Wikisource:Scriptorium

From Wikisource
(Redirected from Wikisource:S)
Jump to: navigation, 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 327 active users here.

Contents

Announcements[edit]

Proposals[edit]

Consider Wikisource a library (for U.S. copyright law)[edit]

Since the Internet Archive is the first institution to exploit this feature of America's arcane and backwards copyright law, I suggest we be the second: Section 108h of the U.S. Code allows libraries to scan and make available materials published 1923 to 1941 if they are not being actively sold. One immediate objection I see is that it would introduce overhead on our part to determine if a work is actively being sold. On the contrary, I would suggest that this is no different than a DMCA request: assume that a work is not (most aren't), use basic common sense for due diligence, and then let someone else complain if he thinks we are hosting something we shouldn't be. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikisource does far more than just scan works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Books from 1923 to 1941 Now Liberated! not too hard to determine if in print. do a alibris / amazon / worldcat. and a search for non-renewal is not too hard. and internet archive is doing the search and hosting. however, this community would never agree to such a librarian standard of practice. in 2 years we will start counting up anyway. do you have any orphans before 1941 of interest? Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the proposal is changing the underlying predication of Wikisource in that we would be moving to a non-commercial type license, something akin to PD-1941-NC. These works would be unable to be taken from our site and reproduced as all our existing works can be. How would you differentiate between those works that can and those that cannot be commercialised? — billinghurst sDrewth
    As a follow-up, I am not opposed to the exploration of this matter, I just think that it needs a reasoned proposal, not a "dump and run". If it is going to be a dump and run, then I propose that it is moved to the bottom of this page. @Koavf: if you are going to put together something which we can explore and look through nuanced argument, then I look forward to your proposal. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Billinghurst: Not sure what you mean--I left this here for feedback. I don't know what more you want. I could respond to every person the moment he posts but I wanted to elicit some discussion. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Koavf: But you left it in the "Proposals" section. If you just wanted feedback and a discussion, then this isn't a Proposal but a discussion topic. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    @EncycloPetey: Because it would mean a pretty fundamental change to our approach to works here. It isn't just an idle chat about issues tangentially related to Wikisource but a way to refactor some of what we do and which would require some broad consensus, re-writing policy pages, etc. If other users think it's a non-starter (and clearly, several do), then the community is rejecting my proposed changes and it's just food for thought. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Koavf: I think you've missed what first billinghurst meant, and my response to your question said. You made a "suggestion" or "comment", whereas a "proposal" is usually a more formal sort of presentation than what you posted. So billinghurst was pointing out that it didn't seem appropriate to post in the Proposals section (and I agree) because it's more a passing thought or idea than a formal proposal. So what you asked "not sure what you mean", I was trying to help answer that question. Yes, your "suggestion" involves a fundamental change, but that doesn't make it a "proposal". A proposal would be a formal well thought out and fully reasoned presentation for the community, rather than a passing thought about a big change. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - Proposed license is NOT compatible with 'free' licensing terms which permit commerical use. Any works uploaded would have to be locally hosted in any event, as the above would be a non-starter on Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
That is an interesting approach, though I am not sure that it is a reasoned approach. Some thoughts to consider:
  • We host works that are not copyright in the US, yet some of these are still copyright in their home country, and we have both text and image as they cannot be at Commons.
  • We do not host some works as they have copyright in the US, even though they are out of copyright in their home country.
  • WMF has a broad scope to copyright and licensing and how they see that it applies and give latitude to how wikis can apply. It is a range, and up and down the range different conditions apply.
  • We license all of our works with the conditions that apply to their hosting, and their re-use. It is our rule about not allowing "non-commercial" or not having "fair use", it is not WMF's.
  • There are ways that we could differentiate non-commercial works from commercial works if we chose a different approach.
So how about a reasoned and logical debate, not an emotional one, or one that hinges on a dogma. Wikisource should develop, and that development should be in line with the scope of the WMF and its development. We should not be frozen in time. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it is WMF's rule about not allowing non-commercial. wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy says "All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above." And any emphasis on a logical debate is deceptive; the question is about deciding what our ultimate goals are, and logic can't advance that question.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
actually WMF does allow non-commercial works per "Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) A project-specific policy, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), that recognizes the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project, regardless of their licensing status." maybe we could have a proposal for pre-1941 works not in print?
thank-you for being honest about the appeal to emotion, rather than appeal to reasom. Slowking4SvG's revenge 10:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The page describes how EDPs should be used as:
"3. Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. ... Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose.
4. ... They must be used only in the context of other freely licensed content."
Yes, your appeal that we should maximize the volume of works we can work on is no more an appeal to reason than my appeal to staying with free works. Rationally we can speak of the value of a small set of works that we may be forced to take down if they come back in print, versus the huge universe of pre-1923 work that is untouchable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
you can call a fair use of the "orphan work out of print before 1941" an ideology if you want, but it is an ideology shared by the hathi trust and internet archive. they will do the work of selection, and we could support them. these are low risk items, that we can make available to the public, as a part of the sum of all knowledge. - they are partners i can collaborate with, unlike the FSF. Slowking4SvG's revenge 23:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
A couple of examples of works that could fit within the EDP doctine, and I do preface that it is a little opening and possibly one that would take too much explaining to make it useful and sustainable.
  • works that are out of copyright in their home country, and that are out of print;
  • compiled works that are not copyrighted for parent work, though may contain work that is within copyright within US; traditionally we have blanked those components in our transcription, be they chapters or images.
As a question, does anyone know why there is an 1941 cutoff? I haven't seen mention of why the 75 years is pertinent. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Because, books published upto 1941, with 95 years' copyright, are within last 20 years of their copyright; and thus covered under 17 U.S.C. Section 108(h). Hrishikes (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • a lot of the works will be US home country, but out of print, and orphaned, so we do not know who the copyright holder is (although hathi trust found some subsequently) see also w:Orphan works in the United States
  • are you agreeing to a fair use of the lesser term? the Canadians and Chinese would be happy to agree with you.
  • compilations are rare compared to the orphan ocean. we can also do a copyright search for non-renewal, but this is not "untouchable", the rules are too complicated for bright lines, but we can show our work as a standard of practice. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the EDP, the only WS project I could find with a more-or-less clear stance is the French Wikisource, which allows both local uploads (like most except Japanese and Dutch) and, unusually, non-free content (which is discouraged, but some content is fair-use in French law; see this and this if you read French). Perhaps someone with a good command of French could research how they operate regarding these matters for ideas? Inatan (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
Other than these "Last 20" books, I would like to draw attention to another class of books, already mentioned by @Billinghurst:, which are PD-home country but not PD-URAA. Such books are now allowed in Commons. Internet Archive has a good number, especially after the large-scale addition of DLI books. In case of Indian works, two types are now allowed here (exc. Govt woks & CC): Books published before 1923 and books by authors who died before 1941. If we allow PD-home country, then books of authors who died in 1941-1956 can be allowed, which is a huge number of books. For countries that are 70 pma (like UK), books by authors who died before 1947 can be allowed. This will considerably enrich the English Wikisource (e.g., by having the post-1923 works of Rabindranath Tagore and the books of hunting by Jim Corbett, among others). These are already allowed in Commons, so we may also consider. Hrishikes (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support conditionally when considering m:United States non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term#Orphan works for non-American works only. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose this for orphan American works.--Jusjih (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Of course, I support any extension of our scope. Yann (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per ShakespeareFan00. Perhaps this proposal would be more appropriate over at Wikilivres. NMaia (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @NMaia: Wikilivres is in Canada. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment wikilivres is no more; it is now https://biblio.wiki/wiki/Main_Page - it could be appropriate here, but you choose to wall yourself off from the decisions of hathi trust, and commons. Slowking4SvG's revenge 15:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral; looks like a lot of bother and confusion for a handful of obscure works, but if people want to establish a clear policy or EDP that works with our existing policies and frameworks then go for it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment you should expect a periodic questioning of why no EDP, as naive people see work that very well could be done, but is not, for a lack of it. i am not confused. Slowking4SvG's revenge 16:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
If we pass this proposal, I would like to rewrite Template:Not-PD-US-URAA and possibly rename it. Chinese Wikisource is about to accept similar proposal.--Jusjih (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
We should delete Not-PD-US-URAA; it's not in use anywhere, and it's not relevant. Even if we accept this proposal, it's still not relevant; this applies to books published more than 75 years ago that have living authors as much as those with long dead authors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
i agree, we should delete not-pd-us-uraa - that is a commons drama, that no one cares about here enough to upload a work. chinese wikisource is going for "works of the lesser term" contrary to the "take it to wikilivres" above. but why there should be an ideological opposition to an EDP for a few works is interesting. does not add value. partnering with IA and hathi adds value. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
apparently you care enough to import the URAA drama, so we need the tag. how amusing. Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Chinese Wikisource is considering this proposal here, so Template:Bibliowiki page now corresponds to zh:template:Not-PD-US-old. Undeleting Not-PD-US-URAA is provisional while considering m:Legal/Wikimedia_Server_Location_and_Free_Knowledge. Depending on whether this proposal goes, I may propose merging relevant contents of Not-PD-US-URAA into Template:Bibliowiki page, possibly renaming Template:Bibliowiki.--Jusjih (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
As I understand from an ongoing discussion by experts at the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook Group, we cannot consider Wikisource a library (for U.S. copyright law), for hosting the "Last 20" books. Internet Archive has official recognition as a library under US law in the state of California. That's why they can go ahead with this provision of 17 U.S.C. Section 108(h). Wikisource has no such recognition; so we cannot do it. People participating in that Facebook discussion were commenting on this discussion of ours, that Wikisource is not getting the "nuance" of the matter. Hrishikes (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
"library status" is a loophole in the code, to host the pdf’s. we can still claim fair use of orphan works out of print, regardless of theories of who we are. if it is an orphan there is no one to claim copyright. i often lament the lack of nuance of what passes for consensus, in many forums.Slowking4SvG's revenge 03:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Concerning the deprecated template, why not mark it as "Historic", deleting it will benefit exactly no-one. -- DonTrung (徵國單)  (討論 🤙🏻) (方孔錢 ☯) 11:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Then are we considering m:Legal/Wikimedia Server Location and Free Knowledge to conditionally tolerate works affected by the m:United States non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term? I am ready to forget the "Last 20" books not affected by the US non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term.--Jusjih (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Set up a different Wikiproject - perhaps call it Wikilibrary. That will enable us to maintain a very clear scope and purpose of this project - scans and transcriptions of public domain works - and of the new project - scans only of works specifically falling under the library loophole. BD2412 T 20:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Make author optional in header template[edit]

