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. Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel webclient. For discussion related to the entire project (not just the English chapter), please discuss at the multilingual Wikisource.

Announcements

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

Wellcome images made available with Creative Commons licence

Over 100,000 images ranging from ancient medical manuscripts to etchings by artists such as Vincent Van Gogh and Francisco Goya are now available for free download as hi-res images on our website.

Drawn from the historical holdings of the world-renowned Wellcome Library, the images are being released under the Creative Commons-Attribution only (CC-BY) licence. billinghurst sDrewth 11:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

To also note the discussion Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2014/01#Wellcome_Images (PL)
See the longer term Commons batch upload project page where questions or suggestions are welcome. -- (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata ↔ Wikisource phase 2 proposed

Wikidata is proposing that phase 2 of the transition be scheduled for Feburary 25. This phase allows for us to pull data from Wikidata, eg. have {{authority control}} data provided through addition of the template, without data as it is pulled from WD. They have started that discussion at d:Wikidata:Wikisourcebillinghurst sDrewth 15:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

<poem> tag to become <lines>

 “ For some time, work has been ongoing on a merge of the Poem extension into MediaWiki core [1] [2]. (For those not aware, this extension [3] implements a simple tag which, among other things, preserves newlines.) Several developers have expressed the desire for an alternative name for this tag, alongside (which of course will be kept for backward compatibility). This is because the tag is sometimes used for various other uses besides poetry. There were many suggestions (see the bug report [1]), but it was eventually agreed to use Michael M.'s suggestion of . This name puts the focus on the individual "lines" of the content, which is exactly what the tag is doing. We almost had a collision with a previous proposal ( conflicted with a tag in use on Wikia), so we wish to ensure that no-one else is using . No-one is yet aware of any MediaWiki extensions or other code using a tag named in wikitext. If you think the name will be an issue, or if you have any other concerns with this merge, please speak up, either here or at the bug report. ” —User:This, that and the other, Wikitech-l

What it would mean for Wikisource is that with the proposed change being backwards compatible, that we can make updates in our own time. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I should clarify that <lines> is expected to work identically to <poem>, so there should be no need to change anything (although some users may find that they need to alter their individual custom CSS styling). Indeed, there is a proposal in the works to provide automatic line numbering for <poem> tags, which I think is a positive development for Wikisource. This, that and the other (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure automatic line numbering would be good for WS. Nearly every poem found in novels and other texts is marked using the <poem> tag and they are not usually numbered. Any change in this would essentially break the format of many of the books here. Plus, I think the current numbering system, via template, is a bit more flexible (in terms of where the numbering goes). 00:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Edit. I read automatic as default. Of course, adding the line numbering option to the poem tag would be great, as long as it's not the default setting. 00:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

World Digital Library books available on Commons in many languages

After five years of discussion(!), I have boldly gone ahead and mass uploaded several hundred books from the World Digital Library collection. See Commons:Category:Books from the World Digital Library and the project page. There are many books hosted by the WDL that are single pdf files greater than 100MB, if you find any on WDL that you would like uploaded to form a Wikisource project, drop me a note/email and I'll get a friendly admin to by-pass the maximum size limit. -- (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposals

Main Page Improvements

In my opinion, there are a couple improvements that should be made to the Main Page:

1. The top banner is too large, pushing actual content down the page - compare it to WP's banner. I don't want to get rid of our scribe mascot, just make him a bit smaller.
2. We need to make the introductory and help content links more prominent. Currently, the user will need to click on the word "Wikisource" to find WS:WIW (not obvious), or "Community Portal" to find help and discussion pages (I also think this is not obvious). I would like to see more links such as "Help", "Proofreading Guide", "Add to the Library" and a more prominent "Community Discussion" link.

--Eliyak T·C 10:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

What about the following draft?--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 Welcome to Wikisource, the free library that anyone can improve. 302,253 texts in English What Wikisource includes Community portal Community discussion News Help Proofreading Adding texts Sandbox

I like the smaller banner but dislike the collection of links on the right. How about this Main Page/sandbox? Main changes are: a) smaller banner; b) move explore links into banner; c) expanded new texts as discussed above. Moondyne (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Moondyne: Nice! I made some further adjustments (for reference, this was how it looked before I did so). --Eliyak T·C 03:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I added some nice modern effects to the sandbox via CSS that are visible in modern browsers. I tried to be understated. Getting carried away with special effects can be worse than being bland. --Eliyak T·C 06:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I've adjusted the widths of the right and left columns a bit, because it looked like the Featured Text was a little cramped. Hope no-one minds... —Clockery Fairfeld [sic] 07:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
...and do you think a separate column should be included for Poetry in New Texts, or is it fine to include it in Fiction? —Clockery Fairfeld [sic] 07:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Noice. IMHO, no to poetry; getting too busy. 54:46 is a good compromise. Moondyne (talk)
It looks like there's an empty space under the left-column which could easily accommodate something else, but for the life of me I can't think what... unless it's time to revive Wikisource:Song of the day? —Clockery Fairfeld [sic] 09:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The columns look reasonably balanced to me at present (on my lap-top). If anything, the left is longer than the right, which I'll fix at the end of this month's PotM but reducing the list of recent works there. However, we don't have a lot of "songs" per se at present—not enough to sustain a daily one on the list. However, I've been thinking about the possibility of a "Poem of the day" as a way to commemmorate WWI. Many of the poems in A treasury of war poetry, British and American poems of the world war, 1914-1919 are dated, and it would be good to feature those on the appropriate date in the next few years. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• I like the "Poem of the day" idea. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 20:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm oka with Wikisource:Poem of the Day. If no one minds, I'm making it. Any objections? —Clockery Fairfeld [sic] 07:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Help needed with page. I'll make an extra section below about Potd. —Clockery Fairfeld [sic] 08:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyone there?

There is a draft new-look Main Page at Main Page/sandbox. Seven regulars have commented or participated in the design. Is there consensus for this change, or are there elements shown which need adjusting? Or shall we continue with the existing? I agree that Poem of the Day needs a separate discussion, and this has already started here: Wikisource talk:Poem of the Day. Moondyne (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Discuss
I was wondering what had become of this...I'm fine with the page as it is now in the Sandbox. Poem of the day needs more discussion, but there doesn't seem to be anyone much else there to discuss with. ;-) Other than that, no worries. —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 10:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: If the new texts are to be divided, then it should be done as part of the template itself. Or is there to be a separate New Texts for fiction and non-fiction? —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 10:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I envisaged separate F & NF templates. Moondyne (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
!Vote

Facilitating interwiki bots for Wikidata migration

As has been previously annunciated, Wikidata is soon (14 Jan) to start to migrate xxWS data to their system to manage interlanguage links. They will have bots in place that undertake this matter. Our existing bot policy does not require permission to operate bots for interlanguage links, though there is the requirement to get a bot flag through application to the wiki. As the bots that will be operating are the same operators that undertook the xxWP migrations, I would like for the community to be able to expedite the bot flag approval process, rather than our usual more languid approach. I would like for us to be able to have testing take place, and the authority provided to the existing bureaucrats, ( or if unavailable, by approved delegation to stewards) for the assignation of rights to be assessed and allocated. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

If I understand you right, you're asking the community to authorize 'crats to bypass community discussion and unilaterally flag bots — just for this one-off uncontroversial situation. I am comfortable with that, bearing in mind that 'crats can also unflag. I would envisage it working just like speedy deletion and the "bold-revert-discuss" cycle: I'm happy to be bold and flag these bots unilaterally, but should anyone challenge any decision to flag, I will unflag and take the discussion to the community. Hesperian 04:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm OK with this as a one-off situation with the following 2 provisos: 1) the bot(s) have a successful test run; and 2) at the conclusion of this data-migration process they are deflagged. If the bot-operator wishes to have a longer term presence then an "application" through the normal process needs to be made (in the same way as our policy on temporary admin access operates). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The bots would be a permanent feature/fixture constantly working in relation to people adding/deleting/updating the interwiki data at Wikidata. Can you explain why you see that the bots should be operating as unflagged bots is an advantage. Would it not be possible that we, as a community, could review the bots operations as part of our annual bot review? — billinghurst sDrewth 15:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood intention here. In my RL data world migration happens once and then the old system is decommissioned and only the new system is used, therefore any automated process of migration is temporary. I assumed that this WD process would be similarly temporary. I don't want unflagged bots showing up in RC. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Migration does happen once, it is the ongoing process/management, predominantly new works, either here or at another wiki. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I have yet to see any specific examples of what is going to be migrated or what will happen to the data, so I still have no clue whether this is a worthwhile endeavour. All discussions thus far have been largely abstract. Having seen the catastrophe that happened to interwiki linking on Wikipedia, I'm not in favor of having this process outsourced. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The plan is at the previously announced d:Wikidata:Wikisource‎‎. In the primary phase, Author: ns interwikis, (eg. Author:William Shakespeare would have interwiki to be moved to d:q692 into a Wikisource section), in main ns . My understanding is that first test would be a dry run of the import of the links to test WD, and no modifications back [and interations until happy and no bot bits required]. When we get to the live WD, I would be hoping that we can do a series of smaller test iterations of the import, and the link modification here, and hopefully sign off bot flag.

Re any errors, probably the advantage of not coming first. The Voy: links seem to have flowed without issue; and let me say that with Commons still being done manually, I don't want to manually do enWS. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I've seen and read "the plan", but most of the details are still very vague. "The plan" at this point consists mostly of descriptions of kinds of pages and namespaces on Wikisource, rather than of actual examples of data items on Wikidata to show us what will happen. So I repeat: I have yet to see any specific examples of what is going to be migrated or what will happen to the data. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
It is just the interwiki links being migrated at this stage; they have not set a date for any further integration, only that it will follow at some point in the future. To follow Billinghurst's example, Author:William Shakespeare is currently linked to 19 other Wikisources, such as fr:Auteur:William Shakespeare. Following migration, they will be listed under "Wikisource pages linked to this item" on Wikidata:Q692 and deleted from the bottom of the Wikisource page. I do not believe this is limited to the Author namespace (which is what I had originally heard) but the principle will apply to all pages. New Wikidata entries will be created for pages that do not currently exist.
If there are any problems, I suspect it will either be with subpages (sometimes these are all linked to the same page elsewhere, which won't work anymore) or possibly with potentially confusing works like The Bible, where we have multiple versions of the same thing—and so do other Wikisources (there are no interwiki problems that I know of at the moment but this is where things could go wrong during migration). Another possible problem is if an author, for example, is not curretly linked to a biography on Wikipedia and this is not caught during the migration. We may end up with two separate Wikidata entries for the same person. That will just need to be merged, however. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Another potential error-situation: Two versions on one Wikisource linking to one version on another Wikisource (or something similar). I think Wikidata only handle single, direct 1-to-1 links. The first example I found: Beowulf (a versions page) and Beowulf (Harrison and Sharp) both link to fr:Beowulf (a versions page); fr:Beowulf/Botkin links to Beowulf (the versions page again) but it does not link back. I could fix those but I don't expect them to be the only cases. In a variation on this: We have two versions of On the Origin of Species, both with unique sets of interwiki links but a lot of the targets appear to be undated generic versions rather than our own specific versions, while the German work is an 1876 version linked to our 1873 sixth edition. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem goes further and deeper than that. What happens in a situation where we have more than one English translation of any work originally written in another language? Where do the interwikis go? No one has yet answered this question, but we're going to start migrating interwiki links? Where exactly are they being migrated to since this question hasn't been answered? The interwiki links are supposed to be for the exact same work/edition, so that data about that particular edition can be housed at Wikidata, but a translation is never the same edition as the original, so where will the interwiki links go? That is, will Wikidata only have data about works, data about particular editions, particular what?? This issue needs to be resolved if data is going to be migrated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Nope. That doesn't address the issues at all; it's merely a list of possible labels. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if it will work but the plan they seem to be going for is a "work" entry on Wikidata for the general piece, say The Bible or The Odyssey, which will link to a disambiguation page in most cases (although many Wikisources, and even some works here, have a generic piece instead of a specific edition). There will then be a separate "edition" entry on Wikidata for each specific edition of a work, such as the Cowper translation or the Butler translation of The Odyssey. The edition should link up to the work through a property related to "instance of" (probably "edition of"). There will need to be some corrections but that's very true now. Just looking at The Odyssey, there are interwikis randomly sprinkled over those pages and both the disambiguation page and the Butler translation link to the same pages (which won't be possible anymore). This will be easier to manage when everything is controlled centrally and we don't need to make the same edit on half a dozen different Wikisources. I suspect most interwikis will end up at the work/disambiguation level, especially for other Wikisources' works. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The Cowper translation of the Odyssey is not an "edition", it's a "text". That "text" may, and presumably has, been published many times, and each separate publication is an "edition". For an example of the importance of distinguishing works from editions from texts, see A Light Man. Hesperian 10:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't know what this means. Specifically, I don't know what "text" is supposed to mean in this context, nor how that differs from edition (A Light Man did not help). Strictly, the Cowper translation is an edition, a text and a work; as well as probably several other nouns. The people trying to set up a scheme on Wikidata chose the words "work" and "edition" to define their hierarchy, which is how I am using them here. They could have, for example, chosen "high-level"/"parent" and "low-level"/"child" instead. It's just an attempt to establish a simple terminology for the concept. We shouldn't cross this with other terminology from different contexts or it will just cause unnecessary confusion. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
It means (in practical terms) that the data structure being established on WikiData for our publication data will be woefully inadequate. They will have no means of distinguishing different editions of the Cowper translation in their database. We therefore will not be able to use WikiData to house information about editions, texts, and translations, because (a) the data structure will be inadequate, and (b) they will have a confusing internal jargon that differs from local usage, which (c) will impede communication in resolving these issues. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The Cowper translation of the Odyssey may be found in The Iliad and the Odyssey (1791) and also in The Works of William Cowper (1836). Each of these distinct publications are editions; the Cowper translation itself is not. I really think the concept of an "edition" must be reserved for works as distinctly and uniquely published, not for abstractions like "the Cowper translation" which apply to multiple publications or even multiple revisions.

What we need is a generic "is a derivative work of" relation, to handle the situation where: an old German fairy tale is written down by various authors. One of those stories goes through various revisions over the life of the author. One of those revisions is translated into English multiple times. Once of those translations is revised multiple times over the life of the translator. One of those revisions is abridged, and that abridgement is published multiple times. We probably can't expect to capture the fact that a publication is a publication of an abridgement of a revision of a translation of a revision of a version of a work. But we do need to capture these dependencies somehow. If everything is declared to be either "work" or "edition" (but not both), how are we to handle the above? Declare all those editions to be editions of the original fairy tale, and lose all that semantic detail? That would be terrible. Hesperian 05:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata can support either, they just get given a Q# number and properites can be added. The terminology looks like it was developed by Aubrey or Micru, neither of whom have English as their first language and were just trying to explain a concept anyway. Perhaps a more generic "Object" and "Instance" would work better? The Odyssey is the object, while all editions, versions, texts and/or translations are instances of that object. As Wikidata is set up, there should be an item (each with it's own Q number) for the object and each instance thereof. The concept of edition, version, text or translation is not something a database would recognise; all would just have the Wikidata property "instance of" and the Q number of the main "The Odyssey" (Q35160, for the record). Part of the problem is the inclusion of older, non-scan based texts on Wikisource, which are not based on sepcific physical editions (as is the case with more recent texts), but Wikidata should still be able to handle that (mostly because it is just based on the "instance of" property). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
To illustrate the above, I manually migrated The Odyssey (with versions) and Treasure Island (with versions). The latter is actually a better example as we have two distinct editions here. (I kept the non-English links at the disambiguation/parent/object level, which isn't perfect but they can be corrected later.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
It would appear this particular book is also a mid-90s German Eurohouse act: a pertinent illustration of the dangers of automatic migration. That aside, thankyou for the examples. Hesperian 00:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hesperian: your previous comment was quoted in this discussion where we are also debating the same topic. I invite all of you people to come there and join the discussion! :) Candalua (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to be this late, but I didn't see the mention. : you're right the terminology isn't perfect, but here I can do a quick recap of what we thought:
We used the w:Functional_Requirements_for_Bibliographic_Records model (a very used and famous conceptual framework in library science) to underline the fact that you can view a book in 4 different ways, or levels. As a work, as a expression, a manifestation or an item. We don't really need all 4 of them, in Wikimedia projects: when Wikipedia talks about a book, it is often in the "work" view (the Bible, Pinocchio, Hamlet as concept and work which has been declined in several translation and editions and different media). On Wikisource, we use a particular edition (sometimes, we have more than one) of that book. We have different Wikisources, so we can have translations. Not to complicate too much, we didn't use the technical terms "expression" or "manifestation", as the boundary is a bit blurred or at leawst not easy to grasp. So we used "edition" instead, collapsing those 2 FRBR layers in 1 (for what is worth, other conceptual frameworks similar to FRBR (like Bibframe) collapse those 2 layers too). Thus the duality work - edition. I hope this helps. --Aubrey (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support Fast track approval for bot in this case. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Given the questions raised, retracting support fast track approval. Keep in mind that the only thing a bot flag does is impacts recent change visibility. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support--Mpaa (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC). Regardless of the potential from problems mentioned above, I would still prefer the Wikidata-related bot(s) to have bot flags and I think this one-off variance from normal policy is appropriate. Lacking a bot flag won't do much other than clutter up watchlists without the option of filtering them.
• Oppose — until (or unless?) Preferences / Recent changes / Advanced options the checkbox to toggle Show Wikidata edits by default in recent changes and watchlist... on or off is provided to all before any bot runs even for testing purposes begin. I'd prefer the bug to allow this toggle to work with "enhanced changes" be resolved prior to authorizing any runs as well but that may be an "unfair" bridge to far request just on my part (I kind of rely on the advanced/enhanced views for my watchlist and/or recent changes list personally but maybe the majority of other folks do not). To see what I "mean here", visit the same in your Wikipedia User preferences. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
fwiw... showing wikidata edits is now an option in User preferences. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
• Opppose implementing a plan that hasn't been thought through yet. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
As I've said before, when the interwiki migration for Wikipedia happened, the result was a shambles that is becoming a catastrophe. The assumption was that it was simply a matter of shifting the links storage location and consolidation of differences of linking. This was far from what actually happened. Now, all the interwikis are controlled at Wikidata, and changes to interwikis are managed, patrolled, and made without anyone at Wikipedia checking them. How could they, when the site houses so much data, and many of the edits are cryptic changes to data elements? You have to go to Wikidata to see what changes have been made; it can't be monitored locally.
Further, in my own specialist field (botany), an editor banned from Wikipedia and Wiktionary (both the English and Dutch projects), now makes thousands of changes to the interwiki linking for these articles. There was so much drama in trying to get that user banned from Wikipedia, that although everyone there in the specialist group deplores what is happening, no one wants to go through the drama all over again. What has happened is that Wikipedia has outsourced all maintenance of its links to another site, where a completely different group of people has taken charge. Some of these people don't understand the issues, and some were banned from Wikipedia for doing what they're now doing at Wikidata. Now they want to repeat that process here, and I think it's a terrible idea. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
This is true of Commons as well and I don't know of any problems with their hosting of DjVus etc. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Commons is very different. All Commons does is host our files, and if a file is renamed, we get notified and anything that was broken is fixed. Commons does not have control of our cross linking. With WikiData, they would have total control of migrated data. Changes that they make at their end change our linking, and we would not be notified. Allowing them to host our links means that we would be giving over control of how our internal links are set up. This is very different from hosting DjVus at Commons. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think interwiki links are as important as the files on Commons. Additionally, I don't think our current interlinking is especially good itself, so Wikidata will at least not make anything worse. Interwiki links for Wikisource are unlikely to be contentious but, if there is a problem, we can always override Wikidata locally (which a bot will probably try to "fix" but that can be dealt with as well). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Re "WD will at least not make anything worse": I disagree. As I've commented before, the migration destroyed the linking at Wikipedia, and removed control and oversight to a separate project. While the current state of interwiki links here may be bad, I fully expect the three points I just enumerated to make the situation much worse. It's happened with WP, and I don't see any reason not to believe the same will not happen here. WikiData will simply create problems we haven't thought of yet, and that we never expected would happen. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I can't see how interwiki links could be contentious, for Wikisource or botony. Why do we need local control and oversight? A centralised interwiki database seems to me far superior than the current system in every way. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
That's exactly my point: "WikiData will simply create problems we haven't thought of yet, and that we never expected would happen." I've been through this process and have seen botany interwiki links become contentious. This was a problem they hadn't thought of, never expected would happen, and now are doing nothing to fix. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
• I don't feel super secure about granting bot flags to bots that are making these kinds of changes. I think we should have a limited test run with one or a few of the bots that will be migrating the interwiki links so that we can make sure that the changes that are happening are good for our community. Once we agree that we like (or don't) what is going on we can expedite the process.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Might be wrong ... but once data have been imported into WD, my understanding is that 1) the WD item will be added to the page properties (see [1]) and I guess this process will be invisible to us; 2) the bots will just remove the interwiki links from the page (see [2]).
How useful is to observe this process vs. the concerns above? And there is always the option to "Show bots" in RecentChanges to make the edits visible. We will not know what will be linked unless we check the links on a side of a page or Wikidata, bots or non bots approval.--Mpaa (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I have not understood how much margin we have to influence the migration, other than refuse it maybe. Let's make them start from Authors:ns, which looks less controversial and let's discuss with WD people what to gather/how to use info in other namespaces. Until we discuss it here only, I am afraid we will not go too far.--Mpaa (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Phase 1 migration happens tomorrow, so I don't think we have much time left to debate its merits or change the plan. I can't see how interwiki links will be much of a problem for Wikisource. I've fixed a few in the past but I don't think they get patrolled that much anyway. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, so it's started with DexBot making a few transfers in the deaths categories beginning with 10xx. However, User:Ladsgroup has undone 4 of them and User:CandalBot has recreated the iw links. What's the point of taking the links away with one bot only to have another put them back again? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

you're getting this thing wrong. at first we need to connect pages of wikisource and wikidata (which my bot is doing it even right now as you can see here d:Special:Contributions/Dexbot. after that we need to remove existed interwiki links (because Wikidata can handle that) my bot didn't add interwiki links correctly to wikidata (it can add right now but it had bug) and it was removing interwiki links, so stopped the bot and fixed it and undo incorrect edits, interwiki bots (who adds [[fa:Something]] links) should be stopped right nowLadsgroup (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I think maybe "you're getting this thing wrong", Wikisource does NOT "need to connect pages of wikisource and wikidata", you want to do this. As best I can tell there is not community support for these changes. Challenges to process have been raised and have not been addressed. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I for one really want the connection of pages between Wikisource and Wikdata and I'm disappointed that we've hit a problem at the last second. However, either way, CandalBot probably needs to be stopped as it is likely to be confused by activity on other Wikisources even if there is none here. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The "last second" nature of the problem arises from the fact that no one bothered to survey the community here about the go-ahead until the last second. I was involved in starting discussions and raising some of these same issues at WikiData from a long time ago, but no one there ever responded with satisfactory answers. No one has yet told us clearly what the intentions are, or what the product will really look like, or shown that it can be properly managed. I for one am firmly opposed to the "do it first, fix it later" approach on WikiData, because problems there are not being fixed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Beeswaxcandle, AdamBMorgan: just want to point out that CandalBot is already stopped since some time. I had clearly stated in d:Wikidata:Wikisource that it was running, and in the related talk page I asked to be notified once I had to stop it; which is what happened. Seems like somebody started doing things too early, and without knowing what they were doing :( Candalua (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

A note about displaying wikidata edits

Along with the upgrade that enable Wikidata for Wikisource, two new options were added to your User: preferences but are not enabled by default.

