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



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


Split the scriptorium?[edit]

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

@Green Giant: We could look to remove the transclusion to the /Help subpage, and replace it with a link to the page, and the ability to start a question as a new section on the subpage. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah that's the approach I had in mind. I was thinking that we could have a set of tabs like c:Template:Administrators' noticeboard, leaving only the Other Discussions visible here. I don't know how popular that might be though. Green Giant (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Strong support for this proposal. Pages should be kept reasonably short (and loadable), and concisely directed in terms of their topic. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I think this is an excellent idea. This page is long and it is sometimes difficult to keep on top of all the discussions going on at once. Symbol support vote.svg SupportBeleg Tâl (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support: one subpage for each of the current sections and no transclusion, as in Wikipedia's Village pump. I just made a draft of the section index (feel free to edit it), and there I included links to pages which are outside the Scriptorium, like Wikisource:Possible copyright violations, but nevertheless may be what users are looking for when they click on "Central discussion" in the sidebar.
With regard to this, what about enabling Flow in some or all of the subpages?--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the transcluded section, and added a click link to start a new question. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Updating obsolete gadgets[edit]

My recent voyage through the gadgetland reminded me that the Regex search and replace gadget is obsolete and was superseded long ago by a much better version from Pathoschild. Would it be possible to replace the old gadget with the new code so that everyone can benefit from this tool, rather than having to paste this code in the their common.js file?


This new script saves the search and replace parameters to be reused, rather than having to be retyped. — Ineuw talk 04:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I have poked Pathoschild, he has global rights to update. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:27, 17 August 2015‎ (UTC)
TemplateScript is the newer version of the obsolete regex menu framework. It's much more powerful, but it's not backwards compatible — I'll update custom scripts that use it over the next little while, and update the gadget when I'm done. —Pathoschild 00:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
When you say "not backwards compatible", what does that mean? I don't know who uses the old regex framework, but as far as I know it didn't store any parameters for reuse. Did I miss something (which is not unusual)? — Ineuw talk 08:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
TemplateScript was designed as the successor to the regex menu framework, so it's mostly backward compatible. Here's a quick overview off the top of my head:
  Regex menu framework TemplateScript backward compatible
regex editor ✓ improved
custom scripts ✓ improved ✘ different schema
custom sidebars "Scripts" sidebar ✓ any number of custom sidebars
supported views edit ✓ any (edit, block, protect, etc)
gadget support no-conflict mode (one gadget) ✓ built-in support (any number of gadgets)
compatibility unknown ✓ all skins, modernish browsers, MW extensions
keyboard shortcuts
save regex patterns
custom plugins
The only breaking change is how you define custom scripts in your *.js pages. TemplateScript was written to take this much further than the regex menu framework did, so it uses a more expressive approach to defining custom scripts. Here's a sample complex script from a recent migration (using the new helpers):
Regex menu framework:
function rmflinks() {
   regexTool('remove linebreaks','linebreaks()');

function linebreaks() {
   /* exception pattern */
   var pattern = '\{\{[^}]+\}\}';

   /* store exceptions in an array */
   var patternlocal = new RegExp(pattern, 'ig');
   var exceptionvalues = editbox.value.match(patternlocal);

   /* replace exceptions with placeholders */
   var patternlocal = new RegExp(pattern, 'i');
   for(var x=0; x<exceptionvalues.length; x++) {
      editbox.value = editbox.value.replace(patternlocal, '~exception~');

   regex(/([^\n]+)\n([^\n]+)/g,'$1 $2',10);
   regex(/(=+.+?=+) *([^\n]+)/g,'$1\n$2');

   /* restore placeholders */
   for(var i=0; i<exceptionvalues.length; i++) {
      var pattern = new RegExp('~exception~');
      editbox.value = editbox.value.replace(pattern, exceptionvalues[i]);
   name: 'remove linebreaks',
      script: function(editor) {
            .replace(/([^\n])\n([^\n])/g,'$1 $2')
            .replace(/(=+.+?=+) *([^\n]+)/g,'$1\n$2');
So to migrate the gadget to TemplateScript, I first need to update custom scripts. —Pathoschild 18:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Done! There's a few people still using regex menu framework, but I added an import to their scripts so nothing breaks until I migrate them. —Pathoschild 13:24, 03 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. — Ineuw talk 15:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Down with unnecessary WS banners.[edit]

Each time a main namespace page is created, TWO banners are displayed which cause more interruption and confusion than the information they provide. The problem is exacerbated when a prepared header is pasted into the page and then previewed.

The banners end up inserted between the header template and the transcluded page definition. TRY THIS LINK, PASTE ANY HEADER TEMPLATE, CLICK TO PREVIEW, BUT DON'T SAVE THE PAGE! I suggest that the banners are to be merged into one with clarified info on a a green background #ECFCF4 used in informational banners, and displayed above template. — Ineuw talk

I had a role in creating the second banner... but as you can see here my intention was to add namespace-specific text to MediaWiki:Newarticletext rather than creating editnotices. On the one hand, editnotices display in edit mode even after the page is created, which may be useful; on the other hand, editnotices are visually separated from Newarticletext and, it turns out, they sometimes display in the wrong position. Visual separation alone is fairly easy to solve, as it would suffice to remove the borders and use a background color instead. I do not know what wrong positioning is due to, though.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The edit notices were added to assist newbies to have the right template for the right namespace, and as such and they are namespace context sensitive, hence why they are separated from each the generic newarticle text. There are discussions about this in a few places as GOIII and myself tried to address the issue, and in a few ways. I am pretty sure that there was some discussion here, which is usually what we do.

I have added some css to your common.css file that should hide edit notice components. To note that the edit notices always display in the expected space to me. To also note that you can have your preview page above or below the edit fields, and what you are possible seeing is the preview above the edit components which editnotice is a component. Play with your preferences and see what you can do. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I've always complained the editnotices where added without the js/lua component that detected the autopatroller flag and stopped the display of these banners in the first place. Long story short - go with the addition to your .css file until enough people get sick of the lost viewspace that they begin to demand we properly implement these notices or do away with them. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
One small niggle folks: you can choose either GOIII's approach of adding:
    #editnotice-area {display: none !important;}

or what I think (yeah, yeah) Billinghurst intended to add to @Ineuw:'s common.css, being:

/*  kill edit notice */
    .mw-editnotice  { display: none; }

However in point of detail what was added was:

/*  kill edit notice */
    #mw-editnotice  { display: none; }

There should be a dot in front of "mw-editnotice" indicating a class is to be selected not an id. N.B. editnotice-area is an #id name but mw-editnotice is a .class name.) AuFCL (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Added the following and it blocked the banner about new user. The line with # does not work.
/*  kill edit notice */
    .mw-editnotice  { display: none !important; }
What I tried to convey is that there shouldn't be any banners inserted in the middle of an editor's work and no banner should have a white background. (we still have some colour paint left in the can). The "Preview warning" is still inserted between the header template and the rest of the transclusion. — Ineuw talk 07:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
If what you are asking for is to suppress the red "Remember that this is only a preview &c" stuff then this might be what you want:
/*  kill edit notice */
.mw-editnotice,div.previewnote p  { display: none; }
AuFCL (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
A late beware! That last also chops out the "Go to editing area" link which might be a bit much for you to to bear? AuFCL (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Here is a bit of a compromise (leaves "Your changes have not yet been saved → Go to editing area" intact):
/*  kill edit notice and part of preview warning */
.mw-editnotice,div.previewnote p strong { display: none; }
AuFCL (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

BOT approval requests[edit]

request for bot flag on account KasparBot[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

I can't really add a flag because there is not really any consensus. I don't know enough about authority control to really weigh in on this. I'm hoping enough people who do can put together a consensus so that I know whether I can flag the account or not.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)|
I'd need to know more about this to say, but it looks as though the test edits were all done in the Author namespace. Will the bot's edits be limited to the Author namespace? The stated scope of the bot's edits is very vague. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The bot looks at all pages in Category:Pages using authority control with parameters. User pages won't be affected because they usually don't have Wikidata items. You can inspect the estimated edits at the bot's tool page. Kind regards, --T.seppelt (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@Mpaa:,@EncycloPetey: I started a general discussion. -- T.seppelt (talk) 06:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mpaa:,@EncycloPetey: there is consensus according to the RfC at #Future of Authority control on English Wikisource. -- T.seppelt (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is not a consensus here. Holding an impromptu vote in a location other than the one for bot approval does not indicate approval of the bot. The approval must happen here. I have yet to seen my concerns fully addressed; they remain. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: As you like. @Captain Nemo:, @Billinghurst: Can you please vote here again? Thank you very much. Kind regards, -- T.seppelt (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

request for bot flag on account YiFeiBot[edit]

Removing interlanguage links to from pages if the link is already on Wikidata. The bot is already approved as global bot and locally on commonswiki, enwiki, urwiki, zhwiki, zhwikivoyage. Programmed in python with pywikibot framework (source). --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

From memory, there is already a bot doing this here, so I don't see the point in duplication of function. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm unaware of any active & approved bot on this task. And some simulated runs shows many to-be-removed interlanguage links. Would you point out the bot for me? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - There are links here that should not be removed even if they exist somewhere on Wikidata. Some of the interlinkages are not yet properly figured out, and if we rely solely on Wikidata, we can lose track of the links altogether. I've seen this happening in recent months when someone at Wikidata decided that our copy of a work was an "edition", and so needed to be on a separate data item from the work itself. Because the interwiki links were all at Wikidata, the move meant that all interwiki links disappeared from that work. So, at this point, because reasonable precautions are not yet in place against that sort of thing, I would say "no", we shouldn't start stripping out the interwikis. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. The removal on Wikidata seems to be vandalism and should be reverted on sight, as existing items should be used whenever possible. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
To note that the edits at Wikidata are correct, as our works are editions, and part of a general book, it just hasn't been suitably thought through on how we interlanguage link due to this. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with EncycloPetey that it is premature to remove interwiki links by bot and transfer them to WD. There is still the open discussions to occur about how to link books/editions/translations between languages, and still the discussion about how to best cater for links between works. I would hope that the Wikisource conference proposed for Vienna in November would be able to have a good roundtable discussion about this matter. @Micru, Aubrey: unsigned comment by billinghurst (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2015.

I withdraw my nomination. If community decides not to remove the links, I'm fine with this outcome, and wait for the Wikisource conference in November. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

request for bot flag on account BD2412bot[edit]

Billinghurst has pointed out that I sometimes flood recent changes with AWB mass fixes of common scannos and formatting errors (for example, changing scannos of "Enghsh" to "English" throughout the project). I would therefore like to raise the bot flag over my bot account, User:BD2412bot, which I currently use on Wikipedia for disambiguation tasks. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

A couple of questions: as BD2412bot has been inactive here, and you have a sysop elevation request pending for your "normal" BD2412 user-id; would it make more sense for you to await confirmation of the latter (which would have the side-effect of granting BD2412 the flood flag which if used appropriately would not otherwise need you to relearn your habits either)? On the other hand are you introducing some new automated service best corralled under a separate user-id? In short are you being pushed into requesting an attribute you do not really need? AuFCL (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, I would like to use AWB in bot mode under the BD2412bot account, as I do on Wikipedia. I would like to be able to create the list of fixes to be made, which may be in the thousands or tens of thousands, click "start", and leave AWB to do the work, rather than sitting and clicking on the mouse thousands of times. Whether I do this as BD2412 or BD2412bot is of little significance, but if I make bot edits under the bot account, it will immediately be apparent from the account editing that these are being done as automated edits. BD2412 T 22:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
What you might not realize is if you secure the admin bit, Wikisource allows you to turn the BOT "flood flag" on or off on that account as needed. It was decided this ability would be more useful as well more secure awhile ago primarily because it allows such bulk editing (as well as normal manual editing) to be "recorded" under a single account rather than splitting them across two accounts.

Unlike other projects, we are rather stingy when it comes to handing out the BOT flag -- we'd rather keep the number of fully flagged bots to a minimum in short. Why don't you see if toggling that bit under your normal (soon-to-be-sysop) account is viable approach before asking for "more" just because that's how its being managed elsewhere. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support—thank you for the clarification. So if this is any use... AuFCL (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I am in general in favour of bot tasks, but they should try to concentrate changes per page to a reasonable level (i.e. not thousands of edits for a single change and then another run for another trivial change affecting the same bulk of pages and so on).— Mpaa (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I do try to address groups of common issues. I have a script for Popular Science, for example, that addresses about 50 recurring errors that I have found there (for example, "wliere" for "where", "tvvo" for "two", "coUect" for "collect", "prcsently" for "presently", and "written bv the" for "written by the", and "they aiso" for "they also"). My philosophy on the matter is that it is best to sweep up as many of these as possible in a single run - but also that the ultimate goal is to get these pages fixed up. Even if an edit fixes only a single error on a particular page, it is better than leaving the error unfixed, and saves the next editor the time of making that particular fix. BD2412 T 01:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm just fearful there will be a return to the now deprecated practice of Page: creation for the sake of bot run scan corrections afterward -- ultimately followed by weeks, months if not years of no action along the lines of actual proofreading taking place in the end. Is it safe to say you're going to focus on working the stuff that already exists on en.WS (or has a high level of timely proofreading participation taking place soon afterwards) and not go about creating stuff just so your bot has "something to correct" between your own personal proofreading interests of the moment? -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I see no need for that at all. There are already countless pages that have been created on this project that benefit from such attention, some as part of works that span tens of thousands of pages. I would add, as a side note, that in the process of searching for these kinds of errors, I have occasionally found them even in works that were ostensibly already proofread and validated. BD2412 T 03:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
But isn't that precisely what you've been doing? I came back to Index:The Real Thing (New York & London, Macmillan & Co., 1893).djvu a few days ago to find all the pages had been created as raw OCR and then some of them hit with a series of bot run scan corrections. For example: [2]. I share George's concerns on this point. Are you saying that you will stop doing it? Hesperian 09:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support OK then, my other concerns are minor compared to that one. I agree - there are plenty of existing works that fall into the same series of publications (CFR Title 3, Statutes at Large, etc.) that would benefit from "reoccurring", content specific scan corrections.

Plus I much'd rather see a library of AWB work-specific correction files duplicated/archived somewhere than the "singular" library for the script intensive mentioned below. I think there would be a higher chance of wider-use as well as greater refinements if the 'library of corrections' were built using changeable AWB files. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the ability to build a bot that replaces unambiguous spelling mistakes. The user has a history of successfully running a similar process for the bot xwiki. As Mpaa says we should be looking to consolidate scan <-> typo fixes into one edit, so I would see this as part of a "scan/typo library".

