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:

David Williams 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington[edit]

Works of Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington are in the public domain now. So I've made Index:Eddington A. Space, Time and Gravitation. 1920.djvu. Please proofread it. --Максим Пе (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

A note to editors: The title of the work is Space Time and Gravitation. The comma in the name of the DjVu file is erroneous (it will not affect editing the work). The work is on the interplay of (a) space-time and (b) gravitation, and is not discussing three separate topics. However, it would be nice if someone with the use of a bot could rename the file at Commons and move the few pages created here so far. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Is that sufficient grounds for any of us to get someone at Commons to rename the file or does Максим Пе (talkcontribs) need to put in the rename request (as "uploader requested") at Commons? There are only 16 pages done so far, few enough that I'll do the moves manually, if the rename is done before too many more pages are added. Also, what is going on with that Table of Contents on the Index page? I see it overlapping with the index fields. Pathore (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
If the pages here are moved, then I can do the renaming at Commons afterwards. A move/rename at Commons is not so big a thing now as it used to be.
The table of Contents on the Index page is a temporary version inserted manually, and it can be replaced once the Contents in the source file is proofread. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey:I've just finished doing the moves here; go ahead and rename the file on Commons. It looks like the page list will be broken until the rename goes through there. Pathore (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I've also found the actual cause of the page layout problem: the "Cover image" field is supposed to be a page number, it seems, but was an actual [[File:]] link instead. Now that I've fixed it, the cover image is also a red link until the Commons rename goes through. Pathore (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Move I'm not sure why this took so long but I happened to see that this file needed renaming because I was alerted through Special:Notifications when User:Максим Пе thanked me. I moved it on Commons and then came back here and saw all this. I'm not that interested in proofreading this text but I'll help validate if someone pings me on it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a bit of a mess. Unfortunately the proper name on the Commons should have been File:Space, Time and Gravitation (1920).djvu which currently is a redirect to the bad file name. I can move files but this requires a delete which I can't do. One must ask for help and explain that the redirect should be the right file name.— Ineuw talk 05:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Do the pages here on Wikisource need to be moved again? Also, there is no comma in the title, so the correct name would be File:Space Time and Gravitation (1920).djvu, which does not exist at the time of this writing. Pathore (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Move I don't understand the problem: the index is fine now and synced with Commons. I've since validated and edited pages to this text. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Now I'm getting confused. As I see it, the file was uploaded under the name "Eddington A. Space, Time and Gravitation. 1920.djvu". It was pointed out that there is no comma in the title of the work, so I moved all of the pages to remove the comma, but I can't move files at Commons, so I left the note in the index. Now it is being pointed out that "Eddington A. Space Time and Gravitation. 1920.djvu" doesn't follow the standard naming convention in some other way that I am just now learning about. 16 pages isn't too many to move by hand, but if the work gets mostly proofread before we decide on its file name, things get messier. Pathore (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Everything fine as it now stands. Both our files and the file on Commons have been correctly renamed, as they should be. Everything is fine. It only looked like a mess during the brief period after we had renamed our local files, but the source file on Commons had not yet been moved. Once everything was moved, the mess was resolved. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ineuw: There is no reason to add a comma to the book's title. It never had one. Einstein's concept of spacetime can be written with a blank space (space time), a hyphen (space-time), or be written as a single word (spacetime), but it cannot be written with a comma in the middle of the term. That would be like saying you "rode a school, bus" instead of saying "rode a school bus". It's nonsense to insert a comma into the middle of a term. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

OMG! I think you are missed.
First of all filenames are very free at Commons. For example File:LorentzStatement1920.djvu => Index:LorentzStatement1920.djvu => The Einstein Theory of Relativity
I've put filename "Space, Time and Gravitation" with comma because that was in sourceInternet Archive. Also please look at Project Gutenberg: Space, Time and Gravitation by Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington and Amazon: Space, Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory (Classic Reprint)
At last I don't know why there is no comma in first edition title. Really :-) May it be misprint? --Максим Пе (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