One new User: preference option is under the Watchlist tab - just enable the checkbox next to Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist to get that "working". I use the term "working" here for the lack of a better option since this function might be adversely affected by other enabled/disabled User preference settings/gadgets preventing the feature from operating properly (see the next option for more).

The other new User: preference option is under the Recent changes tab - just enable the checkbox next to Show Wikidata edits in recent edits to get that "working". Again, I use the term "working" here for the lack of a better option since this function certainly is affected by other enabled/disabled User preference settings/gadgets known to prevent the feature from operating properly. The option to Group changes by page in recent changes and watchlist must be disabled at the same time the new Wikidata option is enabled in order for this feature to work (pretty much making both your Watchlist and Recent changes unfriendly to say the least).

Hope that helped -- please report any additional "discoveries" concerning either new option. TIA. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to block bots without approval

Pending resolution and adoption by the Wikisource community of the proposed changes for the wikidata proposal. I propose any bots making edits who have not been approve via our Confirmation process may be blocked without notice, until such time as the bot owner has been granted approval for testing and/or full run. While this is already clear within the existing policy some bot owners seem to feel immune to Wikisource expectations and the process of gaining community consensus. Only those bots on this list where the next confirmation is ongoing or in the future are currently approved. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support, No changes here just enforcing existing expectations Controversial changes, are Unacceptable usage. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment except that would be contrary to our existing policy. We clearly state that interwiki bots do not need approval to edit with or without a flag. My issue was the rate, and that there had been an express to coordinate through a page. So in the current form, I cannot support the proposal.unsigned comment by Billinghurst (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)‎.
• Weak oppose: I was about to make the same comment as Billinghurst, per our policy interwiki bots don't require prior approval. I only add the "weak" because the "controversial changes" clause could be read as a separate condition, although the wording would imply that this is not the case (the Wikidata bots are not exceeding the pre-approved scope of editing interwiki links). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - in general but folks don't seem to grasp the reality here - Interwiki bots are pretty much obsolete with the advent of WikiData so that's a moot point, if not a moot policy as well, now. Interwiki links themselves are going to be a thing of the past - just go through Recent Changes - individuals (not Bots) are already removing them per Wikidata. So what then? Start reverting folks inspite of the fact interwiki is DOA? This whole thing seems forced rather than welcomed and I'm inclined to defer to EcycloPetey's expierence with WD until more clarity comes along. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support, this seems like a sufficiently contentious issue that it's worth throwing up road blocks for bot operators who aren't involved in our project and wouldn't be aware of our discussions until we have things sorted out. Prosody (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Based on discussions in this section and related recent discussions I have modified Wikisource:Bots#Community_authorisation so that ’interlanguage link bots, are no longer precluded from community authorization requirement’. User:EmausBot was granted a bot flag and begun the process of converting to WD for these links, so this exclusion is no longer appropriate. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Panel at Wikimania London in August

Continuing interest from Wikimedia UK in Wikisource, and I said I'd ask here first if there will be a quorum from enWS at Wikimania this year. If so, can we even agree on a working title for a panel discussion, and do something to apply for one? Lively knockabout debate actually can do more to attract an audience than earnest presentations. (My own interests are well known, and I'll be there.) Charles Matthews (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

yes, please. i would like to see a celebration of DNB completion, (with bickering on lessons learned, way forward) lack of WS beer fund adversely affecting probability of attendance, but still. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 13:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Scholarship? Charles Matthews (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

for conflict, i would like to see you and DGG fight it out over DNB v. ODNB.
or talk about outside transcription projects, i.e. https://transcription.si.edu/ ; http://blog.operationwardiary.org/
dunno if foundation will want to fund me, a friend of Stierch, and blocked on en. (mad bad and dangerous to know). Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 19:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You should look into scholarships: not the WMF's decision, certainly. https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships. I met the guy, or one of them, at the recent London meetup. As for DGG: w:Talk:Mac and Mc together is pretty funny in its way, at least to me. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

ok, but the scholarship money appears to be long odds ~10%, and their money. i will try to polish my wiki loves capitol hill presentation. i was thinking of DGG’s comment here [3], it’s unclear to me that ODNB is that much of an improvement 70% of the time, but it would make a fine debate. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 00:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The DNB project on WP would basically agree that checking the ODNB is good practice. As is trying to find other sources: there are really large numbers of cases where the ODNB apparently confirms things that are in the DNB, but both turn out to be wrong. It all makes an interesting study, and some areas are much more troublesome than others. I found out long ago that the best way to fact-check an article is to expand it. (The ODNB also cuts out certain kinds of information.) Charles Matthews (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

feel free to put me on a panel, it would motivate me to cross the pond. i would have preferred a wine & cheese reception with the WS10 proceeds, but they sent me this kobo brick. hope it does not gather dust next to my palm tungsten & betamax. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 22:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
You could sell it, perhaps, and re-use the proceeds. I get the impression that WMUK are very paranoid at the moment about even the slightest appearance of yet another scandal; so no booze (their Christmas party was the same). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• I have applied for a scholarship, and will be there if it is possible, so that would be a yes from me. I should romp through the first round, and will hold my breath for the second (and any subsequent rounds). I'll even sleep on someone's floor as long as I get cushions (and get stretching time in the morning). ;-) we are known as the home of the dangerous, invite SS over under any username she desires within reason), we can put her to work billinghurst sDrewth 11:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• I will probably be there but I won't be doing much other than spectating; it will be my first Wikimania. It would be nice to see some Wikisource presentations, although I expect it to be mostly the usual "Wikipedia and a bit of Commons" material. (I won't need a scholarship; at a push, I can probably walk to the Barbican). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• good, i see we have a panel quorum. how puritanical, in our dry counties, we byob, or you could have the org buy food, and people pay cash bar, or hand check from org to people to bartender. dry events will drive folks to the nearest pub. [4] and there is nothing quite like editing while drinking. i sympathize about the paranoia, don’t need more asbos.
• SS has her fellowship at UCBerkeley, and is consulting to small GLAMs, don’t know if transcription has ever interested her.
• i would like to see more what we did, and where we’re going, rather than who we are. although recruiting is good, WMDC is always asking Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 14:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Title proposal is "Wikisource: From digitisation to data"

Working title. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice, works for me. Give us the scope to talk about a range of things: interaction with sister sites, metadata, tools, output forms, etc. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

So a submission should be made in March. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Just thinking aloud here, and bearing in mind the long-term need to get Wikisource a bit more on the Wikimedia map. There must be several aspects of "DNB land" that remain at the level of possibilities with the DNB "data", and could perhaps be elevated to demo status by August.

One would be a wikibook, or other compilation, that scrapes data about the DNB authors from the author pages. NB that the Catholic Encyclopedia did produce such a handbook. It was suggested quite some time ago by User:Arch dude that we should think in those terms. The Fenwick handbook mostly just lists articles, and we have superseded it, and what is more corrected (very plausibly) one author, via the Grove project. The author research is not quite finished: a Victorian-era scholar might be interested, though. It would do no harm at all to call attention to the research that has gone into those authors, much of which is lurking on talk pages, or in hidden comments.

Another is a more recent and possibly wacky idea of my own: analyse all the endnotes. These are mostly semicolon-separated text. So a bot could plausibly scrape these together in one place, split at the semicolons; and alphabetise them. I initially thought this would help find the typos "colon for semicolon" etc. And it would. But we'd end up with a resource showing quite well what went into compiling the DNB.

Some such things might also apply to other works: EB1911 obviously. I don't want to imply otherwise. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure of what you are requesting here . How specific do the submissions need to be? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, the main point would be to send in a panel title. That doesn't need to be coupled to anything so specific, I believe. I was thinking more of what sort of material could be projected up, if enough work had been done ahead of time.

Also, there is stuff going on in June, related to Wikimania advance work: Fringe/Open Scholarship Hack and Fringe/Open Data Hack. They are happening simultaneously with the Fringe/Future of Education Hack which I'm sort of marginally involved in, already. I may be in the building. The topics I mention have some relation to open scholarship, digital humanities, that short of thing. By working the system we could get into the Wikimania workshops with the specifics, I guess. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Pending proposals

Hi all. My computer went belly-up in early December (with about a full volume of proofread text, damn the luck) and I spent the time waiting for my Xmas spending to allow a new one to develop some ideas about things we might be able to do here. Thinking of everything took another month or so, but I am now in a position to maybe start a piece in the Wikipedia Signpost about some things we might be able to do in the various entities. The list includes about 3 dozen proposal items for consideration in various entities, so it might be a long piece, and some of them might not be particularly productive, but, hey, it's maybe a bit of a start. Unfortunately, my work week starts tomorrow, so I probably won't be able to finish the composition until Thursday at the earliest, but I hope to have at least a draft of the whole thing by the end of the week, and might be able to add some additional, somewhat specific, ideas here later this week. They will probably include proposals for a bot which indicates the relative level of completion of various index items, some sort of WF foundation community portal for transclusion in all WF entities, some sort of "core list" for each entity, indicating various things which might be among the most important or useful items for that entity, etc., etc., etc. Sorry for the prolonged absence, but, hey, sometimes that's the way the CPU crumbles. John Carter (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

GettingStarted extension

Noticed this, and the associated mediawiki page, in the Tech News (see below). Since we are always interested in attracting new wikisourcerors, and addiitionally since editting here is a bit more complicated than your usual wiki, I think it could be a very good idea to look into implementing the GettingStarted extension. Documentation seems a bit sparse right now, though. Thoughts? --Eliyak T·C 02:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment — I'm not too keen on incorporating more bells and whistles when it seems like our current bits & pieces could use some well-needed attention/maintenance as it is. In short, I have no problems with the premise - only with the timing. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Can't resist: I once worked for the poker-machine industry. As a result I consider myself largely immune to bells and whistles, and am pretty (functionally, if not factually) contemptuous of those who are. AuFCL (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• I support the concept, but am a bit worried the extension might be rather too Wikipedia-centric. Maybe I have missed an important point? AuFCL (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Help

HotCat not functioning?

I have HotCat selected in the gadgets but it's not working on WS but works on the commons. Have I missed something? — Ineuw talk 18:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I may not have asked the question properly. Is anyone using HotCat on Wikisource and is it working? — Ineuw talk 11:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

TOC Formatting

You made a great start! The details can be confusing. I made edits to show you one way of doing it. The main article page refers to the three page scans: #6 with the cover, and #8 + #9 for the TOC. On scan page 9, we can move the column headings for chapter and page into the no include at the top. The table will appear continuous with the previous page of the TOC, so only one set of headings are needed. For the page numbers on the right column of the TOC, they do not need to link anywhere. Page numbers are less important for the on-line reader. On the pages, I replaced the <references/> with the template {{smallrefs}} template at the bottom of each page. This formats closer to the original scan. Within each chapter, I added sections which can be used from the TOC. See documentation at MediaWiki Labeled section transclusion -- DutchTreat (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion guidelines for American poems published 1881.

Is more searching needed? -- unsigned comment by User:Twigs_Vorron (talk) .

Going by as much detail as was given, I'd say they are OK for inclusion here. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Songbook transclusion help

Looking for help properly transcluding a songbook to mainspace. This will supersede the current extract now in mainspace, although it might be best to use a different title. I'm not even sure if I'm not even using the proper series title for these songbooks, they seem to have multiple.

I have a later edition of the songbook already done, that can be compared to, though I'm not sure if this is entirely done properly. I just went the route most obvious to me.

Possible, though minor, issues may include choosing how to name the subpages, as well as whether the little notes spread throughout the book, not directly related to the songs they follow, should simply be transcluded along with the nearest song or given a separate subpage. Some of these notes have titles, EG being little poems themselves, but are not listed in the book's index. I have the songs, at least, prepared with section labels.

And if that's not enough, working through the versions pages for each of these songs will be quite a feat! djr13 (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Index page TOC and length

According to Help:Beginner's guide to Index: files, the table of contents field on the index page can either be type manually, or transcluded from the book itself if there is one in the file:

What, however, should be done when the table of contents is too long for transclusion? There apparently is a limit in the MediaWiki software on transcluded length, and if you trip that limit it blanks the page unhelpfully.

See, for example, Index:An introduction to the early history of Christian doctrine to the time of the Council of Chalcedon.djvu. This text has a 10-page table of contents. (The table of contents is also ridiculously detailed, which accounts for the length. It could double as an outline of the work.)

What is the appropriate thing to do in this situation? Would it be better to not include the entire table of contents on the index page? Or perhaps to manually enter a short-form table of contents with just the chapter titles?

Thanks. Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

With overly detailed TOC, I just put a cut-down version on the Index page with just the "chapter" names that I'm going to create as sub-pages. e.g. Index:A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah.djvu and Index:History of England (Froude) Vol 5.djvu, which are two most recent ones I've done this for. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
A huge part of the "bloat" there is the application of the Greek missing template. Its possible if somebody properly replaced those missing characters and removed the missing template in the process, the overall post-expand template size might come in under the limit. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Another option is not to use {{TOC row}} but directly table markup.--Mpaa (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your suggestions. I decided to just hand-craft a shortened form of the table of contents using just the chapter titles. Thanks. Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I've inserted the missing Greek. Angr 17:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Error

Why does it say "Error: No Such File" on Index:Farewell letter to Soviet Russia.png? --Wylve (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Because it’s an image file, I think you have to give the pages in the work as separate links. The <pagelist/> tag won’t work here. I’m not too sure about the technical side of it, though. —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. --Wylve (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sidenotes pointer request

Can someone please point me to a work that uses left and right (inset) sidenotes so I can copy the formatting for this work? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks... How will that transclude into the Main? Will inset headers be on one side or both? Seems one side would be preferable. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course I realise this is not what you were asking for at all, but recently I made a template for use in Mexico of the Mexicans which I think could be fairly easily "bent" into what your work needs without resorting to actual side-notes. What do you think of the possibilities of this? Yes: the bolding and centering of the note need more work. Viewer2 (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The text of the inset headers are not centered in the original. Ideally, text would be left-aligned (as opposed to centered), and have less padding space. I'm not against using "raw" formatting/markup as opposed to a template (something similar to this—only better still), but I am wiki-markup challenged. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I took you quite literally and converted it to direct mark-up which I think is pretty close. To achieve the mirror effect (a left inset) would require use of <span style="float:left;font-size:smaller;line-height:70%;margin:0.7em 1em 0.7em 0;width:7em;">"The force of heaven-bred poesy."</span> (Note: the only changes are to float:—left or right; and to margin:—the 1em and the 0 swap places.) Viewer2 (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Further note: you may need to experiment with width:—try to find the lowest amount which achieves the wrapping you desire (or you could cheat and insert <br/>s wherever you want.) But for consistency throughout the work I would recommend choosing a common value for all (of these) spans. Viewer2 (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
That is much better, thanks! I took the liberty of increasing line height to 100% and making the text bold. Thanks also for the note/tips above. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Always forget to mention one more thing! Worth remembering (particularly later in transclusion); if you find two notes overlap because your screen is wider than the printed page, adding a {{-}} between the lowest possible paragraph (if there is one or more) between the overlapping notes will space the paragraphs apart automatically and avert the overlap. (I know I did not express that well—if you notice it happening and can't figure out the foregoing please remind me, because I assure you the cure is simpler to show than it is to explain!) Viewer2 (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. That happened to me when I tried {{float left}} on the following page; another reason why I went looking for another option. I'll make note of your {{-}} tip, thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
if you are interested, I recently learned about {{float box}}, see Remarks_on_Some_Late_Decisions_Respecting_the_Colonial_Church.--Mpaa (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Question: with either option, what is the layout like in the Main? Preferably, the inset headers will only appear on one side. Is there a way to make that happen? Do we want the headers to be on both sides in the Main? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
If I got your question, I would put all the notes on the same side. Left/right on paper is to have the notes always on the outer margin of the page (depending if it is even or odd). As we do not break pages, might as well put them on the same side. Would be interesting to see how it renders on EPUB or similar.--Mpaa (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll place all of the notes on the left then. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I did not know about {{float box}} before. Looks very slick, and makes my suggestions look properly clunky. Viewer2 (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
This looks very messy; while I don't think {{float box}} would be any better(?) Unfortunately, no paragraphs are handy to make use of {{-}} Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Whilst obviously not a brilliant solution, how about this? I narrowed the top and bottom margins on the two single-line insets, and probably more controversially, moved the positioning of the lowest one on the previous page a little higher. This happens to work on my settings: hope it does for you too? Viewer2 (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
A bit better: Two tiers as opposed to three in the Mainspace (from my viewpoint). I plan on setting the Mainspace pages to Layout 2 (if I can get it to work...see Help request below), which will help output some more. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
How about now? Like a fool I forgot a styling in the original specification. It should have read (for the left-inset case you are using throughout this work): <span style="clear:left;float:left;font-size:smaller;line-height:70%;margin:0.7em 1em 0.7em 0;width:7em;">"The force of heaven-bred poesy."</span>

The addition of "clear:left" instructs HTML to move the floating element down to where it will next fit automatically (literally: "keep my left margin clear".)

This is only worth reworking on problem transclusions, as it will have no effect on most cases. Viewer2 (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I applied the change to other problem pages (cases). I'll use the new markup from now on. Seems to be only one hard case now (page 27 [DJVU page 57]). Thanks for all, Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I can help with 27(57), because it looks correct from my perspective. What is misbehaving for you? Viewer2 (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Page 27 seems to work now. Must have been a lag in my system. All good. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Sehr gut! Viewer2 (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Layout display question

I have The poor Sisters of Nazareth set to view with Layout 2 using {{default layout|Layout 2}}, but it doesn't seem to be working. It used to work. Any thoughts? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The override code currently only affects users who have never selected a layout manually. Users who picked a layout on any page via the sidebar will continue to see that layout on all pages. There has been discussion of adding a gadget or preferences setting to make this adjustable. For now, clearing cookies should reveal the behavior you want to see. --Eliyak T·C 10:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Index:Agreement relating to Malaysia (1963) Malay Texts.djvu

What's the template for a language transfer? - Non english work. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The ongoing saga of the sidenotes

Template:Sn-paragraph/sandbox and {{sn-note}} where my current efforts on this.

A logic check of these would be appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I tried to do some formatting using template dottec toc page listing, on this page. Is there an experienced editor who can check this, before I continue? Thnx, Dick Bos (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Check it now. Better? If you see the changes, you can get the gist of it.--Mpaa (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for helping. I again made some small changes. Your solution created rather a strange effect on the index-page. I think it will do now. But before I continue, could you please check it again? Greetings, Dick Bos (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

How to add "as of" date?

