From Wikisource
(Redirected from Wikisource:SCRIPTORIUM)
Jump to navigation Jump to 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; please see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel webclient. For discussion related to the entire project (not just the English chapter), please discuss at the multilingual Wikisource. There are currently 385 active users here.


Wikilivres is back[edit]

Wikilivres is back at as of October 2020. The original site is now an Amazon book review site --kathleen wright5 (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The website doesn't seem to be fully functional, sadly. Most of the pages seem to redirect back to the main page. JesseW (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Gadget to resolve issues with HTML entities like ' in Page OCR[edit]

There is an issue where some ASCII characters are being replaced by "HTML entity codes" that look like ' in the preloaded OCR text of new pages in the Page namespace.

A quick-fix gadget has been deployed to undo the transformation when new Page-namespace pages are created. This should result in you not noticing any problems. The gadget is enabled by default, so users are opted in automatically. You can turn it off at any time by un-checking the "Automatically convert HTML entities mistakenly replaced in the Page namespace due to phab:T265571." checkbox in your gadget preferences, under the "Editing tools for Page: namespace" section.

For discussion of the issue in general, there is a thread here: Wikisource:Administrators'_noticeboard#OCR_change?. The issue has been reported at Phabricator as phab:T265571 and a fix is likely within a week or so, at which point the gadget will be be removed.

Any issues with the gadget in the meantime can be reported here. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

As a fix was rushed though upstream out-of-cycle, this is no longer required. Thus, it will be made non-default, and the gadget will be removed entirely when the phab:T265571 ticket is closed. If you still see spurious HTML entities on new page creations, turn the gadget on and report at Phabricator. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 12:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
The gadget has now been removed since the upstream fix appears to be working. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


Collective work inclusion criteria[edit]

[This is a proposal stemming from the #Policy on substantially empty works section below.]

Since there has been no more input for a month, here we go. This is only a proposal, so any part of it can be changed, or the whole idea rejected. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for articles[edit]

Some works are composed of multiple parts that can stand alone as independent pages. These works are generally encyclopedias, biographical dictionaries, anthologies and periodicals such as magazines and newspapers and so on. Such "collective works" have slightly different criteria for inclusion in the main namespace. The aim of these criteria is:

  • To allow individually-useful articles, or sets of articles, to be transcribed to the main namespace without requiring active transcription of hundreds of pages of unrelated articles
  • To nevertheless make it easy for other users to "drop in" and add more articles to the work.

To be eligible for inclusion, a component of a collective work (e.g. a single magazine article), should satisfy the following criteria:

  • The component should be "non-trivial" in scope and importance. For example, only a title page or single-paragraph "notice to subscribers" in a magazine is unlikely to be considered useful on its own. However, it would still be part of a full transcription of the rest of the parent unit (e.g. a magazine issue).
  • The work should be scan-backed.
  • Main namespace pages should be created for the work at the top level and any intervening levels (e.g. Volume and Issue/Number ranks should exist). Sometimes, the Issue/Number rank redirects to a section on the Volume page.
  • Front matter of each intervening level the "parent unit" (e.g. a magazine volume and issue) should be transcribed and transcluded
  • A table of contents is required for the parent unit in question. Use {{AuxTOC}} if the original work doesn't contain a TOC.
  • Appropriate infrastructure around the work should exist. This might include internal plain link templates ("lkpl"), dedicated article link templates for use on author pages, formatting templates for repeated formatting elements, etc. All templates should be fully documented.
  • The article should be linked to from any relevant author pages and suitable portals
  • Oppose. An article is a complete work. The only requirement for inclusion should be that it actually is an article. This proposal would result in, for example, the deletion of huge numbers (at least hundreds) of perfectly good short stories and similar articles created over more than a decade for no good reason. I can see no reason for demanding every piece of front matter, which might consist of large quantities of indexes, adverts and other material of no great importance but massive bulk and technical difficulty. Insisting on scan backing would be extremely damaging if a particular article is or should be used as a source for Wikipedia. The need to provide online copies of sources to maintain and improve Wikipedia is overwhelmingly more important than the luxury of scan backing. Requiring the creation of templates would be a crushing burden, because most people do not know how to create them. It is in any event wholly unecessary. Whether the article is linked to is irrelevant to inclusion. I can understand the desire for a main page that links to the article (and even that would take a lot of effort to effect in some cases where a lot of articles have already been created), but the rest is just obstructive. The problem with this proposal is that it would create a massive crushing burden that is wholly unecessary and produces no useful benefit to the project or readers. It is burdensome restrictions for the sake of restrictions. James500 (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Without a system like the one you have described in place, sub-pages of works could be created wantonly without any means of completing the works from which they were derived. If an article, which is a selection from a larger work, is created without any infrastructure, it will be very difficult for other Wikisourcerors to complete the work which has been started, as they will have to find and upload a scan and set up the complicated not-article material without the aid of the person who created the first article. The new system will also make it easier for other contributors to work on smaller parts of a larger work, without worrying about demanding formatting concerns. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC).
    • Content creation should not be described as "wanton". There are means of completing the works from which the sub-pages were derived. If an periodical article is created without so-called infrastructure, it is very easy for other Wikisource editors to complete the work which has been started. It only becomes difficult when someone goes on a deletion spree. And it is massive numbers of nominations that cause problems. James500 (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
      • This page is a fine example of what I refer to. A novel contributor, with no previous involvement with this work, or one like it, would have to generate an entire system for reproducing (transcluding) articles from that work. The example I provide is more complete than other pages, and is much more complete, in relation to the whole work, than a single article. It would be very difficult to add to larger works, where the basis is merely articles or other pages in the state of which I complain. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC).
        Oh sheesh is that happening again. Fully agree with you TE(æ)A,ea that it is wanton and of little value. That content does not belong in main namespace. Main namespace is for transcribed work. Constructs and curation belong in portal namespace. I have created the portal and moved the non-mainspace material. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
        • That page was created more than a year ago. Nothing is "happening again". You did not move the bibliographic information from the mainspace page to the portal. I had to add it to the portal myself. If that important bibliographic information had been deleted by mistake, that is an example of how seriously disruptive the proposed deletion criteria could be. The word "wanton" is needlessly offensive. The primary meaning of the word "wanton" is "sexually promiscuous" and it is applied to other things by analogy. Please do not use that word. James500 (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
          • what's "happening again", is the periodic pearl clutching of the deletionists, who are opposed to an open project, and seek to provide a tl;dr of the "one right way" to do transcription. if a text is useful, and people can work to organize it, then we should include it. put a maintenance category, and move on. making up exclusion rules is a waste of time with the prospect of a growing backlog, or filters turning away newbies. take a look at german wikisource, if you want to know how that turns out. [1] Slowking4Rama's revenge 21:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Inductiveload:

The proposal, as is, would require inhibit the ad hoc transcription of articles from "The Times", eg. The Times/1914 and things linked from {{The Times link}}. Is that in or out of scope for your proposal? Maybe there should be a declaration of some governing principles first. What is looking to be achieved, and indications of what is trying to be stopped. Then we can get onto a structure. I know that we created {{header periodical}} to capture where we have more sporadic collections of articles from newspapers. [Now I could be convinced that such constructions are better to be in the portal namespace rather than main ns.]

Some examples of pages considered problematic would be useful for context. If the proposal is an effort to have articles from a periodical becoming part of a hierarchy of the periodical, ie. subpages, then YES, I fully support that, in contrast to a random root level pages without context to the publication. If the proposal is to set up a fully qualified structure for every periodical where we just want to reproduce one article, then NO. This is self-interest as I regularly want to reproduce an obituary for an author to establish biographical information and we are never going to get all that requisite newspaper construct data, and we are virtually never going to get the scans.

For any newspaper article I have transcribed I will generally do "Periodical name/YYYY/Article name" to give it grounding, and the article would have some "notability". The Times I did an extra hierarchy level. I will accept that there will be early works that I transcribed that may be incomplete by that standard and I would not transcribe them that way today. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

To be eligible for inclusion, a component of a collective work (e.g. a single magazine article), should satisfy the following criteria:

  • The component should be "non-trivial" in scope and importance. For example, only a title page or single-paragraph "notice to subscribers" in a magazine is unlikely to be considered useful on its own. However, it would still be part of a full transcription of the rest of the parent unit (e.g. a magazine issue).
  • The work should be scan-backed.
  • Main namespace pages should be created for the work at the top level and any intervening levels a suitable, logical subpage hierarchy developed (e.g. Volume and Issue/Number ranks should exist). Sometimes, the Issue/Number rank redirects to a section on the Volume page.
  • Front matter of each intervening level the "parent unit" (e.g. a magazine volume and issue) should be transcribed and transcluded
  • A means to navigate the subpages of the work is required; a table of contents is preferred, though alternatives exist. A table of contents is required for the parent unit in question. Use {{AuxTOC}} if the original work doesn't contain a TOC.
  • Appropriate infrastructure around the work should exist. This might include internal plain link templates ("lkpl"), dedicated article link templates for use on author pages, formatting templates for repeated formatting elements, etc. All templates should be fully documented. (additional) Parent template exist to make this readily easy.
  • The article should be linked to from any relevant author pages and suitable portals; (additional) orphaned pages are not acceptable.
    • If an article is orphaned, that is certainly a reason to add links to the relevant author page or portal. It is not a reason to delete the article. Issues that can be addressed in a very straightforward way by adding links to other pages are not suitable for use as deletion criteria. Why would you delete the page instead of just adding the links? This kind of thing belongs in a style guide. I suggest the words "eligible for inclusion" are the problem with some of these criteria. James500 (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
      We are wanting to get people to link. We don't delete a work for lack of a linking, we are not that petty. What that criteria does is limit the transcription and addition of the trivial, linking indicates that it requires some relevance. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @Billinghurst: I mostly agree with your formulation - that's more flexible in the case of newspapers. @TE(æ)A,ea.: has already given an example, but there are several more examples in the #Policy on substantially empty works below.
    • I do still think we should be requiring the front matter, but perhaps only when we have scans. Usually, it's just a title page or issue banner, it usually provides the date and number as in the original and it prevents the main-space page being just a floating TOC: e.g. The Chinese Repository/Volume 1 and The Chinese Repository/Volume 1/Number 1, versus, say, The London Quarterly Review/39 (which doesn't have a scan, so it's kind of fair enough in this case, but if it had a scan, it should get the front matter).
    • I was going to disagree with the removal of the scan section, but if it is downgraded to "if possible", since the current global policy is pretty much "scans if at all possible", it doesn't need to be repeated.
    • For clarification: by "Parent template exist to make this readily easy." do you mean things like Template:Authority/lkpl? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 11:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
      I was meaning template:article link primarily as it is more what we have used for journals. template:authority/link is more aligned to dictionaries and the like. But yes, one of those as the parent template, or used directly. If we have a scan, then yes to front matter, so we can qualify in the regard of its existence.
  • I have a question; let's take Golfers Magazine. I expect that there will be exactly one article ever transcribed from this--Ask the Egyptians, by Rex Stout, an obscure short story by a not so obscure author. I'm glad to provide scans; I think we should demand scans for stuff that wasn't originally published digital. And it will get tucked under a Golfers Magazine/Volume 28/Issue 3/Ask the Egyptians. But how much work do you expect here? I would begrudgingly create a ToC for the issue, but messing with templates seems completely unnecessary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    Personally I think that scans are nice, maybe preferred, not mandatory. Sometimes getting scans is either not possible, or just problematic. I have numerous newspapers to which I can get access through subscription sites, but producing scans to upload is just MEH! especially if I just want an obituary reproduced. (Noting that where I just want a rough transcription or a snippet that these days I put it on an author talk page.) Have a poke at Category:Obituaries for a range sources that myself and others have used.

