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?

Aaron's Rod: scan choice[edit]

I'm looking to upload a scan for Aaron's Rod by D.H. Lawrence. The one linked on the author page is the British first edition. However IA also has the first American edition. As with other Lawrence works, Aaron's Rod was censored. Can I have advice on which would be better to transcribe – less censored – please? This Google book looks useful but it won't show me enough pages: [1]. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

If they're both public domain, then the ideal scenario would be to get both... but if you have to pick one, I'd say go with the one you would prefer to work on, or with the one that is more notable, whichever is more important to you. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Both Seltzer (American editor) and Secker (English editor) made extensive cuts without consulting Lawrence, who was visiting Ceylon at the time. They did so independently but most of the cuts are the more-or-less the same. The biggest differences are that Secker cut an extra passage from Chapter 10 (critical of the Royal family) and another from Chapter 17 (discussion about friendship and love). So though neither edition can possibly be considered authoritative, I'd be inclined to consider the American edition that little bit more intact. Hesperian 03:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the useful information, Hesperian. The American edition is now at Index:Aaron's Rod, Lawrence, New York 1922.djvu. BethNaught (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Mass reset of status[edit]

I added the following, cleaning up the OCR scans: Index:Zodiac stories by Blanche Mary Channing.pdf

Having read every single line a concern was expressed that I was still missing scan glitches, and that it shouldn't have been marked as proofread until it was 100% clean.

So can someone reset the status of this, until someone that can meet the standard now required reviews it?

I'm considering if I carry on contributing, if I apparently lack the capability to spot scan glitches. 21:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC) previous comment by ShakespeareFan00

I never said it should be 100% clean, and I have never done so. I know that would be hypocritical. Also, please don't do anything rash. It's clear from your talk page that you have ongoing projects which are valued (such as Cassell). BethNaught (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Cassel Vol1 is another one of concern, I was finding typographical errors, all over the place, which given that I read this line by line in places when validating, gives me some concerns about how many other pages got "speed-read" for obvious errors and not more subtle ones..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Listening to advice about our proofreading and our rate of proofreading may cause us to reflect and internally wince. We should be aware of our foibles and reflect on the required accuracy and thoroughness, rather than churn. I know that I will read the text, then "read" for the formatting (italics, emdashes, fractions, pound signs, spaces around quotes, para breaks, ...), then save it and review for the things that I missed — the typeface difference will often show extra bits (ie. letter l versus number 1). Of course with ocr/djvu processing if an error happens once, it will often happen multiple times in the same work, so for long works a post-it note of a mini-checklist per work is valuable. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
PS. it is possible to have a bot run through and reset the page status, though only really possible back to non-proofread as the proofreader needs to match the editor in the higher page status. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I was a few years ago, doing what I termed OCR cleanup when creating a new page, and was more than happy with this, but someone left me talk page comments suggesting that I should be marking them as proofread. I was slightly unhappy about doing that for precisely the reasons raised most recently (unspotted scan glitches.).
I've commented elsewhere that I see transcription as a 3 stage process.
  1. 1 Clean up pages -> Text entered (marked as non-proofread or problem accordingly) -> On completion text is at 99% correct
  2. 2 Proofreading -> Text is checked -> On completion text is 100% non-printer errors, all images formatting etc. -> Page that can be validated
  3. 3 Validation -> Page that can be transcluded and needs no further obvious corrections.
I'd prefer to concentrate on Stage 1, rather than on a combined Stage 1&2 as most people consider it.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally, when I validate, I expect to find and fix an error around about every one to three pages. When I find fewer than that, I'm very impressed. When I find multiple errors per page, I am unimpressed with the proofreading, and may be inclined to give the proofreader some feedback on their performance. It's hard to give that feedback well i.e. constructively and without giving needless offence. I've had a look at the discussion, and in my opinion BethNaught gave it well enough. S/he has raised a reasonable concern in a manner that was assertive, but not aggressive or rude. Hesperian 02:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Having read part of several discussions on ShakespeareFan00's talkpage, I see a lot of expectations of near perfection, and lack of good faith. Maybe warranted, maybe not, but it appears that (the royal) you are near to driving away an active contributor. As far as the level of errors on a "proofread" page, it would depend on the work. For short pages (1-3 kb or so per page) starting from relatively good OCR, with little formatting other than titles and the odd italic, 1 per 1-3 pages is fine. I tend to work on works with longer pages (3-25kb+) starting from very poor OCR, with dozens of corrections per page (occasionally a complete retype), lots of formatting, columned text and/or sidenotes. I try to keep it to less than 3 errors per page, but I may or may not be successful. I don't worry too much about it, since that is the whole point of validation. Heck, I get bored if I'm validating a work and the proofreader has done too good of a job. --T. Mazzei (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I think that we are asking for a little more investment of time per page. The rate of proofreading has an impact on accuracy, and some users should slow their rate. I believe that we are only trying to apply the same rigour that we apply to ourselves. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Nd/GPO and relations[edit]

