Wikisource:Scriptorium

From Wikisource
(Redirected from Wikisource:SCRIPTORIUM)
Jump to: navigation, search
Scriptorium
The Scriptorium is Wikisource's community discussion page. Feel free to ask questions or leave comments. You may join any current discussion or start a new one; please see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel webclient. For discussion related to the entire project (not just the English chapter), please discuss at the multilingual Wikisource. There are currently 307 active users here.

Contents

Announcements[edit]

New skin, "MinervaNeue"[edit]

For those who were brave enough to test the new skin, "MinervaNeue" and stuck in the nowhere because the hamburger menu is not working, click the center button of the mouse on the same hamburger menu and this may, or may not, gives access to one's Preferences where you can revert the skin. Also, some features used with Vector do not work with this new skin. — Ineuw talk 23:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Note that you can also go to https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Preferences?useskin=vector to make it use vector (just for that page load). Sam Wilson 00:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Think that I may have been misunderstood. When switching /Preferences/Appearance to "MinervaNeue" (from Vector), I lost access to my Preferences. Just clicking on the hamburger should have brought up my list of options, but it didn't. It took awhile to access them by opening them in a new tab. — Ineuw talk 04:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
it loads faster than the flat sidebar gadget, but cannot edit by section, so not much use here. Slowking4SvG's revenge 21:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
well now can edit by section. the drop down menu is a dummy for now. so it is faux VE with wikitext. cannot advance by page, since no page buttons. eventually it might be useful if it included some menus. runs fast. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
menu works on wikipedia, and mobile view, but not here on desktop. if you can edit the url to navigate, it can work, but it is clunky. Slowking4SvG's revenge 13:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

When using this theme, custom rules such as on https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Narrative_of_the_Life_of_Frederick_Douglass,_An_American_Slave&useskin=minervaneue are left-aligned instead of center-aligned. -Einstein95 (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposals[edit]

Proposal to allow "fair use" in certain limited scenarios[edit]

There have been a few discussions lately about "fair use" on enWS. I think there is one specific scenario in which "fair use" should be acceptable: if a work is released under an acceptable license, but contains some non-free text (or other media) under "fair use" (or with explicit permission of the copyright holder), we should be able to include that text or other media as part of the entire work that has been released freely.

Rationales:

  1. It is not always possible to determine that a selection from a free text is actually a non-free citation included under "fair use".
  2. If an author can release a work under a free license even though it contains "fair use" selections, we should be able to host it even though it contains "fair use" selections.

Example: Green Eggs and Ham is the usual example of a nonfree work that has been published under a free license by a third party under "fair use", as it was included in the congressional record after someone read it out loud in congress. While it would be unacceptable to host Green Eggs and Ham as a work on its own, we could (possibly) host the congressional records under a free license, and my proposal above would simply suggest that we don't need to censor the section that quotes the nonfree work.

Example: The Book of Common Prayer (ECUSA) almost certainly contains translations of religious texts that are non-free. Can you identify these passages?

Anyway, this is just something I was thinking of that might be acceptable, and so I though I'd bring it up. @Slowking4: this discussion will interest you. I think your idea of what "fair use" should be acceptable is broader than what I suggested above, but this discussion or a sub-discussion could be the place for that as well. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: You may wish to explain how this is different from, or if in fact it is, simply being a textual equivalent of c:Commons:De minimis. Mahir256 (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@Mahir256: This proposal is different from de minimis. De minimis is usually so trivial as to cause no violation of copyright law. It is basically an uploader's defense, no site policy required. This proposal is more in the line of Exemption Doctrine Policy (1, 2). EDP is applicable to identifiable non-free content within a free content, but an EDP rationale is mandatory within the license tag. Hrishikes (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I am willing to explore the issue where the copyright of an included work is vague or unknown, I am not comfortable with reproducing a work known to be within copyright, and the example provided pushes me straight away. The publishing of the congressional record should not be a reason for us to reproduce the work "Green Eggs and Ham". Our reproducing of the parent is not enhanced with GE&H, and the CR would be as worthy with that component redacted. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm a little unsure about that example as well. The Congressional Record can be a bit of a mess, with a lot of random stuff read into it, but GE&H is easy to locate and remove and not particularly relevant.
Let me place an example on the table. The NTSB report for the crash of Korean Air Flight 801 on Guam. Page 6 is labeled "Instrument approach chart for the Guam International Airport runway 6L ILS procedure. Reproduced with the permission of Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc. NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION." Pages 16 & 17 are diagrams of the captain's and first officer's instrumentation panels, courtesy of Boeing. Page 35 is another instrument approach chart from Jeppesen, compared against the one on page 6 on the next page. Page 106 is a half-page graph, courtesy of Boeing, et la. That's the complete list of marked non-free works in a 212 page report. Having to leave those out would certainly discourage me from working on it. Is this something we want to support, that we feel we can claim as fair use?--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that nonfree text that is included in a free text with permission, as in your example, should definitely be hostable. That's not really "fair use" though is it? It's more like a license from the cited text's author to allow that portion of the text to be published in the containing work under its license. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
the "instrument approach chart" is typically copyrighted, and so is a case for the fair use proposal. large blocks of quoted text (more than de minimus) may be used by others without permission under a fair use rubric, and so another case to adopt the proposal. (i.e. in general no one gives permission to Congress to license their testimony under a PD-gov). we could adopt an EDP for "texts that are part of the public record, not commercially available" to avoid the "full green eggs and ham" straw man.
see also Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2014-05#Dealing_with_non-free_images_in_transcriptions_of_freely_licensed_works Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2016-10#Exemption_Doctrine_Policy_.28EDP.29, and Wikisource:Copyright policy Slowking4SvG's revenge 13:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I have an example that may be relevant to this case, though yes, I wouldn’t call it fair use either. Have a look at Internet Health Report v.0.1. The entire work is released under CC BY-SA 3.0 but there is a caveat in the license text that says "excluding portions of content attributed to third parties." So I guess the text can be included here as long as we included these third party attributions as it appears in the text, couldn’t it? Ciridae (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The issue about fair use is infringing on the rights of authors to direct their copyright, so if it is a snippet or lower quality (per enWP) component of a work included in another and that is how it is published, then to me that would seem more reasonable. If it is a complete work, or a high quality reproduction, or not meeting the author's intent, then I do not think that it is okay. Remembering that we allow people to take our works and sell them as long as they maintain our licensing requirements. Writing that as a policy statement is problematic, and is always going to be needing adjudication, and that will suck IMNSHO. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
in the "UN Internet Health Report" example on page 4, you find a cover of the economist magazine. this is clearly fair use (surprised it has not been deleted already). this is another example that the EDP images proposal would allow here. we very well could host texts for scholarly reuse, but choose not to out of concern for the profits of others. it is a disagreement about the mission.
do you want to limit the image size? the images of page scans are notoriously small size, and not a replacement for the original. - i am not a big fan of the english image size reduction. i see a stream of downsizing from 60 kbytes to 20 kbytes, it is a distinction without a difference, and it clouds the image provenance.
"meeting the author's intent" when a snippet gets quoted / pasted, that is a transformative reuse, different from the original author’s intent - also we had a presentation at wikiconUSA from people who specifically make parody works, with a legal department - they have an unbeaten record in federal court defending fair use. (author’s intent or parody has not been at issue in the proposals, rather they are about including government / open access documents with copyrighted snippets) Slowking4SvG's revenge 10:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
To sum up the discussion so far:
  • Commons:De minimis is already acceptable
  • Nonfree text included in a free work with author permission is also acceptable (example "Instrument approach chart"), and I'll comment further that this is essentially equivalent to the author releasing the quoted text under the including work's free license; if the including work's license contains a caveat for the included work then this may not be acceptable.
  • The original question regarding fair use in a free work (i.e. with no author permission) has no consensus, with the following perspectives:
    • All quoted works that would constitute "fair use" in the containing work under US law should be hostable (my proposal)
    • Quoted works known to be copyrighted should be removed; works with vague or unknown copyright might be hostable (billinghurst)
    • Quoted works that are copyrighted and commercially available should be removed; other copyrighted quoted works might be hostable (suggested by Slowking4)
    • Complete works and high-quality reproductions should be removed; snippets and lower quality components might be hostable (billinghurst)
The above is just to keep things organized. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest that, if the proposal were to pass, we could use a license tag to handle rationale, something like this:

This work is is freely licensed or in the public domain, but contains non-free content. This is okay because:

  1. WS operates under US law, and this content is considered fair use under US law
  2. WS's EDP allows fair use content under certain conditions, see below
  3. WMF allows fair use content under certain conditions, see below

etc

 
Or something along those lines. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
good summary - i would quibble that "Reproduced with the permission of Jeppesen Sanderson" ≠≠ "releasing the quoted text under the including work's free license"; rather it is what it says: permission to reproduce in the context of the document, and a credit. unknown derivative license. i.e. [1]
i would be happy with any of these versions of an EDP. Slowking4SvG's revenge 22:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm opposed to this. The focus seems to be too much on removing obstacles to hosting materials that we as editors would like to host, and not enough on our mission and our consumers. I think we are better off as a site that hosts public domain material, period. Hesperian 01:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hesperian: I think that both focuses lead to the same end result. I want to remove obstacles to hosting public domain material that is within our mission and for the benefit of our consumers. I point again to my examples above, i.e. the Congressional Record and the BCP. Both are public domain material, both are valuable to our consumers and both are within our mission. However, our current policy requires us to censor such works because they contain material that is included as "fair use". WS operates under US copyright law, and under US copyright law it is perfectly acceptable to put a text in the public domain even if it contains material that is "fair use". I want to remote obstacles that prevent WS from hosting these public domain texts. Also: I think that it will help our users and editors: they can trust that if the work is in the public domain, that they can host it here without any further problems. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
So what it comes down to in these unusual cases, is do we
  1. Provide our readers with a complete but encumbered test; or
  2. Provide our readers with a incomplete text that, by by virtue of its incompleteness, qualities as a free cultural work — one that our readers are allowed not only to read, but also change, improve, incorporate, copy, distribute, even commercialize.
In my opinion, option 2 is more in line with our mission.
Hesperian 03:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
If you are giving me one of two choices, then I too will favour 2). I still feel that I fall into something that scores a 1.8, however, if it is binary, you have my opinion. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
it is a blinkered, diminished vision. misstatement of option 1 - i.e, it is "free text with encumbered illustrations, or encumbered block quotes" (that user could redact). all you are doing is moving traffic to institutional transcription sites, where they have control over the works, not commons. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
To move the discussion forward, I'm prepared to grant that one of us has a "blinkered, diminished vision". Also, I'm okay with moving traffic to other sites if that traffic is people looking for non-free material. Hesperian 01:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd be happy with something intermediate such as 1.8 if it can be put into practice. I understand the desire to have our works be completely free in all their parts, as Hesperian mentioned, but again I question the feasibility of it. Using again the example of Book of Common Prayer (ECUSA), which is in the public domain in the USA, I challenge any editor to distinguish with any precision the parts which are original or pre-1923 from the parts that are fair use but copyrighted or UK-URAA. We can actually use this as a case study, if we like: what actions are we as a community willing to do in order to preserve this work in our collection? Option 1 "complete but encumbered" would be just to keep the whole thing, noting that some parts are (probably) copyrighted and included under fair use; option 2 "free cultural work" would be to research every part individually and censor as necessary, a massive undertaking - or to give up and delete the whole thing outright; any approach between the two could be a precedent for a policy on how to handle "fair use". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I have works like that, like the Principia Discordia, but I'm not really comfortable with a work where we think there's significant copyrighted material and we can't clearly identify what is and what isn't clearly public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I notice that the fair use images from Principia Discordia have been deleted from Commons, but hosting them locally along with the second license tag on that page is exactly what I am proposing to allow. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I Symbol support vote.svg Support this limited fair use in generally copyright-okay works like commons:Commons:De minimis.--Jusjih (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

In researching this further, I think I have shifted my position to Hesperian's point of view. Firstly, the policies at WP and Commons pointed out that in the US, "fair use" is more of a defence in court against accusations of infringement, rather than an exemption from copyright at the time of publication. Second, it's true that it isn't in the spirit of w:free content, especially since anyone can take any section of a free content work and do what they like with it, which is not the case if they take a free-use section from an otherwise free content work. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to have transclusion tab in Page namespace[edit]

