# Wikisource:Scriptorium

(Redirected from Wikisource:SCRIPTORIUM)
 ← Community pages Scriptorium Archives →
 The Scriptorium is Wikisource's community discussion page. Feel free to ask questions or leave comments. You may join any current discussion or start a new one; 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 347 active users here.

# Announcements

## ScienceSource proposal

At m:Grants:Project/ScienceSource is a grant application to the WMF, and this announcement is the sequel to one I made here in October.

From the WikiSource angle, the proposition that the text of scientific papers should be hosted here hasn't actually flown, despite a discussion that reaches back to 2014, if I recall correctly. The proposed ScienceSource platform would be a chance, among other things, to hash out what could actually be done (at scale) with a large body of scientific paper text. The theme is "annotation", which could mean a number of things, and those things are not mutually exclusive.

I'm listed as a participant in the proposal. I'd like to think that some of the community here would support this pilot, as of interest in advancing "sources" within Wikimedia. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Final week for discussion. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

There is the following discussion on this page at #Discussion: ScienceSource proposal

# Proposals

## Consider Wikisource a library (for U.S. copyright law)

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

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

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

Support conditionally when considering m:United States non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term#Orphan works for non-American works only.  Oppose this for orphan American works.--Jusjih (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Support Of course, I support any extension of our scope. Yann (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose per ShakespeareFan00. Perhaps this proposal would be more appropriate over at Wikilivres. NMaia (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment @NMaia: Wikilivres is in Canada. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment wikilivres is no more; it is now https://biblio.wiki/wiki/Main_Page - it could be appropriate here, but you choose to wall yourself off from the decisions of hathi trust, and commons. Slowking4SvG's revenge 15:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Neutral; looks like a lot of bother and confusion for a handful of obscure works, but if people want to establish a clear policy or EDP that works with our existing policies and frameworks then go for it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment you should expect a periodic questioning of why no EDP, as naive people see work that very well could be done, but is not, for a lack of it. i am not confused. Slowking4SvG's revenge 16:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
If we pass this proposal, I would like to rewrite Template:Not-PD-US-URAA and possibly rename it. Chinese Wikisource is about to accept similar proposal.--Jusjih (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
We should delete Not-PD-US-URAA; it's not in use anywhere, and it's not relevant. Even if we accept this proposal, it's still not relevant; this applies to books published more than 75 years ago that have living authors as much as those with long dead authors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
i agree, we should delete not-pd-us-uraa - that is a commons drama, that no one cares about here enough to upload a work. chinese wikisource is going for "works of the lesser term" contrary to the "take it to wikilivres" above. but why there should be an ideological opposition to an EDP for a few works is interesting. does not add value. partnering with IA and hathi adds value. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
apparently you care enough to import the URAA drama, so we need the tag. how amusing. Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Chinese Wikisource is considering this proposal here, so Template:Bibliowiki page now corresponds to zh:template:Not-PD-US-old. Undeleting Not-PD-US-URAA is provisional while considering m:Legal/Wikimedia_Server_Location_and_Free_Knowledge. Depending on whether this proposal goes, I may propose merging relevant contents of Not-PD-US-URAA into Template:Bibliowiki page, possibly renaming Template:Bibliowiki.--Jusjih (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
As I understand from an ongoing discussion by experts at the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook Group, we cannot consider Wikisource a library (for U.S. copyright law), for hosting the "Last 20" books. Internet Archive has official recognition as a library under US law in the state of California. That's why they can go ahead with this provision of 17 U.S.C. Section 108(h). Wikisource has no such recognition; so we cannot do it. People participating in that Facebook discussion were commenting on this discussion of ours, that Wikisource is not getting the "nuance" of the matter. Hrishikes (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
"library status" is a loophole in the code, to host the pdf’s. we can still claim fair use of orphan works out of print, regardless of theories of who we are. if it is an orphan there is no one to claim copyright. i often lament the lack of nuance of what passes for consensus, in many forums.Slowking4SvG's revenge 03:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Concerning the deprecated template, why not mark it as "Historic", deleting it will benefit exactly no-one. -- DonTrung (徵國單)  (討論 🤙🏻) (方孔錢 ☯) 11:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Then are we considering m:Legal/Wikimedia Server Location and Free Knowledge to conditionally tolerate works affected by the m:United States non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term? I am ready to forget the "Last 20" books not affected by the US non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term.--Jusjih (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• Set up a different Wikiproject - perhaps call it Wikilibrary. That will enable us to maintain a very clear scope and purpose of this project - scans and transcriptions of public domain works - and of the new project - scans only of works specifically falling under the library loophole. BD2412 T 20:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Why not make it a sub-project? It could be a part of Wikisource but works with a different license. -- DonTrung (徵國單)  (討論 🤙🏻) (方孔錢 ☯) 11:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support it as a sub-project, but some demonstrations would be better.--Jusjih (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support as a subproject or independent WMF entity, but at this time oppose changing wikisource for these purposes. John Carter (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

## Change wording for guidance on line break removal

As per discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Guidelines for removal of line breaks

I propose wording for guidance on line break removal at Help:Beginner's guide to typography be changed to one of the following options:

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

Option 1 considers removal "best practice" and is more stringent in wording; option 2 is less stringent, yet recommends removal. Suggestions welcomed. [updated] Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