    Further the building of this library of typos leads us to building a better AWB genfixes library as AutoWikiBrowser looks to a more modular, per wiki, setup. [Well I am driving such a push <g>] I will also note that Pathoschild is pressing forward with updates to TemplateScript that should allow for the similar construction and application of typos, so the library will be a good thing. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Re the comment about the local and temporary bot rights for the base account, I see that as a signficantly lesser position as we are talking about a bot tool specifically, that does not require other rights to undertake the tasks. If the roles are mixed it becomes significantly harder to identify the typos as they are rolled into the normal edits, compared with typos specifically managed by a bot. The local account pseudo-bot right was generated to allow for admin type actions to be taken (moves without redirect, edit through protections, etc.) without the need for the creation of a separate bot account where such a temporary allocation is needed. Here we are talking about 000s or 0000s of edits and it is more appropriate to have a specific bot account for such. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I am divided between the attraction of this concept and concern that minor edit-wars could result from the bot "correcting" a human legitimately reproducing an effect observed in the corresponding scan (e.g. upside down "n"s and "u"s do crop up occasionally.) Both parties would be correct yet possibly blind to the considerations of the other. If this proposal be advanced can the bot be weighted to correct only unproofed pages and perhaps only raise notifications outside of Page: space or pages there with "Proofread" and above status?

And how do you anticipate the "pool of standard corrections" be managed: in particular who may contribute to it and how? AuFCL (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Points well taken, Billinghurst. I'd love to see some sort of standard library of scan errors so that corrective bots or scripts can be run against works -- it makes complete and total sense to establish that. Yet readily sharing that ability so it trickles down to the non script fluent population from those who have been practicing such things for some time now has never been free flowing affair around here so I'm not inclined to see any net positive general benefit resulting from adding another to that divide [all things being equal that is]. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
@AuFCL, There is a distinct difference between the quality of common typos (and even eye dialect spellings) and common scannos. No one intentionally types "coUect" when they mean to type "collect". I should also specify that my scripts are specific to the work. For example, I have gone through dozens of pages of works like Popular Science and the Federal Reporter to find common recurring scannos for those works (each of them being a collection of tens of thousands of pages). Consequently, I have a separate AWB file for each of them, with common errors unique to the set (for example, headnotes reading "FEDERAL BEPORTER"). I plan to continue exactly this practice, which minimizes the likelihood of running into false positives. It is vanishingly unlikely that a misspelling will appear as a scanno in the kind of work that is not usually given to fanciful usage, and appear as an intentional misuse elsewhere in the same work. BD2412 T 03:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
@AuFCL: I would think that the vast amount of bot typo work is only on non-proofread works, and I would feel that such a limitation for typo-fixing by a bot is entirely preferable and consistent with our approach of "people proofread", not bots. It should not be a hard imposition to limit such bot edits with AWB to such pages, and have a human check on such edits on proofread and validated pages. Re upside-down n and similar characters, be wary as we have demonstrated that djvu production is known to change characters, including to invert an n (covered in this pages archives in 2008-9 somewhere) in some work by Hesperian and Cygnis; unexpected but true. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
@George Orwell III: building a library of changes and then how we may wish to implement such things are indeed different things, and I believe such an implementation is a different conversation. I commented more on the opportunity that is presented and when that reality comes closer, then it will be a good conversation to discuss risks versus benefits, and how we manage the former. One immediate benefit that I see now of a library of changes is that we have a greater opportunity to visually inspect know what is proposed and will be better able to manage as a community. Things in the open and known can be discussed, and that has to be beneficial. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Newbie here; forgive my intrusion. Small study using "govemment". There are 51 articles, 81 occurrences. Author=1 (probably from a link with an article), validated=6, proofread=51 (20 in one article), to be proofread=6, portal type=4, independent (such as Executive Order, Obama letter, etc)=13. Restricting based on status may not be a good thing. Oh, also, "thc" for the word "the":183 articles; although there are a few with probable valid initials of THC meaning something. The smallest words seem to be problem children. Although the discussion is centred around thousands of any one incorrect word, there is definitely a group of lesser-occurring incorrect words that should not be forgotten. Humbug26 (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


Preferably, we ask your HELP questions at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help.

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

Other discussions[edit]

Need to edit a copy-protected page[edit]

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

I unprotected the page and leave it up to you to move/redirect/replace as needed with the scan-backed version. Just let us know if we need to protect anything afterwards here. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I've redirected it. I don't think protecting it is necessary, as it just gets in the way of legitimate editing, but I guess if it was a highly vandalized page we'll just have to wait and see if the vandalism recurs. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Also odd that the protected version included two verses that were not supported by the accompanying source text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Is that odd? It came from a different place. It might be necessary to turn the original into a dab and move the old test somewhere else instead of just deleting the extra verses. (Assuming they're genuine.) — LlywelynII 10:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Resurrected and moved old page. Converted base page to {{versions}} — billinghurst sDrewth 11:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
You should consider renaming the old page. The old page is not sheet music, and the new one is, so the disambig is incorrect at best and confusing at worst. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
FYI Onward Christian Soldiers is also available in the Salvation Army Songbook here Onward Christian Soldiers Songbook No. 690 --kathleen wright5 (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

EB11, vol. XXVI[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

having made the other 26 volumes match and split ready, i’ve been mulling copying over all the articles in vols 26 & 27, from IA ocr. the side by side could be stitched later. (the articles in the volume would be findable in a search and linkable from WP). Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 23:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-32[edit]

15:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

quote before dropped initial[edit]

I have tried a previously provided solution to format a quote mark before a dropped initial but it hasn't worked for me on this page. Any suggestions? — Zoeannl (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done @Zoeannl: Just "float left" the quote, not the "dropinitial" too, which has its own formatting to push it left. There is guidance provided at Template:Dropinitial of the means depending on your desired output — billinghurst sDrewth 04:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Future of Authority control on English Wikisource[edit]

Hello everyone,

I am requesting the bot flag for my bot (KasparBot) at the moment. According to Wikidata:WikiProject Authority control/Status the bot will copy authority control information from this wiki to Wikidata and clean up the template (stage 2): {{Authority control|...}} → {{Authority control}} You can inspect the assumed edits here. The second task includes embedding blank templates to those articles which have authority control information on Wikidata but not on enwikisource (stage 5). The bot runs on enwiki, frwiki and multiple other wikis too. The final aim is to deprecate the local parameters of the template and use Wikidata information by default (stage 4). This would remove differences and improve the consistency of Authority control information on all wikis. Please comment on this proposal. I need a community consensus to run the bot. Thank you very much.

Regards, -- T.seppelt (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I would welcome the cleanup of authority control by bot, rather than my slow manual processes, and will check out your example edits. I believe that we have cleaned up those author pages where there is information discrepancy, so would think that there is probably a quick an easy job.

Rather than the addition of the authority control template to each author page, I would think that we should be better considering the automatic addition (embedding to base?) of the template to our existing configuration for author pages. I would much rather that we looked to have it applied to the base of all top level author pages (not to subpages) so it never has to be fussed about in addition ever, it is just there. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

That would be in my eyes the best solution. (we should think about something like this as stage 6..) I could also help with removing the entire template after checking for differences. Regards, --T.seppelt (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
1) I also would welcome the cleanup of authority control by bot, rather than my slow manual processes, and will check out your example edits:) We have indeed cleaned up those author pages with discrepancies, but only with respect to viaf, there might be quite a few GND, LCCN, etc to fix. And those values are not necessarily correct ones, they might have been added by the gadget when viaf was added.
2) there is an issue with cleaning up the template: the existing gadget "add authority control" is not working properly if there is naked {{Authority control}} template on the page. This is why there are quite a few appearances of "{{Authority control|$1}}".
3) I also think that authority control should be a part of author template (though, it's a separate discussion:)
To sum up, I support the proposal. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC).
The gadget should just be killed, it is well superfluous and pre-dates WD. We now have the means to identify when and where the AC are, and when they are not local, and if we secrete it to every author page, it will pick up the data; and if there is no corresponding page at WD, we should note and resolve that separately. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The proposal is not limited to doing Authors pages, and for that reason I oppose this. I've seen how often the data are added incorrectly at Wikidata for our works, or a new data item is started incorrectly there, or a mismatch between items was made. The identification and matching between works cannot be handled by bot. There are just too many errors, and too many additional interwiki linking problems when it comes to dealing with works and editions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: then how are you with limiting this to Author/Portal namespace where we predominantly have AC in place? — billinghurst sDrewth 23:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Follow-up. To note that we have less than 250 works with authority control in the main namespace which is a manageable number to handle manually. If the detail added at WD is problematic for works, then we should be looking to review and provide that feedback to WD as part of their quality assurance processes. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
If only it were that simple. I've looked at the guide page they have for "books". The talk page is a long running list of unresolved issues. Issues are being raised there, but they're not being resolved. Even for individual works that I've done there, I've sometimes had to go back and forth on conversation with two or more people about issues for which there is no provision and no common-sense solution in place either. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC).
Agree w/EncycloPetey. And the larger problem here is we never really did a good job of tracking edition info. IMO, the year parameter should have been associated with the publisher (& it's location/nation/city) rather than the title, work or author. That combination of Year & Publisher would more correctly dictate the print run of any given edition regardless of translations, etc. What we have now makes it too hard for a bot or script to separate a work from its editions and/or the author/editor and so on. Unfortunately, the only way to insure accuracy at the work vs. edition level without the Publisher part would be to do it manually (pretty much they way we've been dealing with the edition nuance since I first landed here). -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Wait a second, that argument is starting to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" with just a blanket NO statement. Firstly, 1) the first part of the proposal is to put our AC information against our WD data that was taken from our site, so that seems like a good thing. If we do that, why would we still want local parameters? If we have concerns that others are not taking the same stringency with WD additions then that is about us controlling the addition of AC template addition here. So we modify the proposal that we don't have the bot add AC templates here, and that seems like a wise choice, we can manage that ourselves by our processes, and manage and review its addition. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
"Seems" on the face of the proposal perhaps, but definitely NOT in the light of what I know to be the case in actual fact. I've been trying to clean up just the two dozen surviving dramatical works from ancient Greece and have run into all sorts of mismatch problems and errors. The concept "seems" fine in theory, but in fact it is too flawed for me to support it. And, yes, even the data taken from our own site is wrong, as it is from other Wikisource projects. And the problem is not just the addition of data here; I have seen multiple cases where bots were used to generate incorrect items on Wikidata from information here. Damage is already being done. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Then you are saying, don't trust our main namespace data. If that is the case, why don't we kill it all and start afresh. We should then monitor the addition of the template locally, and ensure that the data has been appropriately been added at WD, and any data here is pushed to WD. Or, we migrate to a verified template for AC signed by the verifier, similar to how Commons manages Flickr imports. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Let me clarify - as for the AC template in Author: namespace; I would tend to agree that our current info has been through enough vetting to "hand over" to Wikidata. That doesn't mean its perfect by any measure either.

On the other hand, the use and/or exportation of AC info associated primarily with anything in the main or translation namespace is premature at best. That info is just plain not ready for Wikidata by any stretch -- in my opinion -- because our current repository of information for those namespaces lacks the more accurate publisher[-city]-year-edition relationship. That's more of an [Index: to] Header template deficiency rather than an AC template issue or bot problem. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

On top of that, Wikidata items do not match with ours (and will not match) for individual works. For example, the English Wikipedia has an article about Shakespeare's Hamlet, which has a matching data item on Wikidata, and all the other Wikipedias have their articles listed there as well. Wikiquote too. However, Wikisource has a particular edition of Hamlet, or several such editions. By current proposed norms on Wikidata, each edition must have its own separate data item, so there is not a direct relationship between any copy of Hamlet here and the general Wikidata item. What must happen is for Wikisource to create a general page for Hamlet where all possible current and future editions will be listed, and that page will be added at Wikidata. Any individual editions we have must become separate data items at Wikisource, with all the information specific to that edition. Then the item for that edition is identified as an edition on the general Wiidata item, and the general item gets a link to the instance of each edition. The same holds true for any translation of a work from the original language, so the eventual result at Wikidata is that every Wikisource work listed anywhere on any Wikisource project will have its own individual data item, with its own specific set of bibliographical info. This edition has a different year, publisher, ISBN, etc? Then it goes on a new data item, and all the AC info has to be tracked down anew.

That is most certainly not how any of the Wikisource projects are currently set up.

This also creates the problem that there will be no wikilinks to, from, or between any works on any Wikisource. The general page with all the Wikipedia links will be separate from the First Folio edition of Hamlet, which will be separate from the Quarto, which will be separate from any later editions, from the French translation, from the Spanish translation, etc. So the ultimate result of the current scheme will necessary remove all wikilinks between Wikisource projects for individual works.

So, billinghurst, it's not just the main namespace data that's wrong on Wikisource, but rather the entire structure of our main namespace has to change in order to connect properly with Wikidata.

--EncycloPetey (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
You and I both have been vocal about the last para (me on wikisource-l, and you at WD), and I would prefer to separate that discussion away from the bot discussion. It is a discussion that needs to happen, but can we please separate it.

I believe that we can agree that at this point of time, that the migration of enWS AC data from the main ns should not occur, and in fact the issue of AC data in mainspace is complex and problematic primarily in association with an edition. Accordingly, I propose that we would recommend to the bot operator (first redraft)

  • to not take enWS main ns AC data to WD (veracity in doubt)
  • to not undertake AC changes by bot to the main ns
  • that the translation ns should be off-limit as it is Wikisource'd transcription area, and should actually be devoid of any valid AC data at this point of time
  • that the Author and Portal ns should be able to be migrated, though there will be some errors as no validation has been undertaken
  • that following completion of migration of data that the bot operator to recheck with this community whether the existing AC templates in the Author and Portal ns should be updated or removed, pending any discussion that we undertake about a suitable replacement strategy.
  • that there is an indication whether this is a one-off proposal to migrate data, or whether it will be a regular check and update process for the bot
Thoughts? — billinghurst sDrewth 01:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

May I present a radical perspective?

Once I trusted Author: pages on enWS, if only because if I happened to spot a flaw to which I knew the correction I could so apply said correction, and take the personal consequences if I introduced an error.

Then along came WD, and that was O.K. because only the language modified (I could edit a "claim" over there instead of wikitext here to fix a fault; and some kind of robotic synchronisation between the systems restored consistency) but the functionality remained largely similar.

NOW you are suggesting all changes must be propagated back from WD (which along the road has modified the rules and I am no longer allowed to modify in ways which previously were not barred) to enWS, and enWS modifications are to be isolated/ignored or perhaps in the near future not permitted either? Slice-by-insidious slice the ability to pay even the shabbiest lip-service to the concept of "the X that anyone can edit" has been stripped until this last step leaves the basic concept in ruins. Is it too high a price to pay to eliminate the core mission? I ask why did it come to this at all?