Hello, I've found my way here from Wikidata and I'm trying to figure out how you handle amended documents. You have British North America Act, 1867, which is the original 1867 version of the statute, and Constitution Act, 1867, which is the same document with all of the amendments made over the last 147 years (including the name change). However, The latter document is missing the most recent amendment, which came into force in 2011 (the last amendment your page contains came into force in 1999). Until I get a chance to update the page, I want to add "as of 1 April 1999" to the header, but the Template:Header doesn't seem to have an "as of" parameter. What's your standard practice for tagging something like this? Even after I make the updates I want to mark it "as of 2011" in case no one updates it next time a Constitutional amendment is passed. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Information such as that would normally go in the notes section of the header template (currently bloated by a snippet taken directly from Wikipedia - a practice no longer really practiced anymore btw). Technically, we operate under the assumption that hosted works are static and not subject to any future changes so we don't have anything like the field you describe by design - but this instance seems to have been grandfathered in due to its creation preceeding the policy nevertheless. Otherwise, info such as that could/should also go in the "notes" section" of the textinfo template (when one exists) located on the article's talkpage. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
If we prefer stable versions, should I move the existing Constitution Act, 1867 to Constitution Act, 1867 (as amended in 1999) and create a version with the new amendments at Constitution Act, 1867 (as amended in 2011)? --Arctic.gnome (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
No there is no point in doing that at this stage of the work's timeline & modifications. The best thing to do is make it current & complete by adding the since ratified amendment(s). -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick and helpful replies. I have one more question. We have Constitution Act, 1867 (annotated) (plus several other annotated Acts). These annotations give important information like the date a given section came into effect. I have two concerns about these pages. The first concern is about copyright. These annotations come from versions of the statutes published by the Canadian Department of Justice (e.g., see here), and I can't tell whether the annotations may be freely distributed like the laws can. The terms of the DoJ website suggest that they can be redistributed, but it's under a different licence than the laws themselves. My second concern is that we don't really have a firm publication date for the annotations. The website has been updated more recently than the date of the last amendment, so it might be necessary to cite the annotations to a print version of the annotated laws. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Well our policy on annotations isn't set in stone quite yet.

Regardless, I don't see any links to an "annotated" version at the DoJ site you linked - are we sure these are published annotated versions or are they User: created annotated versions based on the published DoJ versions? The latter would be fine for inclusion on en.WS per the previously linked policy but the former would need to have an acceptable license of some sort in order to be able to host them here. If you are thinking of material linked from the "notes" section(s) or similar, which appear to be in footnote/reference form - those are fine to reproduce and are covered by the same license as the rest of the content (afaict).

As far as the publication date goes, again depending on if User: generated or if DoJ published, we try to do the best we can when ascertaining such dates only in the case of formally published works. Whatever the site's "last modified" date is would be what we use in those cases I suppose. For User: created annotations, a review of the article history should help nail down the date of the last edit concerning creation of the annotated content. Hope that helped. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Newspaper reports

I have a short (35 line) newspaper report from 1920 that I would like to refer to on at least two pages of Wikipedia. The original is microfilm to which I have limited access, in other words I can't easily get it scanned. I'm quite happy to copy type it. Is Wikisource the appropriate repository or if not, where is? Thanks, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we are the appropriate repository. In terms of titling the page, so that it can be linked into any future use of the particular issue, use Newspaper name/Year/Month/Day/Article name. An example is at The New York Times/1915/10/04/Correction by Mr. Tesla. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I've done my best, please see The_Chatham_News_1920-12-20. It's my first edit in Wikisource, so please let me know if I've messed up somewhere! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I will second Beeswaxcandle's suggestion of using subpages for issue date and title of article. When we have the publisher The Chatham News as the parent article, then it allows for a description of the source with room to easily navigate between multiple issues. If you need help moving the article into subpages, please let me know. -- DutchTreat (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

How to mark a duplicate for deletion?

This and this are the same work, same edition. One could even argue it's actually the same file uploaded twice to commons with different names. How does one go about marking one version for deletion as a duplicate? Mukkakukaku (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Here (enWS) you can mark one with {{sdelete|G4 "reason"}} and in the reason put a link to the one you want to retain. G4 indicates that the page is redundant. As part of deleting an Index any pages in the Page: namespace need to be deleted as well, so make sure that anything useful has been moved across to the version being kept before request a speedy delete. On Commons, once there are no pages anywhere linking to the redundant version, you can request deletion under their deletion process. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I found yet a third index for the exact same work, so I tagged two as duplicates. Hopefully there aren't any others lying around. The work itself has a 'ready for match and split' status, which doesn't appear to have started yet, so speedy delete should be OK. Mukkakukaku (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Toolbars shift their position in the editor

Everything is working fine with the minor exception that the user defined and the predefined toolbars alternate their positions in the editor. I was wondering if there is a .js solution to keep their loading order consistent? — Ineuw talk 14:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Ineuw, that happened to me also. I still used it like it was and within 2-3 days it corrected itself except for one item (View History) disappears. Perhaps George was experimenting. —Maury (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Maury, this problem has been around for a very long time but since there were other more urgent issues, I never bothered with it. I vaguely remember Inductiveload experimenting with this issue but since he's not here for the time being, I was hoping someone resolved the issue with some "wrapper".— Ineuw talk 15:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Not this time fellas. The shifting toolbars thing has been around forever - has something to do with the way or the order resources are being loaded but I couldn't tell you what or how to fix that if my life depended on it; sorry. And there is so much going in Maury's common.js file, that I wouldn't know where to start.

The only thing I can recommend trying is to first see if you can reproduce the "quirk" when you are not logged in. If the problem goes away, its likely the bug has to do with something within (or some combination of) your User: preferences and/or gadgets selected. If its still there when you're not logged in, then its something far more complicated.

Of course, this is over simplified when it comes to troubleshooting and won't apply to something like custom toolbars where you need to be logged in to enable that in the first place. Nevertheless, experimenting with your preferences can only help isolate the cause. Finally - some stuff just goes bad because its obsolete code-wise and is no longer being developed/maintained (hint, hint). -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no problems with my minor change after the initial problem. Even then I just kept going with the flow. All I have to do now it click on "reload" to see "view history". We love ya George, you keep things going so that what we have is due to you. You've helped us a hundred times over. I have no complaints. It works fine as it is. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
This happens to me at other Wikisources too: French, Multilingual, and Welsh. Angr 17:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
For me too, it has been like that for a long time here and in other Wikisources as well. --Zyephyrus (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
You folks must be aware that the "old" toolbar scheme has been deprecated for some time now. Just because you can manage to pull something into existence around here doesn't really mean that its truly supported. If you don't like WikiEditor (or its eventual replacement, VisualEditor) then at least dump this toolbar nonsense and move those characters and inserts to CharInsert already. All you need to do is add something like this...
// CharInsert specific
window.charinsertDontMove = false;
window.editToolsRecall = true;
window.charinsertCustom = { User: ' Æ  æ  Œ  œ  à  á  â  ä  è  é  ê  ë  î  ï  ñ  ô  ö  û  ü  —  ␥‽  #REDIRECT.[\[+]] ' };
if(window.updateEditTools) window.updateEditTools();

.... to your common.js file and your done. Those characters can then be found on the User menu of what use to be EditTools (deprecated -- replaced with Char[acter ]Insert).

At the very least, please consider porting your buttons over to CharInsert - you're just prolonging the agony for everybody else by artificially keeping this 'monobook-love' around for really no good reason anymore. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I use the "old" toolbar because I have never changed anything with it. I use Vector which is default. I never add to or remove common.js because you, George, have always adjusted that by adding to or removing portions like you did earlier today. I do have a wonderful java script created by InductiveLoad that allows for color background (I use grey) and text (I use black text) which allows me to work. Otherwise all white background hurts my eyes (eye strain). CNN reported on this subject just a few days ago and I have been asked how can I look at the computer so long by friends who can't. I am not opposed to using WikiEditor but it appears, from statements above, I may as well as wait for VisualEditor. How are we to know when these newer editors come along? I don't spend much time reading in this area. I prefer to work on images and text not set up a new editor which should be done automatically as "default"--or at least alert every individual the option is there and have a screenshot of what it looks like. I do nothing fancy so I haven't had a need to have a different editor. This "old" editor does all I need. I don't bother going to other areas with different languages and this old editor works on WikiPedia. Simplify, Simplify, Semper Fi --Ben Franklin. —Maury (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't use the toolbar to insert characters, I use it to zoom in and out of images and to open and close the noincluded headers and footers. Angr 08:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Useless Toolbar Buttons vs User defined buttons

The following toolbar buttons are on my editor and I never use them. They are a waste of space where preferred buttons could be added. Toolbar buttons should be easily chosen and removed by users. B, I, Ab, image of world for external link, image of frame for Embedded Link, image of a yellow trumpet for "file link", Square root of N, letter W inside red circle for ignore wiki formatting, Your signature with timestamp, horizontal line, Abc for small caps, poem & /poem, Hws, Hwe. —Maury (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You can disable these buttons to gain extra space. Copy the code from HERE and let me know which other buttons you wish to disable but not on my list.— Ineuw talk 12:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Ineuw. It didn't work though. The useless buttons were retained. It removed my ae AE oe OE which I do use and kept the useless buttons. No problem though, I never use those useless buttons previously described. They are just extras that are never used. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

/* Hide unused buttons */
#mw-editbutton-link { display: none !important; }
#mw-editbutton-extlink { display: none !important; }
#mw-editbutton-image { display: none !important; }
#mw-editbutton-media { display: none !important; }
#mw-editbutton-math { display: none !important; }
#mw-editbutton-headline { display: none !important; }
#mw-editbutton-signature { display: none !important; }
#mw-editbutton-hr { display: none !important; }

Did you place the above in User:William Maury Morris II/common.css? — Ineuw talk 18:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I am sure I did. It looks very familiar. I looked it over before placing it at the bottom of the java script. In looking at it now I do recall seeing "math" but I will try again. However, it is just an experiment because those buttons do not bother me in any way as I stated above. The idea was not to just remove them but to replace them with other buttons that could be of some use. I have no idea what any other buttons would be worthy though. I did not use and do not believe that is to be included. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, identical outcome Ineuw. But it does not matter. I don't use the buttons. They're all worthless. Are there any good ones to be inserted? What buttons do you use? The best script I have is the "eyestrain" color code. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
My tool-bar has 24 buttons totaled and I use none of them. There is no need for them. I can and do type in the codes instead of clicking on buttons. e.g. small caps sc, bold, italics, et cetera can all be done by hand. I have no problem with this, they're just there. —Maury (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Please correct me if I am wrong, but from what you wrote I must assume that you placed the code in your .js (javascript) page. That's not the same as the common.css page indicated above, because it was not yet created. The User:William Maury Morris II/common.css needs to be created, the above code pasted and this makes the listed buttons disappear. If this works, I will fish out the other codes for the rest of the buttons, and you just add them to the list. At this point, this is the only way I know how to hide the toolbar - by hiding the individual buttons.
I also noticed that you already have some custom buttons declared in your .js file. Do they show up along the 24 standard buttons? — Ineuw talk 22:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah! so there is the difference. You are correct as usual, Ineuw. I added what you posted to my common.js which made my custom buttons disappear and left the original old buttons listed above. As you state, I do not have a common.css I thought .css = cascading style sheet. Beeswaxcandle created a couple of custom buttons for me that I asked for but no longer use. The English pound button is important to me and I use that when I encounter it in texts but it is also available elsewhere. There is an old saying my friend, "If it ain't broke don't fix it" and I have nothing on my toolbar that doesn't work. If I tinker I may lose my eyestrain color code which could be retrieved but this situation is a code person's exploration. It serves me no purpose that I am aware of to just remove all buttons. Let them sit there. Our mutual friend, Raul, has returned from a long trip and we have books we want to start working on. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Overfloat image

A fix required here. Thanks in advance. :) —Clockery Fairfeld [sic] 17:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've split the image in two as it should be, but again my HTML is lacking. Perhaps someone can add the proper code to complete my efforts.— Ineuw talk 21:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
This is exactly how I wanted it to be. Thanks a lot, Ineuw, Eliyak and Mukkakukaku... Clockery Fairfeld [sic] 06:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Cannot center a <div> caption of an image on a main namespace page. The image originates here Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 87.djvu/208 and is diaplayed HERE.— Ineuw talk 20:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the issue using the {{img float}}. Hope that helps. --Xxagile (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response, but unfortunately this is not what I was looking for. The images & captions (some 8,000+ of them) have various standardized formats throughout the PSM project. The images and their captions vary in size independently. I used this page as an example (and a bad one at that because the image and text are both 430px), but there are many images using this independent caption style. What I was looking for, is how to center this specific non-template HTML <div> code.P.S: Just as it formats this response.— Ineuw talk 21:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh ok. I think I understand what you mean, but unfortunately I don't know how to solve that problem (easily) either. Good luck. --Xxagile (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Ineuw, if you'll forgive me for messing with the format of your reply -- is that what you intended? I added margin:0 auto; and changed the align:center-justify to text-align:justify;. Mukkakukaku (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Mess with it all you want . . . . and thank you. This is exactly what I needed.— Ineuw talk 04:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

page break and left margin

Hi there. Can anyone please help me with a paragraph that crosses a page break, and that should have a left margin (it has a fine block as well, by the way; but that runs without a problem). This is the example. Thanks, Dick Bos (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

See if it is OK. I leave to the template experts to see if we need to have a {{left margin/s}}, {{left margin/e}}.--Mpaa (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I've been doing this sort of thing with blockquote tags. They seem to work in the footer of the first page and header of the second page. See Page:A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah.djvu/61 and the following to see it in action. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanx, Mpaa and Beeswaxcandle! re Beeswaxcandle: I used the blockquote for testing in your book: Page:A_Critical_and_Exegetical_Commentary_on_Haggai,_Zechariah,_Malachi_and_Jonah.djvu/49 and the following. That works good. But..... When using it halfway the following page in a block the space between lines is not small, but the same as "normal" text. What's going wrong? Dick Bos (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
If you mean the list of people on /50, that's a series of paragraphs, so it has paragraph spacing. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I think he's commenting on the perceived spaced between the lines, not between paragraphs. (Eg. if this was in a word processor, the property called 'line spacing.') Indeed, on page 50 of the above work, the top blockquote (which, by the way, contains a <p>aragraph) has line-height of 1.2em and the second blockquote has a line-height of 1.5em. The point I believe he is trying to make, that I agree with, is that within a paragraph, the line heights should be the same. The problem is that the {{fine block/s}} template declares class="fslhInherit" on the surrounding <div>, while {{fine block}} does not. This class causes the second set of paragraphs to inherit the line-height from a different declaration. Mukkakukaku (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
A "paragraph" (i.e. the wiki code mark-up variant) normally won't inherit such attributes, being block level elements themselves. The class definition forces any & all of the "paragraphs" wrapped within to inherit the containing div block's values. {{fine block}} is for one block of text (one paragraph, or one div acting like a paragrpah). Multiple paragraphs = multiple block elements so {{fine block}} (singular) is always the wrong template to use in those cases. Use the start & end variation instead. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It's still not quite clear to me. See my latest test on this page: Page:A_Critical_and_Exegetical_Commentary_on_Haggai,_Zechariah,_Malachi_and_Jonah.djvu/50. I now used fine block on one paragraph (two times), and the spacing is still different from the paragraphs below that are done with fine block/s and .../e. So even when I apply fine block to one paragraph, the line spacing is not altered.

Apart from that my objection to using the blockquote tag is, that it creates a left margin, and a right margin too. I only want a left margin. - Dick Bos (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

oe or ae?

On this page, toward the bottom, in italics: Is it "cum fœnore" or "cum fænore"? Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikitionary says that fœnore is an alternate spelling to fænore (wikt:foenus). I'd go for æ. In either spelling it means "with interest". Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Much thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I reckon it's an œ because (a) why would a font use the double-storey lower case a, then revert to a single-storey lower case a within a ligature?; and (b) in my experience when a font uses single-story lower case a in the ae ligature, the bottom of a's vertical may be lost but the top of the vertical nearly always presents as a small bump nestled between the letters. There's a good visual example at File:Ligatures.svg. Hesperian 02:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
See page 12 for an æ, which, as expected, uses the double-storey a. Therefore this is an œ. Hesperian 02:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
In many (most?) serif typefaces, both a and æ use the single-story a in italics but the double-story a in roman. Angr 08:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
A note about Wiktionary. When Wiktionary says "X is an alternate spelling of Y", it does not necessarily imply one or the other is the primary spelling. It is simply indicating that both X and Y are possible spellings found in print. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

There's actually an example of an italic ae (Anima Poetæ) on the page in question as well... I didn't realize it until just now... Definitely a distinction between the two in the original. Noted. Thanks all, Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Missing images?

Using the 'Random transcription' link, I ended up at Index:A Glimpse at Guatemala.pdf. However, it appears that there's something glitching with the file, or perhaps with the software -- none of the pages have images (which makes it rather hard to proofread.) I opened one of the images in a new tab (via 'image' tab at the top of the page) and was greeted with this lovely error message:

 “ Error generating thumbnail Error creating thumbnail: convert: no decode delegate for this image format /tmp/magick-E0sH8bmV' @ error/constitute.c/ReadImage/532. convert: missing an image filename /tmp/transform_ec0b6ee14dd3-1.jpg' @ error/convert.c/ConvertImageCommand/3011. ”

I even tried going to the File:A Glimpse at Guatemala.pdf page, and that has broken thumbnails too. It's worth noting that the thumbnails are broken on Commons too. I can open the raw PDF file, so the file works. But I'm not sure what's wrong with the software's interpretation of said file -- or how to fix it.

Has anyone seen this happen before, or know of a fix or workaround for the problem?

-- Mukkakukaku (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

(see File:Cox and box.pdf) According to Commons, that file is "affected by MediaWiki restrictions". What exactly are those restrictions, I have absolutely no idea, but maybe you could upload a Djvu version of the file using another title...? Apart from that, I have no clue as to what could be done.

Of course, someone else might know better... —Clockery Fairfeld [sic] 06:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Documentation seems to exist only in the relevant bugzilla bugs. You'll find links to these bugs at the top of Commons:Category:PDF files affected by MediaWiki restrictions. Hesperian 06:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the server is running a very old version of ghostscript, but the devs are reluctant to update. Or maybe I read the bugs reports wrong. The official solution appears to be to "fix" the PDF file. Mukkakukaku (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
In addition to the PDF "bug" thing, something else is clearly off. The PDF on IA is ~24Mb and the one uploaded to Commons is ~33Mb. Seems corrupt to me - I'd try re uploading the PDF from IA again over the one currently on Commons for kicks. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I re-uploaded the version at IA and while the filesize is now right, the current version has 10 fewer pages. And appears to be still broken. Mukkakukaku (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Viewing page links in a sandbox

I am using one of my sandboxes to view the progress of a work. Is there some way I can view page numbers so if I find an error I can link directly to the affected page instead of having to search for the correct page page-by-page in the Index? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

if ( $.inArray( mw.config.get( "wgAction" ), [ "view", "submit", "purge" ] ) !== -1 ) { if ( !self.debug_page_layout // don't do anything on DoubleWiki or difference comparison views && document.URL.indexOf( "match=" ) === -1 && document.URL.indexOf( "diff=" ) === -1 && mw.config.get( "wgNamespaceNumber" ) === 2 ) { if ($( ".pagenum" ).length !== 0 ) {
if ( ! $.isEmptyObject( self.ws_layouts ) )$(document).ready( layout.init );
$(document).ready( pagenumbers.init );$(window).load( pagenumbers.refresh_offsets );
}
}
}

It should make pagenumbers and dynamic layout work on userspace pages that are transcluding from the page namespace. Prosody (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Unless I applied incorrectly, I'm still not seeing page numbers... Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I didn't really test that through the normal methods. It looks like the user javascript loads before some of the system stuff so it doesn't know about it. Try this one instead. I tested it normally and I got it to work.
$(window).load(function() { if ($.inArray( mw.config.get( "wgAction" ), [ "view", "submit", "purge" ] ) !== -1 ) {
if ( !self.debug_page_layout
// don't do anything on DoubleWiki or difference comparison views
&& document.URL.indexOf( "match=" ) === -1
&& document.URL.indexOf( "diff=" ) === -1
&& mw.config.get( "wgNamespaceNumber" ) === 2 ) {
if ( $( ".pagenum" ).length !== 0 ) { if ( !$.isEmptyObject( self.ws_layouts ) )
layout.init();
pagenumbers.init();
pagenumbers.refresh_offsets();
}
}
}
});

Prosody (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Still not appearing. Thank you though, for and while you are making the attempt! Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I believe this feature was pulled from other namespaces in order to have it work in the Translation: namespace a few months ago. Eliyak would be the one to tap to see if User: namespace can be included back again. Otherwise I'd just test in the mainspace for now and request a speedy deletion if the test page can't be recycled for final/finished tranclusion. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
OK. Thank you, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

A problematic PSM Volume

This PSM volume has some pages marked problematic because they are too fuzzy to proofread, and now, in edit mode, the original is shrunk to a tiny image. I cleared all caches (WS page, volume & FF) but the problem didn't go away. Do others see the same problem as I do?

Furthermore, with all the pages I marked problematic, in the AI source of the Commons copy, and the two additional copies I found on AI are all clean. This makes me assume that the problem may not be with the originals. Can someone please help? Thanks in advance.— Ineuw talk 16:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about the shrinking-image problem, as I don't find it affects me (I use FF 26.0). But maybe the fuzzy-page problem can be fixed by reuploading the file from AI...? Or you can try checking the copy you've downloaded, to see whether there's a problem in that file. —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 17:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's causing that. I'm not getting a tiny image but I am getting blurred text (and the zoom function doesn't change that). However, when I click on the "Image" link, I see the page image clear text. Purging locally hasn't helped. I've purged at Commons as well but I think that might take a while to take effect here (if it changes anything at all). Failing that, as I mentioned, the separate "Image" link works, so you could proofread from that for now (even if it is a little awkward). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all the input. Here is the image of a page with the shrunken scan. Earlier, only a few pages were so, but now the whole volume is like this. I have no problem downloading and uploading other copies from IA. I counted at least two more identical versions, but my concern is that I don't destroy the pages already proofread. Already posted a Help request to my DjVu Guru about how to protect the text layer, and will wait until he replies.— Ineuw talk 20:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Randomly checked Vol 18 and the scans are OK, BUT someone changed the text layer width in Read mode. For the past years the text width was always 430px and now it's 520px. I monitor this using a pixel ruler so that inserted images are in proportion to the Page namespace text width. Can someone check on this please? Thank you.— Ineuw talk 20:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
While discussing these issues with myself, I suddenly remembered that there may have been new software update. Ineuw talk 20:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Check those problematic pages now. That default ~430px has indeed been changed in one of the recent PR core updates (which more often than not will now "conflict" with any manual scan resolution settings added near the bottom of the Index: page form in edit mode - as was part of the problem here).

