From Wikisource
(Redirected from Wikisource:S)
Jump to: navigation, search
The Scriptorium is Wikisource's community discussion page. Feel free to ask questions or leave comments. You may join any current discussion or start a new one. Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel webclient. For discussion related to the entire project (not just the English chapter), please discuss at the multilingual Wikisource.



This section can be used by any person to communicate Wikisource-related and relevant information; it is not restricted. Generally announcements won't have discussion, or it will be minimal, so if a discussion is relevant, often add another section to Other with a link in the announcement to that section.

An interesting article about font history[edit]

An article from the London Review of Books.Ineuw talk 04:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I always liked the style of Fraktur and its related fonts. However after reading the above article I am now confused as to whether that makes me a pawn of the Jews; the anti-semetic pro-nazi propagandists or maybe something even worse? Damn all politics for attempting to interfere with personal aesthetics. AuFCL (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
ווהו תהא פעק קנוזHebrew transliteration for "Who the f**k knows"Ineuw talk 18:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


Move the authority control template to the bottom-most position[edit]

I think it's reasonable to move the {{authority control}} information to the bottom-most position (where the license templates are located) for its being not a part of the book content, so it shouldn't be located within the {{header}} bars and should not change its size when one changes the page layout.--Nonexyst (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The AC bar should have been doing that in the mainspace along with the copyright license banners for some time now but in trying to match the recent changes made to the Navbox LUA module (the module invoked by the AC template) on Wikipedia, it seems that I inadvertently stopped that behavior in the process. It should be restored now - please verify; thanks. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I verified, all seems to be fine. --Nonexyst (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Template and its documentation deletion proposal[edit]

I propose that this template with its documentation be deleted. Its history shows no links to articles or pages, was created in 2012, and superseded by the {{FIS}} template.— Ineuw talk 23:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please make your proposal at WS:Proposed deletions. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Though if it is predominantly yours, and not used after these years, just go ahead and delete it. Though as rightly says that deletion requests belong at this other page — billinghurst sDrewth 14:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Deletion is done and in the future will do as instructed.— Ineuw talk 04:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
@Ineuw:Don't forget to clean up the (now orphan) ex-template documentation. AuFCL (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, my guide and mentor, and I don`t say this facetiously.— Ineuw talk 21:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Split the scriptorium?[edit]

Perhaps this has been discussed before (I couldn't find anything in the archives) but wouldn't this page be better off being split with a dedicated subpage for each of the current sections e.g. a separate bot approvals page? It might be just me but it seems to take a bit longer to load this page than similar pages elsewhere. Green Giant (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

BOT approval requests[edit]

request for bot flag on account SHSPbot[edit]

I have been working with user Maury on developing a script to automate cleaning up the Southern Historical Society Papers (volumes 9-52) with help from users Mpaa and Beeswaxcandle. I've had pretty good luck on Vols. 35-37 just running the script under my id, but Mpaa has suggested that I should create a bot request. If I understand the procedure correctly, I've created a new id, SHSPbot, and I am now placing my request for the bot flag here.

Here's what the bot does: read the djvu file for the corresponding SHSP volume, identify and analyse the main text of the volume (ignore TOC and Index), then create wikitext that has correctly formatted running headers, article titles, sub-titles, and other minor formatting such as right-justified signatures. In addition it removes superfluous line-breaks and unhyphenates all hyphenated words, including words split across pages using the hws/hwe tags (this was the initial purpose of the bot). It usually correctly identifies hyphenated phrases and leaves those alone. LBNL, using the pywikibot module it uploads the corrected text to the wikisource server. This bot will only be used on the Southern Historical Society Papers volumes, although I hope that one day the script may be usable on other djvu-sourced wiki texts.

The SHSP series has suffered a lull in activity in part due to the length of the series and the amount of time it takes to correct the formatting and spelling of each page. There is spell-checking (with enchant) but all proposed spell-checks are displayed to the user for review and correction before the changes are applied, and a SHSP-specific dictionary is being built and expanded with each volume added to take into account the peculiarities of spelling from that era and region. The bot operates one page at a time and is launched from my PC, using a range of pages a for loop (e.g., for i in range(16,65)). Currently, pywikibot seems to default to a 9-second sleep interval (roughly 6 pages per minute) when running under my id. I try not to upload more than 60 corrected pages at a time.

There have been no major misadventures to date (I had to revert about 30 pages in an early run, "power tools are dangerous!", but nothing so drastic since then). I am coordinating with user Maury and setting the page ranges to avoid overwriting any pages that have already been proofread or validated. If additional information is needed, please comment here or on my talk page, where progress on the script has been discussed. Thanks for any assistance or feedback, Dictioneer (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I hope that any fully automated edits are saved with "Not proofread" status? Hesperian
    • Hesperian: Every page gets proofread and validated by human eyes just like all other books here. Is that fully automated? Those SHSP volumes have been sitting untouched for years. We also do not have "52 volumes" here. —Maury (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
      • If the bot runs through and creates a batch of pages with text that has not been reviewed by a human prior to saving, then that is "fully automated", and those edits should be saved with "Not proofread" status. If, on the other hand, a human reviews each proposed edit before it is saved, then that is not "fully automated" and I have no problem with edits being saved with "proofread" status... and I also do not see a need for a bot flag. Hesperian 02:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I suggested the request for a bot flag due to the large number of pages involved, so recent changes would be clean. But if it does not matter to others, it is fine with me as well.— Mpaa (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
      • If I understand Hesperian's question, when I pull up the page in wikisource after the bot has run, it's message is "This page needs to be proofread." I go through the page and mark it proofread. With the script automating the formatting, my proofread time goes from around 4 minutes to under 1 minute, so it saves me hours over the course of a single volume. Sorry about overestimating the size of SHSP, Maury, I was just going by what I thought I saw on the main index page, I now see that only Vols. 1-40 are tagged 'transcription project' and I believe Vols. 1-9 are already done. This series is far more useful as a searchable set of proofread volumes than as a casual browsing resource, so I hope that the bot request can be approved.Dictioneer (talk) 02:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
If I understood Hesperian's comment, it is OK also to save the page directly as "Proofread" as long as you (a human ... :-) ) have reviewed the page you are going to save. I.e. you have reviewed the page offline in the file you're going to upload. If you choose to do so, you should be careful to set the correct status code and user in the page header text.
If you use pywikibot/, you can choose upload interval with flag -pt:n (where n is secs). For the summary, please use "/* Not Proofread */ some text" (or "/* Proofread */") so it gets the proper section header marking. — Mpaa (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
There are 52 volumes of the Southern Historical Society's Papers but we do not have them all on Wikisource. —Maury (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I hadn't known until these comments that you could change a page's status with a bot, although it makes sense when you and Hesperian say so, Mpaa! :) I'm at least half-human (but is the other half Klingon, or Vulcan?) so I think I could mark the page proofread (I'll have a look where you've pointed me and see if the procedure/flag makes sense) and also double-check with Maury to see if he's OK with that (he's been the validator thus far). If I've read the policy correctly, I'd still like SHSPbot to get the bot flag, so I'm hoping none of this discussion negates that. Thanks for the input and have a good weekend! Dictioneer (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
"If I understood Hesperian's comment,".... - Oh, I guess didn't. *I* am the only human here. All others are aliases, bots, and scripts running wikisource. Techs & aliases are taking over the world and already have Wikisource. All Wiki-Sourceres are gone to dust except me. I am reminded of a human, "John Carter", fighting off the machines (Terminators) in his futuristic world but we humans are losing the world of humans to technology using aliases. I am the only human I know of here. —Maury (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dictioneer: To clarify … the bot will not be amending any existing proofread status, and if it is creating a page (using the djvu stipping part of pywiki) that it will be allocating the not-proofread status? — billinghurst sDrewth 08:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You are correct: the script does not and has not ever even by accident changed the status of a modified page to "proofread" (I didn't realize that was possible until this discussion). If subsequent volumes go well, I can imagine coming here in the future and asking for that permission, but for now all it does is upload an updated text page, and it only selects for pages that are below "proofread" status. Hope this answers your inquiry, Dictioneer (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support For the running of trials and then making the assessment. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

request for bot flag on account KasparBot[edit]

I want to perform the same task as on enwiki, frwiki, dawiki, mkwiki, jawiki, kowiki and cswiki, huwiki, bewiki in future. The bot will #1 move authority control information (Template:Authority control) to wikidata and replace the template with a blank {{Authority control}} (see w:en:Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KasparBot), #2 add {{Authority control}} to pages with authority control information on wikidata but without a local template transclusion on bewiki (see w:en:Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KasparBot 2). It uses my own Java framework. The bot's tasks are coordinated at Wikidata:WikiProject Authority control/Status. Regards, -- T.seppelt (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you make a consistency check between local and wikidata info? If so, what if the two are different? Do you skip the page or who wins?— Mpaa (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I skip the page. All problems will be tracked at a special section at the bot's tool. Regards, -- T.seppelt (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mpaa: I could make same test edits. Do you agree? --T.seppelt (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

ok for meMpaa (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@Mpaa: done. I didn't notice any mistakes. -- T.seppelt (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mpaa:, @BirgitteSB:, @Hesperian:, @Zhaladshar: Nothing happens here. Do you want to me to hand in any information or do some more test edits? By the way, you can see the estimated edits of this bot at [1]. Kind regards, -- T.seppelt (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't really add a flag because there is not really any consensus. I don't know enough about authority control to really weigh in on this. I'm hoping enough people who do can put together a consensus so that I know whether I can flag the account or not.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)|
I'd need to know more about this to say, but it looks as though the test edits were all done in the Author namespace. Will the bot's edits be limited to the Author namespace? The stated scope of the bot's edits is very vague. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The bot looks at all pages in Category:Pages using authority control with parameters. User pages won't be affected because they usually don't have Wikidata items. You can inspect the estimated edits at the bot's tool page. Kind regards, --T.seppelt (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


Language help[edit]

From time to time, I do the proofreading of Index:A History of Hindu Chemistry Vol 1.djvu. This work frequently has quotations and footnotes in Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, French and German. I have done the proofreading as best I could, but would appreciate if someone knowledgeable in languages could do some checking. Hrishikes (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hrishikes, if you add the template {{greek missing}} to any Greek text you may find I'll add it for you. I can't help with the other languages though. Jpez (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Jpez: I had just gone ahead and put the text there, so right now I can't remember where the Greek words are; however, in another of my projects, you can help with the footnotes on this and this page and other pages. Thanks in advance. Hrishikes (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I also keep an eye on Category:Pages with missing Greek characters, so anything tagged with {{greek missing}} will be gotten to eventually. I can help with Latin and French too if/whenever there is a list of problematic passages. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
So that explains why when I make my weekly visit to this category it's empty these days. Thanks for doing this. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of which, would it not be prudent to make Category:Problematic language templates for common Latin-alphabet languages, for precisely this reason? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
We've avoided doing this, because it's assumed that the diacritics of the European languages that use the Latin alphabet are easily accessed through the Latin option on drop down menu on the CharInsert bar. But if it's felt to be something that would be useful, then {{diacritics missing}} could be created. I'm suggesting just one template, rather than proliferating for all the Latin and Germanic languages. Alternatively, could just use the existing {{symbol missing}}. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
For starters:

With thanks, Hrishikes (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I've gone through most of them. They are all fine (better than some English-language proofreading I've seen) so there is no need for anything beyond the regular validation process. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Many thanks. I was not really confident that they were OK. Though I try to be meticulous. Hrishikes (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Reworking material from elsewhere[edit]

I teach history at the university level, and want to ensure that I am giving students texts that are accurate, cited properly, and legal. The Internet Sourcebook is a nightmare in these respects, and cannot be corrected since it is no longer maintained. Wikisource strikes me as one of the best available solutions for fixing this situation due to its ability to provide a clear and verifiable relationship to an original document, and to break things down into appropriate sections rather than giving students a link to one massive file representing the entire book. But the process for importing material from elsewhere is unclear to me. I've posted a few books on Project Gutenberg, creating files in their PG RST format, which can be easily converted into MediaWiki markup using Pandoc. It would be ideal if you had software that could take such a file and automatically break it up to match a set of imported photos, using the in-text page numbers.

I would also appreciate the ability to show in the text where I have corrected the original, and on looking through the archives I see many other limitations, such as the lack of a standard way to insert sidenotes: these are much easier to encode in TEI, and it seems that there has been some discussion of using it, but I cannot find anything more recent than 2013. It would be brilliant if you would consider supporting something like TEI Simple, since this would allow all sorts of accurate materials from elsewhere to be added and corrected, such as from the Text Creation Partnership.AndrewNJ (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete pages from djvu[edit]

Hello, can someone please help me get rid of the two pages marked problematic (duplicate) here in this index before I star proofreading. Index:A Compendium of the Chief Doctrines of the True Christian Religion.djvu. Thanks in advance for any help. Jpez (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Jpez (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

1911 Encyclopædia Britannica[edit]

I've been finding all sorts of newly appearing errors in parts of the 1911 EB that previously included no errors. There may have been a template change or a software bug; I do not know.

Two affected pages are:


Oddly, the volume 26 is not behaving like a DjVu file when I visit it on Commons, and this may have something to do with the problem. However, I can see no edits in the edit histories there (or here) that would suggest anything. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: This is an ongoing issue. Perhaps Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help/Archives/2015#Error:_Numeric_value_expected ought to be dragged back out of the archives and somehow "pinned" here until the underlying problem is resolved? AuFCL (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, provided you know how to pin the item here so that it is not bot-archived. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
You've got me right there. I was hoping somebody else knew how to do that! AuFCL (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Per User:Wikisource-bot#Delaying_or_preventing_archiving_of_particular_threads inserting, e.g. {{DNAU|120}} ought to pin this thread for 120 days. Worth doing? AuFCL (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
see also EB1911 Volume 25 Scan File Corruption note there is a phabricator Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 18:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Iran nuclear deal[edit]

I can't figure out what is the license of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action: (links at the bottom)
Is it possible to put it on Wikisource? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: Yes, you can put it onto Wikisource. Hard to tell immediately which licence the European Commission is releasing their documentation as it is vague here and aspirational here. I would say {{PD-EdictGov}} and have a poke at help:Copyright tags. If you have a source file (pdf or djvu), load it here, and we can look at it again, after some more opinions, then work out whether we copy to Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Alternative text of speech by King Edward VIII of UK in 1936: ok or not?[edit]

King Edward during his abdication crisis submitted his proposed text to the government. Is the text of that speech suitable for inclusion in Wikisource? Darmokand (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Help is needed for a mysterious hanging indent problem[edit]

Can someone please look at this mystery? About halfway down the page there is a problem with the hanging indent of this index entry and can't figure why. All other entries with identical hanging indent, {{ts|padding-left:12.8em;text-indent:-10.2em;}}, line up perfectly. Cornell University. First Annual Report of the Agricultural Experiment Station, 1888 etc.Ineuw talk 06:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

They all lined perfectly because none of the initial strings were long enough to need wrapping; only the subsequent 2nd or 3rd entries needed it (plus were "padded" with template:gap). The difference between padding and indent should have followed the premise set by the rest of the "normal" entries (padding-left:4em; text-indent:-2em has a diff of 2.0em while padding-left:12.8em & text-indent:-10.2em is a diff of 2.6em) when it came to those exceptional lines (padding-left:12em; text-indent:-10em is still a diff of only 2.0em in other words). -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
and fyi... view that page again and tick your browser's select all option to "highlight" everything; note the normally "invisible" yet still clickable "hash" marks in the right margin. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes! Everything makes sense and thanks a lot. I suspected the wrap and noticed the clickable hash marks but didn't know what to make of it. As for the padding/indent differences, I tried to line up the text as in the original, but will settle for close. — Ineuw talk 16:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
n.b.:Instead of using two {{gap}} templates, you could use a single {{ditto}} template, and everything would align precisely. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Missing TOC Line[edit]

In Page:Forth Bridge (1890).djvu/7, the row under APPENDIX does not show. This is probably a simple fix for somebody who knows what they are doing. Thanks, Ostrichyearning (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done ; your {{sc}} template had too many pipes. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Content hierarchy of the American Journal of Sociology[edit]

I could use some help sorting out the best way to organize the hierarchy of the American Journal of Sociology. Specifically, I am unsure how to best organize the items which aren't fully-qualified articles, the things that fall under "Reviews," "Notes," "Recent Literature" and similar sections. Items under these broad sections seem to range anywhere from a handful of pages, to couple paragraphs, to a single sentence in length, or sometimes even lists. So far these have been collected into a single page and #section-linked, which is valid, but I wonder if and how these should be given their own subpages to emphasize them as standalone items. djr13 (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

A way to do it is by using Portals, see Portal:Popular Science Monthly for an example. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC).