Some Wikisources have a transclusion tab (a book icon) at the top of the Page namespace, beside the index (up-arrow) tab. Clicking it takes you to the Mainspace chapter where that page is transcluded. This is a handy gadget, obtained by installing the mul:MediaWiki:TranscludedIn.js. In English Wikisource, you have to follow a roundabout way if you want to visit from a Page: to the transcluded chapter: you can navigate the TOC from the index page or the root page in Mainspace, after knowing the chapter number. If there is no TOC and you have not created an AuxTOC, then such navigation is very problematic. I propose that this gadget be included in English Wikisource. Hrishikes (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg SupportBeleg Tâl (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment How would this work when the page is transcluded in more than one location? For example, (a) a poem that is transcluded both as part of a book and as a poem in its own right, or (b) an encyclopedia page that has sections transcluded separately to more than one mainspace article? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
There will be multiple transclusion tabs in such a case. e.g., this page. Hrishikes (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
What limits the number of tabs if a page is transcluded in multiple locations? Some encyclopedia pages have eight or more articles, and that many extra tabs becomes cumbersome, especially on mobile devices and smaller monitors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I do not know the limit. The vast majority of pages won't have more than three tabs. However, I think it should be possible to tweak the gadget so that specific works (like encyclopedias and dictionaries) are excluded from its purview. Maybe @Samwilson: can say? Hrishikes (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: I think converting it to a drop down when there's more than one would be a great way to go. Shouldn't be too hard. And I agree with @Billinghurst below that this should just be a gadget that people can enable if they want. It's a thing I've been wanting for years! Sam Wilson 01:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
There does not appear to be any limit. I wonder how hard it would be to modify it to be a drop-down? I've made a local copy for sandboxing at User:Beleg Tâl/TranscludedIn.js. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment we should not have it by default, if it is to be used, it should be available as a gadget. Of course, people can install it themselves directly via their global or common javascript pages. We should be looking to not impose more javascript onto people than is necessary. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg SupportCiridae (talk) 07:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The best way now to navigate to the transcluding pages is to click the "What links here" link. Since not many pages link to the Page namespace, it's always easy to find the page you're looking for, such as from this list. I agree with Billinghurst that it would be better to make the transclusion tabs optional. Mudbringer (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As optional gadget. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support, as optional gadget. --Zyephyrus (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Optional gadget not required, IMO, because users can add it to their common.js (as I have done), and it will work fine. Hrishikes (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Consider Wikisource a library (for U.S. copyrite law)[edit]

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

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

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

Proposal for the addition of an OPDS catalog for our works[edit]

While there are certainly issues with how we convert our works here to ebook files, there are very definite advantages to reading books locally rather than on a website. Mainly there are facilities that are provided by various ebook readers that can't be implemented on a website and the fact that a large portion of the world does not have access to a reliable internet connection yet. An OPDS catalog will allow people to easily search for and download the works that they may want to read later. What do you think? Can we implement this? How much work would it require? And if it can be implemented, which works do we make available first? Ciridae (talk) 05:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It's sort of supported in toolforge:wsexport, I think, but I'm not sure it works. I've also experimented with adding it to toolforge:ws-search but it's certainly not working yet—I don't think it'd take much to improve it though. Do you have experience with using OPDS? I've only ever used it with FBreader on android. I know that Standard Ebooks supports it for their epubs. Sam Wilson 07:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I've only really worked on Atom, never OPDS directly, but on a technical level OPDS itself doesn't seem too complicated. I, however, have no experience working with Wikisource on a technical level. We could, perhaps, build a page with the required XML and have a bot update it regularly based on some criteria. Maybe a template added to the Talk or Index Talk page of the work? Ciridae (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ciridae: Yeah, I reckon we can figure it out! :-) I've found a validator, e.g. here's the OPDS of all of Kipling's works: http://opds-validator.appspot.com/?uri=https://tools.wmflabs.org/ws-search/?author=Rudyard+Kipling&lang=en&output_format=opds and so can start working through what data is required. The first roadbump is the 'updated' time of a work... I guess we'd say that this is the most recent modification time of any of a work's pages? I'll add such a thing to wikisource/api. Sam Wilson 09:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Samwilson: We would be using the wmflabs tools to provide the ebook files, wouldn't we? I believe the creation of the files in this case would be on-demand so I don't think we'd need to change the catalog whenever any page is modified. We'd only need to track the last modified date-time for wherever we're storing the OPDS data. And about this part, how do you think should we go about it? Ciridae (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Bot approval requests[edit]

SpBot[edit]

I note that User:SpBot is running without discussion or community approval, though the edits seem useful (archiving discussions) and probably non-controversial. However, I do not know how the bot determines when a discussion thread is ready to be archived or what time frame is allowed for continued discussion, so those could be issues. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, let's discuss again. BTW, my bot has a bot flag. --Euku (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, looks like it was simply never added to the official list when it was approved. I've now done that. Thanks for your speedy response! --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

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

Index:Ch'un Ts'ew Pt I.pdf and related volumes[edit]

use {{abbr}} instead of {{tooltip}} (an affront to semantic HTML) and {{nowrap|[ ''Chinese text'' ]}} instead of pre-existing templates such as {{Chinese missing}}. Maybe more problems but I didn't look too closely.

If you have solutions to problems then suggest them. Remember that many here are just transcribers and never bury themselves into the arcane black magic of html, semantic or otherwise. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

(A more minor issue is that I disagree with the naming of the template {{lzh}}; lzh is the ISO code for Literary Chinese, but here it is being used as an abbreviation for {{Legge Chinese}}, a template with an overly specific name that does little more than merely link to Wiktionary) Suzukaze-c (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

if it is problematic we can fix it and then get a bot to go through the requisite pages. Personal choices are sometimes not perfect in retrospect. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Other discussions[edit]

Cleanup of a source, but making it no longer verbatim[edit]

This original source lacks a lot of words, mostly articles. That makes reading this text tiring and difficult. However most can be unabiguously restored. Would it be Ok to create a The Long Telegram (cleaned) page for this? First as a verbatim copy, so that the changes are easily viewed. TriTachionTertiary (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

We generally don't host original editions of a work, except for original translations from other languages. At one time, we started discussing the possibility of annotated editions, but that discussion fell flat. So, at this time, the community feeling would be against creating a Wikisource edited copy of a work already in English. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@TriTachionTertiary: I agree with EncycloPetey. I think an emended version would be okay to host at Wikiversity though, and you could link between the two. Sam Wilson 23:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Is Wikiversity the place for annotated works? I thought it was Wikibooks. Is there a consensus on this? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: @Beleg Tâl: @Samwilson: So, Wikiversity, Wikibooks or maybe revive the "how much editing/annotation of pimary sources is ok?" discussions?
I've got no personal sense of whether such a work would be accepted at Wikiversity or Wikibooks, as I don't edit on those sites. My impression for Wikisource is that we'd probably be against the idea, since we never got very far on even the initial discussion. So I would recommend pursuing those other two site options first. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think it's suitable here on Wikisource. But I do think it'd be a good project for Wikiversity, especially if it were to also perhaps some other commentary about the work. Of course, I don't speak for the Wikiversity community (but I have done a little bit over there; never run in to any drama); I'd say give it a go. Perhaps we could have a section of Wikiversity for "annotated editions" of Wikisource works! :-) (Oh, and I don't think Wikibooks would be the place it, unless the work as created there was mostly commentary about the text; they make textbooks, not "students' editions" or whatever they're called.) Sam Wilson 07:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, I will try it here TriTachionTertiary (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Page status radio buttons missing[edit]