I must side with EncycloPetey above in opposing this in the proposed form. Either that or I have entirely misunderstood the flow of development and would very much appreciate being reassured that my interpolation of feared future changes is incorrect. AuFCL (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: billinghurst: The Author namespace is the only one that the bot has been tested for, and the only one where we've had serious and methodical vetting by experienced users. Thus, the Authors namespace is the only one I think could actually benefit at this time from AC data transfer (in either direction). However, this limitation is strongly at odds with the original bot proposal, and with the response I got when I queried the bot operator about it. So, I would want to hear from the bot operator about this, and be sure he understands the nature and severity of the issue for the other namespaces. (I am of the opinion that no one who properly understands Wikisource is proposing to run a bot. We had the same issue on Wiktionary when Wikidata proposed housing the dictionary information, but that issue is even more deeply challenging, in ways that I won't try to elaborate upon here.) --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Continue to concur with EP; the Author namespace is the only namespace where enough iterations of review by us as well as by WD have taken place to be considered remotely accurate. That still won't do us much good if any non-English WS doesn't closely follow our approach and templates to the Author namespace not to mention conflicting info between the domains for any given Author.

And I agree picking up the editions -to- works discussion should take place besides this narrower one. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: AuFCL: I share your concerns, and am uncertain towards what direction future development will lead. However, I do see one strong advantage for Wikisource integration with Wikidata: greater accessibility to our resources, and thus a stronger internet presence. FreeBase now pulls directly from Wikidata for searches, and the addition of LoC and other control information will permit users of those libraries and databases to access our works through searches from those institutions' databases. We do more good for the global internet community with that kind of accessibility. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Re portal namespace, there are 49 [13], we move them manually if you want, I don't mind, though believe that users who added them were competent. If it is only the Author: ns, fine with me, it contains >> 99% of our AC additions.
Re AuFCL's comments. Absolutely not, that is melodramatic scaremongering. We control our templates and how we code and use them, each of them has the ability to override whatever data is in WD, and I have made no proposal to change that. Each of us has the ability to edit WD and so manage the data that appears at our site, but yes, it is off-WS. The issue is that our data is static and UNCHECKED, so when a page moves at a sister wiki, it is not updated here, where it is moved a sister WS, it is not updated here. As new authorities are added or are corrected or merged they won't appear here. Certainly there are risks with big data, but we manage our risks, and get involved in the process, and be rigorous, we don't undertake the ostrich manoeuvre. It is a value proposition and we have an open discussion about what we do and how. WD has had issue with data, and they are very much addressing that, and part of that is taking our data into their system. Changes should be reviewed, and we have a good community to do that, and we should ask for good processes to maintain the integrity of data. There are also benefits, and they should also be part of the discussion and how we measure the value of a proposal. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I have no intention of prosecuting this further. Melodramatic or otherwise, that is my honest take upon the apparent trend of changes and I await reassurance or vindication, neither of which have been provided by statements made so far. And yes, I accept this is an argument which should take place elsewhere. AuFCL (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so there is a (narrowed down) proposal that pushes our Author control authority data to WD where it doesn't exist there. [I have already been through and cleaned up instances of where we have had data mismatches based on the VIAF.] Then the proposal is to display that data here by use of the WD call using the template. For existing authors there should be negligible difference in data [noting that we already have WD populated AC templates, partially or fully.] What are your specific issues with the specific proposal as it sits, and what risks do you see that we would need to manage? — billinghurst sDrewth 03:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
With regard to VIAF, do you find multiple VIAF identifiers for the same item much? I have been working through the 40 or so surviving ancient Greek plays, adding authority control data from LoC, BnF, and VIAF. More often than not, the VIAF has two or even three identifiers for the same Greek play--most of which appear to be duplicates as a result of not synchronizing the import of BnF data into the mix (the oddball identifier is usually French, or includes the French listing). Have you found this to be the case? And at some point we'll have to consider how our authority control template will deal with multiple VIAF values. In the immediate case, the question is whether the bot can handle such a situation, namely, that there is a VIAF identifier mismatch, but neither is actually wrong and both should be used. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
[For the works that I do, I struggle to find them in VIAF in the first place.] For the authors, I believe that there has been a big effort to merge and resolve duplicates, and how much of that has been due to Wikidata and public collaboration would be interesting to know. So I would suggest that you add the multiples and then set a "preferred" ranking for the one that will continue, or set the unpreferred to "deprecated". I have seen that where VIAF has amalgamated data that they have now created their own system of redirects for the old numbers, so I am hoping that WD will have a system to automate updates and additions either via the VIAF identifier, or via the individual repositories pushing data. [one day!] — billinghurst sDrewth 00:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, when there is more than one VIAF identifier for a work, I do not know which identifier will be the one that continues. The split is sometimes half-and-half, or a three-way split of libraries between identifiers. As I say, I've found this to be the case more often than not (and for well-known and long-standing works of literature such as the ancient Greek dramas!). If I knew someone I could contact who handles VIAF data, and could say "all these have been found to be duplicates", then I would do so. But for now, this state of affairs bodes ill for trying to coordinate VIAF information pertaining to works of literature either at wikidata or here, since I expect the same situation will apply to the VIAF identifiers of other works. What I have tried to do is to include the LoC Authority and the code from the BnF in the Wikidata item, so that users (who may only receive only one of several VIAF identifiers through the template) can still access the French and US listings. I tried doing the GND as well, but the German library data was not as easy to figure out, even when I had the VIAF listing already at hand. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The template will select and display one, and if they are equivalent (and not set separately), then it is not particularly an issue. The VIAF data will update and be resolved and/or the predominant will be set. In my experience, the lowest number is retained for VIAF data, presumably as it is the oldest record, but in the end it doesn't matter, due to the redirects that are implemented, so as long as we are not selecting the wrong work/link, all should be good. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:, @EncycloPetey:, @George Orwell III:, @AuFCL: Some urban legends seem to be created in this discussion:) So, some hard facts about the relationship between VIAF and Wikidata. Wikidata now is the official partner of VIAF: see here. What that means: 1) wikidata item about a person is the official part of the VIAF cluster; 2) hard data such as birth and death date is sought and used in VIAf cluster; 3) VIAF data from offical VIAf partners such as LC, BNF, DNB, etc is fed back to wikidata; 4) the flow of data between viaf and wikidata is done on regular basis. That means that wikidata has the same up-to-date data as viaf and all its official partners. That means that wikidata data about a person is in no way inferior to any constituent part of viaf including LC, BNF, DNB and so on and so forth. Storing this data locally (at wikisource) means that the data is not updated. If you keep an eye on category:viaf different at wikidata you will see that all differences are due to wikisource having deprecated viaf data (I myself have deleted dozens deprecated viafs from wikisource in the past month or so!). So, I hope, this discussion can be concluded to everybody's satisfaction.
At the same time, I fully agree that the situation is very different in the main namespace. At least for the time being I think we should manage this on our own, locally. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC).
Further detail about VIAF and Wikidata interaction can be found here. This is blog by Thom Hickey, who is the chief scientist at OCLC. So, please, no more about accuracy of viaf partner data in wikidata:) Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC).
I unconditionally withdraw my opposition, as my fundamental objection has been proven to rest upon a misunderstanding which I shall not detail in case taken out of context might add to any confusion. (Happy to discuss out of stream should any one happen to be curious.) Accordingly I also strike my comments above. AuFCL (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
@Captain Nemo: "wikidata has the same up-to-date data as viaf and all its official partners" is overstating matters. In many cases I've found, wikidata is altogether missing links to VIAF or any library partners of VIAF. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: 1) Are you sure you are not confusing your past experiences with the current state of things? If you have a look at the links in my prev. post you will see that the integration started in April 2015. Any past grievances are just private history. 2) If you have in mind situations i) when viaf has multiple clusters for one identity or ii) viaf bundles several people in one cluster, then integration is exactly the way to help to resolve it. Wikidata regularly creates data base dumps for these cases and they being resolved both by viaf and on wikidata. One recent example I aware of is viaf clusters related to popes. Those chaps used to have several viaf clusters coming from LC and DNB which are now (mostly) merged. I know of this because I cleaned up many of those stale viaf here on wikisource, there would be no need for that manual work if our authority control template just imported fresh data from wikidata. 3)If you referring to different spelling and birth/death years then again, viaf now actively seeks and imports this data from wikidata. I dont know exactly how viaf does that but this matching is not a trivial task so it takes time. 4) If you concerned with something else, please give specific factual examples and I will try to clarify. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC).
@Captain Nemo: 1) I am raising concerns with the information on Wikidata that I encountered while editing in the past week. So, yes, this is a problem in the current state of affairs on Wikidata. (2) Yes, multiple VIAF for a single entity, often two or three. (3) No, spelling and dates have nothing to do with this. (4) I meant exactly what I said. I spent time last week going over the information for a small group of related data items. I found that most had no data for VIAF, LoC, or BnF. Where they had VIAF data, there were usually additional VIAF identifiers missing because of redundancy in the VIAF data for the same entity. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: I had a look at your edits for August on wikidata and failed to find any edit of the type you mention. Please note (maybe it wasn't articulated clearly before) but my statements is about author namespace only. The plays and its characters and so on is complete different issue, viaf is not doing those at the moment. If you referring to the wikidata items that you have not edited, please give specific examples and I will try to clarify. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC).
@Captain Nemo: When you say "viaf is not doing those", I assume you mean that they are not cleaning up redundancy or errors. Sorry, but I did not understand that you were limiting your discussion of Wikidata and VIAF to author information only. With regard to authors, I have not seen any problems on Wikidata that would affect information we use on our site, but I have seen (in the past few days) an experienced Wikidata (and MW) editor who added grossly incorrect information to Author pages. It was the result of adding information that he did not understand himself, and had not bothered to source or check, which was rather ironic given that he was, at the same time, involved in a site discussion about sourcing and verifying claims added to data items. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello again,

I would like to reach a consensus on this topic. Please state with Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose or Symbol support vote.svg Support if you agree with this proposal or not. My bot would do this:

  1. fetch entries of Category:Pages using authority control with parameters in namespace 102 (Author)
  2. compare the AC information to Wikidata
    • add claims if no information is available on Wikidata
    • keep the information on Wikisource in case of differences, malformed values etc. and skip step 3
  3. remove the local information from Wikisource

Please be also aware that you can inspect all future edits on All faulty pages will be available there. The current situation is:

count state
13557 template can be replaced
1023 malformed value
285 different value on wikidata
24 unknown template property
5 technical problems
1 more than one template embedded

I would like to close this RfC on 31st of September. -- T.seppelt (talk) 08:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer -- T.seppelt (talk) 08:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Captain Nemo (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC).
  3. support. I have reviewed the first 1400 listed entries and would just say that the non-VIAF data is not worth transferring, nor remaining and would consist of little value, and we should just strip the author:ns AC templates of all paramters. Though the 5 would be worth manually eyeballing. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

closed I consider this proposal as accepted by the community even with a very small amount of participators. -- T.seppelt (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Removed Authority control/VIAF gadget[edit]

I have removed the VIAF gadget from local display. Magnus has developed an alternate version at Wikidata that is more suited to needs. You can add it to your common.js at Wikidata, or you can add it to your global.js file at meta. If you do edit Wikidata and wish to add authority control data and are stuck, then please talk to me and I can assist. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Author template now will pull image from Wikidata if not specifically chosen[edit]

I have tested and modified {{author}}. I have added the ability for the template to directly access the image data stored at wikidata if it is available. The specific use of the parameter in the template will override Wikidata choice, so the only difference noted will be that there will be some author pages with images without a parameter call. Once this has the approval of the community I will look to remove the empty parameter field from active templates, then we can talk about how we progress with comparing wikidata and how to populate where our data is not in Wikidata, etc. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

/me semi-struts. 1,596 total and still populating in Category:Author_pages_with_Wikidata_image. There may be issues if there are multiple images against an author, so we will have to manual override for the moment. With such situations we need to set a preferred image at WD and get Module:Wikidata updated to provide a single preferred result. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Only 5 Author pages with [image?] script errors at this point. Tracked in Category:Pages with script errors. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Nice GOIII, and great that we already have a system to catch those errors, I was wondering how I was going to find them. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Fixed the errors, all due to the pages not having an instance set at WD. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@George Orwell III: Can you think of a means to track where we have Author pages with red file links? Be they failed manual additions, file removals or by my update to the template. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Off-hand I'd say 'not easily'. The section Headings seem consistent enough to come up with a group of them to probe through with some reliability but the entries themselves are not always listed the same nor use the same syntax. If every entry were template-based, syntax, etc. wouldn't matter because we could poll the template parameters themselves to track what main or translation space works exist or are merely listed (red links). I'm not saying it can't be done but a deeper look on my part will have to wait until the weekend. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Additional thought: seems like the possibilities of doing something like that increases if going by what the What Leaves Here? gadget currently provides. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hold on a sec -- did you mean red-links to the File: namespace for missing author portrait images or red links to works in the main or translation namespace? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
File namespace only at this point of time. I was thinking that we may be able to run a sql query from quarry:? — billinghurst sDrewth 01:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Now I follow you. I'd think there would be a way but not sure how. Isn't it just a matter of determining whether or not the red-link contains something like &action=upload ? Isn't that what happens when you click on a File: link to a non-hosted file? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@John Vandenberg, Pathoschild: can either of you help here? — billinghurst sDrewth 03:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Unless I am misunderstanding, Category:Pages with missing files is what you are looking for.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
<facepalm> I was thinking something namespace specific, and losing the trees for the forest. I will fix up those images over the weekend. Fixed Thanks. — billinghurst 13:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Just a not-so-important remark: When choosing which image to rank as preferred, I base my decision on which image most featured Wikipedia articles have in their leads. See for example d:Q187982.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I have already had this argument discussion with WD about 'preferred rank' and image display, and the (easy) ability to return one result rather than many. To me the "preferred" will always be the one that best represents the person, whereas for what I choose to display at enWS will be what best represents them as the author, which for me will mean that I love to show any caricature if there is one available. It is exactly the argument over "preferred" that will always allow us to have choice in the header parameter, but call a default if nothing is chosen. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Another issue I've seen that illustrates why "most common use" does not always offer the best choice. I've seen instances where there is a play and a sculpture with the same title, and so there is a disambiguation page to help users distinguish the two. But then the lead image for the play is an image of the statue, which visually negates the effort made to disambiguate the two items. And in many cases, I've found that the most commonly used image is used solely because it was used first, the original article propagated through translation to many wikipedias, and the lesser used image is a newer higher-quality image that is just beginning to be used. Again, in this situation, the more common usage in no way indicates a better selection or preference. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Right, EncycloPetey. My approach could work as a rule of thumb rather than a hard and fast one.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikisource celebrates Public Domain Day?[edit]