No, the comma was not in the source (the original book), it was an arbitrary file name choice at IA for their file name. Nor is it necessary for us to keep the IA name when uploading to Commons. There is no comma is the title of the work, nor should there be. Presumably what happened is that someone unfamiliar with the concept of spacetime inserted a comma when uploading to IA. The IA file name was an error; the title page of the book is correct. There should never a comma placed in the middle of a noun phrase like "space time".
The reason that Gutenberg and Google also contain the comma is that all three come from the same mistranscribed source error. If you look at the text itself in the copies, there is no comma on the book's title page, only in the name under which they have chosen to list the book. So, again, it is a file name error made by people unfamiliar with the concept of spacetime. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, look at one of the first translations: Espace, Temps et Gravitation (French 1921). Also notice Eddington wasn't used term "spacetime" or "space time", but always "space and time". Can't you believe in misprint till now? Максим Пе (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
A translation is a different work, and tells us nothing about the original that is useful in this regard. I have seen many translations of titles that were mangled in translation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, space-time has no comma; but this consists of space and time and this classic book is one of the first works to describe the concept to the people. This is a book about the inter-relation of space, time and gravitation, where the components together make spacetime and its warping makes gravitation. The comma is present in the title; see the front cover here and here. Hrishikes (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Talk with any author, and you'll find that it's the publisher that creates and designs the cover, not the author. Many times the title on the cover of a book will not match the author's desires, or even the title page within the same volume. For this reason, librarians rely upon the title page version of the title, and not the title printed on the cover of a book. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I am fine with a comma, or no comma in the title. Please notice the comma in this post.— Ineuw talk 17:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
On the one hand, the work itself consistently uses no comma in its title on both djvu pages 7 and 11. The text itself seems to consistently refer to "time and space"; a search for "space time" gives hits only on the title pages and "space, time" matches only within the phrase "views of space, time, or force" on djvu page 196. Djvu page 13 has a call number—QC6 E42— written on it. A search for this call number in the UC Berkeley online catalog retrieves records listing the title as "Space, time and gravitation : an outline of the general relativity theory". On Wikisource, do we use the title from the work's own title page, or do we use the title as used by actual librarians? Do I need to undo all those moves? Pathore (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
We generally follow the title give on the work's own title page, and not what other people have called the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
There is another angle too. This work is universally referred to with a comma, as can be easily verified with a simple Google search. Here at WS, a work should be placed under its commonly attributed name, so that it is visible in the first page of a Google search when potential readers search it. This should have primacy, not erudite discussion about what the author might have desired. The author is not going to come back from where he is and read it at WS, lay people like we commoners are going to read it; if people have difficulty in finding it, then what is the purpose of putting it here? Hrishikes (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
So we will definitely need a redirect, then. Or I'll move it again if three other people can agree on its proper name. Pathore (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
There will never be a need to move it again. At most, we can use a redirect, but I suspect that internet search functions can cope with the presence or absence of a comma. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think, at this point of the discussion, opinion of other editors are required. So I shall summarize the case, with additional points.

  1. The name of the work, as shown in the front cover of 1987 Cambridge edition as part of Cambridge Science Classics as well as 2011 edition shown by Google Books, has a comma between space and time.
  2. The title page of the version added here does not have this comma.
  3. The version present here is from Internet Archive, which shows the comma.
  4. The IA version is originally from UC Berkeley, whose online catalogue shows the comma.
  5. User:Максим Пе has pointed out that Gutenberg, Amazon and a French translation, all have the comma.
  6. EncycloPetey has opined that:
    1. Space time does not require a comma in between, being a single concept.
      1. Pathore has pointed out that the term space time, without a comma, is present only on the title pages of the work, and not in the main body.
    2. The title page is to be preferred, because the front cover is publisher-designed.
      1. Here I submit additional evidence, to show that the title page is also publisher-designed, at least it used to be at the period and place of this work's publication. At Index:The King of the Dark Chamber.djvu, a reputed publisher like Macmillan made wrong attribution of the translator on the title page. This got corrected only in later editions on written protest from the original author. This episode has been discussed by academicians in scholarly works as found here and here. Therefore, the front cover and title page are both publisher-designed and carry equal value as regards the name of the work.
  7. This is not only about the matter of a comma or only this work. A general policy is required about how to decide the title if there is discrepancy between front cover and title page. Is opinion of other websites, including online catalogues of university libraries and book-sellers, to be given weightage? Is the subject matter of the work, as detailed in the main body, to be given weightage? I sincerely request other editors to offer their esteemed opinion.