If neither option is desirable, then please state that as well and we can go back to the drawing board. But it is my belief that the current wording needs to be less confusing and contradictory than it is. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I think option 1 sounds good. Also, the heading is a guideline in its own right, so if someone doesn't read anything more than the ToC they'll get some idea of the recommended practice. Sam Wilson 03:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I had hoped for more input. I don't believe the wording should remain as is for the reasons listed in the previous discussion linked to above (if not yet archived). If there are no objections in the next day or so, I will change the wording to option 1 and take any lumps from there. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't mention the tools or link to them in the Beginniner's Guide. That's a more advanced technique. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Why not at least leave mention of the availability of tools? Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
My reasoning for including mention as well as links: While it may be more advanced, it gives a further option. Some (like myself) may not have even known to ask about the availability, and it would spare the question being brought up at Scriptorium or elsewhere in the future for those who would think to ask. The answer would already be supplied. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
The intention of the Beginner's Guide was to provide a straightforward explanation for complete beginners. Complete beginner's need not have the distraction of all the bells and whistles. Any gadget or script the deals with line breaks will assume the user understands how to deal with certain forms of end-of-line punctuation, Victorian hyphenation rules, and other advanced points of editing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Me belaboring: I always assume even the "complete beginner" comes with more technical know-how than I do. Do you think it would distract so as to possibly discourage a potential editor? If not, it may even serve to inspire—? We may get questions about it, or it will simply be information that is ignored (which would have been my approach had I come across it way back when). If I've still not convinced you, I can leave it out, but it would be good to include it somewhere. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
By all means include it on some more advanced Help page or guide. My point is that such tools are more advanced than desirable for a "Beginner's Guide". --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
OK. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Should I turn my PageCleanup user script into a gadget (under the "Editing tools for Page: namespace" section)? I know there are a few different scripts for doing the same thing, but none of them are gadgets at the moment. I'm not sure if the actual replacements it makes are the best, but I use it on pretty much every page and it does quite well. Sam Wilson 03:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

We should be looking to do something with Wikisource:TemplateScript as once on the management of preferred toys is gadgetfied. We are each so wedded to "our" clean up scripts, and not wanting to fluff around with coding when we could be proofreading, that we leave the collective good out in the cold. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
If we can have one master, and then have the ability to add components, and possibly without the risk of breaking the master, that would be absolutely brilliant. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes good points. I think that TemplateScript commands should be moved into the editing toolbar though. The sidebar isn't where people (well, new people, anyway; we all know where things are) expect editing buttons to be. Or even better, let's put TemplateScript (i.e. a easy-to-extend system of text manipulations) into the new Wikisource extension! :-) Then all Wikisources can benefit. Sam Wilson 03:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Moving the commands into the editing toolbar would not be good for me as they're about to turn the only good toolbar off. We need to keep the commands available without depending on a toolbar. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Noticed that Wikimedia Commons offers two clock gadgets, one is UTC time and the other is the "LocalLiveClock". Is there a possibility of adding this to our collection of Gadgets? — Ineuw talk 00:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

# Repairs (and moves)

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

## Repair the file of Index:Willich, A. F. M. - The Domestic Encyclopædia (Vol. 2, 1802).djvu

Can anyone do a repair, which is needed for this index? As I understand there are duplicated pages in the file: page 314 of the file (No. 284 in the book) is duplicated by page 318, and the image page 315 is duplicated by page 319. The duplicates should be removed from the file. Currently there are not any proofread pages for this index, so the removal doesn't cause necessity of any subsequent page moves, only the index's page list must be somewhat rewritten (and I can do this task on my own). --Nigmont (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Done, also removed duplicated page near the end. -Einstein95 (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
thank you very much! --Nigmont (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

## On the Coromandel Coast

There appears to be two pages missing in the book Index:On the Coromandel Coast.djvu between 11 and 12. i.e. The Table of Contents second page and the first page of the main contents. Can we solve the problem or stop working on the book.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I have found those two versions with those two pages :
Assassas77 (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much Assassas77. The first reference is exactly similar. But I do not know how to add the missing two pages to the index pages already uploaded in English wikisource. Can you help me. I am continuing the proofreading of this important book about the Coromandel coast. Thank you once again.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I think it is actually impossible to add pages to an existing uploaded file. However, I'd rather ask someone more experienced about that. The administrators can probably do something about it I guess. Assassas77 (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

# Other discussions

## Scan-backed

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

I never realized until recently that WS had a Glossary of terms (which could use some updating—to include "scan", "Index", "scan-backed" etc.—and perhaps should be linked to from the Help:Contents page; it is almost an orphan). Having a work scan-backed helps insure reliability of content, which is important, and helps keep WS relevant. Whether all terms "specific to Wikisource" rate a MS page, I do not know, but updating the Glossary and increasing its findability might be a start. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I added a link to the Glossary at Help:Contents; feel free to move the link where appropriate. If no one else gets to adding "scan" or "scan-backed" &c. to the glossary list, I will attempt it later. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Huh, never heard of that page until now. In the meantime, the relevant page is Help:Page scans. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
The pages mentioned, are a click away in the welcome message on your talk page. Follow the "proofreading" link, and the "help" link both get you to good pointers. That someone used scan-backed was their usage on the day, it definitely is a piece of jargon, though I wouldn't have said that it is overly common. That all said, it is probably worthwhile our again reviewing Template:Welcome to see whether it is the assistance that we want it to be, and it has been a while. unsigned comment by Billinghurst (talk) .
and the desire to move from text only transcription to side by side scan backed, is an ongoing quality improvement. not a deletion rationale. Slowking4SvG's revenge 16:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
That is correct. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Help:Page scans does not include the string "scan-backed" (nor "scan backed"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Are you wishing to make it a part of the WS lexicon? I am not understanding what it is you are seeking. Personally, I like the term and have used it myself. I can think of no better way to describe 'the thing'. I would have no objections to your adding it to the Glossary... Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
You wrote earlier: "If no one else gets to adding "scan" or "scan-backed" &c. to the glossary list, I will attempt it later". that would be a good outcome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, as you can see, I prepped for it last month and it is still on my mental to-do list. "Later" was purposely ambiguous, as I voluntarily edit based primarily on my own motivation and prompting. Thanks for the reminder though! Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Alright, gave it a go. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

