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.

This page is automatically archived by Wikisource-bot

Have you seen our help pages and FAQs?

Does formatting have to be fully faithful to the original?[edit]

I ask because I've already done partial digitization of a book elsewhere. I want to continue it here but my work reformats the original slightly to be more legible (IMO) for the 21st century: link vs. link. Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes and No:
  • When we transcribe in the Page namespace, as you are currently doing, we want to match the formatting of the original as closely as is possible and reasonable. The faithful transcriptions are then transcluded into the Main namespace to provide a text that matches the original.
  • However, we do allow for "annotated" versions (policy details are still under review), and I think it would be reasonable to create a second "annotated" version using the friendlier formatting. This would not use the transcription in the Page namespace directly, but would be copy-pasted to a new location in the Main namespace as a second copy of the work. The second copy would have notes in the header of each page explaining exactly how (and why) the formatting differs from the original.
  • Also: Please note that we strip the Google notice page from the front of works which we host. The notice is neither part of the original, nor presents any supportable claim of copyright. It is better to have this change made before editing individual pages, since it will affect page numbering.
--EncycloPetey (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Encyclopetey's "we match the formatting of the original as closely as it possible", I would add that we try to capture the intent of the author while ignoring the contribution of the typographer. We don't care what font was chosen, we don't care about line breaks, etc. Hesperian 23:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Legibility and faithfulness to the text are our drivers. So allowing the user's browser, in the user's viewing platform (wide monitor or small telephone) to do the work! Within that we may use a template like {{blackletter}} (blackletter) to represent some part of the work, we wouldn't force a change from how a user has set their default browser typeface nor size, with all our text sizing being relative proportional. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the answers. I suppose I'll try to match the original for now. (also, what software should I use to remove the Google notice...) Suzukaze-c (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I've never learned how to manipulate a DjVu file myself, and unless you know how to edit DjVu files properly (it can be tricky), then it's best to post a request for someone's assistance. We have a few skilled hands here who can help with that. Learning how to do this might make for a good talk at a Wikisource gathering. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I notice there's a section for requests of this sort at Help:Internet_Archive#Google_Books that seems to be rather neglected. Suzukaze-c (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Vast bulk of people here are neither net nor image geeks, they are interested in the magic of the word, and its transcription. Predominantly none of us has worried about the image scans having the Google component, and as it doesn't affect our transcription and presentation, we politely ignore it. Noting that I do have a little search and replace script that deletes that component on the occasions that it gets reproduced by the OCR which I use as part of my general text clean-up when proofreading. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
(forest and trees <sigh>) Oh, you mean the front notice page. I blank the text, and mark it as a blank page. I have been gently asking for some time for someone to build a labs tool that could excise the front page, and replace it with a blank page. No-one has considered it of sufficient importance to progress. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Could we use User:Wikisource-bot at Commons? It would be possible to tag the djvu page with some template and let the bot run periodically on tagged pages?— Mpaa (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mpaa: I had thought that Commons would like to do something similar to rotatebot, so I had thought a new tool. That said, I see no reason why we couldn't use Wikisource-bot. I don't see an issue and we are not necessarily needing bot permissions (overt editing is okay) and as long as we show how we are going to prevent/manage abuse, so presumably some template tagging and/or an oauth permission. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 22:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I think that we can do a script running as ws-bot on tool-labs. We have to decide the template format and make a tracking Category. I can take care of making the script and check the djvu manipulation. I suggest a template with one param, just stating: 1. replace first page with blank image, 2. delete the first page. Shall we move this discussion somewhere else maybe?— Mpaa (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mpaa: "Replace only" (image and text) would be my preference if this is a task that anyone can request. Removing pages could cause problems. If we were to have a remove first page functionality, I would prefer to see that as part of ia-upload functionality where it is an alternative when we grab something from IA and we know it came from Google. Yes, I think that we can take this elsewhere once the strategy has been determined. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
If you're willing to try it, the easiest way to do it is with DjView, see Help:DjVu files#Removing a copyright page, though that description could do to be fleshed out a bit. The best place to ask for someone to do it for you is probably the Repairs (and moves) section of the Scriptorium. Also: while we don't really care if the page is present here on Wikisource, I have seen the folks on Wikimedia Commons flag files for deletion if they contain this file, so that is also something to keep in mind. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: I think that I have complained sufficiently that they have stopped deleting those works. I went through the argument that an author's work that is in the public domain should not be prevented due to Google slapping a generic page on the front. The deletions and nominations have seemed to have stopped. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Apropos removing the Google frontsheet. The most practical way is to ignore it and treat it as without text. But some editors may still want its removal. This should not hinder proofreading, because it can be later replaced with a blank. Some of us can do it, e.g. User:Mpaa, User:Jpez and myself. I suggest putting up a list of such books at some place, so that when someone capable wants to do it, he/she can gradually progress through the list. Hrishikes (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer having the page removed rather than replaced. Its presence affects the numbering such that odd page numbers in the work appear on even page numbers in the file (and vice versa), and this becomes confusing in a work of any length. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The quickest method (IMO) is to use the command line DjVuLibre tools, as so: [1]. Download the tools, put djvm.exe in the same folder as the DjVu file, and run djvm.exe -d foo.djvu 1 in a command prompt, where foo.djvu is the name of your file. (Edit: ah, this exact method is laid out at Help:DjVu files#Removing a copyright page.) clpo13(talk) 23:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

