Wikisource:Scriptorium

From Wikisource
(Redirected from Wikisource:S)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Scriptorium
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; please see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. 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. There are currently 339 active users here.

Contents

Announcements[edit]

1 million proofread pages[edit]

In the last few minutes we have achieved 1 million proofread pages. Of these 395,451 are in Validated status. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

congrats - Page:The Eight-Oared Victors.djvu/151 ; [1] - see also Wikisource:Scriptorium#1000000_proofread_pages Slowking4SvG's revenge 14:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposals[edit]

Bot approval requests[edit]

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

Designated for requests related to the repair of works (and scans of works) presented on Wikisource

Move titles of History of Mexico series[edit]

I think Vol 3 History of Mexico by H H Bancroft and Vol 4 History of Mexico by H H Bancroft should be moved to History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume 3 and History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume 4 respectively, but figured I'd better check here first. -Pete (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ineuw: -- Slowking4SvG's revenge 12:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Slowking, I should have thought to ping Ineuw when first posting. -Pete (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The Condor volumes[edit]

All sub-pages are currently formatted as “The Condor/<volume number> (<issue number>)” (such as The Condor/1 (2)), and should be formatted as “The Condor/Volume <volume number>/Number (or Issue) <issue number>.” Also, a number of the older volumes existed under the title of the Bulletin of the Cooper Ornithological Club; should those earlier volumes be moved to that name? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC).

Template:OTRS received[edit]

Template is broken. Relies on another template that has since been deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I think I've fixed it. It was broken because it tried to use the now-deleted Template:autotranslate to automatically translate the template's message into multiple languages. That makes sense on Commons (from which it has been copied), but not on enWS, and consequently it only had a single "translation" available: English. I've removed the translation plumbing and just inlined the message into the template. If there are no unintended side effects of this the two subpages (Template:OTRS received/en, Template:OTRS received/lang) can also be deleted. --Xover (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Main namespace header interferes with a page number[edit]

The headers in individual chapters of the Abbott's Guide to Ottawa and Vicinity, for example at Abbott's Guide to Ottawa and Vicinity/Chaudiere Falls, overlap the page numbers (here the header "page 15" overlaps the number "[15]"). I am using Firefox Quantum 67.0. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 06:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not experiencing this issue in Chrome 74.0.3729.169 .--Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Other discussions[edit]

Biographies with no UIDs[edit]

The page I have created at Wikisource:Biographies with no identifiers contains a Wikidata query which returns a list of people with a Wikisource page, but with no UIDs (VIAF, ISNI, ORCID, etc) on Wikidata - in other words, if {{Authority control}} is used on their biography, it will have no content.

There are currently 2,230 people in the list.

[Caveat: a few of those pages are in the form Woman of the Century/Ada Iddings Gale; not in Author: namespace; should they be linked from Wikidata, as on Q41171030 (Q41171030)?] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Works on Wikisource, including subpages of Woman of the Century, should not be linked to Wikidata items representing people. Wikidata has properties that can be used for connecting the person-item to the work-about-person-item, that should be used instead. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I've raised the issue on Wikidata: :d:Wikidata:Project chat#Incorrect Wikisource links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: That link points to a page that does not exist. I believe you meant d:Wikidata:Project chat#Incorrect Wikisource links --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
the fact that wikisource has individuals without authority control id’s is good. (author or subject of a biography) need to add them as notable wikidata people, even if they never produced a work in a library. Slowking4SvG's revenge 11:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I can't parse half of that, but why is it good to not have authority control IDs? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
because you have to gather in the messy data before you can improve it. and need to clarify the ontology of depicted people. the fact that depicted people do not have authority control ID’s means they are not in someone else’s database, but we are now constructing an id in our database. Slowking4SvG's revenge 13:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The fact that no Authority ID is present in Wikidata does not mean there is no authority data in any database. The point here is that we need a means to (a) identify which persons have a biography on WS, but lack an Auth. ID on Wikidata, and (b) determine whether or not there is an Auth. ID to be found in the various online databases, which can then be added. This requires (c) some means of correctly matching persons with records in other databases. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
a- the query did it, but a more built-out depicts ontology would be better; b- the online databases are there already, the national libraries’ authority control data was ingested years ago, doubt you will find them in copyrighted or off-line databases; c- sounds like a task for mix or match, if you could find other data. in the meantime, need to create item based on wikisource depicts / subject of bio data. -- Slowking4SvG's revenge 12:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Your statement on (a) is only partly correct. I am constantly finding VIAF, LoC, BnF, and GND data matches that have not been added to Wikidata. We are also constantly adding new Author pages to Wikisource. So what happened years ago is irrelevant when we have new pages created here. For some of the Author pages I have added, there was no data item on Wikidata, and I have had to create these, even as recently as a month ago. So we may have ingested all the data for existing Wikidata items, but as new items are created, we still have to go find UIDs. There are still many, many authors with UIDs on public databases (VIAF, LoC, BnF, etc) for which no Wikidata item yet exists --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry with my first (or 2nd) question on Scriptorium but maybe this is the place where my question should be posted. (I'm never sure) So, an author does not exist on Wikidata or here and where should he exist or be created first? See my discussion with myself about it here on my talk page. Thank you.--Level C (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
If the person is an Author, then you create the Author page here first, then create a Wikidata item. Once the WD item exists, you link to the WS Author page from Wikidata. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
OK. Thank you much! I'll try to create it here soon. --Level C (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Going back to the question about Ada Iddings Gale, in my view no, Wikidata should not link to the Woman of the Century biography of her. I don't think there's any reason to consider that the authoritative biography of her; presumably, it's one of many works about her. If Wikisource used categories for people (which it doesn't), it might make sense to link to the category page; or if there were a portal: page about her, same thing. But linking to one specific bio does not seem like the right way to go. -Pete (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion on Wikidata is now archived; the incorrect links remain unresolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Pigsonthewing: I just reviewed the Wikidata discussion. It reads to me as though people generally agree on the main point (i.e., that such links are not correct), and maybe the other points as well, and just have various ways they want to talk about ontology (by which I think people generally mean "taxonomy"). German and English Wikisources have established different norms and guidelines. No biggie, we can link to "Author:" space articles on enws, and main space articles on dews. But that has no bearing on whether this arbitrary bio should be linked from the subject's Wikidata item. I think all were in agreement it shouldn't. Am I missing something? -Pete (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I understand as well. Everyone agrees that the wikidata item for a person should not be lined to the wikisource page for an edition of a chapter of a biographical dictionary, but as for actually fixing the links you essentially have to do it yourself. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
at wikidata, i would create item for each article, and then use Property:P1343 for a "described by source". Slowking4SvG's revenge 15:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

ws_ocr_daemon robot is not running[edit]