## Wikisource's birthday

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

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

Rudyard Kipling's "If—" has come a long way since it was first added to Wikisource in November 2003 (one of the first WS adds). I have just linked the page to its 1910 source in Rewards and Fairies—which has yet to be proofread. I would like to eventually nominate the poem (not the whole work)—which could use validating—for Featured Text for November as it will mark the 15th anniversary (as I understand it to be, as per above) of Wikisource. Does only the poem itself need to be fully validated in order to be nominated (I will try to have the whole work proofread by then, but if not, I was just wondering...)? The WP excerpt in the notes section—should it stay or go? I figure if the poem makes Featured status, most of that info will go into the blurb anyway. Am I missing anything? Thoughts? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Moved struck content to Wikisource talk:Featured text candidates Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

## Shakespeare's Works

Does anyone know of a 'good' (i.e., 'authoritative') complete set of Shakespeare's works at IA that are not riddled with notes/footnotes? Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This one looks good on a quick perusal. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I see that we already have Index:Shakespeare - First Folio Faithfully Reproduced, Methuen, 1910.djvu. I'll take a look at it as well. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
The First Folio has been done a lot. It's got a limited audience that's probably transcriptions with copies of the First Folio. Shakespeare has several, sometimes very distinct, early editions, and much academic interest producing new consensus editions, so it's hard for us to produce a truly useful text, and I hardly see how producing an unannotated version helps that one bit. Some discussion at Distributed Proofreaders indicated that the Yale Shakespeare might be the most authoritative PD Shakespeare. It's a huge task, and ease of finding scans should not be a big part of it. We can download from HathiTrust, or even possibly scan some stuff ourselves.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
OK. My motivation is that I would like to read the works myself, and I might as well do that as I edit to benefit not only myself, but to improve what we have here at Wikisource (and getting the works backed by scans)—which is why I am seeking opinions on versions. I know little to nothing about his works, but if I can be pointed in the right direction, I'll do the work! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
P.S. How about the "New Variorum" volumes by Shakespearian scholar Horace Howard Furness?
That sounds great. Do you want me to load it for you, or have you got that?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
If you think it is a good, useful set, I can do it... I have a a few works on my plate at the moment, and a possible upcoming move that may affect what I can proofread in the future, so once I figure all that out, I'll give it a go. Lots of notes in those volumes, which I wanted to avoid, but whatever is most valuable/useful to have here. Thanks :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

## Renaming State of the Union addresses

@Neo-Jay: I agree that there needs to be consistency in the naming but disagree with using years. Readers are more likely to search by President than by year. The Wikipedia style still misses out the 1971, 1989, 1993, 2001, 2009, and 2017 addresses for example, because they are not regarded as State of the Union addresses. Note also that Wikipedia currently has 113 SOTU articles whereas Wikisource currently has 232 pages, and it would make unnecessary work to expect one to follow the other. Traditionally, the US president does not make an official State of the Union address until the end of their first year in office. Please look at what the media reports have been calling the latest address by President Trump e.g. ABC, Business Insider, CBS, CNN, or Fox (whichever news source you prefer). This was the reason I asked for the speedy deletion and the move. Green Giant (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I also agree that the 1989, 1993, 2001, 2009, and 2017 addresses should not be named "State of the Union Address" and should no be included in Category:State of the Union addresses (just like the Wikipedia style). But naming by President and time may confuse those readers who do see the addresses in these years as "State of the Union" addresses (e.g., those editors who created those pages at Wikisource). And I myself search the State of Union address by year, not by President. I don't know how you come to the conclusion that readers are more likely to search by President than by year. Naming by year is clearer and less confusing to me. --Neo-Jay (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Naming them by President plus year (e.g., Donald Trump's 2018 State of the Union Address) sounds great. It indeed avoids the ambiguity. I support your suggestion. --Neo-Jay (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
do a redirect. the wikipedia propensity for arguing about naming conventions seems out of place here. the congressional record calls it: "THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (House of Representatives - January 29, 2002)" [2] Slowking4SvG's revenge 14:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
But there are apparently more than one "STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES". The issue discussed here is how to distinguish them, by series ordinal (First, Second, etc.) or by year (2016, 2018, etc.). What do you think of it? Do you mean using the full title of the congressional record, e.g., "THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (House of Representatives - January 29, 2002)"? If so, the current Wikisource pages should also be renamed. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Q47346081 works for me. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q47346081 Slowking4SvG's revenge 15:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Could you please clarify what you mean? The Wikisource link at Wikidata's Q47346081 is Donald Trump's State of the Union Address 2018. Do you mean you support the style of "Donald Trump's State of the Union Address 2018", or support Q47346081's English label "2018 State of the Union Address"? --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment Traditionally we like works to have the name of the presentation as published, and then do redirects to the casual nomenclaure used to identify the work. I don't like nominals and would prefer that we have actual years. In the final washup I don't personally care, those in the know politely work it out among yourselves, and put forward a before and after list of moves, and we can undertake them, and resolve any double redirects. I would suggest that Portal talk:Presidents of the United States is the preferred space for your conversation. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
To note that we also need to remove possible ambiguity about addresses of other countries and their presidential speeches or whatever is produced. It may be why some are like they are, or just continuing what was first place so many years ago. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Since there hasn't been any further discussions, I think we should go to the status quo. Dash9Z (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

## How to best structure this text?

I have been building a transcription of Eleven years in the Rocky Mountains and a life on the frontier. The book contained two works, each of which has different titles on the title page and within the book; and each one contains a highly detailed TOC.

