# Wikisource:Scriptorium

(Redirected from Wikisource:S)
 ← Community pages Scriptorium Archives→
 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.

# Announcements

Note
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.

# Proposals

## Template and its documentation deletion proposal

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 Its history shows no links to articles or pages, was created in 2012, and superseded by the {{FIS}} template.— Ineuw talk 23:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

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

## Split the scriptorium?

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. 18:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

# BOT approval requests

### request for bot flag on account KasparBot

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:, , , 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)

# Help

## Delete pages from djvu

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

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

## 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica

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

Two affected pages are:

and

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

This is an ongoing issue. Perhaps Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help/Archives/2015#Error:_Numeric_value_expected ought to be dragged back out of the archives and somehow "pinned" here until the underlying problem is resolved? AuFCL (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, provided you know how to pin the item here so that it is not bot-archived. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
You've got me right there. I was hoping somebody else knew how to do that! AuFCL (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Per User:Wikisource-bot#Delaying_or_preventing_archiving_of_particular_threads inserting, e.g. {{DNAU|120}} ought to pin this thread for 120 days. Worth doing? AuFCL (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
see also EB1911 Volume 25 Scan File Corruption note there is a phabricator https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T86611#974012. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 18:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

## Iran nuclear deal

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

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

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

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

## Help is needed for a mysterious hanging indent problem

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

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

## Missing TOC Line

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

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

## Content hierarchy of the American Journal of Sociology

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

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

## Formatting help

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

Firstly, perhaps a better place for the discussion is Index talk:Parsons How to Know the Ferns 7th ed.djvu ?
{{block center/s}}
{|
|-
|{{ts|pr1}}|{{nowrap|GROUP I}}
|{{ts|bb|xs}}|STERILE AND FERTILE FRONDS TOTALLY UNLIKE; FERTILE FRONDS NOT LEAF-LIKE IN APPEARANCE
|-
|}
{{block center/e}}

 GROUP I STERILE AND FERTILE FRONDS TOTALLY UNLIKE; FERTILE FRONDS NOT LEAF-LIKE IN APPEARANCE
 GROUP II FERTILE FRONDS PARTIALLY LEAF-LIKE, FERTILE PORTION UNLIKE REST OF FROND
 GROUP III FERTILE FRONDS UNIFORMLY SOMEWHAT LEAF-LIKE, YET DIFFERING NOTICEABLY FROM STERILE FRONDS
 GROUP IV FERTILE AND STERILE FRONDS LEAF-LIKE AND SIMILAR; SPORANGIA ON OR BENEATH A REFLEXED MARGIN
 GROUP IV FERTILE AND STERILE FRONDS LEAF-LIKE AND USUALLY SIMILAR; FRUIT-DOTS ROUND
Benefits: no hard line-break, no use of deprecated <u> tag, line will only be on the bottom row if the line has to wrap. I think the group description should be left-aligned browser default, but I am open to disagreement. We could also {{nowrap}} the two lines of the description so that if it wraps it will wrap at that specific point. We could also use a hard line-break but I think that is undesireable. Note that if there is a hard line break and the screen width is too small it will be really wonky.—Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

# Other discussions

## Famous passages as separate works

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

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

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

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

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

## No file Index:Economic and Social Council Resolution 2007-25.pdf

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

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

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

I'm not sure of the copyright status in the United States. The Copyright Renewals include
DEAD SOULS, by Nikolay Gogol; translated by Mrs. Edward Garnett [i. e., Constance Black Garnett] (The collected works of Nikolay Gogol, v. 1 and 2) © 23Apr23, (pub. abroad 7Nov22), A704400. R71938, 1Dec50, David Garnett (C)
Which states that its copyright date in the US is 1923, despite, as the Copyright Office made note of, it was published in 1922. Wikilivres would take it, but let me look for other advice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your research and advice. I guess I'll go ahead and get started on it and see how it goes. Mudbringer (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Just a note -- Constance Garnett was British and died in 1946, and the UK is the country of origin, so the work cannot be uploaded to Commons until 2017 since that is when the UK copyright would expire. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I thought. I've uploaded the djvu files to Wikisource here and here. I'll try making the index files tomorrow. Mudbringer (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

## Index:Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices, II (1984).pdf

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

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

## Tech News: 2015-28

15:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

## The World Factbook (1982)

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

## 2015 Wikimania meetup

anyone interested in a wikimania meetup? [7] Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 19:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

## Limitations on author pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. No linking of books to commercial sites.