I would like to propose making the author parameter to the {{header}} template optional, and when it's not given use the {{author-list}} template instead. This pulls authorship information from Wikidata and constructs the correct links. At the moment it's working for normal authors and organisational ones (i.e. portals). It also wraps the links in 'structured HTML' which will help search engines indexing these works.

For example, Holy, Holy, Lord would have an author list of "", and Thompson v. Utah one of "" (without the quotation marks in both cases).

This template looks at the work's Wikidata item for an author, and if it can't find one it looks at the item that the work is an edition of (i.e. it traverses the P629 property).

Note that I'm not at all talking about override_author; that would continue as-is. This is just about the behaviour when the author parameter is left out or is blank.

I don't propose that this is going to be happening very soon, because I'm quite sure that there are things that I don't know about yet. I'll make test cases (at Module:Edition/testcases) for everything, to make future maintenance easier. I'm raising this now firstly to see if anyone thinks it's a good idea, and secondly to garner more examples of works with non-standard authors (i.e. we have lots of works with single, human, authors who have names; that's the simple case; I reckon there're other cases!).

Whadyareckon? —Sam Wilson 06:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Samwilson: Can you please describe what happens when the author field is empty and one of "override_author", "contributor", "override_contributor" is utilised? One of the things that I am uncertain about is that we have to create the work first prior to being able to use wikidata, and there can be that delay, and no certainty that it will be completed. So how would we manage the cases where wikidata does not exist, and presumably we would know it locally though may not be entered. Also how would this work for subpages, especially where these subpages will not be in wikidata, eg. chapters.

And being explicit to those in the community who may not know that the author parameter is currently mandated to exist in the template (though can be left empty), and where it is removed that the template generates an error noting that template is incomplete. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Yes, I should have written it better! This isn't proposing that we remove any of those parameters, just leave them empty and when all of the author-sort-of fields are empty it'll attempt to produce a Wikidata-backed list. It's certainly impossible to programatically account for every variation we've got in use here, but I think it shouldn't be toooo hard to handle the common ones where there's some number of 'normal' authors, who may or may not have their own author pages yet.
I've updated it to handle subpages. Do you know of any examples where there are works with subpages that do have their own Wikidata items? Or perhaps where intermediate subpages do (e.g. multiple volumes, each with a different author)?
And for the situation in which a page is created here but the Wikidata item doesn't yet exist: that'd just be as the status quo is, and nothing would be done.
Sam Wilson 07:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Re subpage works. Many of our encyclopaedic works, especially EB1911 and EB9, though those works are still problematic under old templates (and user resistance slows me taking those up. Soooo, maybe try DMM though I am uncertain how any have WD items Beeswaxcandle (talkcontribs)? We have some series of lectures that could and should have items, but I cannot say that they do. Re solely created here, the issue is if they leave the fields empty in expectation of doing something at WD, then don't we just have an empty work and maybe without means of identification, suche will require tracking and an early intervention strategy. My issue with regard to early intervention is that we need a more enthused community that is comfortable with interventionist approach. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Re DMM. I've done nothing about WD linking, mainly because it holds no interest to me whatever. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Hazmat2 (talkcontribs) has done a fair bit of work through American Medical Biographies and I know that includes Wikidata for both biographical entries and author pages, so that would be good one, especially if we want to do some removal of data to test. Hazmat2 an excellently skilled user here and there, so can also give good feedback on shortcutting and minimising unnecessary work. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, it's been a long day so I apologize if I go off topic a little here. I think that the way as described above would work. I do think every subpage in an encyclopedia/dictionary should have its own WD item. Discrete data is important for organization and searching. This would also make what you are describing particularly "easy" to parse data, but I remain cautious. There are many variables to account for. For instance, I use Contributor rather than author for the entries. This is not necessarily correct or incorrect, but it makes more sense to me. Would you therefore overlook the item and follow the published in or edition of route, which may or may not exist? What if you get to the original item and there's only an editor and no author? Also, I'm fairly confident that many users will never touch WD or create items, and I think that's okay. WP users usually don't create items for articles. It's done automatically and then information is parsed out and put into discrete statements by other users and bots. I digress, but my two main points are that non WD users shouldn't feel the difference and it will need some beta testing to get things right. Again, sorry for the broken thoughts. Haz talk 01:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Bot approval requests[edit]

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

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

Other discussions[edit]

Template {{efn}} to manage different group of footnotes with predefined markers[edit]

Is there any reason why the template {{efn}} should not be available and working properly in Wikisource as it is in Wikipedia? Used in Wikisource it produces numeric (instead of letter) markers preceded by the prefix "lower-alpha", as if the template was partially recognized but not implemented… — Malachia (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Because house style is not to do that. We've had this discussion many, many times. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@Malachia: local information at Help:Footnotes and endnotes. In short, as we are not looking to replicate the style of the work, and it can fail miserably once we change from page footnotes, to chapter endnotes; hence our decision on how and why we stick with standard numerical refs. Happy to explain why, though as EP says, we don't feel like recycling the debate, noting it is in the archives of this page. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
we will continue to have this discussion as new editors are astonished that functionality is not enabled because "house rules". would you be open to a limited roll out for limited character sets such as roman numbers? Slowking4SvG's revenge 17:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
If it's feasible I don't see why we shouldn't use it. I think it would work fine for roman numerals, letters and also Greek letters. I only see it being a problem and not practical for use with symbols though. Jpez (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment. Perhaps we should have a page that lists and links to past/ongoing discussions of "hot" topics such as footnotes &c., annotations, etc. That way, we can point new editors to the rationale behind current "house style" and they can explore for and against for themselves. The information is out there. It is our responsibility to make it accessible (imo), and it is their choice whether or not to inform themselves. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We created Wikisource:Style guide to assist users, and it holds our collective wisdom for why we do things here as we do.

We created Wikisource:For Wikipedians to assist those at WP to understand that we are different, and how we are different. We have other pages like Help:Footnotes and endnotes that put more context and detail, and again hold the learnings and our guidance. If these need improving to assist users then please improve them. If you think that your improvements could be controversial then start a discussion on the talk page, and if necessary cite it here.