The other part always has to do with once such a conflict has been cleared and then trying to get Commons to refresh the entire File: --> Index: --> Page: framework properly. I find that unless you keep hitting purge there until a refresh is "instantaneous", wait up to 45 seconds afterwards and then look for Commons to refresh the File page once again on its own - only then is true Purge & refresh accomplished. Your mileage may vary. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

May I share a document with Wikisource?

My new manuscript, titled Knowledge For The People, has already been listed in the United Nations Public Administration Network online library. I would like to share it with Wikisource. I am not seeking remuneration, just to share important ideas. I am the sole copyright holder of the document.

My email provider sets limits on the size of uploads permitted, so I have placed a copy of the document in Dropbox. The document can be located and uploaded by going to the following link and logging in: https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public?select=KnowledgeForThePeople.pdf

If you accept this offer, please let me know if it works, at williamsheridan@rogers.com

I am not knowledgeable on copyrights but THIS SECTION may be relevant to your posting material here. In fact, the whole article is relevant. — Ineuw talk 15:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I tried to open the link, but it requires sign in or something, in any case Wikisource:What Wikisource includes is also relevant. Based only on the title of the work, I would say it probably does NOT meet our inclusion criteria. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Digraph issue

I'm having issues with a digraph on this page, near the bottom with the word alltud. In Welsh, this is a digraph l with a tilde going through it. I'm having issues getting the tilde to look right. For one, I have no digraph l on my computer, so I used two ls, each with a combining tilde on it, and for two, the tildes are close to the bottom of the letter, even though I used a middle combining tilde. Has anyone else had this issue and found a way around it?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Just curiosity to know the unknown led me to to this wiki link and found and replaced the missing Unicode character ỻ. Apart from that, I think that the references are {{smallrefs}}— Ineuw talk 15:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
If you need any more weird Welsh characters, you might find some ready for cut-n-pasting toward the bottom of User:Angr#Toolbox. Angr 17:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
My computer can't view the character. Is there any way to make it visible using the nifty font thingy we've got going on Wikimedia sites?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 03:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

ɬɬ <--- what about now? -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That I can see.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 04:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Great, but that's not the character the page is using. What GOIII typed above is two copies of the IPA character ɬ (U+026C) next to each other. What the text is using is (U+1EFB), which unfortunately has very limited font support, meaning a lot of people can't see it. Nevertheless, I think we ought to be using the correct characters as far as possible, rather than workarounds. Angr 14:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Correct of course. It's odd because I thought the DjVu Sans package supported both (among many other eclectic fonts), so if one could see mine, I thought there might be a good chance it's already present. Oh well; when a solution presents itself - please report back so I can see if it can't be added to CharInsert somehow. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Table transclusion/formatting help

I need an extra set of eyes... Can someone please take a look at the table formatting on DJVU pp. 352-355 and see why it is not transcluding correctly in the Main? Thank you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be okay now... Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Formatting error

In the page The Burglar, where pg. 111 begins, the formatting is broken (appearing as it would on Wikipedia if the line began with a space). I have no idea how to fix this, as I'm not an editor on this project and the interface is different, so I figured I'd mention it here instead. Sven Manguard (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Hesperian 05:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Can I upload these scans to Wikisource?

Can I upload a copy of a scan that someone else made to Wikisource so that I can make a searchable version of it? Specifically, I'd like to upload scans of some orders-in-council amending the Constitution of Canada, such as this one and make pages for the documents under the Template:Legislation-CAGov licence. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The last time I tried uploading a Government of Canada document & image, it was rejected by Commons because, while the Canadian Parliament Archives emailed me the permission, it was not in the format demanded by Wikimedia Commons. It's best if you get the proper format from Wikimedia Commons and forward it to GoC archives for permission.— Ineuw talk 23:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Arctic.gnome, if the underlying material may legally be hosted (it's not clear to me from {{Legislation-CAGov}} that it may, but I'll leave that to you) then the fact that someone else made the scan is of no importance: no copyright arises from "a mere mechanical scan or photocopy". Hesperian 01:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Being able to use another's scan solves one hurdle. The other is where I can upload them. As I understand it, I can't upload them to Commons because they have two additional conditions attached to the licence beyond cc-by-sa--namely the requirement to be accurate and the requirement to state that they aren't official. If these requirements are acceptable to Wikisource but not to Commons, what are my options? Can I transcribe the texts to Wikisource without uploading an image to Commons? Can I upload the image to Wikisource instead of Commons? --Arctic.gnome (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

We work on a priority order. 1) Host them at Commons if at all possible [this makes them available to all wikis, not just ours] 2) if Commons cannot take them, and they are public domain documents (or equivalent) in the US and fit within WS:WWI, then they can be hosted at English Wikisource. That said please ensure as part of the WS:WWI that you look at the licensing and also Help:Copyright tags.

Re the scan type, it is what works well in our side by side system. If we have PDF or DJVU they have text layers that can be scraped and imported. If it is a jpg or something else the system recognises then you have typing or copy and pasting to do. If it is something not recognised, then we a problem, though that doesn't mean that we cannot host the text, it just means that it is unsupported by the image (which is not our preference). — billinghurst sDrewth 11:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Seasons greetings from Marathi language wikisource(mr). We tried to upload a India public domain book in PDF format. It showed upload completed but PDF document commons:File:Chhandorachanaa.pdf was not readable at all . We want and request some one upload document for us either on mr.wikisource.org or on commons. We need it for a collaborative wikisource writing project.

• Reffered and requested upload book is Chandorachana (Marathi:छन्दोरचना)
• Is writtern by : W:en:Madhav Julian (Marathi: माधव जुलियन) (January 21, 1894 – November 29, 1939)
• It is Public Domain copyright free due to expiry of copyright period in India Please refer licence commons:Template:PD-India {{PD-India}}
• The Book is available online at https://archive.org/details/Chandorachana

Earliest help will be apreciated.

Thanks and Regards Mahitgar (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Does this work for you: Commons:File:छन्दोरचना.djvu? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This has worked. Lot of thanks Thanks and warm greeting. For some technical reasons i have not been able to use djvu on PC. This has been very valuable support from your side. Regards

Mahitgar (talk) 08:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for help with TOC page listing

Can anyone pls help me with this little nasty problem on Page:The_Economic_Journal_Volume_1.djvu/7. The problem is at the lower part of the page, just above “NOTES AND MEMORANDA”. There is a link to four pages there. I can't get them in one row. This is how far I got. Thnx. - Dick Bos (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The secret is parameter col3-width of {{dotted TOC page listing}}. The default width is only 2em, which is just about full with 3 digits, let alone four references + ancillary spaces and commas (which is why they formatted vertically.) I gave it 12em for the sake of this trial, but feel free (of course) to tweak that as you want. AuFCL (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I'll soon try it in another spot. Dick Bos (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I forgot to mention: to make the page-numbers column completely "set-and-forget", try setting parameter |col3-width=auto. The price you pay is ragged ends to the dot leaders, but you might find it the simplest option. AuFCL (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Last suggestion retracted, as it does not appear to work well in some browsers. AuFCL (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Non english charecters...

Can someone that's familiar with the relevant languages look over this and insert the appropriate characters?

I've tried to make intelligent guesses in places, but would appreciate someone else taking over.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I've looked a few random pages and can't see any non-Latin characters. Could you give some pointers as to what the problems are (page numbers, particular language, &c.)? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Adapting_and_Writing_Language_Lessons.pdf/185 - Thai. For starters.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
First, that's not Thai, or else I would suggest you don't touch it. Hehe. However, as far as I can tell, it is IPA for Thai words, so you can just use that alphabet for it. For example, using text from the page:
nîi ʔaray
nîi mîitkoon
pàakkhîip
sǎmlii
ʔɛɛlkɔɔhɔɔ


OK It looks like IPA, but in places it's accented, and the accented versions are not in the Charcters box, I stil think it requires a specialist. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Weird typesetting issue

I just worked on this page, and it has an unusual versification in it. Does anyone have any idea how to transcribe it? Would it be best just to use an image in its place?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes.. Given its an inscription marking? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I took a shot at transcribing it in Unicode. Given that it's not like an etching or something I think it might be more appropriate to render it that way rather than with an image, even though I think most/all Ogham fonts are going to have that center line which isn't present in the text's typeface. Prosody (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Erm, what font did you use? All I see are little boxes... Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, damn, that hadn't occurred to me. It's Segoi UI Symbol on Firefox on Windows 7. Default Windows 7 font, but it's not going to be available everywhere. Chrome on the same machine doesn't even use it. I don't think there's any support in Universal Language Selector even if that gets turned back on. I guess we'll have to fall back to using images. Prosody (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Wait, the DejaVu family has Ogham. Anyone know what the list of fonts on the Universal Language Selector is? Prosody (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Integrating plate images into mainspace

I just finished proofreading The Indian Dispossessed (index), but before announcing its completion (however that's done), the book has a few plate images which don't have any obvious location within the chapters and text. How might these be best included in mainspace? djr13 (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

They should be included in the text as I did one formatted sample Page:The Indian Dispossessed.pdf/112, Main mnamespace = The Indian Dispossessed/The Nez Perces. Please look at the changes in the "File" image wrapper and caption centering. For some reason, when wrapped as before, the caption becomes noticeably offset. I also reduced the image size to 430px. My reasons for this are complicated, but primarily it's because the text width of the Main namespace Option #2 is about ~450-460px. An oversized image may lack esthetics.— Ineuw talk 03:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I had thus far avoided doing it that way, as breaking paragraphs (usually unrelated to the image) for full-page plate images seems sub-optimal. And what to do with the frontispiece image? Sure there isn't another way? (Hmm, it looks like I was possibly supposed to name each mainspace subpage a generic "Chapter 1" etc....) djr13 (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Just picking up on a couple of your questions:

For the chapter numbering, the generic version is only when the chapters are numbered either in the TOC or in the chapter headers. If the chapters don't have this, then the way you've named them is fine. It's really about linking to them from other works.

In re your other concern, have a look at Picturesque Nepal where we put the images in wherever they came in the book. The alternative is more complex, but can be seen in the earlier chapters of The Conquest of Mount Cook. The proofreader here chose to move the images to the end of paragraphs in the mainspace but left them where they are in the Page: namespace. This was done by using includeonly and noinclude tags. Both of these books have frontispieces that have been done slightly differently. Nepal has the frontispiece as the opening page before the title. Mount Cook transcludes them the other way around, so that the title page is up-front. If the cover image is a good one, then that can go in first. A recent example of this is On to Pekin. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Beeswaxcandle is correct and I should have been more specific in regard to images. In the main namespace, one has the latitude to place images, especially full page images, at the beginning of a chapter. It's your choice. Already moved the image in The Indian Dispossessed/The Nez Perces to the beginning since it's the only image in that chapter. — Ineuw talk 17:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I've gone with including the images at the beginning of each chapter, and including the frontispiece where it otherwise would be plus including the half-title before it where otherwise I excluded this as redundant. It's still a bit cludgy but seems workable. It seems like there's no good way to include such large, text-breaking images in mainspace due to format limitations. The most obvious alternative to me would be either folding them into thumbnails or offsetting them into the side-area in a similar way to what annotations are heading. I'll look into announcing the completion now. Thanks both. djr13 (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I think it looks great. — Ineuw talk 21:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Oversized mathematical operators in print

I've been looking for oversized mathematical operators used in 19th century printed matter: like double length = signs, double size + signs etc., but have not found in any UTF-8 reference tables. Do they exist? — Ineuw talk 02:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they exist as unique symbols per se, but perhaps try wrapping them in {{larger}} or {{x-larger}}? Eg. to get an affect like so: 7 ÷ 2  π .
Alternatively -- does the wikisource software support LaTeX? If it does, there are some commands to support resizing of portions of equations that may be possible to use. Mukkakukaku (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I believe WS does support LaTeX.— Ineuw talk 05:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Would you please be so kind as to supply context/examples? I expect these are not quite what you are looking for, but there do exist UNICODE for (say) double- and triple-equals (&#10869;:⩵ and &#10870;:⩶ respectively), and so-called "heavy" plus (&#10133;:➕), minus (&#10134;:➖) and division signs (&#10135;:➗); and the dual-purposed "cross mark" (&#10060;:❌) paired with "heavy large circle" (&#11093;:⭕).
Thanks for your help. The start of this page is a perfect example of the hundreds of times it's used. Unfortunately, the above symbols are not the ones I was looking for, but the LaTeX symbols are.

WS does not support all of Latex, only the texvc subset (see mw:Extension:Math, but that gives you $=+-\times\div$ at least. AuFCL (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
These are the very symbols I was looking for since 1872 - when PSM started publication. . As for the LaTeX support I was only aware of {some] math, but didn't know that they can be used for just the symbols. My thanks to you both.— Ineuw talk 17:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The first line of that page might be produced by something like:
 $\scriptstyle{+,~-,~\sqrt{}}$. In the same century Vieta… —with result: $\scriptstyle{+,~-,~\sqrt{}}$. In the same century Vieta…
Notes and hints:
1. Make sure that is a "normal" minus sign; dashes or mdashes send $into (lexing error) sulks! 2. Tildes (~) may be used to add spaces inside the [itex] string. Normally spaces are stripped out as if they were never there. 3. Although [itex] doesn't seem to analyse the command string too closely, thinks like \sqrt are considered to be functions and won't work (syntax error)) without at least empty {}s following. 4. I routinely enclose [itex] strings in \scriptstyle{}, mainly because I find the text is too large to match surrounding text. Of course your aesthetics and the situation may differ. 5. Be aware that [itex] produces its output as an image, with the side-effect it will not "split" when line-wrapping occurs. It is often wise to make several short [itex] blocks (say between commas) rather than one long one and risk later disappointment. Hope this is useful, and I am not merely repeating stuff you already know. AuFCL (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Could {{FI}} be of any use here? {{FI | type = math | width = 25% | file = [itex]sin x = {e^{ix} - e^{-ix} \over 2i}$
}}


$sin x = {e^{ix} - e^{-ix} \over 2i}$

Just wondering...... -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
AuFCL, thanks for those very important points, of which I was only aware of \scriptstyle. If you haven't done so, please consider including your instructions on the Math help page. Otherwise these will be buried in the Archive.
Wonder no longer GO3. I will be using {{FI}}. There are hundreds of formulas need to proofread/updated in PSM.
Many thanks to all for the above info.— Ineuw talk 04:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Point of Order - please use math instead of user for FI's type= parameter. Both should produce the same output but one day User might be needed for a 4rth application or something. Thanks. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Note that the {{FI}} above produces quite blurry results, and evidently doesn't even work outside PNG mode. (I don't think it will show up at all in PDF output, for example.) —SamB (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Quick access icon link to the Commons is gone from WS images

Can someone please restore the quick link icon to the Commons image source. In one of the recent mw software updates, it disappeared. Thanks in advance. — Ineuw talk 03:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Odd. I still see the icon linked to Commons on my File: pages (inline with header text to the top-right). Can anyone else replicate? -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I can confirm the Commons icon is visible on for example, say, here. AuFCL (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
OK then - back to basics....

Ineuw, can you see the icon on

at all? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I can see both.— Ineuw talk 17:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
To further clarify, I can see the two icons GO3 has included, but there is no icon on the smiley image, nor on any other image from the commons.— Ineuw talk 17:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I inverted the order in MediaWiki:Sharedupload-desc-here; see if that made any difference on any File: namespace page for you & report back. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort but no go. Here is a screen image File:No icon link to the Commons.jpg I've taken earlier. This issue is an old one. Haven't had a commons link for many weeks. Would this be controlled in Preferences? — Ineuw talk 01:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ineuw: GOT IT - Apparently (& Sadly) you are always going to be "less than whole" when it comes to certain defaults because you are in Canada but use [American?] English in your settings. Without your own Canadian MediaWiki message base, your "setup" surps from the US set when it can but fails unless a proper subset(?) is created in certain instances (or at least that is how I've come to observe this behavior to date).

Added MediaWiki:Sharedupload-desc-here/en-ca and that should "rectify" your missing icon issue. I guess it comes at the expense of what amounts to a "redundant" MediaWiki message.

Anyone have the same problem but is a "closer" subject of the Crown than Canada? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Now you point that out, en-gb (which would normally be my preferred choice; my earlier "working" observation was made as Preferences/Language/en—now [temporarily?] retracted) exhibits the same issue (i.e. missing Commons icon). Regards, AuFCL (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
@AuFCL - can you verify both of your prior observations still hold now? I just discovered [:MediaWiki:Sharedupload] (created 2005 & made a redirect in 2012) might be involved in this & just deleted our local copy of it to see what happens (if anything). It would be great if that restored everything but I'll add the gb if it didn't. TIA --- George Orwell III (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
No, only MediaWiki:Sharedupload-desc-here shows Commons icon (which should not be a shock, because that is what it really does) here. The others, all nada, since changing Preferences from 'en'→'en-GB'. AuFCL (talk)
Thanks. IMO - It's a bit crazy to add something like the Commons top icon to a MW message that isn't working across the board in the first place. I'm going to try finding a better MW message to host the icon so the crippled message [in theory] really is separate from the icon. Back in a bit. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
OK @AuFCL: - {{Commons top icon}} is now hosted via [:MediaWiki:Filehist-help]. Please check any File: page to see if the icon appears (& works!) like it should no matter the language setting in use. Only difference, now, should be one has a FMbox (for the blind?) for a default message while the other(s) use the system standard default, plain-text message w/ link to shared file description info back on Commons found just below the file-size/mime type, etc. info (The icon should appear in the top right corner regardless!) -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Scratch all that attempted 'moving around', en-ca & en-gb created but all 3 call Template:Sharedupload-desc-here instead of hosting the same stuff 3x in the MW namespace. Please report in now that this seems like the "final" solution moving forward. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Many pardons for delayed response (Real Life™ interfered.) All O.K. re: Commons icon again this side now. Thank you. AuFCL (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
My hero. Just another heartfelt thank you GO3. It works! — Ineuw talk 05:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

PROOFREADPAGE - Both the default and auto edit-summary texts based on status no longer being populated

originally titled: On Page creation, "Not proofread" is not showing up in the Summary

Since I've been on a roll of success today, would it possible to display the default "Not proofread" in the Summary field when the page is created? This used to be so several software updates ago. I request this because most pages need proofreading.— Ineuw talk 09:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Verified (XpPro, IE8).

In addition, when opening edit mode on existing pages already given a PR status, the corresponding edit-summary text matching that current status once was pre-populated in the summary field upon entering edit-mode by default & remained that way until/unless the Editor manually 'ticked' a change in status prior to adding additional comments and saving. That "function" has also stopped working (under edit or preview; no difference) and a blank field is now the default instead (of course, until/unless a ststus is manually ticked &/or edited before the final save). -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Unpublished works of unknown authorship

I found in some family documents a carbon copy of a poem or song from c. 1918. Based on the POV of the narrator, it pretty clearly wasn't written by the family member who kept it, but rather by an enlisted man stationed at the same air field. I googled some of the lines in case it was published, including more generic lines in case it was just a local take on a more widespread song, but if so it's certainly not on the Internet yet. (And honestly, I don't think it was terribly well constructed.) I'm really not sure whether to use {{PD-anon-1923}}, which says it's for published works, or {{PD-US-unpublished}}, which requires knowing when the creator died, or whether it's just not kosher at all. It seems like something that would be of some interest historically, so it'd be nice to make it available. Laurascudder (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither of those will work, you don’t know it was published and you don’t know when the author died. Jeepday (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
And that's why I'm here. Any solutions? Laurascudder (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
It's a copyright issue. Unpublished works aren't subject to the 1923 thing as you might otherwise expect. See here: Help:Public domain#Unpublished works See if you can find if the author died in 1943 or earlier. djr13 (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
According to this table, unpublished works with no known year of death are under copyright for 120 years from the date of creation. Assuming 1918 is correct, it won't be in the public domain until January 2039. There seems to be some clause involving certification by the Copyright Office but, otherwise, legally it cannot be hosted here. Sorry. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

How to prepare this text from archive.org for proofreading

I'm thinking about trying to prepare https://archive.org/details/federalregister53lunit/ for upload (it should be obvious why), which was scanned from microfilm and has two pages on each "page", and looks not to be very thoroughly OCR'd. What approach would be simplest? Tell I might be willing to let him tackle it? (It's quite huge! On the other hand, the scans are neatly bundled in a PDF, from which they can presumably be losslessly extracted quite trivially.)