    For your example, I would have gone for "Golfers Magazine/YYYY/article name" and then slapped down {{header periodical}} at the root level, as we get more years, then we can break it down further. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  • @Prosfilaes:, what I think would be nice here might be:
    • The top level page, pretty much as it is. Doesn't look like there's much more to say about this work.
    • I can't really see any sensible templates (note "might include" in the proposal) to create for this work. It's not a dictionary so it doesn't obviously need a lkpl, and it's not big enough to merit an article link template of its own. Perhaps if all the headers are identical, there could be a formatting helper, but not critically needed.
    • Personally, I'd like to see the cover if there is one and it's "nice" like this one (obviously not a library binding), and the issue header on the issue sub-page, but I can see the argument that it's a bit pointless if there is no intention to transcribe the rest of the issue. The TOC (which already exists in the original work) is something I'd prefer to see if possible, but I do get that it's a bit of an imposition in this case, where only one article is "interesting".
    • A list of the known scans somewhere (90% of periodicals seem to do this in the mainspace, but that's evidently controversial). It looks like Hathi has an incomplete list and the IA has another Google-fied copy of v.12, so in this case probably just what Hathi has. A lot of the time a mish-mash is needed to get a set of links. Uploading is strictly optional - obviously preferred, but we all know how much of a pain it is, and page-listing and checking periodicals is pretty masochistic, so it's absolutely not needed.
    • Again personally, I prefer "Golfers Magazine/Volume 28/Issue 3/Ask the Egyptians" than "Golfers Magazine/1916/Ask the Egyptians" since we might as well put things in the correct place ahead of time and it provides the obvious place for things like front matter. But I know that's not how it's always done, especially for newspapers where the content is often even more sparse, proportionally speaking, than magazines. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
      @Inductiveload: If we can get that data, then that is definitely preferred, and I would think that for journals we would encourage it. For newspapers, I doubt that we are going to get the coverage, and they are just a lot harder due to how those beasts are constructed. Probably a case of differing guidance, and difference tolerances. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

No-content mainspace pages[edit]

This one is probably even more controversial so it's a separate proposal:

Collective works are commonly referenced by other works. Due to this, it is permitted to pre-emptively create the top-level main namespace page to collect incoming links, even when there is no content ready for transclusion. This also allows labour-intensive research into location of scans to be preserved and presented to users even when no transcribed work has been completed. The following is required for such a work:

  • A header with a brief description including active dates, major editors, structure (e.g. series) and so on
  • Redirects from alternative names (e.g. when a work has changed name or is referred to by other names)
  • A listing of volume scans should be added, and it should be as complete as possible, based on availability of scans online. As always, creating Wikisources index pages is preferred, but external scans are acceptable.
  • Creating sub-pages (volumes or issues) should follow the article inclusion criteria. This means a sub-page should not be created if there is no content.
  • Oppose As above these restrictions are an unecessary burden that would produce no real benefit and presumably result in lot of deletions. We do not need lists of editors. We do not need a complete list of volumes. (There may be hundreds of volumes of a particular periodical that have scans. For example, a page with links to scans of twenty volumes should not be deleted because the creator failed to link to scans of another eighty volumes.) Lack of redirects is not a reason to delete these pages either. James500 (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, mostly. Generally speaking, I think that if a periodical changed its name, then there should be a separate page under the new name; however, redirection pages from alternate titles would be preferable. The other requirements are not overmuch burdensome, and would make useful a page that is otherwise empty, due to a lack of transclusions. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC).
    • None of our periodical pages includes the names of the editors, as far as I am aware. Not one. Under this proposal, every single periodical we have would be deleted. Further, it is not possible to include the names of the editors when they are anonymous. James500 (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
      • @James500: "every single periodical we have would be deleted" - or we could make the effort to improve such works as we find them. Generally, an except from Wikipedia or some other source would do just to provide some context. E.g. The Condor vs The Journal of Jurisprudence, which has the dates, but not other useful info, not even the country. For example, even a quick trawl would allow to write something like "The Journal of Jurisprudence was a Scottish law journal published in Edinburgh from 1857 to 1891. The first successful Scottish law journal, it covered all aspects of the Scottish legal system and included editorials, biographies and short articles as well as case law and reporting of legislation. It merged with the Scottish Law Magazine in 1867. It was largely replaced by the Juridical Review in 1891.". The editors aren't particularly obvious here (so they're not "major editors"), but sometimes editors are important to the work's history and are explicitly noted, e.g. All the Year Round or The New-England Courant.
      • Basically, if a page has zero or near-zero transcribed content, in my mind it can edge over the line into acceptable as long as it's providing useful auxiliary bibliographic information, which might also include collation of various names. This is somewhere WS can actually provide value-add - nowhere else online, as far as I know, provides a venue for this information (IA/Google metadata is terrible, OCLC is not very good at periodicals, Hathi is not can't download easily, none are editable, often a complete scan list uses various sources, etc). However, "it was a periodical and here's a handful of raw external links, kthxbai" doesn't quite cut it, even for someone who thinks these pages can be useful like me.
      • I've said it before several times, but the aim here is not, not, not to get all the pages like The Journal of Jurisprudence deleted, but instead figure out what needs to happen to keep them. To me, a decent blurb and a tidy list of volumes and scans will do it, but that's far from consensus. As it stands, as far as I can tell, the only reason half of Portal:Periodicals isn't getting unceremoniously dumped into Portal space (something I personally would like to find an alternative outcome to) is no one really wants to deal with it. We can fix that by coming up with a minimum level which the pages should meet and then fixing them up. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 12:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @TE(æ)A,ea.: about the names, above is an example, where the The Journal of Jurisprudence absorbed the Scottish Law Magazine in 1867. Though technically after the merge TJJ became The Journal of Jurisprudence and the Scottish Law Magazine (e.g. here, but not the title pages), it was still the same work. So in my mind, we could have The Scottish Law Magazine running up to 1867 and then The Journal of Jurisprudence for 1857–1891, with notes about the merge in both headers.
    • Another example of a work that changed name, but remained the same fundamental work is Monthly Law Reporter, which was just The Law Reporter for the first 10 years, and even kept the volume sequencing over the name change (though it added a "new series" number). So The Law Reporter should probably be a redirect. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 12:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
      • The Scottish Law Magazine [and Sheriff Court Reporter] was originally called the Scottish Law Journal and Sheriff Court Record. It has a page already which includes the volumes up to 1867. James500 (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
        • @James500: Then a link to it should have been in the description already. I have added it and expanded the description as above. Feel free to add more details. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Periodical main namespace pages should not contain the curated information of scans, etc., that is the job of the Portal: namespace. Main namespace should only contain published information for works that we have prepared. So under your proposal, the main ns can exist, and it should contain contents of works that we have transcribed, and there should be a corresponding portal: or there can be a constructed Wikisource: project page where there is a project to do the work. This was discussed years ago, and we have been moving those constructs to portal namespace for years. If there is zero content at the page, and we are unlikely to have it, then it can be redlinked, or maybe if it is that obvious then we don't need a link at all, Examples would be useful. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    • You are the only person moving these pages into the portal space. I would like to see a link to the alleged discussion you refer to. James500 (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Billinghurst: I personally don't see huge value in simply shunting just scan links to Portal and leaving them there:
    • It eventually leads to having two parallel volume lists, one with links and one without, sometimes with divergence.
    • It tends to end up with "scratchpad-level" content in Portal, which is supposed to be a nice presentation space.
    • Portals are badly integrated and will probably not be noticed by casual users, or even many Wikisource editors. Especially as the Portal headers never seem to actually link to the mainspace works that exist, but we can fix that.
  • I suggest Portals like Portal:Punch provide some useful value-add, whereas Portal:Notes and Queries does not (yet), and its current content, if anywhere, should be on a WikiProject, just on the mainspace talk page, or even nowhere now all the volumes are uploaded. If the consensus truly is to shunt this all to Portal and move back once there's content, then fine, but I do wonder if that's truly the most ideal strategy. From a pure "only reproduced content in mainspace" angle, perhaps, but does that serve readers best? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs
    @Inductiveload: Main namespace is content for the reader. There is nothing worse for a reader to go to a page and have to drill down multiple pages to find that there is no content just some dashed skeleton of hierarchy. Main namespace is not built to drive transcribers and transcriptions, that is our other content spaces. We can create a page there once we have content to display what we have to read, and point to the portal for what we have to transcribe. It is the reason we put in place the portal namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    I also wish to avoid the really ugly situation of people uploading a work, creating the front page, and then just leaving it for other people. That facadism of a work is just problematic, and we know that nothing happens to it. It is why we developed {{ext scan link}} and {{small scan link}} for use in the author namespace to do that role of managing that list build. So portal and author namespaces play that role and keep main namespace cleaner and more functional. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Billinghurst: I'm not say that we should be creating pre-emptive "empty" hierarchies. I'm saying that I don't really see the point of shunting all the scan links off to a portal where they will basically never be found by anyone who isn't extremely familiar with Wikisource and the mainspace/portal split. If a casual reader, is after, say, Volume 22 of The Atlantic Monthly, for which we have neither scans nor content, do we serve them better by placing a scan link to the IA on the mainpage next to the redlink so that can at least find what they wanted, or is better to have no redlink at all, skip Volume 22 in the list and maybe put the IA link at a portal? If the latter, I'm fairly certain 95%+ of people will just not find that link at WS. We can certainly adopt a stance of if it doesn't exist here, we don't even want casual readers to be presented with an external resource, but that seems slightly walled-gardenish for an open project.
  • "Facadism" is annoying, and it (or the perception of it) is what has brought us to this point via the proposals at WS:PD. As an example from that page, I don't find the concept of the page American Law Review intrinsically offensive in mainspace, even without any content (though perhaps it's a little untidy as-is), but I don't really see the point of American Law Review/Volume 1 as it stands (only a title page and redlinked TOC, though it's a single article away from being useful to me).
    • Notably, I find "facadism" of a collective work much less annoying than, say, only having the preface to a novel. Collective works can have individually-useful things slotted in bit by bit, and if there's a framework around the work, it's even easy to do.
  • And if we do want to ditch this proposal and be strict with Portals in this way, then 1) it needs to be documented that that's how it works (Wikisource:Portal guidelines and Help:Portals don't mention use of Portals for this purpose at all, they focus more on thematic curation) and 2) most existing periodicals need to be converted over: many people reasonably imitate of existing structures, we can't blame them for that.
  • And do we allow redirection from a non-existent mainspace page to the portal so it can be found via "normal" linking until such time as there is content? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The word "facadism" is needlessly offensive and should be deprecated in favour of something that doesn't sound like it refers to habitual dishonesty. I would urge that care be taken when coining neologisms to consider how these words might be taken. James500 (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
    What? It means that there is a face only. Nothing more. There is no offensive with it and I don't even see where you can draw that inference. You are digging to deep or looking for insult. Front-pageism is meh! So unless you can ind a better term can you please AGF. — billinghurst sDrewth 18:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Slowking4[edit]

Naleksuh (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

This notification has been moved from WS:AN to here as it should sit before the whole community not just in front of administrators. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I noticed this too, on Wikimedia Commons this notification also wasn't posted to the village pump and the requesting user seems to conflate "administrators" with "the community". I'd oppose it if I was allowed to, I'm not sure if there is any use to verbalising that here. But is it standard procedure to only notify administrators' noticeboards? -- DonTrung (徵國單)  (討論 🤙🏻) (方孔錢 ☯) 10:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
that is a tell, that the user is probably a socking admin, who privileges the input of admins not editors. you asked years ago, why i did not go over to simple, and this incident is why. Slowking4Rama's revenge 15:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
For the record: This discussion was closed yesterday at meta as "No consensus". Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Bot approval requests[edit]

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

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

Index:A pronouncing and defining dictionary of the Swatow dialect, arranged according to syllables and tones.djvuIndex:Dictionary of the Swatow dialect.djvu and related pages/transclusions[edit]

Request to shorten this hideously long file name.