@Tpt, @Samwilson: and others. When I go to a page that I could edit yesterday and have the page status radio markers, today I have no markers, eg. Page:Australia and the Empire.djvu/26 — monobook and vector alike. Do others see the same that page status components are missing? (Unfortunately no time to investigate more widely at this time.) — billinghurst sDrewth 23:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Yup. See Scriptorium Help. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
yes, great, across all skins. french report VE working, i it does not work for me on english. will stop progress on potm. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
buttons are back, phab tickets seems closed. Slowking4SvG's revenge 13:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

"Not the forum..."[edit]

Perhaps this is "not the forum", but I was thinking Wikimedia needs a Wikiconvo or Wikilogue sister. Information is good, but static. Our society needs a dynamic open access conversation about information. Has anyone else read/edited a WP article or proofread a WS work and wished to bounce related ideas/questions off another interested party? What if one could link to such a conversation by clicking on a "Converse" button from a WP article, WS work, etc.? Granted, admins/moderators, etc. would be needed to keep things from getting off-topic... It might be a bit crazy to start, but would it not be a great way to engage in dialogue as opposed to merely amassing information? I am sure I am not considering many factors, and may be naive in thinking this could even be a civil process given the climate of things... Just thinking out loud, even though this is "not the forum..." But if not here, then where? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

See meta:Proposals for new projects.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Daunting. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
or you could set up a wikiproject at meta, and use buttons across wikis to open a talk page there. start a new m:Grants:IdeaLab, maybe a hacker would be interested, and you might get a grant. we need all the fresh ideas for comms, since they are dying, and people have gone off wiki in general. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I proposed Wikinexus after much stewing. Still to be further developed (it is late), but we'll see how it flies. Criticism/suggestions welcomed at my Talk page or at the proposed project page. Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Validation button missing on Page:Lives of Fair and Gallant Ladies Volume II.djvu/146[edit]

Page:Lives of Fair and Gallant Ladies Volume II.djvu/146 Maybe it's just my browser quirk today. But this linked page, and only this one, seems to be missing the green validation button in the edit window. Maile66 (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- Hrishikes (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Maile66 (talk)
@Maile66: You were recorded as the proofreader, so you don't get the validate option. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Didn't think to look in the page's history. Thanks for checking. Maile66 (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft strategy direction. Version #2[edit]

In 2017, we initiated a broad discussion to form a strategic direction that will unite and inspire Wikimedians. This direction will be the foundation on which we will build clear plans and set priorities. More than 80 communities and groups discussed and gave feedback[strategy 1][strategy 2][strategy 3]. We researched readers and consulted more than 150 experts[strategy 4]. We looked at future trends that will affect our mission, and gathered feedback from partners and donors.

A group of community volunteers and representatives from the strategy team synthesized this feedback into an early version of the strategic direction that the broader movement can review and discuss.

The second version of the direction is ready. Again, please read, share, and discuss on the talk page on Meta. Based on your feedback, the drafting group will refine and finalize the direction.

  1. Cycle 1 synthesis report
  2. Cycle 2 synthesis report
  3. Cycle 3 synthesis report
  4. New Voices synthesis report

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-37[edit]

19:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Byte change indicator[edit]

When reviewing one's watchlist/RC, etc., we know that the indication of (0) byte changes is no guarantee that character changes have not been made (full stop to comma, etc.). Is there a way, or could there be a way, for indication to be made of text/formatting changes without resorting to viewing the edit history of every page? Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how to find out that information without actually clicking. What I do when I want to check on a lot of pages, is control-click on the "diff" link for ten or so items on the list to open them all up in tabs, then go to the first of those tabs, and then when I close that tab with control-w it brings up the next tab. So at least with Firefox on Windows it's possible to get quickly through a lot of pages. Mudbringer (talk) 02:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Personally I use the popup gadget, as it allows you to hover over a diff to review the edit. Even hover over the pop'd link, then hover over the differences in subsequent lists (if that makes sense). It is imperfect, however it works for me as it pulls it by the api, rather than having to physically open each page. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks all. I updated my preferences. Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Indexing journal[edit]

https://www.theindexer.org/ All issues older than three years are available freely. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence they're free content, just free as in beer.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
See https://www.theindexer.org/pub/copyright.htm - Not "free" (Creative Commons sense).ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Correct, they are not. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Apache License[edit]

Is the Apache License (specifically the latest version 2.0, but also older versions) and any work licensed under it, compatible with Wikisource? The Apache License is mainly used for software code which would be out of our scope here but the License text itself is licensed under version 2.0 of the Apache License. So would it be okay for the Apache License to be included (the license and any in-scope work licensed under it)? Has anyone had a look at other popular licenses such MIT License, Eclipse Public License? Ciridae (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

They're allowed on Commons (commons:Commons:Copyright tags#Other free tags). For that reason alone I'd say it's probably fine here unless it is obviously in violation of the WS:Copyright policy. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Can someone who has the knowledge import the Apache copyright template from Commons so it can be used here? And maybe update the Help pages too? I have created the page for version 2.0 of the License. Ciridae (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ciridae: Yes check.svg Done Template:Apache 2.0, and added to Help:Copyright tagsbillinghurst sDrewth 23:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-38[edit]

15:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

For people wishing to check IP ranges, an available guide is one designed for admins at mw:Help:Range blocks, and skip down to how to calculate ranges. Easiest checks are xxx.xxx.0.0/16 and xxx.xxx.xxx.0/24 eg. Special:Contributions/129.45.0.0/16 and Special:Contributions/129.45.117.0/24 will show edits, whereas Special:Contributions/129.45.128.0/17 will not. We do not have a whole lot of edits from IP addresses, so its pertinence is lesser for our community. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Index - File to check[edit]

Not urgent, but does anyone want to take on page-listing the last few remaining entries (around 25 or so) in this category?

It feels like I've done an awful lot of them from when it had reached a backlog of over 100 a few years ago.

The remaining items, are mostly items I don't feel happy working with for copyright reasons, or because someone else had previously indicated that they would be working on them in due course.