What is the best way to structure this overall? I am wondering if the main page should maybe look more or less like this:

User:Peteforsyth/Eleven front

But I don't have a good grasp of the range of possibilities. Can anybody point me to a transcription of a work with a similar structure, or offer ideas of how to best present this to the reader in a way that is both accurate and useful? -Pete (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

An option: Replicate Main base page as closely as possible to original (using transcluded title page); use {{Auxiliary Table of Contents}} to link to Eleven years in the Rocky Mountains and a life on the frontier/Part 1 & Part 2; at each Part subpage, you would transclude the intro and TOC Pages which link to chapters Eleven years in the Rocky Mountains and a life on the frontier/Part 1/Chapter 1, Chapter 2, &c. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
An example where we've had two distinct works in one book is Moll Flanders and Roxana. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both for the suggestions and examples. This work is different from the Dafoe in a few respects:

• The works have their own chapters (many of them!)
• The title pages are literally the only thing that apply to both works. There is no overall introduction, and each work has its own TOC. There is a list of illustrations for the first work, but not for the second.
• The titles and subtitles are extremely long!

With all that in mind, I have an approach that I think I like. If you have a moment, please take a look before I go further. See the front page/overall page: Eleven Years in the Rocky Mountains & A History of the Sioux War. It is minimal; note the "note" in the header. And see the page for the first of the two works: Eleven years in the Rocky Mountains and a life on the frontier

Please take a close look at how I handled the "header" at the second link, and in the individual chapters.

I feel there is no perfect approach in this case; the compromise I have made with this approach is to eschew the "sub-page" naming convention. To do so would involve multi-line, redundant names, and I don't see any benefit to the reader (as long as the structure is adequately communicated via the header info).

What do you think, and ? -Pete (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Some thoughts beginning from the Base page:
1. I would place an {{incomplete}} tag at the base page until the work is complete. This is for potential readers. Done
2. You need a license placed at the base page. Done
3. Linking to Parts I and II via the title page works for me.
4. Re: Part I: I would not exclude text ("Part I") from the transclusion. It may seem redundant considering you have covered it in the header, but it is part of the original.
5. It is usually strongly recommended to title pages with "Chapter 1", 2, etc. as opposed to I, II.
I understand your concern about the length of titles; the way you have handled it, at least readers can link to the base page from the header if they wish. Beeswaxcandle likely has more insightful thoughts on the above and on structure in general, so I will defer :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response! I've taken care of the first two, thanks for pointing those out. (Not sure why the death year isn't having an effect on the PD template though, if you have any ideas if I did something wrong, let me know.) -Pete (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
And thanks for fixing my silly PD template error. As for #4, I'm not strongly opposed, but will wait for other opinions...I did include that on the page with a "noinclude" tag. Seems not uncommon for stuff that is less relevant to a digital presentation to get left out of the transclusion...another place I did it is here (page 7, redundant of title page, not included). And it seems to me that advertisements are routinely skipped. Is there really a hard-and-fast rule? Isn't access to a fully accurate rendition addressed with readily-accessible links to the PDF/DJVU file? -Pete (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Re: #5, good to know...I wish I'd realized that before I set up all those 25 or 30 chapters...arg! I will do "part II" that way, but I may leave moving all those pages around for last...sounds like a lot of busywork. But working with arabic numerals will make things easier in the future... -Pete (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

## Guidance on missing punctuation

On Page:Henry Stephens Salt - A Plea for Vegetarianism and Other Essays.pdf/110, you will see at the very end of the page, there is a hanging sentence before "For..." without a period. What is the best practice for this: insert one anyway? Leave it as is with a blank space followed by "For"? Use some template like {{SIC}}? —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting question. I usually correct these little punctuation errors. But I'll be glad to hear about this from other editors! --Dick Bos (talk) 08:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The hyphen in the line immediately above is also missing. I usually just leave these as they are printed. If it's a particularly egregious typo, then I'll add {{sic}} after it (note that this is different from {{SIC}}). The one time I fix them, is in children's books—particularly those for early readers. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
What hyphen? I only see two in the scan and they are in the text: both are for instances of "dog-like". —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf: The word "outrage" as opposed to "out rage" as it currently shows. The hyphen that should have been printed at the end of the line is missing. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Generally I will only correct if it is required for clarity. I would usually wrap the added punctuation inside a <includonly> set, keeping the Page: as presented and the clarity in the transcluded work. I feel that this indicates for the {{sic}} that BWC said is their means. In this example, I probably wouldn't have, though have no complaints whichever choice. Here we are dealing with the typographer's work, not the author's, so not changing the intent of the author. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand the original concern. The sentence you mention concludes on the next page, with a period on that page, so why are you considering any change to that? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I am seeing this differently from the rest of you. The missing hyphen, missing period, slight gap at the end of each of those two lines, and the missing part of the "f" at the end of the line below suggest to me a printing (or perhaps scanning) anomaly. I believe the hyphen and the period were both there in the original typesetting. -Pete (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Pete: if the error is small and there's a good chance it is a print or scan error, there is no harm in fixing it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
If doing so please leave an inline html comment <!-- fixing punctation from scan-->billinghurst sDrewth 05:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