Nominally taking a break from editing here, but spotted a mistake in how this handles alternate/additional styles. Would appreciate someone reviewing this with a view to fixing a logical error on my part. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see anything specifically wrong with it, but I simplified it so if it still doesn't work it should be easier to address. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


(Nominally on break) but querying something...

Why do {{left sidenote}} and {{Right sidenote}} exist alongside {{Outside L}}{{outside R}} which use a different approach?

It would be nice to have one approach to recommend on new efforts. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression (based mostly on discussions I have read between you and User:George Orwell III) that sidenotes do not work well in general and therefore a one-size-fits-all approach would be both futile and unwise. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I set up "outside L" and "outside RL", to stop the presentation of the saw tooth effect of L/R/L/R sidenotes. Also to note that templates have to behave differently in main ns to page ns, and they have different wrapping methods.

The sidenotes templates have morphed in their development, and we truly have a mess that needs to be fixed as it is all still problematic, especially where the bleeding mongrels overlap due to page width. Sidnotes are ugly ugly ugly to try and reproduce though they are very useful tool for long works where different points get raised. We need someone really css savvy to help us, and that is a long-standing issue. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem with sidenotes started when the flexible template implementation was rolled into the relatively inflexible dynamic layouts. The solution is not to try to come up with a "one size fits all solution" as that presupposes there is only one proper way of displaying sidenotes. The proper solution is to allow (sophisticated) users to override the dynamic template css definitions. I.e., within the dynamic_layout_overrider tag you should be able to define a custom css definition specifically for that page per Help:Layout#How_to_write_dynamic_layouts. When navigating to the page, dynamic layouts would add the custom layout for that page, and set it as default. Navigating away from the page, dynamic layouts should return your original layout 1/2/3 default. In this way, we would only need 2 "sidenote" templates (left & right), editors could set up the css to display as makes sense for the work, users visiting the page would see the work laid out as intended, but could still switch to a different layout if desired.--T. Mazzei (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Source does not appear[edit]

Hello. On the following pages Page:Coubertin - France since 1814, 1900.djvu/7 Page:Coubertin - France since 1814, 1900.djvu/11, the source does not appear on my screen. Is it an issue with the Source file ? Thanks. Hektor (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It appears correct to me; it may be your browser or your user preferences. Does it work in another browser? Does it work if you are logged out? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@Hektor: Are you looking for a tab /source\? The source file is accessed through following the /index\ tab as it is the Index: namespace file. I am seeing it there. The source tab is from main namespace to index page, and I cannot even remember why they are different ... "hysterical" reasons (?) — billinghurst sDrewth 22:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Prefatory note[edit]

Hello. Other question. The PREFATORY NOTE of France since 1814 does not appear in the table of contents. What are the rules relative to adding sections which are not listed in the original Table of Contents ? Thanks. Hektor (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

If the prefatory note is short, I would put it on the main page with the TOC and so forth, as I did with the foreword to The Venerable Don Bosco, the Apostle of Youth. If it is too long for this, I would just leave it out of the TOC and use only the "next" and "previous" fields of the header, as I did with the introduction to 10 of Woody Guthrie's Songs. Finally, if there were many such pages that do not appear in the TOC, I would probably make use of {{AuxTOC}} to list them on the main page just above the TOC. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
These days we have usually included other preliminary pages onto the root page of a work. It is usual for (nearly) all pages to be transcluded, rather than just have the ToC alone on the root page. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Small formatting error[edit]