We are on the web, and multiple platforms so we know that an exact replication is not for us, especially as we have the tricks and knowledge of other building and interlinking a library

Specifics. As we have endnotes, not footnotes, and that changes how we present citations. As we are replicating old books with a myriad of publishing style, it should not be a surprise that things will be different, especially as we not creating new encyclopaedic articles. Things are different and if these WP users are indeed "astonished", then we manage their expectations and show them how to do it locally. We cannot expect them to have our local collective wisdom, so they don't know why we do it differently, but it doesn't mean that we should automatically do it differently.

We can have a template, be it {{efn}} or something else, that enables the presentation of <ref> into groups, but we don't wish to have different numbering styles, as we know that these can be problematic. Why is that a problem? Why do we need to bow and scrape to WP's use of a template for their needs that doesn't suit our needs?

If we need to improve our templates, or our information for grouped references, then let us do it, and give some examples of how we do it here. None of that means that we need to change our citation reference styles to meet their perceived needs, or what they have learnt to do somewhere else means that is how it is done here. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I have added a couple of paragraphs to the lead of H:REF#Introduction to Wikisource's presentation style. We can probably better add some specific guidance to demonstrate how to handle grouping of references both in the work, and at transclusion of the work. Whether this needs to be a template or guidance is part of our conversation. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-50[edit]

17:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyright laws regarding The Constitution of Bangladesh.[edit]

Please excuse me, as I'm new to Wikisource. I was looking up the constitution of various countries on Wikisource and I noticed that there was no entry about the constitution of Bangladesh. I tried searching around and on This website, which happens to be written in Bengali (I'm from Bangladesh), I found out that government works have 60 years of copyright since their first publication. But my main problem is that on here, it states this certain line: [The reproduction or publication of certain Government works (unless prohibited; sub-s. 17)]. Now, I don't know if the publication of the Constitution Of Bangladesh's allowed or not. As far as I know, It was first ratified in 4 November, 1972 and became effective on 12 December of that same year. It has been about 44 years since first publication. My main question is, Is the publication of the Constitution of Bangladesh allowed? (Also, do excuse my English.) DarkSpartan (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@DarkSpartan: It is allowed under c:Template:EdictGov-Bangladesh. Hrishikes (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Note that translations can have their own problems; we'd need either a clearly free translation or a translation by us. Google Translate or other machine translation can make a start.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg as mentioned in IRC see Wikisource:translations for information about original translations. If there is a scan uploaded in Bangli for the bnWS transcription. The same scan can have an enWS index: page here and corresponding enWS Page: which can be utilised for the image/translation. [Ask me to expand on anything, this is just a concise answer.] — billinghurst sDrewth 01:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
For versions at bnWS: calligraphic: https://bn.wikisource.org/s/bsgd, printed: https://bn.wikisource.org/s/1jn. Hrishikes (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there any interest in creating a WikiProject Numismatics here?[edit]

Hello 👋🏻 everyone,

Would there be support to start a WikiProject Numismatics here on Wikisource? I personally am looking online for old books 📚 on numismatic subjects online and though I currently only have a single one in mind (Annam and its minor currency by Eduardo Toda y Güell), I know that there are plenty of public domain numismatic works to be found. I’m not sure how many people here are interested in joining a WikiProject Numismatics as I’ve already created a WikiProject Numismatics on the Dutch Wikipedia and I am currently still the only member so I don't want to repeat that mistake by launching that project directly after I finish importing Annam and its minor currency by Eduardo Toda y Güell and then be disappointed 😞 when no new members appear. So in order to “test the waters” so to say I wonder if anyone here is interested in joining a WikiProject Numismatics. If there’s plenty of support (at least three potential members) I will create a sub-page in my user-space 🚀 to draft a WikiProject Numismatics.

I think that as a WikiProject it would best concern itself with making collaborative projects where some users make sources available, others work with the syntax and style, while others format and categorise. Maybe we could have a team that contacts Numismatic institutions and musea off-wiki (something I already do for Wikimedia Commons with mixed success), so if there's any interest feel free to say so. smiley

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. -- DonTrung (徵國單)  (討論 🤙🏻) (方孔錢 ☯) 08:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-51[edit]

15:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Global Collaboration products newsletter: 2017-12[edit]

14:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Can a Hebrew speaker help finish this work?[edit]

Index:The Inscription on the Stele of Méša commonly called the Moabite Stone.djvu has three pages left, with Hebrew text. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Forgive my use of this space for a greeting, but I wanted to wish Peace, Hope & Joy to Wikisourcers in every clime and place. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata request for comment on the ideal data import process[edit]

Community Noun project 26481.svg

Dear all

We are currently running a discussion on Wikidata about what the ideal data import process looks like. We want to get the thoughts of people who work on different Wikimedia projects who have different needs and knowledge of different kinds of data to make it our roadmap as inclusive as possible, please take a look.

Many thanks

John Cummings (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

US Code[edit]

the Library of Congress has made more of the US Code pdf’s available, including from William S. Hein & Co, Inc.

maybe we should take a look at refreshing these volumes. Slowking4SvG's revenge 20:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

As it is our United States Code isn't tied to any fixed version and as such falls afoul of our inclusion criteria. A move to one would definitely be a big improvement over letting it stagnate or deleting it and cleaning up all the broken links and such. Quite an undertaking though. Prosody (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
nope, the code is fixed year by year, and constantly being revised. see also United States Statutes at Large and Category:United States Code. but yeah, daunting size, and sidefootnoting, to think about. maybe i should raise with the law library folks at LOC. Slowking4SvG's revenge 03:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Invisible button in Mobile mode.[edit]

Hi everyone. I recently noticed that when viewing a page either on a mobile device, or on my desktop, but with "mobile mode", there is an "invisible" button to the left of the normal "Download" button (that just prints the current page). When clicked, it uses WSExport to download an Epub copy of the whole page. That's great! But unfortunately not many people will click on that button, because currently it is blank. I have looked it up, look at the console in mobile mode and found that it is throwing an error, and the burron suppoused to look like this EPUB silk icon monochrome.svg, but that image doesn't load. I think the issue arises from MediaWiki:Mobile.css. I think it is trying to load the image relative to the wikisource domain, and not directly from Commons. I think it may be lacking the protocol HTTP. I don't know if formerly worked, but maybe its like this for years. --Ninovolador (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ninovolador: Thanks for the note. It would seem that they have a series for this month's featured text, and as such it doesn't fit our normal download profile. Something typical would be Template:Featured text/November so see how that looks to you. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I don't think so. Mediawiki:Mobile.js and Mediawiki:Mobile.css remain the same for 2 years. For some reason the archival bot deleted my previous comment, so i copypaste it here:

I confirm that adding "https:" to the second background-url statement (and getting rid of the first, that gets completely replaced by the second) fixes the problem, and gets enWS a nice little feature . --Ninovolador (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice that on the "button menu" there is EPUB silk icon monochrome.svg. If you go to "mobile mode" you won't see it. --Ninovolador (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ninovolador: The thing is that it would appear that we didn't have, or want to have, a download with the December FT. The November version already had the active components; and I see the January version similarly available with an active green EPUB and others. So I am not seeing the problem that you describe. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Maybe its my broken english... I will try to rephrase it.
  1. First, go to *any* work (not just FT) on *mobile view* (i.e. accessing the website from a mobile device such as a tablet or a smartphone, or simply clicking the mobile view link at the bottom of the screen).
  2. Then, notice that there are, below the title, four "buttons": OOjs UI icon language-ltr.svg Interwiki button, OOjs UI icon download-ltr.svg PDF download button, OOjs UI icon star.svg Add to Watchlist button, and OOjs UI icon edit-ltr.svg Edit button.
  3. Then, click on the space just to the left of the "PDF download button", where no button appears to be. Check the first image of the gallery.
  4. The result: you will download an ePUB copy of the work.
This is not a bug, this is the result of the javascript running on Mediawiki:Mobile.js, that generates it. But a bug spanning several years prevents the button's image EPUB silk icon monochrome.svg to actually show up. The solution, if you still want to retain that feature, is to modify Mediawiki:Mobile.css the way i stated before. If, on the other hand, you don't want to retain this feature, you'd have to modify Mediawiki:Mobile.js and strip away the code that produces the button. --Ninovolador (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, we are talking cross-purposes. I thought that you were talking WS:FT as appear on the main page. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: even so: are you not interested in fixing this? You only have to modify Mediawiki:Mobile.css to add "https:" in front of the second "background-image: url( '//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/EPUB_silk_icon_monochrome.svg' );" so it says "background-image: url( 'https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/EPUB_silk_icon_monochrome.svg' );" --186.67.71.38 03:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This month's project[edit]