See Index talk:A pronouncing and defining dictionary of the Swatow dialect, arranged according to syllables and tones.djvu#Title of the book; c:Commons talk:File renaming#Renaming a file to have a shorter name?.

The file on Commons has already been renamed. Suzukaze-c (talk) 09:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

👋 Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Better if someone makes a bot to quickly move everything. If this request is not done in a timely matter, the file on Commons may have to be reverted to display related pages/transclusions, like what once happened to File:UNTS 1.pdf--Jusjih (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Done for Index/Page and transclusion. It is not clear if also Main ns pages shall be renamed. Pls clarify.Mpaa (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@Mpaa: Yes, the Main pages should be renamed too. Suzukaze-c (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c: Done. Mpaa (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
@Mpaa: Wonderful; thank you so much! Suzukaze-c (talk) 06:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Index:UNTS 1.pdfIndex:UN Treaty Series - vol 1.pdf and related pages/transclusions[edit]

This hideously short file name should be lengthened only if someone makes a bot to quickly move everything and coordinates with Commons where the renaming has been reverted pending any viable way to quickly move everything.--Jusjih (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. Mpaa (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Index:United Nations Treaties and international agreements registered - Volume 221 (13 November 1955 - 30 November 1955).pdfIndex:UN Treaty Series - vol 221.pdf and related pages/transclusions[edit]

This hideously long file name should be shortened only if someone makes a bot to quickly move everything and coordinates with Commons where the renaming has been declined pending any viable way to quickly move everything.--Jusjih (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I have done the moves at WS but need someone with admin rights at Commons to move the file. Mpaa (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I as an admin on Commons just renamed the file. Thanks so much for your effort.--Jusjih (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Other discussions[edit]

PD-anon-1923 again[edit]

The discussion of Happy Public Domain Day! has slipped into the archives without getting into some conclusion, so I would like to remind that the last suggestion in the above mentioned discussion was to create {{PD-US|year of death}} and deprecate {{PD/1923}} and {{PD-anon-1923}}. Is this solution OK?

BTW: if we decide to keep calling the license templates for pre-1925 works {{PD/1923}} and {{PD-anon-1923}}, it would be necessary at least to adapt the latter one so that it could be used for 1924 anonymous works too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support the change — I don't really care but it makes sense —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support likewise —Nizolan (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because the name emphasizes US. The point of the templates is to cover both US status and international status. A template that names the US will cause confusion, especially to newcomers. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    @EncycloPetey: So under your opinion, fixing a math wrong do even require consensus? Without consensus we should believe 1+1=3 rahter than 1+1=2? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
    Changes to established templates require consensus. We've had previous discussions and the community is divided on the issue concerning these templates. Proceeding with a change when the community has expressed such division is inappropriate because of the community discussion, not because of my opinion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. We are US-centric in our copyright approach. Given the number of times I've had to look up these type of templates here and on Commons, I might buy the idea that we should copy them, but otherwise, I think this is going to be as non-confusing as we get.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In your proposal, how do we code the year of the author's death for anonymous works? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    I am afraid I do not understand the question: anonymous works do not have any known author. I propose that for anonymous works we would have a template with similar wording as {{PD-anon-1923}}, but it would be called {{PD-anon-US}}. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    That's also problematic, because the US is just one place that we display license information for. The current template displays that information for both the US and for countries with 95 years pma. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If there is a consensus to act, my recommendation is that we just move/rename the templates

  • pd/1923|yyyy -> PD-US|yyyy, yyyy=YoD, displays two templates as now
  • PD-1923 -> PD-US, where no $1 parameter it displays the one template
  • PD-anon-1923 -> PD-anon-US|yyyy, year of publication

and update the documentation around the place. Do any internal required tidying around internals of templates, and fixing double redirects. No need to deprecate anything, just move to the new nomenclature, and not worry about any of the old usage, or anyone continuing its use, as it matters not. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Firstly, because of the US emphasis. Yes, we follow US copyright law, but we also serve an international readership, not to mention contributors who are also bound by the copyright laws of other countries. Secondly, I think replacing "PD-1923" with "PD-US" is confusing. "PD-US" sounds like a generic template for "this work is PD in the US", but under this proposal it would mean "this work is PD in the US for the specific reason that it was published more than 95 years ago". BethNaught (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    I do not understand in what way "the readership" is concerned in this… They see only the text of the template which is going to stay the same. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not think that the suggested name of the template is more American-centred than the old one. E.g. {{PD/1923|1943}} has got two parts: "1923" is the American part referring to the American copyright laws, and the parameter "1943" is international referring to the countries where PD depends on the year of death. Nothing would change, only the American part would be called "US" instead of the nowadays non-sensical 1923, I really do not see any problem in that. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    @BethNaught: The thing is that the only consideration we give to copyright compliance with regard to hosting is to the US copyright. Unlike Commons, we don't really care whether it is copyright in the country of origin. It is for this reason that I am reasonably comfortable with just stating PD-US and variants. The additional PD-old-70 and variants are for information only. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think this is an important issue, and I'd like to weigh in. I'm probably as familiar as (almost) any Wikimedian with the considerations around copyright law in various countries. But I do not see a clear statement of what the problem is that we're aiming to solve, or what the pros and cons are. I'm sure if I took an hour or two to dig through various archives, I could probably figure it out, but I'm not likely to have the time for that...nor should we expect every voter to do that. So given all that, I'm inclined to gently oppose, simply because I can't figure out what's going on, and it seems unwise to make a change that is difficult for community members to evaluate. Is it possible to sum up the issues more concisely so that I can give it more proper consideration, without having to do all the research myself? -Pete (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    The problem I see is this: Until 1923 it made quite a good sense to have a template called PD-1923, because it referred to the fact that only pre-1923 works are in the public domain. However, the situation has changed, currently the time border is 1925-01-01 (or 1924-12-31) and it shifts every year. I perceive it as very confusing to call the template for pre-1925 works PD-1923 (why 1923???). At the same time it does not make sense to change the name of the template every year (PD-1923, …, PD-1925, …), it would be better to find a fitting universal name. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    Ah, that's very helpful @Jan.Kamenicek:, thank you. I had misunderstood, I thought you were proposing a change to the functionality in addition to the name change.
    I agree that changing the name (a) such that it specifies "US" and (b) such that it references the 95 year rule, rather than the (now outdated) 1923 rule would be worthwhile. I agree with others that we should be cautious about US centrism; but the reality is, with a current title that assumes that it relates to US law, without stating it, we already have a high degree of US centrism in the title. In my view, it's better to state "US" as part of the name, to make it clear to editors (who are the primary audience for a template name) that it's about US law. So, my suggestion would be {{PD-US-95}} or similar. That conveys that it's about US law, and it's about the 95 year rule. Text on the template page/docs could clarify that the 1923 rule is now outdated, and subsumed under the 95 year rule.
    A related issue that I find confusing: I don't understand why we need two separate templates for {{PD-1923}} and {{PD/1923}}. I think this proposal only relates to the latter; would we be leaving PD-1923 intact? A decision on this is probably a matter for a separate discussion, but I'd like to know for sure what the intent of this proposal is. -Pete (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    PD-1923 has no decision-making applies just a single template, it does not add the PD-old-nn variants. It has been utilised where we have been unable to determine a date of death, or for corporate publications which do not have PMA decisions. I addressed above that they would morph into PD-US, though we would need to handle them as parameterless. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
    Jan, that's not quite correct. Works published before 1923 are still in PD in the US for the same reason they were before. The 1923 date was a cutoff date beyond which we have never had to check. What has changed is that works that were under copyright later than that (from 1923 and 1924), and had their copyright renewed at one point, have now had that copyright protection expire. The works published before 1923 were not eligible for renewal and entered PD for a different reason than the works published in 1923 and 1924. It is one view to see the date as a shifting cutoff, but the cause of works from 1923 and 1924 entering public domain is actually different from those that were published prior to 1923. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
    All works published more than 95 years ago are out of copyright because of the time since publication, no matter whether that's due to copyright notices, or renewals, or being in copyright for a full long term. For a work published before 1923, we've never been concerned about copyright notices or renewals, nor how long work published with copyright notice and renewal got in copyright. Why does it matter that a work published in 1924 may have got 95 years of copyright, whereas a work published in 1922 may have only got 75, when we don't really care about that 95 or 75 in the first place? We have no tag for "published abroad before non-US works got copyright in the US in 1891", because we don't care; it has always been sufficient for our purposes to say that it was published before 1923, and I don't see why it is not now sufficient to say that it was published more than 95 years ago.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Prosfilaes: I am presuming that this is in reference to the primary notice about copyright within the US, not the secondary notice for PD-old-nn which relates to copyright elsewhere in the world. The secondary notice can still apply for those of us not in the US, which is why we added it. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, the primary notice. There's no need to worry about now-historical features of non-US countries, but certainly helpful to list the years since death.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
    Yes and no. There are authors who have works published prior to 1925 who died late enough to still have works in copyright in their home country, so those notices are still very pertinent per Category:Media not suitable for Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
    Right; I didn't mean to imply we should change the current secondary notices.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support U.S. copyright is of primary concern to Wikisource. Fixing the license so more 1923 and 1924 works appear on Wikisource even if still under copyright in other countries is so important. Abzeronow (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as this seems like the least problematic solution to the problem, and it doesn't make sense for us to keep delaying a resolution. Kaldari (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It looks as though some people are hedging their bets: arguing for deprecating the template on the one hand but arguing for improving the template on the other. Since the template content has now changed, before this discussion has concluded, then proceduraily we should recast all votes, since the template named in this discussion thread no longer has the content it had at the start of this discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
    Hedging their bets? It is somehow improper to try and improve Wikisource for now, whether or not this template gets deleted? If we're going to get pedantic about policy, where is it written on the English Wikisource that we should recast all votes?--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
    No need to restart the votes, as the changes have been reverted. The template is the same as it was before the voting started. No changes should be made to any template if there is a discussion and voting ongoing about its future. If the changes were allowed and at the same time we would have to restart the voting after every change, we may never come to a conclusion; not everybody has time to vote about the same problem again and again. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If there must need a consensus to fix math wrongs, let it be. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please note that the new date, 1925, applies to all works except sound recordings (and maybe architecture). The date for sound recordings is 1923. That isn't shown in the local summary of the Hirtle chart, but is in the original. (I dropped a more detailed comment below.)--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Policy on substantially empty works[edit]

[This is imported from WS:PD, where it applies to multiple current proposals, and several other works].