I have recently started the 2016 in public domain age on English Wikipedia and started a discussion on the Wikimedia Uk list. I think some Public Domain day events in January would be a good way of making more people aware of Wikisource and would offer the opportunity to provide support for newcomers. It would be great to hear of other peoples views?Leutha (talk) 10:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

There's not really much for us, since we use US copyright law, and nothing published before 2002 is going to go into the public domain until 2019-01-01. Unpublished or recently published material by all those authors dead 70 years is now PD, but that usually only has interest to scholars.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
in the US, the open access librarians tend to blog around January 1. [14] maybe some networking building on wikiloves libraries might bear fruit. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 01:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Scanned books from the Archaeological Survey of India[edit]

A good collection is available here, covering subjects from around the world on a multitude of topics. Hrishikes (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: Be sure to add it to Wikisource:Sources. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Hrishikes (talk) 11:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Upload to Commons: an innovation[edit]

Recently I have encountered an obstacle to Commons uploading; even when the file is below 100 MB (but contains a lot of pages), Commons says that the entity is too large when attempting importation from IA and shows internal API error when attempting direct upload. I have bypassed the objection by taking a roundabout route: I first uploaded a very small file with the desired file name and once Commons accepted it, I uploaded the full file as a newer version to the previously uploaded file. This time, uploads were successful. Examples: Index:Debrett's Peerage, Baronetage, Knightage and Companionage.djvu, Index:Dod's Peerage, Baronetage, Knightage etc. of Great Britain and Ireland.djvu, Index:The Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage of the British Empire Part 2.djvu, Index:The Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage of the British Empire Part 1.djvu. This is for general information for others who have faced this kind of problem. Hrishikes (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Clever work around. I am told that the problem there lies with IA-upload rather than with Commons, and we therefore need to see if @Tpt: can tweak his upload tool. To also note that you can directly upload from a url to Commons, so you could just try that and put in place the {{book}} template afterwards. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I had tried direct upload too. The file got uploaded, then I had to fill up file name, year, category etc., then the file got submitted. Then Commons refused to publish it citing internal API error. That's why I had to take a work around. Hrishikes (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
If you did use the direct upload on Commons and that fails, then we need to lodge that as a bug in Phabricator. I will see if I can find a big file to upload. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Finding a big file is not a problem; but you need to find a big file with the specific problem that Commons objects to. Every big file does not get refused. So the best option: download one of my files as mentioned above; change the name and upload --- then you will see the problem. Hrishikes (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Just a little note that Hrishkes won't be able to upload by URL on Commons because that is restricted to reviewers, admins and GW users. Green Giant (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction … See what happens when they add new things and when you have advanced rights, you don't even realise that not everyone can do or see something! Anyway Hrishikes has uploaded so many things over the past months, they must be close to locking themselves away for a year and have a proofreading binge. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 01:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
wow, i should think a request for GWtoolset rights would be a snowball, (they’ll let anybody have those) ;-) Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 03:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Author/section fields for anthologized works[edit]

Hi all, this got started on Captain Nemo's talk page, but maybe it'd be better to put here ...

I've been working on two books that are collections of short works in translation, Slavonic Fairy Tales and The Sweet-Scented Name. The first has many "contributers", while the second is drawn from various collections in Russian by Fyodor Sologub, and happens to bear the name of one of the individual stories.

To begin with the latter collection, I'd like to know which is more appropriate, to put the story titles into the headers in the title field, or into the section field. So here it's a choice between how I did it for Turandina or for Lohengrin. One thing that makes me feel uncomfortable is that the title "The Sweet-Scented Name" gets more prominence in the header than does the individual story titles. It already appears twice on each story's page, and I feel like its third appearance in the header is visually overkill. One precedent I am going by is Tolstoy's Twenty-three Tales and the individual stories, such as A Prisoner in the Caucasus which have the story titles in the title field. So far I see no serious problem either way, but when there are collections in which different sections are by different authors the handling of the header information gets very complicated, and I've seen some bad results, and complicated work-arounds. For example, in the story Best Russian Short Stories/The Cloak we read in the header "Best Russian Short Stories by Nikolai Gogol" even though Gogol is only the author of the one story "The Cloak". That particular problem is avoided in The World's Famous Orations/Volume 6/At the Bar of the House of Lords, but at the cost of filling in the section field with

''At the Bar of the House of Lords''<br />by {{Author link|Isaac Butt}}

a format which would be difficult have everyone apply consistently. So what I'd like to propose is to explicitly allow for the option of placing titles of individual works from within an anthology book into the title field, in which case the author field should consistently give the author of the individual work rather than to the collection as a whole. Does that cause any serious problems in how the header data is handled? Mudbringer (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The "Gogol" problem is solved by leaving the author field empty and adding the "contributor" field. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC).
With such works, I have carried through name of book with | override author = (ed.) Author name (possibly leave empty <shrug>) then use the section and contributor parameters. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
And the example that you probably preate the contributor parameter, plus it was having to do hacks like that brought the change about. Well, that and that we have many journals transcribed that have many articles by different authors.
@Billinghurst: ... OK, I was having trouble with the spelling of "contributor" "facepalm". I tried reworking the first story in Slavonic Fairy Tales based on your explanation, so could you please check to see if I've understood everything: Carried Away by the Wind, vs. what I was doing before: Why is the Sole of Man's Foot Uneven?. The way I've done it leaves an extraneous space before a comma, but I'll not be fussy. Does bolding the section field cause any problems? One thing I couldn't have figured out from studying the help on the header template was the difference between "override author" and "override_author" ... the latter was leaving the author's name in the header, when I was trying to suppress it. Thanks! Mudbringer (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I tried fixing The Cloak, and that seems to work ok, but the previous story in that collection, for which a translator is given, The Queen of Spades, winds up with T. Keane as the translator for Best Russian Short Stories, rather than just for that story. Mudbringer (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
You can use override_contributor for this. For example: The seven great hymns of the mediaeval church/Dies Iræ/Dix. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Re the underscore in parameters[edit]

We have had a legacy issue in the the underscore in the template has long been used, and we have carried on using it with new parameters to maintain consistency, however, it does catch people out in that it needs to be present in the parameter. I have just updated the template so you can use alternatively use override author and when I have a chance I will look to update so we can have "override editor", "override translator" and "override contributor". I am not even certain that the underscore needs to be mandated now (it did back then) and whether can be omitted in the template, so I will have a play in the sandbox first to see if we can simplify. As GOIII briefly discussed the whole Template:Header is showing its age and has significant legacy issues, and it probably due for a refresh, especially with Lua now being available, and with Wikidata being present, and the old microdata hack probably able to be case out. But not today. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-33[edit]

14:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

creating Special:MyPage/EditCounterOptIn.js[edit]

Hi. Just thought that it would be useful to remind (new) users that there is a useful count tool which we have linked from the bottom of your Special:MyContributions page. It is even more useful if users create the page Special:MyPage/EditCounterOptIn.js (or use m:Special:MyPage/EditCounterOptIn.js if you want counts globally) and content is not needed, just the creation of the page. Thanks, it helps me to work out when I can apply autopatrolled rights for users, and to assess users for admin rights. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer! I'd not noticed the opt-in thing. I think the global page should be m:Special:MyPage/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js though? — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 13:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I have opted in globally, but the monthly stats are still invisible—a notice appears in their place. Is this normal?--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
<grrr> Never work with children, animals AND SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS! It looks to be having issues. I will see if it part of the Labs current works, whether it will self fix, or we need to ping Max. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
It was working correctly the other day when I looked; now is broken. There seem to be PHP errors appearing in the HTML output, which are stuffing up the Javascript. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 23:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Author:Georges Perrott[edit]

Is this author the same as w:Georges Perrot? The PSM work listed would conform to the genre of the French author. The last "t" is a typo or real? Hrishikes (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

VIAF lists sol et le climat de la Grèce, leurs rapports avec le caractère de sa civilisation et de son art as one of the works of "Georges Perrot Archéologue et helléniste français" and the trailing comment on Popular Science Monthly/Volume 42/December 1892/The Environment of Grecian Culture reads Translated for The Popular Science Monthly from the Revue des Deux Mondes. My French is not all that good but this seems circumstantial evidence they are one and the same person? AuFCL (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-34[edit]

16:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

New namespaces?[edit]

Anybody else notice the 5 new namespaces being listed in the various ns related input boxes?

  • Gadget (ns:2300)
  • Gadget talk (ns:2301)
  • Gadget definition (ns:2302)
  • Gadget definition talk (ns:2303)
  • Topic (ns:2600)

Anyone? Pointers to more info appreciated. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

On the "Gadget" set of namespaces I found the following: "The difference intended to be made as part of the ResourceLoader 2 project is moving these out of the prefixed "Gadget-" scope in the MediaWiki:-namespace (which is intended for messages, not actual wiki content (let alone executable resources). Instead move them to a new Gadget:-namespace only editable by users with the editgadget right" (mw:ResourceLoader/Version 2 Design Specification).--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
So does this mean Flow is coming to the Scriptorium? :) Am I too against tradition if I say that's a good thing? ;-) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 23:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a "by request" model at Wikidata, and I would think that WMF will probably introduce it cautiously. @Quiddity (WMF): would you mind adding to this conversation, and pointing this community to pertinent information. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Sounds sensible. I reckon it'd be nice to have here. :) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 03:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
If there is consensus, it will be very easy to have it enabled. Personally, I favor it for all talk pages plus the discussion pages in the Wikisource namespace (like this one), but it is possible to enable it on a smaller scale if wished.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst, Samwilson: My apologies for the delay (I hadn't set my preferences here, to email me for mentions. :< ). What Erasmo Barresi wrote is correct - Flow can be enabled wherever each community would like it. Just come to a consensus, and let me or the team know, and they will convert pages.
The recommended process is to first enable it at project_talk:Flow/Sandbox (for local testing) and project_talk:Flow (for local feedback/discussion), and to also discuss what initial locations you'd like to try, beyond that. There's a table of existing locations/discussions at the top of mw:Flow/Rollout, and more details in mw:Flow/Request Flow on a page#For a community page.
In addition to that, there is an almost finished Beta Feature that will let each user "opt-in" (and out) to enabling Flow on their user talkpage. Each wiki can decide if they wish to use it (7 wikis are currently planning to do so or discussing it) - See phab:T98270 (the main feature) and phab:T108266 (Guided Tour, for editors who opt-in) for details. Trizek and I are also working on a basic userguide, which will be on mediawiki early next week.
Further questions welcome. (please do ping me :-) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Epubs produced from enWS[edit]

Following Tpt doing a post, it reminded me that he has stats for wsexport tool usage. I had a quick peak and here are the numbers of epubs that have been generated for 2015

Epubs produced from
late Mar to mid Aug 2015
Mar 3415
Apr 13234
May 98804
Jun 19480
Jul 48659
Aug 11215

They are stunning numbers, and thanks to @Tpt: for his magnificent tool, and I think that we can do better if we look at making that output format more dominant. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

That's amazing! So many readers! (and some bots?) Is it possible to get stats for individual works? And yeah, I agree, it'd be cool to make the epub download links much more obvious. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 23:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@Samwilson: When I come in with a mobile to the main page, Template:Featured download shows big and bold, so it would be interesting to know how whacked that template/button is as part of the downloads; so yes, a breakdown of the stats would be useful. Personally I feel that the template could be useful in some format to highlight that the works are downloadable and would consider its use more liberally ESPECIALLY as in the mobile version there is NO sidebar, and ready means to even see that an epub version is available. Hmm, it may even be worth adding as part of Template:New texts even just as an icon. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be a good thing to be able to identify the works most downloaded by our readers. The top three could be featured in main page in "Readers' Choice" category. Hrishikes (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you on the above Hrishikes. I also like to see the most {popular} downloaded categories, in order, from highest to lowest as well as the most popular download format. Respects, —Maury (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Ditto. We live in an island all by ourselves. A bridge with the readers is highly desirable, so that the community can ascertain what types of works the readers most want and community efforts can be based on that feedback, e.g., in POTM etc. Hrishikes (talk) 07:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Detailed statistics of ePub downloads (07 2015) I have published on User:Zdzislaw/stats/2015 07‎. Zdzislaw (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: "fresh" Top50 statistics of ePub downloads in August 2015. User:Zdzislaw/stats/2015 08‎. Zdzislaw (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

How can we improve Wikimedia grants to support you better?[edit]


The Wikimedia Foundation would like your feedback about how we can reimagine Wikimedia Foundation grants, to better support people and ideas in your Wikimedia project. Ways to participate:

Feedback is welcome in any language.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 05:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

New feature "Watch changes in category membership"[edit]

recent changes page view with categorization

Hi, coming with this week’s software changes, it will be possible to watch when a page is added to or removed from a category (T9148). The feature has been requested by the German Community and is part of the Top 20 technical wishlist. The feature was already deployed to on August 18 and it will be rolled out on Wikisource between 6-8 pm UTC today. It will be available on all Wikipedias from Thursday 20 on, likewise between 6-8 pm UTC. In this RFC-Proposal, you can find the details of the technical implementation. The feature was implemented via a new "recent changes" type for categorization. Through this, categorization will be logged and shown on the recent changes page. The categorization logg in "recent changes" is the data base for the watchlist: When you watch a category, added or removed pages from that category will be shown on the watchlist. The categorization of pages can be turned off in the watchlist preferences as well as recent changes preferences. If you have any questions or remarks about the feature or if you find a bug, please get in touch! Bugs can also be reported directly in Phabricator, just add the project “TCB-Team” to the respective task. Cheers, Birgit Müller (WMDE) (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