"The man who knew too much" just needs 6 pages to be validated to finish it off. So if you have a mo. Happy New Year Victuallers (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Mostly done, but for two pages that were marked as proofread, but in my estimation had not been proofread. I proofread them, eliminating line breaks, etc., but did not advance to validated. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Please check my attemps to create the new main namespace for this book at The Man who knew too much. I'm still working on it, of course. But I don't know if the existing one - The Man Who Knew Too Much - should be kept. And please check my use of capitals in the title. --Dick Bos (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@Dick Bos: Chapter titling should render as Chapter 1, 2, 3... rather than Chapter I, II, III etc. Instead of creating new mainspace pages with the new titling, you should be moving existing pages. I would have moved The Man Who Knew Too Much/Chapter I to The man who knew too much/Chapter 1. As for capitalization, I would not have capitalized "man", but instead used sentence case... Others might disagree. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
It was indicated to overwrite current (Index talk:The man who knew too much.djvu), so yesterday I went ahead. I agree with LJB.— Mpaa (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mpaa: @Londonjackbooks: Sorry, my fault. I had only looked at the first page of the thing. Mpaa, could you also do The Trees of Pride? I'll try to correct the links in the ToC. --Dick Bos (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Getting information[edit]

Hi, I would like to get some information involving Wikipedia articles, and I have some suggestions and some complaints as well is this the right place to go for this? Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

This is Wikisource rather than Wikipedia. To ask questions about Wikipedia please see this page over there. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

BBC Radio Times[edit]

Radio Times - Christmas 1935 - out-of-copyright article by William Temple, (died 1944), with in-copyright illustration obscured. Transcribed as The Coming of Wireless.

The BBC have put the entire run of the Radio Times magazine, for the 1930s, online, as part of the BBC Genome Project

This was the BBC's own magazine, sold to the public. It contains a mixture of programme listings (also digitised as text by the Genome Project), magazine articles (not as text), and images; all with mixed copyright status.

Obviously, the articles may be of interest to Wikisource.

I've started a discussion on Commons, with additional details, and to decide how we can best make use of this content. Your comments, and contributions to the work needing to be done, will be welcome there. It would be good to have liaison between the two projects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

None of this is public domain in the US, so it's not suitable for the English Wikisource. Consider taking it to The Canadian Biblio Wiki.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
do not see a copyright notice, so pre-1967 is suitable. no record of "radio times" at [25] the illustrations raise the issue of fair use, for images in PD text yet again. if you really think it is not PD, then you need to have the DR at commons, not here. Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Please see Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the URAA; a copyright notice is irrelevant. (And 1967 has nothing to do with anything in US copyright law, at least not for several more decades.) We have different copyright rules than Commons has.
(The specific example the copyright office gives is: "A French short story that was first published without copyright notice in 1935 will be treated as if it had both been published with a proper notice and properly renewed, meaning that its restored copyright will expire on December 31, 2030 (95 years after the U.S. copyright would have come into existence).")--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
by your failure to raise this issue at commons, i take it that you agree your extreme URAA views do not have a consensus at commons. what makes you think you have a consensus at wikisource? you need to seek a consensus rather than attempt to impose your views, by fiat. see also m:Wikilegal/Use of Foreign Works Restored under the URAA on Commons Slowking4SvG's revenge 12:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
It's clear that my views do not have a consensus at Commons. If I were imposing my views by fiat, as an administrator, I have a big fat delete button that I could have deleted the pages in question. Instead I marked it as copyvio and brought it up for discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
you have chosen not to continue the drama at commons, but rather, you come here and blank the image, inporting the drama here. your behavior is instructive. the venue shopping says it all: having lost the consensus at commons, will you now take that lack of consensus to each and every other project? the battleground has no armistice, merely new battlefields to fight over. Slowking4SvG's revenge 16:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

WS:FTC[edit]

Lots of FTC nominations by EP over at Featured Text Candidates, but few contributors offering proposal comments, support, etc. I only notice because I just made a proposal myself after a request by EP. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Problem importing books[edit]

For some reason this file and this file failed to import, is this normal? Or should I best ask this question on Wikimedia Commons? -- DonTrung (徵國單)  (討論 🤙🏻) (方孔錢 ☯) 12:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

ia-upload is a Commons tool. Best to ask for assistance there. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
log your issue into phabricator: tag with "ia-upload." — billinghurst sDrewth 22:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
there is a problem with jp2 which IA uses a lot hanging when trying to convert to dejavu. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Scan-backed[edit]

The term "scan-backed" is a piece of jargon, apparently specific to Wikisource, whose meaning is not clear to many visitors. The page Wikisource:Scan-backed does not yet exit. Please will someone create it, or redirect it if a suitable target exists elsewhere? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I never realized until recently that WS had a Glossary of terms (which could use some updating—to include "scan", "Index", "scan-backed" etc.—and perhaps should be linked to from the Help:Contents page; it is almost an orphan). Having a work scan-backed helps insure reliability of content, which is important, and helps keep WS relevant. Whether all terms "specific to Wikisource" rate a MS page, I do not know, but updating the Glossary and increasing its findability might be a start. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I added a link to the Glossary at Help:Contents; feel free to move the link where appropriate. If no one else gets to adding "scan" or "scan-backed" &c. to the glossary list, I will attempt it later. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Huh, never heard of that page until now. In the meantime, the relevant page is Help:Page scans. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
The pages mentioned, are a click away in the welcome message on your talk page. Follow the "proofreading" link, and the "help" link both get you to good pointers. That someone used scan-backed was their usage on the day, it definitely is a piece of jargon, though I wouldn't have said that it is overly common. That all said, it is probably worthwhile our again reviewing Template:Welcome to see whether it is the assistance that we want it to be, and it has been a while. unsigned comment by Billinghurst (talk) .
and the desire to move from text only transcription to side by side scan backed, is an ongoing quality improvement. not a deletion rationale. Slowking4SvG's revenge 16:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
That is correct. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Help:Page scans does not include the string "scan-backed" (nor "scan backed"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Are you wishing to make it a part of the WS lexicon? I am not understanding what it is you are seeking. Personally, I like the term and have used it myself. I can think of no better way to describe 'the thing'. I would have no objections to your adding it to the Glossary... Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Headers don't show up[edit]

The headers do no longer show up in the main namespace. In all books I've been checking you can see it flashing by for a second, and then it disappears. What's wrong? --Dick Bos (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Sorry. Forget to tell: it only happens in "Layout 3". --Dick Bos (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Ouch, it is there, though you will need to scroll over to the right of the page. We haven't changes being made to MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js in a long time.
self.ws_layouts['Layout 2'] = {
	'#pageContainer':'',
	'#regionContainer':'width:36em; margin:0 auto 0 auto; font-family:Georgia,serif;',
	'#columnContainer':'text-align:justify;',
	'.sidenote-right':'position:absolute; left:37em; width:16em; text-indent:0em; text-align:left;',
	'.sidenote-left':'position:absolute; left:37em; width:16em; text-indent:0em; text-align:left;',
	'.mw-editsection':'',
	'#headerContainer':'font-family:sans-serif;'
};
self.ws_layouts['Layout 3'] = {
	'#pageContainer':'',
	'#regionContainer':'min-width:60em; float:left; width:100%; margin-right:-23em;',
	'#columnContainer':'position:relative; text-align:justify; margin-right:23em; text-indent:0em; padding-left:0px; padding-right:0px; width:auto;',
	'.sidenote-right':'position:absolute; right:-10em; width:9em; background-color:#eeeeee; text-indent:0em; text-align:left;',
	'.sidenote-left':'position:absolute; right:-10em; width:9em; background-color:#eeeeee; text-indent:0em; text-align:left;',
	'.mw-editsection':'',
	'#headerContainer':'position:absolute; top:0em; right:-23em; width:21em; float:right; text-align:left;'
Seems that we need to amend #headerContainer to bring it back inside one of the other containers. If someone can play inside their special:mypage/common.css that would be brilliant. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: With respect Layout 3 "broke" for some browsers a long time ago but was not going to be addressed until the mobile/Visual Editor interface stabilised. Having received no feedback that either of the above two are not going to further change at a moment's notice please be very careful you are not patching over an abyss you did not even know was there. 114.74.62.196 23:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Good points about how we manage and need to version control our layouts. Let us develop, then test functionality through the proposed layouts functionality.