See also w:Federal Register for bibliographic information, including the usual citation convention. —SamB (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me, but the 'obvious-ness' escapes me. What exactly is it that a partial FR volume "gets us"? -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Showing thumbnails of pages

Hi wikisorcerers,

Can you check this template: {{PageFile}}. It is used to show thumbnails from the pages in the Index Talk page (example here), so we can locate more easily and quickly a page. Is everything correct? I have imported and translated it from French Wikisource (history here). Please don't hesitate to improve it! --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Very neat, ty.— Ineuw talk 22:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, though I'd much rather have Book2Scroll (2nd Icon at the top-right of every Index: Page) "refined" a bit further so it loads/renders properly under our current code environment. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Category for materials under CC0

I am wondering why CC0 is not mentioned in Wikisource:Copyright policy, nor in some category similar to. Any pointers? -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons has a template and category. I suppose we should follow their lead if there's any works we have which it's applicable to. Prosody (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

text formatting help

Forgot to ask for formatting help here, if anyone has a good idea how to best format the text in caps. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

A possible hint in the first paragraph.--Mpaa (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I tried to understand the markup, but with little success. I think the text should be recreated exactly as in the original (breaks where there are breaks, etc.), for I think it was transcribed as found "scratched upon the walls" (if I read correctly). Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I've had a go. See what you think. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Permit my 2 Canadian cents' worth of input but tables are superior - and never fail. I won't revert the most recent edit by Beeswaxcandle, but pasted my enhancements of Mpaa below
 1. NON TI FIDAR AD ALCUNO PENSA e TACI SE FUGIR VUOI DE SPIONI INSIDIE e LACCI IL PENTIRTI PENTIRTI NULLA GIOVA MA BEN DI VALOR TUO LA VERA PROVA 1607. ADI 2. GENARO. FUI RE-TENTO P' LA BESTIEMMA P' AVER DATO DA MANZAR A UN MORTO IACOMO . GRITTI . SCRISSE.

IneuwPublic (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the stability of tables, but I think BWC's rendering is most faithful to the original, and what I was looking for. My first thought was tables too; I didn't at first consider gaps, but unless one can recreate BWC's rendering with a table, I think I'll keep things as is. Thanks all for your input! Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure, it can be done as a table. But you still need gaps to match the alignment of the inscriptions.
 1. NON TI FIDAR AD ALCUNO PENSA e TACI SE FUGIR VUOI DE SPIONI INSIDIE e LACCI IL PENTIRTI PENTIRTI NULLA GIOVA MA BEN DI VALOR TUO LA VERA PROVA 1607. ADI 2. GENARO. FUI RE- TENTO P' LA BESTIEMMA P' AVER DATO  DA MANZAR A UN MORTO  IACOMO . GRITTI . SCRISSE.
Alternative methods would be to nest a table with the indented lines within the larger table or to set each line of the inscriptions as a line in the table with 8 or 9 columns and lots of colspans. But why complicate things? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks good as well. I would not be able to complete the page with my 'skill set', however. I'll leave that to those familiar with the markup, or I am happy to keep things as is. Thank you all for taking the time to help; and BWC, thanks again for checking/amending my Greek. There are two more pages that I forgot to add the Greek missing tag (now added), and then the text can be marked as proofread! Thanks again for your help! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Couple minor works pending help

I have a couple works I have proofread which are pending some assistance. One of these I had posted about last month, a songbook, thus needing relatively heavy transclusion work (I've done this with another edition, but could use review on if I'm doing it right such as choice of page names). The other is Evolution of American Agriculture (index), for which I have three things I am hindered by: tables (full pages 62, 63, 64, and 65; smaller tables pages 47 and 48), what to do with the heavy illustrations which mix with text, and whether I should interpret the last listed chapter (see index) as "Chapter 11" despite it not being listed as such in the TOC. Thanks, djr13 (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I got the smaller tables on pp 47-48 working by (ab)using {{dotted TOC page listing}}. The images that are the chapter headers should be done by carefully splitting the images into parts and then using floats. (See, this as an example of what I mean by that.) As for the full-page tables, or the mysterious "Chapter 11", I have no idea. Mukkakukaku (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible to use either the split or "flow under" method without breaking the drop caps, eg, alt text? djr13 (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I've had a go at the table on p62 for you. If it's OK, then copy that formatting onto the other 3 pages and drop the text into the appropriate spots. AuFCL is currently working on the flow under technique, so he'll be the best to answer that. In re "Chapter 11", there are no particular guidelines on how to deal with this situation. We just need to be able to link to it should another work refer to it. The way I personally would do it would be to name it (i.e. Evolution of American Agriculture/Development of the Agricultural Workers Union No. 400). This maintains the authorial intent (or the publisher's intent) as I'm guessing it's really an appendix to the main work. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Regarding use of {{flow under}}, I would be inclined to set the image alternate text (i.e. File:...alt=) to reflect the drop capital which the chapter image effectively represents. Apologies for not doing this on the first edit (hope this is a bit more to your liking?) Actually clicking on the image still works and takes you to the background image as before (and may be controlled at need by resort to the native File:...link= parameter.)

All of these remarks should apply equally to the "split" image method if you choose to go that way.

Specifically regarding "breaking the drop caps," what exactly would you like to happen? Certainly wrapping {{drop initial}} around the chapter header image will fail using either image approach, but would you really need or want to do so?

Oh, and please don't give me credit for the technique: the more I look into the idea, the more previously existing instances keep turning up. I am, however guilty of trying to shoehorn it into a template (set) [hat tips to GOIII Beeswaxcandle & Eliyak for valuable advice], which of course I hope you may find usable/useful. AuFCL (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

After you made the first edit (which I'm still pretty damn impressed by as is) I did dig into it to try learning how it was done...it's obviously still rather experimental, for better or worse. I'm still at the point of being intimidated by the simplest wiki tables. :-) By "breaking drop caps," I mean, to put it in the most easily testable terms, ensuring that given degradation of images (whether by technical limitations or nonvisual reading devices), the text will still render clearly. For example, you can check this by seeing if the text otherwise represented in images displays as would be expected when you copy/paste into a plain text editor. I appreciate all the help, I am trying to learn from all of it. djr13 (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
A perfectly valid point, and that last edit of mine fails; as the alt-text on the image "cuts" before the "Development of A.W.I.U. 400" title, even though ideally it should come afterwards. Some (more) things to check for! AuFCL (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Poems and page breaks

I'm trying to transcribe a poem that has stanzas (or whatever the "paragraph" equivalent is called in poetry), and I'm having a problem with their transclusion into the main namespace. Namely, there's a stanza break at the end of one page, and the next page starts with a new stanza, but when transcluded into the main namespace it's all clumped together into one long double-stanza.

The pages in question are pages 5 and 6 of Index:Morning-Glories and Other Stories.djvu. Their transclusion is here.

I tried using {{nop}} like I would use if it were a paragraph that ended at the page break, but that didn't work. Nor did using a second {{nop}} at the top of the second page. I also tried inserting an extra few lines of whitespace within the <poem> tag, since those tags are whitespace-sensitive, but that didn't work either.

What is the appropriate template, tag, or structure to use to get this stanza-break to show up in the main namespace transclusion? Mukkakukaku (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I tried using an {{nop}} inside the <poem> tags at the bottom of the first page and the top of the second page; for some reason, it seems to have worked. Could you please check whether it works now? —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 16:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Yep, works now! Thanks, Clockery. I'd like to say that I would have figured it out eventually, but I'd never have thought to put the {{nop}} inside of the <poem> tags themselves. It seems like a very convoluted solution to what appears to be a rather imple problem. Thanks! Mukkakukaku (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I seem to have inadvertently avoided this in my poems-across-breaks endeavors. I've been adding little passive-aggressive hidden comments onto poem tags that should ideally wrap gracefully, the presence of these extra tags being that which may or may not be related to the joining behavior. For example, see the page breaks between 22, 23 and 24. Might be another option in your arsenal, especially if you want to blow off steam while at it. :-) djr13 (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I rather like Djr13's approach. Almost psychotherapy: "How does young madam Poem feel about behaving today?"

Please pardon my mucking about thrown into the mix. Apart from the centring I don't think I've added anything much useful.

I am aware of editors who avoid the use of <poem> entirely. Enclosing the whole passage inside (say) {{block center/s}}/{{block center/e}} pairs (which cross pages O.K.) and then using <br/>s at every line-break is much more robust, but of course the raw source is then quite ugly. AuFCL (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph break not visible

On this page A break between two paragraphs is not visible in read mode and they appear as one continuous paragraph. The text is enclosed by {{fs90/s}} — with {{fs90/e}} embedded in the footer. Since I am using the Modern skin, I also checked if the problem was skin related by switching back to Vectra, but the result is the same. Can someone please point out what's wrong? Thanks. — Ineuw talk 18:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence of the {{fs90/s}} template page says "This template renders the text of a single paragraph at 90% of normal size." (emphasis mine) Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
The text was copied from {{fs90}} which I created. {{fs90/s}} was created for multiple paragraphs. (I should correct that). Also, the paragraph break has nothing to do with the font. There is something wrong with that page. If you look at subsequent pages, the paragraph breaks work fine.— Ineuw talk 19:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. Two different templates share the same documentation which technically shouldn't happen. I posted a request on GO3's talk page, to help me sort it out.— Ineuw talk 19:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I kicked it, and it seems to work now. djr13 (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, a good kick. — by Ineuw earlier this afternoon.
I cannot necessarily give a lucid explanation, but {{fs90/s}} only works for a single paragraph unless:
1. You separate the last "}" of the template from the text you want it to affect by a new line; or
2. You enclose the following paragraphs in <p>/</p>s (or some template (like {{p}} which generates them.)
Mediawiki appear to "shoehorn" <div>s (upon which the operation of e.g. {{fs90}} relies) correctly in only at certain points. This is not the problem; the real problem is that if it cannot find a suitable "spot" (<p>s being one, there may be others..?) it silently refuses to process "double-new-lines" into proper paragraphs up to the end of the enclosing </div>. I can only assume this is a still-extant parser limitation of some antiquity. AuFCL (talk)
To be clear, in the above example I used {{fs90/s}} and not {{fs90}}, which was my own rudimentary & elementary contribution - functioning on single paragraphs and I no longer use, having switched to GO3's version of {{fs90/s}} & {{fs90/e}} hundreds of times, but never came across this problem beforehand.— Ineuw talk 00:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
<generic expletive>I mistyped. The earlier discussion was meant to refer to {{fs90/s}}, not to {{fs90}} as originally stated. The rest of the discussion, however clumsy, still stands. AuFCL (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Understood both the correction and your explanation. I just wanted to clarify the history for those who still use {{fs90}} to span multiple paragraphs. In any case, I replace them when I come across them, whether they are used on single or multiple paragraphs.— Ineuw talk 02:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Could someone remove the initial "Google" page for Index:A Hundred and Seventy Chinese Poems (1919).djvu? This transcription project seems to have gone fallow, and I'd like to take it on, but not until the pagination is corrected from removal of the Google notice. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

DoneIneuw talk 20:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to do that? I usually just mark the page 'without text' when I find them. Mukkakukaku (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes we should, because it appears on the Commons. Others can give you other and better reasons as well. It's not a big deal and several people here can do it for you, or tell you how it's done before uploading.
The fundamental issue is that we should look on IA for other copies NOT donated by Google because they tend to damage the works deliberately to their advantage, a topic sometimes discussed in the past.
Another downside of using Google copies with the disclaimer page, is that we can't use the direct IA to Commons transfer tool because it must be downloaded to remove their disclaimer. — Ineuw talk 21:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Another issue with leaving the Google page in is that it often displaces pagination by one so that left hand pages become odd-numbered and right hand pages even-numbered. This messes up automatic heading creation. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Beeswaxcandle, in such a case just remove a page at the end of the book which is often a back cover or library card - some useless page for our purpose. I believe that brings the book back to the correct pagination. Cheers friends, —Maury (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Other discussions

Have title boxes become excessively wide?

I am uncertain how long this has been the case (i.e. could be related to recent software changes, or maybe I just haven't been that observant) but has anybody else noticed how wide the pop-up messages have become? This is affecting the rendering of such things as {{SIC}}, {{popup note}} etc. For example: hover here for example currently produces a popup (for me) approximating:

[sic]I am sure this box could be narrower than this?

Does this seem normal to everybody else? Viewer2 (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It's normal in my applications in PSM, in the Page: and the Main namespaces.— Ineuw talk 14:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh well, thank you anyway for indulging my state of (I hope temporary—but don't really expect all that much!) mental unbalance. Cheers, Viewer2 (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Are you using a recent version of Firefox? I've seen this effect net-wide recently, and I'm blaming Firefox.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not too sure about that--I use Firefox 27.0.1, but the tooltips turn out just fine. Do differences in OS change the way text is displayed, by any chance? —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 11:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: I use Windows Vista Basic. —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 12:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm using Firefox 27.0.1 and it looks OK to me, but I'm using Mac OS X Mavericks as my OS --kathleen wright5 (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikisource is outputting the code correctly (and succinctly) so it sounds like a browser-specific issue. If you're using Firefox, I suggest using Developer Tools (built-in) to quickly determine whether it's adding spurious CSS to the original. 16:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Categorization of scanned books on Commons

Even if the question is about Commons, I feel it is more appropriate to discuss it here. We need to create a good categorization system for scanned books because now it is a complete mess. There are a number of related categories that are not organized in a clear hierarchy:

and probably some others.

Any ideas how to tidy it up? --DixonD (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Lately, I've just been using DjVu files in English for every book I upload but I don't know what other people do. I'm not really sure what the purpose of English Wikisource books is meant to be, as any scan on Commons can be used on any Wikisource at any time; it can probably be emptied and deleted. Books in English would be needed on Common for general things like photographs of book covers and so forth.
My thoughts—the hierarchy for English scans should probably be something like:
• Scanned English texts
• Scanned English books
• Scanned English books in DjVu
• Scanned English books in pdf
• Scanned English magazines (although this may be unnecessary depending on the PDF category)
• Scanned English magazines in DjVu
• Scanned English magazines in PDF (although this would be empty)
It might be better to skip Scanned English books/magazines and just put the categories with the file format suffix directly under Scanned English texts.
The file formats have their own categorisation, so that would need to be covered as well. The category Scanned English books in DjVu would need to be created, with DjVu files in English as the parent for both this and the magazines category. So that hierarchy would be:
• DjVu files in English
• Scanned English books in DjVu
• Scanned English magazines in DjVu
The category Books (literature) in PDF could be diffused by language and deleted, leaving the equivalent PDF file hierarchy:
• PDF files in English
• Scanned English books in pdf
• Scanned English magazines in PDF
NB: I should probably mention that I created the Scanned English magazines in DjVu category. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback! I also had doubts if we really need all those subcats of commons:Category:Wikisource books by language. Also I have some thoughts about categories like Scanned English books in DjVu/PDF. I don't think that it is really important what file format a book has since Wikisource users will not see any difference between pdf and djvu when working with books here. So, let's say, for some English book in pdf, we can just add it to categories Scanned English books and PDF files in English and skip Scanned English books in pdf at all. --DixonD (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
On one hand, I think it might be easier to just have one category that covers both the file type and the scanned English books subject. On the other, two separate categories is more flexible and may be less complicated for general use. Having a look at Commons, Scanned English books in DjVu already exists but redirects to DjVu files in English (as do the French and Polish equivalents), so you may be right. Which reminds me, the other Wikisources may have an opinion on this. (eg. What happens to commons:Category:Scanned Russian books in PDF?) If there are no problems here or from other quarters, I don't mind losing the in DjVu and in PDF subcats. We seem to agree on English Wikisource books so, unless anyone objects, we can probably empty and redirect that category to start with. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that there are 2 different category branches, not necessary overlapping: about the content (books, magazines, etc.), and about the format (DjVu, PDF, etc.). These should be separate. One may want to look for all content in DjVu format, or one may want to look for all books, whatever the format. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Some opinion

1. Do we care whether it is "scanned" in relation to categorisation, or is that superfluous and an artefact of some time? It is the medium and the language that are relevant
2. If we are following the de facto standards we would have "… in English
3. I wonder if we are smarter we can look to utilise {{book}}, the Wikisource link, and the language category, and even a template there like {{DjVu}} to do some of the generic categorisation.

billinghurst sDrewth 23:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I was reading The Merchant of Venice lately and I've noticed how unwieldy the page length is for this particular piece. For example, if I was doing research on this particular document, I'd like an option to skip a few Scenes that I would not need and return to the table of contents at any time, to navigate to other Scenes and Acts. So to that end, I've developed a template in my sandbox that would help me get to the TOC very quickly by clicking on the link. I could try to expand the template functions to do more than just link back to the TOC though. I think this is best used at the end of the particular Act or Scene for the Merchant of Venice, and for particularly large and unwieldy texts. Can I use this on these pages, and move it out of my sandbox into template space? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

One can break up the page to separate acts, as The Merchant of Venice as the main page, and then The Merchant of Venice/Act I, The Merchant of Venice/Act II, and the header of each Act provides for navigation between Acts and skip to a specific one similar to what was done here: Physical_Education Part V. — Ineuw talk 22:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
On my screen at least there is a lot of ugly whitespace to the right of the text. Would we normally have a discussion before moving the sections off to their own subpages, lest we fear breaking outside links or any necessary due process? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is not needed. Any external links will be to the main page, which will still be there with a set of links to the Acts/Scenes, so just need to check for internal links to any anchor points and repoint them after splitting the work. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I've not edited WikiSource before, so apologies in advance if I'm asking a silly question but I've not been able to find something relevant through the help page. archive.org has a copy of journal published in 1884 Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society volume 1. I checked that the copyright has expired in the UK for all the authors and that checks out fine. The problem is that the PDF and djvu files start with a piece from Google books (who seem to have helped with the digitisation) in which they lay out some usage guidelines. Namely:

1. Make non-commercial use of the ﬁles
2. Refrain from automated querying
4. Keep it legal

Two and four aren't issues, but one and three might be. Has anyone come across this before? How was it handled? Nev1 (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

An Account of the Manufacture of the Black Tea, As Now Practised at Suddeya in Upper Assam, By The Chinamen Sent Thither For That Purpose by C.A. Bruce has the same warning at the beginning of its PDF. It doesn't appear to have had anything special done for it, but I'm not the original contributor. Just another example of an existing work with this "restriction" page in place. Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Although Google put this statement on the front of the works they digitise, some consider it to be w:Copyfraud. There is no new copyright gained by scanning an image. Once a work has passed into the public domain, it can't be taken back out. Our preference is to delete the Google notice before uploading the work to Commons. However, the earlier Google scans are often poor, particularly where images are concerned and a non-Google scan from IA is preferred. For the particular volume you mention above there is this scan from the University of Toronto, which looks much better to me. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
That's scan doesn't have the notice from Google either. Thanks, that's a very useful find. In the meantime, I'm experimenting with a simpler source (just one author). Nev1 (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
@Nev1, Mukkakukaku, Beeswaxcandle Please check the Google Books section of Help:Internet Archive/Requested uploads. Solomon7968 (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Do we want to change the headers?

We can't "change" the header right now even if we wanted to - any "new" header would still be subject to Dynamic Layouts. And being "subject to" Dynamic Layouts is primarily what limits the possibilities as well as the abilities of the current header template to begin with. Same story with templates added at the "end" of the textarea field - license banners and authority control bars shouldn't be "inside" of the Dynamic [re]formatting scheme either. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Universal Language Selector now a preference and disabled by default

WMF has changed the means that mw:Universal Language Selector (ULS) is configured and delivered to users. Whereas ULS had been set as universal, it has evidently been causing load and other issues. The change made yesterday was that ULS is now a user preference and off by default, and added in Special:Preferences on the first tab). "So what!" you may say, well for those who more widely utilised the languages, you will need to now enable that setting. For those templates that we had utilised, like {{blackletter}}, they are now not functioning as expected unless someone has the setting turned on, which is problematic for the purpose of the template. Our issues have been raised in bugzilla:46306, alongside the other discussion, and they will be considered as the developers move to a better solution. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Whoa I didn't even know about blackletter!
So pretty much the problem is that by disabling this feature, we can no longer embed the custom webfont, is that right? Is there a reason we don't just add a link declaration and use Google Font's Unifraktur Maguntia (blackletter template font) instead? Or, alternatively, host that (free) webfont somewhere and create our own @font-face declaration for it in the default CSS? Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Blackletter does (or did) use UnifrakturMaguntia, which was originally hosted via WebFonts, and then by the Universal Language Selector when it replaced the previous software. I haven't read through Google Fonts yet but that might be an alternative, although I don't know if it will be compatible with the Wikimedia Foundation (Google is a for-profit corporation). Having the preference set to on be default on Wikisource makes more sense. I'm not sure if there is any extension we can use locally that won't keep getting overridden to meet Wikipedia's needs; I wonder if WebFonts can run like that. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
It has been raised with WMF they are aware of our circumstance, and believe that once they have got the bulk of the issue under control that there is potential to grab their attention for a solution that doesn't force a whack of webfonts, yet allows our limited use situations. Here's hoping. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
FWIW... I applied the so-call "work-around" on the BL template to no real effect except there is a 'fall-back' font now (serif). Then it dawned on me - just install the damn font locally.

Bam - everything works as before and no resource loading 'tick' to boot. I know thats not an optimal solution to all this; nevertheless, it works as far as the BlackLetter template goes. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

... So the "fix" is to have all users download the font themselves? Mukkakukaku (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for not being more clear... while downloading & installing the font is a solution to the BlackLetter template issue - its not something we should be imposing on or demanding of our vistors. I would make the inclusion of the font a gadget applied by default for everyone (if I knew how), and recall something like that was done at least once before (DjVu Sans?) somewhere. The question then becomes are there any other "well used" templates like BlackLetter that still need some sort of solution. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Isn't this precisely what bugzilla:49499 was all about? Is it worth (does anybody know how to) resurrect an old report? Viewer2 (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikisource:Poem of the Day

As per this section above, I've made a new page for the Poem of the Day. I'd appreciate it if some of you could help with this. —Clockery Fairfeld [sic] 08:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion has started at Wikisource talk:Poem of the Day --Eliyak T·C 03:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Appeal for a checkuser ...