For those of us not fluent in technobabble, does this feature track only explicit category membership, or also membership controlled by template parameters? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The new feature will also log categorisation by templates, but it will limit the display to the template name and the number of pages embedding it. Kai Nissen (WMDE) (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
This feature is very boring in Special:RecentChanges on all wikisource because it shows three entry for any page validation with three identical diff links, so we get only 16 real change per page of 50 in RC. It's possible to work-around it through user preference but that preference should be to hide cat change in RC by default. — Phe 20:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
We've been asking for this on en.Wikipedia for years. It makes it possible to observe the removal of legitimate categories, by accident or by vandalism. BD2412 T 21:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
dontcha know categories are broken, and the answer is wikidata? maybe we could get GWtoolset as a top 20? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 22:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
We can't use wikidata for Page:*, and Page:* is the only really problematic namespace. — Phe 00:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The proofread extension use category to mark the state of pages and changing the state from proofread to validated generate three RC entry, one for the cat removed, one for the cat added and one for the page change itself. I don't think this is evil for any other namespace than Page:, but for Page: we have really a specific use of category. I was thinking first to ask than the default preference should be to hide cat change in RC by default on all wikisource, but it'll probably better to allow to blacklist namespace, sort of "do not generate cat change RC entry for this namespace". — Phe 00:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't find that problematic. It's not like pages will be going through category changes dozens of times. BD2412 T 02:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I've already turned it off for RC in my preferences. It's a right nuisance when trying to patrol RC. The five Page namespace categories (Category:Proofread, Category:Problematic &c.) are assigned automatically and there is no need to watch pages move between them as they move through the proofreading process. When these moves are appearing on RC, then it prevents clearly seeing the real changes. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Birgit Müller (WMDE), Kai Nissen (WMDE), Phe: Totally agree that it will be problematic in/for our Page: namespace in its current methodology. So a wiki needs the ability to exclude a namespace, or maybe as part of a naming hierarchy (preferably by local setting rather than by a wiki configuration request through phabricator); or by the ability to [hide/show] the functionality in recent changes. I also think that we need to get this onto Phabricator prior to the rollout, as it is going to be problematic, and should have been tested in a broader wiki-space prior to implementation. An alternative would be that the categorisation change(s) are noted against the edit, rather than against the category, so it is all on one line per edit. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Flagged this as an issue for WSes on the Phabricator ticket above. I have asked if there is a means to halt rollout to the WSes this week. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:I am probably being blind but I see no reference? To which ticket are you referring please? AuFCL (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, it already is rolled out. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks BWC, WPs! We are also going to see it added regularly to any subpage. Maybe we could have "ignored categories", cf. hidden categories which exists. @AuFCL: T9148 . To note that of 500 edits, 212 are categorisation changes in three categories, though switching to "Show page categorization" does tidy things nicely. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
D'oh! I really am going blind! Thanks. AuFCL (talk) 05:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The proposal seems to say that recentchanges will not be affected - "In order to prevent recentchanges from being flooded by high-usage template categorization, there won't be recentchanges entries for the pages embedding the template". "Possible to watch" sounds to me like editors being able to voluntarily add a category to a watchlist for purposes of keeping track of membership. BD2412 T 03:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a little bit early to start noting bugs but I have observed this peculiarity: if some page changes to either enter or leave a watched category my watchlist throws up a '(changed since last visit)' link to the changed page which is nice. What is not so nice is that visiting that link does not reset it status in the watchlist but visiting the category instead does! So to de-flag a notified event one has to navigate to a page which otherwise you have no reason to access? Seems a bit odd. AuFCL (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi AuFCL, it is not too early to report bugs or comment on the feature, thanks! There is already a Phabricator task for the link issue you mentioned - T109688. We will collect all the comments on problematic issues, improvement ideas and reported bugs on the various project pages as well as in Phabricator and check through them within the next few weeks. Thanks to everyone here. Birgit Müller (WMDE) (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Note to the community, this change was rolled back (temporary suspension). I haven't found the conversation that lead to the rollback, just the comment on the initial phabricator card that states that the rollback has occurred. There were a number of issues identified, so one would think that there is some more work to do prior to the next version. So while we have been picking fault with our issues, we should not lose sight of the excellent initiative that WMDE has taken on board, thank them for their effort and wish them luck with their refinement of the change. @Birgit Müller (WMDE), Kai Nissen (WMDE):billinghurst sDrewth 23:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:, thank you for posting the update regarding the revert of this change. After it got deployed to the production systems it became apparent that under some special circumstances it may cause privacy issues: In case of some types of templates entries in the watchlist and recent changes were showing the IP address instead of the user name.
It's good that this came to our attention as the developer team can start to work on a solution for this now. Thanks to all who already tested the new feature and gave valuable comments. It is a big help for the next version of this feature. Kai Nissen (WMDE) (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Bug in WikiEditor?[edit]

From today morning, I am seeing three sets of Bangla script in the same box, one after other, in the WikiEditor. Not that I am facing any problem, but still, it looks uncanny. Hrishikes (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: Have you posted to phab:? —Justin (koavf)TCM 14:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
No, as I am not having any major problem. No letter is absent; although there are three full sets. Hrishikes (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Follow-up: I think this repetition of sets is now a general feature: sets are repeated 2 to 4 times depending on the browser. I have checked Latin, Latin Extended and Bangla sets. Hrishikes (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

1901 work with 2000 copyright notice[edit]

In 2000 the uncensored version of Mark Twain's 1901 essay, "The United States of Lyncherdom", taken directly from Twain's manuscript, was first published in the journal Prospects. (It was first published in a censored version in a 1923 anthology of Twain's essays, Europe and Elsewhere.) I presume the work itself has entered the public domain because it was created more than 95 years ago and it has been more than 95 years since Twain's death. However, the journal printing of the essay contains the following disclaimer:

This previously unpublished essay by Mark Twain is ©2000 by Richard A. Watson and Chemical Bank as Trustees of the Mark Twain Foundation, which reserves all reproduction or dramatization rights in every medium. It is published here with the permission of the University of California Press and Robert H. Hirst, General Editor of the Mark Twain Project.

Is there any legal basis for this copyright notice, or may I freely transcribe this work? IvanhoeIvanhoe (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

If the uncensored version of the essay was not published until 2000, then it could indeed be under copyright. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, the uncensored version is under copyright until 1 January 2048, it appears, and the censored version is under copyright until 1 January 2019. IvanhoeIvanhoe (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@IvanhoeIvanhoe: As the first version was published in 1923 it falls under that copyright, presuming that it was renewed, which puts the work under copyright, and you are correct until 2019. I would venture that the same date would apply to uncensored version rather than 2048. My reason is that they could not put a new copyright date of 2000 as that was more than 70 years after his death,[39]. I don't know how they could claim a new start without special legislation, so it could only be a claim under the previous copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what you're pointing to on the Cornell page. The life+70 rule was basically irrelevant until 2002. New editions of old works do get new copyrights, and if there's enough new text I don't see why it wouldn't. So the new text is under copyright until 2048, IMO, as is the rest of Mark Twain's unpublished stuff, as it was "published" in a ridiculous expensive microfilm edition in 2001, just to grab that copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Genealogical works from Peter Crombecq[edit]


After looking up one of our mayors from the 13th century, I stumbled across the genealogical works of Peter Crombecq, which I referred as a source. The PDF files he created are on the site of his provider though. This means that they will disappear if the internet account is suspended, which inevatibly it will be eventually.

So I asked him if it would be OK to host his works on Wikisource. The first question is, is this the right platform to 'publish' his efforts? He doesn't mind the works to become available to the public. In the PDF files he simply mentions that he wants his name to be mentioned when the material is used.

I asked a question about this on the Dutch wikisource Scriptorium counterpart a few days ago, but the site is relatively death... So it seems better to come and ask over here.

The next question is: Is it OK for me to upload the 'converted' books? Or would it be better he creates an account and uploads himself? He doesn't want to 'waste' too much time on it though. So I proposed I would convert the books to wikiformat and either he or I can then conveniently upload.

This is the PDF file of the first book, I started to work on:

It starts with a few chapters of introduction, then the bulk of the book with blocks about people that were involved in the city council of Leuven. I created a page with this introduction, then a page per person:

Coutereel, Peeter an example of an entry

This does not follow the 'layout' of the PDF, which has the introduction over several pages and then in the second part several entries per page. Is that a problem? It is more logical this way and it's easier to connect the entry of 1 person to his/her wikidata item.

I'm adding the author template on each page of the book, does that make sense? It is in compliance with his request to have the source mentioned. I'm mentioning his name, because the way I see it, this series of wikisource pages will/would become the source.

Maybe I should refer to the PDF file on his provider's website, or would it be acceptable to upload that PDF to Commons? Of course, if that is acceptable, maybe I'm doing entirely too much effort by converting it to wikisource... The advantage of having it in this format on Wikisource would be that others can chime in and add to it though. --Polyglot (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I can only answer from the perspective of the English WS as there may be different perspectives on the Dutch WS. @Dick Bos:, if there are things that I've missed, could you please assist?
  • If these texts were in English, they would be welcome here. The copyright release in the text is compatible with us hosting them;
  • The pdfs should be uploaded to Commons, and it's fine for you to do so;
  • Including the author's name in the header template on each page you create on nlWS is the correct way to mention his name. You should also include a license template on the book's mainpage;
  • Yes, keep the print pages for the Introduction together into a single WS page;
  • I recommend that you use the Proofread extension to wikify the books rather than doing that before uploading
Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-35[edit]

13:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Some maintenance work that I am considering[edit]

I am considering doing the following maintenance work over the next while, and thought that I would flag my intentions and allow for any discussion to take place

  1. update {{Author}} so we can determine which author pages where we have Wikipedia links, for which the WP link data is not recorded at Wikidata, I think that there will be none, however, just want to make sure. At that point I believe that we will be able to remove all Wikipedia links from Author templates (as redundant).
  2. remove all wikidata parameter fields from the Author template, they are redundant, and we have a ready means to identify where there is no WD linking, and that maintenance is being managed on a regular basis
  3. from Category:Index Validated (initially) and then Category:Index Proofread, identify the overarching works for each file and then look to put that appropriate badging on each of the WD links to WS. Once that is done, I propose that we amend / extend {{Featured download}} button to be displayed on any work that is proofread or validated (ie. has the label). We will also need to have some sort of watch function on the works that enter these categories so they can be badged systematically.

Any thoughts and ideas welcomed. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your third point, but I agree with the first two. However, I have noticed that often, if a WikiData entry exists for an author, but the Author header does not contain a sister wiki parameter (or portal link or related author), then the sister wiki box does not show up. For this reason, I have often put a Wikipedia parameter in the template to force it to show up. The other option is to use {{plain sister}}, but if you add this template and then someone adds a portal parameter then you will get two sister wiki boxes. I think fixing this will need to be part of the maintenance work you describe. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl:Re point 3. We have the template which we have been utilising on featured works only (big and bright as per Main page), whereas on majority of works we rely on the link in the sidebar to indicate alternate format downloads. 1) In mobile there is no sidebar, so you cannot see, and epubs are predominantly a mobile technology; 2) it is little link somewhat hidden away; 3) we have only utilised on a subset of works. My plan is to look to have it more widely available for where works have an elevated status with the newly available WD badges available for Wikisources[42]. These badges are to what I am referring with regard to the indexes and their corresponding works, and that work needs to be started prior to work on the templating, which I will bring to the community to discuss in detail.

With regard to Wikidata label visibility, we recently updated {{header}} to apply #if statements in a different way so those links should show without additional intervention. To my understanding with {{author}} it has been the case of either a direct link or a search link displays without any intervention, if that is not the case, then some examples would be useful. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: On your first point, you can already verify that there are no such pages at Wikisource:Maintenance of the Month/Wikidata/Wikipedia authors.
@Beleg Tâl: May you point to a page where this problem occurs?--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Support 1 and 2. Would like to propose 2a. remove all remaining deprecated parameter fields from the Author template (commons, wikiquote, etc). Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC).
I am okay with that proposal to remove the sisters in author namespace. Are people comfortable now that as WQ and Commons are migrated to WD and the duplication finders/mergers have been at work that they are now superfluous to our needs? [Again Author namespace only at this point] — billinghurst sDrewth 12:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: It would seem that you are correct, and this behaviour has already been fixed since I last encountered it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: First, the E-Pub icon in mobile mode is should be next to the pencil (edit) and star (add/rem to watchlist) icons per my tweaks to MediaWiki:Mobile.css. If its still "hidden away" for you, please let me know.

Second, I have no problems with your suggested maintenance tasks though I still think its only a dent in the larger issue when it comes to Wikidata. Unless ALL the key parameters in the various header-to-namespace templates are made into formal messages in the MW (ns:8) namespace so they can be translated and put in use by our sister language WS domains at the same time, in the long run, all we are managing to accomplish here is inadvertently creating an preference for English driven Wikidata over our counterpart's. Plus we are "doing" too much in our header templates as it is on the local level; if 'everybody was working from the same page' (i.e. applying formalized messages for key template parameters), much of the currently entrenched if... then... when... localized template jargon can be safely handled by wikidata &/or lua instead imo. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kaldari: is the sort of thing that we can look to the Community-Tech group to assist the Wikisource community to modernise and utilise better practices?

Noisy watchlist warning Author: namespace. With my bot account User:SDrewthbot I have started a run on cleansing redundant parameters from Author: namespace (parameters = Wikipedia · Wikiquote · Wikivoyage · Wikinews · Wikidata · Wikibooks · Commons · CommonsCat · empty image) for Category:Authors-A with 1 recurse (800 pages). Please put any feedback/issues here or my talk page. I will look to schedule the remaining works to start in 24 hours dependent on feedback.

To also note that I have also placed a notice on Special:Watchlist. If your watchlist is has plenty of authors upon it, you may wish to temporarily mask bot edits in your Special:Preferences. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

We should not remove category links to Commons at this time. Wikidata is still debating the "correct" way to attach Commons categories to items, and it's a bit of a mess. Please put back the categories that you have already removed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
We pick whichever methodology that they use and we pick up their multiple links, be it the interwiki link, or the separate commons category claim. We will pick up whichever changes that they make, it is no problem. [We don't pick up creator, but we don't need to as it is only a display layer at this point of time, and we can easily pick that up whenever.]

Proposing to only list top level of a work as a featured text[edit]

I am looking in Category:Featured texts and I see that the root page and the subpages for some works are listed as featured texts. To me, we should list the top level of the work, and not the successive cascading pages. So that would be things like Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1 and Doctor Syn and no subpages. Removing the {{featured}} template from the subpages will remove them from the categorisation. For some works it has only been the top level that has been done, so I propose to remove the template from the subpages of the nominated works where it has been added. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Subpages should be considered to inherit all categories of their parent and do not need them to be explicitly stated. If a category placed on a parent would cause a subpage to be implicitly in an inappropriate category, then the parental category is wrong. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The text we used at WS:FT and WS:FTC was inconsistent, so I have aligned to top level only, and will look to do the resulting maintenance later. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Job Yes check.svg Done , each work has the featured template once, at the level it was awarded. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Wanted: A really awesome tool for extracting images and uploading them to Commons.[edit]

I have been browsing through the thousands of pages with missing images (linked from {{Missing image}}), and it occurs to me that it is going to take an enormous effort to manually extract and upload all of these images to Commons (or, at least, all of the images that are eligible for listing there). What we need is a single tool that:

  1. Extracts the image on the page from the page;
  2. Associates the image with the publication information relevant to the public domain status of the image (which should be on the Index page); and
  3. Uploads the image to Commons if eligible there, with standard information, or here if only eligible here.