Centering For some reason when Page:Pulchrism - Championing Beauty as the Purpose of Art.pdf/17 is transcluded into Pulchrism: Championing Beauty as the Purpose of Art, the image is not centered. Every other page is fine except this one... Thoughts? Also, this is a very short work--is anyone willing to validate it? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest Page:Pulchrism - Championing Beauty as the Purpose of Art.pdf/16 is lacking a {{nop}}? AuFCL (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
@AuFCL: That didn't do the trick but thanks. Any other ideas? —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Well all looks good—now—from my point of view; so unless you made further edits, perhaps it was merely a caching issue? AuFCL (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
@AuFCL: Yes! I tried to Ctrl+Shift+R to refresh but maybe that didn't do it. Thanks again. Would you like to validate a page or two? If so, I can happily take a look at a few pages of something you are working on now. (For what it's worth, I have also asked the author to give me a scan of the cover image without copy so I can use that for the cover.) —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
... Is the license on this thing OK? I don't have access to OTRS, but the description just says that the relicensing as CC-BY-4.0 has been forwarded to OTRS, and nothing as to whether it was vetted, accepted, etc.
Then again I guess that's a question for commons and not for here. I'll finish the validation in the next hour. Mukkakukaku (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
@Mukkakukaku: Thanks a lot. As I mentioned on Commons, he has declared the work re-licensed on his site. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Transcribing sections, 'tosection' doesn't seem to work?[edit]

So this is something I've noticed before. I'm not sure if it's a caching issue or what, but generally if I use a "fromsection" in the pages widget, it works, and then using the same label in the subsequent "tosection", it doesn't.

See, for example, this chapter which seems to be ignoring the "tosection" (the bottom part starting with 'Case Study of Another Artist in Practice' and beyond). And then the subsequent chapter, which uses the identical label in the "fromsection" and works perfectly.

I had the exact same thing happen on another set of chapters in this same work -- the fromsection worked fine, and the tosection didn't.

Anybody know what's going on? Am I using this widget wrong, is it caching, or what? I tried renaming the section and that didn't help -- the fromsection picked up the new name immediately and the tosection stubbornly refused to work. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Fixed (I hope): Page: edit, mainspace edit. The tosection parameter doesn't take you up to the ## label; it transcludes up to and including the section said label defines. Hence you need to put two ## labels on your page, so you can put the first one in your tosection parameter. BethNaught (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
... So Help:Transclusion is wrong? Mukkakukaku (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
What is missing is the section name at the beginning of the Chapter 3. When using EasyLST even sections that start at the top of page require a section marker. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

A word with a nonexistent (Swedish) character[edit]

THIS PAGE has the word Swedish "Osar" with a ring on top of the O, but it isn't in the Swedish character set. I know that Unicode symbols can be combined, but I was unsuccessful. Otherwise, the page is proofread. — Ineuw talk 07:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia page on the ring diacritic, the O with ring is this letter: O̊. Depending on the font, the ring renders either above the O or slightly to the right (like a degree symbol.) Mukkakukaku--(talk) 07:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I was unable to find any information on if the diacritic exists, but I think I’m able to mimic it: O̊ Marjoleinkl (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah, Mukkakukaku ’s comment wasn’t here when I added mine I promise! Marjoleinkl (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both. — Ineuw talk 04:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

(Yet more) <poem> tag goofiness[edit]

There's a multi-page poem transcribed here. The second page renders fine, but the first page actually shows the <poem> tag and the formatting's all goofy. I poked it, and now it works right in page namespace, but it still doesn't work in main namespace. What gives? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I brought the poem tag into the body as opposed to the footer, and added a break for stanza break rendering in the Main. There may be a better solution; I rarely use the poem tag any more. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
It almost seems like it's more trouble than it's worth. Poems transcribed across pages with the closing </poem> in the footer used to work, but apparently it broke at some point so there's probably others of these goofy transclusions in other places. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Umm, <poem> has never worked broken between body and <noinclude> (ie. footer or header) tags in my time here, so I think that you are mistaken. You simply need to close a poem and reopen a poem on the next page, there is no value or need to leave it open. It should continue along fine. If you need a stanza break, you should put in a couple of hard returns and poke in a {{nop}} inside the poem close. Has worked well for me for years now. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
It worked like that a looong time ago. Like maybe 2008? Ish? Anyway, it's not important.
Stanza break on a page break only works if you put a nop before the closing poem tag on the first page, and another nop after the opening poem tag on the subsequent page. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 07:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
It is not my experience that there is a nop needed on the subsequent page, though whatever works for the works to get them to display appropriately. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