We have quite a few cases of works that are "collective" or "encyclopaedic" in that they comprise many standalone articles of individual value, which are basically just "shell pages", with no substantial content of any sort, not even imported scans or Index pages. For example, and this isn't intended to make any statement about these specific works, they're just examples and they may well get some work done soon during their respective WS:PD discussions:

Based on the usual rate of editing for things like that, unless dragged up into a process like WS:PD, they'll remain that way a very, very long time. I think it is perhaps there might be a case to host a mainspace page for this work, even though there is zero, or almost zero actual content. Do we want:

  • Mainspace pages where this is a tiny bit of information like header notes, scan links and maybe detective work on the talk page (not in this case). This provides a place for people to incrementally add content. Also gives "false positive" blue links, since there is actually no "real" content from the work itself, or
  • Do not have a mainspace page until there's some content. Only host this in terms of scan links author/portal scan links, much like we do for something like a novel.

Personally, I lean (gently) towards #2, but with a fairly low bar for how much content is needed. Say, Indexes, basic templates, a title page and one example article. Ideally, a completed TOC if practical, especially for periodical volumes/numbers. It is fair to not wish to transcribe entire volumes of these work, it is fair to not want to import dozens of scans when you only wanted one, it is fair to only want an article or two, but it's not fair, IMO, to expect the first person who wants to add an article to have to do all the groundwork themselves, despite having been lured in with a blue link. That onus feels more like it should be on the person creating the top-level page in the first place.

I do see some value in periodical top pages with decent lists of volumes and scans where known, because these are often tricky and fiddly to compile from Google books/IA/Hathi, so it's not useless work, even if there are no imported scans (though imported is better than not).

We currently have a large handful of collective works listed for deletion right now in various levels of "no real content", and, furthermore, every single periodical that gets added can fall into this situation unless the person who adds, so I think we could have a think about what we really want to see here. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  • I believe that, if there is no scan as an Index: page, the main-namespace page should not exist unless it is being actively completed or is already mostly completed. A few pages (of the volume itself) is not very helpful, and is entirely useless if their is no scan given. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC).
  • I think such preparatory information would ideally be on more centralized WikiProject pages (for the broad subject), both for clarity and to assist in keeping different efforts consistent -- but that it certainly should be retained as visible to non-admins. I think that the red vs blue link issue is minor (but not totally negligible) and outweighed by the disadvantages of hiding the history of previous efforts. I strongly encourage redirecting such pages to appropriate WikiProject pages (after copying over the details there). JesseW (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @JesseW: I agree that history shouldn't be deleted, but I think we should approach this in terms of what we want to see from these works, rather than what to do with the handful of examples at PD. There are hundreds of periodicals we could have but don't, and this applies to those as well. If we can come to a conclusion about what is and isn't wanted, we can make all the deletion requested works conform to that easily enough. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 20:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think these pages are necessary to list index pages and external scans of multi-volume works (such as encyclopaedias and periodicals) especially if they are wholly or partly anonymous or have many authors or are simply large. I think it makes no difference whether such pages are in the mainspace, the portal space or the project space (except that it is harder to find pages outside the mainspace). The point is that these works often have so many volumes (often dozens or hundreds) that they must have their own page, and cannot be merged into a larger portal or wikiproject. If the community starts insisting on index pages, what will happen is the rapid upload of a large number of scans for the periodicals that already have their own page. Likewise if the community insists on transclusion. I also think it is reasonable to have a contents page in the mainspace, as it allows transclusion of articles. Most importantly, new restrictions should not immediately apply to existing pages that were created before the introduction of the restrictions. This is necessary to prevent a bottleneck. James500 (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
move the works to a maintenance category, and i will work them; delete them and i will not: i find your sword of Damocles demotivating. Slowking4Rama's revenge 01:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
@User:Slowking4: I am not proposing a sword of Damocles. I agree that the imposition of deadlines is counter-productive. I do not support the deletion of any of these pages. I would prefer to see them improved. James500 (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
TEA is on his usual deletion spree. not a fan. will not be finding scans to save texts, any more. he can do it. Slowking4Rama's revenge 00:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
The entire point of moving this here, and not staying at WS:PD is to decouple from the emotions that get stirred up in a deletion discussion. Let's keep deletion out of this. If we come up with some idea of what we do and don't want, then we can go back to WS:PD and decide what to do. I imagine that all that will be needed will be a fairly limited amount of housework to bring those works up to some standard that we can decide on here, and all the collective works there will be easy keeps. Hopefully with some kind of consensus that we can point at to outline a minimum viable product for such works going forward. There are hundreds and thousands of dictionaries, encyclopedias, periodicals and newspapers that we could/will, quite reasonably, have only snippets of. How do we want to present them? What, exactly, is the minimum threshold? Let's head of all those future deletion proposals off at the pass, because deletion proposals often cause friction. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 00:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
and yet deletion is the default method to "motivate" quality improvement. i reject your assertion that "emotions get stirred in a deletion discussion", rather, anger is a valid response to a repeated broken process being kicked down on the volunteers. it is unclear that a minimum threshold is necessary, rather a functional quality improvement process is. until we have one, you should expect to see this periodic stirring of emotions, as the non-leaders act out. Slowking4Rama's revenge 11:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@Slowking4: Thank you for presenting this opinion, and I'm sorry if I have not made myself clear. We do need to figure out how to avoid a de-facto process of using WS:PD as an ill-tempered ad-hoc venue for "forcing" improvements on people who have somehow managed to generate works that are so in need of improvement that another user has nominated them for deletion. Please also consider looking at #Re-purpose_WikiProject_OCR_to_WikiProject_Scans for an idea to have a "functional quality improvement process" to which such works could be referred upon discovery rather than kicking them straight to WS:PD. If you have other ideas or you have previously suggested something similar to address these frustrations, you could detail them there. Personally, I think we should always prefer improvement over deletion. Exactly what the remediation is (refer to a putative WP:Scans, WS:Scriptorium/Help, directly WS:PD as now, or something else) is not what this thread is for. This thread is for discussing, what, if anything, should be the tipping point for deeming a page "lacking" and doing something about, whatever "something" is. I don't think I can be much clearer that this is not about deletion. If we also have a better venue for improvements, then that's even better.
For example, my personal feeling and !vote on A Critical Dictionary of English Literature is "keep and improve", despite it lacking scans or even links to scans, having only one article and no other content, not even a title page: in short, failing almost every criterion suggested so far in this thread. The only thing it does have is have is good text quality of the one entry. I personally do not think this work should be deleted, but I do think it should be improved in specific ways. The first half of that sentence is not the focus of this discussion, the second half is. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
deletion threat has been an habitual method of communicating by admins since the beginning of the project. and text dumps have been habitual following in the guttenberg example. culture change and process change would be required to change those behaviors. we could may it easier to start scan backed works, but the wishlist was not supported. Slowking4Rama's revenge 21:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this needs to be much of an issue going forward -- we all agree that it's OK to create Index pages for scans, even if none of the Pages have been transcribed yet; so the only case where this would come up is recording research where no scan has yet been identified as suitable to be uploaded. And for that, I still think a WikiProject page is the right location, not mainspace. (Or, if you must, your userpage.) JesseW (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC) I realized I may not have been clear enough here -- in my view, the ideal process goes like this:

  1. Decide on a work you are interested in (in this case, a periodical/encyclopedic one) -- don't record that anywhere on-wiki (except maybe your user page)
  2. Find and upload (to Commons) a scan of one part/issue/etc of the work.
  3. Create a ProofreadPage-managed page in the Index: namespace for the scan. (You can stop after this point, without worry that your work will later be discarded.)
    1. Put further research (on other editions, context, possible wikification, etc.) on that Index_talk page.
    2. Proofread a complete part of the scan (an article from the magazine issue, a chapter from the book, a entry from an encyclopedia, etc.) and transclude it to the mainspace (and create necessary parent pages), and put the further research on the Talk: page of the parent mainspace entry.

If you can't find any scan, and don't want to leave your working notes on your user page, put them on a relevant WikiProject's page.