It doesn't matter if the extraction process gets more from the page than necessary, because images can fairly easily be refined once they are uploaded; it is the initial uploading that it is most time consuming, in my experience. Now, how do we get this done? BD2412 T 17:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you'll find that @Hesperian: is already partway there with his {{raw image}} process. The problem really comes with step 1, in that the quality of the images in .djvu and .pdf files is not good enough. For IA files, we can access the jpeg2 images (which is what the raw image process does). For files that are hosted elsewhere we have problems. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
My concern is with with the next step - the process for uploading the image as an image file with the categories of copyright information required for uploads. A better version of an image can always be uploaded, but it's a pain to input, for example, the work name, author name, publication date, description of the work, and category information (which, for images from a specific work should include an "Images from [work]" category), when these steps must be repeated for dozens of images from a given work. We currently have over 10,000 image files that need such an extraction. BD2412 T 21:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
My issue is with the idea of a bot that makes bulk copyright claims. I won't go there. If someone does want to take this on, then please PLEASE ensure that your bot plays nicely with HesperianBot. That means talk to me early and often about what HesperianBot does, and why, and how not to break it. Hesperian 01:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Bulk copyright claims would be an important part of the process. If a DJVU file exists on Commons, and you have a hundred or so images {{extracted from}} that DJVU file, you should be able to simply apply the copyright of the source file to all of the images at once. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
sorry about adding a bunch. the missing image template links to a page, on commons. could there be a way to snip images as a derivative on commons, and serve up in a semi-automatic way on source? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 01:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Unfortunately, that isn't always true. Sometimes the copyright on the images is different from the work, and almost always the illustrator / painter / photographer was NOT the same person as the author of the text. And even if the copyright and creator information is the same for all the images in a work (which often isn't the case), each image needs its caption and text placement information included in the Commons description. Besides which, sometimes the source of the image files is Hathi Trust, when the DjVu came from IA. There are a lot of factors involved in setting the image description at Commons, and I frankly do not see any way that most of the information could ever be handled by anything like a bot, unless the bot were loading information from a prepared file for all the images. It couldn't simply be duplicated from other image files, because the image information will vary from image to image. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I do realize that the illustrator and the author are separate people with separate copyrights. However, if the DJVU file contains the works of both, then its copyright needs to reflect the copyright of all its contents, doesn't it? If the DJVU file license does not account for the copyright of the images, then the license is already incorrect. In that case, it would be better in my opinion to leave it to Commons to correct the licenses, maybe with a bot of their own to assist.
With regard to images from HathiTrust, these would not be impacted because they're not extracted from the DJVU file.
A simple yet reasonable automated description would also be possible, like "Illustration from page $page of $djvufile" - which is no different than what I manually put in the description of all the illustrations I upload to Commons myself. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Further thoughts, just brainstorming:
  • Commons already allows you to bulk-upload files with the same license tag. So even if we don't want it to pull the license from the DJVU file, we can still simply specify the license once for all.
  • What if we create a tag on Commons that transcludes the license tag from the source DJVU, with a short message saying "this file was extracted by a bot from $source.djvu, the license for the source file is {{#section:File:source.djvu|License}}"
  • We could also have the bot tag the image for human review after upload; it would still be less complex than the current system but still ensure that the file is manually checked for problems
Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I would also note that to some degree the author can be irrelevant. We have some illustrated works that were published 150+ years ago. For those works, the illustrations will be in the public domain, period, due to their age. We also have a number of government documents that include government-made maps, which are uncopyrightable government work product, regardless of who drew them. BD2412 T 02:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-36[edit]

21:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

New typography: Am I going blind?[edit]

A new month, a new software release: Special:Version now reports

1.26wmf20 (5a73576)
02:34, 1 September 2015

Is it just me or is everything which previously was normal text, now bold; and everything which used to be bold now even bolder? (This is certainly not the case on wikipedia; so is this change an accident or is this the new normal?) AuFCL (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Please ignore above. Turned out to be a local browser cache issue. Senility? AuFCL (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Enclosure Act for Shifnal[edit]

Hello, Please let me know if this text is on en.wikisource. I, for myself, didn't find it. Thank you very much. --Bel Bonjour ~ Ambre Troizat (talk) 10:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

No. If you can't find something like that, it's probably not here. You can add it to Wikisource:Requested texts, or upload a scan to Commons and start working on here if you'd like.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

m:Grants:PEG/WCUG Wikisource/Wikisource Conference 2015[edit]

Hi to all. I am not sure how many people subscribe to the mailing list Wikisource-L, where User:Aubrey and User:Micru have been put together a proposal for an internal Wikisource-specific conference. The proposal for the conference is located at m:Grants:PEG/WCUG Wikisource/Wikisource Conference 2015 and it would be great if you could spend a few minutes reading through its content. Aubrey and Micru have already successfully instituted a Wikisource Community User Group which the responsible part of WMF has agreed should be a permanent fixture of Wikimedia.

Anyway, the proposal exists, it is available to have your thoughts and endorsement if you so choose to give it. You might even wish to consider if it proceeds to seek some funding to attend from your local WMF chapter if it exists, or be part of your planning to see a part of Europe that you haven't seen before. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Conference is a go; get your registration in [49] Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Updated links to WSEXPORT (WS reader export)[edit]

TL;DR: please migrate to that uses ePub 3 by default and supports PDF.

Hi everyone,

As a lot of you already knows, there is a new version of Wsexport running on Wikimedia tools labs that support PDF [1].

It is up and running since last May and I believe it is now time to migrate our on-wiki links to it and deprecate So, please, update the links to Wsexport in the templates and JS scripts of your wiki.

I have also made one big change to the version: switch the default ePub format from ePub 2 to ePub 3. This change will allow us to provide better ePubs by default, with nice features like footnotes displayed in popups (works only with some readers like iBooks). I believe it should not break most of reading devices but this is an assumption that should be verified. So, if you could download your favorite books in ePub 3 and test them on your good old ereaders it would be very nice in order to don't break the reading experience of our readers. If you encounter any problem, please open a bug on GitHub [2].


Thomas (Tpt)

PS : I have also updated the stat page of the instance:

—Tpt, Wikisource-L

Accordingly I have updated our sidebar gadget to the new URL with epub-3 as the new format. I have also updated {{featured download}} — again with epub-3 — and I have switched back in the PDF format which had been rem'd out while non-functional. As there are now a range of options at the tool, we probably would do well to determine whether we wish to have the plain link itself available for users. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the Wikimedia public policy site[edit]

Hi all,

We are excited to introduce a new Wikimedia Public Policy site. The site includes resources and position statements on access, copyright, censorship, intermediary liability, and privacy. The site explains how good public policy supports the Wikimedia projects, editors, and mission.

Visit the public policy portal:

Please help translate the statements on Meta Wiki. You can read more on the Wikimedia blog.


Yana and Stephen (Talk) 18:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

(Sent with the Global message delivery system)

Open call for Individual Engagement Grants[edit]

Greetings! The Individual Engagement Grants program is accepting proposals from August 31st to September 29th to fund new tools, community-building processes, and other experimental ideas that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds (up to $30,000 USD), Individual Engagement Grants can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

I JethroBT (WMF), 09:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

There is less than one week left to submit Individual Engagement Grant (IEG) proposals before the September 29th deadline. If you have ideas for new tools, community-building processes, and other experimental projects that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers, start your proposal today! Please encourage others who have great ideas to apply as well. Support is available if you want help turning your idea into a grant request. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-37[edit]

17:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-38[edit]

16:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Labs: Possibility of broken tools[edit]

There is an issue with the security certificate at Toollabs: having expired. As many of the links to that server, from where we call scripts, are https: (secure) they may fail *unless* you do go to the tools server and accept that the no certificate is current/exists/secure. I am told that it may not be until tomorrow that this is resolved. @Pathoschild: FYI as this affects m:TemplateScript. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Hopefully they'll improve their renewal process to avoid this in the future. —Pathoschild 03:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah cool, thanks for the explanation. I was wondering why no scripts were loading! :( —— Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 04:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, it's as well (of course). So one must go to and accept the bad cert to get it to work. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 04:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


Can we get some more participation for our featured texts? It seems like it's right now just EncycloPetey and me working on it. I don't believe we're getting as good a representation of validated works as we could if more people were involved. We have such a wide array of validated works and a decent-sized group of volunteers that I'd like this to feel more than just EncycloPetey and I promoting each other's works.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

ProofreadPage support in pywikibot[edit]

Hi. Just to let you know that pywikibot supports ProofreadPage (which allows, for each page, the capability of splitting header/body/footer and separately treat them) and IndexPage (which maps djvu page numbers with book pages, which can be useful when handling indices). They are quite new, so feedback from pywikibot users is welcome. The file is pywikibot/— Mpaa (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-39[edit]

18:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Display issues of our works in mobile view[edit]

I have just had a look at The_Amazing_Emperor_Heliogabalus in mobile view and see that our dotted TOC templates look butt ugly. I am also seeing some issues with alignment of images and the like. It would seem that we should be doing some fixing and some reviewing of our mobile output. Not certain whether the solutions are in our display coding, or in getting fixes in the overarching mobile code.

I certainly think that we need to put some notes to transcribers and constructors to think to look at the mobile view when completing a work (addition to instructions). There is probably some value in looking to have a sidebar link to the mobile view to make our review process easier to undertake.billinghurst sDrewth 00:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. I often keep ereaders in mind when formatting works, but yeah certainly forget a bit about mobile viewers. There are some good tools around (e.g. for previewing pages on different browsers. The Amazing Emperor Heliogabalus looks like this: (By the way, is there something odd going on with the chapter list on that page? They get progressively larger left margins.) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 01:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The list of issues between 'desktop' and 'mobile' view is too long to list here but I believe it all starts with revamping the design and layout of the traditional header template so that is "functional as well as consistently viewable" under either mode. Discussions have been started along the lines of what a header template redesign would entail but have been slow to produce "results" to date.

Once the header redesign is well on its way to becoming the new standard, the next hurdle is what to do about dynamic layouts - which will never work for mobile mode as it is geared to progressively resize margins at different max/min viewport widths as Sam alluded to. To see what I mean, when in Mobile View, shrink your browser window's width and you should see the left and right margins shrink until nearly gone accordingly. I'm pretty sure we need something similar for desktop view to replace dynamic layouts -- the main hurdle being what to do with the ever present side-bar on the left under most current skins; the Winter prototype being the last attempt to reconcile this 'viewport to window size with a side bar present' question (it has stalled as well). -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

To me header and body components align, though are separate issues for us to manage; images realigning, table formats, etc. are floating components in the body with continual refinement and vigilance; whereas the header is the static component that leads into a page and contains our metadata, navigation, etc. and we hardly vary.

To note that I have asked a WMF developer if they can identify someone who can give guidance to enWS on mobile, and how we can do things in desktop to lessen any impact on mobile;, plus whether these types of issues are managed through a person, or through phabricator. To note that "Winter" was only ever a proof of concept piece, and never designed to be a replacement skin. It would seem from recent discussions in wikitech-l, that skin development will predominantly be incremental and transactional. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the technical issues being discussed here, I wouldn't worry about driving away readers because it's impossible to read an article (even on the 'Winter' skin, which by the way, I really like). I am using an android cell phone with a 5" screen, (and tomorrow will try to borrow a pad). The most difficult issue is that just touching the screen to scroll down in an article, it's unavoidable to touch a wiki link and end up elsewhere — from which the return is not where I left off and then trying to find the point of departure is impossible. We should try to create a faux main namespace test format along the clean screen of the 'Winter skin'. One of the problems will be to tuck the navigation sidebar somewhere. — Ineuw talk 04:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
At enWS in the mobile screen I have no such issues with following stray links. For enWP, I usually have the android app for those occasions. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Validation request[edit]

This work is four pages away from being completely validated... anyone who might like to take on the task... Thanks ahead of time, Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done ... Thanks BD2412. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Cheers! BD2412 T 15:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Interlanguage link?[edit]

What am I doing wrong?! :( My link to a non-existing page on Spanish Wikisource doesn't work on Author:Rosendo Salvado. I'm doing e.g. [[es:Page name]] which results in:. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 09:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I will be the first to admit if this turns out to be a silly suggestion but instead of [[es:Memorias historicas sobre la Australia]] does [[s:es:Memorias historicas sobre la Australia]] (i.e. this link) achieve what you are trying to do? AuFCL (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
You need to prepend the link with a colon to stop it being an interwiki language link (which is what it became), similar to how you prepend a category with a colon to make it visible link, rather than categorisation. Or you can force it as AuFCL using a sister link — billinghurst sDrewth 09:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh of course! Thank you both. So without the initial colon (or 'S:') it gets slurped off into the sidebar (and these days with Wikidata that's not required, of course). I really have never done many interlanguage links (being a blasted monolingual myself). :) Thanks again. (I'm compiling a list of Noongar language sources, by the way; not that there will ever be a nys Wikisource I shouldn't think hehe.) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 10:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
mul:WS! though I am not sure of the number of printed works that we will have. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Good point about mul, thanks. :-) And no, there's not going to be many printed Noongar works — but there is the whole question of oral histories and their transcription. We've got transcriptions of animations etc. so an oral history (assuming appropriately licenced) could perhaps end up there. Not really sure. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 06:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
That is a question for there, rather than here. That said, it isn't a published work, so it would come down to is it equivalent of a historical document. Personally, I think that I would support it, though would like to see some more rationale than "oral history", and would like to see the context of what is an oral history, how it represents a culture without printed material, and its reproducibility, if not as a transcript, but as a consistent narrative. All that said, are we really the place to hold such works, within the cultural and copyright structures. With such a subject, it is always good to hear from the truly knowledgeable on the topic, and it would be good to see it capture on the wiki or on the mailing list, and for the community to be notified. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Oxford Transcribe-a-thon, 12 October[edit]