How can I activate this when it's not running? — Ineuw talk 11:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd like an answer to this question too. My browser is Safari (Mac). - --kathleen wright5 (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Is this possibly the same problem as described in phabricator:T223012? Sam Wilson 05:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@User:Samwilson, @User:Kathleen.wright5. That's right. See: Wikisource:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_the_activation_of_the_OCR_daemon. --Dick Bos (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-18[edit]

22:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

{{iwpages}} issues[edit]

@Billinghurst, @Beleg Tâl: According to your earlier interest in this matter, just FYI: I have changed behaviour of the underlying script making from- / tosection parameters optional again. Breaking backward compatibility by earlier changes was IMO a bad idea. The template can be used now as:

  • {{iwpages|language code|Title of the Index page|page_from|page_to}}
  • {{iwpages|language code|Title of the Index page|page_from|page_to|section_from}}
  • {{iwpages|language code|Title of the Index page|page_from|page_to||section_to}}
  • {{iwpages|language code|Title of the Index page|page_from|page_to|section_from|section_to}}
  • {{iwpages|language code|Title of the Index page|page_from|page_to|||section_only}}

Ankry (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Content added to translation not in the original[edit]

What is the general Wikisource policy for adding content to an English translation not present in the original? In the following case, this appears to have been done in order to make a translated source easier to navigate. Does that justify adding original research to an article?

The English translation of the German Constitution contains article titles not present in the original German, which contains only article numbers. For example: where the German original has article section headers like Artikel 2, the English translation has Article 2 [Personal freedoms]. The text "Personal freedoms" must have been added by a wikisource editor, and is their original interpretation of what Article 2 is about.

I've checked the Wikisource archives, and although there are several discussions about translation, I didn't find anything related to this. (Additional details at Talk:Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany#Material not in original source. )

In my opinion, original content should not be embedded in a translated source, even bracketed, and even to make it easier for English users to navigate. Like any translation, a translated source in Wikisource should faithfully represent the original, as much as possible. If I discover that material has been added, it immediately makes me suspect what else has been altered, and my confidence in the entire article goes down and I wonder if it's reliable at all.

But I wouldn't be opposed to adding additional, non-embedded material that clearly stood apart from the translated content in some way, so that it was clear that it did not represent part of the translated source, either via appendixes, subpages, or other method that was clearly separate.

For example, in a case like the translated German Constitution, I think one could create a subpage containing the additional article descriptions (like "Personal freedoms" for Article 2) in the form of an external table of contents, which could be used to navigate into the translated article. Alternatively, one could create a supplementary page to the translated source page, which would contain the helpful ToC and then transclude the entire existing Wikisource page, and call it "Supplement to Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany with table of contents" or some such, with a "See also" section in the main translated source linking to the supplement page. That seems like it would be acceptable and useful compromise, as the "supplement" page could explain that the ToC at the top contained original Wikisource material added in order to make the translation easier to navigate and understand. I may work on a mockup of this so people have something concrete to look at.

In the meantime, I wonder what others think about this? I think Wikisource should have a clear policy stating that embedded original research is prohibited (whether a translation or not). Also, what's the consensus process here, are there Rfc's as in Wikipedia, or how does it work? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Our policy is that hosted material is to be preserved as published. The article section headers on Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany were not added by Wikisource editors; they were added by the original translators (Federal Ministers of the Interior, Justice and Finance, July 1991) and therefore must be preserved on Wikisource. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
not interested in a policy disallowing "original research" of translators. we have a hard enough task merely reflecting what the translators wrote. and which constitution? where is the scan? citation needed. Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not certain I understand your question, but I think I do. It seems to me (as Beleg Tal suggests) Wikisource's purpose is to provide a faithful representation of something that was published. In this case, that thing that was published was the 1991 translation of the constitution. So any annotations that were in the 1991 translation should be preserved, without comment (except for the general metadata reflecting what edition has been transcribed).
We often host multiple different editions on Wikisource, and directing the reader to the original German on German Wikisource (if it exists) is a good thing to do, too.
Ideally, a work like this should be converted to a page-backed format, in which there is a DJVU file or PDF of the original, and each page of transcription can be viewed side-by-side with the original. This would help the reader verify and establish confidence.
Regarding RFC's, I think it's possible to do something more formal like that here, but it's rarely necessary. This is a much smaller community than Wikipedia, and many editors keep an eye on the Scriptorium; usually, a less formal discussion right here is plenty. -Pete (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@Mathglot: As Beleg Tâl wrote, "the original" in this case isn't the German text of the law published by the Bundestag, it is the translated English text also published by the Bundestag. The explanatory pseudo-titles were introduced by the Bundestag's translators, not the Wikisource editors who subsequently transcribed the translation, and preserving them here is the correct approach (in fact, removing them would be against policy).
However, I notice that the document is just a transcription of unknown provenance. Works on Wikisource should ideally be scan-backed: a DjVu or PDF with a OCR text layer is uploaded to commons; a page in the Index: namespace collects various metadata about the work; individual pages are transcribed on subpages in the Page: namespace; and finally the individual pages are transcluded (sort of like if pages were templates) into mainspace. This enables two crucial things relevant to the concern you raise: each page is checked side-by-side against the scan of the original, and each page is first "Proofread" (transcribed) by one editor and then "Validated" by a second editor to ensure quality and accuracy.
If you are interested in this document, I would encourage you to try to remedy this situation. We could upload the 2018 (publ. date not amendment date) edition of the law to commons and set up the Index for it here, and then you could reuse (cut&paste) the existing transcription's text where the text of the law or its formatting hasn't changed. Once done the existing text on Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany could be replaced with the wikicode to transclude the transcribed text from the pages in the Page: namespace.
For a case such as this it may also be worthwhile to consider transcribing every published amended edition of the law (parenthetical disambiguation in the title): most of the text and formatting of each edition is likely to be identical and can easily be reused, and having all editions available allows easy lookup and comparison. It's not an insignificant amount of work, but with the level of reuse it's nowhere near insurmountable either. --Xover (talk) 07:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: The provenance of Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany is not entirely unknown. Here is the original published version. Naturally, we will need to confirm that the English translation is free from copyright restrictions in the US (the original German is covered by {{PD-EdictGov}}). In Germany the translation is explicitly copyrighted by the German Bundestag. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: I didn't specifically look into copyright issues for this work, but did notice the claim of copyright. However, this cannot possibly be a valid claim: this is the official translation of the law into English. IANAL, but I can think of no legal theory by which they could circumvent com:PD-GermanGov for this. A third-party independent translation, sure, but not their own publication of a law in a different language. In any case, yes, like all works we do obviously need to make sure the copyright and licensing is compatible with Wikisource policy. --Xover (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: I'll take it to WS:CV. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Visual works on Wikisource[edit]