If you come across such research done by others and misplaced, follow the above process to relocate it to an appropriate place, then redirect the page where you found it to the new location. That's my proposal. JesseW (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@JesseW: It's not clear to me in your above whether when you use the term "index" you refer to a ProofreadPage-managed page in the Index: namespace, or a general wikipage in the main namespace on which an index-like structure (and/or a ToC, or similar) is manually created. Could you clarify? --Xover (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I meant the namespace. Clarified now. JesseW (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Hoo-boy. Y'all sure know how to pick the difficult issues…
    My general stance is that: 1) scans and Index: (and Page:) namespace pages have no particular completion criteria to meet to merit inclusion, and can stay in whatever state indefinitely (there may be other reasons to get rid of them, but not this); and 2) the default for mainspace is that only scan-backed complete and finished works that meet a minimum standard for quality should exist there.
    That general stance must be nuanced in two main ways: 1) there must be some kind of grandfather clause for pre-existing pages; and 2) there must exist exceptions for certain kinds of works that meet certain criteria. I won't touch on the grandfather clause here much, except to say I'm generally in favour of making it minimal, maybe something like "No active effort to get rid of older works, but if they're brought to PD for other reasons they're fair game". The design of a grandfather clause for this is a whole separate discussion, and an intelligent one requires analysis of existing pages that would be affected by it. It is always preferable to migrate pages to a modern standard, so a grandfather clause is by definition a second choice option.
    Now, to the meat of the matter: the exceptions…
    We have a clear policy to start from: no excerpts. Works should either be complete as published, or they should not be in mainspace. But quite apart from the historical practices that modify this (which are somewhat subjective and inconsistent, so I'll ignore them for now), there are some fairly obvious cases that suggest a need for more nuance than a simple bright-line rule alone provides. The major ones that come to mind are: 1) massive never-completed projects like EB1911 or the New York Times (EB because it's big; NYT because new PD issues are added every year); 2) compilations or collections of stand-alone works with plausible claim to independent notability.
    For encyclopedias and encyclopedia-like things, we have to accept some subsets due to sheer scale of work. But when that is the grounds for exception, there needs to be some minimum level of completion. I'm not sure I can come up with a specific number of pages/entries or percentage, but it needs to be more than just a single entry (and, obviously, only complete entries). For this kind of exception to apply, I think it needs to be a requirement that the framing structure for it is complete: that is, the mainspace page should give a complete overview of the relevant work even if most of it is redlinks. That includes title pages and other prolegomena when relevant. For a periodical like the NYT, that means complete lists of issues with dates and other such relevant information (e,g. name changes etc.). For preference, these kinds of things should be in Portal: namespace or on a WikiProject page until actually complete, but that will not always be practical (EB1911 and NYT are examples of this). Mainspace or Portal:-space should never contain external links (i.e. to scans) or links to Index: or Page: space (except the implied link of transclusion and the "Source" tab in the MW UI provided by ProofreadPage).
    For exception claimed under independent notability there are a couple of distinct variants.
    Newspaper or magazine articles need to have a certain level of substance in addition to a specific identifiable byline (possibly anonymous or pseudonymous, and possibly identified after the fact by some other source, such as the Letters of Junius) in order to qualify. It is not enough to ipso facto be a newspaper article, a magazine article, a poem, or an encyclopedia entry. On the one hand we have things like dictionaries and thesauri, where an entry could be as little as two words. Or a one-sentence notice without byline in a newspaper. Or two rhymed lines (technically a poem) within a 1000-page scholarly monograph.
    To merit this exception it should be reasonable to argue that the "work" in question should exist as a stand-alone mainspace page (not that we generally want that; but as a test for this exception, it should be reasonable to make such an argument). This would clearly apply to moderately long entries in the EB1911 written by a known author that has their own Wikipedia article. It would apply to short stories or novella-length serialisations in literary magazines by authors that have later become famous (or "are still …"). It would apply to various longer-form journalistic material from identifiable journalists (again, rule of thumb is notable enough for enWP article), including things in magazines that have similar properties. For most periodicals the most relevant atomic (indivisable) part is the issue not the entry or article, but with some commonsense exceptions.
    It would, generally, not apply to things that are works by a single author, like a scholarly monograph that just happens to be arranged in "entries" rather than chapters. It would not apply to things that are essentially lists or tables of data. It would not apply to short entries in something encyclopedia-like or entries that are not by an identifiable author. The OED for example, iirc, is a collective work where entries are by multiple not individually identifiable authors (and each entry is mostly very short too); only the overall editor is usually cited.
    For works claiming this exception too the framing structure should be complete, even if most of it are redlinks. The same general rules about Portal:/WikiProject and no external or Index:-space links apply. An exception would be for periodicals where new issues enter the public domain every year; and we should generally avoid including even redlinks for the non-PD issues here (but may allow them in a WikiProject page). For non-periodical works in multiple volumes where some volumes were published after the PD cutoff, including listings for the non-PD volumes (but not links to scans; those are a copyvio issue) is ok.
    Poems, short stories, and novellas are a special class of works here. A lot of these were first published in a magazine (possibly serialized), and a lot of them exist as multiple editions in substantially the same form. Some exist in multiple versions. These should all primarily exist the same way as chapters as part of their various containing works; but there are some cases where we might want to have, for example, a series of connected pages of the poems of Emily Dickinson. I am significantly ambivalent about this practice, as it amounts to making our own "edition" or "collection" of her poems (in violation of several of our other policies), but I acknowledge that it is an established practice and it is something that has definite value to our readers. It may be that it is actually a practice that should be governed by its own dedicated policy rather be attempted to be handled within these other general policies.
    For the sake of example; applying this to the works Inductiveload listed at the start of this thread would shake out something like this:
    Auction Prices of Books—This work appears to have no sensible subdivisions and is in any case by a single author. I see no obvious reason to grant this work an exception, except under sheer volume of work and even there I would want to see both a substantial proportion completed and some kind of ongoing effort towards completion (no particular time frame, but definitely not infinite and definitely not as an effectively abandoned project). In a deletion discussion I would very likely vote to delete the mainspace pages here (but, as nearly always, to keep the Index: and Page: namespace artifacts). I don't see this as a reasonable candidate for a Portal:, nor really a good fit for a WikiProject (though I probably wouldn't object to a WikiProject if someone really wanted one).
    Central Law Journal/Volume 1—A single volume is too little, so I would want to see a complete structure for the entire Central Law Journal, with level of detail for each volume similar to the one existing volume. Each article in the journal can be individually considered for a stand-alone work exception; but for the collection I would want to see at minimum a full issue finished to justify having the mainspace structure, and preferably multiple issues (in a deletion discussion I might insist on multiple issues). Index: and Page:-space artefacts can, of course, stay. A Portal: might make sense for selections from the journal, of articles that meet the standalone work exception. A WikiProject to coordinate work and track links to scans etc. might be a decent fit here, if someone wanted that. As it currently stands I would probably vote delete for the mainspace artefacts (with option to move whatever content has reuse value to a non-mainspace page for preservation; and undeleting if someone wants to work on something is a low bar).
    A Critical Dictionary of English Literature—The top level mainspace page has near-zero value, existing only to link to the single transcribed entry. For a credible claim to exception to exist it would need to be a complete framework for the work as a whole, and significantly more than a single entry must be complete. I would probably also want to see ongoing work, unless a substantial percentage of the entries were complete. The single finished entry is eligible to claim a standalone work exception, but I think it probably would not meet my bar for that (I might be wrong; and the rest of the community might judge it differently). In a deletion discussion I would probably vote to delete all the mainspace artifacts here (as always keeping Index:/Page: stuff) but with a definite possibility that I might be persuaded on the one completed entry (an absolute requirement for convincing me would be to scan-back it: as a separate issue, my tolerance for grandfathering of non-scan-backed works is small, and effectively zero for new/non-grandfathered works).
    Bradshaw's Monthly Railway Guide—Would need a full framework and a number of individual issues finished to merit a mainspace page. I see no credible subdivisions for a standalone work exception, but might be persuaded otherwise if, say, one of the train tables was used as a (reliable primary) source in a Wikipedia article (implying some sort of notability beyond just being raw data). In a deletion discussion I would probably vote to delete all mainspace artifacts here. If anyone made the argument, I would entertain the notion that there is value in treating train tables like poems, and hosting a series of train tables like we do Dickinson's poems; but that would require a substantial number of them completed.
    For everything above my stance is nuanced by a willingness to accept temporary exceptions for things that are actively being worked: active being operative, but with no particular deadline to complete the work. We have differing amounts of time available, and some works are so labour-intensive or tedious to do, that my person threshold for "active" is a pretty low bar to clear. If it's months and years between every time you dip in and do a bit I might start to get antsy, but days or weeks probably won't faze me. And that the projected time to completion is very long at that pace is not particularly a problem so long as it is not infinite. Within those parameters I would always tend to err on the side of letting contributors just get on with it in peace, regardless of any of the policy-like rules sketched above.
    I also want to emphasise that I think this is a very difficult issue to deal with. There are a lot of competing concerns, and a lot of grey areas that will likely take individual discussions to resolve. My balance point on this issue is partly formed by a broader concern about our overall quality (we have waay too many works of plain sub-par quality, and too many not up to modern standards) and a hope that by preventing the creation of these kinds of works (rather than deleting them after creation) we will be able to retain the good and desirable exceptions without dragging down quality, and without the traumatic and stressful events that deletions and proposed deletion discussions are.
    And for that very reason I am grateful this issue was brought up here for discussion, and I hope we can end up with some clear guidance, possibly in the form of a policy page, going forward. And in any case, since it will create de facto policy, this is a discussion that needs to stay open for a good long while (there are several community members that have not yet commented whose opinion I would wish to hear before closing this), and depending on how well we manage to structure the consensus, may also require a formal vote (up in the #Proposals section). --Xover (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. It is becoming clear that a policy on incomplete works in the mainspace is going to place enormous pressure on individual editors. I think it would be more effective to start a wikiproject devoted to scan-backing works that lack scans and so on. James500 (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @James500: FYI, this thread was made in order to provide an exception to the current policy of "no excerpts". A literal reading of the policy as it stands has a plausible chance of coming down delete on the mainspace pages over at WS:PD. This thread is a chance to come up with a better way to support such partial collective works. That we have several substantially incomplete and abandoned collective works lolling around in mainspace is actually the result of laxity in respect to stated policy (not to say I think it's a bad thing). The deletion proposals, whatever you may think of them, are actually not in contradiction to policy. That said, as always, there is scope to adjust policy. Which is what this is.
    • Now, in terms of a WikiProject to scan back works, I think that is a good idea. See #Re-purpose_WikiProject_OCR_to_WikiProject_Scans above, which proposed to reboot Wikiproject OCR as a scan-backing Wikiproject. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • The policy says "When an entire work is available as a djvu file on commons and an Index page is created here, works are considered in process not excerpts." A literal reading of that policy is that no scan-backed work is an excerpt (it is expected to be completed eventually). Further the policy refers to "Random or selected sections of a larger work". A literal reading of that expression is that it does not include lists of scans, or auxilliary content tables, as they are not "sections" (they are not part of the work), and that not every incomplete portion of a work is either "random or selected" (which would not include starting from the beginning and getting as far as you can, with intent to finish later). I could probably argue that an encyclopedia article or periodical article is a complete work. James500 (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Nice wall of text, Xover (and I say that with great respect!) -- it generally makes sense and sounds good to me. As another hopefully illustrative example, take The Works of Voltaire, which I've been digging thru lately. I think this would very much satisfy your criteria as a large work, with sufficient scaffolding to justify the mainspace pages that exist for it. I would love to hear others thoughts on that. JesseW (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    @JesseW: Yeah, apologies for the length. Brevity is just not my strong suit.
    The Works of Voltaire probably qualifies on sheer scale of work, yes. I don't think the current wikipage at The Works of Voltaire is quite it though: as it currently stands it is more WikiProject than something that should sit in mainspace (its contents are for Wikisource contributors, to organise our effort, not our readers, who want to read finished transcriptions). It also mixes a work page with a versions page in a confusing way. So I would probably say… Move the current page to Wikisource:WikiProject Voltaire; create a new The Works of Voltaire as a pure versions page, linking to…; The Works of Voltaire (1906), that is set up as a work page with the cover and title (and other relevant front matter) of the first volume, and an AuxTOC (and possibly also the {{Works of Voltaire}} volume navigation template). I don't know how tightly coupled the volumes of this edition are (does the first volume have a common ToC or index of works for all the volumes?), so some flexibility on format may be needed to make sense. But as a base rule of thumb it should start from a regular works page and deviate only as needed to accommodate this work (mainly the size is different).
    In any case… With a volume or two completed (they're only ~350 pages each) I'd be perfectly happy having something like that sitting around. With less then that I'd possibly be a bit more iffy, but it's hard to put any kind of hard limit on that. And with somebody actively working on it I'd be in no hurry whatsoever regardless of current level of completion.
    PS. I'm pretty sure a large proportion of the contents of these volumes are works that would qualify under "standalone works" that could exist independently in mainspace, regardless of what's done with the The Works of Voltaire page. Even his individual poems and essays can presumably make a credible claim here (because it's Voltaire; less famous authors would have a higher bar). Better as part of the edition, but also acceptable on their own. --Xover (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @JesseW: I personally take no issue with this page's existence (actually I think it's a nice work and good way to allow an important author's works to be slotted in piece-by-piece. I have some general comments which overlap with this thread (written before Xover's reply, so pardon overlap):
    • First off, I differ with Xover in terms of the scan links: I think they're better than nothing, and I don't see much value in duplicating the volume list onto an auxiliary page just to add scan links. However, I can sympathise with the sentiment that our mainspace shouldn't direct users off-wiki (or at least off-WMF). But if we don't have the scans, and that's what the user wants, they're leaving anyway. Real answer: import moar scans!
    • No scan links are necessary where the volume exists in mainspace and is scan-backed (e.g. v3)
    • Ext scan links should only be used when there is no Index page or imported scan. Use {{small scan link}} or {{Commons link}} when possible (e.g. v2)
    • The first volume list could probably be in an AuxTOC to mark it out as WS-generated content.
    • The "Other editions" section belongs on an auxiliary namespace page (Talk, Portal or Wikisource). I suggest the Talk page is best in this case. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Xover: I am in agreement with the majority of what you say. Particularly, I think a framework around any collective work (be it a single-volume biographical dictionary or a 400-issue literary review spanning 80 years) is the critical prerequisite, plus at least some scans, the more the merrier. Where I think I differ:
    • I am inclined to be a bit more relaxed in terms of how much of a work we need. As long as a single article exists, it's not "trivial" (e.g. only a short advert or some incidental text like a "note to correspondents", as opposed to an actual article), it's well-formatted and scan-backed, and a complete framework exists, including front matter and a TOC, such that's it is easy for anyone to slot in new pieces, I'd be fairly happy. Lots of periodicals have all sort of tricky bits like tables of stocks or weather tables and writing into policy that those must be proofread in order to get the "real" articles into mainspace would be a chilling effect, in my opinion. If you allowed an exception, it would be verbose and tricky to capture the spirit without saying "unless, like, it's totally, like, hard, man".
    • I am not dead against scan links in the mainspace at the top level, when such a top-level page exists. See my comments on Voltaire above. I am against them where they could sensibly be on an Author page and they are the only mainspace content.
    • I am ambivalent on the presence of, e.g., disjointed train timetables. It's not my thing to have a smattering of random timetables, but as long as they're individually presented nicely, it's not too offensive to my sensibilities. I might question the sanity of someone who loves doing tables that much, but whatever floats the boats! Also, I think that this might circle back to "good for export" - a mark which certainly would require completed issues or volumes. If you want to get that box ticked, you have to do it all.
    • Re the "notability" aspect of individual articles, I'm not really bothered by that, as I don't think we'll see a flood of total dross because few people really want to take the time to transcribe 1867 articles about cats in a tree from the Nowhere, Arizona Daily Reporter, and, actually I think some of the "dross" can be quite interesting in a slice-of-life kind of a way (always assuming well-formed and scan-backed). And the real dross is usually so bad (no scans, raw OCR, etc) that it can be dealt with outside of this topic. I think part of the value of WS is the tiny, weird and wonderful, not just in blockbusters like War and Peace and Pultizers. I think I might like to see more of our articles strung together thematically via Portals, but that's another day's issue. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • @Inductiveload: We appear to be mostly in agreement. But… instead of me dropping another wall of text on the remaining points of disagreement, maybe that means we're in a position to try to hash out a draft guidance / policy type page with the rough framework? Then we could go at the remaining issues point by point. Because I think I'm in with a decent chance to persuade you to my point of view on at least some of them, but this thread is fast getting unwieldy (mostly my fault). It would also probably be easier for the community to relate to now, and much easier to lean on in the future. --Xover (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • @Xover: If there are no more comments forthcoming after a couple of days, I think that makes sense. I don't want to railroad it: considering we have at least one !vote for "do nothing", I'd like to see if there are any other substantially different opinions floating about. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The quantity of text here has grown far faster than my ability to absorb it, so rather than continue to put it off, here's my position: I don't see any problem with transcriptions that are scan-backed, even if the transcription only covers a small fraction of the entire scan. If Sally chooses (say) to transcribe a favorite story, that happened to be published in an issue of Harper's back in the 1890s, and goes to the trouble of uploading the full issue, but only creates pages for the one story that interests her, I think that's great. It doesn't matter to me whether she intends to work on the other pages or not. If it's not scan-backed, but it's fairly high quality, I am personally willing to do some work trying to locate a scan and match it up to the text; I'd rather we take that approach, than deletion, though of course deletion is the better option in some cases where the scan is very hard to come by.