No bias towards any candidate/option/preference in voting or not-voting, just an highlight to draw attention on the topic.--Mpaa (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I second this post because it troubles me for these past months that we cannot find 25 users to approve a checkuser. It is disheartening that most don't realize the amount of work it takes to manage this site.— Ineuw talk 20:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
fwiw... Its 25 or more by now and the stewards have his request. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

An interesting wiki feature behavior

A paragraph commencing with the semicolon (;) will ignore a terminating colon e.g.

;This line doesn't display the end colon:


as in

This line doesn't display the end colon

Any comments? — Ineuw talk 02:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It's the wiki notation for definition lists: see Meta:Help:List for details. Hesperian 03:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Your mistake is to think a paragraph is actually a paragraph 100% of the time when under the spell of the wiki mark-up.

That is actually the start of a defined list (DL) and "it" (DT that is) is "waiting" for the appropriate (DD) to follow (so DL can close properly) as depicted below

<dl>
<dt>Defined term:</dt><dd>definition</dd>
</dl>

Defined term:
definition
Everytime you use a semicolon and/or colon to indent and/or bold text, you are creating a [crippled] defined list. "We" shouldn't care about stuff like that because these 'symbol' shortcuts are designed for ease of editing wikipedia articles & discussions - they were never meant to be used in the faithful reproduction of works as true as possible to originally published.
The only sure way to get some text to always be & act like a paragraph should is to use paragraph tags - end of story. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ineuw:It will ignore a colon anywhere in the line, if you wish to utilise it, then it is &#58;. Of course noting George's correct qualification, though we all know that it is a widespread (mis|ab)?use on wikis. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all. Everything eminently clear.— Ineuw talk 07:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-05

09:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey :)

(Sorry for writing in English. I hope someone can translate this for me where necessary.)

Not long ago we enabled language links via Wikidata for Wikisource. This seems to have gone rather smoothly. Thanks to everyone who helped! But as you know this was only the start. What is actually more interesting is access to the data in Wikidata like the date of birth of an author or the year a book was published. We have planned this for February 25th (unless any issues arise). You will then be able to use the data in your articles. I hope this will open up a lot of new opportunities for you.

If you have any questions d:Wikidata:Wikisource is a good place to find help.

Cheers Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) 13:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I don’t see any details about how or what exactly phase 2 consists of, nor do I see any testing or problem solving. There is some talk about Dates of Birth, and billinghurst mentions authority control. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Are they only planning on harvesting our data, or are they planning on replacing ours with theirs?
• If they are harvesting, how are they going to keep consistent if our data changes?
• If they are replacing, how are they going to validate for identical dates, and what are they going to do if different?
As far as I can tell, they aren't going to do anything. This will allow us to pull information back from the Wikidata database. So, in theory and for example, an author page could automatically populate itself with some data if it is linked to Wikidata. What we do with it is up to us. I'm pretty sure we can set up templates to read Wikidata only if a parameter is blank at our end, so we can override locally if preferred (or just ignore Wikidata and do our own thing). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
How does the automatic population of the author template (using the gadget) from Wikipedia currently work? I presume that something similar could be done from Wikidata—or even from both. Whether that's desirable is a different issue. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I think it's javascript that reads Wikipedia's API and tries to find a matching page. I'll have to find the page again to check but I think it fills in the birth & death dates by looking for the Y births and Y deaths categories. I don't entirely grok javascript or APIs right now but it probably won't be too much more work to point it at Wikidata instead and the results may well be a lot more accurate.
Another possibility would be to create the author page then go to Wikidata and link it to a data item. If the author template is set up to pull data, it would be able to self-populate once the link it made.
Incidentally, regarding how we will use Wikidata: I think Aubrey/Micru/TPT want book metadata to be centralised at Wikidata, so our Index pages and Commmon's Book template will pull data from there. If so, any page using the "magic" automatic header will also be pulling data from Wikidata via the Index page. Additionally, George Orwell III has been looking at Wikipedia's current {{authority control}} template, which on their side pulls its data from Wikidata unless overridden locally. I was thinking about author demographics (sex, sexuality, etc), just for information purposes, but I don't intend to even try any time soon. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

To note that I am not the expert, and do not wish to be the expert, nor wish to be considered to have the ambassadorial role for WD↔WS, I have enough to do. That said, I do know a little and I am willing to share the bits that I know.

Phase 2 of Wikidata implementation is opening up datalinks based upon the Qnnnnnn data back to enWS. It means that for a specific item, that we can extract the detail for specific property by use, example of WD in play in the wild; compare the output at an article at enWP {{Authority control|VIAF=12326295}} whereas here it produces

with the script pulling the properties from the individual it can show all the property data. It means that data populous is retrievable.

What it allow us to do is configure templates so that they retrieve. We would presumably wish to step through each major template {{header}}, {{author}}, ... It says to me that we need a Wikisource:Wikidata that allows for development and planning discussions, identification of how and where we can best utilise WD, referring specific template discussion to the relative template talk page, and maybe Help:Wikidata that explains how to use Wikidata here. We can have general discussions here as contemporary issues and changes arise, and refer onwards for the detail, if we so choose.

billinghurst sDrewth 04:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

That is pretty much how I understood "Phase2" things to be as well. One problem is that WP's Authority control template uses Lua to help pull and render the Wikidata whereas our's is not near as flexible. I tried to get this going in it's sandbox but without phase2 being in place for us, of course it returned Lua script errors. Still, once I removed that portion from the template/module code, it seems to work fine except they have sources we don't have & vise versa...
Maybe our first step should be to bring this Lua ready {{Authority control/sandbox}} version up to speed by adding all our current sources to it and then propose it for community acceptance as a replacement for what we use now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
IMO, it would be better to import our additional sources to Wikidata and link from there, instead of retaining them here locally.--Mpaa (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks guys (, , )to clear things up. I would like to emphasize that Wikisources can do what they want to do.
As always, community is king. Wikidata is just a (wonderful, IMHO) tool, that can help us a lot in centralizing and structuring data. I always like the KISS example, so I fell that we should try to centralize things that are easy to do, like biographical data for Authors and bibliographical data for books. Of course, we will need to feed them in Wikidata from single Wikisources, at the beginning: then, we call these data with Lua templates from WD to WS. How we will do all this is still to be decided (of course, @Tpt: has plans). There are many data we still don't know if we want on Wikidata (SAL level, for example, or data from Index pages). I'm happy (and still laughing :-)) that identified me and @Micru: and @Tpt: as a single person, but, really, we are just trying hard to coordinate a Wikisource integration, as a "single" community. Wikisources are scattered with small communities all around the world, we feel that coordination and helping each other is a good thing to do, and it helps all of us. This is the core reason and rationale we asked for an Individual Engagement Grant in the first place, and the reason we asked for a renewal. Aubrey (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

HotCat reactivation fails

I found a discussion on Bugzilla relating to a solved problem with HotCat on the Commons. I wonder if this may solve our problem before I file a bug report, but it requires someone with JavaScript familiarity to look at the post and its link to the Commons HotCat code.

The instructions to resolve a non functioning HotCat in the related documentation works when HotCat is checked and saved as the first selected gadget while the Common.js is also empty. It keeps on working when adding other gadgets and common.js procedures. But when disabled afterwards, it cannot be re-enabled. It is an unreasonable expectation to deselect the gadgets and empty the Common.js each time one wishes to re-enable it. Thank you.— Ineuw talk 19:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Taking a step back ... What problem with HotCat? It works fine for me. Where? How? What? is not working about HotCat. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Currently HotCat is selected in Preferences but it's dead. Some combination of gadgets interfere with the re-enabling of the gadget. At times I disabled it for clarity, and nothing happens after re-selecting it. If I were to clear the Common.js code and deselect all gadgets except HotCat, then it works. Then, re-enable the few gadgets I use and return the .js code and all is fine. I checked HotCat functionality after activating a gadget and saving preferences one at a time to find the problem but everything is fine. — Ineuw talk 01:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
HotCat is not dead, it is your javascript implementation that is failing. You will need to work to isolate the components that are the combination problem, not much anyone can do until you have isolated the conflicts. You may even need to comment out lines in your .js files as part of turning off gadgets in play. Nothing that anyone can easily do, unless you can find a local expert in js who can work with you on diagnosing javascript errors via the console. (I am presuming that you have looked there [10]) — billinghurst sDrewth 02:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

For kicks - I've tweaked our condition statement that excluded the "Page" namespace for HotCats to using the previous ns ID (104). Can't say this is for sure but I think this is but one potential problem with importing/loading gadgets from other projects that aren't really being tested for universal usage. Some sites use "page" as a designator for a 'page' as in page = 1 mainspace article while we use it as the designated name of namepace 104 Page:). This usage is ripe for all sorts possible conflicts the way I see it.

I also cut the parts about 'maxage=' since other sites do not seem to be using such qualifiers in their calls to load the HotCat script from Commons. Please let us know if anythings has changed. If not - I pretty much agree w/ Billinghurst's last. Your particular setup seems to be more problematic than others to date. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the directions. I knew that I am the only one who can test it and I knew how, it's just that at the time of posting, I didn't have a strategy or an order of disable/enable in place and was too tired to focus on it. Earlier today, I found the problem almost immediately. The CharInsert .js code doesn't interfere with HotCat. I was able to disable & enable HotCat as often as I wished. As soon as I installed my custom .js toolbar, HotCat failed. so I removed the toolbar. — Ineuw talk 01:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
That observation is not unexpected and part of the issue(s) with using the old button toolbar/pre-WikiEditor schemes. In an ideal world, one that is either intentionally in alignment with wmf development or just coincidental by chance, the aim is to eventually rid ourselves from such "dumb" components from being universally loaded, slowing things down or worse - conflicting with other components/options. From what I've been able to gather, anything developed before this "Summer of Code" intiative is suspect unless somebody has been diligently updating or modifying those aspects along with the latest core improvements.

In the specific case of the "old" button toolbar(s) (in simple terms) is to eventually be able to remove/reasign the option in preferences ~ editing tab ~ show [old] edit toolbars for everybody and deprecate that entire scheme once and for all in the main code.

I dare folks to try disabling that checkbox and enable the next two that follow it. If results are anything like mine, the 1st will screw up editing in the Page: namespace and the second makes using the RegEx gadget pointless if not crippled to some degree or another. Regardless, until that preference checkbox is disabled, you are always loading a component that is only available for backwards compatibility; further development of or support for it is not going happen. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I also checked CharInsert and it still only works intermittently whether the gadgets are active or not. However, if I move the selection to any of the built in char sets and refresh the webpage, then the User: characters always display. I hope that this may be a clue for GO3. — Ineuw talk 01:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I happen to check this today with some friends and nothing like that happened on the latest FF & Chrome browsers or under IE8, 9 or 10 (Adding the "4th option" in a User's common.js always put an end to that whenever it did occur). Whatever it is, it seems specific to you & your setup. I don't know what else to try at the momment but I'll keep thinking about it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it again. It's the only code I have in my .js. I no longer use Vector.js or Vector.css. Do you think that code in my Common.css interferes? Also, since I removed the edit toolbar, CharInsert appears more often than not, but still not reliably.— Ineuw talk 03:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Obituaries in Popular Science Monthly

In the process of analyzing categories specific to PSM, I am ignorant of the outcome of past discussions on categorizing obituaries. Are we keeping this category or not? Is there anyone who is managing this? Thanks in advance for enlightenment.— Ineuw talk 20:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. It is always been controversial, like the redirects which are categorized. I am not standing up for it once again, do what the community will decide about it. Bye--Mpaa (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for refreshing my memory. There was no community decision as far as I remember. Any proposal is irrelevant unless the salient issues are discussed to inform users of certain implications.
As I see it, our options are as follows:
1. Leave the category as is (incomplete).
2. Removing the existing links, anchors, redirects and then the category. (no one like to destroy others' contributions, or I certainly wouldn't).
3. Continuation of categorization is the most problematic because PSM didn't follow an organized system of notices. They appeared in dedicated obituary sections, embedded with other minor announcements, mentioned in the middle of, and out of nowhere, randomly placed to fill empty page space, or were the topic of one or more dedicated articles. Completing categorization would be a major search effort.
Finally, this most recent post HERE really confuses. How does our efforts in providing complete author info here is related to Wikidata? Are they planning to take over the author namaspace? Much of this info is already copied from existing Wikipedia articles. Comments would be much appreciated. — Ineuw talk 21:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I have no strong opinion about the obituaries. Regarding Wikidata, we choose how much or how little we want to take from Wikidata. We could, if we want, keep data on that project and just retrieve the bits we want (like the image from Commons) and even then the templates can be set up so that a parameter here overrides data from Wikidata; or we can carry one regardless. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikidata is mostly irrelevant for what you are asking. Though I can see that we need to be looking to a general discussion to how we best exploit Wikidata. At this point, getting ourselves connected is the priority, and we can take out time with the exploitation. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

To (mis)quote ObiWan Kanobe ... "Use the tools, Luke. Use the tools". We should be looking to utilise our installation of mw:Extension:DynamicPageList (Wikimedia) (see meta:Help:DPL for the help pages). This allows for broader level categorisation, and intersect categorisation without the need to overly categorise like is being done here, eg. we should be able to have these works in "Category:Obituaries" and in "Category:PSM articles" and spit out the intersect. Amgine is a helpful bloke, so if there is anything that we don't understand or think is a good feature , then we can ask. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I followed the links to the extension (a very neat job) and looked at the examples, but must study them further to understand better. Thanks — Ineuw talk 16:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

150,000 Validated Pages

Mike s has just made the 150,000th page validation with his edit to Page:Hector Macpherson - Herschel (1919).djvu/26‎. We reached 100,000 in late December 2012, which means that we are validating at an average rate of over 120 pages per day. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Importing more Public Domain templates from Commons

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but I feel that managing these old works and having to remember to increase the date on each individual work every five or so years that passes by this site is quite tedious. Which is why to solve this problem especially with a large database such as what Commons has, Commons users created the PD-old-auto template, which automatically categorizes a work based on year elapsed since date of death/publication. Just want to ask if we can import that and adapt it into something similar for the works hosted here on Wikisource, easing up some of the maintenance work. Note however that the version on Commons also probably contains many modules we don't need and localization parameters designed for their international audience, which is probably better suited to Oldwikisource than here, and so we may have to remove those elements when we adapt it properly. But in the long run it would probably scale better and reduce the maintenance load already here. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

We've already got {{PD/1923}} and {{PD/1996}}, which are dynamic templates for this kind of thing. Are there others that we need? We probably need to use a Maintenace of Month to go through any plain {{PD-1923}} or {{PD-1996}} and update them. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I didn't realize that those templates already existed when I did my initial check. Seems like Commons already have their versions of those templates too, located at Template:PD-old-auto-1923 and Template:PD-old-auto-1996, which as you've probably noticed are simply more specific versions of Template:PD-old-auto with a dash in front of them and year as the parameter. Perhaps I should create a Template:PD-old-auto page and disambiguate it into these two templates and give a friendly warning when someone tries to use it, so we don't confuse any Commonsies coming here. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
On your second point, I haven't found any other Public Domain templates that we currently lack from Commons when I did the checks and comparisons, but I suppose I could ask the site admins on Commons somewhere like the Village Pump to perhaps query their database for all their Public Domain templates to do a proper comparison. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

New {{Border}} template

I'm not sure if this is the place to post this, but I found the {{Border}} and {{Box}} templates not able to suit my needs, so I completely overhauled the former, keeping the defaults. (Note: I know some editors create a 1x1 table and use the {{ts}} template but by HTML standards that's deprecated.) There are now 8 additional (and all optional) parameters that you can set in addition to the content property itself. I also put examples in the documentation which I hope will clear a few things up. I hope this can suit everyone's needs. Please feel free to write on the Discussion page if you have any issues or something needs to be clarified. It's one of my first templates, but I'm fairly confident it works the way I intended. Thanks, 19:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the update and notification. We generally haven't had a notification process, as we would normally rely on notes being added to the respective template talk page, and if it is possibly controversial, then discussion beforehand, and usually create the sandbox and components. Hopefully you have tested that nothing was broken. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I did test it in the sandbox beforehand. It was only being used on two pages at the time, so I felt that there would never end up being discussion unless I just went and implemented it. And of course, I made sure to maintain the default as the old format (which was not customizable), except for the actual border color (changed default from dark grey to black). And of course I wrote up some documentation with examples. 21:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Would like to learn how to use this template properly. Perhaps someone in the know give me a hand with THIS PAGE? Thanks in advance.— Ineuw talk 19:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Here's the code
{{border|2=500px|9=30px|

As noted on the template documentation page, this creates a 500px box, and changes the padding to 30px. Padding is the space between all four edges and the edges of the next piece of content within the box. It makes that space unavailable in a manner of speaking.
{{border|7=center|

This creates a second box, with maximum width (where the padding from the first box ends), and centers the content inside of this second box.
Note that I didn't need to center content within the first box as the second one takes up the entire width of available space (the default). The way you were trying to do it was simply by setting a fixed width of the inner box as well. However, you wanted the same margin all around so padding of the first box is the way to go for that. The height of each is determined by the content. The second box is as tall as the image, plus a default 5x padding times 2, and the first box is the height of the second plus the 30px padding times 2.
As an aside, you should think about cropping out just the image from that page and uploading it to Commons. Then type the text on that page. See what I did here. 22:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

m:Requests for comment/Global ban for DanielTom

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Request at meta subsequently withdrawn. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, per m:Global bans, a general requirement of a global bans request for comment is notify all projects where the user subject to the ban has editied.

User:DanielTom is either an active editor or a past editor of this wiki and therefore I am notifying the project of this proposal.

Everyone is welcome to go and voice their opinion of the proposal and about the user in general. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Redundancy

As somewhat of a newcomer to WS, but a longtime editor at the other Wiki projects, I was surprised to find how many redundant formatting pages exist here. To me it's a bit of a waste of time not only to write out the different pages but for someone new to search through them. Here is one examples of redundancy: how to use <pagelist />:

People obviously put a good amount of time and effort into each of these pages. What I am saying is that the help section could probably get a restructuring (a new tree) and then a deletion of anything not needed. My hope is that with a good set of help pages that only have information in one place means that the information is easier to find, and also importantly, easier to fix/update as needed. unsigned comment by Hazmat2 (talk) .

I think there is general recognition that our help pages are in dire need of some tender loving care; we're just waiting for someone to come along with some of that love to lavish. You? Hesperian 08:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I would be up to the task, eventually. 16:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
If you wait until you know it all, then you forget what parts need to be updated (at least in my experience). If you find something is wrong, if you know how to make it right, fix it. If you don’t know how to fix it ask at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help then fix it. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Three-column document

I'm trying to transcribe this three-column document at Index:The Copyright Office, Policy Decision on Copyrightability of Digitized Typefaces.pdf, and I'm finding it fairly frustrating to deal with. With the wikitext on the left and the scan on the right, the scan is barely readable, and not quite readable enough for me to be confident I'm not just guessing at the spelling. With the wikitext below and the scan above, I can only see a short, fixed-height strip of the scan.

It would be much nicer if I could look at one column at a time in the side-by-side layout; then I could get decent magnification and a nice number of lines ... —SamB (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

If it were my file, I would run the file through OCR using real software, with columns in the layout. This would help immensely. 02:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Did you try the "zoom in" function? Eg. on the menu, click 'proofreading tools' and then the icon that looks like a magnifying glass with a + symbol. Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, that does help; I think I tried it before but the scrollbars were screwy and I didn't notice I could pan using the mouse ^_^. I still find this a bit clumsy compared to if there were a way to slice the image into columns explicitly, but it does work okay. —SamB (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I misread the issue the first time around. Mukkakukaku's suggestion is much better than mine. ;-) I'll add that you can still grab and drag the image when zoomed in as well. 04:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
You may try over/under edit & proofreading because the natural appearance of the text is larger.— Ineuw talk 04:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-06

08:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

What are best practices for attribution of scans? I uploaded a book scanned by Google and its front page is a request that they get some kind of attribution for this. Does this get transcribed into Wikisource? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No and we usually delete that page from the scan as well. (Some people remove the internal watermarks but I haven't done so before—I don't think I have the software to do so—so I can't really comment on that.) I would normally attribute the source on the File: page on Commons, as with any file, but we are not required to do so anywhere else. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
As AdamBMorgan noted, Google can request, but not require, that we attribute scans to them. A scan of a page in the public domain is ineligible for copyright in most countries, including the U.S. (There is essentially nothing original and no new information contained in the image, and the "computer code" to produce the image isn't eligible for copyright, so the image itself isn't eligible.) I delete the Google page and the front and back covers (if they are "library" covers). The few books I've downloaded are not simple texts and have had so many mistakes in the OCR due to strange formatting, that it was easier to clean the file up with ScanTailor and run it through OCR again to verify/fix mistakes and make a DJVU file. It's my way of proofreading, but it's time-consuming, and I don't recommend the entire process for most books. The Google watermark is naturally stripped from the pages of the book.
With all that said, the fine folks that do all this scanning are hardworking individuals so I feel that it would be wrong not to attribute it to them somehow. When I upload a file to Commons, I fill the |source= section of the {{Book}} template with something such as [http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Voyage_Out.html?id=aRhmAAAAMAAJ Google Books]. Note that their logo is not eligible for copyright either as it doesn't meet the threshold of originality, though it is still a registered trademark and should be noted as such on its Commons page with {{Trademark}}. 21:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you think Wikipedia/Wikisource should have a Kindle (.mobi) putout?