What about Page:An alphabetic dictionary of the Chinese language in the Foochow dialect.djvu/31, where Chinese text couldn't be placed inline due to technical difficulties during printing and had to be moved to the footer? Suzukaze-c (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I would preserve this formatting; it should be straightforward using footnotes. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Presidential Executive Orders[edit]

I am making a list of presidential executive orders that include unnumbered executive orders. Can anyone help memake this article a full and complete list. Here is the link to the edit page. I have the first four executive orders of Washington so far. Here's the link to edit:

unsigned comment by PoliticalBuff (talk) .

This needs to be in the Portal: namespace rather than the Main: namespace. This is because List of … is not a published work. There already is a Portal:Executive Orders that could be expanded. I note there is also a Wikiproject for the Executive Orders. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@PoliticalBuff: As pointed out above, there are already some editors who have been working on that (myself included--I also work on Commons and Wikipedia on the topic). I'll be happy to work with you. For what it's worth, all executive orders are numbered and published in the Federal Register. You may be thinking of presidential memoranda or proclamations, which are not always numbered (although memoranda are if they are published in the Federal Register). —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that it is worth also mentioning Wikisource:For Wikipediansbillinghurst sDrewth 22:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

File:US OPM Citizenship Laws of the World 2001.pdf[edit]

Would someone please convert the content to the text format here to archive? Please do not update the content here. I am planning a book on Wikibooks based on this work about citizenship. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jusjih: I have no idea about what you are wanting. The file isn't here, there is no evidence that there is any relationship to the file and text here. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I mean formatting the text from the PDF on Commons to make articles here. I am unable to make page namespace, so I ask here.--Jusjih (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Upload a book from a text file[edit]

I'm familiar with wikimedia projects and the template system, but i've never contributed to and i need some advices.

I want to add the book The Ashley book of knots from the Internet Archive. I've checked for copyright purposes and it looks ok.

I cleaned the text, cropped the pictures and, though there are many OCR errors, now i want to upload it. The whole text is in a big TXT file. How do i have to do it?

I read Help:Adding texts, Help:Transclusion and Help:Beginner's guide to transclusion, but since i don't work with a DJVU file, it doesn't help me.

I can create The Ashley book of knots and a page for each of the 44 chapters, but it will lose the pagination. Since it's a documentary reference, i think it would be a shame.

The book is mainly a list of numbered knots with references between each other. It didn't find a suitable model to facilitate this navigation, is it ok to use HTML anchors?

About illustrations, the procedure consists in uploading them to Commons and then use the [[File:my_picture.png]] model. Am i right?