I wasn't rushing into anything, CSS is not my strength, and as said before we need to get some expertise in this area if we are to progress well. Time we got better control of mobile, VE, and some play with sidenotes. Might need to go through phabricator, and get some attention at either Wikimania, or the proposed Wikisource conference. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Transwiki some texts from oc-wiki?[edit]

I have a question about some medieval text that is currently in article name space on Occitan Wikipedia, and whether transwikifying it to Wikisource would be a better idea. I was under the impression that most wikipedias prefer references or short excerpts from primary sources, and not whole texts, plus, placing it here seems like the right venue.

I'm improving the article Querimonia on en-wiki, and among the Wikidata language links is one in Occitan. At oc:w:Querimònia, section #Tèxt dera Querimònia has nine links to what appear to be complete source texts written in Occitan, that are all located in oc-wiki article namespace. I'd prefer to see these texts transwikified here, instead; and then I could refer to them more easily from en-wiki (and the other wikis I work on), as well as using the en-wiki templates that provide a linked Wikisource box with a logo, and so on.

Can someone advise? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

https://wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page/Occitan is the proper source for Occitan works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
And the community help for that is at mul:Wikisource:Scriptorium and I would encourage you to seek their assistance. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Scans not loading?[edit]

Is anyone else having problems with scans not loading in the Page namespace (either for view or edit)? Every time I try to edit, the connection times out before a quarter of the scan page loads. I've done everything at my end I can, from resetting the router to checking updates and restarting the computer. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: No issue for me, there was a bit of lag with the image presenting, though once started, it came through fine. I tested at Index:The History of Essex.djvu; not sure where you are having issues. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-02[edit]

16:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Admins: We should look at our abuse filters as we have some that flag for blanking, if these new special:tags suitably cover an abuse filter, we can look to deactivate said filters. New names appear to be mw-new-redirect, mw-rollback, mw-removed-redirect, mw-changed-redirect-target and mw-blank. A review of the pages listed shows out good editing and capturing of junk, and not really much junk in the first place. I don't know whether they match up with our abuse pages, that is a check for another time.
  • I see numbers of examples of use of ext.wikiEditor.toolbar : (user: namespace results for the users to fix their issues) and in our Mediawiki: ns I see that we have four uses that need to be resolved

billinghurst sDrewth 00:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done or MW tools; users should do their own, or ask for help from an administrator. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Index:Occult Japan - Lovell.djvu validated and needs transclusion[edit]

Parking this here as I have just found this work has been validated for six months, and yet no pages are transcluded. I don't have the space do it now, and it needs parking in case someone else wishes to get to it. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Was this one I validated or proof-read? It may have been parked owing to concerns about the comptence of my proofreading or validation.
No objections to giving it more passes to ensure it's 100% transcribed per the scans (within Common sense obviously).
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Didn't go through all pages, but the starting pages did need a bit of minor cleaning. -Einstein95 (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done the transclusion, merging some of the drop capital images. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata and years in legal templates[edit]

Is there any way we could take the death year from Wikidata for the Pd/1923 style legal templates? I understand that it might be concerning to change a legal template based on Wikidata, but I've been cleaning up some author pages, and found a couple cases where Wikidata and the year in the template disagree. Maybe a category for disagreements, if automation is a step too far.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind that some works require multiple dates, or rely on multiple date considerations. If a work has both an author and translator, or bot an author and illustrator, or multiple authors, we may require more than one license. I'm not sure we could easily automate those situations, and they're fairly common. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
It would think that it would be possible, the one issue though I would think that it would also mean that we would want to pull all the data fields from Wikidata, rather than just the licence template dates. If the right data is at WD, e.g. author, translator, etc. that should allow template creation. Also, in these situations we have always allowed for manual overwrite. So {{pd/1923|}} or {{pd/1923}} would do {{pd/1923|(author|translator) year of death}}, though {{pd/1923|1923}} would be the override. We would also still control the templates on a page under this mechanism. I personally would like to explore the recording of licence templates at WD rather than locally, as that is a far easier and resilient place to check for presence and absence. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't that mandate that we have a WD item for the work / edition (and all relevant individuals) in order to have the license appear at all? Doing so would require editors who wish to add a license on a work here to understand the procedures at WD in order to add the license. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
It requires the item to be present to pull that data, it doesn't require it to exist or compel a user to enter that data. Though once configured, one would think that it would also be readily bot-able. Bits of that could already be done using PLbot's harvest templates toollabs:pltools/harvesttemplatesbillinghurst sDrewth 13:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking purely about the author page, where you just need to the death data; work pages would be harder. It might be nice to have a category of Author pages without WikiData information, so users willing to insert data into WikiData could find them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
See Category:Wikidata maintenance.— Mpaa (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Or Category:Author maintenanceMpaa (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

{{header}} and unrecognised dates[edit]

I recently found Category:Works with unrecognised dates and started going through and trying to make them in line with what is described for the year field on {{header}}'s doc. There's a couple things I've noticed:

  1. Dates
    A number of pages have the full date of publication (mainly for transcriptions of speeches). Should there be a |date= field so that the date can be standardised/localised? Much like {{date}} tbh.
  2. Unrecognised standard dates
    In the {{header}} doc, it says:
    Decades, centuries or periods can be used instead of a year (e.g. 1060s, 11th century or Medieval).
    [...]
    To use a approximate choice of two years, enter it as "Y/Y" (e.g. 1066/1067). This will display as it is written.}}
    However, using either of these still makes it appear in the aforementioned category.
    (Addendum: In the case of the latter where it spans multiple years, would it be better to show {year1}–{year2} and classify it as one of the years?)
    Edit:
    To use a tenuous year, enter it as "Y/?" (e.g. 1066/?). This will display as, for example, "1066?"
    As can be seen on Cleansing Wave, this doesn't do what's documented.

-Einstein95 (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • if full dates: move date to notes field, year should only be a year; full dates to wikidata if able

to the others, it sounds like "ugh", and some work is needed. :-/

billinghurst sDrewth 13:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikisource's birthday[edit]

According to Wikipedia, Wikisource was born on November 24, 2003. Would this be it's official birthday? It would then be turning 15 come November. Perhaps we could find a text begun that year to feature as FT for this November—ideally one that has been improved over the years. Is there a good way of generating a list of works created during 2003? Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Special:AncientPages might work, but for some reason the earliest pages shown are from April 1, 2006, plus they all seem to be articles from reference works. C. F. 17:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
But oldwikisource:Special:AncientPages shows works from 19 October 2004. C. F. 17:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
See s:mul:User:Angela. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both. Have made note of your links. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Came across Dovi's mention of an enWS anniversary as being 11 September 2005? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Looks like these redlinks are some of the earliest listed works at the old WS—to include Kipling's "If—" Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
We did the 10th Anniversary proofreading competition in November 2013 (WS:10) based on the 2003 date. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
a personal reflection here [40] and article w:Wikisource#Early_history -- Slowking4SvG's revenge

Tech News: 2018-3[edit]

18:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Marking updates... in a document...[edit]

This is a pragmatic response:- Page:UK Traffic Signs Manual - Chapter 8 - Part 1 (Traffic Safety Measures and Signs for Road). Designs 2009.pdf/8 Given that Part 3 (not currently on Wikisource, published subsequently, and available here-https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/594446/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-08-part-03.pdf) published at a later date makes some amendments and updates a few cross references to more recent legislation or regulations.

Before I can continue adding revision annotations, I'd like a consensus on whether these should be added, or the document transcribed in it's 'as published' state, given that in other works annotations for subsequent revisions were not added.