Formatting help[edit]

Suggestions welcomed for the formatting of headers in the PotM. See example. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, perhaps a better place for the discussion is Index talk:Parsons How to Know the Ferns 7th ed.djvu ?
Secondly, how about this:
{{block center/s}}
|{{ts|pr1}}|{{nowrap|GROUP I}}
{{block center/e}}
Benefits: no hard line-break, no use of deprecated <u> tag, line will only be on the bottom row if the line has to wrap. I think the group description should be left-aligned browser default, but I am open to disagreement. We could also {{nowrap}} the two lines of the description so that if it wraps it will wrap at that specific point. We could also use a hard line-break but I think that is undesireable. Note that if there is a hard line break and the screen width is too small it will be really wonky.—Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

Other discussions[edit]

New Gadget[edit]

For those of you using the Vector skin, you might to try out a new gadget Sidebar Flat-list (mid-way down the Interface section). It takes the group of sidebar menus on the left and makes them series of collapsible flat-lists along the top instead. Please report any problems & feedback welcomed. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sidebar flat-list gadget (Vector only).png

  • I'm using this and it's a keeper for me. It's nice to have more space to the left when editing or reading. On one of my computers which has a more square screen the three menus get cluttered and because of lack of space 'Language' goes on top of my user name is not selectable. On my laptop which has a wider screen everything is fine. Jpez (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
There's not much I can do about that - the damn Language portlet is structurally different at the core compared to the other groupings. If I had it my way, it would not be part of the flat-list but in the attempt to keep it "simple", that's the way it works out for some layouts. Suggestions welcome. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Nice! That area was a mess but now it is clean allowing more room for editing. Looks like the garbage was taken out. :0) Thanks George Orwell III, in haste for grocery shopping, —Maury (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Glad you like it (& hope it works for you headache free:) -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Not bad! I like it, though of course I wish it loaded before the sidebar to avoid the hiccup. The Haz talk 03:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I wish I knew how to resolve that too (though its not all that bad imho)!!

The standard, un-collapsed sidebar of "portals" (bullet lists with the bullet hidden) are part of the Vector skin itself. And Vector is relentless; it is determined to render the sidebar and load all the damn .css & caching that normally comes with it no matter what I tried (you'll note that even with the flat-list gadget enabled, the sidebar is still remains 'King' on your User: preferences and similar Special: pages). The best I could do was let it do its thing and then disassociate the lists from all that 'built-in routine' afterward (thus the occasional twitchiness depending on what you are doing/clicking).

Again, suggestions welcome! -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

By not bad, I meant it's good. ;-) And yes, I understand that it's not possible. The "Language" choice in the "header" is now cut off by the gear icon, but it's also not something I care about. I'm still trying it out. I had some tools in the sidebar I used, but not regularly. The biggest difference I noticed is that the editing screen is larger so the scan image is larger, leading to having to scroll down farther to save the page. (Interestingly, the edit box is shorter than the preview pane.) I'll probably end up sticking with it. At this point I don't miss the sidebar and I really like the cleaner look. The Haz talk 04:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
That damn Language menu wasn't part of the original SideBar so of course its slightly different than the grand-fathered ones. I'm not sure what you mean by the 'Language [heading] being cut-off by the gear icon' however. Its always been to the right of the heading (Language) and all I did was try to mirror that in the associated css. Please throw up a pic if you have the time. If not; no worries. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
It does this for me as well, and it seems to only be on pages that don't have any links to other languages. If there are links, it says "In other languages", but if there are no links it says "Langua". Here is a picture. (Firefox 37, Chrome 41; Windows 7 x64; works fine in IE 11)—Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Image The Haz talk 12:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to AuFCL, an adjustment to the .css has been applied and should resolve that heading-icon overlap. Please let me know if it did the trick for you folks too. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Great for me. Thanks! The Haz talk 22:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
works for me in firefox & chrome, chapeau. (love the sidebar disappearing hiccup);-> Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 01:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This is what mine looks like using firefox and Linux. I'm not bothered by it though. JpezScreenshot.png

I Just noticed it's only on the main pages, Scriptorium, Main page, Community portal etc. Jpez (talk) 04:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

AFAICT, something like that has/had to do with the Vector typography refresh, certain monitor/screen DPI's and your browser's 'window width' behavior. In case you haven't discovered it yet; if you manually shrink your browser's window width, it will should eventually trigger the point where the Vector skin has some sort of boundary where the main margins shrinks by .5em (or so) all around. Unfortunately, that is where the skin determines the gadget's line of menus (should) jump to its 'reserve' (a .css padding trick) and fit right in between the personal menus it just encroached upon on the right and the top of the vector tabs & search box beneath it. Normally -- one would think -- as soon as the left content begins to overlap the right content, the overflow attribute and whatever it is set to would determine the point where the gadget line on the left can no longer co-exist with the personal menu on the right. I can't figure out how to get around that oddity or if it is even possible given the skin's design. Of course, I would love the trigger to be when the gear icon on the left touches the user icon on the right so the overflow setting could kick in and "move" the gadget line out of the other line's space. If anybody knows any better or how to rectify this, please speak up:)

On top of that, if you're stuck with a display screen optimally rendering/set at ~768 to ~860 DPI (approx.), you are more likely to see stuff like that being the @media rules in the core wiki software is now primarily geared for over ~968 DPI view-screens under standard desktop view (I don't exactly know what the "story" is with this under Mobile Mode). -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I know what the problem is (but I don't currently have any good ideas how to fix it.)

Please bear with me; the following is likely to be boring to those in the know; and pretty incomprehensible to anybody else. I am only listing it all out in hopes it might ring somebody's bells.

All of the page "editing header" (from "WikiSource" down to the "Search" box) lies within an HTML DIV with id "mw-head". The "mw-head" <div> further encapsulates four subordinate <div>s respectively with ids:

from "Navigation" to the "language-gear" icon
from "User-id" to "Log out"
from "Page-type" to "Talk"
from "Read" to "Search" box
In an ideal world these four inner <div>s lie at the four outer corners of "mw-head" but when the screen-width is too narrow for them to do so the effect Jpez observed results.

As of this moment I do not understand the logic which lays them out and assume the fault lies somewhere therein. AuFCL (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

In short, the "logic" gets hosed because of the Wikisource logo. Look to reveal the currently hidden div#mw-page-base & div#mw-head-base and you'll start to see how "odd" the layout really is. In short, the first 10 or 11 ems of the left hand side "should" be part of left-navigation at some point in the original design but the proper accounting for those 10/11 ems (e.g. be a true child of some layout-logical parent element) never seems to take place. The same is basically also true when it comes to the footer area (div#footer) but with an extra spoiler; a H2 meant (I guess) to serve as the 'heading' of the entire sidebar of "navigation" menus resides down there instead of where one would think it should go -- up top; between the bottom of the logo and the first menu (navigation) itself -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Apart from dazedly agreeing I cannot offer much. div#mw-head-base just /looks/ wrong but my brain has really shut down about two steps before this. My feeling is that one or the other of these two hidden divs /possibly/ ought to be expunged from the DOM altogether but all my experiments to date have really dire side effects and are not really worth pursuing. AuFCL (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I can save you some time; don't bother tinkering with stuff like those two as they are too embedded in the skin itself. The problem -- the way I see it -- "starts & ends" with the div holding the logo stuff; it not only being completely unique compared to the divs that come after it but it also happens to be the first sub-division of the sidebar in the skin by design. Just delete or hide div#mw-navigation (with no gadget applied) and you'll see the expected "snap left" of the main body recovering that initial 10/11 ems on the left does not happen -- not without further manual manipulation/intervention. Even that could easily be overcome if the logo and it's div containment (the reason for the 10/11ems) was factored out of the equation so to speak.

Conversion of all the sidebar menus into a single horizontal flat-list was not all that hard to do once the div dealing with the logo was pruned from the rest first. So unless there is a way to make that logo div fall inline (without the need for any "pruning") as the left most (1st) flat-list menu while retaining the originally intended logo-like links & properties found in the skin, I wouldn't begin to speculate where or how to address these lingering quirks in the final-rendering/expected-behavior; that would be the true waste of time here imo.

Of course, User:s can whack the logo and recover the space for use by the gadget on their own via their own customizations of the "base" css but for me, I know if I don't resolve this "the right way" (if at all), things will just get worse later on down the development road somehow. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


UPDATE (fwiw): Even though the above discussion(s) re: the "Overlapping of menus across the top" issue began to tapered off & eventually went quiet a good time ago, I've been "quietly" trying to find an acceptable solution in that time regardless to no avail. No matter which approach I thought to try, the Vector skin itself and/or the Wiki Mark-up always managed to make a mockery of my attempts.

The "best" that I could come up with is an option on a per-User basis to augment the Sidebar-to-FlatList Gadget with additional modifications that simply amount to replacing the current default naming &/or labeling used by the Personal menu bar along the top-right with something "shorter". Preferences becomes Prefs; Contributions becomes Contribs; even changing Log out to LogOut recovers the width of a space.

You can use the following "as is" or just as a guide to come up with your own...

/* Based on  Compact Vector Tabs
 * by w:User:Edokter/CompactTabs.js
$( document ).ready( function() {
	$( 'a', '#ca-special' ).text( 'Special' );
	$( 'a', '#ca-nstab-user' ).text( 'User' );
	$( 'a', '#ca-talk' ).text( 'Talk' );
	$( 'a', '#ca-addsection' ).text( 'Add' );
	$( 'a', '#ca-viewsource' ).text( 'Source' );
	$( 'a', '#ca-history' ).text( 'History' );
	$( 'a', '#ca-unprotect' ).text( 'Unprotect' );
	$( 'a', '#ca-edit' ).text( 'Edit' );
	$( 'a', '#ca-view-foreign' ).text( 'Commons' );
	$( 'a', '#pt-userpage' ).text( 'Home' );
	$( 'a', '#pt-mytalk' ).text( 'Talk' );
	$( 'a', '#pt-mysandbox' ).text( 'Sandbox' );
	$( 'a', '#pt-preferences' ).text( 'Prefs' );
	$( 'a', '#pt-betafeatures' ).text( 'Beta' );
	$( 'a', '#pt-watchlist' ).text( 'Watched' );
	$( 'a', '#pt-mycontris' ).text( 'Contribs' );
	$( 'a', '#pt-logout' ).text( 'LogOut' );
} );

I kept the ones that deal with Vector Tab & Vector Menu labeling ( #ca-... ) in with the ones dealing with the Personal bar ( #pt-... ) just in case -- use what you want and leave out what you don't. I recommend you copy & paste the above from edit mode (everything between the source tags) to your local vector.js file, change or remove as you wish and then save it -- any problems just reach out under this section or leave a note on my talk page. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It uncluttered everything for me. Thanks George! Jpez (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

So one more minor flaw, albeit one I personally don't care about, is how it interacts with Book Creator. Now, I think we all know that Book Creator doesn't work correctly to begin with (formatting, etc.), so I'm not sure anyone even uses it, but the Book Creator can't be enabled/disabled with this gadget enabled. If you turn the gadget off and then enable Book Creator, you can turn the gadget back on and use it. Then Book Creator can't be disabled until this gadget is disabled again. I just wanted to throw that out there. The Haz talk 14:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused... with this flat sidebar gadget enabled, I have a Download/print menu available when viewing a mainspace work. Within it are 3 options...
  • Create a book
  • Download as PDF
  • Printable version
Are you saying the 1st option is not what you want or is not working? I know there is also a BookMaker gadget but I can't tell any difference between the one I have automatically and the one I get with the Bookmaker Gadget enabled except the choice in the same menu above goes from 1st to 3rd. Please clarify further. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The first option, Create a book. It's there, but when I click Start book creator, it stays disabled. If I turn off the flat sidebar I can then enable it. If I then turn flat sidebar back on, everything works as expected... except now I can't disable it. If I turn off flat sidebar again I can now disable it. The buttons are all there, but they just don't actually enable or disable the tool when the flat sidebar gadget is enabled. I hope that clears it up. The Haz talk 18:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I follow you now... yet I am unable to reproduce this behavior. I can enable, add pages, delete pages and disable the Book Maker tool all just fine with the Flat-SideBar gadget enabled (Win 8.1 & IE 11). Can others please check for this behavior & report back?

Without more to go on, I can only guess it is some User Pref or enabled Gadget that is causing this "interference" -- you can try the typical troubleshooting steps along those lines if you wish until more feedback develops. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like it's just my setup then. Thanks for checking. I'll look into it sometime. Like I said, it's not a big deal to me so if it works for everyone else then I'm in no rush. ;-) The Haz talk 19:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Sister Project Links in En-Wiki Navigational Boxes[edit]

Hi All, there is a RFC on a topic of interest of this community at w:en:Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#RFC: Should Sister Project links be included in Navboxes?. Please join the conversation, and help us figure out the role of links to other Wikimedia Projects in English Wikipedia Navboxes, Sadads (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there a newly introduced feature?[edit]

The first entry of this page beginning with "Arkansas. Annual Re" is highlighted and a note appears. I don't know if others see this, and why is that there. I took a screenshot File:Highlighted index entry in volume 35.jpg.— Ineuw talk 19:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Issue resolved.— Ineuw talk 20:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Pywikibot compat will no longer be supported - Please migrate to pywikibot core[edit]

Sorry for English, I hope someone translates this.
Pywikibot (then "Pywikipediabot") was started back in 2002. In 2007 a new branch (formerly known as "rewrite", now called "core") was started from scratch using the MediaWiki API. The developers of Pywikibot have decided to stop supporting the compat version of Pywikibot due to bad performance and architectural errors that make it hard to update, compared to core. If you are using pywikibot compat it is likely your code will break due to upcoming MediaWiki API changes (e.g. T101524). It is highly recommended you migrate to the core framework. There is a migration guide, and please contact us if you have any problem.

There is an upcoming MediaWiki API breaking change that compat will not be updated for. If your bot's name is in this list, your bot will most likely break.

Thank you,
The Pywikibot development team, 19:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Phe, Mpaa, John Vandenberg: can one of you .py gurus look into this? I checked the linked list above and Phe-bot is listed. If I'm not mistaken, isn't that the bot for match & split? -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Bot running on toollabs are already converted to use core, including match&split. — Phe 23:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Mpaa has a rewrite of being reviewed (should be merged before the end of the month), and has been rewritten for core (but it depends on mwlib, which is a bit nasty and we intend to remove that dependency soon).
If anyone has Wikisource scripts using compat, email me or come on #wikisource or #pywikibot - we'll help you convert them. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Work by Wodehouse[edit]

It is stated in Author:Pelham Grenville Wodehouse page under section Jeeves and Wooster that Joy in the Morning is copyright-renewed in US upto 2041. Not sure about what to do, I have added a link to the 1920 edition. Is it addable here? Hrishikes (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

There was no 1920 edition as the book wasn't written at that point. Richard Usborne in Wodehouse at Work to the End (Penguin, 1976) lists Joy in Morning as 1947 and published by Herbert Jenkins, which matches that given in w:P. G. Wodehouse bibliography. It looks the copy you have linked to has a misprint for the date. As a result, we must wait for 2041 before hosting the work here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, but what about Right Ho, Jeeves? The author page and Wikipedia declares it as a 1934 book. I have given three links to two separate versions, both of which state that the original version is of 1922. Is that a printing mistake too? The PG copy here also mentions 1922. Hrishikes (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
First edition of this was published 5 October 1934. The Title page should have MCMXXXIV on it (see [2] for more details). Note that this is in Roman numerals, but the copies you link to have the year in Arabic numerals. This is looking to me like someone has faked the scans to justify uploading them before the legal date. So, no we can't host this either. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
What about the Gutenberg version linked above? Moreover, the copies I linked at author page are not 1st edition; one is 1978 reprint of 1922 edition; the other is 1957 autographed edition, both mention 1922 as original date. Actual reprint/publication year has not been concealed; therefore no question of faking. Moreover, the copies are from different libraries located in different states. Hrishikes (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what's going on there, what I do know is that the first Jeeves novel Thank You, Jeeves was published in 1934. Therefore none of these other Jeeves novels can possibly be any earlier. We can't host Right Ho, Jeeves because it's not out of copyright in the UK (first place of publication) and it wasn't published in the US until 15 October 1934 (under the title Brinkley Manor). To host here, you will need to contact the publishers (currently Random House) and see what they say. In the meantime, I will remove the file and index.

To forestall any other questions, the only Jeeves book actually published before 1923 is the 1919 short-story collection My Man Jeeves. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for addition in Authority Control[edit]

I propose addition of the following libraries in the authority control for books.