French handwritten text[edit]

Could someone help to understand the handwritten test in Page:Pierre and Jean - Clara Bell - 1902.djvu/306? Thanks— Mpaa (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mpaa: oeuvres appartiennent means "work belongs", or something like that, from memory. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
"I've made myself an abolute law to never allow my portrait to be published at any time, if I can help it. Exceptions have not taken place except by surprise. Our works belong to the public, but not our images." —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks.— Mpaa (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
A minor correction, 'nos figures' in this context means "our [private] lives". — Ineuw talk 05:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Translating Classical Text[edit]

Catullus, The Poems

I have read the style guides and quite a bit of help, but much of it is beyond my understanding. I only just discovered Wikisource and went directly to the translation of the Roman poet Catullus. I have been translating his poems from Latin for some time and commented in the talk area. When there was no response I jumped in with a translation of one of his poems (23) which hadn't been translated in Wikisource previously.

Having now read proposed policy on translations, I realise that my translation is an attempt to create a modern English version that is faithful to his meaning, but not literal, whereas the existing translation apparently tries to be literal (although not too successfully). In my ignorance I completely rewrote the existing version of Poem 1, instead of trying to correct the literal version.

I'd like to know how to start a new translation version of Catullus into English which might be enjoyable to readers today, but don't understand the instructions of how to do it. In fact my translation of poem 23 came out as prose, even though I tried to break the lines appropriately. Is there any chance I can still contribute usefully?

Don Martin 19 (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Don Martin 19: you have done well. I would advise you, if you wish, to continue to correct the ones that are wrong, and to fill in the ones that are missing. You will see that there are many red links at Translation:The poems of Catullus, which are ones yet to be created. And don't worry if your translation isn't perfect! Someone else can always come in and correct it later :)
Regarding breaking lines properly in poetry: the easiest way to do it is to surround the text with <poem>text goes here</poem> tags. This will automatically put a line break at the end of every line. Alternatively, you can manually put <br> at the end of each line to cause the new line. The latter option gives you more control, especially if the poem is more complex, but is probably not necessary in this case.
Thanks for your contributions, and have fun! —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Journal of Peer Production[edit]

Hello! I am wondering if the Journal of Peer Production is appropriate to include in Wikisource. It is a public domain compilation of academic, peer-reviewed journal articles published in Issues set around individual themes. Q2Pz (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Q2Pz: Our policy on What Wikisource includes states the following: "Scientific research is acceptable to include in Wikisource if the work has verifiable scholarly peer review from a trusted entity. The work must be free or released under a free license, which precludes most works already commercially published under an agreement that prohibits republishing." Based on a perusal of the Journal of Peer Production, it would appear to have verifiable peer review, and the articles are public domain, so I see no objection to hosting them here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Scans don't display or appear in miniature[edit]

What process prevents the scan from being displayed when I open a page for editing? In case of if they appear as a miniature, I click on <Edit> and it corrects itself, but if the screen of the original scan is empty, I am unable to bring it up. I purged the index page on several occasions, but that doesn't help. — Ineuw talk 18:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Has the "Scan resolution in edit mode" been set to a value on the Index page? It should be blank except for some very few edge cases; I find that if I can't see the page scans this is usually the culprit -- the value needs to be completely blank, not just a 0. What work(s) do you see this problem on? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Mukkakukaku, First, I also looked there and it was empty, then I changed it 0 and that didn't work, so I cleared out again. I do remember that at one time it was 999 (am I correct?). — Ineuw talk 21:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
P.S: The problem is on the commons. I can't refresh the volume there. — Ineuw talk 21:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
That property is supposed to be blank by default. In very rare cases it's set to address zoom/display issues. If it's accidentally set when it shouldn't be, it causes all sorts of weird display problems.
What file is it that you're having problems with? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Mukkakukaku: Sorry, missed this post, but I know what you mean, I've had this problem before and the I checked the field which is empty Index:Popular_Science_Monthly_Volume_54.djvu it may be OK today?, Just open the un-proofread pages sequentially in edit mode. If you encounter a problem, then check the same on the commons, that how I saw that the problem is not here. — Ineuw talk 05:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I have this same problem sporadically, and none of the proposed solutions accounts for the instances I've experienced. Today, for example, while editing in Index:Four Plays of Aeschylus (Cookson).djvu, I could not bring up page 114 (djvu page 126). Other pages from the same text have been fine, so it is not a file or resolution issue. Going to the file itself at Commons, I could get the page to show if I refreshed, but the page image was lost again when I came back here. I am not experiencing that problem with that page at the moment, but I am on a different computer than before. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I have the identical problem, some pages work and some don't. Also it took ages to refresh the page on the Commons. — Ineuw talk 05:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Custom code for enhanced toolbar buttons no longer work[edit]