I'm wondering if a chiefly visual work like Pepper&Carrot could be accepted into Wikisource. We already have works like Annual Haircut Day and The Pig and the Box. What do you think? NMaia (talk) 07:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@NMaia: We do accept chiefly visual works, including comics. I see that this comic has also been published by various publishing companies, so it should satisfy our policy on what Wikisource includes. There are PDF editions of each episode at archive.org which can be used for proofreading. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Do you have an example of a well-done work on Wikisource? While looking at those comics I only saw galleries of pages but not any transcription. NMaia (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
@NMaia: Zanele Situ: My Story is the most similar to a comic that I can think of, that has been "properly" proofread and transcribed. I used {{overfloat image}} for text bubbles, but this is optional for text that is part of an illustration (you can use alt text on the image instead). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
That's perfect, thank you! NMaia (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikisource:News (en): May 2019 Edition[edit]

Wikisource Community Logo globe notext.svg
English Wikisource's monthly newsletter; Wikisource:News, which seeks to inform all about Wikimedia's multilingual Wikisource.

Additional IDs for modern-day scientists[edit]

For people like Author:Andrew J. Pemberton, we would benefit from adding IDs like Semantic Scholar author ID (P4012) and ResearchGate contributor ID (P6023) to {{Authority control}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to add it to Module:Authority controlBeleg Tâl (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Mulitpage scores - a possible solution...[edit]

I asked User:Ankry about a solution they had implemented on plwikisource and they imported it here.

See Template:tscore and Module:mscore.

If the Wikisource contributors that have used the score extension would like to review... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The module is beyond my understanding at first glance. The template is possibly OK for some (minor) use cases. However, the restriction of not using | to mark bar-lines, and the loss of the work's page numbers, means that it is outside of my interest to pursue for anything I do with scores. I will continue to deal with scores that go over page boundaries in the ways I do now: a) short snippets get combined onto one page or the other (with an explanatory comment); b) longer examples are Lilypond coded to manage. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
it’s a nice template, but wikicode as the score code. i’m waiting for the reverse engineering of lilypond to give us a Visual score editor. until then my productivity is so low as to be off-putting. Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Upload from Google Books[edit]

Do we have a tool for uploading PDFs from Google Books, like ia-upload, that are not on IA? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

there is url2commons, but you will need OAuth and format the book template, https://tools.wmflabs.org/url2commons/index.html -- Slowking4SvG's revenge 12:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but AIUI, that won't strip the leading page (the none-free one, added by Google). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
If you need just one book, User:Koavf has the skills to pull a books.google and convert it to a DjVu on Commons. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
And if you need many books, you can learn how to use pdf2djvu & djvulibre. Ankry (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-19[edit]

16:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Zoe Dana Underhill - DoD?[edit]

We say that Author:Zoe Dana Underhill lived 1848-1908, but [10] gives 1847-1934, with the age of 87 (but not the dates) supported by a newspaper clipping. Are we wrong (I can't see a source for our dates), or are they different people? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It looks as though the dates originated in 2010 with User:Ineuw creating the page. Mpaa then transferred the dates to Wikidata. Possibly Ineuw remembers the source for these dates, possibly not. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
On rechecking, the 1847-1934 dates are supported by an image of the grave. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
The dates 1848-1908 belong to Uncle Remus, who may have appeared next to Underhill in an alphabetized list, hence the confusion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Good catch. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal/Harper's author IDs[edit]

I have proposed a new Wikidata property for Harper's /Harper's Bazaar author page IDs, like [11], with a view to including those IDs in {{Authority control}} on this project and others. Please see d:Wikidata:Property proposal/Harper's author ID. and express your views there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean Harper's Magazine (= Harper's Monthly) or Harper's Bazaar? The former is a literature and culture magazine; the latter is a women's fashion magazine for which we have no content right now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I mean https://harpers.org/ Apologies for the confusion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
good, and before Teen Vogue, you should try The Atlantic i.e. [12]-- Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Done: d:Wikidata:Property proposal/The Atlantic author ID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
thank you very much. it’s a stretch for wikisource, but we should be pushing out the voluminous magazine material. Slowking4SvG's revenge 14:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I also added to the list d:Wikidata:Property proposal/Orlando person ID, which I proposed two months ago but apparently posted in the wrong place. Levana Taylor (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Redirect The Music of Erich Zann to Famous Fantastic Mysteries/Volume 12/Number 3/The Music of Erich Zann?[edit]

The Music of Erich Zann is an copy from an unknown source of a work we have a transcription of. So normally we'd redirect it, right? There is also the concern that there is about 100 words in the unsourced copy that are not found in the new copy, possibly cut for space.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't generally redirect when the versions are different, which they are here. The unsourced copy appears to match this source from The National Amateur, so I would preserve it and then redirect it if/when the latter source is added. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Wrong years[edit]

That black magic Wikidata that has added years of birth and death to Author:Friedrich Weber has gotten it wrong. Should be 1781-1823. --LA2 (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

An IP address changed it at Wikidata a few days ago. I wonder that IP adresses are allowed to edit Wikidata... I have restored the dates. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

SOURCE for Wikisource[edit]