## Printing and binding Wikisource works

(I think this has come up before, but I can't find it now.) Does anyone think it'd be a good idea to be able to buy printed and bound copies of works from Wikisource? I'm thinking we could use Pediapress as a print-on-demand service and some of the proceeds would go to the WMF (and maybe we could figure out a way to earmark these funds for Wikisource work). A set of paperbacks called "Wikisource Classics" or something. I know there's the Collection extension which produces PDFs that can be sent to Pediapress, but it doesn't work well for the structures of works we have here. I'm thinking something more along the lines of generating LaTeX-formatted versions from works here, and hand-editing them where required (in such a way as to make it easy to incorporate future changes of course). For example, The Nether World when run through this script and tweaked a bit produces this PDF. What do you think? Sam Wilson 04:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea and a good way to raise money. How can I help? —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf: I think we should select a set of say five works that we could use as a test run. I've emailed Pediapress to see if their workflow can accomodate non-Collection-extension inputs (either PDF or LaTeX; I suspect the latter will work for them as it's what they're already using). Shall we coordinate this on Wikisource:Print on demand? If Pediapress can't do it, we can set up a Wikisource account on Lulu or something; Wikimedia Australia could possibly handle the payments. Sam Wilson 03:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
This all sounds very sensible. I'd be willing to work on the CSS for laying out the books as well. I think we could do well to have some more deluxe editions of works later down the road but at the very least, we can include plenty of media from c:. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The Nether World might be an excellent first choice, given that it is part of the Oxford World Classics series (indicating interest) yet there's no in-print non-cheap PoD edition out there.* However, I think we need to be able to reliably produce decent PDF and thus PoD works from more or less arbitrary Wikisource works. If a work has demand, we'll be competing against Oxford or Penguin or at least Dover; if it doesn't have any of those publishers, then there's pretty minimal demand for it. Our value will be in breadth, not in any one work.
(* Don't take this as a slam against PoD, but rather against all the publishers who seem to take Google scans or Gutenberg transcripts without ever pausing to make sure they're complete and usable.)
I think this is a great thing for people who like physical books and may want to support Wikisource. I think if you want to raise money, take a very good look at how much is coming in from stuff like PediaPress right now and how much you're actually going to sell. Capitalism can be a cold hard mistress.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Good point about fundraising. It'd be great if we could make some money out of it, but I guess that's unlikely. Even a small amount going to the WMF on each sale would be nice though, and if nothing else is better than that money going to Lulu or whatever else commercial service (although, I suspect Pediapress uses one of those services). So, more of an advantage for people buying the books than for us as a fundraiser perhaps.

As for creating these books from any Wikisource work, I think the issue is in the details: basically, my current approach is to generate, pretty automatically, the LaTeX source. This can then be edited by hand, to make the book as good as it can be (e.g. fix up tables, footnotes, put in proper headings, generate the ToC based on those headings, etc.). It's a bit of a jump from a facsimile edition (even an HTML-formatted facsimile such as we produce on Wikisource) but I think makes for a better bound book.

This is similar to the approach to epubs of Standard Ebooks, where they're not relying at all on a single-source/multi-output system but are instead just writing the epubs directly. The difference I see with Wikisource is that whatever derivative formats we produce, we should always be able to merge in the changes that we might make on-wiki. To this end, I'm putting the LaTeX source into a Git repostory, and can at any time re-run the generation process and bring in any changes — but also retain the local modifications.

Sam Wilson 02:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
One possible option which occurs to me is maybe publishing collections of works, either in one or more volumes, of works which might have minor demand individually but which might be salable as inexpensive sets. Examples might be The Complete Works of whoever or maybe early volumes of The Complete Sexton Blake or a set of "banned books" in the PD or something along those lines. One other possibility might be somehow variations on the "Parallel Bible" concept. I have seen both 4 and 6 versions of the New Testament bound together into a single book with each version being one column running in each two page spread. So, maybe, as an example, the Parallel Gospel of John with 4 or 6 columns, possibly in several volumes to allow seeing perhaps a dozen variations side by side? John Carter (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2018-07

21:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

## New problem with the special characters toolbar

Hi there,

Since 14/02/2018 21:50 (UTC), I have issues with the toolbar for specials characters and custom toolbars in the Page: namespace. Whenever I try to add something, it adds it to the page at the beginning of the page and the header and the footer are duplicated into the main section of the page. For example, here: [10], when I add "Á" at the end of the first line (DICTIONARY OP THE SWATOW DIALECT.), this is what I get : <noinclude><pagequality level="1" Áuser="" />{{RunningHeader|left=77|center={{sc|dictionary of the swatow dialect.}}|right=77}}{{multicol|line=1px solid black}} </noinclude>DICTIONARY OP THE SWATOW DIALECT.

The problem does not affect main namespace.