While the book is not uploaded, i can change a model to another in the whole book in a few minutes. But once it's uploaded, making such modification is a too big work for me. Likewise, i really don't want to create 600 pages by hand. VincentPalmieri (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I think The Ashley Book of Knots is still under copyright, unfortunately (it'd be a great work to have here!). It was published in 1944, Clifford Ashley died in 1947, and the copyright was renewed in 1971; therefore the copyright term is 95 years after first publication. Sam Wilson 23:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, i misunderstood the copyright renewal laws... Thank you for pointing it out and see you in 2039 :) VincentPalmieri (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Aligned table can't be spanned over pages...[edit]

Despite supporting nofooter, {{aligned table}} can't be used to span multiple pages because it's not possible to put the end |}<nowiki></tt> as the parser having not seen a matching <tt><nowiki>{| opening.

The problem arose here:- Page:Indian_Copyright_Act_1914.djvu/44

Please provide a means of spanning {{aligned-table}}'s that won't break in the parser, Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

{{aligned table|noheader=yes|nobody=yes}}: You have been told this before. This is why you get little respect. Perhaps you should lift your game just a little? unsigned comment by (talk) .
Can you explain where this was previously mentioned so I can bookmark the link?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
And thanks, Your fix also means I don't need to put in {{nop}} or worry about precisely where to put table row markers :) You've solved more than one problem :).

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Considered resolved with the explanation given. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Easy way to add lines between pages?[edit]

I'm working on transcribing a collection of political cartoons (Cartoons by Bradley/Cartoons) where most pages consist of a single image with title, caption, and occasional explanatory text. Since the text and images on the pages don't flow across pages, I would like to visually break each page into a self-contained space, e.g. with a page break line. Do I need to transpose each page separately, as in <pages index="Cartoons by Bradley.djvu" from=39 to=39/>{{page break|label=}}, etc…, or is there a way I can easily transpose a range of pages, with page breaks added automatically? Thanks, and if anyone could point to some similar picture books I could model this after, I’d be much obliged. -Animalparty (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Sidenote: if you're only doing a single page, you can use include=39 instead of a from/to pair. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
@Animalparty: Unfortunately there is no means to apply a page customised page break within <pages>. It would be a kewl feature and one of which I have pondered. The issue is that usually it is not universal to format that way for a whole transclusion. I have always thought that you could always do something cheat like adding all of that onto the pages and sticking it inside a <includeonly> set. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst, @Mukkakukaku: Thanks for the comments. I had success copying the markup in a Excel spreadsheet, obviating the need to manually enter each page no. Animalparty (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Short Titles - Character enquiry.[edit]