  1. Digital Library of India (status here). This can be added by the string and the similar string in mirror site, by filling up the barcode for the work. Many PD books in many languages and published in India and abroad are available here.
  2. West Bengal Public Library Network: Has huge number of books, mainly in Bengali and English, collected from various libraries in the state of West Bengal. Can be added by string by filling up the value for XXX. Hrishikes (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
As we have a local handling but also pull data from WD, we should consider an approach that includes WD as well.— Mpaa (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I am wondering whether it may be more purposeful to have them at Wikidata alone. We should be strategic with our addition of authority control components as there will be a tipping point where populated lists become noise. If there was a means to customise them for the audience that would be useful. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The next course of action is unclear to me, whether I need to propose the same at Wikidata or whatever other course. Anyway, both of these sites are very good sources for English books published anywhere in the world before India's independence and purchased by any Indian library of the British era. These two sites can be very helpful for getting old English books. I have added many books here, mostly from Internet Archive because of coloured scans; but whenever the work I want is not available in IA, I turn to DLI and usually I am not disappointed. When ShakespeareFan00 points out missing or corrupt pages in files uploaded by me, I am usually able to provide the relevant page from DLI. These sites can be helpful to other users too, if they would try these. From this perspective, I had made the proposal. Hrishikes (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
If they aren't already Authority Control properties on Wikidata, then yes, I suggest you propose them there first at d:Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control. The Haz talk 20:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Right. The AC template was primarily thought of as the means to display [Wiki]data locally on Wikisource with a secondary function of storing any additional locally added info to eventually be scooped up by a BOT on their end every so often. This intent was a bit muddled in the beginning because we had far superior information stored locally even prior to the ability of Wikidata to import it. We remained faithful to that data until the blind BOT importation fever had broke.

Now that more and more cycles of adding, importing and verifying data among the various wiki projects has taken place, the emphasis should return to the original intent with the main focus on adding new authorities formally first on Wikidata and, once that has taken place, modify our local template to display it if it exists on WD accordingly. The secondary ability to add info here locally in hopes it will get imported by WD will still exist but should not usurp the primary goal of maintaining a single repository of [Wiki]data imho. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Quotation marks at the beginning of each line?[edit]

Sometimes in older works when text is quoted each line that is in the quotation begins with quotation marks. Here is a small example where the Latin is quoted Page:Cynegetica.djvu/46 but sometimes you can find as much as a whole page with each line beginning with quotation marks. Is it possible to replicate this with a template or should we just ignore this and just add the start end quotes. Personally I would like to be able to replicate it. Jpez (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I ignore it. It was stylistic for a time, and therefore aligns with other stylistic components of typography that we don't try to reproduce. I put a start and end quote. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
AuFCL had a go at a template a while back, but had to give up. The practicalities of making this work with the huge variety of window and screen widths that are out there were just too messy. If the quote is in a separate paragraph I sometimes use blockquote tags (not in this case). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
That takes me back a bit. If I recall correctly about the best "simple" solution I could come up with was along the lines of
<blockquote style="border-left:double;padding-left:0.5em;">{{lorem ipsum}}</blockquote>
—should anybody wish to continue the experiment. For reference the above displays thus:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

AuFCL (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Here, try this on for size:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow now that's pretty cool Beleg Tâl. Any chance this can be done without the indent since any time I've seen it, it was always in line with the other text. Also most of the times the quote doesn't start on a new line, and it ends somewher in the last line. A rough example

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, "sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore
" et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation
" ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute
" irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse" cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Jpez (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Not to detract from Beleg Tâl's solution but there are at least two failure modes need to be addressed for a truly generalised solution, and neither is particularly easy:
  1. Jpez' inline case described above (this is the one I originally gave up upon, as I recall), and
  2. if the quoted text includes an internal paragraph break or other formatting which disturbs the even line-spacing upon which the leftmost absolute div depends. (Of course restarting this block every time quoted line-spacing changes is an acceptable approach in the worst case.)
AuFCL (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Plus, it's not a stylistic or grammatical choice made by the writer, but a house style for that specific publisher. If there are any editions by other publishers those marks are likely not there. To improve readability, especially on e-readers, I second billinghurst's comment and suggest not using this style. The Haz talk 13:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
For what it’s worth, Project Gutenberg Distributed Proofreaders ignore it… Zoeannl (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Special Characters in Toolbar for edits[edit]

Why are the boxes mis-sized? Did some CSS coding prove to now be incompatible? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Resolved. See my talk page. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

mw.wikibase.entity:getBestStatements -> Module:Authority control[edit]

I see that Wikidata has now developed getBestStatements which allows for the highest ranked, rather than the lowest numbered value to be selected, this is something that we should look to implement into Module:Authority control. Not sure if there is any other WD pulls that would work with this get statement. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Other than setting rank manually after two(?) or more entities per property exist, I don't believe rank is determined by the highest/lowest number selected/detected but by simple 'first-entered is first-listed is first-ranked'. I assumed that was why hundreds and hundreds of first-ranked VIAF entries were initially set to the GND's dummy "place-holder" ids a la overzealous .de BOT importations rather than the manually entered/vetted VIAF ids of en.wikipedia/en.wikisource. Those ids got the top spot simply because they were added to WikiData before we were scraped for our entries - resulting in most of the tracked-category VIAF id mismatches we have (or had?) with WikiData to date. And I think this new entity can only affect the locally displayed VIAF ids unless there other properties/entities with the same mismatched-to-ranking issue that I'm unaware of.

Still, I don't know if it is even worth adding something like this just yet imho. For example, unless the VIAF entries that we show (or have locally?) are different than what WD list(s) have been vetted -- and any valid "duplicates" subsequently ranked -- there is little point in pulling a Preferred id when its "wrong" to begin with. Only time & attention can improve the authenticity and accuracy of the data stored in WikiData's repositories and discovering such inconsistency is key to that end. The addition of getBestStatements would hinder not help with that goal the way I see it although I'd withdraw these objections to implementing it if that is the majority consensus ultimately reached here. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@George Orwell III: Thanks for putting my thoughts into words for me. I don't think this extension does what we're looking for. The Haz talk 00:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-24[edit]

15:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


Querying the inclusion of this on the basis of it being a translation, I wasn't sure the originals had expired. Also one of the translators was still alive in 1974. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It's PD in the United States based on the publication date alone. Nonetheless, if one of the translators was alive in 1977, it would likely still be under copyright in India so shouldn't be hosted at Commons. It seems that the File it tagged correctly. The Haz talk 22:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Items from this work are already separately present here, listed in the author pages of the translators. So I have added the source file. By the way, which one of the translators was still alive in 1977, may I know? Because this is news to me. Hrishikes (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
OK I checked - 1974 for - Author:Satyendra Nath Bose (Amended above) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Suppose he is still alive today, so what? Hrishikes (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
That would make the translation under copyright in India, so the file would have to stay at enWS. The Haz talk 12:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Should a title end in a period[edit]

Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume I/IRENAEUS/Against Heresies: Book III/Chapter III. end in a period. Should it? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not the usual way. Perhaps if it was an abbreviation, but not in this case. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 04:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The pages for the Ante-Nicene Fathers were set up some years ago as copies from another website and they all have this problem. I'm gradually working through them and fixing things like this as I proofread scans. I'm currently dealing with Clement of Alexandria and Irenæus is next on the list. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Associated Press renewals[edit]

Did the Associated Press routinely renew their pre-1964 copyrights? I do not see them listed. For instance I can find the renewal notice for a New York Times version of a story but there in nothing listed in the same year in the renewal book for anything by the Associated Press. Has anyone else done any searching of read about renewals? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

i don’t believe they did; see also [10]; i.e. [11]. however, as we see with the Iwo Jima flag-raising photo, people do not believe you can prove a negative. non-renewed works are seen to be too hard; even Hathi trust has difficulty. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 19:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
We can always remove them if we find a renewal notice, I just don't think the AP thought they had anything that would be worth copyrighting since they would not be published again. I help with the Library of Congress project at Flickr Commons on adding context to the Bain image collection. Of the 15,215 images processed so far, I think I found less than a dozen images marked "Copyright Bain" where they thought the image was important enough that it might be at risk of an unauthorized reproduction by a newspaper, usually a presidential portrait. When they saw the Iwo Jima image they knew they had something that would be worth reprinting, so I concede that they might have filed a notice, even if I have not seen one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
it tended to be corporate culture, when you have the negative, before digital reproduction, that is real copyright. baseball digest only started renewing after a certain date; time magazine was consistent. for the photo of flag raising, researchers at national archives found no renewal, but that did not sway votes with a "precautionary principle" at commons. if they filed a renewal and no one can find it, did it exist? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 02:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Corbis also claims a copyright on copies from the various collections that it has, that the Library of Congress has released into the public domain. If I remember correctly there was a statement on the LOC website about the Corbis claim. I can see from images that I buy on eBay that large numbers of distribution copies end up in various newspaper archives. Corbis has been a vacuum cleaner sucking up collections, and I think it is good, that at least they get preserved. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

app for iPad for Wikisource?[edit]

There is an app (application) for Wikipedia. I cannot find one for Wikisource. Can anyone here assist me in this? I like to see our books in new formats (for me) and have them read to me. Seeking an app for iPad. —Maury (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I think Google Chrome still does; Mercury might as well. (Both are free browsers for iOS.) The Haz talk 16:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Hazmat2 —Maury (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the rationale for not allowing categories for the subject of an article?[edit]

What is the rationale for not allowing categories for the subject of an article? If I am reading one article, I want to read others on that topic, so why do we delete them? If I am reading The Washington Post/Mark Twain's exclusive publisher tells what the humorist is paid and I want to read other articles about Mark Twain, I cannot. Here we have The American Cyclopædia (1879)/Clemens, Samuel Langhorne with the awesome category "75%" so we can see all the articles that are 75% complete. The one useful category for the reader Category:Mark Twain is absent. Someone wrote "Eponymous categories are not used here", but why? Why give the reader the useless category and delete the useful one? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

See Help:Categorization for the four types of categories we use here. The Portal namespace is used for topics (see Help:Portals). However, the body of literature hosted by enWS by and about Schneider is not significant enough to create a Portal for him yet and the list you are making on his Author page is sufficient. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I already know we do not do it, but WHY do we not do it. What is stopping us from doing something useful other than "we don't do it". Why do we display useless categories like "75%" that a reader will get no use from. I cannot imagine a reader saying "let me see what else I can read that is 75% complete". Why don't we have "Subject:Mark Twain" as well as "Author:Mark Twain". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Because we have Author:Mark Twain, there is no need to reduplicate that list umpteen other ways. One suffices. And an Author page is much, much easier to organize for a user than a Category, and also much easier to maintain. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
They are also more informative and contain information that is not readily able to be done through categories. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The problem with Author pages is that they're not very machine-readable. I guess one day all WS metadata will live in Wikidata, but until that happens I'd love a way to, for example, find all fiction by a particular author. So I think author categories would be really great. It wouldn't be hard to add to the {{header}} template, either — so actually maintenance would be easier than the manual Author pages.

I do realise that we're supposed to only categorise works by type, subject/genre, date, and licence — but it's not really that strict in reality. For example, we also have works by award, movement, series, country, etc. And on the flip side, the Authors' categories don't only include author pages. It's all a bit messy. (This discussion is relevant.) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 06:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Samwilson: presumably we now can bring in machine readable data from WD. What data were you wanting assigned to works and authors? Presumably we are having it hidden. Noting that we do have machine readable information in the author and header templates, though it may be old-school machine-readable. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: The most basic thing is to be able to get a list of works by any particular author. It isn't too hard to pull that out while traversing the Works category hierarchy, but that seems a bit long-winded. :) I am quite probably missing something obvious! — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 08:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The answer to why lies in the fundamentals of why Wikisource exists. Our primary purpose is to provide reliable sources to Wikipedia. We do this by ensuring that accurate transcriptions of published source matter are hosted within Wikimedia. The 75% category is part of an old set of maintenance categories that pre-date the proofreadpage extension. As we replace the old pages with page scans, that set of categories will gradually decrease in size until they can be quietly deleted. The categories of works by award, movement, series & country need to be converted to Portals. The whole project is a work in progress. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • You are just defending the status quo without seeing how someone from the outside, coming in as a reader, sees the flaws, and what is needed to be useful to the reader. None of what I have suggested diminishes the goal of "[providing] reliable sources to Wikipedia". Linking related texts by subject and by author does not require me to go to an author page or a portal. Especially since you already told me that the subject I am working on isn't worthy of a portal. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Good point about the 75% category (and related). They'll go at some point. I have to disagree with you on the primary purpose of WS though! Sorry. :) It might've been true when we started, but surely now WS is aiming at being "a free library of source texts"? We're a library. (Libraries have all sorts of finding aids.) Wikipedia linkages are important, but they're not the main game. I think of WS as being more like a better-designed Project Gutenberg (i.e. we retain scans, and edit histories). Maybe it's just me! :-) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 08:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Why not just wiki-link to the authors page in the header using the title, for example

This is what wiki is all about isn't it. Or you can link from the main article if you want where his name is mentioned and you're led to his author page where you can find out whatever Mark Twain wrote or was written about him (whatever we have added here that is). Jpez (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The established way of associating another person/author with a work is to utilize the Plain Sister template's parameters as so....
...and I don't believe the generation of all the other possible parameters is something we've done until recently (maybe changes @ wikidata or the PlainSis lua module?). Nevertheless, that is the way we associate other individuals to a work. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
You assume everyone is an author. We have related texts on people who are NOT authors here at WikiSource, where Subject:Joe Foo would link them. The same arguments are always made at Wikipedia. We have lists so let us delete the redundant category, or we have a category so let us delete the redundant lists. Is the trick to just pretend everyone is an author as a workaround, Author:Joe Foo for a subject? The current method does not allow us to link articles by subject who are not authors. Is the workaround to create Portal:Joe Foo for people who are not authors but are the subject of multiple entries? Does Beeswaxcandle decide who gets a Portal and who doesn't. It seems a lot easier to just have eponymous categories. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
No. I didn't assume anything; I went along with the Twain example provided before mine is all. If the individual is not an author -- or simply does not have an author page here yet -- one can point to any other related site (including Wikipedia)
... the same way.

Again, we are not Wikipedia. We have a different mission than Wikipedia. Our Categorization is not subject driven but work driven (in general) as a result. A portal might be applicable but the person in question probably needs to be "extraordinary" in some established or unquestionable way; portals help classify and collect topics generally. Plus when all else fails; the notes field or the talk-page's {{textinfo}} template can usually accommodate any such oddities or nuances as needed.

Just who is this person you're thinking of with dozens and dozens of if not hundreds of works about them anyway? -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Again you are just defending the status quo "... we are not Wikipedia. We have a different mission than Wikipedia" instead of saying, if you think it would be helpful, let us experiment with it, and see if other people find it useful too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Damn straight I'm defending what I believe to be in the best interest for Wikisource. Go ahead and make a formal Rfc containing the proposal(s) for the desired change(s) in current practice and/or policy and see what happens if you can't accept what was meant to be time-saving, friendly-advice. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Why does someone need to be "extraordinary", Do we need more server space? Is there some incentive for keeping the number of portals to a minimum? You wrote: "this person you're thinking of with dozens and dozens of if not hundreds of works about them". So the problem is we have a minimum number of entries on a subject to make them worth linking. Can I ask what that magic number is? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The same reason(s) why couldn't/wouldn't answer my request for the individual in question in the first place is the exact reason we try to avoid dabbling in such folly. One man's hero is another man's goat - allowing one so-called individual in the Portal: namespace opens the door to adding ANY individual in the Portal: namespace; and history has shown us THAT repository eventually competes with Wikipedia rather than compliment/support it. That's why the bar is so high & so inflexible on this point. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Have you actually read Help:Portals? In particular the section on when to create a new portal. You are obviously interested in aviators. Why not create Portal:Aviators? Then list the works you are creating as subsections by particular aviator. If, later on, it needs splitting in some way because it has become to big then it could be done by country or by era. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
i don’t know why you want to use a broken system like categories to do any function. why don’t you brainstorm a good way to search or link by author and then suggest it. could you link to a wikidata / VIAF entry? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 02:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I would 100% support establishing category trees for works by the subject covered. Categories do a fine job of that on many other projects, and even given the different purpose served by this project, the benefits of such a categorization scheme would likely outweigh the harms of implementing it. BD2412 T 15:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Even if the category system is 'broken', and Wikidata is the way to go (although no one seems quite sure of the best approach there), categories are what we've got now. Look at Commons, for instance! Subject categories are a huge part of that project; they don't seem to be moving to Wikidata. And if categories are borken for subject classification, why do we not consider them broken for genre classification as well? Is it that different (ontologically speaking)? I say bring on the subject categories!

Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 03:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments. Commons and Wikidata: I think the project to put Commons on a Wikibase footing was given lower priority (by the WMF) than the SPARQL endpoint for Wikidata, which is now in beta. That puts the boot on the other foot, really, in that the SPARQL tool will presumably be able to do heavier lifting than the existing Magnus Manske tool, when it comes to queries. It is not there yet. As I mentioned below, Wikidata and Wikisource mainspace pages (rather than Author: pages) now do have an accepted relationship, though some hammering out of details might still occur. Basically any text in mainspace here can have a metadata page on Wikidata.
This is not to argue against an effort here, on categories, given enough consensus. But some consideration of where and what to emphasise, for projects involving hundreds of thousands of edits, is only sensible. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • What do you suggest to tie together articles on Subject:Joe Foo who is not Author:Foo? Beeswaxcandle says the subjects only get Portal:Foo if they are extraordinary. I do not know how to determine that objectively, unless you choose a minimum number of articles to tie together. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
i see you are echoing the request of user:cirt. i would not be adverse to a "template:subject" modeled on template:author. you could then combine a search result (with some curation) and link to VIAF / wikidata there. such organization doesn't do anything for me, but it isn’t paper. but please proceed based on consensus. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 23:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata handles this type of issue, which is a relatively new development over there. I have been arguing the case over there, and the situation in terms of Wikidata protocols now is satisfactory, at least to me. It is an example of Wikidata queries substituting for categories, and I think this is the future, as others have said. Such a query asking for all items with "Mark Twain" as "main subject" is easy enough to write, and can be run on an existing tool.

I think the situation warrants documentation here, with the discussion of existing ways of using categories and portals. I recall similar debates five or six years ago, when portals were turned to. Leveraging Wikidata now can only help. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-25[edit]

15:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Famous passages as separate works[edit]

Does anyone want to weigh in on when a famous or popular passage should be listed as its own work on Wikisource? For example: The Lord's Prayer is an excerpt from The Gospel of Matthew, but I doubt anyone would exclude it as not being a work unto itself. However, this could give precedence for other popular passages: what about the Magnificat, Nunc dimittis, the Beatitudes, etc? I can't think of any non-Biblical examples at the moment. I think that a good treatment of this is the Ten Commandments, which simply links to Bible (King James)/Exodus#Chapter 20. However, this runs into the issue that there are multiple versions/translations and it selects only one. I am inclined to do likewise with The Lord's Prayer, with just a list of parallel passages, and remove other translations. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, here's another example: the hymn "Jerusalem the Golden" is an excerpt from the poem The Celestial Country, which in turn is a translation of an excerpt from De contemptu mundi. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
A secular example is The Walrus and the Carpenter taken out of Through the Looking Glass. Some of them should probably be redirects to sections/anchors in the text, while others could stand on their own with a cross-reference. @Londonjackbooks: is likely to have an opinion on where the balance point lies as I know she's been converting some poems to redirects. I'm not sure myself where that point of significance is and how it should be measured. Could we think of it in terms of scan-backing? If the work the excerpt comes from has no scan, then the excerpt can stand. If the work has a scan (that we're hosting), then the excerpt should be a redirect (or a versions page in the case of multiple hosting of the excerpt). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
"The Walrus and the Carpenter" (and "Jabberwocky" etc.) is a perfect example of what I was thinking of. Interestingly, those poems do have scan-backing, but only from the scan of Through the Looking Glass. You could, therefore, replace the text of The Walrus and the Carpenter with the transcluded text from the novel, and this would be an improvement to our copy of the poem. However, what then would warrant it having its own page? The only thing I can think of would be if we had a scan of it published as a work by itself.
To give a concrete example from something I am working on, I transcluded the Morning Prayer service from the Book of Common Prayer (ECUSA) the other day, and it contains a number of readings. Some of the readings are obviously separate works quoted in full (like "We Praise Thee" and "O Glorious Light"), and I have put them on their own page. Some of them are also merely readings from scripture, like Psalm 100 or 1 Chronicles 3:1-15, and I have ignored these as excerpts. However, some that I have mentioned, like the Lord's Prayer or the Magnificat, toe the line between, since they are parts of a larger work but are frequently used (quoted, referenced, published) separately.
I would be interested to hear @Londonjackbooks:'s opinion on this. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would think that the famous component will have been separately published and outside of the bible. I would suspect that we would utilise a disambiguation page is appropriate and utilise the note field to have your note of the various sources. It would not be a hard and fast rule as sometimes we are only going to have one version and it will be a redirect until we subsequent work.

For a passage alone, I would think that we would call that a quotation and from the disambiguation page have a WQ link. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, @Billinghurst:. I think that this is the best way to determine if it deserves its own page, if it has been separately published outside the source work. A concern with this approach, like I mentioned to @Beeswaxcandle:, is that there are works which contain extensive quotations from other works. The one I am working on right now is Book of Common Prayer (ECUSA), but I imagine any reader or anthology would be subject to this issue. Some quotations are full works and should be transcluded onto their own page. Some quotations are clearly meant as excerpts and should not. Some, however, like the Lord's Prayer or the Magnificat, appear to be understood as a full work (which they are sometimes published as), even though they are known to be excerpts.
Perhaps, a good rule of thumb is this: if there exists a copy of the excerpt published as its own work (and not as a quotation), then we can put it on Wikisource, and then we can put a disambiguation page which will link to the scan as well as to the places in the larger work where it exists. Otherwise, we can disallow it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Using your example of We Praise Thee, I would have made that page redirect (Book of Common Prayer (ECUSA)/The Daily Office/Daily Morning Prayer: Rite One#52) to the text within the Book of Common Prayer (ECUSA) where the passage itself begins instead of giving it its own page (even though transcluded). If more than one version exists on WS, then I would create a "We Praise Thee" versions page, pointing readers to the scan-backed versions available. I agree with Beeswaxcandle's assessment above. That would solve the question of whether a passage/poem "deserves its own page" outside of the indexed source text within which it is transcluded. Generally speaking, I believe it does not. There may be exceptions I am not yet aware of. Sorry I chimed in late... just getting back online, and hoping I understood the question. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
That's very interesting, as We Praise Thee (a.k.a. Te Deum) is a full work unto itself, and not an excerpt from a larger work. This is a slightly different question, and one which we have discussed before (although I don't think there was a definitive conclusion that time)—see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help/Archives/2014#Works contained in other works. The two questions are of course intertwined, when you have a work such as the Book of Common Prayer which contains full works such as We Praise Thee as well as excerpts such as The Lord's Prayer.
It sounds like you are agreeing with User:Beeswaxcandle with regards to this question, namely that an excerpt should only be listed as its own work if we have a copy of the excerpt that was separately published as its own work. However, it sounds like you also have an opinion on the different question of separately transcluding fully cited works, which is that it should NEVER be done. This is different from what User:Billinghurst said in the previous discussion ("I have separately transcluded a work from an existing work where it is included in full, not an excerpt, and it is incidental to the work itself.").
This is an important discussion in my opinion, as I have done several prayerbooks and hymnals with the intention of having the cited prayers and hymns available on Wikisource, and I intend to continue doing so. I hope to get a good understanding of current consensus if it exists, and to create consensus if no consensus exists currently. Please let me know if I have mistaken your position. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe you have mistaken my position—which is only my general opinion. I feel it is redundant to have two accounts on WS from the same transcluded source. I would be interested in viewing a/the piece that @Billinghurst: has transcluded separate from an existing work as mentioned above and in the archived Scriptorium thread. I did admit that there could be exceptions, and I believe I have made such an exception with a few poems here, come to think of it,—for presentation purposes. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Blue Goodness of the Weald as presented in another work. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Taking a look, that poem is excerpted from "Sussex" by Kipling in The Five Nations. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


22:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Renewal by proxy[edit]

If the New York Times files a renewal notice for 1940 would that cover the text that they do not own, such as the Associated Press articles, or does the Associated Press have to file their own renewal notice? It seems it does not cover material that they are not the author of. Anyone come to a different conclusion? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

My understanding (which may be wrong) is that you'd need a renewal for the AP item and the NY Times edition it was re-used in.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Your understanding is correct. News outlets pay for licensed use of wire articles, so ownership and copyright still reside with the wire agencies. The Haz talk 20:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Subject:Joe Foo[edit]

Well, the experiment Subject:Susannah Lattin was deleted by Beeswax so lets have a vote about experimenting with Subject:Joe Foo to complement Subject:Firstname Lastname for people who have articles about them who are not authors. Can someone restore Subject:Susannah Lattin so we can see what the experiment looks like. We have Portal:Firstname Lastname but Beeswax argues that only exceptional people get to have portals. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, what you are asking people to discuss here is the creation of a new namespace called the Subject: namespace. This would run alongside the existing Author: namespaces. Editors making comments need to think through how such a namespace would interact with the other namespaces we have. In particular, how would an Author who is also a Subject be treated? How would a Subject who is a part of a Portal be managed? If a Subject is not the principal focus of a work, but is mentioned in the context of another Subject, should that work be listed on the Subject's page? How significant a mention is enough to cause the work to be listed? How will replicating the related Wikipedia article(s) be prevented? Should pages in the Index: namespace be listed? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks like User:Billinghurst decides who gets a portal and who doesn't and Portal:Susannah Lattin has been deleted too. It appears that a group of people do not want the ability to link together articles on a common subject who are not authors, and do not even want to experiment with the concept. I am a newcomer and that flaw is obvious to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
    You are not a newcomer, and this discussion has been had with you previously. In fact you said above that it was explained to you. We do allow subject groupings through portal namespace, just not on a matter such as that. The portal namespace is aligned with LoC classifications. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
    Why not on a matter such as that? We have a collection of works on a subject, and a contributor wants to add a category or portal to cover that subject, why should we block that? I don't know or care whether it should be a portal or category, but you've opposed both.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


  • Support As, instigator. We need a way to tie together articles that have a common subject and are NOT authors themselves. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • support meh, i could do without the lede, when there is a wikipedia article. it would be nice to float as an experiment. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 03:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support rename. The "Portal" namespace is largely a misnomer. Our author namespace is for author portals, and our portal namespace is for subject portals. I believe we only started using "Portal" for our subject namespace because it was already there. A rename of the portal namespace to "Subject" would improve the site. Hesperian 00:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
    • To expand with some history: "Portal" literally means "entry point". The namespace originated with Wikipedia, where a portal is a topic-specific entry point into the encyclopedia: an alternative to the main page with its own dynamic material like "Did you know", "On this date" and "Featured article". Because Mediawiki is Wikipedia-focussed, the portal namespace became a default namespace for all sites, and we got it for free when Wikisource was first set up. Back then there was no clear process for fiddling with the default namespaces. Thus, when we decided we needed a namespace for subject pages, we took the easy way out and simply used the Portal namespace, which we had no other use for, even though we knew perfectly well that our subject pages are not portals. In short, the fact that our subject page namespace is named "Portal:" rather than "Subject:" is an unfortunate historical accident. It is time we fixed that. Hesperian 00:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
    I don't see that the proposal was for a rename, but for an additional namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
    Proposal aside, a rename is just not an option. The structure of our Portal namespace is based upon the Library of Congress Classification system as a means to an end that efficiently incorporates notions such as Subject:, Topic:, Object:, Institution:, Organization:, and the like into an established hierarchy (thanks again to Adam B. Morgan). So please drop any ideas of a rename and stick with discussing the original proposal of adding a new namespace labeled Subject:.

    Besides, if the rest of the planet has Portal as namespace-number 100 why on earth would we want to be the single odd man out by relabeling ns-100 to Subject:? To make life miserable for the Wikidata people for starters maybe? -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

    Also, there are two different definitions of "Subject" being used here. Subject, as proposed, only relates to people who are not authors and therefore will never have an author page. Subject, as used by Hesperian, means topic as defined in the LoC classification. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
    Ah, I see; as such, I do not support. Hesperian 00:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
    I'd support a portal to subject rename since basically thats what portals are here. Subject is a more suitable description. Still I think there should be some control over the pages that are subjects/portals because as I mentioned below this could get out of control and a subject could be created for anything and everything, for example Joe Foo could be a heading in the subject:Foo family page if he was mentioned in a few texts. If then Joe Foo was an exceptional man and he was mentioned in many texts in history of course he would deserve his own subject pages and probably many sub subject pages about him. Someone has to be in charge of regulating this so it won't get out of hand, and this is the job of the administrators. I don't see what all the fuss is about really, I think if Joe Foo is a heading in the subject:Foo family with three texts about him we've got him covered. Or else someone might add a subject:Joe foo's toenail page because it was mentioned once in one of these texts. This is silly of course except if Joe Foo's toenail was an exceptional toenail and many people wrote about it. unsigned comment by Jpez (talk) 21 June 2015.
  • Support having something - I don't know if a "subject" space is the way to do it, or a categorization scheme, or another space, but it should be possible to organize works to some degree by the subject covered. BD2412 T 20:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


  • Oppose I'm not familiar with the subject matter concerned with Susannah Lattin but I think a better option would be to add her name to a portal with the subject matter concerning her rather than directly link to a page about her. This way we don't need to create endless pages about everone and everything and I think it would be an easier way for people that don't know about her to learn about her. This way if someone wanted to find works about her they would also find them in the portal via search. unsigned comment by Jpez (talk) .
Excuse me, but what exactly is the problem? Beeswaxcandle only moved Subject:Susannah Lattin to User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Susannah Lattin2 but nothing appears to be deleted, does it? The example still stands. 127·0·0·2 (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I love your indignant "Excuse me". User space is not the same as Wikisource space. User space can be deleted at any time and it is not indexed the same way, nor is it searched by default the way mainspace is. We need a permanent way to tie together documents on a common subject who is not an author. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see no rationale provided to why we would want a Subject ns: and how that would benefit the project, or would be within the scope of the project. We have a portal ns: to cover our needs. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The Portal:Susannah Lattin was also deleted BY YOU, because Portals are reserved for exceptional people only, and there is no firm rule on who is exceptional and who isn't, so a small group of people with deletion rights decide who gets a portal.
The exceptions come when what we host about that notable person overwhelms an appropriate parent Portal and splitting that portal by person is the best way to manage the portal's subheadings. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Can you rephrase that in simple English. I read it three times and still do not understand it. I think it is an explanation of why you deleted Portal:Susannah Lattin, but it doesn't make sense. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I can't see that a Subject NS is going to provide anything that the Portal NS doesn't already. I think a discussion could probably be had about whether we can be more liberal than we currently are with regards to categorisation — but that's not what's being proposed here (to my understanding; and I also think it's something that a greater use of Wikidata is going to help us with). — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 10:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
How exactly is Wikidata going to solve this problem? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I would imagine that every subject could have a Wikidata item, and it could have a property like described by source which lists the Wikisource items that mention it. This would mean that it'd be easy to create composite lists as well, which'd be cool. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 08:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the Subject namespace is unnecessary, and the Portal namespace and Wikidata should be used for the purpose of linking related texts. However I agree that it would be nice to have clear guidelines on who/what deserves a subject portal, like Wikipedia's notability guideline for articles. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose — The appropriate place to link together works about a common subject or works focusing on individuals who are not themselves authors of works is not Wikisource as such organization/listing falls outside of our scope & mission. Wikipedia is the right place to do this - I suspect under either a Bibliography section or a Further reading section where all relevant works can be listed (including those still under copyright) as well as [inter]linked to (not just those copyright-free ones hosted on Wikisource) whenever possible.

    This is not the first time an idea like this has been floated on Wikisource. History has shown time and time again that its a "bad fit" & fraught with pitfalls for Wikisource. The eventual controversies that can arise when subsequent contributors question the fidelity and or accuracies of existing content, for example, within work X when presented with a new work Y and then contrasted further with the information provided by work Z; all of which typically cannot be reconciled in a fair nor objective manner -- that's not Wikisource's mission and why such organization or listing thrives when done in a community-based, ongoing encyclopedic effort such as Wikipedia. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

An index of works on Wikisource is well within Wikisource's mission, and is hardly within Wikipedia's.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: Last I checked, a person who is simply a subject and not an author can have a category. We've done it here before. If the person is also an author, an author page seems more appropriate. Someone feel free to correct me if something has changed. The Haz talk 20:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Then we have an alphabetical list of writings about that person. What I want is a chronological list of writings and the ability to annotate them, perhaps by having the author in parenthesis. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the system that Commons uses is probably the traditional mediawiki approach to this, in which you'd have some level of duplication: a category of all works mentioning a subject, and a page that lists much the same information but in a different format (i.e. on Commons this is done with categories vs galleries). — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 08:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


  • Please refer to earlier discussions like this in the archives of this page about subject and people who are not authors.