Hrishikes (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Good lord.. really?
  1. Nobody comes here nor to Commons for a source file - they most likely do the same thing we do - rip it from Internet Archive, HathiTrust, or Google Books ∴ the only thing that contributors should be concerned about for the title they select for a source file being uploaded is that it a.) makes rationale and logistical sense to other potential wiki___ contributors and/or projects more so than any academic consideration(s) followed by b.) the fact at some point and time in existing history, even the presence of the simplest of punctuation gave the "rendering system" enough reason not to render at all. This is a case where the less [punctuation] one applies the less likely [punctuation] will ever cause rendering "issues" in the future.

    Plus its not like the final proofread & validated text is [re]inserted into these source files anyway - if somebody downloads or open one they get the same garbage we did on the day when we first started PR'ing the work.

  2. The same premise outlined above generally applies to the Index: title. Nobody outside us familiar clowns knows or cares about the Index: name or namespace -- especially IF everything has been "done", validated and presented in the main namespace.
  3. The main namespace root page's title is the most important (both internally and externally). Nobody stopping by here gives a sh!t about anything else -- if landing on the mainspace is hindered by "poor naming practices" in reality, I assure you the traffic will go to the places where we ripped the source file from to begin with instead.
-- George Orwell III (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hrishikes: (Edit conflict) Some of the assertions made above are misleading or at least incomplete in their summary. Specific instances:
  1. The IA version does NOT contain the comma. The comma appears only in their filename. The comma appears nowhere in their scan of the book.
  2. Several instances listed above are not independent of each other, and therefore cannot be counted as independent lines of reasoning. To whit, if the IA version comes from UC Berkeley, then the comma in the IA filename is likely the result of it being present in the UCB catalogue and not of an independent decision.
  3. Only a single title page is mentioned, but it has been pointed illustrated that even an edition with a comma on the cover does not include that comma on the title page.
The assertion of a single instance where a mistake was made in a publication on the title page does not demonstrate that it is of equal weight with the cover. The internal pages of books are routinely sent to authors for verification and proofreading. The cover is not. When books are reprinted, the internal contents are often reproduced as previously published (though not always), but the cover may change completely with a new edition. A single instance where a publisher misattributed the translator of a work does not alter that.
What is also absent from the summary above is that most the discussion has been over our internal filename, which may or may not be reflected in the title we use for the user-accessible version of the work. We could upload a file to Commons as File:Fred.dvju, use Index:Fred.djvu locally, create Page:Fred.djvu, and still title that work Axioms Outlined by Artistotle. Our internal filename and public work title do not have to match, nor do they even have to resemble each other. Frequently, they do not. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The seventh item in Hrishikes' list is the question I wanted to ask, but was unsure of how to ask it.
Other details in this specific case include:
  1. This was one of the early works introducing general relativity. Spacetime as a single concept was not well-known then, so "space [and] time and gravitation" (the interpretation with the comma in place) would make sense.
  2. The title page plainly does not include the comma.
  3. The cover on our scan (from IA) has no text at all.
The second detail is the reason I concurred enough with EncycloPetey to make the move the first time.
The title is also set in all uppercase, so I could believe that the typographic convention of the time was to omit commas on title pages, even when the logical title includes them. EncycloPetey also pointed out that the filename used for proofreading and the title we use in mainspace need not actually be related, so while this question need not stall proofreading if we can all agree to just run with what we have, we will need an answer when it is time to publish this work in mainspace. Pathore (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
About the typographic convention of omitting commas on title page: this may be true as it is also omitted on the title page of Index:The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.djvu. Hrishikes (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