On Page Page:Public_General_Statutes_1896.djvu/34 the entry for 27 Hen. 8. contains a modified c (second letter) in concnying, what is the character and is is it in unicode? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: I asked around with some friends versed in palaeography, and apparently what we're looking at here is a printer's approximation of secretary hand scribe's abbreviation marks. The funky "c" in 27 Hen. 8. c. 10. is a vertical line attached to the "c" indicating the elision of the letters er, so the word should be transcribed as "concernyng". In 21 Jas. 1. c. 16., the ditto characters are actually a "ti", so the words should be transcribed "lymytation" and "action". Similarly, for 1 Chas. 1. c. 1., the macron on the "o" is the (apparently really common) "bar mark" that here indicates the missing "m" following, and the word should be transcribed as "committed". --Xover (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Do we have a consensus on this? I frequently transcribe such words as written, knowing that they are abbreviations. Without consensus, I would no more expand "com̄itted" to "committed" than I would expand "isn't" to "is not". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: My apologies. When I wrote "transcribe" above I was speaking from a palæographic point of view: in general, when deciphering Secretary hand, you would transcribe it as described above. I did not mean to imply that that was the specific correct approach for Wikisource, but in retrospect I see that that is what was implied by what I wrote.
However, that being said, my initial position on this—absent other data or guidance—would be that the above should be how we treat the issue on Wikisource too. There is simply no reasonable alternative:
  1. the original typography cannot be reproduced with Unicode (as of 9.0, or even MUFI) or HTML/CSS, and mostly they cannot even be approximated by clever use of unrelated combining characters;
  2. randomly picking part of the original letterform that one thinks looks like a "c" and transcribing that would be significantly misleading when the letterform actually represents "ti" ("accon" vs. "action");
  3. expanding some scribal abbreviations, but not all, would be inconsistent and confusing, so even those that can be reproduced, like the bar mark represented by a macron, should be expanded for consistency. As a bonus, this approach also leads to more legible text that's easier to read for our audience.
If, however, you feel this would be in violation of some policy on WS, or that there is significant doubt about where the community would land on this question, then this is probably something that should be brought up for wider discussion. --Xover (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying your position. I somewhat disagree with your assessment, though I think it has a lot of merit. I will address it further in a comment below to avoid forking the conversation.
Most likely original is Chancery hand given the context.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Would you mind reading through subsequent pages and looking for similar marks?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: I had a look at a few pages and didn't notice any you'd missed. However, in several places you've transcribed the funky "e" as simply "s", but it is, I believe, actually abbreviating "es". So for 5 & 6 Will. & Mar. c. 20. (The Bank of England Act, 1694.), you should have "poundes towardes", instead of "pounds towards", for "pound@ toward@" (the at-sign here representing the funky "e"). --Xover (talk) 10:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Come on people, there was no standardised spelling until Johnson's dictionary (surely you have seen the Blackadder episode). So you have a modern representation of 15th/16thC English where they are dealing with alternate spellings and often with standard abbreviations in rote documents. Have a read of an 18thC will, or the probate and you will see similar things. Type it as you see it, and if necessary, use {{SIC}} if you think that someone believes it is a transcription error or it gives a little clarity. When a work is finally transcluded you can stick notes on the work's talk page and point to them with the parameter "edition". — billinghurst sDrewth 22:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: My apologies for being obtuse, but while I get the gist of your comment, I fail to apprehend the specific course of action you're advocating. The issue with this specific text is that the printer of the edition from which our scan was made, attempted to reproduce the abbreviation marks of a previous (presumably original) hand written edition. These abbreviation marks cannot be reproduced directly with Unicode or MUFI, and representing the scribe's abbreviation for "ti" with a "c" just because the abbreviation's symbol vaguely resembles the latin letter c in part of its glyph is misleading. On the other hand, expanding these abbreviated forms does, as Beleg Tâl points out above, alter the original text, and doing it right requires significant qualifications in palæography (I have a superficial familiarity with the field, and I had to ask for help; the average editor should not be expected to be familiar with this stuff). In other words, the issue isn't primarily related to non-standard spelling or unfamiliar abbreviations; it's probably more akin to presence of something like Ancient Greek or Punic letters that aren't supported in Unicode and therefore can't be accurately transcribed. --Xover (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Xover: By putting a modern spelling into place one would be presuming and/or annotating. We type what we see or as close as we possibly can interpret, so if it an m with an overstrike and we have the character we type it, if we don't it is as close as possible. We are transcribers not interpreters of work, so to successfully proofread and validate a work the community has set up our guidance to that process. Anyone is welcome to take the work and to interpret it somewhere else. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: With all due respect, are you sure you're not replying somewhat too hastily here? I fail to square your responses with the specific problem encountered with this particular work. For instance, we're not talking about applying a modern spelling: quite to the contrary, in one of them we should use "poundes towardes", instead of "pounds towards" (i.e. a more archaic spelling than what had originally been used in the transcription). Take a look at the table on the linked page, in rows 2 and 6 you'll find no less than three different glyphs that are not found in the Latin alphabet and are not combinations of Latin characters with diacritics or ligatures (I'm simplifying somewhat for clarity here). These glyphs may visually vaguely resemble Latin characters ("c" and "e", specifically), but to render them as such would be plain wrong (like transcribing δ as o or 𒐊 as w). Since we can't represent these glyphs with Unicode as of version 9.0 of the standard, we're left with two sub-optimal options: to expand the abbreviations that these glyphs mark (to the relevant archaic spelling that was intended by the scribe, not a modern version), or invent our own random transliteration of these glyphs that will significantly mislead any reader (the spelling indicated is not pounde or pounds, it's poundes). --Xover (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