It would be nice to empty the category before the end of the year, though.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

It's now down to 2 PDF files: One of which has been replaced by a DJVU and the other the wiki seems to balk at loading pages from. -Einstein95 (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@Einstein95: For Index:ManualofPalestineanArabic.pdf: the pages do load in my computer, but it is taking more time than is usual. Hrishikes (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Yeah, but since the file comes from IA, a DJVU is better for proofreading IMO. I have already fixed teh reason why the other PDF wasn't loading pages (20MB PDF of uncompressed files from a PDF). -Einstein95 (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Index namespace malfunctioning[edit]

I've had two disturbing problems in the Index namespace in the past 24 hours.

(1) Yesterday evening, Index namespace pages would not load, and kept generating errors.

(2) Just now, I have been trying to add auto header text, but adding the text blanks the entire page so that all the content is removed.

Is anyone else having similar difficulties? I have had this issue from three different computers. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: I haven't had any additional odd results in the past few hours. Perhaps some update was propagating and causing the odd behavior temporarily? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I have Index pages simply show up as pages with the raw template when editing. Also had one index "fail to submit all the data" (paraphrasing) which showed basically a blank index page on preview. -Einstein95 (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
According to a post in the IRC channel, this is caused by https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T176393. -Einstein95 (talk) 12:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if it's related, but the side-by-side editing interface disappeared for me when editing in the Page namespace; it was replaced with the regular article-editing interface. The issue went away when I defaulted my Preferences so I'll be trying to narrow down which gadget broke when I get a chance. Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey, @Beleg Tâl: I have found disabling the "Two column edit conflict" beta feature to work for me, can you try with it on and off? -Einstein95 (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The "Two column edit conflict" beta feature is indeed breaking Page: and Index: editing interface (thank you Einstein95 (talkcontribs) for the finding). If you disable this beta feature then the editing interface should work. If not, then there is yet another bug. Tpt (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thank you , it was also breaking the page status buttons. and showing "noinclude" wikicodeSlowking4SvG's revenge 13:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Author pages ugly in mobile view[edit]

I had a look at author pages using mobile view today, and they are not that pretty.

it indicates to me that we need to shuffle components around for our mobile view where possible, otherwise we have a bigger job to do. First thoughts are for mobile view to

  1. Get rid of the backlink to "Author Index:Xx"
  2. Consider whether we relocate the interwiki links in {{plain sister}}
  3. Cull "listen" template from display

billinghurst sDrewth 13:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts:
  1. Author index would look ok provided that the index was above or below instead of beside the author name. It's kind of a useless feature though and I wouldn't miss it if it were removed from both mobile and desktop.
  2. Plain sister looks ok when it is full width, looks terrible when it's not full width
  3. I think "listen" template looks ok, and I don't like when info available on desktop is hidden on mobile.
Just two cents. Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
have you looked at wikisurfer4wikisource app? maybe we need an app from a hackathon, or switch to MinervaNeue skin for mobile?
author template ; sister project box does not work for mobile needs a UX redesign, to drop down or pinch in. Slowking4SvG's revenge 17:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
My thoughts:
  1. I find the Author backlink incredibly useful, and use it often, though we might find a better way to implement it.
  2. Can the sister interwiki links be made collapsible?
  3. The listen template is due for an overhaul. A much simpler display would suffice for Author pages. But if we think the presence of the speaker icon is explanatory in itself, then we need not explain it in the header.
--EncycloPetey (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The speaker could have a tooltip with an explanation "This text contains a spoken word version"; and on mobile the tooltip could be a popup or an inline note. If this is technically feasible, it could be a good replacement for the note in the header. Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Lengthy popup text becomes a problem in mobile devices, since it blocks view of the page and of scrolling, zooming, etc. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
i know, but the problem here is a template with left align text clashing with right align text. maybe we need to change to all left align (not as elegant in desktop, but better for mobile?) a question of real estate - need some mobile designer experience. Slowking4SvG's revenge 19:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Or perhaps the speaker icon could be combined into something else so that no alignment is necessary. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I would argue that for mobile view that it is less necessary to identify that an author has podcast works, compared to identifying the individual works have podcasts. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't buy that argument. Having an icon at the outset, letting the user know that audio versions exist, before scrolling through the entire page, is a plus. In my experience, mobile readers are more likely to make use of audio versions precisely because the screen is too small for reading long texts. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We should be referencing mw:ResourceLoader/Writing a MobileFrontend friendly ResourceLoader module, mw:Mobile web projects/Infoboxes, and mw:Reading/Mobile Friendly Contentbillinghurst sDrewth 04:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jdlrobson: as this is an area with which you have expertise, would you be so kind to point us towards where we should be working towards, and how to best thing about mobile design. We are definitely old school and preferring transcribing than dabbling in css. So simple and direct pointers would help us start the long haul process that we have to migrate. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Problem in fa.wikisource[edit]

Hi. When I try to create or edit a page in fa.wikisource.org the proofread plugin does not work. See an example for yourself. Can anyone help, please. --Yousef (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Yoosef Pooranvary: You will probably have to post a ticket at phab:. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I have found out that when I login with my user name the proofread plugin does not work. Does anybody know why? --Yousef (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
It's probably a problem with your preferences then. We identified an issue with the "Two column edit conflict" beta feature that caused problems; make sure this is disabled. If you still have the problem, you'll have to disable your other preferences until you find which one is causing the problem. Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-39[edit]

15:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Code4Lib pre-conference workshop[edit]

hey, user:Londonjackbooks, User:Econterms, if i submit a pre-conference workshop, "Wikisource 4 Lib" for Code4Lib, will you help me out? pre-conference is Feb 13, 2018 at LOC,[15] and deadline is Sept 30. Slowking4SvG's revenge 19:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Help out in what way? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
tutor librarians, i can do the hand waving in front of projector for a tutorial, but if there is a lot of interest, then 1 is not enough for editing help. it is a weekday, if you are free, i would be grateful. maybe we can get WMDC to buy lunch. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
OK. I can help. My current approach to editing is somewhat undisciplined, but there's plenty of time to coordinate & streamline my technique between now and then. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thanks, the main thing will be to engage librarian editors and answer their newbie questions, as they edit. i put in proposal - we will see what they say. if you have a list of works to start newbies on, let me know. Slowking4SvG's revenge 04:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

LintErrors extension incompatible with {{nop}} approach used for tables..[edit]

This page https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:Rothschild_Extinct_Birds.djvu/16&action=edit is showing up on the list here https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:LintErrors/fostered?namespace=104

Other than the {{nop}} there is NO fostered content on the page, and in the absence of anything saying otherwise {{nop}} is how table continuations are currently implemented, the parser being unable to otherwise handle constructs like this gracefully. Is it unreasonable to ask that a long-term fix is implemented, so that something which clearly isn't an error, isn't being reported as such?