Agree focus is on linking to free works — billinghurst sDrewth
submitted for further discussion.
N.B. I have created/modified 4 author pages (1, 2, 3, 4) in some detail. I am not sure whether these pages would meet the community consensus. If not, other contributors are welcome to amend the pages. Hrishikes (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Two pros and a con:
• Pro: what about communal research? Most of the above arguments only really work if one contributor makes the basic Author: structure, and nobody else significantly touches that page.
• Con: Isn't it a little bit irresponsible to keep pushing research responsibility out to sister projects (i.e. WP, WD etc.) If this actually worked then eliminate local Author: pages altogether!
• Pro: Sometimes details available "erode" over time. There is nothing sadder than finding out a biography was available years earlier but is no more because the hosting site has gone down, never to be restored. Sometimes another authority might keep backups but not always, or worse keeps archives of dead links. For example: Brite Sparks (biographies of Australian science figures) is long gone although the NLA has some entries still available.
• AuFCL (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I've cut out the promotional material. Is it still objectionable? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
As of now. All those links obscure the two (unlicensed) works on Wikisource. And it's fine to link to Google Books and publishers as reference, but inline like that randomly prioritizes certain sites and obscures the difference between works available and bibliographic information; and linking to works found online dilutes our Free mandate. I guess, I'm looking at a different page; you meant [8]. I don't see the point in removing years and ISBNs. The poetry pushes it into a case I said we might not need to handle now, the case where there's some trivial amount of free work behind more non-free work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
i agree with the not promotional, however, good bibliographies can be hard to find. alternatively, you could also have a style guide = standard list only with isbn, not link to pay or blog sites. (similar to w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies). Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 02:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Always better to have an ISBN and link to Special:BookSources where the reader can pick which external link to follow. 18:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

## Index:British Reptiles, Amphibians, and Fresh-water Fishes.djvu

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

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

## Index:The Pilgrim's Progress.djvu

Concern was previously raised that the new material on the front of this didn't have a clear status. Unless someones able to provide a better date ( checked archive.org which didn't have one, I'm considering putting a Deletion request at Commons, Pilgrims Progress itself is of course Public domain (the Deletion would be solely in relation to the "new material" sushc as the title bindings and [[9]] ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Further to this the R.H Brock identified died in 1943., - http://illustrationartgallery.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/richard-henry-brock.html ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
This would appear to be solely about the notes on Page 6, the index and the fact that theres not date for the edition ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The earlier-thread is here- Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2014-10#Index:The_Pilgrim.27s_Progress.djvu ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The Digital Library of India has 17 copies of this work, pertaining to different years/editions. Which one do you want? Hrishikes (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
One that is clearly and unambiguously in the public domain internationally. As I said the problem's arisen as the specfic edition doesn't have a definitive date. In the previous thread it was certainly suggested that a "clearly dated" edition be found.  :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
1. 1909 (Harvard Classics vol 15 containing The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan and The Lives of John Donne and George Herbert by Izaak Walton)
2. 1904 (1956 reprint, Oxford Standard Authors Series)
3. 1892 (Ward, Lock, Bowden & Co., London)
4. 1908 (Cassell & Co., London-Paris-NY)
5. 1904 (Oxford, 1929 reprint]
6. 1904 (The Pilgrim's Progress, The Holy War and Grace Abounding by John Bunyan, Thomas Nelson & Sons, Lond-Edin-NY)

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

My recomendation is that IF you can show the 1904, Nelson version to be free from copyright restrictions outside the US, that's probably the best bet. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm some of the data you've provided suggest the Nelson version we've got might be a post 1922 reprint version, (sigh) Wasn't able to view scans on the DLI link as it companied about a missing URL's, This needs some more research..
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed, The version we have is from the 1960's, check the address of the US arm on the Colophon page against details here(Thomas Nelson (publisher)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but the plugin required on windows is not "free" software... You tried :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
In your list DLI 2 & 6 are seemingly broken links, and don't show up by searching on Bunyan as an author..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The concern is about the "index" which is not part of the original Bunyan work... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - Index:The pilgrims progress as originally published by John Bunyan ; being a facsimile of the first edition (1878).djvu