If all this has been said above, or if I've misunderstood the topic, my apologies. Please take this comment or leave it, as appropriate. -Pete (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I see I had missed the point.

I disagree with Xover's statement that a top-level page for a publication, with a link only to a single article within the publication, has "near-zero value." Such a page can serve an important function linking content together in ways that help the reader (and search engines) find the content they're looking for, or understand the context around it. For instance, A Critical Dictionary of English Literature is linked from the relevant Wikidata entry. The banner on the Wikisource page clearly tells a Wikisource reader that they won't find a full transcription here; and with a simple edit, it could link to a full scan on another site, or (with perhaps a little more effort) even transcription links here on Wikisource. This page has been here since 2010; we don't have any way of knowing what links might have been created elsewhere in the intervening decade. (I do think that new pages like this should not be created without a scan at Commons to be linked to.) -Pete (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm really bad with walls of text, so I have only read a tiny portion of the above discussion. But I want to mention a couple of things that I think are worth considering in this discussion.
  • Most of the time, a mainspace "work" that is only a table of contents, but which has none of the actual content, and is not actively being worked on, can be (and should be) deleted as No meaningful content or history under our deletion policy.
  • A mainspace work that has only a little bit of content, but that content is a work unto itself within the scope of Wikisourse, should be kept. Most periodicals are like this. For an example, see the Journal of English and Germanic Philology which only has one hosted article, but that hosted article is scan-backed and firmly within scope.
  • On some occasions, empty mainspace works do have value. I ended up creating the page The Roman Breviary, depsite containing no actual content, mostly because there are a lot of works that link to it, using many different titles, and if someone uploaded a copy of the work under one title then many of the links would remain red because they point to different titles of the work. This could be easily solved by creating redirects to a simple placeholder page, so I did. I tried to make the placeholder page as useful as a placeholder page can be, as it contains useful information about the history and authorship of the work, and links to the Index pages where the transcription will take place.

Anyway those are my 2 cents, sorry if they are redundant —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


Since there has been no extra input for a month, and not wanting this section to get archived without at least attempting a proposal, I have started a proposal #Collective work inclusion criteria above. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 11:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I've created Bradshaw's Monthly Railway and Steam Navigation Guide (XVI) - it couldn't be done on one page, due to the very high number of template transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Relationship with Project Gutenberg[edit]

I'm new here, and wondered what Wikisource's relationship with Project Gutenberg is. I've found books like A Passage to India which are incomplete here and have a proofread page while Gutenberg have a finished copy, but no mention is made of that here either for the book or on E. M. Forster's page other than an authority control reference.

But I've also seen other Gutenberg texts imported here, but books Gutenberg finished in 2003 are missing.

Do you have a policy to avoid duplication of effort and bring the sites together, either by manual updates or bots Vicarage (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vicarage: We have no relationship with Gutenberg, though there may be editors who contribute at both places. Some have copied works transcribed there to here, presumably because they wanted to do so. Most people will typically work on something new, rather than regurgitate a work from elsewhere. We can just as easily link to a work at Gutenberg from an author page. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

My attempt to add a Gutenberg reference to the Author:Jules_Verne article was reverted, User:EncycloPetey arguing in User_talk:Vicarage that because Gutenberg's process is flawed, we must not mention them here. My response is that while Gutenberg may not be ideal, I feel that before people embark on the major task of doing a proof read they should be aware that others have already done similar work. That allows them to decide that another project is more worthy of their time. I worry that excluding gutenberg references (and the fact there is a template shows that someone felt them worthwhile) smacks of NIH, and makes perfect the enemy of the good. I'd be a lot more reluctant to contribute here if Gutenberg (and FadedPage's) efforts were not recognised, and I found I'd proofread edition 4 of a book where Gutenberg had done edition 3, and the difference was 2 words. I would appreciate comments from others on the subject. Vicarage (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that Gutenberg does not distinguish between editions. We often don't know which edition Gutenberg has, unless someone with specialized knowledge takes the time to do extensive research and comparisons. But even after that, Gutenberg has no transparency of their quality control, so we don't know when Guenberg has a franken-edition cobbled together, and no simple way to check for errors. If a scan-backed edition is possible, we should always aim for that. Adding links to Gutenberg editions on top of the editions we host here is not what Author pages are for. Our Author pages are meant to supply links to the works hosted here and not to collections elsewhere on the internet. Where no edition exists, and no good scan is available, we might temporarily link to Gutenberg so that a local copy can be created. But once we have a local copy, the Gutenberg link (or any external link to that work) on the Autnor page should be removed. Wikisource is a library, not a link farm. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
And, frankly, it is not our job to advertise for Project Gutenberg. --Xover (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vicarage: Just to add to this. The linking on author pages is to public domain works has an hierarchical approach. This has evolved through discussion and sensible practice, and probably not (well-)documented (following list is meant to be indicative and informative, not set policy)

  • Link to local edition (public domain works)
    > If no local edition, though have a scan available, then append link with {{small scan link}}
    > If no local edition, then append link to external scans available {{ext scan link}} or {{IA small}}
    Implicit in both these is that when we progress works we will remove these templates from author pages
    > If no local edition, then you can external link to another edition (hyperlink title), can also append {{ext scan link}}
    > If no editions, then you can link to an external version/work.


  • External links to external works can be added if legally published and not able to be hosted locally. We wouldn't be looking at the edition level.
  • Listing works not in the public domain and no external links on the internet is suitable where an author page exists, but we generally would not be creating an author page where it will not be possible to host or link works

As said, editions are important to us, and we want it to be one of our points of difference. Verifiability in editions and proofreading are important to us. It does mean that we will throw out some things, though we will do it with eyes wide open approach, and focus on copyright, editions, verification, and quality.

We are well aware of Gutenberg. It does not holistically guide the community on what works we do, though it may guide individuals' choices. We accommodate its works where it aligns with our goals. Being part of WMF wikis allows a different focus and presentation, it allows more interlaced approach with Commons, Wikidata, Wikipedia, +++ and supports those wikis in their goals, and that often guides the choices that individuals make. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

New feature: Watchlist Expiry[edit]

Hello, everyone! The Community Tech team will be releasing a new feature, which is called Watchlist Expiry. With this feature, you can optionally select to watch a page for a temporary period of time. This feature was developed in response to the #7 request from the 2019 Community Wishlist Survey. To find out when the feature will be enabled on your wiki, you can check out the release schedule on Meta-wiki. To test out the feature before deployment, you can visit or testwiki. Once the feature is enabled on your wiki, we invite you to share your feedback on the project talk page. For more information, you can refer to the documentation page. Thank you in advance, and we look forward to reading your feedback! --IFried (WMF) (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Subject to change, the implementation date is listed as September 22, 2020 for Enwikisource. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikisource Pagelist Widget: Wikisource Meetup (29th September 2020)[edit]

Hello everyone,

We hope you are doing well!

