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?

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)

Missing pages & new scan[edit]

I am currently proofreading the book Yorkshire Oddities, Incidents and Strange Events. The available scan is missing pages 12 and 13. I found a new scan on the Internet Archive (same edition and with both missing pages) and uploaded it to Commons (here). As far as I know the next step would be to modify/update the Index page with the new scan, but that task is at the moment beyond my knowledge, so I'd like to request help with it. Also I'd like to know if I can continue proofreading with the existing scan or rather wait for the "new" one. Tromaster (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

If it's the same book, edition etc. you should upload it over the original existing file on commons. You click on Upload a new version of this file under File History. Jpez (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
As Jpez says, upload the new version over the old one at Commons. Because the pages in the current version are doubles of 10 and 11, the new version's pages should slot in neatly into the structure we have at the Index: file. If it doesn't let us know here and one of the Administrators will be able to fix any problems quite easily. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Done here (thanks to both for your help), but for some reason the Index: page of the book still shows the missing/duplicate pages of the "old" scan. Any clues?
I've purged the Commons cache for this file. Try it now. If it's still not right, purge your cache. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, the scan I uploaded previously is now duplicated on Commons (here); could somebody please delete it? (if that's the way it works). Tromaster (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
There should be a link in the toolbox on the left hand side of the screen "Nominate for deletion". Click that and then type the reason into the first box that appears. If you're able to, include a link to the used version so that the admins at Commons can verify what you are telling them. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Done and done, and it works! :) TYVM, Beeswaxcandle. Tromaster (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

How to include a cover image[edit]

See Pulchrism I now have a scan of the cover image itself--a painting uploaded to Commons as c:Jesse Waugh - Beauty Sublime Still.jpg. As you can see in Page 1 the image is underneath the text of the title and author. What is the best way that I can realize this on Wikisource? I know that I can use a z-index to make the text above the image in three dimensions but I don't want to insert a lot of raw CSS/HTML into the page if a template will work just fine. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

{{overfloat image}} is the template you want. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Umm, why aren't you just transcluding the cover image by calling the file with an explicit page=1 parameter? See A Sailor Boy with Dewey for an example where I've done this. If you want the text of the cover to be searchable then use an alt= parameter. i.e. use the KISS principle. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I always transclude the text in these cases; it's a bit more work but I feel it better fits the idea of transcluding the text. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Thanks for the guidance and thanks also for including the text. —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Sheet music[edit]

Can someone who is better than me at LilyPond notation see what I goofed up on the bass clef on this page: Page:Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.djvu/26? I'm thinking that the notes that are throwing it off aren't actually quarter notes, but I can't tell what they're supposed to be otherwise.

Thanks, Mukkakukaku (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mukkakukaku: See here for \autoBeamOff. More documentation is here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
@Koavf: actually I was talking about the two measures associated with the lyrics "blue and green/gold and white". In the original sheet music, on the bass clef, each measure appears to be a quarter-eighth-quarter-eighth series of notes, but that's clearly wrong -- the time is 2/4 and a 4-8-4-8 measure is 4 beats too many. I could try to force the bars into the bass clef notation but I think I'm misreading the original sheet music.
(The autoBeamOff is helpful for the lyrics, but I'm more concerned about my bass clef issue....) Thanks, Mukkakukaku (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
The rhythm is separated into two voices: one 4-4 and the other 8-8-8-8. If I recall correctly this is a pain to encode but I'll see if I can make any headway. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Have a look at User:Beeswaxcandle/Sandbox3 where I've done this bit and simplified some of your coding. Also, the grace notes are acciaccatura rather than appogiatura. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Cannot float image properly[edit]

There is something wrong with the image at the bottom of this page Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 54.djvu/735 that it won't display properly in the container. Can someone please look at it? Thanks. — Ineuw talk 02:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. — Ineuw talk 06:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

reflist liststyle lower-alpha[edit]

my page is Page:The Holy Bible faithfvlly translated into English ovt of the authentical Latin, diligently conferred with the Hebrew, Greek, & other Editions in diuers languages.pdf/69 There doesn't seem to be anything I can do to get the footnote references to be in alphabetical characters. According to the help page on {{reflist}}, I think this should work: {{reflist|liststyle=lower-alpha}}. But it doesn't. I've tried dozens of variations to see what might work but I can't get anything other than the default numbers. Could someone have a look and see if I'm doing anything wrong with the templates? I suspect it might be a bug in the wikisource software, because I feel like I've tried every possible combination. DavidPorter65 (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@DavidPorter65: Because we do not try to replicate referencing in that style, instead we have a standard referencing across the site. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: It's in the template documentation. Are you saying it's a design decision for it not to work, in spite of it being in the template documentation? DavidPorter65 (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
That documentation was imported from enWP and hasn't been updated. :-( Generally you are more likely to find {{smallrefs}} used than "reflist". It is one of those ugly beasts that has been reimported from enWP and nobody has had the inclination to shake that cage. We have one referencing style. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@DavidPorter65: I agree with you, but if you follow the links to the articles which are linked to the template, they are all main namespace standalone works (not transcluded from the Page namespace), or the Author namespace. We don't have Wikipedia's abundance of programmers who would be able to give you a definitive answer if it's possible to do, or not, let alone undertake to adapt the template. The only thing I can do for now, is place a note on the template page to this effect. — Ineuw talk 04:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that your default browser styling uses decimal styling by default. They worked around this in enWP by adding the following rule to ... load.php I think:
div.reflist ol.references {
    /* removed some other rules not relevant to this example */
The list-style-type:inherit effectively tells the html ordered list element within the reflist to use the list style that its parent is using (the parent being which is the block you configure using the {{reflist}} template.) If someone were to update the site's CSS to include the rule above and then it'll magically start working again. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 09:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
@Mukkakukaku: Did you somewhere miss the comment that this is not a style that we wish used at Wikisource? So do you think that anyone would add it to our common style? The previous discussion wherever/whenever it was addressed the fact that 1) we convert works from footnotes to endnotes in transclusion, and 2) in many cases we will end up with more than 26 references. There is no need to replicate or have alphabetical referencing, and this would align with the guidance at Wikisource:Style guide and Help:References. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
No, I was ignoring it. I got curious as to why it would work in one place and not the other even though the template was -- and still is -- exactly the same on both enWS and enWP.
Also we do use something similar. See Page:Hamlet - The Arden Shakespeare - 1899.djvu/36. Using two sets of reflists, one with alpha and the other with decimal, or one with decimal and the other with lower roman, would be much less confusing than this mess. There's other places too where we have "grouped" reflists, but this is the only one I can remember off the top of my head. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Another example is Bible (Webster's)/ObadiahBeleg Tâl (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Index pages missing in special:IndexPages[edit]

I am from the sanskrit wikisource. There we observe that several index pages (181 present in here) do not appear in special:IndexPages. This leads to people being misled. Can you help us understand and rectify this problem? Vishvas vasuki (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Vishvas vasuki: The tool was developed by our colleagues in French Wikisource, so it may be more worthwhile asking them. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the lead! I've asked there. Vishvas vasuki (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)