If there's no consensus or objection, I'll revert the changes. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Requesting permission to delete Index[edit]

Index:The Complete Poetical Works and Letters (1899).pdf has a very poor text layer &c., and I personally would not want to transcribe from it. I have created a new Index Index:The complete poetical works and letters of John Keats, 1899.djvu to replace it, and request permission to delete the former Index and associated pages. There are no longer any pages that link to its created Index:pages other than the Index itself. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This request makes sense to me, I don't know what kind of permission is required but you've got my vote. If and when the index is deleted, it sounds like the PDF file should be deleted from Commons as well, in favor of the DJVU. I'd be happy to put in a request over there if you'd like, just let me know. -Pete (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't know that permission is required, but ever plagued with self-doubt, I want to make sure I have dotted every i &c. before doing so. Another set of eyes on the particulars sometimes turns things up that I have overlooked. I'll let you know if a request to delete at Commons becomes a good thing. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Can someone please remind me what Speedy Delete reason I should give for deleting Index:pages in the manner proposed above? "Updated/deleted source file"? or "Redundant"? or other? Thank you, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I use F8 Updated/deleted source file with the reason "changing from pdf to djvu" for this sort of thing. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, BWC. @Peteforsyth: The Index and related pages have now been deleted here, so I suppose it is a "go" for you to request a Commons deletion. The File to delete is at Commons:File:The Complete Poetical Works and Letters (1899).pdf, and if needed for reference, the new (better) file is at Commons:File:The complete poetical works and letters of John Keats, 1899.djvu. Thanks much, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Listed. -Pete (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

LintErrors[edit]

I've been trying to resolve some of this , but for some reason, fixing one of them seems to uncover others.

I'm essentialy reaching a stress point again... and would appreciate some support in ensureing pages don't break due to well intentioned 'fixes'.

Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

On second thoughts , can someone give me a list of what's broken? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
These for example show up with errors after my attempts to properly balance tags in them

I've now tried SEVERAL time to figure out why these are unbalanced in some ways, as the Linter extension is assumed not to be mis-detecting. Perhaps someone else can figure out what went wrong and silence the Linter extension which seems to be pedantic to the point of annoyance? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreement relating to Malaysia between United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Federation of Malaya, North Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore/Annex E/table of contents - Putting a block into a span-style template is never going to work! So can someone suggest what an appropriate fix for this would be? Would providing the nominal documentation navigation in an alternative manner be appropriate?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking at things just from your links is too hard, and to know the lint problems which you are discussing. The edit link each with their lintid are pertinent. Don't stress over it, not worth the effort. For some I am wondering whether it isn't the lint check itself may be the problem. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
That was my concern as well. I'll use the lintid in future? Goes off to code a link template.ShakespeareFan00 (talk)

Short Titles Act[edit]

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Short_Titles_Act_1896/First_Schedule/Pre_Union&action=edit&lintid=746406 Sigh. The monster of a template used to create this finally gave up. Maybe it's time to redo EVERY single entry in it manually :(, Where do I send the bill? XD ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

With due respect that approach still isn't going to work, evidently need to step back further with an explanation.

Special:LintErrors has numbers of subsets looking at very different component and it also shows the type of error and an indicator of where it is seeing it. Knowledge of the type of error is clearly important if that is what we are going to fix. From that it shows the edit link and again contextualises that. All that said, when Lint shows the result of a page that is full of transcluded pages, it highly unlikely to be on the parent page and instead be in the subsidiary pages. Unfortunately the lint system is not sufficiently mature to identify the errors in the Page: ns regularly enough, and that has already been highlighted back to the developers. Still cannot help you, haven't dug into wherever you are seeing it, but personally don't think it is anything over which to be stressed. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Chronological_Table_and_Index_of_the_Statutes[edit]

And this has finally trigged my stress point again.... Can someone PLEASE find ONE approach on where to CONSISTENTLY place {{nop}} so that I'm not constantly having to go back and forth trying to figure out where stray DIV tags, linefeeds in the table headers and so on are coming from....

I've had problems with this particular work at least twice before and no satisfactory long term solution was ever reached. I've placed this work up for deletion on the basis that it's layout is 'experimental', and it would at this point be better to start again from scratch. Let's fix things like this once and for all, or decide such works are too complex to be transcribed , Okay? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

<and this is where I get frustrated as this has been covered multiple times and explained here and in our help pages. I don't know how to make it easier to explain.

  • With continuing tables, in the body of a page: ns page a {{nop}} needs to start the body section, and then on a new line you start your table row; subsequently
  • on the page where table continues over (the preceding page(s)), we do not terminate a page or a table with a new table row marker tr |- or with a cell marker td |. Primarily it is redundant and unnecessary code. Secondarily, it causes problems for the code for our style of page numbering with transclusions.

example[edit]

Page:Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes.djvu/850 as per this edit shows the underlying code as

<noinclude><pagequality level="1" user="" />{{rh|832|INDEX TO THE STATUTES.|}}
{{c|{{sc|Appendix VII. Inclosure.}}}}
{|</noinclude>|-
|Osehill Common||16 & 17 Vict. c. 3. 
|-
||Osmotherley||22 Vict. c. 3.
...

Note the third line where the header ends and the body starts and it shows that the row of the table will not be seen as a row as it does not start the line. Codewise what we need for this to be is

<noinclude><pagequality level="1" user="" />{{rh|832|INDEX TO THE STATUTES.|}}
{{c|{{sc|Appendix VII. Inclosure.}}}}
{|</noinclude>
|-
|Osehill Common||16 & 17 Vict. c. 3. 
|-
||Osmotherley||22 Vict. c. 3.
...

and due to the vagaries of mediawiki, it needs to look like

<noinclude><pagequality level="1" user="" />{{rh|832|INDEX TO THE STATUTES.|}}
{{c|{{sc|Appendix VII. Inclosure.}}}}
{|</noinclude>{{nop}}
|-
|Osehill Common||16 & 17 Vict. c. 3. 
|-
||Osmotherley||22 Vict. c. 3.
...

aka

{{nop}}
|-
|Osehill Common||16 & 17 Vict. c. 3. 
|-
||Osmotherley||22 Vict. c. 3.
...

as the code has been known to swallow blank first lines.

Rider: There is code error in line 7 with || starting the line, so let us ignore that at this time. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

As an afterthough, what we probably may be able to do is to generate a {{nop}} equivalent that is just a fake templated statement that could be seen to sit into the style line of the table, and that is not a format-forcing line. We will need to have a play as putting in a forced blank class or style statement may ruin existing styling, so it just needs to be something table and formatting neutral. Ideas for {{nopt}} welcome. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
This is complicated by the sectionlisation. You seem to be saying it needs a {{nop}} after each section tag in the Page: body and not in the relevant Templates? {{Statute table}} should be placing a {{nop}} for each row (which to me seems like overkill). However on some pages this may have caused the Linter expression to see an error in respect of stray DIV's or P which are escaping. The {{nop}} at page start also causes the Page: where this situation arises to be erronously flagged as containing 'fostered' content. Should this specifc exception case be flagged as something Linter should ignore? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
As I said elsewhere at this point , it would be more straightforward to delete the current broken transclusion until there's a long term solution.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
In respect of something else you mentioned https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T185203, I would appreciate your thoughts. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I started updating some other tables I noted had some of the issues you mentioned, attempting to follow the advice you gave. Following that advice led to "Missing end tag" errors being recorded, despite there being no apparent mismatching present in the supplied markup.

Because this seems to be occuring on a number of pages when they are edited, https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T185221 has been opened.

As I've said previously, it would be nice to have ONE consistent approach from Mediawiki, that meant I don't have to spend hours playing hunt the estorica on every single edit made. At this point I am not just frustrated but disappointed that Mediawiki is having so much difficulty in rendering something which according to the advice you gave should not be giving errors at all. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

On nopt and other termination/continuation issues[edit]

I'd apparently raised a phab ticket on my own iniative back in April of last year... https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T163073 If anyone want to reopen in , I have no objections. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Guidelines for removal of line breaks[edit]

Help:Beginner's guide to typography suggests it is best practice to remove any line breaks... Agreed. But it adds that it may be easier to do this after proofreading. I suggest that the latter note be eliminated, in that 1) it describes a matter of personal proofreading practices and 2) is ambiguous as to whether "after proofreading" means during validation or just prior to hitting the proofread button.