We reached out to you a couple of weeks ago to share that Wikisource Pagelist Widget is now ready to be enabled to Wikisource. Since then, many language Wikisources have enabled the widget but many are yet to do so.

So, we have decided to organize a Wikisource Meetup to give a live demonstration on how to use the widget in both wikitext and visual modes. There will be some time for the participants to share their feedback and experience with the widget. We will also provide support in case some Wikisource communities are seeking help in enabling the widget.

The meetup will take place on 29 September 2020 at 9:30 AM UTC or 3 PM IST. Google Meet link for the meeting is:

Looking forward to seeing the global Wikisource community connect amid these difficult times when physical meetings have not been taking place.

P.S. If you are planning to attend this meetup and are comfortable in sharing your email address then send us your confirmation in the form of a small email to, this will help us in getting a sense of the number of people that are planning to show-up. We are aware that this time-zone is not convenient for everyone and more meetups can be organized in the future.


Sohom, Sam and Satdeep

Sent by Satdeep using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Paragraph breaks in footnotes not rendered[edit]

As can currently be seen in this page, paragraph breaks in footnotes are not rendered. Is this a bug? Is there a preferred work-around? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Stick some <p> in place. The MW designers consider a reference to be a single paragraph, we have to tell it different. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Using {{pbr}} is better (see comments in the docs of that template about screen readers). Jarnsax (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
{{pbr}} is fine in normal sized text, but in a smallrefs list using it leaves too much space between the paragraphs. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Can we add an optional parameter to {{pbr}} that will allow us to use a more fitting custom margin?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
That says: "This template is used mostly in footnotes, where a visual break is desired, without adding an additional paragraph navigation point. " - the footnote in question has two paragraphs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Into itwikisource, I use commonly a <br> tag followed by a new line and a {{gap}}, so saving the mediawiki idea "footnotes contain only one paragraph" and avoiding that unpleasant block spacing.
A general comment: I feel that block spacing between paragraphs should be removed from wikisource settings, since it's very uncommon into printed sources, while default paragraph indentation should be used for the same reason. Is it simply a "wikipedia remnant"? --Alex brollo bis (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Printed sources are very worried about paper usage. Even if we were worried about every byte, \t\n takes up the same amount of space as \n\n. That extra space is supposed to make works easier to read, and the Washington Post, the Library of Congress, the British Library, and the London Times all use that same format online. We're not making print replicas, so there's no reason to mess with an Internet standard.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
(ec) The community has long considered that we are not trying to mimic printed books, so we don't indent paragraphs. The paragraph break and space is totally suitable and lends uniformity to our works. We don't have to worry about white space and the cost of paper! We don't have to worry about centering images of pages and breaking up a paragraph when we transclude and concatenate pages, we can move an image to end of a paragraph. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Back from the digression, what actually caused me to comment here was that I was just working on Hayburn's Case (migrating it from an unsourced text to the actual book scan) and.... lets just say getting that to work correctly was nuts, the footnote spans five pages, and a subsequent section... {{pbr}}, and lots of sections, was the only way I could figure out to make it work. Jarnsax (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-40[edit]

21:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Wiki of functions naming contest[edit]

21:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-41[edit]

16:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Call for feedback about Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws changes and Board candidate rubric[edit]

Hello. Apologies if you are not reading this message in your native language. Please help translate to your language.

Today the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees starts two calls for feedback. One is about changes to the Bylaws mainly to increase the Board size from 10 to 16 members. The other one is about a trustee candidate rubric to introduce new, more effective ways to evaluate new Board candidates. The Board welcomes your comments through 26 October. For more details, check the full announcement.

Thank you! Qgil-WMF (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Psalm numbers[edit]

Background: the book of Psalms is an ancient collection of songs that is also part of the Bible. Each of the 150 songs in this book is its own individual Work, and some of them (such as Psalm 23 and Psalm 130) have their own Translations page on Wikisource because we have translations of them that are published outside of a complete edition of Psalms.

Now, there is a very good chance that I will be adding a lot more Translations pages for individual Psalms in the near future. Therefore I want to plan ahead and do it properly, like we did with Shakespeare's Sonnets.

The problem I have, which I am bringing to WS:S, is this: Psalms are usually identified by number (i.e. Psalm 1, Psalm 2, etc.). However, this number is not unique! There are two different numbering systems in use: the Hebrew/Masoretic system (used by Jews and Protestants and unofficially by Catholics) and the Greek/Septuagint system (used by Orthodox and officially by Catholics).

Thus, the title "Psalm 23" actually refers to two different songs:

  • "The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want", numbered as Psalm 23 in the Hebrew/Masoretic system
  • "The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof", numbered as Psalm 23 in the Greek/Septuagint system

Our standard solution, of course, is to have Psalm 23 be a Disambiguation page which links to both of these two songs, and this is what I intend to do.

The question for all of you, therefore, is: What should be the title of the actual Psalm version page itself?Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The best solution I have come up with so far, is to use the practice common in Catholic bibles, of using the Hebrew/Masoretic number, and then putting the Greek/Septuagint number in parentheses. Thus: "The Lord is my Shepherd" would be Psalm 23 (22); "The earth is the Lord's" would be Psalm 24 (23); etc. However, I am open to better suggestions. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Other solutions I have thought of, which I personally think are less good:
Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC))
en.Wikipedia has w:en:Psalm 23 as "The Lord is my Shepherd", with an explanatory hat note; why not follow suit? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Because this is one of the places where Wikisource and Wikipedia differ in policy. On Wikipedia, Psalm 23 is the title of the "Lord is my Shepherd" because this is the most common meaning of "Psalm 23" in English. If they needed a disambiguation page, they would put it at w:Psalm 23 (disambiguation). Wikisource, on the other hand, always places the disambiguation page under the ambiguous title, even if the title almost always refers to only one of the disambiguated items. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Call for feedback on archiving POTUS tweets[edit]

I would appreciate hearing the community's thoughts on archiving Presidents Trump's communications to the public via tweeting.

If you are new to the topic of the status of POTUS tweets, this article from NPR is a good introduction which happens to namecheck Wikipedia while discussing crowdsourcing of Presidential records.

My take is that post-11/3/2016 tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account - even those that have been subsequently deleted - are official Presidential records within the scope of being archived here. Here is why I believe this:

  • The Presidential and Federal Records Act was amended in 2014 to expand the definition of records to electronic content, including social media communications. The Obama administration complied with this by auto-archiving Obama's posts made from the @POTUS twitter account, and publishing a searchable archive of those tweets shortly before he left office. link
  • Trump's press secretary said on June 6, 2017, when asked whether POTUS tweets are official statements: "The President is the President of the United States, so they're considered official statements by the President of the United States."
  • Trump affirmed that he considered tweeting part of his presidential duties in July 2017 when he tweeted that "My use of social media is not Presidential - it's MODERN DAY PRESIDENTIAL."
  • This issue of the status of deleted POTUS tweets was asked about in this letter from two U.S. Senators to the Archivist of the United States. The Archivist responded that the National Archives and Records Administration "...has advised the White House that it should capture and preserve all tweets that the President posts in the course of his official duties, including those that are subsequently deleted, as Presidential records, and NARA has been informed by White House officials that they are, in fact, doing so." link
  • On March 15, 2018 Secretary of State Rex Tillerson learned that he was fired via twitter. The firing announcement was tweeted from the @realDonaldTrump account. The @POTUS account set up by the Obama administration, which during the Trump administration has consisted mostly of retweets from @realDonaldTrump, was silent on the firing. This is an example of why there is general agreement that when someone talks about "President Trump's tweets", they are referring to those from the @realDonaldTrump account.

Wikimedia Commons has two screengrabs of @realDonaldTrump tweets archived there, and some content sourced to Congressperson twitter accounts. Since there hadn't been any discussion specifically about the copyright status of POTUS tweet screengrabs I asked for clarification there. They agreed with my take that a screengrab of a basic POTUS tweet showing text and a profile picture is PD-USGOV, but that a screengrab showing anything more within it has to have those interior items separately evaluated, and blurred out if they are not PD.

Thanks! Dennis the Peasant (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, given the above notes on Copyright status and the guidance at WS:WWI on documentary sources, they do appear to meet the criteria for being here. However, per the precedent exclusions given at WS:WWI, they must be complete and not fragmentary. I would expect them to be verifiable on Wiki. I say "unfortunately", because I'm not convinced that they will have a long-term value here at enWS. They will be archived in other places, because of what they are. I would anticipate that they would become a vandalism target, as are the letters from the Zodiac killer. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The copyright status is a separate issue (and, NB, note that retweets are not PD-USGov under any circumstance!); my main concern is that these do not fit the purpose of Wikisource. There are lots of services that archive tweets and there is very little we can do to add value to them. They are some kind of bastard hybrid between off-the-cuff verbal communication and extremely informal and short written communication. They are not published in any sense that is relevant to our inclusion criteria. With a book or news article-style publication, subject to editorial control, sure: we could figure out the copyright situation and, if compatible, host. But indiscriminate inclusion of all, or a random excerpt of some, of an account's tweets makes absolutely zero sense. If any tweets should be permitted it would certainly be the tweets from a sitting President of the US, but I just don't see it. This is not what Wikisource is for. --Xover (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above, this is not a good use of Wikisource. On the other hand, we could definitely host content along the lines of The Tweets of President Donald J Trump (2020) provided that the work as a whole is freely licensed or PD. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
    Indeed. --Xover (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't see it within our scope. The overarching conversations and the retweets are not within scope, and by their nature they are neverending conversations. Trump's tweets are excerpts of the conversations. Aside I don't see that it is within the indication of our scope of published works. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • comment there are other sites doing this work, and can be a citation for quotes. this community tends to concentrate on excavating reference texts not available elsewhere. Slowking4Rama's revenge 15:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful, albeit discouraging comments!

As I noted above, the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014 revised the definition of official "records" to include all recorded information, regardless of form or characteristics. To summarize the feedback, it seems that a subset of Presidential official records, including but presumably not limited to posts on Twitter, possess characteristics which put them outside the scope of Wikisource.

To help out future Wikisourcians thinking about archiving Presidential and Federal Records, may I ask for clarity on what exactly are the forbidden characteristics? Length, formality, interactivity, possible vandals, lack of publication elsewhere, and the existence of other archives have all been mentioned, what are the red lines in these categories?

Thinking about other social media platforms commonly used by Congresspeople and Presidents, are reddit or Facebook posts (which typically exceed 280 characters but can involve interactivity) also outside of the scope of Wikisource? How about longer posts, without any interactivity, on a digital-only platform like Medium?