You would think that 'Wikisource' would be good with... hmm, I don't know... SOURCES??? But I'm finding that The Chance for Peace page presents itself as a verbatim transcription of Eisenhower's words, when in fact it is a revised and copy edited version of what Eisenhower said. I tried to correct the errors in transcription of the speech. I was reverted. On my talk page, I was told that we don't have to put THE SOURCE of the transcription for the speech on the page proper, which is definitely a mistake- it leads you to get the impression that these are the words Eisenhower said, which they aren't if you listen to the tape. I recommend adding something to Wikisource where it can be made clear on the page itself what the source of the text given on Wikisource is. I am right. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The source for this edition is identified on the Talk page, and is an authoritative version at the Eisenhower Presidential Library. As I let you know on your talk page, Wikisource accepts more than one edition of a work, if more than one edition has been published or is available. The issue we were having is that you wanted to replace one sourced copy with your own transcription from a different source. You are welcome to add other editions of works when they exist and are released under a suitable license. You also wanted to put a label on the current copy declaring that it is "horse shit", which I explained would not be appropriate. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
The preference here is always a printed source. In cases when there is no printed source, the source used should be detailed on the Talk page using the {{Textinfo}} template. When there are alternate sources/editions for a document (using that word in it's widest context), then there should be more than version of the document created here. The {{versions}} template is used to indicate that there are alternate versions and a versions page (subset of disambiguation) is created that lists all of the alternate versions. The source is never stated on the mainpage, but is either on the Talk page, or is a scan of the printed source. All this is long-established here. See Help:Beginner's guide to sources as an inital point to explore our policy further. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle, @EncycloPetey: That's not good enough. The source needs to be stated on the page proper, not on the talk page. If the source is not made manifest on the page proper, readers like me might be lead to believe that the transcription is accurate- which it is manifestly not. Let me tell you a short story: I just changed the Wikipedia page for the US national motto from "In God We Trust" to "In God we trust". If you read the US Code, you will see that this is the correct capitalization. Whereas before Wikipedia was illiterate dogshit, now it is actually providing accurate information to the readers. That's the key: get the correct information to the readers. What I'm trying to tell you is that if we are going to go by other people's transcriptions without allowing editors to edit the transcriptions, then we're still not providing people with accurate information. Accurate information doesn't burden the reader by asking them to "click on the talk page". It comes out and tells you right there: "this is some bullshit transcript cooked up by the idiot librarians, believe it at your own risk." If you are just reposting whatever shit some illiterate at some library thinks qualifies as a transcription, the result will be a website full of "In God We Trust" instead of a website of precision and vitality- dedication to fact. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
this is good "correct information to the readers", but this is not so good "That's not good enough", we in general believe in eventualism; there is a lot of older material not scan backed (gutenberg being a bad influence), that will require leg work to build links to a scan. and exhortations will not get the scanning done. we might want to think about a grant to work the "w/o scan" backlog. Slowking4SvG's revenge 20:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I've added the published source to The Chance for Peace. If there are better free published transcriptions it would be good to add them also. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
thanks, this clean typescript is from the presidential library. https://eisenhower.archives.gov/all_about_ike/speeches.html it’s a little web 1.0. we may need to go to Abilene to scan the manuscript. we work with the sources we have, not the sources as we might want them to do scholarship. Slowking4SvG's revenge 20:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

John Cotton's Notebook[edit]

After much wrangling with the upload wizard, I have uploaded 44 tiff files, each over 50Mb, to commons:Category:John Cotton's Notebook. These show the pages of an artist's sketchbook.

How would we go about including such a work, with a mixture of sketches and hand-written text, on Wikisource? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

If they were bound together as a book, then the first step would be creating a DjVu from which to work. We would also want JPG versions of the images to link from within the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I would use https://tiff2pdf.com/ to bundle the images into a PDF, then http://djvu.org/any2djvu/ to convert the PDF into a DJVU for proofreading. Upload the DJVU, set up the Index page, and away you go. Handwritten text can be proofread like normal text; if you are fussy about layout you can play with {{overfloat image}} or {{figure}}. The sketches ideally could be extracted using GIMP or something. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
For illustrated manuscripts you have a lot of leeway for layout. If examples are helpful, I have worked on Alice's Adventures Under Ground, Zodiac Killer letter, April 20th 1970, Sumer is icumen in (MS Harley 978). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Thank you. tiff2pdf allows the user to "select up to 20 images" only. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
In that case I'd probably do it in three batches, then merge them using https://www.pdfmerge.com/ or something similar. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Why should you convert them to DjVu? What's so superior about DjVu that we should go from one lossy compressed format to another?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: see Wikisource:DjVu vs. PDFBeleg Tâl (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
we prefer djvu for similar reasons that we prefer webm. Slowking4SvG's revenge 10:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
WebM is a free format in a sea of unfree formats, supported by Google. PDF is a free format, internationally standardized (ISO 32000-2), whereas DjVu is supported by no one, not even the Internet Archive. Looking at Wikisource:DjVu vs. PDF, it seems like we should improve our PDF support and stop converting PDF to DjVu unless we absolutely have to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
you can draw a free line between WebM and mp4, but WebM may not play on some devices (it was only with some hacking genius that it works at all on apple products), and pdf is a product of adobe that some might not want to use. your file preferences may not be shared by others: you may not have a consensus to "stop converting PDF to DjVu unless we absolutely have to" Slowking4SvG's revenge 15:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I have not noticed an absence of djvu at IA. PDF sucks, but djvu is not a format for images, and that is what is needed to read the notes. The images also need rotation, but the user thought that identification (and maybe proof reading?) should be done without compromising the integrity of the file (or something, I never got an answer). CYGNIS INSIGNIS 17:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
WebM is a product of Google that some might not want to use. I don't claim that I have a consensus, but I still think it's a valuable question about why we should convert PDF to DjVu.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
If the individual pages are already on Commons, then it is possible to proofread them directly, e.g. Page:John Cotton's Notebook - file 05 - page 02.tif. This has the drawbacks of a) needing to build the pagelist by hand (i.e. just a lot of links to the Page NS), and b) each page needs to be transcluded by itself, e.g. with {{page}}. It can still b e easier to do it this way sometimes; I have done sometimes for small works. Also, for creating a PDF, if you have imagemagik installed, you can run e.g. convert "John Cotton's Notebook*.tif" "John Cotton's Notebook.pdf"Sam Wilson 00:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

1000000 proofread pages[edit]

It seems that Page:The_Eight-Oared_Victors.djvu/151 was the milionth proofread page in English Wikisource (according to this query). Ankry (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

great, waiting for daily update here https://tools.wmflabs.org/phetools/statistics.php (should this be an announcement? Slowking4SvG's revenge 16:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Commons no longer relaying information...[edit]

File:The_cutters'_practical_guide_to_the_cutting_of_ladies'_garments.djvu for an example.

