that there are some ideas for solutions, and not one spelled-out policy. Thanks! I have now used the SIC template as billinghurst kindly illustrated.(talk) user:Al83tito 02:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@Al83tito: The policy is reproduce as seen, the secondary aspect is sort of covered by Help:Annotating. There is no requirement to add the components, generally the additions are helping to show that it is not a transcription error. From there it is the clarity of the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Special characters like the ct ligature - how to proofread it?[edit]

I am proofreading the The Life of Benvenuto Cellini which is full of the special character ct with an arch connecting the two characters. I found some references on the web but the codes given do not render at all  &ctlig;. Is it OK if I use standard text? — Ineuw talk 04:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It's just a fancy way to write ct; there's no need to mark it in any transcription.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
YesY it is what the community discussed several years back. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Remember it being discussed, so I am a bit embarrassed for not remembering the outcome. — Ineuw talk 04:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2011-02#Template:Ligature Latin st lowercase et al, and predominantly because it breaks search. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Which is fair but the real solution is to fix search. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Or we can not get hug up in some archaic trend of a compositing time and reproduce the text, and make proofreading easier. Our purpose is not to have a facsimile, it is to reprdocue the author's work in a reasonable way. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Ligatures are font dependent.  is not a standard Unicode character; it is in the Private Use area, and is only for use between people with their fonts matching. (This one might be from Apple, so useful between Mac users, but not portable to the rest of the world.) On my Linux system, I come up with Korean character bits... and not even the same ones!?! There is no standard way to encode a ct ligature separately from ct.
You only need a ct ligature if you're making a digital facsimile.(*) The only reason to produce a digital facsimile at all is if your scans are pretty bad and for some reason you want to exactly reproduce the original, in which case you need to make a PDF of the exact page size, match the fonts as closely as possible, match the line endings exactly, etc.; otherwise, just lay the computer readable text behind the scans you have. We aren't remotely doing digital facsimiles; HTML is a lousy medium for them, and MediaWiki even worse.
(*) The exception might come in the field of typographic trickery, like the mouse's tail in Page:Lewis Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu/57, which we do rather poorly and I don't have any good advice on how to do it better. Again, HTML and MediaWiki aren't the best mediums for stuff like that. In the case of ct-ligatures, an author could drop into a ligature rich font or a heavy use of ligatures in the current font, to signify some difference. I don't know what to say about that, but it's a bridge we should worry about crossing if we get there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Endnotes to footnotes?[edit]

I'm working on History of Oregon Newspapers, a surprisingly entertaining read. It has an entire section of notes, starting on page 528. I'm planning to create one Wikisource page per chapter or section. My inclination is to convert the "end-of-book" notes to "end-of-section" notes, which would permit the use of <ref> tags, would permit the reader to click back and forth easily, etc.

This constitute be a greater deviation from the original text than I am accustomed to making, so I thought I'd float the idea here before I get started. How have others handled similar works? -Pete (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: I have just belatedly searched the archives, and see that this topic has been extensively discussed in the past...so, no need to put much time into an answer, I'm doing my reading now... -Pete (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I see that my preferred approach is endorsed as option #1 at Help:Footnotes_and_endnotes#Endnotes. I blame my lack of due diligence on foggy morning brain. -Pete (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It's always good to document your decision (with a pointer to guidelines) on the Talk page of the Main page for the entire work. That way, someone coming along later will understand what has been done and why. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, I'll do that...and maybe should think about similar notes on some other works I've transcribed. -Pete (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Couple pages to validate[edit]

If anyone be willing. There's just a couple pages left to validate in this work. The pages are not transcluded, but I'd still like closure. Thanks :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks much @Peteforsyth:! Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem! -Pete (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Illegible (for me)[edit]

Can someone please confirm for me the spelling of the text marked illegible in the footnote of this page? Thanks much, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

OOp... I got it... Goeben. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Index:A Doll's House and two other Plays by Henrik Ibsen.djvu[edit]

2 concerns..