    We have been through years of the additions of Richard Arthur Norton that are either not in scope or edge cases for our scope. They have been repeatedly moved to his user ns subpages. For the person in question, the circumstances surrounding the death of this person are notable, the person was not notable within their own right. The articles transcribed should be down in full, and should be part of the newspaper in question as a subpage newspaper/year/article. We are not a directory listing for articles about people, and that would be nigh impossible to curate. A category can be created if necessary, and the person can have articles linked to them from Wikidata, by use of their referencing criteria. For the person proposed they would not be worthy of a Portal, though they may be a heading line within a portal if they are significantly pertinent. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

How exactly will we go down the slippery slope from having Subject:Susannah Lattin or Portal:Susannah Lattin to "nigh impossible to curate". We are in the computer age where nothing seems impossible. It would seem that a collection of > 10,000 authors and 320,968 texts would be impossible to curate, but we do it. The New York Times used to publish a paper subject index every two weeks and then recompile it every three months and then recompile it at the end of the year. Then they recompiled a cumulative index up to 1912 in 15 paper volumes. They did it again to cover the material from 1913 to 1929 in 68 volumes. All before computers, all done by hand on index cards before set in type for printing. Read about it here. So, to say it would be "impossible to curate" sounds silly compared to what others have done with even less silicon brawn. We should at least be experimenting. The difference between MySpace and Friendster; and Facebook was that Facebook continuously experimented with new useful features while MySpace and Friendster were static. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "... person can have articles linked to them from Wikidata". As a contributor to Wikidata, where experimentation is welcome, I can tell you that it has no mechanism to link to individual works. It has room for one link to a Wikisource page, which would be Subject:Susannah Lattin or Portal:Susannah Lattin, both of which have been deleted as "out of scope". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Portal:Susannah Lattin has been re-added using the parameters of the classification system that the namespace is based on. I figured best to start it myself. Hopefully, folks can follow the parents and tangents from there. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Our history here would say that the curation of such pages is nigh impossible. Your analogy to the NYT with their paid and professional staff and a management ability to set the standard and to undertake that work is unrealistic. While the person is important to you, it doesn't make the person important. The person doesn't make current notability guidelines at enWP, and any notability would relate to the crime that was undertaken and the death that results. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps more people would contribute if you created a more friendly atmosphere for new ideas. The problem is that the incumbents with delete rights see every experimentation as chaos, and so we do not get a chance to see if it is possible or impossible. Can you imagine Steve Jobs or Elon Musk fretting that a small experiment was "nigh impossible". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Who cares about enWP? We have a set of works here on the subject.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Navigation of the Portal: namespace is explained at Help:Portals#Navigating the Portal space. In the same way that Categories must have existing parents, so must Portals. The key subject of of the Susannah Lattin related articles is the very poor postpartum care she received. This means the articles best belong in the Medical portals. When we go to Portal:Medicine, we find a subportal Portal:Gynecology and obstetrics, which is empty other than a link to a further subportal for Abortion. Although someone, other than Richard Arthur Norton, has put the articles into the Abortion portal, the best place for them is on the Gynae/Obstetrics portal. When that portal gets too big, then a subportal for the Postpartum period could be created (along with others for Antepartum and Delivery). This process keeps works (be they articles, reports, papers, or whole books) within a consistent topic structure that is usable and understandable. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
If "categories must have existing parents" we will never be able to create a new top level category, ever. That statement must be wrong. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Hesperian: Re the naming of the portal namespace or subject namespace. What about the thought of a community consensus to create an alias of "Subject:" that redirects to Portal: ns. None of which relates to the content of what is in the space. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

  • My comment is that bot creation of listings from Wikidata will be coming onstream in the reasonably near future. The real question appears to me "and how should they be used here?". Subject listings and author listings are two examples, but there will be more (for example author listings for collective works, listings by publication date). Charles Matthews (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
after having seen author pages with links from every article in the DNB, i would hesitate to say anything is impossible. subject or portals pages seem like a lot of work, but i wouldn't want to deny someone trying. how do we organize the body of texts so that wikidata can link to them? how do we organize common searches in a reader friendly way? a failed attempt that dies on the vine is better than none? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 22:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal on Wikidata for Wikisource[edit]

There is a proposal at Wikidata regarding how to link from a subject item (ie. Francis Bacon) to an item for a dictionary entry on the subject that happens to have a transcription on Wikisource. It will affect how data is stored with regard to texts on Wikisource. I think there are two main issues:

  1. It seems that because there was next to no discussion on the original issue, the proposing user went ahead and started making bulk changes.
  2. The proposal refers to items with Wikisource links as "Wikisource articles" which brings to light a bigger issue. They are not Wikisource articles, but in fact "items" that have transcriptions on Wikisource. Why should a book that's not on Wikisource be considered different from the same book on Wikisource?

If you care to read or comment, the link is here: Change described by source (P1343) qualificator for Wikisource articles The Haz talk 00:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

On point #2: it is clearly better that the "metadata page on Wikidata for an article" should not be conflated with "article on Wikisource". Point #1 is of course "be bold". Charles Matthews (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Good point, but to be clear, I meant that the user went and made mass changes with a bot within an extremely short period of time. This generally goes against the policy of being bold (which I also subscribe to at times). I was out of town for a day or two and came back to find all these crazy changes which broke how the data was linked. The Haz talk 00:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The wikisource item is an instance of the creative work item. It is not the same thing, it potentially has spelling differences, it has potentially different encoding, etc. A printed paper book thing may have the same content but is not the same type of thing like a PDF thing or a wikisource thing. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I assumed there would be an item for the (general concept of the) 'work' and then separate (but linked) items for each of the editions (one of which would be the Wikisource one). Is that correct? Because things like genre etc. would be tied to the general work, and common to all editions (so to query for the WS work, we have to head back up the tree). I'm confused though, so might be missing the point! :) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 04:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a pattern emerging I'm using for DNB-related items, that links to the "subject" using "main subject", with link back in the form "described by source"; and links to the edition of DNB using "part of". That at least captures the essentials, and I think it is sound. Wikidata is too young for "guidelines with everything", and some refinement, bells and whistles are to be expected. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. Yes, I guess there's going to be a while of sorting things out! :) It's exciting though. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 23:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
@BoBoMisiu: This is not how it's been done for works on WS. An edition on Wikisource does not have its own item. Instead, there is an item for whichever edition was used and that item is linked to the same edition transcribed on Wikisource. This is similar to how Wikipedia articles do not have their own items, but instead are linked to from topic items on Wikidata.
@Samwilson: That's close to what's been done for works. However, since a single edition (not work) should only have one transcription on Wikisource, they are instead linked to from the item pertaining to the edition used. There may be a work item for a book, and another item for the 3rd edition. If the 3rd edition is available on Wikisource, then it is linked to from that item, instead of either the work or a separate "Wikisource" edition (since it is supposed to be the same in terms of text and images). The Haz talk 03:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
And how will that work for translations of works not originally in English? That is, what if the work is Alcestis by Euripides, and we are dealing with a translation by a particular author, and that translation is in its 3rd edition? What gets linked to what? --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
@Hazmat2: I read through some of the WD and WS documentation. I was thinking of beyond WS system, specifically relationships. Ah, so it is really split between WS and WD – the edition in WS and the work in WD. WS for content of edition, and WD for relationship of edition as instance of work. I think having a tree view of the WD data model, like includes, would be very helpful to visually think through the metadata and what to add to a WD item. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Author name confusion[edit]

I had created the page Author:Thomas Claverhill Jerdon but then, thinking it incorrect, changed it to Author:Thomas Caverhill Jerdon. On further looking around, I am really confused about the middle name. There are plenty of references online to both forms. Internet Archive has creator pages for both. VIAF mentions both forms in the same link. English Wikipedia goes for Caverhill. DNB here says Claverhill. The picture on author page says Caverhill. Amazon says Caverhill. RootsWeb here says Claverhill but here, quoting his marriage record, says only C. But there should not be this kind of confusion. The author was an army officer; there should be some clear record of his name somewhere. Can anyone please help? Hrishikes (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I found this. It's not necessarily definitive, but it's from a copy of records in Scotland that were republished from film.

Name: Thomas Caverhill Jerdon
Gender: Male
Birth Date: 12 Oct 1811
Birth Place: Jedburgh, Roxburgh, Scotland
Baptism Place: Jedburgh, Roxburgh, Scotland
Father: Archibald Jerdon
Mother: Elisabeth C. Millner Or Millar
FHL Film Number: 1067944
Reference ID: 2:18C6RNM

Scotland, Births and Baptisms, 1564-1950. Salt Lake City, Utah: FamilySearch, 2013

The Haz talk 00:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Whichever option is decided on, please create a redirect from the other spelling. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, a redirect is in order, I think. Thanks @Hazmat2: for coming up with a primary source. Hrishikes (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography has Caverhill, by the way; which appears to be correct therefore. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The first reference in the Wikipedia article has this to say on the matter:
His obituary in The Ibis 1872 (p. 342) and all other works spell his name as Thomas Caverhill Jerdon. This spelling is also found in Hume's Nests and Eggs of Indian Birds Volume 1 (1889); M. A. Smith's The Fauna of British India, Including Ceylon and Burma. Reptilia Volume 1. as well as the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry by Christine Brandon-Jones. However Dickinson, E.C. & S.M.S. Gregory (2006) have suggested that Claverhill may be the correct spelling as indicated in the India Office Record, possibly a transcription error and further evidence to the contrary may be seen from Scottish records of the time such as "Reports of Cases Decided in the House of Lords, Upon Appeal from Scotland, from 1726 to [1822]. T. & T. Clark, 1853. page 683" PDF as well as the London Gazette- 13 August 1872 PDF.
So I think this settles the matter. Hrishikes (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Death registry says Caverhill [19], though noting that is transcription too. Agree with the consensus. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-26[edit]

15:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

A list of libraries[edit]

A useful list of digital libraries is available here, for getting scans of old books. Hrishikes (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hrishikes, thank you. —Maury (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Why do we delete links to Wikipedia in our hosted texts?[edit]

Why do we remove links to Wikipedia from texts? When I am reading a text and want to know more about a town or a company or a person, why do I have to open a new tab, go to Wikipedia, and type in the search term, instead of just clicking on a link in the text. Again, as an outsider, a lot of things we do here are strange. Is there a rule I can read somewhere concerning transwiki linking? Or can someone explain why they are being removed from texts that I am adding. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a proposed guideline for this at Wikisource:Wikilinks. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't really say that we have to remove links to Wikipedia, does it? Anyone know why we are removing links to Wikipedia. See: here and here and many others. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
While the guideline doesn't specify removal of links to WP, it does warn against overlinking. The preference here at Wikisource is to link lightly, and only do so for clarity of the text. In the first of your examples, there's no need to link to Milwaukee, as it should be obvious that the Milwaukee Journal comes from there. Now that the article is named as a subpage under the Milwaukee Journal a link to that is no longer necessary. What is needed is a top page for the Milwaukee Journal that can have a "wikipedia" field in the header, which will link to the article over there. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
For decisions that are purely subjective, don't you think the person doing the transcribing should get the benefit of the doubt, and maybe not remove their linking. If you want to create a rule that says when the the name of the town appears in the name of a newspaper, NEVER create a link to that "city, state" article in Wikipedia, I will follow it. Otherwise can we resist the temptation to remove links that maybe you would not have added if you had transcribed the article. While it may be obvious to someone that the Milwaukee Journal comes from Milwaukee, it is not always going to be correct, the Moscow Journal may come from Moscow, Idaho, or the Washington Post may be from Washington state. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
well, some older transcriptions have more wikipedia style links; but more recently only wikisource links, especially with a q.v. some validaters may see removing links as "more current / consensus style". not worth arguing about to me. i would think a portal page for each work, linked from the header, with more information about location and time period would be useful. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 22:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Another reason to avoid over-linking is that more and more people are using Wikisource on ereaders (thanks to the terrific epub export tool) where links often don't even work and anyway are distracting from the text. This probably applies more to fiction than non-fiction. Some people use the {{wg}} template to make links grey (hehe see what I did there?) and less in-your-face, but this style often doesn't carry over to ereaders. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 23:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
This is what I subscribe to as well. I prefer no links, though in some non-fiction works I know that they can be "necessary." The Haz talk 02:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
IMHO, normally, a work of fiction should not have annotations. A fiction is based on the society and culture of the reader and the reader is likely to understand whatever the work refers to. Annotations only distract from the pleasure of reading. But a slightly different perspective is warranted in case of historical fiction and translated literature. The reader may not have sufficient knowledge of ancient history; and in case of translated literature, most readers won't have a clue to exotic words or references in the work. Here annotations are required to help the reader understand properly a work from a different milieu. That is why, such works tend to have a Glossary at the end of the work; but even that may not be sufficient in all cases. Without making rigorous rules for each and everything, this matter should be left to the discretion of concerned editors who are the primary proofreaders of the work. Hrishikes (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • You can always go into the settings of your eReader and suppress external links. Since we cannot read minds, we do not know who wants them and who does not want them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
For historical articles it is important to link to the historical people, and the places described. I don't want to have to guess who "Mayor Foo" was or "Governor Foo" or "Judge Foo" or what state Hackensack was in, or what a Bellanca 14-13 is. We don't need to burden the reader with doing the research to see who the mayor of New York City was in 1930. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It would really be nice if Billinghurst would stop removing the links, or at least join the discussion to explain why he/she is deleting them. They are not even doing a decent job, they keep leaving stray brackets in the articles here, and here, and here, its is just making more work for everyone to fix it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 :)I'd like to give my opinion on this subect. I think we should not link to wikipedia at all. The point of wikisource is to trancribe scanned books for the most part so as to provide accurate transcriptions of original works. Linking to wikipedia from the texts undermines the transcription project and the true essence of wikisource in my opinion. For example looking at this page The Iliad (Butler)/Book I it's very presentable and very informative and will be very useful for someone who is looking to get educated about the Iliad, but it has nothing to do with wikisource in my opinion, which is to provide an accurate transcription of the original. Whoever put this page together must have put a lot of effort into it but I think it would be better suited elsewhere. If someone wants to spice up a text with pictures and links they're better off doing it on something like wikibooks in my opinion. Jpez (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
We can't just force Wikibooks to handle what we don't want to. If these type of things should exist within Wikimedia, and I don't see why not, then they need to end up here. It may be your goal to simply provide accurate transcriptions, but it is my goal to provide source texts for actual use, which can include useful links.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm of like mind Jpez but wouldn't go as far as recommending never linking to Wikipedia at all. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia "mentality" is hard to back away from once they've got their way doing things hooked into you. This is why folks tend to [over] link their Wikisource pieces - they've been indoctrinated into believing interlinking is a must for everyone and everything (and I must do it for you to alleviate your burden or to optimize your benefits).

While the primary task at hand for us is to strive to accurately transcribe and faithfully reproduce previously published works, their is also somewhat of an unspoken desire here to retain as much of the "old school" reading experience that one might have with a printed book in hand as possible and without the politics of edit wars, territorial cabals and endless discussion over the smallest of detail.

Think of it this way: One might think peppering links for every person, place or thing is lessening the "burden" for the potential reader but isn't it also possible doing as much is robbing the ability of the reader to come to his or her own realizations about what warrants further investigation, the degree to which they comprehend the material overall -- even the degree to which they ultimately "absorb" the author's intent -- and similar nuances that can also be classified as 'beneficial' both at the same time?

The take away here is just because you can always easily interlink one thing or another doesn't mean you always should; when you do, make sure you remember that you're taking on the role of 'biased editor' instead of just 'faithful transcriber'. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The history of this site is not to provide linking that does not have a clear value, and the links that you are adding are close to pointless to the articles; in that someone reading the articles is hardly going to need a modern day link to the Wikipedia articles to better understand the article. Your people links have been left, and the red links to our main ns were out of place. We provide the guidance about wikilinks and a simple reading of that would have made it evident why the links were removed. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You are obsessively imposing your personal preference and pretending it is Wikisource policy. We cannot read the minds of people in the present or the future. The "clear value" should be determined by the person who is taking the time to transcribe a document, since they are the best person to determine that value, and they are the end user of the document. If one other non Wikisource editor were to read one of these documents over the next 50 years, I would be amazed, or even if you read them to catch the mistakes you are introducing with stray brackets. There is no Wikisource policy demanding the removal of links to Wikipedia. Imagine if Wikipedia people demanded the removal of links to Wikisource because they saw no value in them, I would hope that you would be the first person to complain. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikimedia is a comprehensive and cross-referenced project. Links between projects at any level can encourage the success of all projects, and should be favored. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I am removing valueless links to places that are not the context of the article. I am leaving pertinent links to people that are contextually relevant to the articles. I am removing redlinks that are nonsensical. I am moving some links to the header fields where we have set those header fields. This has matter been discussed for years and is available in our archive, and those discussions come through in Wikisource:Wikilinks. My editing is in line with that community consensus from the guidance.