User:Londonjackbooks/common.js has some custom code which places buttons for various wiki tools but they no longer work. This was created by User:George Orwell III some time ago. I ask anyone who is familiar with this code to take a look at it. Perhaps User:Hesperian would be so kind? Thanks. — Ineuw talk 19:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

To recap my issue, please refer to Nutshell. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I should have the headspace on the weekend to look at this. Hesperian 05:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Weird error[edit]

This error: Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{". appears to have been introduced with this edit. Any ideas what's causing it? -Pete (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

PD-1923 vice PD/1923 Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Yep. {{PD/1923}} requires a parameter, the year of author's death. If it's this J. J. Walton then you may as well use {{PD-old}} instead. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. Seems quite likely that's the same JJ Walton, thanks for finding that. -Pete (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

User images[edit]

I unearthed an image from my childhood that I would like to use on my WS User page in place of Jack London's image. It was taken by one of my parents (you see the back of my head, with the city of Segovia in the background) back in the 70's. I was wondering what kind of permission I would need, licensing info, etc. Preferably keep it local (WS only). Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

nvm... I have inquired at Commons, and will need to go through the consent process. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Help with sidenotes[edit]

Page:Douay_Rheims_Bible_1635_edition.pdf/4 has sidenotes, but I hate how it looks and it seems like too much markup to control it. I know my css and everything, but do I have to repeat it for each {{{{sidenote}}}}?, and I'm not even sure exactly where it goes. Please compare this with Page:Douay_Rheims_Bible_1635_edition.pdf/3 where I've used a table to try and copy the way the page looks. I don't know if the {{{{rule}}}} at bottom and top is the right way to go. So two main questions: 1) Should I try the table method, or the sidenotes, or do you have a better idea? Secondly, if table or sidenotes, what can I do to get it formatted better? DavidPorter65 (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Because this is just one page of the forward and you will want the text to be continuous, I suggest that "To the English Reader" needs to in the header field and the run-on word should be in the footer field. The notes on the right hand side look like the kind of thing that's usually done in footnotes today, so I suggest you do those that way. That would just leave the real sidenotes on the left. At present we have no better way of doing sidenotes, particularly as we can't predict what size screen readers will view the text on. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

About URAA restoration of works having unclear status on the URAA date[edit]

Hi to all! I am again asking about URAA restoration issues. From Uruguay_Round_Agreements_Act/Title_V, SEC. 514. RESTORED WORKS:

"(h) DEFINITIONS.-For purposes of this section and section 109(a): 
"(6) The term restored work means an original work of authorship that

    "(A) is protected under subsection (a);
    "(B) is not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection;

I am wondering: how the point (B) is applied to a case when some foreign work has unclear copyright status on its URAA date? That is, because of some incompleteness of the copyright laws of the source country which were in force on that date, the work fell into some "grey zone" which was not covered by the copyright laws of that time, and accordingly it is unclear and undefined whether the work was copyrighted on the URAA date or not. How the point (B) should be treated in this case? Are such works restored and become considered copyrighted in the US; or not restored and get into PD in the US; or their copyright status in the US, similarly to the source country, becomes undefined as well? --Nigmont (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Ultimately, a court in the source nation, if given the question, would conclude that the work is or isn't copyrighted in that nation, and if the case had never been litigated in the source nation, a US court would basically have to rule on that issue first. If we can't clearly say that it was PD in the original country, we can't clearly say that it is PD in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarifying (and I bring my apologizes for the mistakes in the text of my post above). --Nigmont (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopædia questions[edit]