As per my comment above, I somewhat disagree with your assessment, and agree with Billinghurst. While I do agree that there are downsides to both approaches, I think it is better to invent a similar-looking equivalent than to invent an expanded unabbreviated version. If I see 'acc͠ons' in the text, I might make up several potential approximations (accons, acc͠ons, acc̃ons, accons, &c) but all of these are better than replacing it with "actions". Again, I think it is similar to modern abbreviations. If I see 'isn't' in the text, I could render it in a few ways, many of which are incorrect (isn't, isn’t, isn′t, isn`t), but all of these are better than rendering it as 'is not'.
In the worst case there will be no correct Unicode symbol to represent a glyph; in such cases a visual approximation is probably okay. An example I encountered recently: the Cambrian symbol 'Ꞓ' was recently added to Unicode, but before it showed up there were a number of common ways of representing the symbol, including as struck-through C 'C' or a Ukrainian Ye 'Є'. Neither of these are ideal, but both are better than expanding 'Ꞓ' to 'Cambrian'.
Using the examples you gave: if there is a 'δ' in the text, it might be incorrectly transcribed as 'o', which would need to be fixed by a later editor—but it should never be transcribed as 'd' or as 'delta', but only ever as 'δ'. If someone did a visual equivalence and came up with '𝛿' or 'ẟ' or even '∂', those would be wrong, but still better than rendering it as 'd'.
In this page in question, the word 'conc[swirly]nyng' could be rendered as anything from 'conc̉nyng', 'conc͗nyng', 'conc̛nyng', 'conc᷒nyng', 'concꝰnyng', &c., and some of these might be okay, and some of them might be very wrong, but they are all better than writing it as 'concernyng' (or worse, 'concerning'). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Hmm. Thank you for explaining. I disagree with your conclusion, but I agree that that is one valid approach given we can't reproduce the original faithfully. If this accurately reflects billinghurst's position, then I also better understand their response above.
Your main analogy, as I have understood it, is to things like "isn't". These are much simpler cases, mere contractions (where ' marks the occurrence of an elision), where the ones in question here hover somewhere in the neighbourhood of an amalgam of diacritical marks and a complete glyph in their own right. These do not simply mark a contraction, but entire strings of characters. Things like "isn't" vs. "is not" also have the disadvantage here of being so familiar to modern readers that changing between them affects the register of the sentence they appear in; where the ones we are discussing here are unfamiliar enough that it will have no such effect on readers.
You also point to the "invention" of an expanded version, and describe it as equivalent to inventing a visually similar equivalent. However, the expanded versions here are not in any sense invented (the shorthand was, AIUI, standard and common across most of Europe). There are rules governing them (case in point, that funky "e"-like symbol means "es" in older texts but morphs into just "s" around the 18th century) and a field of science studying them (palæography). This in contrast with trying to use a "visual approximation" because that is literally just a random Wikisource editor making stuff up in the spur of the moment. Now, depending on the setting and the editor, what they come up with may be a really good and well thought out visual approximation; but it is still just a random WS editor making stuff up. I would assert, rather forcefully, that the two are not at all comparable.
Therefore I don't find your argument persuasive.
However, on further reflection, I've found a fairly damning argument against my own position: namely that palæography is among the most obscure black arts there is, and it would not be reasonable to expect familiarity with it of the average editor. I happen to be acquainted with people perverse enough to consider it a pleasurable pastime, but my own facility in it is only very superficial, and I would attempt to engage in it only very reluctantly and when absolutely necessary.
Thus I still find your position reasonable, just for a different reason.
Ultimately though, I think I would still argue in favour of preferring the expanded version, but allowing a "visual approximation". But in the latter case, I think some sort of annotation should probably be required ({{SIC}}, or a suitable variant, that briefly explains to the reader what's going on). Possibly a similar requirement should apply also for the expanded version: like yourself, I also don't find the expansion optimal and consider it to be an alteration of the text that I would prefer to avoid.
Anyways, I take it there is no existing policy or guidance that addresses this issue specifically? Is there, do you think, a need to bring this to the wider community (e.g. Scriptorium/Proposals or some such) for discussion? Would it actually accomplish anything (would anyone care about this edge case)? I haven't run across this issue in my own projects as yet (I was only trying to help out ShakespeareFan00 here), so I'm in no particular hurry, but I can vividly imagine running into in the future (16th through 19th-century English literature and theatre history is my interest). It would be nice to have it properly settled and clear guidance available when I do. --Xover (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no exact wording that specifically and directly addresses this example. We try to be both reasonable and practicable, not rely on blackletter rules, so beyond Wikisource:Style guide (also subpage on orthography) there is much text that guides in the matter about our approach, eg. Help:Beginner's guide to typography. Our principle is to accurately transcribe/reproduce the text of the published work for the web/html/wiki/device world. Annotations and interpretations are not our primary goal, those are secondary goals (see Wikisource:Annotations and Help:Annotating.) We describe that we wish to be able to print/display a work so that it replicates the original, if there is a means to annotate that allows the original and allows the secondary, fantastic. We have notes sections that can be used, we have work's talk pages, portals and wikiprojects that can all be utilised for explanatory and extensive purposes.