Of course it would be really, really nice if someone took an axe to the parser, and re-wrote it so that it coped more gracefully with constructs that are transcluded from multiple pages, but I don't see that happening any time soon. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Doing it this way seems to be fine. It is the approach I use here. Suzukaze-c (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Which was how I thought I used to do it, until someone claimed that broke other stuff, like page numbering if I recall correctly... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
What you did worked, but it's not to me at least clear why it didn't break, when it has in the past.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
In any-case if you can resolve this in that work feel-free:- https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:LintErrors/fostered?namespace=104 has plenty of tables with a simmilar issue.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
That is correct they have this terminating a table (table row start then no cell start)

|-
{{nop}}

which was not the guidance until someone incorrectly changed it at some point without good reference to the community. It is exactly what breaks the page numbering and why it was not to have been used (and why we reinstated the original guidance). — billinghurst sDrewth 02:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Part of the problem in the past is that many editors habitually remove blank lines like those, at the top of a page or top of a footer, because they are usually wrong to include, and so bots and AWB will likely remove them too. So how to we indicate these purposeful blank lines that are necessary for proper transclusion? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
which is why we have the nop in place, among other reasons. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That is not a correct conclusion. If people follow the table continuation guidance you will find that there is no issue.

    In the original page mentioned, it was not /16 that was the issue, it was the end of /15 which was problematic as it closed with a new table row creation. So the problem was that there was two row creations in a row without any cell creation. So just follow the guidance of no extra row creations to terminate, then start with a {{nop}} and then the row creation. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @ShakespeareFan00: Your coding is at issue with your missing of row and cell starts. See my fix of [UKSI19810859, which is how the guidance says we should code. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Noted, but as I said it's the leading {{nop}} that LintErrors doesn't like. This needs a long-term fix, not a work-around. I'll implement your suggestion and see what happens ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
      It is not the case that it is the leading {{nop}}. None of my works are in that list, and you can attest that I have done hundreds of works on my own, and plenty more aside for PotM or others, and I have leading nop regularly. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Hmm... I wonder why LintErrors is listing the 'wrong' page then. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Can someone therefore please impose ONE CORRECT way of doing continued tables across all works on Wikisource such that it does NOT generate LintErrors, does NOT put in spurious line-feeds and will work CONSISTENTLY until the developers break something else, Thank you? Having moved works back and forth based on apparently changing guidance is disruptive and unhelpful.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

      • On a related issue, there are some other works on Wikisource that I transcribed that may have also have this trail row marker vs lead row marker. Is annyone volunterring to write a checker script? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
        We deal with them as we find them or they show up in charts for fixing. Botting them alone is not the answer as the errors often fall on two pages, and the results of changes need to be checked. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
        • True. In respect of the road sign work, I'am taking out the table formatting, on the basis that apart from a few descriptions it doesn't actually need it. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
approach are not compatible.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Okay I can see that it is kicking an error for that lint filter in the Page: namespace, due to the use of the &<div>></div> and with the way that we transclude that disappears when transcluded. I wouldn't fuss it, is an inconsequential error and will break nothing where it basically takes a blank div and pokes it ahead of the table in the page namespace where we have empty space above the table. It disappears with transclusion. We can look at it in time, to see if there is a better solution now that they have changed the renderer. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I have the concern that genuinely "fostered content" errors are getting lost in the "cuckoo song". ;) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes (including subpages)[edit]

Persuant to the concerns raised about table continuations above, I note that this work is incomplete, and is using at least 3 different composting styles to grab part of the table. None is ideal.

Many of the issues in trying to get this to transclude and display correctly, are related to a weakness in Mediawiki markup, namley that it can't gracefully cope with constructs that are split across pages, in a manner that is consistent or compatible with the additional content the Proofread page extension adds for things like page numbering.

To allow for properly displaying a work like this nicely, using <pages> with section paramaters as it should be done, is apparently beyond the capacity of mediawiki/proofread page currently. As I've not seen any interest in tackling the long-term issues as a priority, I am considering asking for the partial transclusion to be deleted until such time as Wikisource contributors can come up with a long-term solution that doesn't break inconsistently due to minor changes.

It should not require a practical cloning of the functionality of a <pages> tag in complex template markup to do something like

{{header}}
<pages>
{{footer}}

consturctions.

Perhaps compositing a table that needs to be split-up like in this work is something that could better be done in a Module: ?

The actual {{statute table}} template itself should ideally also be simplified (and made a module if needed)


ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Global Collaboration products newsletter: 2017-09[edit]

17:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Movement Strategy phase 2, and a goodbye[edit]

Hello,

As phase one of the Wikimedia movement strategy process nears its close with the strategic direction being finalized, my contractor role as a coordinator is ending too. I am returning to my normal role as a volunteer (Tar Lócesilion) and wanted to thank you all for your participation in the process.

The strategic direction should be finalized on Meta late this weekend. The planning and designing of phase 2 of the strategy process will start in November. The next phase will again offer many opportunities to participate and discuss the future of our movement, and will focus on roles, resources, and responsibilities.

Thank you, SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

verse template question[edit]

I plan on working on this Page:Leeser-Bible-1853.djvu/13. Notice how the verse numbers aren't superscripted as they usually are in other bibles. I'd like to be able to use the formatting as it is in the original. Is it possible for the {{verse}} template to be edited to be able to get rid of the sup tags on demand? I think it would be a nice addition to the template to be able to do this. Jpez (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

How about the method in Page:The Holy Bible Vol 1 (Thomson).djvu/11? Hrishikes (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
{{verse|1|align=left}} seems to replicate what you want also. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I needed something more specific so I ended up making a new template called {{versell}} which is basically {{verse}} without the superscript and with and a little added gap after the verse number. thanks Jpez (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
ok, but please add some documentation and categories. Slowking4SvG's revenge 13:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-40[edit]

23:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Filter changes[edit]

The latest update has filled most of the first screen of Recent Changes with filter selection options. Is there any way that all this could be minimized, hidden, or set in a drop-down menu, so that the initial screen view will show actual changes instead of just links and filter settings? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I would suggest that you add a request to phabricator: so that these options can be collapsed. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

On a related note: The link under Utilities that used to display "IP's contributions" is no longer functioning. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

??? where? which skin? which page? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Guru Granth Sahib[edit]

Was this meant to be an Author page? There is no license information either way. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: It is a book, not an author. See w:Guru Granth Sahib. Hrishikes (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Then it just needs a source and a license tag. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The first complete translation is of 1960 vintage (see under Translations in the WP article) and therefore would come under copyright. It is in IA, all 4 vols: 1, 2, 3, 4. Hrishikes (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
This one is the Khalsa Consensus Translation (2000) by Sant Singh Khalsa and is definitely copyrighted. Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Volume 3 of the DNB[edit]