I'll toss out two test cases of digital Presidential communications which may help structure the discussion. Here is the URL to an archived Medium post by Obama:; it is lengthy, contains images but no hyperlinks, and is not part of any conversation. To me it reads like an ordinary press release, or a transcript of a speech. The post's embedded images would certainly be OK to upload on Commons. Does archiving the text of this post fall within the scope of Wikisource, alongside the existing material at Author:Barack_Hussein_Obama?

For a second test case let's consider a tweet, from Obama to separate out the issues of potential vandals and alternative archives. With Obama's Twitter communications, the administration complied with its archival responsibilities in two ways. The most public archive is the @POTUS44 account which had all Obama @POTUS tweets migrated to it. Currently this account is easy to access and use, but of course there is nothing preventing Twitter from going out of business, deciding to delete the account, putting the information behind a paywall, etc.

The administration also made available for download a zipped archive with the text of the tweets in CVS and JSON formats, and included an html file to allow searching and reading within a browser. While this form of archiving has a lot going for it, it requires multiple actions and software to get the browser access going, and while this functionality worked well on my desktop, I couldn't get it to work on my Android phone. Additionally, the raw date is incomplete (ending on 11/16/2016), and in minor aspects often wrong (many tweets are mislabeled as retweets, probably due to the migration activity).

It seems to me that the public would benefit (admittedly, only a tiny bit) by having access to an archive of Obama's tweets in an easily readable and searchable format outside of Twitter. These would have to be reformatted from CVS or JSON to be readable, and the redirection links would need to be replaced with URLs to their destination. These tasks are straightforward to automate, and here's a sample reformatted tweet:

This sample POTUS tweet seems pretty anodyne to me, but it seems the community feels strongly that archiving tweets like it does not fall within the scope of Wikisource. OK, but why? The brevity? Thanks again! Dennis the Peasant (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

i tend to be more tolerant of scope than most, but i have several questions: who is going to transcribe and maintain this? who is going to build the index? how are you going to find anything? where is the pdf text? did you upload the text to internet archive? how are you going to deal with deleted tweets? you realize how large the federal government document backlog is? you realize this community gets grumpy when people dump non-scan backed text and leave? you realize that archiving social media is a challenge for the library of congress and national archives? Slowking4Rama's revenge 03:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
^ this is exactly how I feel as well. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
sorry to rain on your bright idea. the problem being, there are a lot of bright people here with ideas; the sticking point is always the implementation plan, and the team recruitment. (it is a wikimedia pain point) Slowking4Rama's revenge 01:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the questions, and apologize for the delay in answering them. Deletion is a thorny issue, so allow me to pivot from suggesting we archive President Trump's tweets [2016 - present] to suggesting we archive President Obama's tweets [2015-17], a simpler project. We can move on the Trump case later, if warranted. So with the proposal on the table now being to archive Obama's @POTUS tweets, on to your questions:
Who is going to transcribe and maintain this? I am volunteering to transcribe them, and since this is a pretty small project I wouldn't need collaborators although I would welcome them. I'm also happy to work on their maintenance, although since Obama's are static I do not know what is needed beyond keeping the pages on my watch list to catch vandalism.
you realize that archiving social media is a challenge for the library of congress and national archives? Yes I am aware of the challenge, and the very rapid pace of software development further increases the difficulty. With Obama's tweets, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has taken action - they maintain the @POTUS44 archival Twitter account - but I don't know of any other archiving actions by them.
where is the pdf text? did you upload the text to internet archive? Currently there is no official pdf text archive of Obama tweets to scan and upload, but one can make links at each tweet here to the corresponding tweet at the official NARA online archive. (I did this in the above sample Obama entry, it's the first link.) So each tweet archived here would be readily verifiable, in perpetuity since the NARA is maintaining the archives.
you realize this community gets grumpy when people dump non-scan backed text and leave? Understandable, but in this case there are no backing documents existing on paper or as pdf. So what is the verification process, or does one need to be decided upon?
Commons has a "trust but verify" copyright verification process - if an uploader claims that some content is CC licensed at Youtube, it is posted but with an automatic notice that an admin will verify this claim is true at some point. Maybe something similar could be done here, with an admin or proofreader clicking on each verification link after initial posting, and then noting on the page's notes that the transcription checks out.
who is going to build the index? I volunteer to also build an index, perhaps one modeled on the index for Obama's Presidential Weekly Addresses would work. I envision 20 pages (one for each month), with subsections for each day.
how are you going to find anything? I anticipate three major ways:
  • People who are interested in a subject would use keyword searching
  • People interested in a specific time period would navigate using the index and the pages' TOC
  • People interested in a specific tweet could find it either through searching (if they know some specific wording) or via timestamp anchors (if they know the date and time of the tweet).
The timestamps also offer an easily sharable entry to the archive, as the URL will indicate the month, day and time of the tweet. So if one shared a Wikisource URL containing "/wiki/President_Obama_Tweets_2015-10#01-02:27PM", it is clear that the link refers to an Obama tweet from 10/1/2015, tweeted at 2:27PM EST.
you realize how large the federal government document backlog is? Yes, but it is natural to update which documents are archived. Trump discontinued the time-honored Presidential Weekly Address tradition entirely in June 2018 in favor of other forms of communication, the most important of which (for him) is tweeting. Since Presidential Weekly Addresses are no longer given, it makes sense to think about archiving the communications which displaced them.
And while POTUS Twitter communications are sometimes no more than barbaric yawps, there have been others which have had great historical significance. As a category, it seems to me that they deserve to be archived here. Dennis the Peasant (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Removing DNB pages, Executive Orders and US Supreme Court decisions from "Random Works"[edit]

The "Random Work" function is pretty overloaded with DNB articles, Executive Orders and US Supreme Court documents, because there are thousands of each and they're all top level pages. This means the button returns these documents very frequently, more than half the time from a highly unscientific trial. This is a little bit monotonous, compared to the diverse set of works available.

I wonder if it's possible to petition for a change to the enWS SpecialRandomGetRandomTitle hook to exclude pages that:

  • End in (DNB[0-9]{2})
  • Contain \bv.\b (almost certainly a SCOTUS decision)
  • Start with Executive Order
  • (any other suggestions?)

Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 11:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  • I think a more pertinent solution to this problem would be to move all DNB articles to sub-pages, move all court cases to sub-pages of their respective volumes (of the U. S. Reports), and to have all Executive Orders as sub-pages of “Executive Orders President [name],” possible adding the year to the latter. Of these, the last is a suggestion for better navigation, but the other two should happen anyway. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC).
Agree about moving the DNB pages to be subpages. It was always the plan to do it once we had them all finished. I disagree about moving the court cases, as they are works in their own rights, and many have not come via those publications, and I prefer to not be a case of half pregnant. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I will note that one of the reasons we did defer was that when pages are categorised that they have a VEEEEEEERRRRRY long page name which is a bit of a PITA when they display in categories, though this is now an issue for so many of our subpages of our biographical works, so that is just a cross we bear. The other impediment was the issue of typeahead for page names which has been resolved with improved indexing, and the preferences ability to how you search. There is a fair bit of work to do to get DNB moved, though it is all worthwhile. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I think that, e. g., this court (found by random search) should be under United States Reports/Volume 490, because that is where is is published. Newer cases are also published individually, but they are eventually consolidated as well. As the source of these older court cases are the collected volumes, rather than independent publication, they should be given under the volume sub-page. This would be especially helpful to reduce the number of pages in the main namespace that aren’t really independent works. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC).
If someone wishes to produce a volume and transclude them that way, then they are most welcome. Forcing them under a volume for what is an independent case because it is (later) published in a volume is not the right approach. @Inductiveload: might it be possible to exclude based on categorisation? — billinghurst sDrewth 22:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I spoke with Reedy, and he says not really, though he said ...

There's no hooks or anything
  $this->extra[] = 'page_title NOT ' . $dbr->buildLike( $dbr->anyString(), '/', $dbr->anyString() );
The parent page does have some hooks...
  $this->getHookRunner()->onRandomPageQuery( $tables, $conds, $joinConds );
But can't differentiate between random page or random root page

I hope that helps someone. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-42[edit]

15:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Löbel Schottländer (Q1879596)[edit]

How would I let the reader know by linking that Löbel Schottländer is the person in Guide through Carlsbad and its environs/The Mineral Waters for Exportation and a few other Wikisource entries? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Very good question in the general case.
The best case in my personal opinion, is to dig up documents that we can link to him and then give an author or Portal page. In this specific case we can probably add Index:The Morning Call - 1890-05-07.pdf as a document and then Löbel Schottländer can have an author page for his advert on page 3. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
If the chapter of the work is primarily about the person, when you create a wikidata item for the chapter, you would use the main subject field for the chapter item to link to the person. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Side text ?[edit]

Does the short left side text "Life of Sri Ramakrishna by European Scholars" also come in the text ?

From : The Gospel of Râmakrishna

--Riquix (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Riquix: It definitely does. You may try {{Left sidenote}}. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok Thank you ! --Riquix (talk) 05:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
i would not use left sidenote, i would use template:PT Shoulder Heading see if you like it. Slowking4Rama's revenge 23:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Narrow footer and editing window in some layouts[edit]

When a work is switched to some narrower layout like Layout 2, not only the text gets narrower, but also the footer with the navigation (while the header stays wide), which is very inconvenient if the footer includes some long titles. What is more, when you click the edit button and then the preview, the editing windows gets narrow too, which makes further editing very difficult. Btw, in the common Layout 1 the footer is also slightly narrower than the header for some reason. Is it possible to exclude both the footer and the editing window from the width change in various layout modes? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-43[edit]

16:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We have no abusefilter using rmspecial. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Tom Lehrer[edit]

Tom Lehrer has put all of his lyrics into the public domain; see: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Awesome. See if you're around after is taken off the web. But we should upload all of those songs long before that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
See Author:Thomas Andrew Lehrer, where some people have already started working on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
to do it scan backed, someone should knit together all the pdfs, i.e. [19] and upload them to commons, Slowking4Rama's revenge 23:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Slowking4: ta-da: Index:Tom Lehrer song lyrics (website).pdf
Are we going to need OTRS for this, does anyone think? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
i certainly hope not; i do not trust the otrs admins to come to the correct conclusion, give the MacArthur decision. i would not submit anything to them, given the lack of accountability. Slowking4Rama's revenge 23:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Important: maintenance operation on October 27[edit]

-- Trizek (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

DNB biographies have been moved to subpages[edit]

Following a discussion above about random pages, and a follow up discussion on the DNB project page, the DNB biographies (DNB00), (DNB01) and (DNB12) have (finally) been moved to be subpages of the works [redirects in place]. Accordingly, the templates are being updated—some done—locally, and after that we can start to look off-wiki.

As part of the updates of templates I have modernised what was an old implementation of header prior to some newer parameters. I have also default utilised {{import enwiki}} to leverage the main subject and the person interwiki to the enWP article. At some point, I will look at some maintenance to match the automatic parameters and linked parameters and rectify and then remove.

If people see issues, please leave me a message on my talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)