There is no perfection, there is no perfect answer. We have to have something that we can all transcribe, and that we can display for users, and have something that represents the author's work.— billinghurst sDrewth 01:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

So which of the myraid of revisions to use? I'm only wanting to change it ONCE.

Perhaps it's time to take a break until people care enough to actually sort things out? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate epithet. How dare you say that nobody here cares. Have a break and grab a perspective. The world will not end. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Please accept my apology, as noted elsewhere I had a meltdown.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Greek specialist[edit]

If there is such a person on-site, would you please check Page:The Soul of a Bishop.djvu/185? I made the attempt and would like someone who really knows Greek to check if my efforts are close or way out in left-field. Humbug26 (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done You were using lower-case π instead of Π, but it was otherwise correct. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, much appreciated. Humbug26 (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
FYI, you can use {{greek missing}} to flag the page for review by someone familiar with Greek typography. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes absolutely. Perhaps, next time. Humbug26 (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

OCR Aligngment?[edit]

I was checking the pagelist on something and came across:- Page:Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London.djvu/39

which as far as I see it appears to be the OCR content of the page for which the scan is at Page:Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London.djvu/40

I left a note for the uploader, but they claim not to see this particular issue.

Can I get another opinion?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Udpated, The uploader responsed by testing in a different browser and is now seeing this issue with Firefox. It would be nice to pin this down to a specifc browser glitch. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I doubt it would be a browser glitch. It's probably a problem with the text layer in the DJVU file itself. I see it in my browser (Vivaldi, uses Chromium) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
The uploader stated on their talk page that they hadn't seen the issue with developer edition of Safari..( Hmmm.... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
It looks like the text layer for Page:Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London.djvu/38 is missing entirely, which is a file problem, but it could be that there's a browser or plugin or MediaWiki problem that is causing subsequent pages' text layers to collapse back and fill in the gap. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

CharInsert Gadget won't display[edit]

I have CharInsert enabled in my Gadgets, but I don't see the interface below the edit summary. Was something changed in a recent version or is my browser update being a pain as per usual? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: It is now above the toolbar in page namespace, as per display in my edit window. Hrishikes (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Is that CharInsert or the SpecialCharacters thing in the ehnanced toolbar? I ask because the OLD Char Insert had some additional symbols "SpecialCharecters" doesn't.

Do you have a screenshot of what you are seeing? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

When logged out it appears. I've tried resetting options to default. Recently I was testing Visual Editor and that may have upset an internal setting. Any admins care to reset my user preferences to "known" clean ones without VE?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmm - It would seem that following the advice here : Help:Layout#How_to_use_dynamic_layouts is what caused CharInsert to not display.