New to working over here on WS, but I've done a first run on a few pages of this. The OCR is quite good, so it's pretty quick to do, it would be nice if someone who knows more about the templates here would do the TOC (I'm a bit clueless about how to make it work). Revent (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Максим Пе: @EncycloPetey: @Pathore: @Koavf: Poking at people who expressed interest... I have done the first run-though of the entire work (including some huge chunks of TeX)... it's ready for validation (probably with some formatting cleanup) and transclusion. As I commented on IRC, it really needs a bit of annotation in some places, simply because of the historical context... as a specific example, he refers to 'spiral nebulae' that are now known to be other galaxies... at the time, it was thought that the Milky Way spanned the entire universe, and that other galaxies were simply distant nebulae in the Milky Way. Also, he talks about the number of planets, but Pluto was unknown at the time, and so what he wrote could be a bit confusing. Really, I think what needs 'annotated' would be a matter of a read-through by 'non-physics non-math' people, with pokes about what seems strange. His arguments were never 'wrong', even from a modern perspective, they just could use a bit of context in places. Revent (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Revent: When it comes to annotations, I'd recommend Wikibooks, especially if those annotations are long or involved or likely to change with new insights or if they could be enhanced by photos and video, etc. I'll be happy to poke around some validation. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Revent: Also, it seems that Space Time and Gravitation from Author:Arthur Stanley Eddington is a redlink. Is this a deliberate choice? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Koavf: I haven't attempted to transclude it yet, still new over here. I'll do so, but need to read the instructions a bit first. As far as annotations, I didn't mean anything extensive, just short notes where his 'terminology' would differ from what a modern reader would understand (like that 'spiral nebulae' refers to 'spiral galaxies', and that he didn't know they were external to the Milky Way... the book predates that discovery). Revent (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Koavf: I made an attempt at transcluding it, though it might well be broken... the entire work is one page, which I don't think is correct.... feel free to fix it and hand me a clue. :) Revent (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I think I have it done correctly now (a page per each chapter, etc) at Space_Time_and_Gravitation. Feel free to fix it. Revent (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
We still have the issue of what the title actually is, specifically whether or not there should be a comma after "Space". See the above discussion, since this is the point where we can't put the decision off any longer. Pathore (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Максим Пе: @EncycloPetey: @Pathore: @Koavf: (again pinging people, sorry for the late response) Thoughout the work, the term is given as space-time, with a hyphen. I would suspect that the 'canonical' title would actually be "Space-Time and Gravitation", at least in the author's intent, though the actual title page and catalog entries seem to differ. Revent (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
So it does. Now we have three choices. Since the work uses "space-time" in the text, and the title page clearly has "space time", I suggest leaving it at "Space Time and Gravitation", possibly creating redirects from "Space, Time and Gravitation" and "Space-Time and Gravitation". Pathore (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I also think that would be the best answer, with those redirects. Revent (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I also agree that sounds like the best solution. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:53, 18 March 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)
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)

Should complete newspapers be uploaded when only 1 or 2 articles are significant?[edit]