  1. The OCR layer is out by one, (all though currently all the relevant scans seems to be present.
  2. The Bibliography text appears not to have a direct credit as to who wrote it. Given that it only goes up to 1908, I am being reasonable in assuming in good faith that it's one of the translators that compiled it for a 1910 edition (later reprinted in the 1930's)? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Before starting, it's highly recommended that you search all available volumes at IA and see if they contain the missing pages here and replace the commons copy. — Ineuw talk 02:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
There are no missing pages that could be determined, I said as much "all the relevant scans seem to be present", Certainly if there were scans missing, I would be looking at IA for alternative scans, but that isn't necessary. What is needed is for someone that is able to do to regenerate the Djvu file with a correctly aligned text layer. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T194861Mpaa (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

A layout problem of a two volume project[edit]

I am working on this two volume project and need advice on how to deal with two issues related to the main namespace layout.

  1. The first problem is that in the original, some 80+ pages of the first volume is published at the beginning of the 2nd volume.
  2. The second is that, excluding the introduction and foreword, the first volume consists a single titled chapter of 288 pages, which is then broken down to 100 chapters titled only with Roman numerals. Should I create 100 main namespace pages for each numbered chapter? The pages are not long, the longest is less than 300 words of about 1580 characters, and a chapter average is 3 pages. — Ineuw talk 01:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg opinion I, personally, would not fuss over replicating the volumes of a work with volumes as part of the naming hierarchy if there is the clear sense that it was produced as volumes solely due to page/bind restrictions. If it runs well at enWS as work/subpages, let it do so.

To large chapters, and their subdivision into lesser chapters or parts, that is a hard one without knowing the work more intimately. My thoughts are what makes sense as break, and is what you are considering robust for the work; does it add to bits being referenced, or sorted, or subparts being listed at Wikidata; or even the presentation and flow as webpages; desktop or mobile. It is always a bit of a courageous decision to break the original chaptering, though the book to web conversion should always be a consideration. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Billinghurst: this really helps a lot. After reading your post, I know how to deal with the volumes, as well as the chapters' breakdown.
The work is available in a single volume on IA. It is from another publisher, and I was contemplating to replace it. The text is the same, since both use John Addington Symonds's translation. But I decided to use this publication because there are more than twice as many images of the artist's works, along with historical figures with whom he interacted. Besides, these images were prepared and uploaded to the commons years ago. — Ineuw talk 06:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Images already uploaded? Like a box of chocolates! — billinghurst sDrewth 06:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Images were uploaded two years ago. That's how long I put off the proofreading. It's favourite book of my youth. — Ineuw talk 09:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg opinion I've had a couple of works with a similar problem of "chunking" the text. One suggestion is to see whether there is a LibriVox recording that matches your edition, and see how they split up the work. If you split our copy into the same pieces, it would be easier to align with LibriVox recordings. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey:Very interesting, thank you. — Ineuw talk 00:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

{{TOC begin}} and family..[edit]

Currently these use a |- at the end of a nominal table 'row' .

However with the new parser this may create an issue with seemingly fostered content.

The relevant row marker should be at the start of a row (or template), but my last attempt to re-do this family caused sufficient issue that it was reverted entirely.

Can someone with template skill please re-write the above family so it's compatible with the new parser as a number of existing works use it extensively? Thanks.

Also placing {{nop}} at the start of a table run (required due to a long standing issue with the need for placeholders for Proofread page added numbers) causes multi-page tables to render badly on transclusion. {{nopt}} can be used in preference where appropriate, but it would be so much easier if this long standing issue was actually fixed in the core/Proofread page extension, than having to continually recall which 'kludge' is needed in which circumstance. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Which pages are causing issues here? A quick survey of a few users of these templates shows that they pass linter checks OK. I don't think it matters whether the new row markup |- is at the start or end of the template. As noted, and as for any cross-page table, you will need a {{nop}} to prevent the last line of the first page and first line of second page being concatenated into a single line of invalid table markup prior to rendering. Moving the row break markup won't prevent this requirement.
Some table-based TOC pages have linter errors caused by having that |- markup in the header and the body. This causes a fostered content warning as the markup in page namespace only is:
{|
| in header
|-       <-- Delete this to fix
{{nop}}  <-- No leading |, this will be fostered content
|-
| in body
|}
An example of this was Page:A Study of Mexico.djvu/20, which is easily fixed by removing the extra |-. Could this be your problem?
Also, as far as I know (i.e. not far), fostered content warnings are not renderer-specific and the output won't change suddenly after change-over, which is why they aren't classified as high priority. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: the row start marker at the end of the template is seen to be involved in breaking page numbering for transcluded pages. I have always been intrigued by the practice to end a table with a new row marker, either in a template or by additional code. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The memory of this from 2010 is hazy, but new experimentation indicates that this may have been due to handling line breaks in the Wikitext. Consider a table like this:
{{TOC begin}}