Just needs one page to be validated before it is nominally all validated. Can someone do the honours? See here Victuallers (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 11:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks - nice to see it done Victuallers (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Page numbers vanish[edit]

I'm suddenly getting odd behavior with page numbers in the Main namespace. When I visit a chapter of a work, no page numbers are displayed, even though I have it set to "Page links beside text". Neither refreshing the page nor purging has any effect; still no page numbers are displayed. However, if I toggle to "Page links within text" the page numbers appear, and if I toggle back to "Page links beside text" the page numbers appear as well. But the next time I visit the page (or go to another page) the page numbers disappear again, and I have to toggle all over again. This behavior has begun within the past hour. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: I see from this conversation that other users are experiencing the same difficulties. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Toggling "Page links beside text" will get them back on the pages in question, though it isn't retained when page is reloaded. No idea why, though it is evidently a javascript issue. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
In my case, it is retained (with both Page links displayed and Page links within text options) when I reload or even move to another chapter. But it disappears on reloading with Page links beside text option. Hrishikes (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if this is a local problem, or if the issue is occuring cross-wiki (i.e. multilingual, DE-WS, FR-WS)? Determining that could be important. Inatan (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
It looks like in our local MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js the function pagenumbers.init() is being called before layout.init() when it should be the other way around, maybe due to a change in mw.loader jQuery? I've never touched it before and don't want to start now by breaking anything but maybe they could be made to be called sequentially after the asynchronous thingy rather than separately asynchronous? Prosody (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC) (modified 00:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC))
@Samwilson: are you around and have the jquery skills? — billinghurst sDrewth 12:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the layout promise, and it seems to work. I'm not sure if that's a unstable way... the whole module could do with a bit more rigour I think! But seems to be working now? Sam Wilson 12:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Fixed for me. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

What constitutes source as per {{No source}}[edit]

I have had some disagreement with another editor about the definition of source, as envisaged in the No-source template, in case of a piece extracted from a bigger work. As I see it source encompasses: 1. Scan 2. url to outside copy 3. Mention that it was manually taken from a hard copy 4. mention that it was taken from a later compilation, with, if possible, url to that compilation. The other editor thinks that mentioning the parent work is equivalent to giving source, although, the template gives this definition of source: "Source" means a location at which other users can find a copy of this work. The community can see the discussion at my talk page (also edit summary of the article). An opinion is requested. Hrishikes (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: and I are having a disagreement over what constitutes a "source" and the meaning of the word "location" in {{no source}}. Central to this disagreement is the following statement of Usage in the template's documentation:
This template is used to mark works which do not have a declared source. In this case, "source" means a place where a contributor new to the work can find a reliable copy of the work. Generally this is a URL. If the data is known, please enter it to the talk page, and more usefully using the {{textinfo}} template.
I maintain that the template documentation demonstrates it is not needed on a work such as the Letter to Thomas Auld by Frederick Douglass, because the source is given in the header and on the associated talk page as "first published in The Liberator, September 22, 1848." This statement constitutes an identification of a place where a contributor can find a reliable copy of the work. I support this view with the final paragraph of Help:Beginner's guide to sources, which explains how users may add works from a hard copy of a printed work.
Hrishikes maintains that a "source" is limited to only two options: scanned copy and url. If there is no scan nor a url, then the {{no source}} template should be used. I do not follow his reasoning, but he has written at length in response on his talk page, and may choose to add some (or all) of that response here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
requiring an online source (or scanned) is a commons interpretation of sources, not a bibliographic one. it is normally a prelude for deletion there. we need a "source needs improvement" for these cases; we are migrating "copy paste from the web" to scan based page transcriptions; but the cases are different between "we do not know where this is from", rather than "we know where it is from but do not have a scan"; and the cases require different actions. Slowking4SvG's revenge 16:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment [It is an old template, so its meaning should be considered to be broad.] I think if we are seeing someone doing a copy and paste, we are expecting a url. If we are seeing a slowly developing typed work then we know that it will be a transcription. So we are asking for a source that best represents where the contributor got the work. Our desire is for a source that allows us to determine the veracity and accuracy of the contribution, and to also get it proofread, so we aim for as high as we can get.

    On a personal note I would hope that nobody would be pasting "no source" for my typed transcriptions from The Times, I won't be uploading all the little images which are of poor quality. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Old magazines are difficult to come by in comparison to old books. So I believe that the contributor might have got the piece not from the magazine where it was first published, but from a later compilation, for example, from a volume subsequent to this one. Only first publication data is mentioned in the article, nothing has been stated specifically about wherefrom the item was taken. The reader has no scope of verification. First publication data is not equivalent to giving source, as I see it. (I usually take care to give exact source, e.g. here, so that verifiability is enabled to the reader.) Hrishikes (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I was talking at the theoretical level, and my experiences, not on the circumstances in question. We have to make the assessment of where the contributor got the work, and push for maximum detail. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
an intermediate compilation may well be true, but an off line source is a source, and gives a verifiable reference. this is the way scholarship was done. we need to model the better practice of taking photos/scans as backup, but we should have a separate work flow to scan for offline sources, as opposed to researching where unsourced texts came from. Slowking4SvG's revenge 15:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Could this a be another bug, due to the latest wmf software update?[edit]

I was checking some pages of PSM in the main namespace, and it seems that the page numbering is not showing up at the left margin or along the text. (I am aware of the page number display controls in the left margin menu.) Could someone confirm this by looking at some randomly selected main namespace work? Thank you. — Ineuw talk 06:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC) (aka: The canary in the word mine) Sorry for the post, I got it functioning. — Ineuw talk 06:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-41[edit]

14:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Explaining source for an alternative word indicated by Template:SIC[edit]

Sometimes when proofreading An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828) I come across a word that appears to be a typo in the original, but I don't know immediately what it should have been. In that case I look at an older edition and a newer edition which I have to hand, and, making sure they agree, add a SIC. But I am disappointed that there seems to be nothing in the SIC syntax that enables me to state why I have done this. Am I missing something? Is there some way of adding hidden text that would be appropriate?--PeterR2 (talk) 08:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

No, the template does not have provision for an explanation, but the correct word is hover text only. So if you don't know the correct word but want to give an explanation, you can put the explanation in parameter 2, in place of the correct word, which will appear as a hover text. Although the template is not meant for this function, {{Tooltip}} would be better. If you want truly hidden text, beside the word you can use <!-- explanation --> Hrishikes (talk) 10:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
+1 to this, use <!-- HTML comments --> if you want to leave an quick explanation for the reference of future editors. If you need a longer explanation, put <!-- see talk page --> and put your explanation on the talk page. Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
If you want the readers to see your explanation, one other way is to footnote it with a user annotation:

<ref>{{user annotation|your explanation here.}}</ref>

That's far from being a preferred method on Wikisource but I think it has its place. Mudbringer (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree that user annotation has its place in this case—any more than my taking a pen to a typo or making margin/footer notes in a local physical library book. It would become a "user annotated text" by definition, and proposed policy/guidelines state that "User annotated versions of works on Wikisource must ... have an unannotated 'clean text' elsewhere on Wikisource". Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Archive.org found a legal loophole[edit]

Please see https://blog.archive.org/2017/10/10/books-from-1923-to-1941-now-liberated/ . I wonder what this means, if anything, for Wikisource. This *is* a library, after all. NMaia (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

There's already a thread up above on this issue, under Proposals. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Link: #Consider Wikisource a library (for U.S. copyrite law)Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Author bug[edit]

On pages such as Author:G. R. O'Reilly, authors with no death year listed here or at d: show up as living. In this case, someone published in 1891 is very likely not alive, so we should probably pages such as this added to a tracking category such as Category:Authors with missing death dates rather than default to be alive. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, I filed an external bug at phab:T178143 for those who spotted that the page's title is malformed. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It's true! But sadly there isn't any way to determine from an Author page what the dates of their published works are. In this example, we can add birth and death dates to G. R. O'Reilly on Wikidata (d:Q18911925), and they are no longer in Category:Living authors (I've just done it). We can add birth and death dates on Wikidata even if we have no idea of when they died — well, we usually know within a century, but even if we don't know that we can give them the special Wikidata value of 'unknown'. And as for categories here, we do already try to extract a year from the birth date, and if it's longer than 110 years ago we don't class them as living. So this currently certainly errs on the side of more living authors than is correct but I think this is somewhat due to the scary legal stuff around data about living people. Perhaps we need to do more to direct editors here to add birth and death dates to Wikidata. A link with instructions or something (on the Author header itself, visible to anyone with the page on their watchlist or something)? I dunno what the best fix is. Sam Wilson 08:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The correct way to handle this is to utilise dates = component of the header and add flourishing data. @Samwilson: maybe we can look to adjust by where no date of birth or death that we can utilise either floruit or the pair work period start and work period end—whichever is used at WD—and plug them into dates parameter. It is my opinion that is butt ugly and unhelpful to just plug in vague birth and death dates of 19thC and 20thC. If we are looking to fill in dates of life having them filled with vague dates is no longer an indicator locally. I much prefer that we identify them as missing.— billinghurst sDrewth 04:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Hm, yes you're quite right! I'm sorry. And I totally forgot that flourit dates are supported (they already work in the Author module). Sam Wilson 12:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Retroactive automated autopatrolling?[edit]

I'm looking a large number of similar unpatrolled edits that I'd've added to User:Wikisource-bot/patrol whitelist if I had known in advance. Anything to do with them besides going through them one by one? Prosody (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure that I understand the question @Prosody:. If you are looking for patrolled edits by the bot, this should work special:log/patrol/Wikisource-bot, if you are wanting to see who did those patrolled edits, then click the number to see the edit. Skip anything marked "automatically ..." as they will be the bots own edits. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

en.wikisource vs wikisource[edit]

whats the difference? Artix Kreiger (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

English Wikisource (en.wikisource.org), is for works in English and similar languages like Anglo-Saxon and Scots. Multilingual Wikisource (wikisource.org) is for works that do not belong to a specific-language Wikisource, usually because no specific Wikisource exists for that language, or because the work is itself multilingual, or because of copyright restrictions on the language-specific Wikisource. Multilingual Wikisource also provides a portal to the various language-specific Wikisources. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-42[edit]

15:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Indexed works containing multiple titles[edit]

Can someone please point me to cases of transcluded indexed works here which contain more than one whole major work (by the same author) within the text? I am trying to figure out how to best transclude Index:Sartor resartus; and, On heroes, hero-worship and the heroic in history.djvu, being that it contains two major works. Both works are also already present separately here at WS, albeit unindexed. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Index:Austen - Northanger Abbey. Persuasion, vol. I, 1818.djvu is one, where each work has been transcluded into a top-level mainspace set of pages. I'd say in general you can create separate top-level mainspace pages for each work in this sort of situation. Or, in the case of anthologies and similar, two structures, one for the actual published structure and one for the logical separate-work one (like we do for serial works). Sam Wilson 22:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Samwilson: So perhaps Sartor Resartus and On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History (Macmillan) as one structure (if I understand) that lists both works, and Sartor Resartus (Macmillan) & On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History (Macmillan) as separate-work structures? with "Macmillan" serving the purpose for disambiguation? Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Yeah, sounds about right. I wouldn't worry about disambiguating unless there's a clash, so would go with e.g.:
Sam Wilson 23:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I've usually just done one super-page with two sub-pages, but I've never done ones where the two works are so extensive. Mine are more along the lines of Herald Angels, and The Holly & Ivy or The Holly & the Ivy, and Twelve Articles. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Me too, but I'm also keen about them having their own top-level pages as they are actually stand-alone works and doing it that way makes a bunch of things more fun, e.g. they get their own wikidata items and so can be catalogued separately (as well as together), and so it hepls with discoverability. Moll Flanders and Roxana is another example (although, I think there's a slight mess here too because there are other editions of those books on Wikisource as well). Oh, and in Londonjackbooks' case above, would we end up with e.g. Sartor Resartus and On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History/On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History/Chapter 1... that's a long title (but probably the correct one)! Sam Wilson 23:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking for small technical tasks+mentors for new contributors - got something in mind?[edit]

Hi everybody! Google Code-in (GCI) will soon take place again - a seven week long contest for 13-17 year old students to contribute to free software projects. Tasks should take an experienced contributed about two-three hours and can be of the categories Code, Documentation/Training, Outreach/Research, Quality Assurance, and User Interface/Design. Do you have an idea for a task and could you imagine mentoring that task? For example, do you have something on mind that needs documentation, research, some gadget or template issues on your "To do" list but you never had the time, and can imagine enjoying mentoring such a task to help a new contributor? If yes, please check out mw:Google Code-in/2017 and become a mentor! Thanks in advance! --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I've signed up as a mentor for the Code-in, so if anyone knows of Wikisource-related little things I'd be very happy to help students work on these! :-) Sam Wilson 23:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)