Did they update something recently? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Looks like a temporary hickup. It's back now. BTW, an issue like that looks more likely to be a Mediawiki issue (new version, or a change made by sysadmins/developers) than anything that the community of Commons could influence. --Xover (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-20[edit]

00:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Index:The cutters' practical guide to the cutting of ladies' garments.djvu[edit]

This has 2 missing plates, but apparently someone is selling a reprint of the original online:

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/en/books/TheCuttersPracticalGuidetotheCuttingofLadiesGarments_10848338

https://www.amazon.com/Cutters-Practical-Cutting-Ladies-Garments/dp/0282357262

Does anyone have the time or budget to check the print version for the missing plates?

(If it's digitised from the same source as archive.org used, I am thinking they may also be missing in the reprint.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: HathiTrust has the 1899 edition, if that helps you any? --Xover (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not , because it's from the same source as the archive.org scans (with the missing plates due to the physical copy held by the digitising insitution not having them either.), ( I checked hathi when I first found the missing pages in the scan Wikisource had.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: The Forgotten Books reprint also is missing plates 2 and 3 as you can see from the online view and PDF downloads. The only hope is that someone can go to one of these libraries and scan the two plates for us: OCLC:55518654 at WorldCat -Einstein95 (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The second entry is the institution that's digitised the one with missing pages, so we really need someone in Toronto possibly? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
there is a GLAM wiki summit in Toronto May 23, https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAMSummit2019, maybe we know someone going, or member of https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page but i’m not seeing it at Ryerson.[13] -- Slowking4SvG's revenge 19:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


Hmm, Maybe it needs someone to look into this "Work in more depth?" We have variously dated editions for Volumes 1, 13 and 6 (The Ladies one, found on archive.org as detailed.) It would be nice (but insanely difficult to get all the volumes) on English Wikisource, assuming a combination of Google, Hathitrust and other scan sources have them.
Other volumes (variously dated) are in JPG scans linked from here (of variable quality) here - https://web.archive.org/web/20030826152955/http://www.costumes.org/history/100pages/1893to1898cuttersguide.htm), I found some others by looking through different dates for archived pages..
Independently I found this as well - https://archive.org/details/b1108865 from an Australian source... I'm wondering if there was a Wikisource contributor that might be near to the digitising institution, to make enquires as to the possibility of other works by that author ending up with them... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Representative Women of New England indexes[edit]

Does anyone know what is happening between the two indexes (1, 2) of Representative Women of New England? The page histories seem to be problematic as well, with moves from respective index names. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC).

I assume Index:Representative Women of New England.djvu is abandoned due to poor quality scan, and existing work moved from there to Index:Sketches of representative women of New England.djvu. @Slowking4, @ShakespeareFan00: you may have more insight here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
yeah, it is missing page 358 and 359. [14] i found better scan and completed. but it also has a bad page [15] Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation: Phase 2[edit]

"icon depicting two speech Bubbles"

The Wikimedia Foundation is currently conducting a global consultation about communication. The goal is to bring Wikimedians and wiki-minded people together to improve tools for communication.

Phase 1 of the consultation is over – thank you to everyone who participated! – and we've published the Phase 1 report. The report summarizes what people have said and what we've learned, proposes a direction for the project, and asks specific questions to explore in Phase 2.

Very briefly, the proposed direction is that wikitext talk pages should be improved, and not replaced. We propose building a new design on top of talk pages that changes the page's default appearance, and offers key tools like replying, indenting and signing posts. To keep consistency with existing tools, the new design will be a default experience that existing users can opt out of. We also propose building features that experienced contributors want, including the ability to watchlist a single discussion, and the ability to move, archive and search for threads. Building these features may require some loss of flexibility, or small-to-medium changes in wikitext conventions. The goal is to only make changes that directly enable functionality that users really want.

You can see more information and discussion about the proposed direction in the Phase 1 report, including the results of new user tests and some of the quotations from Phase 1 discussions that led to this proposal.

Now it's time to start Phase 2!

We have six questions to discuss in Phase 2, asking for reactions to the proposed direction, and pros and cons for specific changes that we could make.

You can help by hosting a discussion at your wiki. Here's what to do:

  1. First, sign up your group here.
  2. Next, create a page (or a section on a Village pump, or an e-mail thread – whatever is natural for your group) to collect information from other people in your group.
  3. Then start the conversation with the six questions listed in the Questions for Phase 2 section of the report.
  4. When the conversation is concluded, the host should write a summary of the discussion on the Phase 2 community discussion summaries page, and report what you learned from your group. Please include links if the discussion is available to the public.

You can read more about the overall process on MediaWiki.org. If you have questions or ideas, you can leave feedback about the consultation process in the language you prefer.

Thank you! We're looking forward to talking with you. DannyH (WMF) (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Phase 2[edit]

Please proceed to discuss the following points:

1. What do you think of the proposed product direction?

Context: The Wikimedia Foundation proposes building a new, clearer design on top of existing wikitext talk pages. It will offer simpler tools for replying, indentation and signatures. You could continue to use wikitext on talk pages, if you prefer that. It should also be possible to participate in a discussion without using wikitext.

Question: What do you think of this product direction?

I think this is the only reasonable solution. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
This will only be feasible it if results in valid and correct list markup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The way this proposal is phrased makes me think this will be implemented only on Talk pages, not all pages used for discussion. If this is the case (and I can't tell) then the proposal will have little impact on this project, since en.WS uses the Talk pages very little and prefers a few centralized discussion pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
2. Marking separate discussions

Context: People want to watch individual sections on the talk page. They want better notifications, archiving, and search. To do any of this, we may need to create a more structured definition of what counts as a single discussion. This may mean making changes to the wikitext conventions on a talk page. For example, we may create a new way that discussion headings look in wikitext, or a new link that you need to use to create, rename or split a thread.

Question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of that approach?

The best way to accomplish this currently is to have a page for each discussion, and transclude all the discussion pages onto a single main page. Commons does this with deletion proposals for example, and Wikidata does this for property creation proposals. On Wikisource we use this approach for transcluding works, but not for discussions. I think that this would be a good approach for accomplishing this particular goal, but it would have to be streamlined. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
3. Helping newcomers find the talk pages

Context: Newcomers have difficulty finding talk pages. During user tests, only one person out of ten found the Discussion tab. Most testers looked for a Discussion tab on the opposite side of the page, where all of the other tabs and links are. Many people also expected to see links to discussions about specific sections in the article. We may want to move the link to the talk page to the opposite side of the article page. We might add discussion functionality connected to individual sections.

Question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of making the connection between article content and discussions more visible?