As part of the Ada Lovelace Bicentennial, I'm leading for Wikimedia events at Oxford University in my capacity as Bodleian Libraries' Wikimedian In Residence. The first of these, on the afternoon of Monday 12th October (2pm onwards BST), is a Wikisource Transcribe-a-thon. I will be giving users an introduction to Wikisource, some of them being new to wikis and some having Wikipedia experience. We will be transcribing texts under the theme of Women In Science: probably works by and about Author:Mary Fairfax Somerville and Author:Florence Nightingale though I'm open to further suggestions. I'm announcing this to give advance notice to other users of the site: there will be a group of new accounts and tentative new users, but they will be supervised and we will clean up any mess. I will make a project page listing the involved users. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Who holds Ada Lovelace's papers on logic and computability? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Fantastic news, and thanks for the advance notice.
  • Confirming the time and that you will be operating in summer time! (it is late for BST).
  • do we need to get works uploaded to Commons and prepared ahead of time for you, happy to do that. Though you could be showing all of that stuff with Tools like IA-upload.
  • please do show them our export to .epub
  • whatever feedback — positive and negative — and reflections on their expectations — met or not met — that you can get from new users would be brilliant to us rusted on dinosaurs.
  • I see that you already have an accountcreator right, so that forestalls my recommending it.
Best of luck. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, this sounds brilliant! :-) If there's a list of works to process from IA or COmmons or wherever, I'd be happy to help too. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 02:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the positive feedback. User:ShakespeareFan00: her translation & notes on the analytical engine (including the program for computing Bernoulli numbers) are already transcribed here on WS. I've been told there is already a project to transcribe all her mathematical correspondence which is held here at Oxford. user:billinghurst and User:Samwilson: I'll doing the loading from IA and Commons myself in advance to make it easy for newcomers on the day, so no help needed but thanks for the offers. I will tell them about the whole process, including the IA-upload tool. It is towards the end of BST, but still within it. Probably the first half hour will be spent exploring the texts already offered by WS and what can be done with them, including exporting to ebook formats. I'll use an evaluation form to get feedback on my work, but also on impressions of Wikisource itself- that's a good tip. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Although transcribing handwritten material (which correspondence would be) isn't easy. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a great idea. If you're looking for other women scientist suggestions, I'd love to see some of Hildegard of Bingen's works on botany and alternative medicine, if any freely-licensed or public domain English translations exist. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Author:Wrexie Louise Leonard; Author:Margaret Cavendish ? Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 12:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
All above comments and suggestions are appreciated: thanks. Having said I don't need help, I realise there is one query I need help with. I want to transcribe Mary Somerville's "On the Magnetizing Power of the More Refrangible Solar Rays" which is a paper in volume 116 of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. I don't have a source for (or personal interest in) transcribing the rest of that volume. Where should I put the finished text in the main namespace? Does it have to go under Philosophical_Transactions/Volume_116 ? MartinPoulter (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
It should go at Philosophical Transactions/Volume 116/On the Magnetizing Power of the More Refrangible Solar Ray, but you can also put a redirect in from On the Magnetizing Power of the More Refrangible Solar Ray and then use that to link to it from wherever. There's some explanation of this at Wikisource:Periodical guidelines#Page structure. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 23:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

What's hidden by the local Watchlist[edit]

This is really a minor issue, and falls under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Department of Idle Curiosity. When clicking my Watchlist link, a link list to other wikis (in which I was minimally active) flash by, never to stay except once. Do other users see this list, and what controls the list display? — Ineuw talk 19:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You are not completely crazy (or at least not alone in this particular manifestation.) I get the same effect and the bulk of those links wind up being later available under the "Sister Projects" tab (in Vector at least.) What bothers me a little more is that the "Mark all pages visited" button also puts in a brief appearance and then hides apparently never accessible thereafter. Thus far I've not needed it but one day who knows? (Besides if desperate this last function is also accessible via Preferences/Watchlist. I also claim "special blindness" for missing the same option presented as a standard link just below the "Watchlist" heading.) AuFCL (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I've done a bit of digging and found the logic which controls display of the above-mentioned "Mark all pages" button. It is at the bottom of MediaWiki:Common.js/watchlist.js, in particular the #mw-watchlist-resetbutton { display: none; } fragment. The button reappears if you edit your Preferences and turn off all of the check-boxes below "Advanced options" on the "Recent changes" tab. (Kindly remember what you turned off so you can restore them after experimentation. This last reminder is a special service of the Curiosity Related Feline Extermination Investigations sub-unit of the PDoIC™. Your tax dollars at work.) AuFCL (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
@AuFCL, George Orwell III: The missing button is a local issue only, presumably due to our watchlist display component. Let us null it from the file to see the impact of its positioning. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
@AuFCL: Moved it back and it looks fine in monobook in Firefox. Anyone seeing button issues? — billinghurst sDrewth 00:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Personal opinion. I would hope that we wouldn't default hide buttons that are wiki-default on without having a community consensus, especially when we can give instruction to users on how to hide such components through their personal css files, and especially through use of their m:Special:MyPage/global.cssbillinghurst sDrewth 00:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I had an edit conflict asking for clarification which of several alternatives you were proposing. That is moot now as you appear to have answered the question as well as restoring the button under Vector too. AuFCL (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks all -- I've been overriding it locally for some time now. AFAICT -- the only reason it was in there in the first place was because Wikipedia's variant had added all begun all sorts of additions we didn't follow as a community (such as green bullets instead of bold text to indicate changes among a few others) and our version was never vetted to remove those influences. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Grant submission[edit]

Hi, here is a message to inform the Wikiversity community about my grant submission on Meta-Wiki. You are welcome to correct mistake, give opinion or endorse it. A nice end of the day for every one. Lionel Scheepmans Contact (French native speaker) 22:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Action: Purging Index: namespace pages[edit]

It has come to our attention that Special:IndexPages is not properly updating the progress of a work —in that it is not properly taking the data from its Index: ns page — when people are editing the corresponding pages in the Page: ns. To help keep a work's progress up-to-date on Special:IndexPages would editors please purge [(page url)?action=purge] each index at the end of their editing section. I will look to run a systematic purge of the edits, and we are looking at a more permanent solution for this issue.

For those who use the clock gadget, clicking on the clock will purge your current page. It may be possible to put an interim means to purge the index page, onto each index page. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

From what I've been led to believe: that won't always cut it; you need to utilize the forcerecursivelinkupdate aspect the API provides to truly "refresh" everything linked/changed on any given Index: page. A "regular" purge won't always accomplish that and sometimes a null edit is also needed. The other purge gadget (enabled for everyone by default the last I checked) has ability to select a "regular" purge plus either of the other two types by design (found in the More tab of vector or *, **, *** tabs in monobook). -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-40[edit]

15:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Reimagining WMF grants report[edit]

IdeaLab beaker and flask.svg

Last month, we asked for community feedback on a proposal to change the structure of WMF grant programs. Thanks to the 200+ people who participated! A report on what we learned and changed based on this consultation is now available.

Come read about the findings and next steps as WMF’s Community Resources team begins to implement changes based on your feedback. Your questions and comments are welcome on the outcomes discussion page.

Take care, I JethroBT (WMF) 17:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Toolbar button for curly quotes[edit]

(I rather suspect that this has been done before, but I couldn't find it anywhere so I've reinvented the wheel. It spins reasonably well.)

I've made myself a little toolbar button that converts quotation marks, apostrophes, and twin-hyphens to their curly or dashy forms. To use it, just do this in your common.js: importScript('User:Samwilson/CurlyQuotes.js');

This is based on the list of transformations used in the Gitenberg project's punctuation-cleanup script (for converting PG texts to curly-quoted asciidoc).

Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 00:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Curly quotes are present in the Bangla character set in WikiEditor. Hrishikes (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
@Samwilson: Do you mean the curly quotes that we say not to use in the Wikisource:Style guide? — billinghurst sDrewth 03:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Yep, those ones! ;) Actually, my understanding from some discussion last year or sometime (sorry, can't remember when) was that some works are done with curly quotes, and that this is acceptable (so long as things are consistent within the work). I use this toolbar button when I'm editing in a work that is already using curly quotes; I never add them to works that use straight quotes. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 03:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion was incorrect then, at least to some degree. Curly quotes are a product of font style, and not a separate character. Using them is like choosing one style of lowercase "a" or "g" over another; there are indeed variations between different fonts but they carry no significance.
The Style Guide is not absolute, and there are sometimes situations where specific points may not apply, but the SG is the general guide to how things ought to be done. Curly quotes cause problems, especially in older browsers, and note that many libraries and schools worldwide continue to use long-outdated software for budgetary reasons. Besides which, works that become Featured Texts must first be found in compliance with the Style Guide, so use of curly quotes automatically disqualifies any work from attaining Featured status. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion was at Wikisource talk:Style guide#Curly/straight quotes. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Announcement: [Wikidata] Input requested for 'editing on a client' project[edit]

Hi everyone,

I'm currently working on a concept to improve the current editing situation of Wikidata's data on a client (e.g. Wikipedia & co.) in collaboration with Lydia Pintscher, in the scope of my Bachelor's thesis.

It would be very appreciated if you could add your input and comments to the page below and pass this info to the other Wikis and their editors since their input is crucial to this project.

→ → Wikidata:Client editing input

—Charlie Kr, via Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list

I knew it!!!![edit]

Post was Moved to Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help#Advance_editor_toolbar_disappears_occasionally.— Ineuw talk 22:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

New project Wikisource:WikiProject Biographical dictionaries[edit]

I am starting to put together a new project for biographical dictionaries, where I am hoping to set up each dictionary set as its own sub-project. We have lots of these works around the place that have very similar configuration and formatting, and having some overarching guidance for them, and to leverage what Charles Matthews and I set up with others for the DNB project. The ability to advertise these individual dictionary components, I see as an advantage, especially as we can drop in and do partial pages, etc; and they link well to the Wikidata "Described by source" property. I am also looking at putting it as the Community Collaboration for a while, and setit to rotate through the various dictionaries available to have some dynamic action in the Collaboration rather than our current static and moribund NARA project.

To do this I am also using Wikisource-bot to strip and apply the data layers (making for a noisy RC with bot layers), as these biographical components, even unproofread, are readily findable in local and google search.

So please feel free to add these collective biographical works that you have to the list, and add your thoughts to the project or its talk page. None of these ideas are on the project pages yet as I am still in the scraping phase. All feedback is welcome as there is so much we can do to make this a schmick sexy project. smileybillinghurst sDrewth 05:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Some items are listed in Portal:India#Biographical works and at the end of Portal:Bengal#Notable people, although I don't know whether they fit in with your scheme. You can add them if you like. Hrishikes (talk) 12:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
moribund NARA? should i remonstrate with user:Dominic? we will be at his place in a week. Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
If you want, I can help with bot work to migrate data from a dictionary to wikidata (I guess something like this? q:Q19884468) or some other scripting work.— Mpaa (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Did you mean d:Q19884468? AuFCL (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thanks :-)— Mpaa (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Author I.D Request[edit]

Index:Moll Flanders (1906 edition).djvu Who is E.A Baker that wrote the introduction, so it can be correctly attributed?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Not conclusive but I would hazard Ernest Albert Baker (VIAF entry)? Active right time period; right genre and publishers. AuFCL (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Fully agree with AuFCL's assessment, seems to be very much of the type of work that EAB appears to be publishing at that time, and later.[97]billinghurst sDrewth 15:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

"About" page on epub[edit]


There is a problem with the About page add on each epubs. This following part is not clear and could be seen as copyfraud:

We distribute our books for free, starting from works not copyrighted or published under a free license. You are free to use our e-books for any purpose (including commercial exploitation), under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license or, at your choice, those of the GNU FDL.

There is the same problem in the French version. We are working on it (MediaWiki:Wsexport about). And the English version is here: MediaWiki:Wsexport about.

Pyb (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Huh? I don't see a particular issue or that we claim the copyright on the works. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The second sentences doesn't mention public domain. We are clearly claiming copyright ownership on public domain material. Pyb (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Beside that specific trouble to public domain, if a work derive from a "work under a free license" but not CC we have no right to try to enforce CC, I'm unsure if this case exists on wikisource. — Phe 18:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Given that Wikimedia puts the CCSA license at the bottom of every page here, all we are doing with that license in the "about" is replicating that. I would not be happy to change the "about" to take it out of alignment with the license under which the text is made available online. While the content retains the free license, the presentation of the content is CC. Such presentation includes that provided in an ePub generated through the Wsexport process. If someone wishes to use the content without acknowledging us as the source, they are welcome to do so. But if they are using the presentation that we have provided, then they should acknowledge us using the appropriate license.

I endeavour to make sure that the presentation of the works that I proofread/validate is suitable for desktop, mobile and ereader viewing. As such, I am adding value (I hope) to the text. Under the agreement I have with Wikimedia as a contributor, all my contributions to the text are licensed under CCSA.

Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I see, good point, but that imply we can use only public domain, or CC-BY-SA resource to feed wikisource. If the content is not public domain nor CC-BY-SA we have no right to change its license or we need a way to specify the original license of the contents. — Phe 13:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Please differentiate between "our books" and the "original works". Our publications are licenced as they are, and people can use them as they please. The original works are not relicenced, and users are able to use those as they so choose, that is the text within our works, and we appropriately licence the individual works. Under your proposal anyone can come and take our books and utilise all our componentry and declare it as their own, and not acknowledge the work that we have done. WHICH makes a good point about those who just copy over Gutenberg works to our wikis. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Re licence, we do, it is clear and upfront on the front page of each work. The About is the collective about the publication itself.
I've just checked on a couple of ePubs that I downloaded some time ago. They have the license from the Main page on them, so we're not assigning a new license to the text. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
the point is well taken that we should not encumber derivatives of the public domain. you are drifting towards a sweat of the brow, National Portrait Gallery argument. otoh, CC is tantamount to public domain since reusers widely ignore the attribution and SA. Slowking4Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 04:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Index:DOJ Report on Shooting of Michael Brown.djvu[edit]

Anyone want to add the ToC for this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-41[edit]

18:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


The named ref repetition is something that we should look at when the release occurs. I doubt that we will have many. I'll see if there is info for the message and any categorisation. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Authors that are more than individual[edit]

What are our policy/agreement about authors that are comprised of more than one individual? I have collected a few in Category:Collective authors. Should all of them be turned into portals? Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC).