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

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

## Tech News: 2015-29

15:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

## Marx in English from USSR

There are some books by Karl Marx, published without year of publication and without names of translators and editors, by the Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, in the Soviet era. I am interested in Notes on Indian History (664-1858) found at https://archive.org/details/notesonindianhis00marxuoft and https://books.google.co.in/books/?id=LQcUAAAAIAAJ. Google Books show the year as 1947, but it is not so. The Publisher's Note mentions that the work was prepared after the Russian version of 1947. So the year can be deemed to be in the 1950s or thereabouts, and the IA version is the second impression. The then Soviet law forbade copyright, and even if current US law deem the work as non-PD, copyright status is difficult to understand, as the translators/editors are not named in the work. So request guidance about whether this is addable here. Hrishikes (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

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

## Broadcast free information from space!

Hi all,

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

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

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

And see their blog post

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

## Transcribing Bilingual Parallel Texts on English Wikisource

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

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

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

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

{{Iwtrans|lang|Page:Book.djvu/72|num=12}}
{{Iwtrans|lang|Page:Book.djvu/74|num=13}}

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

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

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

## Page:Sheet Metal Drafting.djvu/181

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

I would suggest [itex] is not appropriate here and go for a more textual approach. This is not perfect but at least fairly close to what you want?
Source Result
<span style="visibility:hidden;">42</span>√{{overline|487.9347}}|{{underline|22.08+}}<br/>
<span style="visibility:hidden;">42√</span>4<br/>
42|{{overline|{{underline|087}}}}<br/>
<span style="visibility:hidden;">42|0</span>84<br/>
{{underline|4408}}|{{overline|3 9347}}<br/>
<span style="visibility:hidden;">4408|</span>3 5264<br/>
<span style="visibility:hidden;">4408|</span>{{bar|5}}<br/>
<span style="visibility:hidden;">4408|3 </span>4083
`

42487.9347|22.08+
42√4
42|087
42|084
4408|3 9347
4408|3 5264
4408|—————
4408|3 4083

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

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

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

## Tech News: 2015-30

03:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

## Two questions about Swahili Tales

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

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

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

## Commons category in {{plain sister}}

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

Hi Erasmo,

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

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

## For those who like long s

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

## File:William Tell Told Again.djvu

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

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

## Index:Armistice Day.djvu

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

## Index:Sheet Metal Drafting.djvu

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

## Proposal to create PNG thumbnails of static GIF images

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

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

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

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

## Index:1918 Engineer Notebook small.pdf Status check

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

Umm, what is your point? The work is unpublished, and states as such at Commons. That puts the copyright in a completely different space, and it sounds ore like it requires an OTRS permission. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
That was the concern, that it was unpublished. However, given some recent unpleasntness at Commons, I didn't want to start the Commons investigations process until it was clear it was a problem. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the Ancestry source that says 1964? Because Commons says he died in 1961, and refers to this: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=90126972 which is a picture of his grave (or, of course, that of someone else with the same name). Not sure if that changes things re copyright? Also, in case it helps, here's some more info about this particular file: http://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/16gxgp/bought_an_army_engineering_notebook_from_1918_at/Sam Wilson ( ) … 11:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
My mistake, I'd read a 1 as 4 on a small image, Ammended. It doesn't as far as I know change the status if it was previously unpublished.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

## Full page, landscape table

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

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

## Block move requestIndex:Views in India, chiefly among the Himalaya Mountains.djvu

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

The pages that need moving are:

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

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

## Out of Scope articles? =

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Azylicure_14&offset=&limit=500&target=Azylicure+14

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

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

## Tech News: 2015-31

15:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

## Need to edit a copy-protected page

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

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

## EB11, vol. XXVI

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?

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)

## Index:French Polynesia.pdf

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

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

## What does a Healthy Community look like to you?

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

### Why get involved?

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