The problem started at that time (21:50 UTC) approximately. Assassas77 (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The same problem on pl ws. using anything from editTools inserts hidden footers and headers into the page text. Zdzislaw (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Same problem here. ...do you use the custom toolbar as well? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
it seems that this change: Create keyboard shortcuts for navigating in ProofreadPage(added a project to T186478: Create keyboard shortcuts for navigating in ProofreadPage: MW-1.31-release-notes (WMF-deploy-2018-02-13 (1.31.0-wmf.21)).) completely destroyed the possibility of using the editTools and toolbar :( Zdzislaw (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Ditto. Charinsert does not insert at the cursor but anywhere it feels like. it has nothing to do with the toolbar, which in your scheme of things inserts some template codes into the text (please correct me if I am wrong). This is an error caused somewhere else in the code. — Ineuw talk 02:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ineuw: A description of what happens when I try to add a break to the first line of poetry using the <br /> button from my custom toolbar (placed after "glares. . . .", but that's not where it appears) Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
P.S. I am calling it a night, so I won't be responding for a few hours. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I understand, but the origin of the problem is not your toolbar, nor is it my character insert bar. There is a an error somewhere in the wiki code which affects all such actions. Since everything of this nature is affected, it will be easier for the programmers to locate and repair it. Until then, one has to type in all the codes. My only regret is that they never try out their changes in a real working environment before they release the new software upgrade.P.S. Rest well. — Ineuw talk 03:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's happening to me in Monobook as well. It's inserting at about 50 characters earlier than the insertion point. Happens both from the classic toolbar and from the charinsert at the bottom. I've got around it by inserting into the header box and then copy/paste to where it should be. However this is far too much of a nuisance, so I'm stopping after 1 page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I wonder if this change has anything to do with it. Certainly it doesn't seem that there's been any recent change to the WikiEditor toolbar that would have caused this. are you able to assist at all here? Sam Wilson 03:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

In relation to the char-insert/ SpecialCharcters insertion issue, I am also experiencing this. (Firefox 60.0a1 (2018-02-14)) on Windows 7.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that Create keyboard shortcuts for navigating in ProofreadPage is related to this problem. This change seems to be the real origin of the problem (thank you Sam). I have opened a task about it with more explanations. Tpt (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Some weeks ago I made a feature request to add an alt-shift keyboard combination to open/close the header. Could this be the issue? I would not know how to track this down. — Ineuw talk 17:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This should be fixed now. See the task for details. Matma Rex (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Working for me! Many thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for repairing this. Dick Bos (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Solved for me :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

## An aside from more important problems

As soon as the more serious problem of the character insertion issue is on the way to be resolved, I am asking for info so that a cat can be revived, (namely, the one that's dying of curiosity.)

1. The text of proofread and saved pages, when reopened, are padded with numerous newlines at the end of the text. I am assuming that there is something is wrong when the page is saved initially.
2. In edit mode, on the right of the Summary box three digits are displayed. most of the time it is 255, but not always. Can someone in the know comment on this? Thank you. — Ineuw talk 03:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The second one's easy; the edit summary can apparently be up to 255 characters long, and that's telling you how many characters you have left.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I find that there's a newline at the end for every time I preview a page. I just get rid of them before doing the final save. It started happening relatively recently, but I don't know when. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Beeswaxcandle, you are 100% correct. the added newlines is a recent issue, perhaps two week or so. — Ineuw talk 17:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
If the trailing lines are left is it impacting transclusion? I do know that mediawiki can give and take at the same time at the end of a page. If it is impacting we may wish to get a fix in play, if it isn't then we may be over-playing around mediawiki quirkiness. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's affecting transclusion as they're just part of the swallowed blank space at the end that gets converted to a single space. I get rid of them because they prevent me from seeing most of the page's text in the box at the same time. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
In my case there are as many as 10 newlines at the bottom of the page, but not always. This only happens to proofread pages and notice it before saving the page. So now before removing them, I will check the main namespace article first, and post the results. Perhaps the page namespace database was not compacted/optimized as frequently as it should be? But, I lean towards mediawiki quirkiness. — Ineuw talk 18:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
A eureka moment. Each page preview adds an empty line at the end of the text. Should this be reported as a bug? — Ineuw talk 21:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Probably why I never see it, I always clean up trailing lines and line breaks whilst editing, so I don't see that build up. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Created Maniphest bug report. — Ineuw talk 00:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

### More questions of lesser importance

In the Mediawiki Commons, the UTC clock/re-query gadget shows local time, (in my case it's EDT). Will this be universally available on all wikies? — Ineuw talk 05:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ineuw: that has always been under your control Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-renderingbillinghurst sDrewth 00:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I think that there is a misunderstanding. In (my) preferences/appearance, there is no such thing as setting the clock to display to local time. — Ineuw talk 00:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Also uploaded THIS IMAGE of what I see on that page. — Ineuw talk 01:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
The clock gadget reflects the general setting that you have for the wiki, it isn't independently set...Time offsetbillinghurst sDrewth 01:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, can I suggest the temporary images be pasted into phabricator and then linked here, instead of being linked that way. See phabricator:file and you can control the access and easily delete. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
We are talking about two different things. Look at the Commons/Preferences/Gadgets list. — Ineuw talk 09:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you ${\displaystyle {\ce {\times 3}}}$. — Ineuw talk 19:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2018-08

22:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

## "Contents" in transclusions

Dear English Wikisource Editors,

How to show "Contents" in transclusions like this? __TOC__ does not work.--維基小霸王 (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Using <pages> doesn't work for Wikipedia-like headings. One working way is:
__TOC__
{{Page|Gujin Tushu Jicheng, Volume 100 (1700-1725).djvu/12|num=6R}}
{{Page|Gujin Tushu Jicheng, Volume 100 (1700-1725).djvu/13|num=6L}}
{{Page|Gujin Tushu Jicheng, Volume 100 (1700-1725).djvu/14|num=7R}}
{{Page|Gujin Tushu Jicheng, Volume 100 (1700-1725).djvu/15|num=7L}}
{{Page|Gujin Tushu Jicheng, Volume 100 (1700-1725).djvu/16|num=8R}}
{{Page|Gujin Tushu Jicheng, Volume 100 (1700-1725).djvu/17|num=8L}}
-Einstein95 (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
This is too troublesome to make 10000 such thing. It also makes the source inelegant. I give up.--維基小霸王 (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@維基小霸王: we generally wouldn't try to do so. Where there is a table of contents in the published work, then we would look to transclude that and have the pertinent links contained. Where there is not such a ToC, then we would utilise {{auxiliary Table of Contents}} and paste in the components we wish to do. You are correct that the code becomes ugly and typically for no real benefit. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

::::To note that the headings do work for transclusions, see example, if it isn't working at zhWP then check the local settings. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC) oh you mean <pages>, no, that has been set to remove numerous amounts of class coding like "indented pages" . — billinghurst sDrewth 13:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

### Title at the end of page does not show as title in transclusions

Title at the end of page does not show as title in transclusions. See 17R of zh:欽定古今圖書集成/曆象彙編/歲功典/第035卷. How to solve it?--維基小霸王 (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Use {{nop}} by itself on the last line of the Page: Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
It works. Thank you!--維基小霸王 (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

## Braces spanning lines

Could someone help with positioning the braces (and brace-text) for Page:Mary Lamb (Gilchrist 1883).djvu/16? I need to shift them down slightly without altering any other formatting on the page, but am not sure how to go about it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe use a table? Copying table formatting from past examples in my sandbox, how about something along the lines of the following:

Memoir of William Hazlitt, by W. Carew Hazlitt. 1867.

 Spirit of the Age. Table Talk. ${\displaystyle \scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}}$ Hazlitt. 1825, 1826. Autobiographical Sketches. Lakes and Lake Poets. ${\displaystyle \scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}}$ De Quincey. 1863.

William Godwin, his Friends and Contemporaries, by Kegan Paul. 1876.

Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It would be a two-page-spanning table with lots of internal formatting. I'd like to avoid using a table for the two pages, if that's possible. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I am only copying someone else's smartness, but the way it is formatted, it seems as though only the affected portion needs to be a table? See in edit mode (refer to "p style" etc., which lies outside the table). Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The spacing between consecutive lines is different with and without the table. So it looks odd if only a select portion is formatted as a table. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Doing something like this ought to be fairly portable without the need for tables:
''Spirit of the Age''. <span style="position:relative;top:1.4em;">{{brace2|2|r}} ''Hazlitt''. 1825, 1826.</span><br />
''Table Talk''.

''Autobiographical Sketches''.  <span style="position:relative;top:1.4em;">{{brace2|2|r}} ''De Quincey''. 1863.</span><br />
''Lakes and Lake Poets''.
The factor 1.4em represents "standard" line height and ought to suffice. 114.74.130.95 04:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Not quite what I wanted, but it seems to work well enough for what is required. Thanks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Then please expand on precisely what it is that you wanted, anyway, and maybe a better solution will emerge in the ensuing discussion? Without pressure, as a couple of usable alternate approaches are available to fall back upon. 114.74.130.95 22:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

## Split a page in half

There are some pdf files with two pages on a single scan. Is there any automatic way on Wikisource to split a page in half? --Yousef (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

No, though there may be some third-party tools that can do this. If you can't find a better scan with separated pages, you can still proofread it; it's the same as proofreading a text with two columns. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Here’s what I used for Index:Casement Report.djvu: https://askubuntu.com/questions/56853/splitting-a-pdf-page-in-two . χchi (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Χ Was there a text layer prior to the split? There isn't one there now. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Good point. I should have mentioned this destroys the text layer. In my case, the text layer was not great quality. The OCR available through Wikisource seems to be doing an okay job as far as I can tell. χchi (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

## Labelling our templates as <span>/line or <div>/block

Hi to all. With all the recent conversation around linter filters and errors, and the misapplication of <span>/inline and <div>/block templates, it is incumbent upon us to start more clearly labelling our templates so people can overtly see what they are using. This also allows us to indicate appropriate use. I know that if people utilise the <templatedata> components that these specify inline or block, though not in a helpful way to guide their use. (more below)

I would suggest that we should develop specific markers that we can use inside {{documentation}} (unless we wanted to adapt that template itself).

### TemplateData

Looking at enWP, about the only place that I see that they discuss inline v block templates is at w:Wikipedia:TemplateData/Tutorial, (noting though that WPs generally have less need for grandiose or extensive formatting between <span>s and <div>s within articles).

I also note that TemplateData allows for unknown and custom fields, which would apply to our /s,/e-paired templates which are custom blocks.