It is my opinion that line breaks ought to be removed during the first proofread process, for if left to a validator, it presents a possible distraction to other errors that may be present in the text. And new editors perhaps not familiar with guidelines may be completely unaware that line breaks ought to be removed at all (and validate as-is)—or as to technical issues that can arise when line breaks are kept. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with everything written above. Jpez (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I have personally seen "validated" pages that don't have the linebreaks removed. Just a pet peeve, but one backed by guidelines. -Einstein95 (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Seems reasonable enough (the text below). I like that it's a recommendation not a requirement, because sometimes it isn't a problem. -Pete (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Not always a problem, but for me, like Einstein95 states, it is a pet peeve of mine. Often, I will not validate a page if whole paragraphs of line breaks remain. I may remove them, but will not mark the page as validated (in case I miss other errors for having been distracted by break removal). I am making an exception with the current PotM, however. I would like to see another short, quirky work get worked on before the end of the month! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I recommend a rewrite along the following lines:

Remove line breaks. 
Printed books break lines of text to fit lines to a page. Scanned texts often render line breaks at the end of each line according to how they appear in the original text. Such breaks are considered artefacts of the printing process. When transcribing a text from its source into a Wikisource page, it is best practice to remove these line breaks. Although web browsers will naturally wrap text for the individual reader, there are cases where leaving in line breaks proves problematic. It is recommended that line breaks be removed during the proofread stage of editing to lessen distraction during the validation stage. There are tools available for this purpose if manual removal proves tedious:
[Alternate] Removal of line breaks. 
Printed books break lines of text to fit lines to a page. Scanned texts often render line breaks at the end of each line according to how they appear in the original text. Such breaks are considered artefacts of the printing process. Although web browsers will naturally wrap text for the individual reader, there are cases where leaving in line breaks proves problematic. Therefore, when transcribing a text from its source into a Wikisource page, it is recommended that these line breaks be removed during the proofread stage of editing. Doing so at this stage lessens distraction during the validation stage. There are tools available for this purpose if manual removal proves tedious:

Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC) updated section content above Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

i kinda suppport. if you remove line breaks for the last paragraph, it displays correctly at page level. would not want to make it mandatory, although it is my current practice, i can leave more red pages with no line break fix, if you like. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't wish to make it about what I like. I'm just trying to simplify things by eliminating exceptions ("keep line breaks—if you likeas long as you eliminate them here and here and here") by keeping things tidy & uniform. I am at a loss to explain practically why I believe it is best practice to eliminate line breaks (I was hoping for help). At least, however, one paragraph "should" match another on a single page where line breaks are concerned. No need to leave red pages if it indeed has been proofread according to guidelines... Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
well - we do need to delete the ghost soft carriage returns, so text will flow for the e-readers and phone use of digital document. if we have a tool that would be good too. we all agree should be done at validated, now debating as prerequisite for proofread step. (i have done both). Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Only encouraged/recommended at proofread step—for those not comfortable with making it mandatory. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The guidance was given as some works are easier to proofread with original formatting, primarily the encyclopaedic-type works, eg. look at Page:EB1911 - Volume 13.djvu/387. I hesitate to direct where it doesn't break the formatting and we have some pretty good TemplateScript regex that make it easy to update. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    Is to "recommend" akin to "direct"? Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    BTW, current wording of the subject line "Remove line breaks." already implies the direction to remove. If that is not the "spirit" of the section, then I propose rewording the section title to read "Removal of line breaks" or simply "Line breaks". Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    And in the case of collaborative efforts, shouldn't the practice—to remove or not to remove—be followed by all contributors within a single work just as with other formatting for uniformity purposes? Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    I support the above idea of making it clearer in Help:Beginner's guide to typography, and it's always possible for individual works to have their own standards to follow. Perhaps some works are better off with the original linebreaks left in; if so, they can say so on their Index page I reckon. (In fact, this reminds me of something that I've wanted for a while: a standard boilerplate for works to use to specify what their local style guides are — e.g. line breaks, headings, etc....) But yeah, the default should be to remove them (I use a PageCleanUp toolbar button for that). Sam Wilson 08:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For those that aren't aware there are tools that automatically get rid of these page breaks. For example Wikisource:Tools_and_scripts#PageCleanUp. I separate the paragraphs and then use this tool to get rid of all the line breaks. It also changes curly quotes, joins hyphenated words at line breaks, fixes some typos etc. Maybe this should be mentioned in the beginners guide also. Jpez (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I have updated the section wording above to include a mention of tools. If there is more than one tool that can be used for this purpose, it would be good to list it/them somewhere in the Beginner's guide or elsewhere so it can be properly linked to from the section. Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I have also provided alternate wording of the section/section title above for those who favor a less stringent approach. Anyone is free to suggest different wording. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please point to any tools/methods other than PageCleanUp that can be used to remove line breaks? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I hacked together User:Inductiveload/LineCollapse.js from the cleanup script. It collapses line breaks and also removes hyphens from words hyphenated across line breaks. Use it like importScript('User:Inductiveload/LineCollapse.js');. The tool is added to the sidebar as it is a TemplateScript tool.
Note: For hyphenation, this is sometimes wrong (e.g. "antidis-|establishment" should be "antidisestablishment", but "forty-|two" shouldn't be "fortytwo"). This is a hard one to get right 100% of the time, you'd probably need a whitelist and some heuristics to even get rudimentary awareness of when hyphens should be retained, which is not worth it IMO since you still need to proofread and a wrongly-contracted word should show up under spellcheck anyway. Patches always welcome, however! Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 00:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage Edit-a-thon 2018[edit]

Nuvola cake 5.svg

A special edit-a-thon will be held at the English Wikivoyage through February 2018 to celebrate the fifth anniversary of Wikivoyage. The main goal of this edit-a-thon is to encourage new editors to share travel information at Wikivoyage. Anyone interested in contributing, whether by updating outdated information or by adding listings of prominent sites/businesses such as a prominent museums, restaurants or hotels, is more than welcome to participate in the edit-a-thon.

The edit-a-thon is going to be held at several other editions of Wikivoyage including the German, French, Spanish, Italian, Ukrainian, Russian, Portuguese, Hindi, Hebrew and the Chinese editions of Wikivoyage. In addition, the use of a central notice banner has been requested to promote the edit-a-thon. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Atlantic Monthly link[edit]

The {{Atlantic Monthly link}} does not seem to be working properly. The issue number should link to the page for that issue, but it does not do so. Consider the documentation example

{{Atlantic Monthly link|link=The Birds of the Pasture and Forest|volume=2|number=7|year=1858}}

The (7) should link to The Atlantic Monthly/Volume 2/Number 7, but instead points to the incorrect The Atlantic Monthly/Number 7. Can anyone see how to repair this? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done problem was in underlying {{article link}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit window font size[edit]

Is there a means to increase the font size in the edit window without increasing the font size in my browser? I can find nothing in the Preferences.

I find the font size in the edit windows here is suddenly much smaller than it used to be, even though all the other text still displays at sizes that it used to. This makes proofreading (or participating in discussion) difficult as I have to keep adjusting font size in my browser every time I go into or out of the editor, and I'd prefer not to do that. I assume that other readers and editors with vision problems could be facing similar challenges.