(also posted on Wikipedia)

Hi! I am a Kindle user. I use Kindle in any my free time available because of its convince and feel. It uses e-ink, the look of which is very close to ordinary ink on paper. Sometimes, I use it to read some long Wikipedia article, but I have to convert it manually because the clumsy PDF format works poorly on my kindle, and I believe it's also works badly on other portable devices when compared to .mobi. If Wikimedia projects support this format natively, I think it will be very continent for Kindle and other e-readers users like me, and promote wiki content to be read by users in a further depth. What is your opinion?--The Master (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I would be for it but what about other devices that are not like "Kindle"? Kindle just came out with a superior version of its former self. BTW, I happen to like .PDF files a lot as well as .djvu files. —Maury (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

First, sorry my post is lengthy. I just got out of my ACLS certification class and am a little amped. I agree with the Kindle format idea and had just posted something about this yesterday. I definitely prefer my e-ink Kindle over any computer or tablet for most of my books, so I am a bit biased. With that said, the Kindle is very popular and is rather easy to output pages to. Compared to formatting for PDF it's a cinch. First, the Kindle can handle HTML directly with a simple renaming of the file extension to .txt (strange, I know). I'm pretty sure mine handles HTML files without changing the extension. More importantly, the mobi/azw file format is in XHTML. It's not some proprietary format that requires licensing or crazy conversion. It's why there are scripts to convert pages to it readily available. With that said, having an output option would be helpful as it would be used to only format the book content, such as the EPUB button does now. Kindle Format 8 is also out now which supports HTML5 and CSS, and is in use on the Fire and on the newer e-ink Kindles.
Of course, any of these formats can also be opened on any iOS or Android device as well; many of my classmates use the Kindle app despite not actually owning one because they like the app layout, library, store, etc. I'm rambling a bit here, but would like to say that while this fact is not a reason pro-Kindle it no longer goes against it. I read through some of the old pages going against Kindle formatting, but they were written some time ago and many things have changed.
The most difficult thing I can think of would be how the conversion script handles CSS and whether we separate out mobi and azw files (which have drifted apart in spec). I can put a little time each day into finding a good script and editing/testing it, if it's something we would be allowed to implement. My thought is that with Kindle being a market leader, Wikisource should eventually support it directly. The point is to get these books out there, so why tell a good number of users that they have to convert the files themselves beforehand? (This is exactly what the help pages currently say to do). Just my two cents... plus a few shillings. 20:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
To respond to some of your comments/questions: I purchased a Kindle a few years ago specifically to read e-texts without the strain from backlit screens. I also find reading on screens to be annoying and distracting and e-ink didn't have the same effect. You use the phrase "latest gadgets" but the Kindle has been around almost seven years now—the mobi format, almost fourteen.
I stated, "my personal thoughts", so that all I have typed is what *I* like or dislike.

eReaders have become widely used and Kindle held a 55% market share (Publishers Weekly).

I stated, "Personally" which means I don't care what Kindle's market shares are.-wmm2

(It's also interesting to note that only 6% of people read books on a computer at that time.)

I've made my statement on what I personally use and I have spent nothing. For every "upgrade" or new e-reader, I therefore have saved that much money that e-readers cost others. I never stated that Kindle and other e-readers are not nice to have. *I* just have never had a need for any of them because of working here since about 2006.-wmm2

In the end, I'm not saying we should expend loads of energy on this, or that anyone disinterested should expend any. What I am suggesting is that we incorporate a small conversion script the same as is done for ePub.

I am not opposed to that but I "personally" have no need for it.-wmm2

The file would be created on demand the same way it is now. For now I'll probably look into adding this as a gadget or edit my own js file to call a script to convert just to see how well it could work.

Go for it, I would welcome it.-wmm2

On another note, one of your comments seems to imply that people shouldn't come to WS just to read books.

No, wrong, don't assume. Your key words of assumption are, "seems to imply".-wmm2

You wrote that what you do "preserves books for the future generations" and I agree wholeheartedly and do the same.

I made that personal statement because many of my youthful years I wanted certain books and could not get them other than Interlibrary loan and that often did not work as I desired. I take a deep happiness and a pride that WP & WS exist so that old and rare books can be replicated and archived digitally and in that I helped with a tiny portion of creating and saving for born and unborn generations who will not have to experience what I have experienced in my youth before Internet.--wmm2

Nonetheless, why shouldn't current generations be allowed to enjoy the texts found on here in any way they see fit, without a requirement to transcribe or edit?

Hey, I am all for it. I never stated otherwise. My statements were my "personal thoughts" and in no way am I opposed to what you have stated. If I were rest assured I would say so.-wmm2

Someone even wrote on the Help page

Not me. -wmm2

that "[r]eading is the main point of Wikisource."

Well, I will state that all technology is constantly being upgraded and refined and that includes statements made here, on wikipedia, and elsewhere. en.ws is constantly being refined and I do not refer just to reading or editing books here.-wmm2

To this end, offering more on-the-fly formats could be great for capturing new readers and contributors in the future.

I agree with that. Can you work it out? If so then I ask that you please do so. It would be a part of upgrading and refining.-wmm2

Anyway, I understand all too well the, ahem, addiction, of transcribing texts as you do and I would like to thank you for all the work you've done here.

addiction? What in life is there where masses of people love that is not and "addiction"? It is not so much of an addiction for me as it is an appreciation of being allowed to work here to make the world a little bit better. I further will state an assumption and that is that you drink coffee or tea and probably for the caffeine. Do you not consider that to be an "addiction"? I do not like coffee nor smoking, nor drinking any form of alcohol. Been there, done that decades ago, didn't like it, am not addicted to any of it. Are not any of those an "ahem", an addiction for you? I don't think that the love of things is necessarily an "addiction". --wmm2

It definitely doesn't go unnoticed. Without people that enjoy doing this work, Wikisource simply wouldn't exist.

I cannot speak for others here but I will state for myself that working here creating and refining and changing history itself is doing something worthy for myself and for others. I love books and always have loved the knowledge within them. They teach, they explain, the explore which I love to do both in the real and virtual world. I am retired and well off so I have the time to do what I like to do and I do. Any WP or WS is just a part of what I love to do with my life. It is peaceful here unlike what it was in combat in Vietnam. Construction is the opposite of destruction and I like that.

I would just like to expand the accessibility of the site a little.

Understood and I would like for you to be able to do that as well but not think of any of as an "addiction" in thought nor reality. Like I stated, "Go for it and keep on going for it. What do you have to lose in trying and to keep trying? I think it would make the world a better place. I really do. If I knew how I would join in with you. So I would like to ask questions and they are, "Now what are you going to do? Are you going to quit your ideas and dreams and leave with your head hanging low or are you going to keep on until either you or someone else succeeds with your present thoughts? More, I challenge you to do as you dream, and I say this with the hope that you will and that you succeed. Kindest regards, (wmm2) —Maury (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The Haz talk 00:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The matter of .mobi files has been discussed here a few times WS:S search. has commented upon this before, and maybe they can bring us up to speed on their playtime. I wouldn't have thought that the issue was insurmountable as a file format for the book tool it is presumably something has to be done though I think that it was also an area of change. Note that Amazon has developed an .epub to .mobi converter called KindleGen (supports IDPF 1.0 and IDPF 2.0 epub format, according to the company).
Should have been clearer. We do have an .epub version available for all our works, and that is manipulable. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'll have to look into that later. I had seen many of the prior posts but it had seemed like a dead topic to me. And I wasn't the person who posted it here originally either, just someone interested in carrying it out eventually. The book tool isn't accessible at the moment so I can't look at it right now, though I know that I wasn't able to get either the "book creator" on the toolbar or the one you turn on via preferences to work correctly. I think only the one via preferences (the one labeled for Wikisource) was able to do ePub for the books I tried and neither could make a PDF or ODT (only had the header template from each page and nothing else. I'm also surprised to find that an ePub exists for each book. That uses a lot of server power and space. When does the ePub get made? And if someone fixes something in a book, does the ePub automatically update itself? I would have assumed they got made on the fly. Thanks for the information, 20:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion policy for Author pages

I just posted this at Wikisource talk:Deletion policy#Author pages:

What happened to Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2008-02#Author-PD-none? In particular, we still have:

Copyright violation: Content which is a clear and proven copyright violation, or content previously deleted as a copyright violation, or author pages for authors whose works are all copyrighted.

(red mine) here, though it looks like it was agreed to relax that to something more like:

Copyright violation: Content which is a clear and proven violation of Wikisource copyright policy, or content previously deleted as a violation of Wikisource copyright policy, or author pages for living authors whose works are all violations of Wikisource copyright policy.

(green mine, and possibly factored out into a new critereon).

Did you guys forget to actually make the change, or what? —SamB (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

But you should respond there, not here! —SamB (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No eBook available

Are we beginning to run out of source materials? Google constantly shows No eBook available. —Maury (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That pretty much sums it up for those of us in Australia. It seems to me that Google Book no longer makes stuff available to us for download ever. Hesperian 16:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Right. I think now that any worthy texts are being sold with a new cover and an upgraded date and perhaps with an new introduction by someone to claim copyright (but only on that introduction). There are some really good looking books (cover art) being sold now. Perhaps there are some few left-over books but the ones of some quality, are edited by various persons and are sold on Amazon and on Google and elsewhere. To keep some books as Public Domain we get the scraps that have the obvious mistakes. Even HathiTrust carries Google's watermarks which isn't new but what is new, I firmly believe, is that I now find a lot of "limited view" on those books. Have an exceptional Day, —Maury (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
P.S. @Maury, Hesperian See this discussion regarding downloading PDF from Google Books + watermarks and warning page removal + Internet Archive upload for Djvu conversion. Solomon7968 (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

"PDF Scans derived from Google Books contains a warning which needs to be stripped off before adding the text to IA for facilitating proofreading for Wikisource. These are normally done by the user/bot "tpb" (not affiliated to Internet Archive): we dream of a way to suggest tpb books we're interested in; we can start accumulating Google Books URLs here and then maybe tpb at some point will fetch them." @Solomon7968. I am not positive but I doubt that I ever leave that page in any upload to here. I simply dislike it. Too, I am working with .djvu scans now. I do not like leaving watermarks but there are times when all pages have them. How are those removed from a .djvu file? Thank you for the heads up though. Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

One way: The watermark is a separate image from the page. If you are using the Google Books PDF scan with Acrobat Pro (or Nitro PDF Reader) you can use the "export all images" feature. Unlike the "save as image" feature, which saves each page as an image, the "export all images" feature extracts each separate image from the file. In our case, that will extract 2 images for each page, the scan and the faux-watermark. If you extract into its own folder and sort by file size, you'll see that the Google logo images are small 2-25KB while the scans are much larger. This makes it easy to select the Google logo files and delete them. I've been told SomePDF Images Extract supposedly does the same, but I haven't used it. It probably tries to install some junk as well as the main program, based on the look of the website. 22:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that you can delete the first pages from the file, getting rid of the warning. Most PDF programs can handle something like this. However, you can always use PDF Helper to quickly pull each page as a separate PDF, delete the files you don't want, and use the software to put them back together. It's low-tech, but free and I've been using it for years when I don't use Acrobat. (It has this strange side effect of removing any password protection from most PDFs that get processed.) 23:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Haz I was totally clueless how to remove the embedded watermarks from PDFs. Now I guess the only thing to worry is to find a suitable replacement of user/bot "tpb" (Re: The work tpb has started seems to be ended years ago, but I'm not sure. Lugusto 19:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)) to mass upload scanned PDF books from Google Books. Any ideas? Solomon7968 (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Important: Relevant discussion with developers for Google Summer of Code 2014. See mw:Mentorship programs/Possible projects#Google Books > Internet Archive > Commons upload cycle.

George Orwell III and I use Adobe Acrobat Pro. GO3 has version 10 and I upgraded to version 11. I think I can do just about anything with version 11 regarding .PDF Files but .PDF files are not as desirable here because .DJVU is for better text retention. However, .DJVU is not good for images. I upload .DJVU files here to en.ws now and the text I have encountered is excellent. So, I upload cleaned .JPG files that I extract (using Acrobat Pro v.11) from .PDF files to WikiCommons and insert them into .djvu files as I did today. I have a .DJVU book here on en.ws now. Moments ago I uploaded .JPG images and inserted them into that book. I am only recently learning how to handle .DJVU files including how to make .PDF files from it, which I don't do. What I do not know and need to learn is how to extract any page from .DJVU files. [DJVU= kidding here=> "Disk-Jocky-Virtual-U2"] I do recall that Ineuw stated something about using -d which I guess means delete but I only know commands like that from a U.Va. "UNIX" system from decades ago. —Maury (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry--I wasn't saying you should upload the PDF, or even the image files. Since Google Books has PDFs and not DJVUs, I just use Adobe to export those images to compile DJVU files and upload the DJVU. I've never taken apart a DJVU the way you are asking. If it's Google Books it might take less time to upload a new DJVU file over the old one made from the images in the PDF, but I haven't done that so I'm not sure. Have you already skimmed the information and links here? Help:DjVu_files#Manipulating 06:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh and as for deleting pages with the "-d" command, you can do that in Windows as well. Similar to Unix, the command would be djvm -d filename.djvu pagenumber. You can use the command line or create a batch file because djvm doesn't have a GUI as far as I know. Or, if you have Linux you can do the same from the terminal. 06:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
No big deal, my friend, I was chatting while attempting to learn from others here and I have learned. I used to upload .PDF files after I have cleaned out all watermarks and the "warning" page along with some other pages with garbage. I would extract the images and clean any need scribblings by someone who like to draw on book pages then place the cleaned images back in to the .PDF file then send it to Internet Archives and let it derive many formats as have others here. I now download .DJVU files for the text plus a fast move to WikiCommons, and then to here at en.ws But how would I use -d in Windows XP? I see no such option. Do you mean in DOS? If so how do you get DOS to work with a .DJVU file? What 3rd party program are you using with Windows to be able to use a unix command of -d with a .DJVU command? No, I do not have Linux. I use regular old Windows XP and have never seen djvm -d filename.djvu pagenumber used in a program with this. Have a wide awake wonderful day, I am now sleepy after working half a day and all night. Thank you, perhaps I will understand what you mean when I am awake. —Maury (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
In WinXP you can either click Start, Run, and type "cmd" to get to the faux-DOS prompt (DOS is no longer in Windows) or Start>Program Files>Accessories>(System)>Command Prompt. That's the same as typing "cmd" at the Run prompt though. Microsoft's Command Prompt FAQ, if you don't know or have forgotten some of the commands to get around as they differ a little from Unix. However, djvm is part of DJVULibre so you'll have to have that if you don't already. If you're going to do this to a bunch of files with the same pages deleted you can make a batch file that looks for any file with the DJVU extension as noted above. Leave the batch file in it's own directory and put whatever DJVU files need to be processed there. Double click the file and it will run the DOS commands quickly so you don't need to type anything out. It's also helpful because you can write batch files (.bat) right in Notepad. See Writing Your Own Batch File and Creating Bat file to execute a command on all files in folder. 15:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
OH! Okay, I remember this now! I just never use it any longer. It is like DOS (disk operating system) and I know how, if I remember correctly, to make .BAT files. I used to have a program called DCOLOR. It would make .BAT files red in color and command (COM) files green, and other files such as text were colored white which made working in that environment even easier. There was also an editor in there. There was also a great search command. I haven't used that "faux" fake/false area for decades after win3 came out. I did not know anyone used that area anymore. Younger guys learn computer codes &c in school but when I was in high school Physics class we had to learn how to use a slide rule before we could actually work since no digital calculator for sale existed. At least we did not have to use an abacus! Thank you very much!! Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

What is this?

Anybody have an idea about what this is: Index:Quiz11111.pdf? It's in Greek, I think, but as I was preparing to tag it for transwiki, I took a closer look and thought that it doesn't really look like something that is potentially out of copyright, or really a candidate for inclusion on any wikisource. (The name of the file doesn't help either.) Any ideas? Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a high school physics test on motion. The uploader is claiming it as own work. However, as it's in Greek, I have deleted the Index from here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Same person? Ali ibn Husayn

Just noticed these two authors, and they could be the same person.

On Wikipedia: Ali ibn Husayn Zayn al-Abidin

Perhaps someone has better knowledge of this? - Danrok (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

That Wikipedia article does have them as two names for the same person. Ali ibn Husayn = name. Zayn al-Abidin = Honorific title used after name. 06:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I should mention that that WP article also has two dates of death and two dates of birth. The ones in the lead are different from the ones in the Infobox. 06:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I would say merge to the longer name, and make the shorter a redirect. You may need to make any fixes at WD. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Done --Erasmo Barresi (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Two somewhat large moves to Translation: space

Could someone with a bot flag move Mishnah & Shulchan Aruch and their subpages to the Translation: namespace? There are too many subpages to be moved in the usual way. If possible, subpages that are still linked to after the move should be kept as redirects until they can be cleaned up. --Eliyak T·C 06:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I tried one, see Translation:Mishnah/Introduction. Two points to be considered:
pls note the Translation:Mishnah in the header part, is that OK? I also saw a {{Translation header}} around, should that be updated (maybe in a 2nd round)?
what about redirects? is it OK not to leave redirects for sub-pages in case they are automatically handled by relative links? I remeber some discussions in the past but I cannot recall the outcome; it was about cross-namespace redirects not allowed vs. what to do if with references from outside this wiki--Mpaa (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Very good point. By going through various Google searches for incoming links to each of the 6 main subpages and their subpages (e.g. [30]), it seems there are somewhere between 200-500 incoming links to subpages. I was originally going to suggest using {{dated soft redirect}}, but since there are a significant number of incoming links, I would like to suggest a different approach - use {{soft redirect}}, but have the redirects "self-destruct" after a couple years by using {{timed}} in conjunction with {{sdelete}}. As far as the title issue goes, I think that could be corrected in a 2nd round as you suggest. --Eliyak T·C 00:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Update: my above naive idea of a time-triggered template will not work as is, because the page will not update without being purged first. --Eliyak T·C 03:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Just a thought: Make a category specifically for use by a "redirect until" template (which probably also has to be made). You can throw them all in one category. Then use a bot once or twice a year that runs down the category and checks the date on the template of each page. If the current date is past the one on the template, the page gets nuked. 06:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I will wait for some more comments then I'll proceed, creating something similar to this: Help:Redirects#Redirect_sorting, unless some other instructions will be posted.--Mpaa (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Err... what happened to the whole {{Translation redirect}} approach? Too complicated? -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I was simply unaware of ... :-) --Mpaa (talk) 07:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Mishnah is moved. Clean-up is needed as absolute links mess up transclusions.--Mpaa (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Clean-up of absolute links is basically done.--Mpaa (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Now done both.--Mpaa (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-07

09:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Index:Catalogue of books suitable for a popular library.djvu

Procedural request - rest this to red, some large scale format consistency issues have been raised.

The concern is to do with period(.) symbols in titles as passed to the templates.

It needs someone to check for every single [DELETED] period. :(

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not neccessarily simple, but what about scripting the template to check for trailing period in title? If it's there, print it but strip it from the link. If it's not there, put it in, but keep it stripped from the link. 20:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
If you know how to do that feel free, otherwise someone needs to start adding them back..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Think I got it. Not familiar with all the use cases of that template so I'd appreciate if you took a look through the text and confirmed that you're getting the right outcome everywhere. Prosody (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Page:Catalogue_of_books_suitable_for_a_popular_library.djvu/19 - Titles here have periods which aren't being addedd (partly because I tweaked the template after User:Legofan94's concerns.). Please amend the template and documentation such that there is ONE consistent approach.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I hadn't even noticed that second condition (adding periods in the anchor text where there are none). That's a little tricky, because it looks like some titles end in question marks and shouldn't having periods added. Are there any other similar edge cases? Prosody (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Bracketed titles, and diambig titles.. (Although that's why I added the link param..}}ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Brackets are just normal square brackets, right? Can you give an example of a disambig title? Prosody (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
(outdent) Bracketed titles are ones like Lorem Ipsum (Latinate Questions), a disambig title is where there a multiple detsinations for a given title, but only one is the specfic title desired for the link (which could be a red-link.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm missing something, , but the {{CBSPL entry}} template appears to allow you to put an alternate link for the title, but not for the author -- is that right? For example, the first author on Page:Catalogue of books suitable for a popular library.djvu/79 is listed as "C. C. Abbott". I have confirmed that this is actually Author:Charles Conrad Abbott, but I can't figure out how to fix the link.... Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
For an author were the name differs from the print verison use the a/d form of {{ci-author}} in the authorfield of the {{CBSPL entry}},
... I have no idea what that means, and {{Ci-author}} has no usage examples listed. Can you give an example to indicate what you mean? Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
You might be on the wrong template page as I see two usage examples listed. On a related note, a great way to see a template in action is to go to the template page and click What links here on the sidebar under Tools. You'll find every page that it's used on (though technically if another template calls it you'll get those pages as well). So for this one, you might wish to see Page:Catalogue of books suitable for a popular library.djvu/13. I hope that helps! 14:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
This good, ? Prosody (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00, Haz, Prosody, Mukkakukaku This is particularly relevant for Catalogues, Is there any automated process for Wikilinking everything on a page? For example see Page:A Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (1869).djvu/10. Copy pasting the [[ ]] code 60 or so times is very time-consuming and can be better done by a bot/automation of some sort. Solomon7968 (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

What I usually do -- and what I just did for the page you linked -- is dropping the text of the page into a text editor and using regular expressions to insert appropriate templating or links as needed. Fixing the sanscrit catalog page took about 30 seconds. Mukkakukaku (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The History of Wikisource including a Timeline

All good points. As for a history of Wikisource, it might be better to amend and/or cleanup the Wikisource Wikipedia page. In my mind, it seems appropriate to keep the history there. 22:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Namespace is not handled and when used in Translation namespace, it refers to Main ns. See e.g. Translation:Mishnah/Seder_Zeraim/Tractate_Peah/Chapter_3/4. Can some template-expert look into it and possibly add namespace support? Thanks--Mpaa (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I added that functionality, and tidied up while I was in there. --Eliyak T·C 07:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-08

08:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Universal Language Selector will be enabled by default again on this wiki by 21 February 2014

On January 21 2014 the MediaWiki extension Universal Language Selector (ULS) was disabled on this wiki. A new preference was added for logged-in users to turn on ULS. This was done to prevent slow loading of pages due to ULS webfonts, a behaviour that had been observed by the Wikimedia Technical Operations team on some wikis.