{{TOC row 1-1-1|I|Chapter 1|1}}

{{TOC row 1-1-1|II|Chapter 2|20}}

{{TOC end}}
With the templates as they are now, with the row marker at the end, the expanded Wikitext becomes something like this (simplified) markup:
{|

| I || Chapter 1 || 1
|-

| II || Chapter 2 || 20
|-

|}
The newlines after |- but before the first table cell seem to be ignored by the parser (and don't seem to cause lint errors). With the row marker at the start, it would be:
{|
|-
| I || Chapter 1 || 1

|-
| II || Chapter 2 || 20

|}
Notice that now the inter-row-template newlines are part of the final cells of each row, and therefore can show up in the output. Actually, this only seems to happen when there are two or more newlines, so as long as:
  • The row templates don't follow a trailing |- with a newline and
  • Template users only ever separate the rows with a single blank line
then the row marker could be moved to the start of the template without causing disruption in most (all practical?) cases.
As for why the page numbering script doesn't work, that seems to be because in the current case, imagining that the Chapter 2 row falls on a second page, the generated HTML (before MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js runs and changes everything) is currently like:
<p>
  <span>
    <span class="pagenum ws-pagenum" id="5" data-page-number="5" title="Page:Sandbox.djvu/5">
    </span>
  </span>
</p>
<span>
  <span class="pagenum ws-pagenum" id="6" data-page-number="6" title="Page:Sandbox.djvu/6">
  </span>
</span>
<table>
  <tbody>
   <tr>
     <td>I</td>
     <td>Chapter 1</td>
     <td>1</td>
   </tr>
   <tr>
     <td>II</td>
     <td>Chapter 2</td>
     <td>20</td>
   </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
In this case, it does look like the .pagenum span is being "fostered" and moved to the start of the table, but presumably it's done by the Proofread-Page extension rather than core Mediawiki rendering, hence it's not something the linter sees? Something like this, perhaps:
|-
  <span class="pagenum ws-pagenum" id="6" data-page-number="6" title="Page:Sandbox.djvu/6"><!-- gets fostered -->
| II || Chapter 2 || 20
Since all the pagenums are in the same place (before table start), only one is made visible by PageNumbers.js. Moving the row marker to the start produces the following:
<p>
  <span>
    <span class="pagenum ws-pagenum" id="5" data-page-number="5" title="Page:Sandbox.djvu/5">
    </span>
  </span>
</p>
<table>
  <tbody>
   <tr>
     <td>I</td>
     <td>Chapter 1</td>
     <td>1
       <span class="pagenum ws-pagenum" id="6" data-page-number="6" title="Page:Sandbox.djvu/6">
       </span>
     </td>
   </tr>
   <tr>
     <td>II</td>
     <td>Chapter 2</td>
     <td>20</td>
   </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
So the span is inserted in the table in a vaguely sensible place (end of the previous page's row).
Aside: In an ideal world, it would be possible for the page number span to occur at the start of the row as it currently is, but without being fostered to the table start, as the best place for it would be the start of the "Chapter 2" row. However, I doubt this is possible, as the Proofread-Page extension can't know that it has to insert the marker not-quite-at-the-start of the page's markup to avoid fostering.
In summary, it probably is both possible and a good idea to move the row marker to the template start, as this can mostly fix page numbering, but care needs to be taken to make sure that TOCs don't suddenly start inhaling newlines between rows, which would then start to matter. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Text layer offset by one page[edit]

The text layer of Index:Atlantis Arisen.djvu appears to be offset by one page. Is this something that can be corrected by bot, or is there a better way to address? (FWIW, I started this work primarily out of interest in the images, of which I've uploaded about half from the JP2 files on Internet Archive. I don't plan to start transcribing the text in earnest any time soon.) -Pete (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