I've been adding some articles from early 20th century scholars concerning evolution and religion (see Evolution and Theological Belief and The Theory of Evolution as an Aid to Faith in God and Belief in the Resurrection) that are historically significant (see e.g. [1]), yet that were originally published in a university student newspaper which contains (at least in my opinion) large amounts of trivial entries like local interest stories, jokes, ads, and general campus gossip (see for instance here) which I have no intention of ever transcribing, although some might conceivably have some future value. I intend to add more articles, and while so far I've been only uploading the relevant pages, I'm wondering if it is worthwhile to upload entire editions of the paper, as I believe I read somewhere that full sources are preferred to excerpts. I'd prefer to not obscure the titles by e.g. retitling them all The White and Blue/Evolution and Theological Belief, and it seems from viewing Category:Newspaper articles that there is no agreement on prefacing articles with the Newspaper name. Any best practices or advice welcome. -Animalparty (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The Index should be the complete issue of the edition. Then just work on the sections of current interest. The other parts will be got to eventually. In terms of titling, redirects are cheap. I suggest using the full sub-paged title (e.g. The White and Blue Vol. xiv No. 12/Evolution and Theological Belief) as the transclusion point and setting up a redirect from the non-prefixed title. I'm pretty sure that there are other articles with Evolution and Theological Belief as the title out there, so when they are added the redirect can become a disambiguation page without the trouble of moving the transcluded articles at that point. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

what happens when index file is changed?[edit]

A hypothetical but realistic question: what are the guidelines or protocol for changes to source djvu or PDFs on Commons? Say for instance a document is missing a page or two (as I've encountered on some Google Books PDFs), and/or contains missing images or incorrectly ordered pages, or if I just want to upload the same file with all "digitized by X" watermarks removed? If such a file is indexed, and then overwritten by a new, better version, what happens? Does a new index need creation? Must the new file include the same number of pages? Similarly, what's the procedure for "Frankenstein" articles, that for instance draw from 2 or more different sources (e.g. a djvu missing a cover image and title page supplemented with a cover .jpg and single page.)? Animalparty (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Rule 1: for a new Index always check the file for missing images or incorrectly ordered pages before starting proofreading.
In case an old Index, if you realize something is wrong, fix the file by inserting/removing the missing pages, newly upload the source file, adjust the pagelist and move the Page:yyy.djvu/n pages as needed. If they are many, ask for a bot request, specifying your needs. See e.g. Wikisource:Bot_requests/Archives/2014#Picturesque_New_Guinea_Bulk_Moves. No new Index pages needed, but transclusions in Main ns and all links affected by the move need to be updated.
If you just want to upload the same file with all "digitized by X" watermarks removed, just upload the new file. But make sure number and position of the pages is unchanged.
Hope it clarifies a bit.--Mpaa (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

How can this page be re-created ?[edit]

I was just editing or creating this page and received the response below:

The revision #0 of the page named "Page:History of the Press in Western New York (1847).djvu/35" does not exist. This is usually caused by following an outdated history link to a page that has been deleted. Details can be found in the deletion log."

I don't see anything in the deletion log. Perhaps I clicked on the wrong item. How can this page be re-created ? Thanks

Robin2014 (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't see any problems now and can open the page, which I see you were able to save before you posted here. If you're still having problems, I suggest clearing your cache. Doing so often solves this sort of database niggle. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Excellent ! Thanks. Robin2014 (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Images needed[edit]

Hi, I'm almost finished proofreading this book, but adding the missing images is beyond my capabilities. Can someone lend me a hand? Thanks in advance. Xaviersc (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I should be able to do that. Give me a few minutes... --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Xaviersc (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Stacked images[edit]

I'm using {{img float}} templates (mostly), but where closely-spaced images are aligned on one side of a page, these are not transcluding at all well, being shifted to the right of the previous image and leaving boxes of blank space. See Researches in the Central Portion of the Usumatsintla Valley/Pethá - any suggestions on improving the appearance of this chapter would be much appreciated. Many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing the shifts you describe, but not the space. When I hit this problem, I tend to ignore the original layout and see if I can come up with something better when transcluded. One of the things I would do with this example is reduce the size of Fig 11. It's longer than the screen on my laptop. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I've reduced the image size, and juggled the other images, and it's looking much better now - at least on my laptop screen. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:56, 4 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. 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)

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)

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)