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): You choose to ignore the community linking guidance, and continue to link in a WP way without a justification to why it should be linked, and how the link adds value to the transcription. This is not Wikipedia, our guidelines are developed with our experience and our knowledge of what works well to display these works. You should also read Wikisource:Annotations as some of your linking is interpretation that come into the zone of annotation and opinion. So please go and read the previous conversations, then come back with an informed opinion of our previous discussions, or follow the guidance in the editing. @BD2412: Yes, and we try to be comprehensive, though sensible and reasonable pertinent and relevant. We do not need trivial and links of little value, and when we have a 500pp work transcribed by multiple users the linking variability, and the (re|over)linking is problematic. At each of the wikis they have internal linking and external linking guidance, and so do we. Show me lists of wikipedia articles, or a wikibooks works that predominantly links off that wiki. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • No, it is you obsessively imposing your personal style preference and pretending it is WikiSource policy. There is no rule demanding the removal of links to Wikipedia. The person taking the time and effort should be making the decision of what is important to link to, because they are the end-user, usually related to other projects that link here to Wikisource. I asked you politely, several times to disengage, and let others mentor me as to what changes need to be made, so I can make the changes. You refused to disengage, and in fact sped up your effort to remove all Wikipedia links, and example of extremely bad-faith. You do not have the ability to predict what people will find useful one year into the future, let alone 100 years or 1,000 years. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    What rubbish. Follow the guidance, look at the discussions above, look in the archives, look at all the existing practice, look at what I have done, it all aligns. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not particularly familiar with Wikibooks, but we routinely link to Wikipedia from Wikiquote for names of notable people who don't have Wikiquote pages. BD2412 T 03:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
As do we. This isn't what is being argued here. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I read the guideline, there is no wording demanding the removal of links to Wikipedia, it is your personal preference. When people question your behavior don't say, "It is in the bible, go read the bible". If there is a rule demanding the removal of links to Wikipedia tell us the chapter and verse in the bible. I understand you dislike the links and do not find them useful, but you do not have to impose your personal preference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Richard Arthur Norton I'd like to see the links that were removed to judge for myself if they were wrongfully or rightfully removed. Billinghurst is an administrator here and one of their jobs here is to to overlook and make sure the guidelines we have are being followed. Of course an administrator may overstep their boundaries and if so it should be brought to our attention if this is the case. I've had no problems with any user since I've joined wikisource and everybody has been extremely helpful so it seems strange to me that user:billinghurst would have something personal with you and has nothing better to do than to stalk your posts, so I'd like to see the links removed if possible. Jpez (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no specific wording demanding the removal of [wiki]links because the understanding is to keep such linking to "a minimum" to begin with (i.e. no overlinking). From the works I've inspected, you are clearly linking more than what is germane to the content or to its comprehension. Initial contributors are always the worst when it comes to the aspect of linking; subsequent proofreaders always seem to approach it with a far more objective and realistic eye I'm afraid.

In addition & as a bit of friendly advice, you'd do far better by ratcheting down the personal tone and nature taken in some of your comments. To date, you've just about indicted every past present and future consensus policy maker on one level or another and it is getting a bit "too specific" & "too repetitive" even for my tastes. Please; we value passionate contributors but there are times when passion can cloud good netiquette and good judgment. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Why do we delete incomplete transcripts?[edit]

Is it true that we delete partial transcripts, rather than work to complete them? Left on my page: "You should provide a full newspaper article if you wish for the transcript to be retained." Some of the works I transcribed contain an ellipsis "..." when the original text cannot be read, or the OCR is garbled and needs to be compared to the original text. Can someone point me to the policy, so I can understand it better. Are we going to delete all the texts with article-quality categories less than 100%? If we are, lets get to it right away. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The guideline for this is Wikisource:What Wikisource includes#Excerpts. There's a difference between adding an excerpt from a full work, and not having finished adding a full work. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
That isn't very helpful. It says: "Random or selected sections of a larger work, are generally not acceptable". How many pages of text is a large work? We transcribe individual newspaper articles without transcribing the whole paper. Are we going to delete anything with an ellipsis? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Not friendly: "You should provide a full newspaper article if you wish for the transcript to be retained."
  • Translated into polite speak: "Don't forget to try and fill in those ellipsis, if you need help interpreting an original text, ask me and I can help."
if the original text is illegible, you can use the template {{illegible}} and set the page status to "Problematic" so that other will know to help with this passage. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
While the desire to host as much of an original periodical, journal, serial and the like is always preferable, reality always makes room for some degree of deviation from the stated "policy" on this. Of course, not every contributor is going to be willing never mind capable of providing the transcription of an entire newspaper page containing the specific article in question in every instance for example. What is "expected", in my view however, when adding/hosting works found in such ongoing publications as newspapers is having some degree of diligence in researching the article to determine it's most "recognizable and/or established" incarnation and whatever incarnation that may be, providing a "framework" that readers can easily follow & that others can logically add to.

The former point is loosely intended for R.A.N.'s benefit since several of his contributions seem to originate either from wire services like the Associated Press or from single member of a syndicated publishing family which typically means the piece was carried by more than one newspaper of the day. If so and, given a choice between exact [hypothetical] reproductions sourced in the archives of the Albany Herald, Sacramento Star and Chicago Tribune, the hope would be that the work is added under the most recognizable publication whenever possible, the Chicago Tribune -- which goes to the former point about framework.

In short, always strive to add/build a logical "framework" to host such articles. Illustrated, this means the content for the [fictitious] article, Aviator Sues to Marry Fighter Plane, should never appear as a true mainspace work (doing that can warrant deletion btw) but as sub-page in a logical framework for that previously determined "best" paper as Chicago Tribune/1921/June/Aviator Sues to Marry Fighter Plane, along with a mainspace redirect labelled the same article title accordingly.

This was a "short answer" covering only a slice of the entire hosting "policy pie", but I hope it clarified the matter for you some. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Does Wikisource demand we use the related_author field?[edit]

For instance O Captain! My Captain! links to Abraham Lincoln in a conventional way and Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Clemens, Samuel Langhorne doesn't link to the author page. This change here converted the article from the clear lede where it reads that Eddie Scheider is the subject of the article; to a confusing lede where Eddie Schneider is now related somehow to the author of the Associated Press article. One is clear, and the other is trying to use an orange to fill a field designed for apples. Does anyone else find this confusing? I am coming in as a relatively new user, whereas you may be used to the way things are done. Is this demanded by Wikisource, or is this the imposition of someone's personal choice? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The "related author" field in the header is relatively new and comes as part of sub-template {{plain sister}}. It's a way of linking to people who are also authors that we host in a way that Wikidata can get at. Wikidata can't use the Notes field as it's not structured. It is not "demanded" that the field is used, rather it is considered a good idea. It's newness means that older texts won't have it. With respect to the "related" part of the field name, in the Mainspace: it is nothing to do with relationships between authors. That's a strawman argument. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not making a strawman argument, I am telling you how someone from the outside reads the awkward phrase "related authors". I am not attacking you, I am just pointing out things that are awkward and confusing. Software companies pay outsiders to beta test software to find out just these things that insiders are so used to, that they just ignore it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
If pertinent our preference is to link to the author page from the body of the work, however, where you had them in the notes I moved them to the preferred alternate of the related author tag. So no, we do not demand you use the tag, you are welcome to provide one link from the body of the text. We don't use the notes field. There are discussion about this in the archives of this page. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Interaction detente[edit]

Can I request an interaction detente between myself and Billinghurst, and perhaps have George Orwell III or Slowking4 show me what changes I need to make to the texts that I am adding. I would rather have a mentoring session, and then I can make the needed changes myself. Billinghurst is imposing their own personal preferences, rather than policy, by removing all the links to Wikipedia. There is no rule that demands the links be removed. Even while it is under discussion, they are still removing the links, and leaving stray half brackets in the text. There are tens of thousands of older texts that need work done on them, there is no need to rush to change the ones I am just adding now. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You could try bringing this up to them directly at User talk:Billinghurst. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
... or you can follow the guidelines and style in place for this site so we don't have to convert them to the preferred style. I am only working on them while moving them to be subpages of the newspapers for where they need to be. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I can make those changes myself if you point them out, I can learn to tie my own shoelaces. You obsessively remove all links to Wikipedia despite there being no rule demanding all Wikipedia links be removed. There are tens of thousands of documents requiring someone's attention, but your spend your time removing links, which I then restore, a double waste of time. You also leave behind stray brackets, you rush into removing the links out-of-policy, and then don't even check your work for errors your introduce. I asked you to stop, but that just speeded up your removal of the Wikipedia links. You are implementing your personal preference, not a Wikisource rule. You also made up the rule that Portals are only for exceptional people, which isn't policy either. I understand that everyone who edits Wikipedia and its satellite projects has a compulsion to contribute, but sometimes it needs to be tempered. I prefer interacting with Beeswaxcandle who can point out needed changes, and direct me to the policy page, or show me a well formatted example. I can learn to tie my own shoelaces. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Easter egg links to Wikipedia[edit]

For example at Washington Post/1913/Cured by Serum why do we have an Easter egg type link to Wikipedia? The text has "sister projects: Wikipedia article." How does the reader know what they are going to get when they click on that link? It can connect to anywhere in Wikipedia. Any article can have multiple topics and multiple subjects, how do you choose one, and why hide the subject from the reader. Let them decide if the want to click on it, rather than make them click on it to see where it is going to take them. How do you decide which of the many topics in an article to link to? Am I going to click and be sent to an article on the physician, on his patient, on tuberculosis, on his cure, on pseudoscience, on scientific misconduct? unsigned comment by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) .

Hover mouse over the link without clicking it and a tooltip will appear specifying the particular article being linked to. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Instead of having a workaround that needs to be explained, wouldn't it be more useful to just display the link target? Can we have more than one target? Most texts have more than one subject. I was told that we don't allow subject categories, but here is where categories would be useful. We tag photos at Flickr with subjects, we tag articles in Wikipedia with categories. Even porn in categorized to aid the user, why are we against adding useful things? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Linking to Wikipedia[edit]

Linking to Wikipedia is important to me. I am working on 40 volumes (Southern Historical Society's Papers) of men that were in the Civil War aka War Between the States as well as strange place names in states. Long ago when I first started studying that war when I saw a general's name I had no idea which side of the war he was on. I was not raised with that history. I don't link often because those who DO study that war will perhaps know many of the names and personalities as I do now. Still, there is a general I read about today that I have never heard of. On most occasions, Wikipedia gives the links needed for more and better information I encounter in these volumes as well as a photo of the person. Still, there is so much material to do that I don't often employ links but I support the idea of Wikipedia links in other works because we can learn more and clarify more. —Maury (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Maury, there is no problem, in general, with links to Wikipedia. A single inline link at the first mention in the text of a person who we don't have as an author is absolutely fine. The discussion going on further up this page is about links to Wikipedia that are either in the notes field of the header, or are to data that don't need linking. For example, a single link to your General is useful, but in the context linking to the Wikipedia article on Houston is not needed. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Is that Houston the person, or Houston the city ... If it is a city, is it Houston, Alabama or Houston, Alaska or Houston, Arkansas or Houston, Delaware or Houston, Florida or Houston, Georgia or Houston, Indiana or Houston, Minnesota or Houston, Mississippi or Houston, Missouri or Houston, Nebraska or Houston, Ohio or Houston, Pennsylvania or Houston, Tennessee. I can't tell from your conversation, and of course a reader of an original text does not know either. Other than your personal preference, is there a good reason not to link? Maybe you can read minds and foretell the future, but I do not know what every reader knows, and does not know. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Understood and Thank you. BTW, Sam Houston, a Virginian, was the man who represented Matthew Fontaine Maury so that Matthew could join the United States Navy. Matthew was living in Tennessee at that time. It's interesting how things and people connect. Without Sam Houston, for whom Houston, Texas is named, Matthew F Maury would not have been doing oceanography, laying out the Tracks in the Sea, Underwater Atlantic Cable on his Telegraphic Plateau for Cyrus Field &c, &c, &c.. —Maury (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I feel that I should cite a source for the above. One is in Ineuw's work on the Popular Science volumes. It is stated, In 1825 he [Matthew Fontaine Maury] obtained, through the Hon. Sam Houston, a midshipman's warrant in the United States Navy. —Maury (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Of course you know who General Foo is, and Major Foo, and Captain Foo, Jr. and the names may not match exactly with the name in Wikipedia. The Major Foo in the text may be John Foo of Virginia or James Foo from South Carolina in Wikipedia. A single text may contain a dozen names. It takes an expert in the field to make the connections to the biographies, and add annotations, and explain errors, and recognize typos. Asking each reader to figure these things out, each time they read the text, is silly. Place names also need an expert to link them to Wikipedia. A biography may say that the person was born in Fooville or Foo County or on the Foo family farm. Only a scholar of the text knows. The equipment they use also requires links, armaments are a specialty field. The person who took the time to transcribe and annotate the material should be the one to decide what links are relevant. The whole point of Wikipedia and Wikisource and Wiki Commons is to have a single reference work with interconnecting links. As I pointed out before, imagine if Wikipedia purged all links to Wikisource. You can always ignore a link, but when you want to know more about something, a link is essential. It is patronizing to assume we know what a reader knows, or doesn't know, so they do not need a link. It is ridiculous to assume what we know today will be common knowledge in 10, 100 or 1,000 years. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Foo who? Vietnamese? Is it a derivative of the Sun Yung Fooey family? I encountered Hung Chow and Wan Hung Lo once. No, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), I do not know the many people named Foo you have mentioned. I have enough trouble with the name Maury, Fontaine, and Morris to look for any Foo family. I agree with what you are trying to do though. I really do! I don't see the problem with it. It may be overkill in some cases but I prefer that over wondering and not knowing. smiley (1947) —Maury (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • General Foo went back to his farm after the war and went on to invent the widget. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Don't forget Cindy Lou Foo, who was no more than two. At any rate, I put links to Wikipedia wherever I feel they'll be helpful to someone reading the page; see for example A Welsh Grammar, Historical and Comparative/Introduction, where they're all over the place (as well as a few inline links to Welsh Wikisource). Angr 19:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Annotations, typos, and errors[edit]

What are the hard rules on annotations, fixing typos, and errors of fact. Again Billinghurst has a very strong opinion on the subject and instead of giving advice, or showing an example, or pointing me to the Wikisource rules, he/she is just making the changes themselves to their personal preferences. And of course they are still removing links to Wikipedia in the texts I am transcribing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

i see there is an existing example Harper's; Harpers Weekly:General Robert Edward Lee, that would make a model, although the yellow highlighting is a little jarring. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 11:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The general rule is to represent the source text exactly as it is. So no annotations, no fixing of typos (although these can be marked with {{sic}}), and certainly no correcting of facts (or else we'd have to scrub a great many works altogether!). Basically, Wikisource captures editions of works as they were published. Annotated, synthesised, or otherwise modified editions can then be produced from the Wikisource texts (and published elsewhere—perhaps on Wikiversity, if it fits). And Richard, I'd really encourage you to assume good faith! I've been tinkering around on Wikisource for years, and have on (rare) occasion felt like people's actions have been directed at me, but honestly it's just not like that: we're all trying to do our best, and everyone here really does want everyone else to stick around and enjoy Wikisource! — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 01:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): About errata, you can have a look at the linking at the upper portion of the page Nil Durpan/Appendix and the concerned page space. I have not yet done the linking for the whole page, but printed errata can possibly be handled in that fashion. If there is no printed errata, but you find one, sic and SIC templates can be used. But the work, aside from linkings, should be a true copy of the scan as far as possible. Hrishikes (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Typescript copy of the reminiscences of John Caldwell. PRONI, T3541.5.3.pdf[edit]

Erm No license shown? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Upload by controversial user. Hrishikes (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No file Index:Creativecommons bylaws.pdf[edit]

No file?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the file on Commons (commons:File:Creativecommons bylaws.pdf) you will see that it was deleted due to no license. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
So why was an index retained here?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Because no one got around to deleting it. I've done so now. Angr 20:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Pages from the Page: namespace are now also deleted. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-27[edit]

15:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Image captions in Index:The Jungle Book.djvu[edit]

Any takers? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

We need more validators[edit]