See above ticket in Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help#Index:A Doll's House and two other Plays by Henrik Ibsen.djvu.— Mpaa (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Linking illustrations[edit]

I have just one bothersome issue with a work I've been chipping away at for a while. I need to finish the linking for the list of illustrations: Eleven years in the Rocky Mountains and a life on the frontier/Illustrations

It seems to me there are three possibilities:

  1. Link to the chapter, with an anchor to the location of the image
  2. Link to the "Page" namespace
  3. Link to the "File" namespace

Number 1 seems like the most appropriate, since it places the image in context, and will be generally familiar to the reader. Also, the link might have the chance (slim though it may be) of "surviving" a conversion to PDF or another format, and being functional in an offline version.

However, in a few cases there are two or three images in a chapter. (e.g., chapter 5.) So, unless there's a trick I'm missing, there's no way to link to the images with an anchor tag, since the anchor for both is the word "#plate". Both links would target the first image.

What's the best way to approach this? -Pete (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

In principle {{anchor}} is one possible solution. 114.73.49.9 07:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
What about using {{anchor+}} with the image as the visible text? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Just link to the page number: Eleven years in the Rocky Mountains and a life on the frontier/Chapter 5#94 unless I misunderstand what you are trying to do? Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all! I will use one of the anchor templates, where needed. @Londonjackbooks: that works fine for images that are on pages with text, but most of the images are on plates of their own, so there is no page number; the plate, for instance, comes between pages 5 and 6. I suppose I could link to page 5 in a case like that, but it feels...inelegant :) -Pete (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: From the main namespace we should not be directly linking to the Page: ns—outside of the marginal page numbering. Readers will just confused and lost being dumped there. Our main namespace linking should only be to our presentation level pages. We have tried to have our linking overt and non-surprising, and even somewhere like author ns it is why things like {{ext scan link}} exist rather than hyperlinking a work name (our old practice). — billinghurst sDrewth 23:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Billinghurst:, sounds like my goal is in alignment with standard practice, then. Good to have that confirmation! Now that I have a plan, I'm hoping to wrap this last bit up in the next 24 hours. -Pete (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: I was recently flipping through The Water Babies, and noticed that User:Cygnis insignis [ inelegantly ;) ] linked to previous pages before the appearance of plates in the illustration TOC for the work. It may have merely been a simple formatting choice, or there may have been a considered reason for such linking. I would guess the latter, but I would be prone to. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Index:Armistice Day.djvu[edit]

This was previously validated, but I'd like to get this to near perfect status, so it can be promoted to featured status in November.

Naturally I'd like there to be more than one set of eyes looking for every obscure typo you can think of.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Footers[edit]

I am validating The Bet by Anton Chekhov. On pages 13, 21, and 23, I see "1", "B", and "B2" in their footers respectively. Should I insert them? 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: Those are binder's marks, not needed in digital version. Hrishikes (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Reusability of a transcription CC0 published in a file[edit]

Hi there,

An acquaintance of mine working in a university of Taiwan has published here a transcription of this work Index:English-Chinese Vocabulary of the Vernacular Or Spoken Language of Swatow.djvu. I was wondering whether we could republish here, splitting and matching the pages? Do we need an authorization for that? In what form? He told me that the work of transcripting that dictionary was basically CC0.

Assassas77 (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the answer is no, there isn't authorization needed -- here's how I see it, from what you've described:
  1. The work itself is in the public domain
  2. A strict transcription does not add any creative element (see "sweat of the brow" in copyright law), so -- according to my understanding (and I'm not a lawyer) it's not possible to attach copyright to the transcription of a work that is in the public domain.
  3. I'm pretty sure #2 is accurate, but even if I'm wrong -- if the transcription work is "basically" CC0, all you'd need is a written assurance that it is in fact CC0, published somewhere you can link to. -Pete (talk) 04:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Taiwanese copyright rules are tricky in this case: c:Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs#Taiwan. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Though it only talks about about printing, and reproduction of that print. Electronic transcription, especially into a non-print format (a format not like PostScript or PDF), seems outside those rules.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Have you asked them if they are willing to release their manuscript under a Creative Commons license? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm gonna ask them more information about the license they are putting on this work. I mean... for now, it is only a raw file with no licensing information. I'll provide more information soon. Assassas77 (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)