Anyway, putting it out there for comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. In my opinion a better documentation should be enough. It would also be useful if the lint-checher were easy accessible to everyone, in order to make people aware of consequences of wrong use of templates. It is not easy to digest but instructive.— Mpaa (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

## Maintenance of the Month

We haven't had a new task for Maintenance of the Month for quite a while. How about making the task for March &c. correcting lint errors? Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment. After having looked at many flagged pages, my conclusion is that there is no easy way to reduce the backlog. It is possible but time consuming. Each work has its own peculiarities and errors related to one work need to be addressed in such a way to maintain consistency with the rest of the work. The main root cause is the (mis)use of span and block templates. A strategy about that, mybe new templates, and awareness among users should be addressed first. There is only one easy pick, which is EB1911 Fine print template.
I do not know if not addressing these errors will have consequences in the future. — Mpaa (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2018-09

19:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

## Project Gutenberg blocks access from Germany

See https://cand.pglaf.org/germany/index.htmlJerome Charles Potts (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, this here is where i stumbled upon it. There is a discussion going on. —Jerome Charles Potts (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

What a shame, but not unexpected, seems a reasonable precautionary cause of action would be to remove (or at minimum localise) all non-US works that are not at least PD-old 70 in their source country (On Commons/English Wikisource), or which aren't PD for other reasons (like Legislation , or explicitly licensed works.) . A suitable note could be left on the relevant pages explaining why.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks PGLAF for fighting in court! Copyright bullies must know that citizens will fight back. --Nemo 16:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
A reasonable course of action would be to do nothing, and let the WMF worry about it. The source country means little; many countries do not have the rule of the shorter term.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I will urge my local school district, which is in the process of choosing new textbooks, not to use Macmillan and make sure they know why. Textbooks are big money for book publishers, but schools rely on the freedom of the internet to function. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Good idea! Copyright news like this I learned from participation in Wikimedia movements over the years remind me of the truth of capitalism I learned in school as Chinese. The governments in capitalist nations are directly or indirectly controlled by capitalists for their own interest. Bad news is my nation is imitating them in copyright issues.--維基小霸王 (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
see also Project Gutenberg blocks German users after court rules in favor of Holtzbrinck subsidiary, teleread. Slowking4SvG's revenge 22:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

11:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Because An Essay on the Age and Antiquity of the Book of Nabathæan Agriculture has an unknown translator, the {{header}} template adds a banner warning of possible deletion, even though the English translation was published in the 1860s. What’s the appropriate way to remove the banner? χchi (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Done , use override_translator —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
that is a particularly bitey message. maybe some encouragement to date the translation would be better. Template:No translator info & Category:Deletion_requests/Unknown_translators Slowking4SvG's revenge 22:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@Χ, @Beleg Tâl: There is a better and built-in way as explained in Template:Headertranslator = not mentioned. It was specifically put there aaaaaages ago specifically for old translations like this. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2018-10

17:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

## Please test pings in edit summary

"You can notify users in edit summaries. They will get a ping just as if they had been mentioned on a wiki page. phab:T32750"-- meta:Tech/News/2018/10

2. Sign up at https://en.wikisource.beta.wmflabs.org/ using a different user name and password (not the one you use here). You may create multiple accounts if you like, just put a note on their user pages.

3. Edit a page and put a username link in edit summary. Confirm that you are receiving the notification correctly.

4. Test at different pages and in different ways.

5. Report bugs to Phabricator.

6. Share this comment with other people on other wikis, in different languages.

--Gryllida (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

## Triple border in {{Table style}}

Anyone got a more elegant solution than this? -Einstein95 (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

## [Resolved] Purge options don't refresh a page with an image

I am replacing a number of poorly cleaned images and after uploading them to the commons, the Purge tool there no longer purges the page immediately. Consequently it affects the WS page I am working on. Here, none of the purge tools do anything. The purge is delayed perhaps some days after. Has there been any change in the purge frequency procedures? — Ineuw talk 09:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

## Mrs Beeton -

A search on archive.org produced a very nearly 1st edition courtesy of the Wellcome Library (https://archive.org/details/b20392758)

Does anyone want to take it on? (We already have the 1907 updated edition.)

I also found a companion volume (The Housewives Treasury) https://archive.org/details/b28130807

I am strongly thinking either these could be a future POTM. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

## Categorical labeling of laws

I've noticed that much of Wikisource's legal content seems to be haphazardly categorized, with a number of categories that seem to overlap or duplicate other categories, and have little broad usage. There are only 24 pages tagged with Category:Law, 7 pages tagged with Category:Laws, 6 pages tagged with Category:Legal_Documents, 5 pages tagged with Category:Legal, and 1 page tagged with Category:Legislation. This suggests to me that they are either misused, and these pages should be recategorized in more specific ways, like Category:Copyright Law, or they are underused, and many other pages should be added to them. I haven't been able to find any guideline as to how these should be handled; is there any consensus already which I'm just not able to find? Qwertygiy (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

A couple of things. Firstly, in our experience at enWS, categorisation for works is not overly effective, so we tend to be more likely actively curate collective pages, either on Author: or Portal: namespace pages. So your observations are not particularly surprising, and as law reproduction is often less sexy and often typographically more difficult, it is simply less featured in people's endeavours, so people tend to drop in and drop out of such work. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

## Tech News: 2018-11

19:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

## Page history stats links need revision — Template:Histlegend

Hi. I was just looking at the stats links we give on a history page, and truthfully they are well past prime

We probably should be looking at a tool like

as a replacement for history, and I wonder whether of the usefulness of that complete list. Do others use the history links much? — billinghurst sDrewth

## Tech News: 2018-12

15:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Any reason why "Updates for this page [Special:WantedPages] are currently disabled." and "Data here [at Special:WantedPages] will not presently be refreshed." on various wikis? A cursory search of Phabricator didn't turn up any open issues on the subject. Mahir256 (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
It does get refreshed, just less often, last done 12 March 2018; presumably system intensive so just less often. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)