I got some debug logs of a page loading reviewed in media-wiki. :)

Someone needs to look into Dynamic Layouts again it would seem.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Page:The pilgrims progress as originally published by John Bunyan ; being a facsimile of the first edition (1878).djvu/217[edit]

Has someone changed the font settings? The sidenotes here were displayed as being bigger than the main text, DEPSITE the relevant template saying they should be at 83% which is smaller.

Suggestions?11:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

This turned out to be a browser issues. Some browsers have a minimum font size option for accessibility which had become enabled in my case. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Solaris Systems Python Source Code tables with sample pictures[edit]

Dear Wikisource Force:

I am Arturo Saucedo and need to figure out how to start a book of source code that will include greenbar samples and if it works it will become a wikibook. - Regards.

This is Wikisource, not Wikibooks. We only deal with published works here. See Wikisource:What Wikisource includes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

lay out table[edit]

Can anyone please lend me a helping hand with this content-page of Petty's Political Anatomy, before I continue. I don't manage to get the page numbers on the same line as the text. Thanks in advance, --Dick Bos (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dick Bos: I have done the first two lines. Looks fine in preview mode, so it will work on transclusion. Hrishikes (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status of British court decisions[edit]

Does anyone know the answer? I would like to add [2] while looking like {{PD-EdictGov}}. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I would call court judgements as edicts of government — three arms of government: the executive, the legislative body, and the courts. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
If you want to be really sure, write a polite formal letter to the judicial official or the court that issued the ruling, enquiring as to the copyright status, giving a concise explanation of why you want to republish on Wikisource. They would also be in the best position to advise if there are portions that would require redaction for legal reasons or reporting restrictions. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
{{PD-EdictGov}} does include "judicial opinions"; I think that is pretty explicit, isn't it? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
It's PD-EdictGov in the US; in the UK, it will be covered by Crown Copyright for 50 years, though it might be released under one of the Open Government Licenses.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Printer marks[edit]

Encoded in good faith, Page:Cowie's Printer's pocket-book and manual.djvu/29 but these should I think really be in-line images, as I can't find the Unicode Equivalances (in context) for these. Encoding them as an angle and a 7 seems wrong to me. Thoughts? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that angle marks and square brackets are fine to use here, since they are essentially the right shape. Seven is less ideal, since it doesn't represent a simple angle, nor is it always displayed as such (e.g. sometimes it's crossed), but there's a "turned angle" character which I've substituted for it. However, if you want to find/create a suitable SVG image and use that instead, I think that would be fine. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Turned angle is fine. Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


Hello, anyone know why half of the instrument name is missing?Jpez (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jpez: It may just be too long. This implies to me that staffs need shorter names (e.g. "Flt" for "Flute"). This is just a cursory glance though and I'm not terribly familiar with LilyPond. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jpez: This broken revision is a start. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
It's to do with the automatic margins that Lilypond provides. To fix this we have to adjust the margin with a layout block, which then requires us to use raw="1" and add \header and \midi blocks as well. Because it's quite arcane, I've done it for you. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @Beeswaxcandle:! Also thanks to @Koavf:. Your help was in the right direction.Jpez (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Typo words.[edit]

In re-reading something I found some patterns of missed OCR errors/typos: User:ShakespeareFan00/Typo words

Would someone advise on how to add these to the typoscan script, so that they are appropriately highlighted. (It's a shame that it's not currently possible to have highlighting in the actual edit window, via a per user highlight or check list.). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Missing status colouring[edit]

I'm not seeing the colour coding of individual pages' status on this index page: . Does anyone know how to fix this? Chuntuk (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

This happens from time to time. You just need to null edit the page. BethNaught (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
It's happening more frequently for me now. I sometimes have to make a null edit every ten minutes to restore the status colorings. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Another method is to enable Clock and Purge gadget. This works as well. I've also seen quite a bit lately that the colours have disappeared. Humbug26 (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)