Improving the ability of newcomers to find the right location for a discussion is always a good thing. Experienced editors will get used to such a change (or a gadget or preference can allow them to disable the change for themselves personally). However, having discussions for every single section of content would only add to our problem of having way too many talk locations, and doesn't really make sense on Wikisource anyway. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
4. Where to show discussion tools

Context: Currently, many wikis have community discussion spaces in the project namespace (Wikisource or Wikipedia:), rather than in a talk namespace (Wikisource talk or Wikipedia talk:). The project namespace is often used for village pumps/cafés, noticeboards, and some workflows, such as Articles for deletion. The system will need to know where discussions happen, so that it can display the new tools in those discussions, and not display them on other pages. There are several potential ways to do this. One of them is to move all discussions to a talk namespace.

Question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing that?

I have no opinion on this —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
5. History tradeoffs

Context: Sometimes, you need to see the history of the entire page. Other times, it would be more helpful to see the history of only a single discussion thread. It would be ideal if we could provide both, but we're not sure how to do that.

Question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a complete page history or a specific thread history?

In some places (like the Scriptorium or WS:PD) the history of a single discussion is more important than the full page history, but it's necessary to also see the full page history in order to deal with (for example) vandals who modify the whole page. — This problem could be dealt with by having each discussion on its own subpage, transcluded onto the main page, and then implementing some sort of "include subpages" functionality in page history? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
6. Metadata location

Context: Some wikis place templates at the top of article talk pages. These may show instructions, warnings, or FAQs. They may hold page quality information, link to relevant WikiProjects, or identify past activities. Many new users are confused by finding non-discussion material at the top of an article talk page. It would be helpful to move some or all of that content somewhere else on the page, or under a different tab.

Question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of that approach? Which templates are crucial for the proper use of a discussion page, and which could be moved somewhere else?

On Wikisource, this would only be {{TextInfo}} for content pages. We also list sources for biographical info on Author talk pages, and style guides on Index talk pages, but we generally structure these as discussions anyway. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
A separate tab would be good (I have already suggested this for Wikidata), provided that relevant content may be transclued to the top of the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikisource uses Talk pages only seldom for any discussion; we use them to store significant source information instead. A separate tab for discussion would be of little to no value.
Is this really a Wikimedia-wide problem, or is this just a problem on the Wikipedias? Perhaps only the Wikipedias need a separate tab/namespace for their pages. The other projects I work on don't have this issue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Questions[edit]

Two questions re: [16]:

  • Since when are we prohibited from including links to PDFs of sources?
  • Since when are admins allowed to use their admin tools in content disputes in which they are involved?

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The BHL link is not a link to a PDF, it is a link to a database that also has a PDF. This information and link is stored on the data item for the work at Wikidata. There is no reason to duplicate the information here; Wikisource is not a link farm.
You have been resisting advice on Author pages since you arrived here, and have declined repeatdly to discuss the issue each time it was brought to your attention. You instead chose to communicate only through repeatedly reverting. This is a basis for blocking an editor, but I chose instead to merely protect the page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
perhaps this link [17] or this [18] is "allowable" ? but do not see the point of reverting links rather than uploading to commons and replacing. do you really want to say "see how restrained i am, i did not block you?" Slowking4SvG's revenge 10:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Direct link to an external PDF is better than a link to a page at Wikidata with the link to external PDF (as many people are not familiar with WD). The form of the link introduced at [19] was not very good, much better is the form of external links e. g. at Author:Max Stirner, but this can be solved in a better way than a simple revert. Locking the page as a mean of forcing one's own version in a content dispute is generally harmful. If necessary (which was not our case) it should always be done by an independent admin.
As for the "basis for blocking an editor": I can see there 2 reverts by User:Pigsonthewing and 3 reverts by User:EncycloPetey. Wikisource policy regarding this issue is described at Wikisource:Blocking policy#Excessive reverts. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Direct link, yes, to a scanned file, but not to a database where the reader must then follow additional links to reach the scan. The BHL link is a link to a database, not to a PDF. So any objection to a Wikidata link would apply equally to a BHL link. The Wikidata link has the advantage of providing all the links, whereas BHL is only BHL, and the user must still follow additional links to reach the scan, and the user must be familiar with BHL to do so. The preference is to upload a file to Commons and host a copy here.
External scan links on an Author are always a temporary thing or a secondary level. The goal of Wikisource is to host works in the Mainspace. The Author pages are a secondary tier of content to support the Mainspace, and external links are temporary links to sources of content, in preparation for hosting that content here. We have in the past allowed links to Google scans or to Internet Archive scans using {{Ext scan link}}, but not links to databases such as BHL, or adding DOI links, or other database identifiers (which should be hosted at Wikidata), for this is a misuse of what the Author pages have always been intended to do.
Andy Mabbett has been abusing external linking on Author pages, such as at Author:Alexander Reid Urquhart and Author:Marcus Ward Lyon (1875-1942), with excessive external linking to multiple databases. This isn't linking to a scan; it is adding multiple remote database identifiedrs for a single work to an Author page on Wikisource, instead of placing them on the work's data item at Wikidata, which is where the data belongs.
See further the Help:Author pages and Wikisource:Style Guide, which explain what the Author page is intended for: listing the works and linking to the main page of the work. Neither page recommends the addition of external linking as a function of the Author pages. You can see my attempt to discuss this issue, but no discussion was forthcoming. This is not the first time I have gotten no reply when starting a discussion; you can see that most of the previous discussions which I started (missing images, house style, ...) received no replies either. Disputes cannot be resolved through discussion when one party habitually refuses to discuss.
In this situation, the problem should now be resolved as I have uploaded the desired work to Commons and set up a transcription Index. No external links to the work are now required. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey:I agree with many points you have mentioned, though with several buts.
You are absolutely right that it was a link to a database and not to the scan. However, the scan was just one click farther, so the contributor might have been asked to replace the link for a more accurate one instead of removing it and following with an edit war.
You are also right that external links are just temporary. I understand that their main purpose is to show contributors where the work is available to be added to Wikisource.
I was reacting only to this specific case, I know nothing about other Andy Mabbetts contributions.
It is true that the mentioned help pages do not say anything about external links in Author pages. However, current practice is different and external links showing where the work can be obtained to be added here are frequently used and nobody seems to be removing unless they are substituted at least by a downloaded scan. IMO, they can be useful, although the scan or even the proofread work instead of the link are much better.
Your final solution by uploading the work to Commons is perfect. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
"You have been resisting advice on Author pages..." I note that this allegation is made without any supporting diffs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you deny the allegation, or simply question its delivery for the purpose of wiki-lawyering? If I thought the diffs would result in a change in your editing practices, I would trawl through for them. But up to this point, you have failed to respond to discussion (see your Talk page), or have hedged, or have turned to ad hominem (again, see your own Talk page). This being the case, there seems little point in providing the diffs, as I cannot believe it will improve your editing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Diffs, please. And I'm happy to respond to discussions: you have yet to initiate one on my talk page; mostly posting instructions. As for wiki-lawyering, having been caught with your fingers in the admin-tool-abuse cookie jar, it is you and you alone who is doing that; and resorting to ad hominem.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
i’m sad that you are engaging in this way. you very well know PotW is stubborn; why then are you edit warring, and locking pages? this is how admins act over on commons, i expected better here. we should be modeling good behavior and showing deep link or wikisource link, not reverting a general list link, these can be added to a work list. we need some admin faciltators; is that a style of leadership you are prepared to try? Slowking4SvG's revenge 18:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I tried offering alternatives, but was unacknowledged. I demonstrated setting up an Index page for transcription, which is the Wikisource goal. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
why don’t you offer an alternative to locking an author page? what is the justification for a one month admin lock on an author page? do you want only admins to edit this site? Slowking4SvG's revenge 17:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I did offer alternatives. Twice. And I initiated dialog on the issue, to which the response was being told to go away and reverts. Also, the page was locked for only 14 days, not a month, which I had hoped would be sufficient time for a dialog to begin on the issue of database linking, which was the crux of the disagreement. Perhaps unsurprisingly, that dialog has still not happened, except for the replies by Jan.Kamenicek above. Did you have any comment to offer on that issue?
In any event, Wikisource:Protection policy advises the protection of pages which become host to an edit war "until the users resolve their dispute through discussion". At this point, Andy Mabbett has not participated in the discussion of the issue, and has refused to do so. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
i’m sorry, i do not find that response adequate. i do not see a "issue of database linking" consensus standard of practice. you should expect more "non-participation" when you roll out the lock tools to stop discussion. should your standard of practice become the norm here, i would reconsider my participation. Slowking4SvG's revenge 23:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
How can there be consensus if you will not discuss it, and Andy will not discuss it? I have initiated discussion several times. The issue is also one of the two points upon which this very thread was started, yet only Jan.Kamenicek and I have discussed that issue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I note that diffs have still not been provided. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I note that diffs have still not been provided. I also note that this review is still open. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I find it ironic that an editor is demanding diffs in a thread he started by making unsubstantiated accusations. If you believe some Wikisource policy has been violated, then please identify it. Otherwise, please apologize. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
i find it ironic to critique the participation of an editor, while denying participation. Slowking4SvG's revenge 23:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Diffs[edit]