Index:Memoirs of a Huguenot Family.djvu "It is hard to get good [any] help these days." —Maury (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It'll be november soon enough. ;-) By the way, what's with the <mark /> element? — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 05:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I have never had a book completed in November. I really do not look forward to November for my works, other than I enjoy reading, and thereby validating, the works of others. My project stems from an old man doing family in history for his descendants because they asked him to. It goes back to France 1500's. The <mark /> you've asked about is a highlight for my own family purposes. I fully intend to remove all of them when I have finished the ditch-digger's work of proofing all pages. The one you validated was an ancestor or collateral kin surname that I was not aware of. Originally I was on Internet working on genealogy and found wikipedia and later wikisource for my love of old books and saving useful history, science, art, &c. The book you worked has a place where it is stated that the rest of the letters are lost but I have found that large section through genealogical research. A problem is that I cannot add it to the section stating the material is lost. It is letters to the Reverend James Maury, instructor to Thomas Jefferson Jefferson for 2 years after Jefferson's father, Peter Jefferson, died. Jefferson's Autobiography mentions Rev. James Maury as a "correct and classical scholar". I do genealogical research from time to time out of curiosity and for my grand-children. Thus use of the <mark /> until I get back to the page to work on genealogy. I thank you in all sincerity for your help. Still, we need more validations on other people's projects which I earnestly try to help, and have been working hard on by validating now -- not waiting for "November" which already has many books lined up. We know not all books get validated in November. They are backing up when they could be finished if only more people would help each other by validating a few pages once in a while and then going back to their personal projects. —Maury (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The shoes fits. Maury, for many years I did lots of validations, indeed I did more validating than proofreading. But these last few years I am following through a big project and I don't validate at all. Thanks for all the validation you've done, of my work, and of others'. I'm sorry some of us are not reciprocating at the moment. Hesperian 01:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I shall also endevour to do more validating. :) I quite enjoy it. I spend most of my time doing post-validation proofreading, actually: downloading validated works and reading them (smooth-reading, the PG people call it), and usually catch quite a few errors. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 03:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Hesperian, you have always thanked me for what small part of validating I did on your project but that is not what I seek here. I am glad you understand the situation about unvalidated books backing up. I don't mean just my books but rather lots of books others have completed. I doubt that you got a thank you from anyone for your "raw image" work either. I hereby thank you for what you have done with that work. It has helped me and still does. I think many of us get caught up in personal projects and leave them to be validated but November cannot get them all done. So what happens with books that are completely finished but not validated--we wait until November and November passes onward as it leaves many books behind. Meanwhile, we are working on still more projects. We start new works at their beginning while almost completed books are left behind in November's dust. So what happens to those? They are stored in a "temporary" archive. They accumulate there. They become our dusty archives. In this we do not produce as many books as we could. We stop short of that. We all need to assist each other if only a validation or two and not rely entirely upon November. —Maury (talk) 03:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
When I first arrived here I proposed that we should create a system of you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-yours system of validation agreements between users, or a board where people can post their recently done pages in need of validation and "swap" validations amongst each other. Maybe we should reconsider these ideas or something similar. Abyssal (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Are you Chris? He and I were running for Administrator at the same time but I backed out. Chris became an administrator and he did similar to what you have stated. He created an area where potential validators could sign up. Chris was a good worker but he disappeared. I placed my name on that list (where is it now?) and I have been validating people's works ever since. "Needless to say", so I won't say it. —Maury (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Abyssal, we've talked about this before and got nowhere -- or a very short distance. Number #5 on your talk page. Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help#Getting_texts_validated —Maury (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No file Index:Economic and Social Council Resolution 2007-25.pdf[edit]

Commons deletion? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

See at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Economic and Social Council Resolution 2007-25.pdf Hrishikes (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
yep, after 1987 c:Template:PD-US-no notice-UN, maybe we need to have a word with the UN for some CC licenses. see also Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.1 Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 21:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
That user mistakenly marked many files created after 1987 for deletion when a good number still remained in the public domain. See w:Template talk:PD-UN for @George Orwell III:'s explanation. There's a chance that it is still in the public domain but you'd have to look into it. The Haz talk 20:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I should add that document likely was deleted by mistake. It probably should have had c:Template:PD-UN-doc. The Haz talk 21:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Would like to add the Garnett translation of Dead Souls[edit]

I see that on there are two volumes of Constance Garnett's translation of Dead Souls by Gogol, published by Chatto & Windus (London, 1922). Since Garnett died in 1946, I gather this work has just entered the public domain in the US, but won't in the UK for a couple of years. So in this case I should upload the djvu files to Wikisource rather than to Wikimedia Commons? There's already the Hogarth translation on Wikisource (copied from Gutenberg), but the Garnett translation seems to be more accurate and complete. Mudbringer (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the copyright status in the United States. The Copyright Renewals include
DEAD SOULS, by Nikolay Gogol; translated by Mrs. Edward Garnett [i. e., Constance Black Garnett] (The collected works of Nikolay Gogol, v. 1 and 2) © 23Apr23, (pub. abroad 7Nov22), A704400. R71938, 1Dec50, David Garnett (C)
Which states that its copyright date in the US is 1923, despite, as the Copyright Office made note of, it was published in 1922. Wikilivres would take it, but let me look for other advice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Uggh. That is the registration date, which is when copyright would start unless it had been previously published, in which case it should have started then (of course, not according to the 9th Circuit). Possibly the publication abroad was not "general". Technically I think, the renewal had to be made before the 28th anniversary of the publication starting -- if that was 7 Nov 1922, then the renewal came a month late. If it was 23 April 1923, then the renewal was right in the window. (It was later that registrations were allowed to the end of the last calendar year, but maybe that was close enough and they allowed it.) Or… maybe this was the old ad interim copyright for the foreign publication, which served a short while until copies could be manufactured in the U.S., at which point a proper registration could be made. Maybe the 1922 date was for the ad interim copyright. The Compendium I stated: An application covering an American edition or a work first registered for ad interim copyright should state the date of publication of the American edition, but should also indicate the year date of publication or the foreign edition. Later it says: Ad interim copyright may be extended to the full term if an American edition is manufactured and published during the five-year ad interim period, and if a claim in the American edition is registered. (See item 8.4.6.ll.b.) In such case the full copyright term is computed from the date of first publication abroad. (Compendium I, page 8-7, warning large PDF). So it sounds like ad interim copyright was for a short time (though it did exempt notice requirements on the foreign works), and it could be extended to the full term by complying with the manufacturing requirements followed by registration, which as a guess sounds like happened in 1923. But the above is pretty explicit that copyright started with the publication abroad. If so, that would be 1922, regardless of the later registration. In that case, 1923 is the full U.S. registration date and not the start of copyright. I'm wavering but… I think I'll lean towards 1922 as the publication year for that, so U.S. expiry on Jan 1, 1998. [As an aside, the Compendium I noted the Heim case, the one the 9th Circuit relied on in Twin Books, and noted that the Office did register works without notice under the rule of doubt up until the UCC came into force, which the Office thinks then changed the Heim doctrine. But at the time, and per Heim, that only changed the validity of the registration, not the start date of the copyright… that was a 9th Circuit invention.] The UK publication does have an "All rights reserved" but no copyright notice. It's probably in Twin Books territory but I think most would consider it being PD in the US., so I'd lean OK for Wikisource. It should become unambiguously PD in 2019. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your research and advice. I guess I'll go ahead and get started on it and see how it goes. Mudbringer (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Just a note -- Constance Garnett was British and died in 1946, and the UK is the country of origin, so the work cannot be uploaded to Commons until 2017 since that is when the UK copyright would expire. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I thought. I've uploaded the djvu files to Wikisource here and here. I'll try making the index files tomorrow. Mudbringer (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Index:Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices, II (1984).pdf[edit]

Any takers to push the last few index pages into proofread status so I can mark this for validation ( barring 2 pages that need symbol images)?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, any takers for validation? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-28[edit]

15:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The World Factbook (1982)[edit]

Anyone want to follow the pattern set and assemble this? I'd really appreciate someone else resolving some issues with transcription inconsistencies mostly caused by the way Proofread page handles page breaks.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 Wikimania meetup[edit]

anyone interested in a wikimania meetup? [50] Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 19:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Limitations on author pages[edit]

It may be time to draft a set of standards limiting content on Author pages for authors whose works are not in PD, and whose works will not be PD for a long time. I've come across Author:Alexios Schandermani, which appears to be little more than a personal advertisement for an author's works.

In particular, how much information is right for the author's description, and what is too much? How much information should we provide for works that are not hosted on Wikisource, Wikilivres, or any public internet location? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I looked at it and I do not believe it belongs here on Wikisource. It certainly isn't before 1923, is under copyright and it is self-promotion of his work. Want to buy his books now? It is almost as bad a Brook D. Simpson, instructor from NY working in and posting his books on general Grant on Wikipedia. Want to buy his books? We are allowing self-promotion of books to be purchased but yet what we do on WS is for free. —Maury (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
While I agree with your sentiments, I am looking for objective criteria that we could draft, so that when these pages appear, we can point disgruntled contributors to a page explaining the situation, rather than waste time writing an original explanation every time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Is there any reason to limit them, instead of just forbidding them? If the author doesn't have any free works and nothing will go PD for at least 20 years, there's no real reason to have pages for them. I can see cases where we could have problematic pages for people with a little free work, but I'd rather not add rules for something that's not current--unless it is a current problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The author page cited really looks like a promotional piece and detracts from the dignity of the site, but Prosfilaes is right, total prohibition works better than imposing limitations and easier to control. Here are some proposals:

1. As said above, pages for authors having no PD work and no likely PD work in the next 20 years should not be allowed here.

Agree, though I wouldn't even give 20 years. Caveat: there are exceptions to this rule (covered later) — billinghurst sDrewth
In 2019, new stuff will start entering the PD in the US. Anyone interested enough to start accumulating information to facilitate to the entry of works a couple years ahead of time should be permitted to do so. 20 years is arbitrary, but there's hardly any abuse potential in letting works up to 1940 be listed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

2. If author pages are at all allowed, full bibliography should also be allowed, irrespective of whether it is hosted here, for the sake of completeness, general information and as a stimulus to prospective contributors to add the work here.

Agree and we have always allowed a linking to freely hosted full works elsewhere. — billinghurst sDrewth
I think that ignores some of the issues that brought this up. Assuming that the poems under Author:Alexios Schandermani stay, does that mean that we will provide full bibliography (even though prospective contributors can't add the works) and links to legally hosted non-Free works elsewhere? (The history of that page should be looked through for the many variations on what we could see.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

3. For foreign authors, bibliography should be limited mostly to English translations; there is no use having a foreign language bibliography, that is for the Wikisource in that language.

Disagree, there are referenced/cited works in non-English for authors, and the authors should be linked, especially when they can be interlanguage linked after that. — billinghurst sDrewth
I'll note that "foreign authors" is problematic in a multi-national environment, as well as the implication that nations and languages go together. I think if we have a bibliography, we should have a list of works that can be translated as well as those that just have to be scanned. There are certainly authors where even when translations exist, original names are necessary for clarifying what is a translation of what.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

4. Description for authors having Wikipedia pages should be restricted to a few words or phrases, like "British journalist" or "Indian novelist" and the like. The reader can see the rest from the Wikipedia link. A few lines excerpted from Wikipedia may be allowed, without any weasel words or superlatives or eulogistic description.

Agree though I would say minimal text to put the author or their works in context, though I tend less to excerpt enWP, eg. contributor mentions for local multi-author works

5. Original description of a few sentences should be allowed for authors not having Wikipedia articles, but this should be very concise, without having a biased look.

Agree though my saying covering minimal text I think cover this — billinghurst sDrewth

6. Works listed should not have detailed description. Noting its genre should suffice, detailed content, author's purpose and method of writing it etc. should not feature here. If the work has any outstanding uniqueness (e.g., won a Nobel prize, was the first detective novel in source language etc.), then that information may be provided concisely.

hmmm detail would normally belong on a work, though if there is some detail and no work, I am not adverse to sourced commentary. Minimal and contextual if it clearly adds value would be comment, where disputed the lesser position should be favoured — billinghurst sDrewth

7. Overall, the whole page should have an objective look, there should not be any imprint of passion or emotion of contributors on the page.

Agree neutral, note personal opinion and choice, where disputes occur, the lesser is generally preferred — billinghurst sDrewth

8. No linking of books to commercial sites.

Agree focus is on linking to free works — billinghurst sDrewth
submitted for further discussion.
N.B. I have created/modified 4 author pages (1, 2, 3, 4) in some detail. I am not sure whether these pages would meet the community consensus. If not, other contributors are welcome to amend the pages. Hrishikes (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Two pros and a con:
  • Pro: what about communal research? Most of the above arguments only really work if one contributor makes the basic Author: structure, and nobody else significantly touches that page.
  • Con: Isn't it a little bit irresponsible to keep pushing research responsibility out to sister projects (i.e. WP, WD etc.) If this actually worked then eliminate local Author: pages altogether!
  • Pro: Sometimes details available "erode" over time. There is nothing sadder than finding out a biography was available years earlier but is no more because the hosting site has gone down, never to be restored. Sometimes another authority might keep backups but not always, or worse keeps archives of dead links. For example: Brite Sparks (biographies of Australian science figures) is long gone although the NLA has some entries still available.
  • AuFCL (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I've cut out the promotional material. Is it still objectionable? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
As of now. All those links obscure the two (unlicensed) works on Wikisource. And it's fine to link to Google Books and publishers as reference, but inline like that randomly prioritizes certain sites and obscures the difference between works available and bibliographic information; and linking to works found online dilutes our Free mandate. I guess, I'm looking at a different page; you meant [51]. I don't see the point in removing years and ISBNs. The poetry pushes it into a case I said we might not need to handle now, the case where there's some trivial amount of free work behind more non-free work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
i agree with the not promotional, however, good bibliographies can be hard to find. alternatively, you could also have a style guide = standard list only with isbn, not link to pay or blog sites. (similar to w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies). Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 02:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Always better to have an ISBN and link to Special:BookSources where the reader can pick which external link to follow. Green Giant (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Added commentary inline above. The purpose of our author pages is to provide detail about authors of works and writings in the public domain, and links to those works that are freely available. We do have some exceptions to that basic premise is we do have author pages to some significantly notable authors who are not in the public domain as their works have been added and deleted, and we do this to stop the addition of these works. The premise again is that if there are no works in the public domain, that they are of the exception, and where there presence is disputed then we are more likely to delete those author pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

ie. Author:Stephen King The Haz talk 18:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

One way to handle biographical details, if details beyond the minimum need to be held for some reason, is to post those to the accompanying Talk page, with any links or references used. Better still, add the information to Wikipedia, but I know they don't always keep stub biographies on people who are not "notable" enough. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Index:British Reptiles, Amphibians, and Fresh-water Fishes.djvu[edit]

No file. - Per a Commons deletion as the images were not yet out of UK copyright. The text was OK and the file could have been localised as I suggested at WS:PD a while ago. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

File is now local :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Index:The Pilgrim's Progress.djvu[edit]

Concern was previously raised that the new material on the front of this didn't have a clear status. Unless someones able to provide a better date ( checked which didn't have one, I'm considering putting a Deletion request at Commons, Pilgrims Progress itself is of course Public domain (the Deletion would be solely in relation to the "new material" sushc as the title bindings and [[52]] ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Further to this the R.H Brock identified died in 1943., - ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
This would appear to be solely about the notes on Page 6, the index and the fact that theres not date for the edition ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The earlier-thread is here- Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2014-10#Index:The_Pilgrim.27s_Progress.djvu ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: The Digital Library of India has 17 copies of this work, pertaining to different years/editions. Which one do you want? Hrishikes (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
One that is clearly and unambiguously in the public domain internationally. As I said the problem's arisen as the specfic edition doesn't have a definitive date. In the previous thread it was certainly suggested that a "clearly dated" edition be found.  :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Please Check out and choose
  1. 1909 (Harvard Classics vol 15 containing The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan and The Lives of John Donne and George Herbert by Izaak Walton)
  2. 1904 (1956 reprint, Oxford Standard Authors Series)
  3. 1892 (Ward, Lock, Bowden & Co., London)
  4. 1908 (Cassell & Co., London-Paris-NY)
  5. 1904 (Oxford, 1929 reprint]
  6. 1904 (The Pilgrim's Progress, The Holy War and Grace Abounding by John Bunyan, Thomas Nelson & Sons, Lond-Edin-NY)

Hrishikes (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

My recomendation is that IF you can show the 1904, Nelson version to be free from copyright restrictions outside the US, that's probably the best bet. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm some of the data you've provided suggest the Nelson version we've got might be a post 1922 reprint version, (sigh) Wasn't able to view scans on the DLI link as it companied about a missing URL's, This needs some more research..
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed, The version we have is from the 1960's, check the address of the US arm on the Colophon page against details here(Thomas Nelson (publisher)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Why are you getting bothered about reprints? As far as I understand, editions have new copyright, not reprints. Of the various works I am now doing, Panchatantra is 1955 reprint, 1925 copyright; The Home & the World is 1957 reprint, 1919 copyright. A reprint has no new material, so no new copyright, except when separately registered for the same. Aside from the copyright aspect, scan quality is also important. DLI scans have variable quality, which is important in case of images. So the file in DLI should be chosen from the angle of scan quality. As you are already engaged in this work, so you are more suited to do the choosing. You can compare all the 17 versions by going to the DLI homepage and author-searching Bunyan. The scans are in TIF format, so a reader is needed, which can be installed from the link given on the DLI page. Moreover, an endless list of this book's versions are available in other sites: Google Books -- 1, 2, 3; Internet Archive -- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and more. So there should not be any problem about replacing the WS version with a suitable substitute. Best wishes, Hrishikes (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but the plugin required on windows is not "free" software... You tried :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
In your list DLI 2 & 6 are seemingly broken links, and don't show up by searching on Bunyan as an author..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The concern is about the "index" which is not part of the original Bunyan work... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - Index:The pilgrims progress as originally published by John Bunyan ; being a facsimile of the first edition (1878).djvu

& Index:The pilgrim's progress by John Bunyan every child can read (1909).djvu ready for proofreading if anyone cares.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The second also has a version of the The Little Pilgrim which is not currently sourced. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Yes, 2 and 6 go to broken links because DLI people put wrong linking on the allmetainfo page. Correct links: 2 and 6. The plug-in is very much free, see on this page. If you want to do it without the plug-in, then you can download the pages directly by going to 2 (change page number upto 438) and 6 (change page number upto 755). If you wish to download the books directly as PDF, then you will need DLI downloader, for which, see 1, 2, 3, 4. I have not used these tools as yet, so I don't know whether these work or not. Anyway, this discussion is now practically redundant as you have already added the work from IA, this is only for answering the points you had raised. Hrishikes (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-29[edit]

15:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Index:The pilgrim's progress by John Bunyan every child can read (1909).djvu[edit]

And another work done. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Marx in English from USSR[edit]

There are some books by Karl Marx, published without year of publication and without names of translators and editors, by the Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, in the Soviet era. I am interested in Notes on Indian History (664-1858) found at and Google Books show the year as 1947, but it is not so. The Publisher's Note mentions that the work was prepared after the Russian version of 1947. So the year can be deemed to be in the 1950s or thereabouts, and the IA version is the second impression. The then Soviet law forbade copyright, and even if current US law deem the work as non-PD, copyright status is difficult to understand, as the translators/editors are not named in the work. So request guidance about whether this is addable here. Hrishikes (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

In 1996, Russia had a law that was life+50 (plus extensions for some authors), restoring copyright to older works. Thus any such works would have been had their copyright restored in the United States and thus have copyright for 95 years from publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Prosfilaes, those works will probably become public domain in the US in 2043 at the earliest. Green Giant (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Broadcast free information from space![edit]

Hi all,

There's a cool event based in Uganda, but designed for remote participation, this weekend.