This reference is a bit cryptic Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2013-02#Non-persons_as_authors but is the earliest "official" discussion I can find of the issue (activity logs imply people had fixed ideas a full year earlier but no obvious recorded discussion I can find.) I recommend you treat Portal:Stratemeyer Syndicate as a model. Also Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2013-02#How_to_use_Portal_instead_of_Author_in_header.3F might be useful. AuFCL (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, @AuFCL:! I am aware of these examples. Partially, my question was in response to the current version of Help:Author pages. Let me restate it: do we have an implicit agreement here that a non-individual author (be that an organization, syndicated pseudonym, husband-and-wife, brothers, whatever) gets a portal page instead of an author page? And what's the rationale for this? Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC).
GENERALLY: People who write get author pages, entities get portals. We have legacy issues. We have some exceptions, eg. writers for Strathmeyer. Some pages could be split, but for example, Brothers Grimm, that seems pointless. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
How does blood or marital status negate the simple fact a work is the result of a collaboration of (or just attributed to) two or more individuals? Sorry, my view is each individual gets their own Author: page, each page has a section titled Collaborations with [any # of individual collaborators - minus the one who's page we're on] followed by a listing of the exact same body of works under each section. Even that husband and wife who translated Tolstoy wouldn't meet my threshold for a single Author: page. The exception would be, again, something like the Brothers Grimm. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Why is Brothers Grimm different? Is it so hard to list them the way we do everyone else, as at Snow White? Would it not make just as much sense to have pages like Author:Gilbert and Sullivan for all collaborating partnerships?—Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I'm of like mind but that wasn't the majority view when it came to so-called works/authors of literary/historical note and so we have left 'room' for such such exceptions. Did Gilbert & Sullivan always collaborate on everything or did they ever author works independent of each other? -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
If people wish to separate both brothers Grimm then replicate each works component, then go for it, I will say no more, I wasn't going to reopen an old debate, and I care not much, though ask that you search the archives for that discussion and read it. Re G&S, we know that one wrote the music and the other wrote the lyrics. They have works apart, though we know they collaborated on other works. We have significant biographical data that separates these people. Brothers Grimm less so. Author pages allow for us to place copyright tags based on the people, and know we are dealing with people with birth dates, death dates, may have images, and so on. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly, Jacob Grimm wrote a significant linguistic text, German Grammar, without his brother. I'd be willing to take on splitting them and the other members of Category:Collective authors; I would have done it already except I wasn't sure what the consensus was.—Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Other than Deutsche Grammatik, Jacob Grimm also wrote w:Deutsche Mythologie and Geschichte der deutschen Sprache and propounded his famous w:Grimm's law. So he had a literary career quite distinct from his brother's, despite a few intersections. Hrishikes (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The pseudonyms used by the Stratemeyer Syndicate all have their own Author: page (e.g. Author:Laura Lee Hope). The portal is not intended to be an Author page, but a listing of the works written by the entity. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, @Beleg Tâl: and @Hrishikes: in re brother grimm. I was very much amused by statements about their inseparability. If any group in the category:Collective authors is to be separated it must be them. Otherwise, we must also have Author:Marx and Engels for that ghost (specter) story of historical note:) @Beeswaxcandle: and @Billinghurst:, you both employ author/entity dichotomy. That is exactly something that I don't comprehend, could you please elaborate. My rough idea was: if author is one human, then it is author template, if it is anything else it is portal. And my rationale was exactly what billinghurst mentions: Author pages allow for us to place copyright tags based on the people, and know we are dealing with people with birth dates, death dates, may have images, and so on. If we have as an author anything that not an individual human, what's the meaning of gender, lifespan dates, etc? Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC).
I think Author:Brothers Grimm here was created as an extension from the corresponding Wikipedia article. In Wikipedia, articles can be given any types of names. There is no problem creating an article called Jacob Grimm and his dog, provided the dog was notable. But for an author page here, the subject needs to be a person. Collective authors, whether two persons or an organisation, are impersonal, i.e., they are entities and don't deserve author pages, IMO. Hrishikes (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The reality with our approach is that NOW we have Wikidata, whereas before we didn't. So following from this discussion I would believe that we should propose that author ns: be individuals. In such a situation for the collaborative pages, we have a choice to either move them to Portal: ns, or maybe turn them into disambiguation pages. Thinking here that occasional visitors will still coming looking for things like "Brothers Grimm" not knowing them individually, and we need to have a ready means to have them found and directed. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
(e/c)To elaborate on the Stratemeyer Syndicate. They were a group of anonymous authors who produced books in an assembly line mode. One would write the plot outline, a second would write the text and a third would do the editing, then the illustrations would be done and the product sent off to a publisher under a pseudonym. Different publishers were used for the different seriesAll the people involved in the process were paid a flat rate and there were no royalties returned to the actual authors. For many of the books, and indeed whole series, we don't know who the actual authors were. The pseudonyms have no dates of birth or death and some apparently wrote over many decades. This means that the Syndicate is not an author, but rather an entity that produced books. This is not the same thing as the co-authorship of Charles and Mary Lamb, the Brontë sisters or the Brothers Grimm. We know who they are and we have their demographic data available. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The 'author' Brothers Grimm is stated on the title page and used by other authors to refer to their works. This author concept is not a novel synthesis or subject, it should not be a portal. I went to count the dozens of times I have linked to this page from other authors texts at 'what links here', but it had already been moved. I have done a lot of work linking texts to other texts objectively, where an author unambiguously refers to them collectively or individually, and my significant investment in that has once again been disrupted by the 'fixing of things that were not broken'. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: please have a look at your own two edits: on this page and this page. In both cases the author of the text "unambiguously refers" to brothers individually, Nicolo is not even mentioned the first time. But you have created Author:Zeno brothers page that bundles two authors together even though there are NO WORKS written jointly by them (and they also have a third brother to boot!) This is a clear example of a thing that is broken. But the point of my question here was not about the relative significance of editor's investments. I am looking for clearer guidelines for what is an author page. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: and @Beeswaxcandle: WD might actually be quite helpful here. We need not necessarily have distinction b/w authors and entities (whatever them are, I am still not clear:) here, instead author template checks the content of the field "instance of" in WD. If it is "human" it does one thing, if it is "pseudonym" it does different thing, if "corporation" the third, etc. In other words we can use one author template to rule them all for everything, without resorting to using portals for non-individual authors. Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The question should not be the purity or otherwise of an author page or the author namespace, as that is our construct. What is trying to be achieved here? The clarity of publishers and organisations as authors has us pushing those works to Portal: namespace was our decision several years back. I think that the standard position is that we prefer individual author pages, and for anything out of that then let us have a discussion. Where there are existing collaborative pages, we should not be rushing to make a change for an existing page. For those we have a gentle discussion, involve all those to have an opinion and try to reach a consensus on a solution that demonstrates that we have a better solution than exists. If it is a new author, the reverse bias applies.

Wikidata reflects what we have as our notable articles, and will equate both ways, and we also have the ability for arbitary access. [remember "act in haste, regret at leisure"].

So why not let us agree on what we agree on, and implement, then work through differences; the reverse is butt ugly and argumentative. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

In the above spirit it seems to me there are two distinct cases with opposite agreed outcomes (individual author with potential biographies live in Author: space; long-standing group entities with known potential for the group membership to change—e.g. Publishers and Syndicates live in Portal: space.) However this leaves a near continuity of cases between which need to be expanded and considered. I shall make a start here but of necessity this survey is quite incomplete:
  • Pseudonyms: may vary from partner's writing in their spouse's name (fairly stable: biographies typically hard to pin down especially if overshadowed by a more "famous" yet less productive partner) to names picked up and continued beyond the original artist's productive period by another individual.
  • Partnerships: not always even split of effort.
  • Syndications: "pulp" pools and the like. Stratemeyer obviously.
  • Artworks, illustrations etc.: sometimes form the bulk in terms of page area covered of a work yet credit is most likely assigned to the producer of prose component only.
  • Editors, collators, other support roles: Some works carefully credit the collator/series editor and almost forget to mention the individual article authors.
  • Introductions, prefaces, forewords etc.: often no credit is given beyond initials, on the understanding readers of the time would have well known who a given publishers "tame expert" would have been at the time.
I am sure this list can be expanded and dissected almost without end. AuFCL (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I think that the simple rule of (one person = Author, more than one person = Portal) is best. An "Author" page represents a single person, and data like lifespan are relevant. It could be a historical person (Jacob Grimm), a person whose historical existence is dubious (Adam), a person known by a pseudonym (Mark Twain) or whose real identity is unknown (Pearl Poet), whether they are the creator of the prose content or artwork or introductions or whatever, so long as they are a single individual person. Any grouping of several people: parterships, syndications, corporations, governments, etc. should be a Portal. Thus the only shade of grey would be authors such that it is not known whether they were a single person or group of people.
The question of whether individual persons who are editors, publishers, etc. but have no known direct authorship is probably a different question. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
This is what I was trying to delineate as the fringe case of "Support roles". Russell & Whitehead were a partnership, true: but in all likelihood Russell did nearly all the work (as the student of supervising Whitehead) and the quantity of independent output supports that. Who is taking bets Granville wrote all of his Calculus? Clearly he collated the efforts of unrecognised many. Todhunter wrote too much deep technical stuff not to have fronted a huge support team (unacknowledged.) How do you even unfold author:Mrs. William Makim Thomas? Single known book, 1911 so fl. 1911 No name, no VIAF, nothing to go by? AuFCL (talk) 06:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we need to worry too much about those. Russell & Whitehead are two individuals, and get two Author pages; if their partnership is notable then it can also get a Portal page. The relative weight of work can be ignored, or noted, or left to Wikipedia: it doesn't matter to the namespace of their pages. Granville is an individual person, and not himself a team; if his work was a collaborative effort then his teammates can be credited in the work itself where known, and ignored or listed as Anonymous where unknown. Ditto for Todhunter. Thomas again is a single person, or at least presented as such, so even though nothing is known about her she would get a page exactly like the one she currently has. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 07:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

ALERT: Tables and terminating row markers[edit]

I have come across a situation where a series of Page: ns pages set for a continuing table, where each had a terminating row marker followed by {{nop}} to restart the next page. When these pages were transcluded the page marker links were fouled (don't point to Page: ns, instead to main page). For those who use terminating row marker as their style, can you please review current and past works for this issue. (details on GO3's user talk page). It would be good if you could report here whether it seen elsewhere so we can better determine the cause. Thx — billinghurst sDrewth 07:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I have seen this behaviour before almost always in association with formatting structures which cross more than two transcluded pages (tables are favourite but I have also seen it with nested block templates e.g. {{hii}}. I am not aware of any examples except the one discussed recently as I have addressed all of those I have encountered (not with skill: I always have to relearn the same silly lessons!)

Going out on a limb as I cannot pretend to understand the code; but I am concerned with the block within MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js which refers to mw.config.get( "wgArticlePath" ) which it then further slices and dices before inserting into the displayed page as the destination of the page link. Presumably main-page is the default if the result is unusably mangled but this is as far as I can push the thought at this stage. AuFCL (talk) 08:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't even begin to list all the "things" in MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js that need attention as they relate to the Proofreading extension itself but the first and foremost thing to do [imho] would be to make the "default" rendering of the embedded backlinks to the Page: namespace inline rather than off in the left margin(s) so it can be more easily adapted to at least render that way in mobile view as well. The ability to toggle between 'off-to-left margin(s) or inline', 'hide or show links' and 'highlighter when hovered' should be a default, site wide enabled gadget(s) or script(s) for Desktop view only. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
GO3, I like that proposal, though wonder of the regular need to wikilink through to page namespace on a mobile device from the mobile view. Might we better to show the page number inline but not wikilink? — billinghurst sDrewth 00:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense since its hard to envision any proofreading taking place in the Page: namespace under true Mobile view anytime soon anyway. I'd be happy with the ability to toggle on/off just the display of the corresponding inline page numbers without them being a wikilink back to the Page: namespace for mobile viewers. Of course this complicates the entire scheme a bit because right now there is no way to just display the associated page number without it also being a link back to the Page: namespace. Like I said there is much to be reviewed and refined in the current approach for both "views". -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Can we just have a toggle to put the page numbers (unlinked) inline, for all namespaces, and have it ON for mobile and OFF for standard. Then have a page numbering linked for the side for standard, and not available for mobile? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
May I have some clarification on the last? I do not understand the "all namespaces" point as only surely ones who actually transclude multiple Pages: ought to be eligible for script treatment (main obviously but what others are desired? Doing this in Index: might even be counter-productive for example as this is a "transcription development space" and not really intended for "public display.")
And if the proposed toggle is flipped from the default then both inline and side page numbers are to appear in desktop viewing? Is that what was intended? Presumably the hover-shading complexity may be scrapped altogether if this alternative be entertained?
Finally to what extent is the associated development envisioned to be local, and to what extent can developer support be presumed available. It may be reasonable to tailor planned expectations to fit within the skill sets available: i.e. trade off a simple tweak well understood and supported locally vs more ambitious plans which may never be commenced at all. AuFCL (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge page numbering display is a local issue. My above thoughts were two independent toggles for standard, which conflates to zero toggles for mobile. I just don't what it means for epub/pdf-type exports. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Index:Verne - Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, Parke, 1911.djvu[edit]

This is volume 5 of a set.. Anyone want to upload the other volumes so we have a complete set? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You can put them in commons:Category:Works of Jules Verne (1911). There are many at archive.orgBeleg Tâl (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
All except volume 4 -(which seemed to be absent, from this set of scans), now at Commons, If someone can find volume 4:) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Rename request for Volume 5 made at Commons, under FNC#4, I may need an admin to do the required rename here. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Moved here.— Mpaa (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
File moved at Commons, can we also rename locally? Thanks :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
And who told you that vol 4 is not available? Only a patient searching is called for. wink Get it at Hrishikes (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hshrikes can you do some file patching?, I've found some missing pages in the intial pagelist creation. Thanks.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
For the time being, I have given the patch-up links in the concerned index files. I'll do the patch-up today evening (Indian time). Hrishikes (talk) 05:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: Patched up vols 1, 10, 12 and 13. I did not touch vol 3, don't think it's required. Hrishikes (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Vol 3 had 2 duipliacte pages, hardly a prioirty but...ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Away until mid-October.[edit]

I will be away until mid-October. Please try to have this project completed by the time I return. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

What project would that be?—Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
English Wikisource. We can do it by mid-October! Just need to allow for some regex 2\d{3} and ready the fall back excuse of the "Of course I did it Miss, but I left it sitting on the table so that it wouldn't get crushed and the dog ate it. Truth!" — billinghurst sDrewth 22:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, no worries! But we'd better leave a just a little bit of proofreading so that BD2412 doesn't miss out yes? Just 513,826 pages or so? ;) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 23:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference check "Alumni Dublinenses" p.764 required[edit]

Google says and shows me that on p.764 of "Alumni Dublinenses" there is information on Author:Constantine Joseph Smyth. I am wondering whether anyone is able to see a full text version at Google Books or HathiTrust and transcribe that author's section on the author's talk page. TIA. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Been done. Big thanks to BT! for the result and showing me a new set of resources Trinity College  :-) Though they have the worst level of discovery, smallest portal for treasures behind, no evident browse. If you want to look, do an empty search. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Delete UP[edit]

Please moderator: remove my UP so the one at Meta appears? Thank you very much in advance, KlaasZ4usV (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@KlaasZ4usV: someone has done it. I would suggest some judicious use of <noinclude> and/or review your links. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiHiero Extension[edit]

I’m not sure who to go to for this, but would it be possible to install mw:Extension:WikiHiero on WS? It is necessary for pages such as this one. Thanks Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 13:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)