Where's the best place to ask a question regarding one of the encyclopedias or dictionaries? Like Encyclopædia Brittanica, or the Dictionary of National Biography? Would it be on Scriptorium, or somewhere specific to those projects? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd ask on the index talk page and on the Wikiproject if one exists; if there's no response I'd bring it to the Scriptorium. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
@Mukkakukaku: Those projects each have project pages, so if it is specific to a project and belongs in the archives of those pages, then ask there. Or if it is more general then asking here is fine (I don't think that we have ever been that perturbed on that formality). I wouldn't be asking on the index talk pages, too many volumes, too hard. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Help! scan page in over/under editing mode is broken.[edit]

The scan page window in over/under edit mode displays the full page size . . . hundreds of pixels high, and no scrolling possible. Could this be the unintended result of work done on the "mediawiki/extensions/ProofreadPage/modules/page/"

Side by side mode works properly. Problem is the same in both Firefox and Google Chrome/Chromium, in Windows and Linux. — Ineuw talk 00:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm getting this error also. I don't think the recent change (task T145365 you mean?) to has been put into production yet. Do you regularly use the top/bottom view? Has it just broken? Sam Wilson 03:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Ditto here [Ff 48.0,2, W10, monobook]. I use it occasionally, and last I remember using it (and without this bug) was 2-3 weeks ago. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Samwilson: & @Billinghurst: I always use over under editing, can't edit otherwise. It was OK last night. Spent the day replacing the browsers, completely new installs, but my problem exists in both the French and the Spanish Wikisources. Wikipedia is OK. So, I am lost. — Ineuw talk 04:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Just tried monobook, and it's the same problem. I am using the standard FF version 49, Windiws 7. — Ineuw talk 05:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
And wmf software was updated 09:52, 19 September 2016. — Ineuw talk 05:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Billinghurst, @Ineuw: I'm confused! :) (Nobody panic, it's not unusual.) The last update to proofreadpage here was 06:24, September 4, 2016, so why's it all kaput now? Anyway, I'm seeing the same issue with vertical layout when using proofreadpage master. So that's strange. Still, seems like the fix is simple: to set the image height after ensureImageZoomInitialization() rather than before. Related is phab:T145923 which is about changing the height of the text box when in vertical mode; I've got a patch you can look at. Sam Wilson 06:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
It also doesn't seem to remember horizontal/vertical mode between pages. Has that broken too? Sam Wilson 07:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Clearly I'm a special snowflake (again), but it works fine for me. Scan resolution is OK, zoom in/out works, can scroll around.... Firefox 48.0.2 on Windows 10. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Samwilson: Beg to differ. "" has been rolled out and is most likely the source of the problem. — Ineuw talk 16:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Interestingly, the correct layout flashes by before it flies away. — Ineuw talk 17:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Mukkakukaku: are you referring to over/under proofreading mode, using which skin? — Ineuw talk 18:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes. I use default monobook skin with no modifications/customization. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: It seems that I am blocked from phabricator/maniphest is this so? — Ineuw talk 18:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ineuw: I figured that file must've been updated. But how did you determine that? Where does one look? Maybe it was a manual fix just for ENWS? Also, that the layout flashes first is probably correct, as the smaller height of the image is being set, and then immediately increased again by the zooming tool. I've got a patch in that fixes it. Sam Wilson 23:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
This post is split between two different issues. Zooming and over/under editing. The patch to correct one problem may be related, but I am more interested in comments by those who use over/under editing. Zooming has never been a problem for me. — Ineuw talk 16:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
You're right, there are two issues:
# Phabricator:T145365 Zoom and image move commands not loading properly: "Uncaught Error: cannot call methods on prpZoom prior to initialization"
# Phabricator:T145923 Need to reduce nsPage body edit box height in horizontal view
I sort of think that fixing the first caused the second. I've added the 'tracked' template above to link to the second, because although that's about the height of the editing box, the height of the image is related and I think we can reasonably fix the two in one fell swoop. (Although, let's also take to mind what @Alex brollo said in the latter ticket about more thorough testing of changes prior to rollout!) Sam Wilson 02:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@Samwilson:, Thanks for the links to Phabricator. I am following the conversations. — Ineuw talk 06:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)