"Outernet" is a project to repurpose satellites to "broadcast" free information, that can be picked up by inexpensive receivers, for free, and then reshared for free over local networks/WiFi. A way to get information to remote and underserved parts of the world. It's one-way communication, so certainly not a replacement for the Internet or a total solution to the Digital Divide -- but a very cool project nonetheless. They are also developing democratic processes for deciding what content to share.

They are having an edit-a-thon this weekend. It runs for 36 continuous hours: 10am Saturday to 10pm Sunday, local time in Uganda.

Event link/signup HERE

And see their blog post

Pete (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Transcribing Bilingual Parallel Texts on English Wikisource[edit]

Going by Multilingual texts, there has been discussion about allowing transcriptions of books that reproduce non-English texts with English translations on facing pages. Most of the bilingual pages I've found here so far have been Wikisource translations, such as this poem by Ovid. There is a page listing one of the most famous series of such books, the Loeb Classical Library, but work on importation and transcription has barely begun.

One book I'm very interested in working on is Swahili Tales which has been started on multilingual Wikisource, but doesn't seem to be currently active. I've tried working on that, but a lot of the templates normally used here on English Wikisource don't seem to work there, and when you try to edit the English-language pages you're warned that they're prohibited. Would it be a grievous breach of etiquette to set up an index file for that book and do the editing here? Does anyone have any thoughts about how to format the final version? It would be very nice to show the Swahili and English texts in parallel, possibly transcluding one page at a time in the rows of a table, or perhaps even better to define each paragraph as a section and to arrange those in parallel in a table. I've set up a sample of what a parallel text might look like here.

I do feel that at least the Swahili text should be on multilingual Wikisource, where it can be categorised with the other Swahili texts, but then the English translation in the book is a significant text in its own right (it has, for example, been translated into Japanese), and it would make an important addition to the collection of folklore texts here. Mudbringer (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The English version, after proofreading in original location, may be transcluded in English Wikisource, by using {{Iwpages}}. A note may be provided within <mark>...</mark> on the index page that the English pages would be transcluded in the English site. That will circumvent the prohibition. Alternately, the whole work may be proofread here after setting up the index file, and then the Swahili pages transcluded in oldwikisource. The template would work there because it was imported here from that site. Hrishikes (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer! Looking at the French documentation for {{Iwpages}} I found a bilingual text of works by Cicero on facing pages that has made good progress, in Latin and French. It looks like the procedure is to set up separate index pages for each language, so perhaps I should try to get an English index page set up for Swahili Tales. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like they're planning a facing-page presentation for the Cicero text. I tried putting a few pages into a table here, and the formats don't fit well together. Still, I think I can see the way forward. Thanks! Mudbringer (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
@Mudbringer: Two indices are not necessary. One will do fine. See The History of the Bengali Language/Appendix 1 and click Appendix II in the header portion and you will get one option. Hrishikes (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: I can't find any provision for including alternate pages (e.g. only pages 3,5,7 ...) with {{Iwpages}}, which is what I'd need to do here.
Have you tried this method ---


I have not had occasion to use it, but I guess it should work. I don't know wheher exclude/include parameters and the step function for using alt. pages given at Help:Transclusion#Advanced usage will work or can be added to the template. Hrishikes (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
{{iwtrans}} brings in too much, at least when I tried it here. Mudbringer (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I see the problem now. The only thing certain to work in the current state of templates is creating a second index here, importing the pages with {{Iwpage}} and then going for normal transclusion, with the step function for alternate pages. If this function were present in {{Iwpages}}, that would simplify the matter immensely. You may seek expert opinion from George Orwell III for any other viable option. Hrishikes (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like that'll provide the most flexibility later on. Thanks a lot for your help! Mudbringer (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Another possibility I've suggested on multilingual ws: {{tiret}} and {{tiret2}} (this one). Would it be useful for many languages? --Zyephyrus (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I've set up an index file for the English text of Swahili Tales on en.wikisource (original index file here), proofread the first very short tale, and made a few tests towards finding a usable format for transcluding and arranging the original text and English translations in parallel. Here is a list of the tests with a few remarks about well some of them worked. If anyone would care to look at them and leave any comments or suggestions on my talk page I'd be grateful. Mudbringer (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I've tried this test with the {{ts}} template adding (vtp (vertical align top). Not quite satisfied with the result. Can it be of any use? --Zyephyrus (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's definitely an improvement to have the sections aligned at the top. Thank you! Mudbringer (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Page:Sheet Metal Drafting.djvu/181[edit]

How to format the long division/square root calculations? I tried looking at the LATEX wikibook and still couldn't see an easy method.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest <math> is not appropriate here and go for a more textual approach. This is not perfect but at least fairly close to what you want?
Source Result
<span style="visibility:hidden;">42</span>√{{overline|487.9347}}|{{underline|22.08+}}<br/>
<span style="visibility:hidden;">42√</span>4<br/>
<span style="visibility:hidden;">42|0</span>84<br/>
{{underline|4408}}|{{overline|3 9347}}<br/>
<span style="visibility:hidden;">4408|</span>3 5264<br/>
<span style="visibility:hidden;">4408|</span>{{bar|5}}<br/>
<span style="visibility:hidden;">4408|3 </span>4083

4408|3 9347
4408|3 5264
4408|3 4083

AuFCL (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) Thanks :) Probably wrap that in a div and we are done. ShakespeareFan00 (talk)

I had a bit of a further muck around directly on the page but deliberately left the result as unvalidated. Proceed or back it out at your pleasure? AuFCL (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-30[edit]

03:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Two questions about Swahili Tales[edit]

I'm making some progress in proofreading Swahili Tales here and on multilingual Wikisource. There are two things I'd like to ask about at this point:

  1. On the page from which the djvu file was obtained it says "National Library of Scotland holds full rights in this digital resource and agrees to license the resource under the Creative Commons License: Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK: Scotland". Should I edit the Wikimedia Commons file, and the Index files to reflect this?
  2. The pages of this book contain many handwritten notes by John Francis Campbell that are of great interest. For example this page has: "Monday, August 1, 1870 / Present from the Duke of Argyle. — / Read same day. Contains portions of many well known stories of which versions are in Gaelic. See notes at the end of each story. / J. F. Campbell". Would it be permissible to add a page to the Wikisource edition of this book giving transcriptions of the notes, or would it be better to produce a separate article containing them? I'm thinking a standalone article transcribing the notes would be preferable, as that would allow for a logical link from Campbell's author page, and taken as a whole they are a significant work in themselves.

Thanks for any comments or suggestions. Mudbringer (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Commons category in {{plain sister}}[edit]

Could someone who knows Lua edit Module:Plain sister so that the Commons category is retrieved from Wikidata (d:Property:P373) if the "commonscat" parameter is not filled in?--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Erasmo,

Fwiw... A similar issue concerning the interaction between WikiData and template params such as those found in Plain sister was started just a few days ago and might be better to follow through there than in WS:S. Either way, I believe we'll need "outside" help when it comes to Lua scripting; I don't know of any regular contributor here that is truly fluent Lua to be blunt about it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I should definitely go through the Lua tutorial and familiarize myself with the basics, but the fact that I am hardly the only one who's ignorant in this field kind of reassures me :) Moving to Template talk:Header.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

For those who like long s[edit]

Here is a seventeenth century item for the long s lovers: Index:The Six Voyages of John Baptista Tavernier.djvu. Other than the long s, proofreading is easy, by copy-pasting from the page-wise online version of the University of Michigan. Hrishikes (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

File:William Tell Told Again.djvu[edit]

Commons about to delete (sigh) :( 16:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Uploaded locally. Authors need to be checked before uploading to Commons, and P. G. Wodehouse won't be out of copyright in the EU for 30 years (1975+71 = 2046).--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Index:Armistice Day.djvu[edit]

If someone would like to resolve the issue of the "problem scans" then this could be a Featured text for November I think. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Index:Sheet Metal Drafting.djvu[edit]

Anyone want to do a pedant check on this? Concerns were expressed that the proof-reading missed some items. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to create PNG thumbnails of static GIF images[edit]

The thumbnail of this gif is of really bad quality.
How a PNG thumb of this GIF would look like

There is a proposal at the Commons Village Pump requesting feedback about the thumbnails of static GIF images: It states that static GIF files should have their thumbnails created in PNG. The advantages of PNG over GIF would be visible especially with GIF images using an alpha channel. (compare the thumbnails on the side)

This change would affect all wikis, so if you support/oppose or want to give general feedback/concerns, please post them to the proposal page. Thank you. --McZusatz (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

perhaps the graphs extension will render static renderings obsolete. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 02:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
And perhaps cynic need not comment as their views are entirely predictable? AuFCL (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Index:1918 Engineer Notebook small.pdf Status check[edit]

According to some information at the author of these notes was still alive in 1961. This means the status of the notes should be checked as it could be that it wasn't formally registered as such. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Umm, what is your point? The work is unpublished, and states as such at Commons. That puts the copyright in a completely different space, and it sounds ore like it requires an OTRS permission. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
That was the concern, that it was unpublished. However, given some recent unpleasntness at Commons, I didn't want to start the Commons investigations process until it was clear it was a problem. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the Ancestry source that says 1964? Because Commons says he died in 1961, and refers to this: which is a picture of his grave (or, of course, that of someone else with the same name). Not sure if that changes things re copyright? Also, in case it helps, here's some more info about this particular file: Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 11:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
My mistake, I'd read a 1 as 4 on a small image, Ammended. It doesn't as far as I know change the status if it was previously unpublished.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Full page, landscape table[edit]

Proofreading page 30, Wages_in_US_1908-1910 and I have no idea how to make such a table. Have proofread the whole page as an image. Any suggestions? Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

You may take help of 1, 2, 3. Hrishikes (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest "twisting" the table within the page so that as much text as possible (in this case all) is upright, and then formatting the resulting table in this configuration. I've made a first attempt: now somebody please pick out and fix the errors I am sure to have introduced. For starters: is that "18" on row 2, data column 8 really a "13" because that makes the percentages work? AuFCL (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Block move requestIndex:Views in India, chiefly among the Himalaya Mountains.djvu[edit]

Some missing page were found after this had been transcribed (namely a preface) and some pages of notes.)

The pages that need moving are:

Range New range
12 14
13 15
14-172 18-176

Thanks ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Out of Scope articles? =[edit]

Tagged these as out of Wikisource Scope but wanted a second opinion.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This was from a sockpuppet account that was copying content and templates from project to project, and attacking and vandalizing userpages of people who called him on it. The same vandal hit Wikiquote a few days ago using multiple accounts. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-31[edit]

15:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Need to edit a copy-protected page[edit]

The page Onward, Christian Soldiers is copy protected, but the source text exists on wikisource so the page should be redirected to The Army and Navy Hymnal/Hymns/Onward, Christian SoldiersBeleg Tâl (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I unprotected the page and leave it up to you to move/redirect/replace as needed with the scan-backed version. Just let us know if we need to protect anything afterwards here. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I've redirected it. I don't think protecting it is necessary, as it just gets in the way of legitimate editing, but I guess if it was a highly vandalized page we'll just have to wait and see if the vandalism recurs. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Also odd that the protected version included two verses that were not supported by the accompanying source text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Is that odd? It came from a different place. It might be necessary to turn the original into a dab and move the old test somewhere else instead of just deleting the extra verses. (Assuming they're genuine.) — LlywelynII 10:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Resurrected and moved old page. Converted base page to {{versions}} — billinghurst sDrewth 11:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
You should consider renaming the old page. The old page is not sheet music, and the new one is, so the disambig is incorrect at best and confusing at worst. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

EB11, vol. XXVI[edit]

Something's hinky with Volume 26. Anyone know how to fix it?

[If the problem doesn't display on your end, what I'm seeing is Error: Numeric value expected in red text instead of any of the pages. When I try clicking on individual linked pages from the djvu file's page, I can see them but there's no button forward or backward into the other pages that haven't been edited yet.] — LlywelynII 04:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Good grief! This issue has been reported, and fallen into the archives pending action(? As if?) many, multiple times. Either nobody cares or nobody has the sense to mark items "not to be archived until finally addressed." Something might be done one day but for now it appears nobody has the authority or the ability to fix this issue locally. It has been established as being a system problem of scope beyond merely Commons/WikiSource. AuFCL (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
And since it does not directly affect Wikipedia, nothing will ever happen to fix the problem. At least that's my experience. So the way to get it fixed is to add broken links and faulty citations all over Wikipedia referencing the content from EB1911 until the Wikipedians start griping about it. . . I'll stop snarking now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Pardon, LlywelynII if you are feeling picked upon. It is not intentional—you merely happen to be about the dozenth person to ask about this matter. Seriously, let's make this item a mini-index and leave it tagged not to be archived until such time as this particular issue is fixed or otherwise goes away?

Accordingly : See any of (please add any I've missed):

AuFCL (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the apology, but nah I don't feel picked on. I can understand your perspective but our EB material is going to be some of the most-used material on the entire site, so it's just something that is going to continue being a problem. Does no one know what the issue is? or we do and we just have to wait for the WikiMedia code monkeys to get around to that particular typewriter?
(And actually there was a complaint I made somewhere about a similar problem in the EB9 and it actually did get fairly promptly addressed so I was assuming it might be something easy.) — LlywelynII 08:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Looking at this conversation, it looks like there's some problem with large numbers of text chunks in the scan? Couldn't we just cut the .djvu file into two pieces? — LlywelynII 10:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@Llywelyn: The issue (as I read it) is that the <pagelist> componentry calls the API of the djvu file for the number of pages, and what it is bringing back is not in a format it comprehends (presuming that it is an error message rather than a number), such that proofreadpages api spits out that error message. So it is fails for the full page span, and it fails for a partial list (I tested.)

With regard to the commentary, if we are wanting to get work done, sometimes we have to be the squeaky wheel, and if we don't make our needs obvious, and clearly state the problem, and the effect, then it often won't get traction. What we had on the phabricator ticket about the issue is not enough to get anyone' interest of it being a specific issue that needs speedy resolution, it gives indication of the size or impact. Phabricator is the avenue to the developers, and lots of foot traffic, votes, and helpful noise across a ticket will bring it to attention. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Index:French Polynesia.pdf[edit]

No file, deleted at commons?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It was deleted over there back on 11th June this year by INeverCry (who, worryingly seems to have been blocked a month later and may not even be an administrator any more?); at least according to c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:French Polynesia.pdf and selected commons logs. AuFCL (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

What does a Healthy Community look like to you?[edit]

Community Health Cover art News portal.png

The Community Engagement department at the Wikimedia Foundation has launched a new learning campaign. The WMF wants to record community impressions about what makes a healthy online community. Share your views and/or create a drawing and take a chance to win a Wikimania 2016 scholarship! Join the WMF as we begin a conversation about Community Health. Contribute a drawing or answer the questions on the campaign's page.

Why get involved?[edit]

The world is changing. The way we relate to knowledge is transforming. As the next billion people come online, the Wikimedia movement is working to bring more users on the wiki projects. The way we interact and collaborate online are key to building sustainable projects. How accessible are Wikimedia projects to newcomers today? Are we helping each other learn?
Share your views on this matter that affects us all!
We invite everyone to take part in this learning campaign. Wikimedia Foundation will distribute one Wikimania Scholarship 2016 among those participants who are eligible.

More information[edit]

Happy editing!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)