We are now ready to enable ULS again. The temporary preference to enable ULS will be removed. A new checkbox has been added to the Language Panel to enable/disable font delivery. This will be unchecked by default for this wiki, but can be selected at any time by the users to enable webfonts. This is an interim solution while we improve the feature of webfonts delivery.

You can read the announcement and the development plan for more information. Apologies for writing this message only in English. Thank you. Runa 07:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of preliminary proposls elsewhere

At w:User:John Carter/Opinions I have recently put together a page of some proposals which I think may be basically achievable which might help some of the various WF entities, including this one. Anyone is free to comment there, add other proposals, etc. John Carter (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Renewed application on Commons

Hi Wikisorcerers,

If you wish to support my admin's request on Commons (to go on protecting djvu and pdf files), you can find it here. Thanks if you can help. --Zyephyrus (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

DoneIneuw talk 09:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Done —Maury (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm very very grateful. Non-wikisorcerers did not see why we need these tools so these tools have not been given. Sorry to have been unable to explain things to them clearly enough, and renewed and warmest thanks to the supporters nonetheless. :) --Zyephyrus (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
This is a very naughty post, and I have absolutely no sympathy for anybody caught out following these suggestions...
As I understand the discussion, one of your major critics was one Steinsplitter, and their opposition revolved around your not performing a quota of five sysop functions? So isn't the obvious answer for anyone facing a similar situation in future to block, then unblock, then block, then unblock, then block (STOP: five operations completed! Yay!)... Steinsplitter on Commons? You'd get my vote for hanging the pedantic sod by his own rules... AuFCL (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

"Broken Arrow"

Wikimedia Foundation
Error

<p>
Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem.
This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes.<p>
If you report this error to the Wikimedia System Administrators, please include the details below.
<p>
Request: GET http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist, from 10.64.0.104 via cp1067 cp1067 ([10.64.0.104]:3128), Varnish XID 814708431
Forwarded for: 24.162.139.146, 208.80.154.133, 10.64.0.104
Error: 503, Service Unavailable at Sun, 23 Feb 2014 19:59:00 GMT


This is happening constantly. I have edited throughout it by edit, copy, wait, try, try, paste, save. This too is a hurried post. —Maury (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have an exceptionally hefty Watchlist? Sometimes really big files just get butt ugly with editing. Are you editing it through removing items, or working with the raw list? — billinghurst sDrewth 14:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I suppose it is large by now, Billinghurst. I have removed some pages from time to time but not a lot. Would there be any harm done if I remove all of the watchlist items? There are 2 ways I know of to edit the watchlist and I suspect it doesn't matter which way is chosen. I suppose I should leave the people listed there? Very Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, bill, I received the same server error yesterday (not just on Wikisource), and I have a relatively small watchlist.~ DanielTom (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Hefty watchlist Kaput! I deleted almost everything. —Maury (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-09

10:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Index:Chronological_Table_and_Index_of_the_Statutes.djvu

I'd appreciate some help on getting the first part of this finished...

{{Statute table/chapter}} is now documented, with the header and footer being generated automatically.

Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You can now access the data on Wikidata

Hey folks,

We have just enabled data access to Wikidata for Wikisource (except old-wikisource). This means you can now access data like the date of birth of an author or the ISBN of a book. You can do this in two ways. The first one is a parser function. You can use it like {{#property:capital}} or {{#property:P36}}. The second one is Lua. The documentation for that is at mw:Extension:WikibaseClient/Lua

If you have any questions you will find help at d:Wikidata:Wikisource and its talk page.

I hope you'll use this to do some kick-ass things on Wikisource ;-)

Cheers Lydia Pintscher 19:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Revert to plain vanilla text (ascii).

I looked at the above including the links and that below and wonder what the heck is it all about for the average lay person. I have been busy editing books and have not kept up with "kick-ass" codes for books and images. So, what is the latest thingamuhjig kick-ass do for editors of books? Will it pull in books to WS and edit and transclude them? I am just wondering about what is so "kick-ass" in what I looked over. Headed back to sensible editing of books so there will be a wikisource books for some to play with "kick-ass" codes. What's it all about "kick-ass" Alpha? —Maury (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Well how to put it all in perspective?
Imagine there is this author who you have taken great pains in researching.
Realising that the person concerned was a bit of a rascal, a 'character' if you will, you realise after careful consideration that it is impossible to tie down their birth-year (they never were too straight about 'official inquiries'.)
So instead of filling out Author/birthyear (because for argument you have three different possible years: 1862, 1863 or 1866 for example) and instead have carefully recorded a note to that effect and used the freer-form Author/dates instead…
Got the image of this circumstance in mind? Well now WD has come along and extracted what it wants from existing records (it doesn't bother with free-form notes or that vague 'dates' thing you understand -- the machine only accepts pristine data) you may now have the pleasure of having a machine tell you -- confidently -- that that particular author was never born at all (Incidentally, you ignorant peasant you—do not Question the wisdom™ of the Machine.)
Oh, and also start to picture your little computer nook plastered with Think banners, and the toilet flushing itself automatically every 20 minutes. Or is this getting just a little too (Blue) corporate? AuFCL (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

[((Incidentally, you ignorant peasant you—do not Question the wisdom™ of the Machine.)]

Always question, don't you watch the Science Channel? "the Machine" has been known to have moth of a bug since the beginning and now it often has bugs of all kinds -- that's "bugs" (plural). Apple products suffered from this very recently.

[Or is this getting just a little too (Blue) corporate?] I think it is good enough for your government job, agent (blue), or any of the other agents because blue isn't the only one of the "rainbow agents" such as agent orange), especially you flushing your toil-et so often. I myself wouldn't go near it because I don't trust the government that far. It always has too much overflow, especially in human blood, that harms "We The People" who are always kept in a war. It's a military tactic under the government to always keep an alert military for the people back home. You cannot just allow an army to sit around and become rusty. Have a bloody good day —Maury (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Alternative Authority Control template works now

See the old (current) and the alternative (sandbox) based on Wikipedia's approach in practice at the bottom of Author:Edward_Augustus_Freeman#Works_about_Freeman

We probably still need to add/remove some databases so we should probably take care of that prior to proposing a switch from old to new. Thoughts? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

My view is that 1. a Wikidata bot should import in Wikidata databases available in Wikisource Author pages and not in Wikidata; 2. a bot should replace VIAF=nnn in our Author pages with {{#property:Pxxx}}, fetching VIAF info from Wikidata.--Mpaa (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean "import in Wikidata ... and not in Wikidata". However, I think we should go ahead with the alternative version (with some fiddling to match our aesthetics and possibly some other functions. I've read through, but haven't seriously examined every line of, the code; I don't know it this does already but it's possible to locally override Wikidata in any other use, I think being able to do so in this template should remedy most objections. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I meant: port to Wikidata info not available there yet, but available here instead; and after that, fetch data from there.--Mpaa (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea why but the automatic filling in of birth year and death year is not working for me (See also this). I tried with the red link Author:Edmond Herbert Grove-Hills. Solomon7968 (talk) 07:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Does not work for me as well.--Mpaa (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
That's javascript reading data from Wikipedia's API and not (currently) Wikidata's. I confirm that it isn't working for me but, as I only barely understand either javascript or APIs, I can't tell why. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Yet another gadgets no longer working (HotCat being another ...)--Mpaa (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

??? Since when does the Authority Control template import birth and death years? I've only seen it pull the various national library codes assigned to specific works or people. please start another discussion for the gadget. Its clear that the gadget has not been "maintained" for some time now never mind during the recent Wikidata port over changes. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It most certainly does not. Confusion over sub-discussion regarding idea for {{author}} to populate non-local values from wikidata? Also a good idea to apply similar logic to authority control and/or integrate the two of them. (Does anybody know of an application of {{authority control}} except within {{author}}?) AuFCL (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
There are only a handful of cases where specific works have AC data associated with them - which is sad in its own way since works are frequently keys to filling out author info and vise versa.

There are a couple of things that need to be addressed now that pulling data is possible and that means addressing templates like plain sister and author in addition to authority control. For instance, our author template is based only on the birth & death year whereas wikidata stores birth (#property:P569) & death (#property:P570) dates -- that means month, day & year whenever established. Our Author template would "kick" such dates as an invalid parameter while displaying the full month, day & year at the same time. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Mpaa's approach however - making sure what we've currently built up as a database re: AuthControl template parameters are imported into Wikidata first and once that is done, then let Wikidata fill in what we still have missing.

PS. - See Ineuw for his dealings with HotCat failing above. Drop me note if you still can't figure it out. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment The whole purpose of the Wikidata is that we don't add data here, just a reference to it another site. Having just the template {{authority control}} on a page with zero parameters should be enough. In time, we should be able to build in other components like birth year, death year, images, WP links, etc., and just have these by blind parameters within {{author}}. The purpose is to make life easier, and to edit one place with the hard data. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought this would be a simple task with which to start using Wikidata but I'm getting nowhere. I wanted to just return the item ID (Q number) of the attached data item, so I could (trivially) automatically fill plain sister and (more importantly) populate tracking categories such as Category:Author pages linking to Wikidata or Category:Author pages not linking to Wikidata. We could then use the tracking categories more flexibly than Special:UnconnectedPages. Does anyone know how to do this? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand, but why wouldn't you do this in a similar fashion to the (say) Wikipedia link tracking categories, currently implemented by this fragment near the bottom of {{author}}:

with the obvious substitutions giving:

Surely testing whether the link contents starts with an actual "Q" would be needless overkill? Its presence or absence should be quite sufficient surely? AuFCL (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not the "Q" that's a problem. I don't want to manually enter the number at all; I want the author header to automatically fill that in depending on whether or not the page is connected to a Wikidata item. As it happens, the next task I wanted to try was for the header to automatically pick up the Wikipedia link from Wikidata (as well as Wikivoyage and Commons) but I'm not sure if that is possible either and I've already fallen at the first hurdle. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I observed much the same when looking over the AC template & related modules. The nuance is much of the "coding" doesn't refer to Wikidata but the term wikibase instead. So the issue with the above is probably due to detecting the wrong type or name of some string typically generated by the MediWiki namespace (MW messages, etc.) Fwiw, these are the simple LUA cals to invoke the generation of the "Q" id, label and page...
{{#invoke:Wikibase|id}}

Q16503

{{#invoke:Wikibase|label}}

Project:Village pump

{{#invoke:Wikibase|page}}

Wikisource:Scriptorium

I tried adding the call to generate the id to {{Plain sister}} but I don't know if that was wise or not. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
FWIW: The mediawiki extension module which implements the Wikidata interfaces is called "wikibase." Perhaps this explains the confusion a little? AuFCL (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Oops, I really meant mw:Extension:Wikibase Repository, but the other link may be of benefit as well. AuFCL (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
That's what I needed, thanks. I've added that to {{Author}} directly (which is the only related edit I mean to make directly to any template without discussion, FYI). Please see Category:Author pages connected to Wikidata and Category:Author pages not connected to Wikidata. Adding a call to plain sister is great, that's part of what I planned to do next. If I manage to scrape together enough time I think I can make automatic sister links for the three other connected projects; assuming my programming is up to it. One thing that will have to be amended is the call to plain sister in the first place: it is only activated if one of the sister link properties are used in the header. If everything is automatic, and the call is left as it is, the links may never be shown. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
ABM, have a look at this edit. The information about how to do this at WD is simply crap, and something about which I give them continuous criticism. Tehre is so much more that can and should be done to get it all used properly — billinghurst sDrewth 14:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) That looks good, although I might amend a few bits like the dates. I was going to try working on this with the {{author/sandbox}}. I think some functions will have to be moved to Lua eventually (or would be best there) and they are called more than once and it would be more efficient to use a variable to store the data rather than query Wikidata each time. Still, we can start with what we've got and move functions later. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I've converted the French Wikisource interproject template in Lua (see this module). I believe it should be easily reusable for the Plain sister template. Feel free to ping me on IRC (or on my talk page) if you need some help with Wikidata/Lua. Tpt (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I've migrated the part of {{Plain sister}} that manage sister project links to a Lua module that uses Wikdiata as fallback for Wikipedia, Wikivoyage and Commons links. Please revert if I've made any mistakes. Tpt (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Non English Work - Index:ΠΟΛ 1011 2011.pdf

Looks like greek? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Google's present presentation (to AdamBMorgan, Erasmo, & anyone else creative & innovative)

I just saw Google's present Logo. It is very inspiring. It has thumbnails on each of its letters. Each thumbnail briefly shows a book image as it changes from a letter to the thumbnail image. Click on one of those thumbnails and the book is opened. I tried only the G and entered into a new world called Grapes of Wrath.

It was beautiful and innovative. Why cannot we have something similar on beloved WIKISOURCE? and on our front page. The transition from image to letter alone catches the eye of a passer-by. It is advanced in its effect! —Maury (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Technically speaking, I don't know how to do that. But you made me imagine a crossword where the words are book titles (we could also add the word "Wikisource")...--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Erasmo, I think we should do some brainstorming and come up with something that I have thought about and what your fertile young brain comes up with. You have wonderful abilities and a fertile imagination. Contact me via email if you are interested. —Maury (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Creating cover designs for WS is a personal interest of mine. Using book jackets with attractive color, stylish fonts and attention to layout may ease user navigation and improve readability. See samples of my User:DutchTreat/covers project. I started out doing a few covers for Rousseau to dabble with the idea. Wanted to see if there is merit in the approach. Recently I started working on a few for the Portal:Romanes Lecture. After I heard about the challenge of featuring so many volumes for the upcoming Featured Text in May 2014, I started turning my attention to that area. I noticed how Amazon featured covers when it announced their 100 best books a few month ago. The example you highlight from this week's Google Doodle is another indication that users will click on book covers to explore. Personally, I want our WS covers to appear non-commercial and lightweight to speed download. Many design trade-offs, but hopefully there is a place for more open-source graphics on our site. - DutchTreat (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I made a template based on your idea: {{cover}}. The following code:

{{cover|1|Author:George Gordon Byron|George Gordon|Byron|The Corsair (Byron, 1814)|The Corsair|1814}}


gives the following result:

If you also add the eighth parameter, its text will appear at the bottom of the cover.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@Erasmo -- Thanks for making progress with the idea by introducing the template. I like it. I was moving more in the direction of higher fidelity via SVG (patterns, background images, etc.), but there are merits to your approach. Having an easy to use, plug-n-play cover generator should ease adopment. Good work! -- DutchTreat (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Using the Modern skin - a new challenge to the coders

I switched from Vector to the Modern (blue) skin to test the editor and discovered that the compactness of the layout eliminated the need to constantly scrolling vertically to access various options and controls during editing. However, (there is always a however), the skin has a graphic display anomaly seen here and this anomaly is exists in all the browsers and OS's I tested and compared to the Vector skin. The image description lists the browsers and OS combinations, with the exception of Internet Explorer. Can this be corrected? — Ineuw talk 08:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Assuming the problem was the bottom rather than middle alignment of certain line segments generated by the custom rule template scheme, a tweak to the File: string in the custom rule segment template forcing alignment back to middle over the skin's default(s) should have fixed that for you. Report back either way. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
It works. It's a perfect GO3 solution as usual. Thanks.— Ineuw talk 18:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

A note to those who are having problems with HotCat

The working solution is to:

1. Empty all code from the .js pages
2. Reset Preferences to their default and Save
3. Activate (check) HotCat, Save and test.
4. Repaste code, Save and check HotCat.
5. Reselect Preferences Save & check HotCat.
6. Reselect needed Gadgets but keep checking HotCat function after each selection.— Ineuw talk 09:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Call for project ideas: funding is available for community experiments

Do you have an idea for a project that could improve your community? Individual Engagement Grants from the Wikimedia Foundation help support individuals and small teams to organize experiments for 6 months. You can get funding to try out your idea for online community organizing, outreach, tool-building, or research to help make Wikisource better. In March, we’re looking for new project proposals.

Examples of past Individual Engagement Grant projects:

Proposals are due by 31 March 2014. There are a number of ways to get involved!

--Siko Bouterse, Head of Individual Engagement Grants, Wikimedia Foundation 19:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• #5.43 (above) is a Project Idea that costs nothing. It could enhance en.wikisource. Will it happen? I seriously doubt it. —Maury (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
If you really want to get nitpicky, it would cost something for software/web developers. The example above about the VisualEditor improvements included a grant for \$4500 for developers. Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Mukkakukaku, I did not say, nor imply, that I really want to get "nitpicky". That's your thoughts. The area I cited above relates to something of simplicity that one of our volunteers here could handle. Have you forgotten that there are volunteers here with skills who do not charge for volunteer work? Neither is it about any need for "VisualEditor" and the money you show interest in. —Maury (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I get that Maury, but as a software developer I felt I should point out that what you're calling "simple" is actually not so. And this whole section is about money, so I don't really understand the point of the last part of your comment. Cheers. Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
i’d like to swap punch cards with you some time. don’t underestimate the power of some prize money to motivate the volunteers. pretty soon, the grant funds "managers" will pick among the ocean of ideas. progress comes to the team builders, not necessarily the coders. we also have to make these grant outputs and tools, sustainable and supported, instead of thrashing. mind you the prizes are less than minimum wage, but have to pay for the free beer somehow. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 22:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
It’s not prize money. You get money to meet reasonable expenses for project that have some benefit. You are accountable for spending the money on the project. Jeepday (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
well, money is money. a grant proposal with hacker pay for wish list projects is prize money, with no contingency on results. the IEG accountability paperwork is perhaps responsible for the declining uptake. maybe they need a template, expedited process for the petty cash, not merely marketing their funding source at projects. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 01:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Money can be a filip. Without money some things won't get done. Be it to fund someone getting funding to travel to an institution to talk about scanning a repository's works where they could be valuable to our collections, etc. It was great for us to be notified and if someone has a great opportunity then please run with it and good luck. Being negative about an opportunity is not of high value. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Pipes replaced with {{!}}

When I built a wikitable, the pipes were all replaced with pipe templates (diff). Is this the intended behavior? Heyzeuss (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. If you want to pass a table as an argument to a template, you have to "protect" the pipes so that the template doesn't try to use them to split on arguments. That's what {{!}} does. On index pages, whatever you put into the text fields ends up being used as arguments to a template. But there is no expectation that you would know that, so the index page php parses your input and "protects" your pipes for you. Hesperian 07:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wilhelmina FitzClarence, Countess of Munster

When could we ever make a page for requested works and/or their authors just like one requests a particular entry at Wiktionary? (My reason for that idea is the 1896 collection of ghot stories, Ghostly Tales.) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

There is Wikisource:Requested texts. However, a lot of Wikisourcers are doing their own thing and I don't know how often works are chosen from that page (except for the September Proofread of the Month task). You might make more progress if you started work on this yourself and asked for assistance from others. Either way, you can always start the author page first and set up any links you may need. If you have a scan, setting up an Index page would help a lot too. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Whoa I didn't know that page existed!
On an unrelated note, I took a quick look through both IA and Google Books and was unable to find the text of Wilhelmina FitzClarence's "Ghostly Tales". I wasn't even able to find a hard copy of it on my continent, so I won't be able to help too much there. Mukkakukaku (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Now I wish the community portal gives the link to the Requested Texts page. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
It does now. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Twelve Years a Slave wins Best Picture

Proofreaders and validators welcome at Index:Twelve Years a Slave (1853).djvu, as I’d expect a bit of interest in this. Thanks. Moondyne (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Done Nice idea @Moondyne:billinghurst sDrewth 13:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to all concerned for fast tracking this. Moondyne (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-10

09:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Auto-generation of paragraph (pilcrow) markers message on my watchlist

Above has been on my watchlist for several weeks but there’s no option to mark as read or to hide. Can message be removed? Moondyne (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, done. Hesperian 04:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Moondyne (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

British Chess Magazine

By chance, I came across some early issues of BCM and began looking around for copyright information. The Magazine is monthly, and has been running since 1881, making it the oldest periodical of its kind. Although I suspect some of the earliest issues are now in the PD, could someone better versed than I am at copyright issues look into the possibility that we might work on some of these? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you provide the link please?— Ineuw talk 05:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know both the original authors and the publisher have a copyright under British law. The publisher's copyright term is Publication+25 years. The authors' copyright terms, however, are the normal Life+70. You would need to check when each author (both text and any artwork) died to be sure that an issue is completely out of copyright. Some Victorian copyrights are still in force (H. G. Wells, for example, still is for another few years).
That said, Wikisource is in the United States, so anything published in 1922 or earlier is out of copyright. I'm not actually sure where you are in real life, so there might be an issue with you uploading a file from (for example) the UK to the Wikimedia server in the US, and possibly with reading or downloading it again the other way. (I'm not aware of any case law about that but it remains a possibility.) The actual hosting in the US would not be a problem, however. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Those that are pre-1923 then upload them here with {{PD-1923}}, not Commons, as it is possible that someone will complain about a random article, and that would just be a bureaucratic argument. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-11

09:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Conversions to redirects

When I convert an unindexed Mainspace page (ex.) into a redirect to an indexed version, what should I do (if anything) with the Talk page/info? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)