Since diffs have been requested…

On 18 May Andy added a new work to Author:Lyman Belding in this series of edits: 1, 2, 3. In addition to listing the work itself the edits add a DOI using {{DOI}} and a bare URL to biodiversitylibrary.org. A few minutes later EncycloPetey, presumably while patrolling the recent changes feed, removes the links with the edit summary BHL and DOI links belong on Wikidata item for the work, not on the Author page. Four minutes later they open a thread on Andy's talk page explaining their reasoning and suggesting alternate methods to achieve the apparent goal. 16 minutes later Andy reverts EncycloPetey's change to Author:Lyman Belding with the edit summary BHL provide a PDF of the full work. EncycloPetey then reverts and instead adds a {{wikidata edition}} as they had previously suggested on Andy's talk page. Two minutes later Andy reverts with the summary restore link to page containing PDF of full work. EncycloPetey now reverts and protects the page, and posts the addendum Wikisource is not a link farm. Please use Wikidata for metadata links. on Andy's talk page. At this point—22 minutes and 2 reverts after they received the first message on their talk page, but just 2 minutes after the author page was protected—Andy responds on their talk page with Work on improving your tone; and assume good faith.. EncycloPetey responds with Feel free to follow your own advice.. One minute later Andy opens this thread questioning EncycloPetey's conduct, and then replies on their talk page with Don't post here again until you have sufficiently addressed the above.. Four minutes later EncycloPetey responds to this thread explaining their reasoning and their complaint with Andy's actions.

At no point during these edits do I see any attempt by Andy to discuss this issue or the related actions, despite EncycloPetey's attempt to start such a discussion on their talk page. The two replies on their talk page are not responsive to the issue raised, and this thread is a complaint regarding EncycloPetey's conduct rather than addressing the actual issue in disagreement.

The full list of diffs (all times in UTC):

I'll also note that EncycloPetey has previously attempted to discuss, assist, and facilitate on Andy's talk page with no apparent response. --Xover (talk) 08:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The accusation for which diffs were requested was "You have been resisting advice on Author pages since you arrived here". Which of your collection of diffs do you suppose supports that allegation?
One of my earlier questions was "Since when are admins allowed to use their admin tools in content disputes in which they are involved?". What's your answer to that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Charinsert selection is no longer saved for the next session.[edit]