I first noticed this problem late last week, but did not post at that time and have been recovering the the flu since then. Did someone mess with something fundamental again? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: the editing preference page is where you control the typeface, and I use monospaced and it gives me a decent font size. Otherwise you will have to modify the font-size element through editing your special:mypage/common.css for the editing box
<textarea tabindex="1" accesskey="," id="wpTextbox1" cols="80" rows="25" style="" class="mw-editfont-monospace" lang="en" dir="ltr" name="wpTextbox1">
billinghurst sDrewth 00:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Monospace gives me a decent font size but is utterly worthless for working with Greek text, which becomes unrecognizable in the monospace font. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
have you tried Wikisource:WikisourceMono? that appears to change font on the style sheet. or a different skin? monobook seems larger to me, or even timeless. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Not yet. I wanted to to first find out why this has changed recently (and all of a sudden) for me, and to find out what solutions there might be. But checking Monobook, it does not solve the problem. Nor does Timeless solve the problem; and it worsens the issue by reducing available screen space for side-by-side editing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
here is an old discussion about fonts Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2015-01#What_is_the_mediawiki_code_editor's_font-style_and_size? -- my appearance gets tweaked all the time, what with zoom in / out; tech update. the timeless skin does do the "flat sidebar gadget" over at wikipedia (giving more room for side by side) alas does not work here. if customizing script, you could try different fonts, and pick one that has greek support. i’m trying to save my grumpiness for the culture, and not the tech, as that is out of my control (other than wishlist). Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm largely clueless about editing preferences manually. I would probably need to have someone tell me exactly what code to edit and exactly how and exactly where in order to achiieve the resuts I needed. Apologies for the typos; I'm not going to keep messing with the browser settings in order to see what I'm typing. (I can see there is red, but I can't read the text that's underlined at that size.
It really seems to me that (a) font size for a given fount should remain the same whether reading or editing, and not have a 70-80% difference in size between the two, and (b) adjusting font size should be a simple thing to deal with, as editing is a fundamental part of all MW projects, and (c) given the supposed desire to accomodate people with disabilities such as vision impairment. Suddenly dropping people's edit font size to 70% or so is counter to that. I have now verified that this problem affects me on all projects where I edit, so it is a general MW change that happened at some point about a week ago. I'll be following this thread, but otherwise, the annoyance and eyestrain are too much for me. I have to take a wikibreak from all editing until this problem can be sorted out. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
There has been numbers of modernisations/standardisations happening over months as they convert to OOUI style. I am _guessing_ that this is an artefact of those changes with the vector skin, though you would need to look to through the recent upgrades at mw: and search for what is happening. Monobook and monospaced has had no apparent changes, so I cannot comment on specific changes. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I could look through the upgrades, but I would be none the wiser because I would not understand anything I was reading. Guess I'm stuck not editing then. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
This is straightforward with your user CSS (it's what it's for). The following increases serif fonts in the editor by 20%:
.mw-editfont-serif {
        font-size: 120%;
}
You can have different settings for ".mw-editfont-serif", ".mw-editfont-sans-serif" and ".mw-editfont-monospace" if you like (you could change font, colour, weight, size, line spacing, whatever). Just add the CSS to User:EncycloPetey/common.css. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs
here is the phabricator https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T182320 ; here is the mediawiki https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Editing/Projects/Font_size_in_the_editing_window -- i feel you pain, they need to stop tweaking the interface, or make it easier to adjust settings, without having to know code. it is not straightforward. (that is basic UX project management practice) Slowking4SvG's revenge 19:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. I have posted a summary of the problems I'm experiencing in the thread on mediawiki. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Formatting UK legisaltion...[edit]

ON a slightly more positive note.

In checking back on something, I happened to look into the CSS style-sheet used at legislation.gov.uk. What's noted is that apparently the Style Sheet has an OGL notice on it. This means potentially that if someone had the interest, it may be possible to implement a set of appropriate classes to format UK legislation on Wikisource in the same way it appears on the official site. ( A quick glance at some of the page source suggests classed spans are used to do the numbering for some "paragraphs" much in the way sidesnotes are 'partially' supported on Wikisource at present.

I'd made some previous efforts in trying to get templates like {{cl-act-paragraph}} working, but was eventually running up against mediawiki.

Perhaps someone that is technically able could like into overhauling the {{cl-act-paragraph}} and {{uksi}} families into something that's genuinely usable, longer term?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikibible editors wanted[edit]

The wikibible project, located at Translation:Bible is in need of editors, especially those that know Hebrew and Greek(Latin and Syriac/Ethiopian knowers are also appreciated).

In addition, the bible transcription projects could also use editors(see Bible and also look for transcription indexes for the translation you want to work on). Most useful are editors who understand archaic typography, though there are multiple translations that use modern typography and still aren't done(or even close). JustinCB (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

{{copyright until}} template broken by SDrewthbot[edit]

Going through Category:Pages claiming copyright without date and found this edit which broke the templates back in 2015. Thought I'd bring it to attention as I'm not sure if @Billinghurst: was aware of it. -Einstein95 (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

again here as well: https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Author:James_Thurber&diff=5668150&oldid=4827554 -Einstein95 (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
User talk:SDrewthbot would be a good starting point. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Lua coder sought..[edit]

Are there any Lua coders active on Wikisource?

I had some tables currently generated by a series of templates, that for performance reasons and layout concerns might be better generated using a suitable module.

Matters are complicated by the need for the relevant generated tables to be 'sectionalised' as the entire table cannot be transcluded in one go. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Andy doesn't edit here much but he's been very helpful to me with issues like this elsewhere. If he has the time and energy, he's my go-to. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm OK at templates, but I'm not a Lua coder; try asking on Wikipedia talk:Lua. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd like to look at Special:LintErrors, and try figure out why certain templates cause the Linter extension to have concerns? ShakespeareFan00 (talk)

Notifying the community about a Bot Request[edit]

Courtesy notification.

Wikisource:Bot_requests#Reset_proofreading_status_of_Page:s_flagged_by_Linterrors_to_"Problematic"

It would be nice to have some indication of just how much breakage the parser migration is going to cause.

Attempting to have a break from editing, but on checking in I keep seeing works I put considerable effort into showing up in Special:Linterrors ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Important, fascinating and timely transcription: US House interview with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson[edit]

All,

I'd like to request some help with a project. Yesterday, the U.S. House Intelligence Committee released an unredacted transcript of its interview with Glenn Simpson, founder of Fusion GPS, concerning the "Trump dossier".

It's a truly fascinating document, outlining many details of how the Trump Organization does business. It's already been widely covered in the media, but there are many aspects of the 165 page document that have not received much attention. I believe this is a rare case where a solid and timely Wikisource transcription could have a significant impact. Researchers and journalists could do machine translation, search, etc. on a Wikisource transcription, more easily than on the OCR'd PDF document released by the government.

Currently, there are two of us (myself and Jasonanaggie) actively working on it, and we're about halfway done with proofreading (and about a quarter of the way through validation). It's a pretty easy project, the OCR is highly accurate. Even one additional set of eyes would significantly speed up the process. -Pete (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The House transcript is redacted in certain places: some interviewers' names are themselves redacted throughout the document. Pete's request should extend to validating the Senate Judiciary Committee Interview of Glenn Simpson as well. Mahir256 (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Mahir. Just to be clear-
  1. What I meant by "unredacted" is that the substance of the testimony is entirely (or at least mostly, perhaps I've missed something) unredacted. The redactions, as far as I've seen, are limited to the names of lower-level government staffers and lawyers. I don't believe any of the testimony of the interviewee has been redacted, which I find remarkable for a document like this.
  2. As for what my request is, of course validating the Senate testimony would be worthwhile, but I find the House testimony more interesting, and in my view getting all the pages proofread is a higher priority than validation. The Senate testimony is fully proofread, but we're only about halfway through on the House testimony.
Anyway, thanks for your interest Mahir. I'm not arguing with your statements, just trying to be clear about what mine are. -Pete (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Parser migration issues ; Identifying "Interrupted phrasing" due to mis-nested templates, or tags?[edit]

Having learnt a little bit more, and testing something. It was found that a not inconsiderable number of the concerns identifed by the Linter extension are due to attempting to place a block level element (such as P, DIV, IMG, TABLE, UL, OL, LI) inside a span (or phrasing style) level element. This understandably leads to the potential for malformed HTML5 to be generated.

In my somewhat limited efforts, I've encountered pages where this mis-nesting occurs because an attempt or usage has been made template that uses a block level element (typical a DIV), inside (or as a parameter to) a template which uses a span to wrap the relevant content.

With that in mind it would be appreciated that over time (it's not a high priority) additional information was noted (ideally as part of the template documentation as to whether the template is block or span based (i.e whether its phrasing based or not per HTML5 models), or consideration given to a hireachy chart of templates so it's easier for those proofreading to note where something like {{larger|{{rh||Heading|Page_num}} should ideally be replaced with {{rh||{{larger|Heading}}|{{larger|Page_num}}}}.

It is also noted that currently using [[File:name|size|caption]] inside a span is also considered bad structuring because on examining the HMTL generated, mediawiki in many instances wraps the IMG tag generated in a series of DIV's. It may also be that unless told otherwise some browsers treat IMG as a block level element in it's own right. Is there a way to generate the relevant A/IMG pair without the wrapping diffs (one use case being an image that is inlined, perhaps to show a rare character which is not easily supported purely by text.)?

I encountered this issue when trying to use {{anchor+}} to make an image itself an anchor point, {{anchor+|fig3.1|[[File:figure3.1svg|500px|center]]}} for example is NOT going to work given that {{anchor}} on which it is based uses a classed span to create the anchor. The current work-around is to replace instances of this with usage with {{Anchor|fig3.1}}[[File:figure3.1svg|500px|center]] which solves the immediate Linter concern, essentialy moving the IMG (and wrapping DIV's outside the anchor templates generated span.

(Aside: Longer term and following a disscussion on the #wikimedia-tech IRC channel, the possibility of an a, @, anchor option in File synatx was raised. No phabricator ticket has been filed on this as it would need further discussion.)

My apologies for my some heated initial responses to such issues. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)