Some time ago WMF removed the Charinsert's user's selection from the Wikisource cookie. Is there a plan to re-implement this feature somehow? Perhaps as a Gadget? I ask because every page I open for edit, The preferred row must be re-selected. — Ineuw talk 00:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this behaviour. I always have the last one I used displayed—usually "User". [Do note though, that I'm using the MonoBook skin and I have no editing toolbar on since they turned off the only usable one.] Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I am using the Vector. This I was told on phabricator after filing a bug report that it needs to be a per wiki supported gadget. unsigned comment by Ineuw (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2019‎ (UTC).
@Ineuw: That Phabricator task was about removing the old (2006) editing toolbar, but should not in itself otherwise affect the character insertion function. However there was another utility function removed in the same change that the character insert function depended on and which necessitated changes to it to keep working. But the symptom of that would have been that the character insertion function either didn't show up at all or showed up but simply did nothing. Provided I'm understanding you correctly, what you're seeing is that the function is there and works, but it just fails to remember which group of characters was selected last time.
I'm not seeing that problem either, so it is not a global problem with this feature. There was, however, a change made to the code on enwp around the same time as the changes discussed in that Phab ticket, and that change was copied here by Mpaa. The change switched from using regular web "cookies" to using the fancy new HTML5 localStorage/sessionStorage APIs. These are not quite as universally supported as cookies, so your web browser suddenly becomes a factor. All versions of Internet Explorer <=11 have various bugs related to this; and relatively old web browsers lack support completely (we're taking IE6, Safari 3/4; about that old). It also means the security settings in your browser come into play (if the script isn't permitted to save the data, for example). It can also conceivably be affected by installed antivirus products (I don't know whether these actually interfere in these kinds of operations, but it would not be surprising if they did).
And lastly there are some Mediawiki settings that can potentially play into this somehow. Which skin are you using (Vector, Monobook, etc.). Is "Enable the editing toolbar" in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing checked? Are you using the insert menu that shows up below the main text area or the one at the top of it? Have you tested in the main namespace or here, vs. Page: and Index:? If your web browser has developer tools / javascript console; does the console show any errors when you use the char insert function? --Xover (talk) 07:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: Much appreciate your input and explanation. 90% of the time I use Firefox (currently 66.0.5) and the rest of the time, I use Vivaldi 2.5, a Chromium based browser. Both are the latest browser technology as far as I know. It's best if I reset my preferences to default and take it from there, and hoping to find the glitch. My thanks. — Ineuw talk 20:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Disabling and then redefining most of the same local settings, and disabling the global preferences permanently, did the trick. My Charinsert "User" selection appears immediately in edit mode. Thanks to everyone. Ineuw (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Index:Lanman's Sanskrit Reader.pdf[edit]

This seems to be confused as to publication dates, The front page says 1963, The Commons description says 1884, although the work itself contains a note on pp. x , as to a fourth edition of 1903.

The original author died in 1941, so the license on the file at Commons might need to be updated, if it is genuinely a later edition.

I am thinking the front page date is that of a reprint, as I can't find a specific copyright indication elsewhere, did someone check for it being a post 1923 revision as opposed to a reprint? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.284131 is a copy of the fourth issue of 1903 from 1912, if this needs replacing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

TOC entry with multiple page numbers on the same line[edit]

In this book, I am attempting to use Template:TOCstyle to generate a table of contents for illustrations. However, the template does not support having an entry in the TOC refer to multiple page numbers, thus breaking the code, as seen here. Could a more experienced user kindly point me to a workaround so that multiple pages can be on the same line? Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

There is an extra }}| following the {{sc}} on that line. Remove that and you may be pleased with the result… 114.73.168.91 21:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for finding what I missed. Kges1901 (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-21[edit]

13:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Chapters in a different language[edit]

Hi—What's the appropriate procedure for transcribing chapters in a different language? In the book I'm working on there's a 30-page appendix in Latin (beginning here, I haven't created the pages yet), so in particular I'm wondering:

  1. Should the pages in Latin be transcribed in the page namespace here?
  2. Should the Latin appendix be given a page in mainspace here, or on the Latin Wikisource, or on both with a transclusion here from the Latin Wikisource?
  3. If it goes on the Latin Wikisource, how do I present the appendix by itself there given that the rest of the book is in English?

I tried looking for a relevant help/policy page but couldn't find much. Cheers. —Nizolan (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

If it's a source material appendix, and it's short, then it is possible to transcribe it and include it here. We've done that sometimes for works such as The European Concert in the Eastern Question where sections of diplomatic documents are used to support the principal text. We typically would not include non-English text if the book was a parallel text, or a work primarily in a language other than English, or where the non-English portion was a complete work in its own right unconnected with the main (such as a German article in a multi-lingual periodical). That's not a comprehensive answer, but I hope it answers your particular question. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
It looks like an integral part of the book. Not only the individual documents of the appendix are discussed in the previous English chapters, but there is also a contents page of the appendix, which should be transcribed (as it is in English language) and which would not make any sense if the the rest of the appendix were not transcribed too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks both; in that case I'll proceed "as normal". The appendices in European Concert seem to be the same situation.—Nizolan (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Don't forget to mark up the Latin text as such, like {{lang|la|Lorem ipsum}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the {{lang}} template, but I will use it going forward, thanks. It'll be tricky to add to the works/pages I've already proofread since there are so many snippets of Latin (and some other languages) but I'll do a once-over and hopefully any others can eventually be caught in validation. —Nizolan (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

translator? co-author?[edit]

I have some doubts how to present the role of Lewis Stanton Palen in Beasts, Men and Gods. According to this article (in Polish) Ossendowski wrote this book initially in Russian and then translated it himself to English with help of Palen. Palen is also suspected to suggest some changes in the book plot. Frankly, Palen is nowhere named "translator"; he is called "collaborator". However, I have no idea how to express this in Wikisource in the header template as well as in the Palen's author page. Any hints?

English edition is the original one; all later editions (except Polish one, published a year later, which is significantly modified) were just translations of the English edition. Ankry (talk) 07:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Since the English edition is the original one, I think either by Ossendowski, translated by Ossendowski and Palen or by Ossendowski and Palen would be correct, and you can explain further in the notes field —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Timely articles: Help with proofreading items that will likely receive local attention?[edit]

There is a statue called "The Pioneer" in Oregon which has attracted attention as potentially glorifying racist attitudes in the region's history, and may be dismantled. The Oregon Historical Quarterly documented the statue's installation in 1919, printing the addresses of its sponsor and of the then-president of the Oregon Historical Society. Since the attitudes reflected are the core subject of the current controversy, I expect there will be renewed interest in these articles; and as far as I know, Wikisource is the only place online where transcriptions of these addresses exist. Both have been transcribed; but I would love to have some additional eyes, perhaps for validation, on these texts (and potentially on neighboring articles in the 1919 volume of the OHQ).

-Pete (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

phab:T224355: bad quality in Page namespace[edit]

Maybe someone came across a similar situation... If so you can leave a comment on phabricator task. Ratte (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I haven't experienced this particular issue, but there are frequent problems working with PDFs on Wikisource, which is why DjVu is the recommended format. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, djvu files may sometimes experience a similar problem (among others). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
+1 EncycloPetey. The above DjVu problem is easily fixable either by manual setting of higher scan resolution in index, or by replacing the first page with a higher resolution image (eg. scaled up). Unlike most PDF problems... Ankry (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
PDF is IMO more easily accessible than DJVU to most users (which is probably the reasons why many libraries started leaving DJVU), but unfortunately mediawiki is not very friendly to PDFs. I believe that it is mediawiki that should be improved. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)